At higher levels, a common situation is to have "binary" saves. Classes with the good save progression are generally also ones that get good advantage from having a high stat that governs that save (e.g., Wis for clerics and Will saves). As a result, you end up with situations in which, if the cleric has any chance at all of failing a Will save, the fighter, rogue, etc. all automatically fail -- even if they took Iron Will and didn't dump Wisdom. They just can't keep up, because the discrepancy, even not considering attribute bonuses, is nearly a third of the range of the random number generator itself.
I wonder at the effect of giving everyone a flat progression in all saves: +1/2 levels. The difference in attribute scores will still provide a meaningful difference in the range of bonuses. I'd then recommend merging Iron Will with Improved Iron Will (for example), so that the single feat provides both a numerical bonus and a reroll chance.
The end result is that the cleric and monk will still have the best Will saves, but anyone else who invests the resources will be able to at least come close.
Thoughts?
I do appreciate what you're trying to do kirth; it's very constructive and will definitly do some good if we come up with something functionnal.
However, there are a few notions I would like to challenge: we should be trying to challenge such characters at all with saves (IE, cleric in will, dex rogue in ref). They have a good save and that is their shtick. I personally believe that such things are a coincidence, and the DCs should come closer to the group average to begin with. So what if the rogue avoided the dragon's breath? Everyone else got fried to a crisp. So what if the cleric cant be dominated? The fighter was... and so forth. I think (in the DC department) it's better to stay close to the group average.
I personally prefer making moderately defensive characters. I am very unhappy if my character's saves arent AT LEAST equal to their character level, so that 10 (average roll)+save=average DC. And even that's low considering "boss/epic encounters" that can get higher with monsters.
I do agree that Iron will & imp iron will could be fused with minor consequences.
I think (in the DC department) it's better to stay close to the group average.
The problem still pops up when you hit a level at which "average" DC means that the good saves auto-succeed and the poor saves auto-fail. It's not outrageous to consider a good save of +25 (+12 class, +8 attribute, +5 resistance) and a poor save of +7 (+6 class, +0 attribute, +1 resistance). A mean DC of 26 means that the good save guy can't really fail, and the poor save guy needs a 19 or better.
I am very unhappy if my character's saves aren't AT LEAST equal to their character level
How do you get a 17th level rogue with a +17 Will save? +5 level, +5 resistance, +2 Iron Will means you have a Wis of 20? That's some seriously generous point-buy for attributes!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now I understand why 4th edition had the 1/2-level scaling on "saves"...
I wonder at the effect of giving everyone a flat progression in all saves: +1/2 levels. The difference in attribute scores will still provide a meaningful difference in the range of bonuses. I'd then recommend merging Iron Will with Improved Iron Will (for example), so that the single feat provides both a numerical bonus and a reroll chance.
The end result is that the cleric and monk will still have the best Will saves, but anyone else who invests the resources will be able to at least come close.
Thoughts?
I kind of like that. Vanilla Improved Iron Will is pretty terrible, and though my DM has houseruled it so that you don't need to guess when you should use it, even with that it has not demonstrated itself to be a powerful feat. I suspect the two saving throw feats could stand merging without breaking anything.
As for the earlier question, just so I understand, you'd do 2+1/2lvl for good saves and 1/2lvl for bad saves? Or a fully identical progression with the only difference being the ability modifiers and whether someone takes one of the save specialist feats?
(I kind of prefer the first option to the second).
I think (in the DC department) it's better to stay close to the group average.The problem still pops up when you hit a level at which "average" DC means that the good saves auto-succeed and the poor saves auto-fail. It's not outrageous to consider a good save of +25 (+12 class, +8 attribute, +5 resistance) and a poor save of +7 (+6 class, +0 attribute, +1 resistance). A mean DC of 26 means that the good save guy can't really fail, and the poor save guy needs a 19 or better.
Yes, but at that point it's the character's choice to have not focused at ALL on saves. In the case of, let's say, a fighter; poor will. I will ALWAYS give at least a bit of wisdom, wisdom boosting items (since they dont have much need for int/cha) & a cloak of resistance. Generally, Iron will/ lightning reflexes are worth the investment. With a decent start, I can end up having: 6+5 (attribute, belt +6 & 14 wis)+5 (resist) +2 (iron will) =+18, which means a 6 or above. Remove the stat boosts, and it's still 11 or above. (myself, I would also include some ioun stones at level 20 to bring the save to +20). Ive done several dozen builds in the last 4 months, and it is quite doable.
This is a PLAYER issue, not a system issue; we get the same problem if one person in the group optimizes & the others not at all. What your exposing is a player issue (who expects to survive without effort). Then again, I dont favor SOD/SOS stuff.
As for a flat progression, it becomes:
+10 on everything (+5 resist at least) which brings it to a respectable +15. A liability at level 20, but still better than before without proper boosts. But it doesnt solve the basic issue that the player isnt building defensively.
Heck, even most wizards/sorcerers/witches/oracles I've built end up with mediocre will saves because they have no reason to invest in it and they think a "high" stat is enough. Let's look at it for a "wis-dumped" wizard:
12-2 (dumped wis) +1 (resist, like your example)=+11. Not as bad as +7, but wont succeed under a 14. Oh, they would be advantaged in ref/fort, that's for sure, but it still requires a significant investment, and if they werent willing to do it when their natural boost was +6, they wont be more willing when it's +10. It's the investment by the player that's the issue, not the base save. For the cleric/dex rogue, it's a no brainer, since their main stat is also their best save. We cant help that.
I'd be curious to know Kirth, I know you're considerably more experienced than myself (starting my first game as GM in a few weeks) but what would you estimate as an "average" DC for enemies? My general impression (after poring over beastiaries & npc codexes) is about 10+CR (with a variance of maybe +3).
I am very unhappy if my character's saves aren't AT LEAST equal to their character levelHow do you get a 17th level rogue with a +17 Will save? +5 level, +5 resistance, +2 Iron Will means you have a Wis of 20? That's some seriously generous point-buy for attributes!
Luckstone and pale green prism (I think) ioun stone are two core items that can pick up some slack here.
I am very unhappy if my character's saves aren't AT LEAST equal to their character levelHow do you get a 17th level rogue with a +17 Will save? +5 level, +5 resistance, +2 Iron Will means you have a Wis of 20? That's some seriously generous point-buy for attributes!
For wis, I thought I had explicited it, but it's :
Wis 14 +6 (enhancement)=+5 will ; and it would be a 20th level, like your example, so a +6 headband for enhancement to wisdom is not that exceptional.
Luckstone and pale green prism would improve things, but they are not considered here.
In any case, this migth be the whole "must have the big six" issue. I like the big six; they make my numbers go higher, make me survive more easily. All "weird/special" items are generally very VERY situational (with exceptions) giving them less values in my eyes. That's maybe more of a system issue, but that's the base system; a lot of this could return to the whole "how to eliminate the big 6" problem.
Sorry if I've been pushy Kirth (you've given me good advice before, and I really dont want to frustrate you), but the issue is tied in the expectations of the system. IE, the players are expected to put money into the big six, shore up their weaknesses as much as boost their strengths. Bringing stuff up to 1/2 a level would reduce the "monetary investment" burden on certain classes, but wouldnt change the fact that that investment is needed.
This is a PLAYER issue, not a system issue; we get the same problem if one person in the group optimizes & the others not at all. What your exposing is a player issue (who expects to survive without effort). Then again, I dont favor SOD/SOS stuff.It is does not when the barbarian guy is in mid 20 on the saves easily and the fighter is spending a lot of resources in his will saves and still be way behind.
14 wisdom means somethign else suffered, int of cha, and when the fighter does not have meaninfull skills then somebody will say that you could have taken 14 in cha and that was a Player fault too.
And god help you if for some reason somebody wanst something diferent than a cloack of resistance, you know, something moderately fun.
Again, this works into the way the system works; it isnt made for a fighter with high cha & low con, (or ANYTHING with low con), a rogue with no wisdom, etc. Sure, you can want a more unique item (I can very well understand that) but the flat 1/2 saves wont change the need for investment into those saves. If the player doesnt consider the limits of the system, they are going to have problems.
A few solutions:
-make the "cloak of resistance" pseudo-slotless: Allow a second item in any "slot" occupied by one of the "big six" without extra cost.
-Be flexible with item slots: Allow goggles of resistance (or belts, or bracers, etc.) so as to free up other slots your players want.
Edit: you know what, I like the first Idea of making the "big six" pseudo slotless. It can allow the players to still use fun stuff, still work into the wealth expectations of the system (not perfectly, but still), and give something like the system expects. I'll try it out in my own game.
I am very unhappy if my character's saves aren't AT LEAST equal to their character levelHow do you get a 17th level rogue with a +17 Will save? +5 level, +5 resistance, +2 Iron Will means you have a Wis of 20? That's some seriously generous point-buy for attributes!For wis, I thought I had explicited it, but it's :
Wis 14 +6 (enhancement)=+5 will ; and it would be a 20th level, like your example, so a +6 headband for enhancement to wisdom is not that exceptional.
Luckstone and pale green prism would improve things, but they are not considered here.
In that case, you would need a +20 Will, would you not, to hit the character-level-as-a-bare-minimum milestone?
6 base, 5 Wis, 5 res, 2 IW, gets you 18. You could squeak in over the bar with the luckstone, the ioun stone, the headband of +6 Wis, and the feat, but that's probably a maximum, not a bare minimum, considering that it incorporates, I think, every save boosting item in the Core Rulebook plus Iron Will, plus a significant Wis investment at character creation (is his Fort that good as well?).*
That said, +20 Will probably isn't knocking any socks off at 20th level. It's a good effort for the class you've got, but if you looked at Kirth's example of a cleric:
12 base, 13 Wis, 5 res, 1 luckstone, 1 ioun stone
gets him 32 without investing in Iron Will, and 12 (with feat) or 14 (without) is a fairly problematic gulf when the range of a d20, outside the automatic effects of a 1 or a 20, is only 18 points.
Not like clerics are the best at Will saves either.
*mumble paladin barbarian mumble*
*you could get a luckblade instead of a luckstone, but they wouldn't stack
So it is a system problem afhter all.This is a PLAYER issue, not a system issue; we get the same problem if one person in the group optimizes & the others not at all. What your exposing is a player issue (who expects to survive without effort). Then again, I dont favor SOD/SOS stuff.It is does not when the barbarian guy is in mid 20 on the saves easily and the fighter is spending a lot of resources in his will saves and still be way behind.
14 wisdom means somethign else suffered, int of cha, and when the fighter does not have meaninfull skills then somebody will say that you could have taken 14 in cha and that was a Player fault too.
And god help you if for some reason somebody wanst something diferent than a cloack of resistance, you know, something moderately fun.
Again, this works into the way the system works; it isnt made for a fighter with high cha & low con, (or ANYTHING with low con), a rogue with no wisdom, etc. Sure, you can want a more unique item (I can very well understand that) but the flat 1/2 saves wont change the need for investment into those saves. If the player doesnt consider the limits of the system, they are going to have problems.
As I've come to realise in this discussion, it's a system & player issue. The system sets certain expectations for a functional character, and player chooses whether or not to meet them. I cant say what they are exactly, but they do seem to include the big six (and maybe a fighter rogue wizard cleric party).
@Coriat: And yes, my total came up to 18, other things can shore up but yeah, even then, it aint special. It's what I consider the bare minimum, when DCs are easily floating around DC 30. Only paladins can really afford to NOT have a cloak of resistance, (or dumped wis) and it really shows.
But one thing to be careful about is to not compare the most extreme cases. It would be like trying to make the game munchkin proof, which is exceedingly difficult in such a vast & elaborate system. We should look at them, but remember that they arent the only thing there is.
With a bit of math we could probably come up with some kind of generalized "best number" for all saves. The whole 1/2 per level isnt bad (since you en up with 12 good (2+1/2 per level), 10 bad (0+1/2 per level)) but would require WBL adjustments since less investments in saves would be required. Not much, but a bit. Without investment, high saves bsically equate a free "+2 save feat". For the will saves example, monk & cleric still keep the advantage, but oracle, sorcerer, wizard loose their advantage there, since they need functionally the same investment.
I'm still fond of the following ideas:
-make the "cloak of resistance" pseudo-slotless: Allow a second item in any "slot" occupied by one of the "big six" without extra cost.
-Be flexible with item slots: Allow goggles of resistance (or belts, or bracers, etc.) so as to free up other slots your players want.
Edit: did not know the protection domain. Hmmm.
I will just make saves equal to 1/2 character level for all characters and think I will add some bonuses to saves in the classes themselves if I find it necessary.
- Saves will be equal for all heroes at the base.
- Ability scores with bonus on saves will be more important
- Saves will be a bit better overall, except for the monk at it's base
I realize this is a strange concept but I think it is just a matter to get used to:
a 10th lvl hero has +5 on saves, easy.
I expect to have less metagaming and less obvious weaknesses in players / creatures.
Eh, I still think at least 2+1/2 level for good should be used. Monks kinda get shafted otherwise, seeing as saves is one of their few reliable things.
And I think nothing can reduce metagaming, especially if a player want their PC to survive in a violent enviroment. An "organic" character growth can only survive if the game is adapted for it (IE, occasional fudged rolls).
I think the system assumes that the main stat\save will auto succeed at higher levels much like the first attack from a fighter will always hit (outside of a 1 on the die roll).
Looking at the monsters:
CR 20 monster (Balor) has the following DC's (keeping this spoiler free so just listing saves needed)
Fort DC 26
Will DC 27
Will DC 23
Will DC 25
Reflex DC 26
Fort DC 27
Reflex DC 33
This is a CR 20 monster. I'll get another example - an ancient gold dragon...
Reflex DC 31
Reflex DC 25
Going to a CR 23 creature (something that should be a 'boss' to a level 19 party)
Will DC 21
Will DC 21
Will DC 26
Reflex DC 23
Reflex DC 25
Will DC 25
Will/Fort/Reflex DC 24
Reflex DC 27
Fort DC 26
(more - but all lower - I made my point)
So... what exactly does it take to be 'competent' at level 20 for saves? Well it looks like based on CR most saves are in the mid 20's - so you would need a save of around 16 to be save 50% of the time.
16 = base 6 + cloak of resistance +5 + spells (holy aura-prayer-good luck-etc). I'm not seeing the issue - outside of just 'upping' the saves on monsters to 'challange' the party - someone who is 19-20th level should *need* to do more than show up to expect to survive.
Eh, I still think at least 2+1/2 level for good should be used. Monks kinda get shafted otherwise, seeing as saves is one of their few reliable things.
And I think nothing can reduce metagaming, especially if a player want their PC to survive in a violent enviroment. An "organic" character growth can only survive if the game is adapted for it (IE, occasional fudged rolls).
Monks get a bonus on saves +1 at 1st, 7th, 13th and 19th.
wizards might get a bonus versus spells, personally not much inclined to have them have higher will saves. Some of the smartest ppl I know are mental wracks.
priests have inbuild good will saves, a bonus on saves versus death magic and spells and abilities used by outsiders and undead maybe.
etc.
in sofar metagaming the weak saves of an opponent might be a bit harder to deduce, poor saves will be a bi better and good saves will be a bit lower than before feats to boost your weak saves might almost bring it on par with your 'good' saves.
The classes dont really need 'good' save categories because the save boosting attributes are likely to be an integral part of the class. I think some classes should get a minor boost to saves of some kind but overall it doesnt seem needed.
No PC should be failing saves the way the game is set up now, though failing reflex saves may be okay if NPCs are never built with dazing spell metamagic. A failed save means you're not playing the game anymore.
Isn't that just a bit ridiculous? Not every save at high-level means instant death - and even instant death isn't permanent. A +20 save at 20th level is plenty - more than is needed really, especially when that is before group spells.
This isn't a problem, it's a choice. I can see a problem on the "interesting" front, if the DM doesn't allow custom crafting to make, e.g., a Cloak of the Resistant Montebank +5.
(more - but all lower - I made my point)
So... what exactly does it take to be 'competent' at level 20 for saves? Well it looks like based on CR most saves are in the mid 20's - so you would need a save of around 16 to be save 50% of the time.
Just to ensure that your math is properly calibrated here: It's worth noting that, with a few exceptions, you seem to have looked in majority at spell-like ability DCs rather than the actual monster special attacks.
Which is okay, spell-like abilities are a thing, but generic SLAs tend to be low DC compared to actual monster abilities across the board, and it is good to be aware of this characteristic.
Looking at special attack DCs at the same CR 20:
linnorm breath DC 32
linnorm curse DC 29
linnorm poison DC 32
gold dragon breath DC 31
gold dragon frightful presence DC 30
balor death throes DC 33
pit fiend poison & disease DC 32
iathavos stench DC 32
iathavos horrific appearance DC 30
iathavos abyssal transformation DC 30
iathavos entropic beams DC 32
iathavos ichor DC 32
pleroma sphere of creation/oblivion DC 30.
asurendra curse DC 31
asurendra poison DC 33
...I stopped here.
they are nigh-universally 30-33.
Now, it is true that the Iathavos also has a spell-like ability to cast, say, horrid wilting for 20d6 damage and DC 26, but I tend to think that if you are fighting the Iathavos, DC 26 20d6 damage is actually likely not of noticeable concern compared to more pressing threats like the DC 32 vs 40d6 burst of entropy beams, DC 30 vs being forcibly transformed into a demon minion, DC 32 vs nauseated aura, or DC 30 permanent blindness and insanity.
It may be worth recalibrating your math, then, with the key monster abilities in mind, instead of simply listing all their possible DCs including that which is not a major contribution to their threat. Or at least considering the general characteristic that the DCs of spell-like abilities consistently diverge from the DCs of monster special attacks at these levels.
For the longest time, I was working with the following Poor Save progression in my homebrew game. The goal was to close the gap a little between the variance of High Saves and Low Saves, so now at max level, the difference between the two are 3 points instead of 6. Also, the progression of either is now the same, so you get an increase to saves at every level; no more dead levels.
.
.
.
Level..Good....Poor
1........+2.........+0
2........+3.........+0
3........+3.........+1
4........+4.........+1
5........+4.........+2
6........+5.........+2
7........+5.........+3
8........+6.........+3
9........+6.........+4
10.......+7........+4
11.......+7........+5
12.......+8........+5
13.......+8........+6
14.......+9........+6
15.......+9........+7
16.......+10......+7
17.......+10......+8
18.......+11......+8
19.......+11......+9
20.......+12......+9
Of course this would require a new table to reference, and not something as simple to remember as "2 + 1/2 level and 0 + 1/2 level," but it helps accomplish your initial goal Kerth, which is give the Poor Save classes more of a fighting chance.
It works out to, "Good Saves: 2 + 1/2 level; Poor Saves: 1/2 Level - 0.5 (round down)," but that is a little clunky in print.
1.Save DC needs to be decoupled from spell level and made inversely proportionate to the severity of the effect. (eg. A 17th level wizard should have an easier time making slow stick than mass hold monster.)
2. Monster HD (and NPC classes) handed out at a greater than 1:1 ratio for CR need to have slower save progressions than PC classes.
1. That's exactly how it worked in my 1st homebrew efforts, but amid player grumbling ("it makes NO SENSE that more powerful spells succeed less often! That's stupid!") I went with the d20 default instead.
2. Very cogent point. A progression of 1/2 CR, vs. 1/2 HD, seems to be in order here. Thank you!
*snip*
they are nigh-universally 30-33.*snip*
It may be worth recalibrating your math, then, with the key monster abilities in mind, instead of simply listing all their possible DCs including that which is not a major contribution to their threat. Or at least considering the general characteristic that the DCs of spell-like abilities consistently diverge from the DCs of monster special attacks at these levels.
Ok 30-33 - my question back is what do we want to assume is a 'threat' to a level 20 character - remembering that they should have access to almost any spell or defense possible with the best damage avoidance abilities. Using 33 as the top end and the d20 I'd say that someone *not* specialized in avoiding stuff (i.e. monk,paladin, and possibly improved evasion toons for reflex) what do we want to be a threat - and how often should a level 20 opponent fail when getting hit by the signature abilities?
Making the assumption that on any ability the class ability tied best saves for any class should auto-save except on a 1 - I'd say we want to see the other stuff hit everyone else more than 50% of the time (unless they take the effort to research and buff against that specific attack) - 33-10 = 23 - which means the PC's should have an average save of 23 at level 20 to avoid big signature attacks at least half the time.
If the PC's have an average save of 23 - pretty much none of the other abilities the monsters have (and I disagree with them being useless, perhaps in a straight up fight but I'll take more options than less for my monsters tactics) are even worth the text they are printed on. This leads to one of two conclusions :
a) Either the signature abilities are meant to always hit unless pain is taken to buff against them *or*
b) The difference between the normal DCs and the signature DCs is too large.
Personally if my party buffed up their saves (knowing they had to sacrifice other things to do so) I wouldn't mind - I wouldn't like a situation where they can go nuclear on buffing out just one stat and ignoring saves and still have no problems against everything the monsters toss at them however.
Sorry if I've been pushy Kirth (you've given me good advice before, and I really dont want to frustrate you), but the issue is tied in the expectations of the system.
You're not at all pushy, WO -- for me, thinking through complex issues always requires a fair amount of back-and-forth amid thinking out loud.
I agree it's a system expectation issue. One of my expectations for a system is "no Timmy cards" -- although for Monte Cook, in setting up 3e, "Timmy cards" were an explicit design goal. I'm trying to undo some of that, because I think that sort of "Ivory Tower" design makes the game less playable unless everyone slavishly falls into lock-step with the "system expectations" -- at which point, why have "options" at all if only one path is the "correct" way to play?
You alluded to "organic growth," and again, I totally agree with you -- I'd prefer for PCs to get punished for poor player choices during play, not for poor player choices when leveling up their PCs. And that goal requires that choosing to follow a slightly different path (a cloak of the manta ray instead of a cloak of resistance +2) don't punish anyone too severely. If no one is "supposed" to keep the manta cloak, then remove those items from the game entirely, since they're a distraction from the "correct path" and not really something you're supposed to ever use!
The difference between the normal DCs and the signature DCs is too large.
We have a winner! If the difference is more than half of the entire range of the RNG, something is wrong.
I'm not seeing the problem. The system seems to be requiring a higher and higher bonus to your saving throws the higher level you get. Your natural saving throw bonus for your bad saves doesn't keep up. That sounds ... challenging, not unfair (in my opinion).
There are multiple ways to boost your saving throws. Feats, magic items and spells. Having weaknesses like this enforces the need for the players/characters to act as a team. Cast Mind Blank on the fighter, it gives +8 resistance to mind-effecting spells for 24 hours. If you have the communal verison (9th level), use it. At that point, you won't need any cloaks of resistance for your party.
The system is set up with a certain expectations in mind and not every playstyle is going to meet those expectations easily, or at all.
Nice to see your back Kirth, somebody got me thinking (Kydeem D'morcaine) about my own homebrew attempts. Since the "big six" is built into the system, how can we "compensate" for their impact? In most of my build they represent from 50% to 75% of cost (again, to atain the minimum standards I have set). I'm starting my first campaign in a couple of weeks, and for the moment item distribution will be "controlled" to a certain degree (they are doing their military service, so the military will equip them with "items appropriate for their skill", with some flexibility). The rest will go to custom stuff and (rare) loot. I think I'll try my "big six are pseudo slotless" idea.
Also, to control the nature of DCs, I do believe I will have to constantly adjust them. An aboleth attacking a party with a max will save of +5 might have it's DC lowered fron 22 to 17 (hard, but still survivable). As Ckorik pointed out, the difference between normal & special DCs is often too high.
As for the "monte cook" issue, I will admit I was quite angry when I learned 3.0 was intentionally built with timmy cards. The guy purposefully made the game to discourage new players, and I cant respect that (despite the cool work done on other things).
The difference between the normal DCs and the signature DCs is too large.We have a winner! If the difference is more than half of the entire range of the RNG, something is wrong.
I'm still undecided - if the danger of the creature is the assumption that it's big abilities are going to land most of the time on everything - then it's really working as intended.
I (as someone else posted) do try to adjust things for my party based on what they represent, so I guess in the end it doesn't matter to me. I usually toss things into 4 categories - easy (5 or more) - normal (10 or more) - hard (13 or more) - and very difficult (15 or more). Anything that would require a nat 20 to avoid to me is designed to be always a danger - perhaps that's the issue, that people don't enjoy monsters with abilities that are designed to always hit?
Youve got a good point there Ckorik; people dont like abilities there is NO WAY to defend themselves against; they arent playing the game to feel helpless, but to feel empowered.
I'm not seeing the problem. The system seems to be requiring a higher and higher bonus to your saving throws the higher level you get. Your natural saving throw bonus for your bad saves doesn't keep up. That sounds ... challenging, not unfair (in my opinion).
The problem is that, in a few more levels, your augmented saving throw bonus for your bad saves -- after devoting disproportional resources to them -- still can't keep up, unless the DM lowballs all the DCs so that everyone else auto-succeeds.
Seriously, we're having people claiming that every rogue MUST dump Dex, Int, and Cha to start with a "high enough" Con and Wis, and also devote 100% of his WBL to Con and Wis boosters and save-boost items, or he's "playing wrong." If all that stuff is required, built it into the game. Don't punish rogue's player for having the audacity to spend a few points on Dex instead.
Making the assumption that on any ability the class ability tied best saves for any class should auto-save except on a 1 - I'd say we want to see the other stuff hit everyone else more than 50% of the time (unless they take the effort to research and buff against that specific attack) - 33-10 = 23 - which means the PC's should have an average save of 23 at level 20 to avoid big signature attacks at least half the time.
Minor point (but they tend to add up, much like the bonuses high level characters get): +22 would be 50% against DC 33.
Given the resources of 20th level characters (both spell slots and gold), the approach you mention (effort vs. signature abilities, 75% vs. non) works out well.
Personally, I'd like to see the weak save progression upgraded to the theoretical "medium" save progression: Going from +1 to +9 instead of +0 to +6. There would still be enough of a difference for good save progression to be an actual advantage without characters auto-failing their bad saves.
And/or DCs could increase more slowly... It's not hard to push spell save DC to the high heavens, meaning even character with good saves are likely to fail most of the time unless they boost Con and Wis, which is not always a viable and/or desirable choice.
IMHO, the average between good/bad base save progression + level appropriate Cloak of Resistance should be enough to make the average spell save DC 50% of the time.
Seriously, we're having people claiming that every rogue MUST dump Dex, Int, and Cha to start with a "high enough" Con and Wis, and also devote 100% of his WBL to Con and Wis boosters and save-boost items, or he's "playing wrong." If all that stuff is required, built it into the game. Don't punish rogue's player for having the audacity to spend a few points on Dex instead.
Maybe I'm seeing different posts, but that's a real exaggeration. The only wisdom specific item mentioned is a Headband of Wisdom +6. 4% of wealth by 20th (10% at 17th). Another 6-14% for luckstone and green prism ioun stone, 3-7% for the cloak +5. That's 13% (31% if you had all that by L.17) to boost your saves by 7-10, as well as +3 to Perception (key rogue skill), etc.
If a rogue at that level is 'only' walking around with a Cloak +3 (~1%), Headband of Intellect instead of Wisdom? He'll be a bit more vulnerable. Maybe he picked up Slippery Mind instead - or maybe he relies on an ally who keeps magic circle vs. evil up (or other specific protections, like heroes feast).
If he's walking around with a 10 or lower Wisdom, and no resistance bonus to saves, he's "playing dangerously", though not "wrong", unless he's complaining about always failing his saves.
High saves don't help when you roll a 1. I have seen that happens so many times, its tragic.
Yeah, but that's easy to "fix". When you roll a nat 20, you roll again with a +10 bonus, and when you roll a nat 1, you roll again with a -10 penalty.
No more auto-fail or auto-success... :D
Yeah, but that's easy to "fix". When you roll a nat 20, you roll again with a +10 bonus, and when you roll a nat 1, you roll again with a -10 penalty.
The general optional rule (that I think you are referencing) is to count a 1 as a -10. If you were rolling again to extend the range, you'd need to make it -20. Rolling again with -10 means about half the time a 1 would be better than a 2.
Maybe I'm seeing different posts, but that's a real exaggeration. The only wisdom specific item mentioned is a Headband of Wisdom +6. 4% of wealth by 20th (10% at 17th). Another 6-14% for luckstone and green prism ioun stone, 3-7% for the cloak +5.
OK, for people who don't use 25-point buy, let's start with 10 Wis and 12 Con (not 14). To get +17 Fort and Will at 17th level, you take Iron Will and Great Fortitude, and a headband +6 (36K) and a belt +6 (but you'll want it for Str and Dex, and they have to be even, so 144K). Also a luckstone (20K) and a cloak (25K). That brings you up to +17 and +18 -- made it!
But it cost you 25% of your feats and 55% of your WBL (225K), just to reach what was called a reasonable minimum baseline. And remember, you also NEED AC boosting items and magic weapons good enough to penetrate DR.
If you're spending over half your available resources on "options", then they are not really options, are they? And since the cloak +5 is required to make any of this work within WBL at all, get rid of all other cloaks in the game -- they're "Timmy Cards" keeping you from reaching par, not items that you're allowed to have.
Maybe I'm seeing different posts, but that's a real exaggeration. The only wisdom specific item mentioned is a Headband of Wisdom +6. 4% of wealth by 20th (10% at 17th). Another 6-14% for luckstone and green prism ioun stone, 3-7% for the cloak +5.OK, for people who don't use 25-point buy, let's start with 10 Wis and 12 Con (not 14). To get +17 Fort and Will at 17th level, you take Iron Will and Great Fortitude, and a headband +6 (36K) and a belt +6 (but you'll want it for Str and Dex, and they have to be even, so 144K). Also a luckstone (20K) and a cloak (25K). That brings you up to +17 and +18 -- made it!
But it cost you 25% of your feats and 55% of your WBL (225K), just to reach what was called a reasonable minimum baseline. And remember, you also NEED AC boosting items and magic weapons good enough to penetrate DR.
Wow... talk about misleading figures.
The difference between a Belt of Physical Might +6 (Str,Dex) and Belt of Physical Perfection +6 (all) is 54K. So all told that's 135K, or 33% you are "dedicating to saves". That you also get 51 hit-points for that 54k should, perhaps, count for a bit. I'd also recommend just a Belt of Phys. Perf +4 at 17th (24k for the Con part), but that's fine.
Nicos: I don't personally have time to answer that challenge right now, but I do propose that a fairer challenge is a lone rogue vs. CR 14-17 creatures (i.e. full stealth mode), or a rogue in a standard party against CR 17-20.
Maybe I'm seeing different posts, but that's a real exaggeration. The only wisdom specific item mentioned is a Headband of Wisdom +6. 4% of wealth by 20th (10% at 17th). Another 6-14% for luckstone and green prism ioun stone, 3-7% for the cloak +5.OK, for people who don't use 25-point buy, let's start with 10 Wis and 12 Con (not 14). To get +17 Fort and Will at 17th level, you take Iron Will and Great Fortitude, and a headband +6 (36K) and a belt +6 (but you'll want it for Str and Dex, and they have to be even, so 144K). Also a luckstone (20K) and a cloak (25K). That brings you up to +17 and +18 -- made it!
But it cost you 25% of your feats and 55% of your WBL (225K), just to reach what was called a reasonable minimum baseline. And remember, you also NEED AC boosting items and magic weapons good enough to penetrate DR.
If you're spending over half your available resources on "options", then they are not really options, are they? And since the cloak +5 is required to make any of this work within WBL at all, get rid of all other cloaks in the game -- they're "Timmy Cards" keeping you from reaching par, not items that you're allowed to have.
Considering how costly all these items are kirth... yeah, pretty much, they arent really options. If the "big six" arent considered, you could reduce WBL by 75%. Easy. I dont think it's something we can talk about with the devellopers because I wouldnt be surprised if it's a relic of 3.5 that was just too hard to dispose of (be it timmy cards or items of the sort). Many items are gew-gaws, situational at best and unhelpful at worst. WBL is a VERY flexible system. I could easily spend all my $ on potions of CLW, and it would not make me equal to somebody who was balanced.
Eh, I'm getting mixed up in my ideas and I'm not quite sure what I'm saying anymore.
In any case, high-level may not be the best comparison point. THere's that big other thread about the numbers breaking down, and a few statements from designers indicating the system isnt designed preoperly for high-level, so myabe comparing around PFS levels (1-11) might be more appropriate with the designers current intent.
I'll be trying ways to get around it in my next game
In our E7 games, we do the following:
Everyone has a base save of 1/2 level
If the save is a "class save" the base save is increased by +2.
It's a class save if any of your classes normally has it as a strong save.
So for 1st level characters, the save is the same as normal.
For 7th level characters, it's +5 for good saves and +3 for bad saves, compared to +5 +2.
Granted, our reason for doing it was basically just simplicity and coherency (we also removed low BAB so they top out at +7/+5 rather than +7/+5/+3, the difference is marginal but makes it a simpler game), but following through on it to high levels means you top out at +12/+10 rather than +12/+6.
Yeah, but that's easy to "fix". When you roll a nat 20, you roll again with a +10 bonus, and when you roll a nat 1, you roll again with a -10 penalty.The general optional rule (that I think you are referencing) is to count a 1 as a -10. If you were rolling again to extend the range, you'd need to make it -20. Rolling again with -10 means about half the time a 1 would be better than a 2.
While I did know the old "Nat 1 count as -20" alternate rule, I wasn't referring to it... Or any other rule in particular, actually... I just thought of something on the spot to do away with auto-fail/success to show how those rules are easy to "fix".
