Saves are not the best mathematically. Especially at higher levels where things trend towards either always succeeding or always failing as the gap between good saves and poor saves gets ridiculous.
Thus, I have an alternative to use as a baseline for saves and DCs.
Saves
Saves are equal to character level -2 plus relevant ability score.
Good saves get an extra +4 (or you can think of it as a +2 instead of a -2, same end result).
DCs
DCs are 10 plus level/cr/cl, plus relevant ability score if any.
Notably, this includes spells and SLAs. No longer does SL increase save DC.
This does require a change to the Heighten Spell metamagic, which also has the side benefit of keeping low level spells more relevant at higher levels. Heighten Spell increases the DC of a spell by 1 for each spell level higher the slot used to cast a spell is above the spell's spell level. You might even consider just making that the norm instead of requiring metamagic.
Assuming equal ability scores and equal levels and ties as failures, then poor saves have 40% success rate and good saves 60% success rate for any level.
Thus, a difference in level matters, meaning that 5th level characters have 20% more difficulty making saves than 9th level characters, but notably, the difference between attacker and defender, each level of difference is 5% in favor of the higher level character.
The big advantage here though is that it keeps the variability in saves and DCs a relevant aspect of strategy and tactics. And gives incentive to balance out ability scores somewhat.
Now, casters will naturally have good scores for their DCs vs often secondary scores for saves, plus casters getting spel focus or similar bonuses. This is balanced out somewhat by gear generally only giving save bonuses not DC bonuses.
Still, some may not agree with that, in which case, an optional rule can be implemented to not only give variety to casters but to make it so casters can't focus everything into blanket DC increases. The optional rule is to have different spell schools have different ability scores contribute to their DC. Evocation DCs can be based on dex, while Enchantments based on cha, just as examples. This means that casters can't just increase one ability score to improve every aspect of all their spells. Making casters MAD in this way can also somewhat counter the martial vs caster disparity a bit as well, even if just in a small way (depending on your opinion of the matter).
Trap DCs should also follow this as well as any other DCs for saves. This gives characters a decent chance even if they aren't focused on it like a rogue.
Anyway, go ahead and tear it apart and tell me everything wrong with it, and most importantly, try it out. :)
At 20th level the difference between a good save and a bad save is 6 points. Under your system the difference is 4 points. 1st level the difference between a good save and a bad save is only 2 points and the gap slowly widens as the character levels up. Under your system the gap exists from day 1. Your system actually makes the gap worse at until 9th level. After that the gap is about the same in both systems until 15th level, up till 19th level the gap under your system is one less. At level 20 the gap becomes 2 points. Levels 8 and 14 under the normal system the gap jumps up by 1 and then drops down the next level.
Your system actually makes the so-called gap problem worse. Under your system the gap only improves on 6 levels (14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20) and is worse on 8 levels (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9) and is the same on 6 levels. Your system penalizes low to mid-level characters and benefits the characters at the highest level.
That depends on what you consider "worse" to mean.
Making poor saves less than good saves is a good thing. There are three major considerations beyond that though.
First is scaling. How does the gap between good and poor saves change over time. Now admittedly, I dip into god tier stuff sometimes with levels up to 50. Additionally is multiclassing in which many do not use fractional base saves which is problematic.
Second is range, how does a difference in character level impact saves vs DCs as that difference grows.
Third is DCs faced in comparison to the saves. Most things have static DCs relative to the world milieu, but ability and spell DCs have growth, and that growth is an important consideration. For example, if a 17 wizard uses sleep, what is the DC and what is the save made against it? Currently, the DC doesn't change as much as saves do.
These are aspects to consider as well.
You made note about possibly limiting access to DC increasing feats… that is entirely unnecessary. As things stand, a single item completely trumps all possible DC increase feats. Not to mention, the feats that increase DCs are highly specialized while most items and feats that improve saves are blanket bonuses.
I was not saying that DC feats should be limited, rather that, so far as I know, they are already limited compared to save improving gear.
|
As Mysterious Stranger pointed out, your changes to the base saves haven't really changed much in the 'good vs poor' save comparison: Assuming single-class only, 'classic' base save values are either +12 or +6 at 20th level, whereas your proposed system changes that to +22 or +18. Assuming your 'new' DCs are +10 compared to the 'classic' DCs, your weak saves are only 2 points better than they were before.
Huge discrepancies in saving throws tends to be more a matter of stats than progression: A 30 Dexterity vs. a 10 Dexterity results in a 10 point difference in your Reflex save in either system.
DCs. Don't forget the change in DCs. That matters immensely. Every feedback so far is so entirely focused on the new base saves, as though that is all that changed, but the DCs are changed too and that makes a massive impact.
The change to DCs makes lower-level opponents irrelevant even for cannon fodder, and conversely makes higher-level opponents more dangerous. In other words you've broken the CR system. Is that what you want?
The risk you've exacerbated is that a single BBEG has sufficiently high DCs and saves that a) it takes out a PC every round and b) the PCs can't affect it. And conversely a horde of mooks go down like ninepins while achieving nothing.
The change to DCs makes lower-level opponents irrelevant even for cannon fodder, and conversely makes higher-level opponents more dangerous. In other words you've broken the CR system. Is that what you want?
The CR system is nothing but a measuring stick. It serves no purpose beyond, thus, as long as monsters are classified to a CR consistently, then it can't be broken, even if the CR number is drastically different from the APL of the party they are set against.
The risk you've exacerbated is that a single BBEG has sufficiently high DCs and saves that a) it takes out a PC every round and b) the PCs can't affect it. And conversely a horde of mooks go down like ninepins while achieving nothing.
I'm not seeing this at all. The range of levels a party can fight is narrowed a bit, but still more than 5 levels in either direction, and I haven't met a GM in over 15 years that would even consider pitting a party against enemies even 3 levels different.
Additionally, I actually like that a lvl 10 is almost irresistible to a level 1. I ascribe to the philosophy that most of the game's subsystems align with level 5 being the maximum a real world human ever achieves. So a level 10 is a supernatural being and therefore should feel supernaturally powerful against level 1s.
That all said, I don't think it's as extreme as you make it sound, so I'm curious what leads you to that conclusion. If I missed something, I want to know.
I like the simplicity in telling a player, "All of your spells start with the same save DC regardless of spell level."
I don't like the higher rate that both save bonuses and DCs increase. The numbers get higher than the variance on a d20 faster than the original system.
A failed save vs. spell usually isn't a "failing forward," but just a straight up, "Sorry, you're in a maze. You don't get to play this encounter." or "Sorry, even the rogue failed her Reflex save vs. the fireball. Everyone dies." The problem with everything feeling like a success or failure is a problem with effects, not save DCs.
So if players go from expecting to save 80% of the time to 60% of the time, what that actually means is it's 20% more likely that they'll have to sit out for an hour, or spend money on healing or resurrection, or make new characters and try to re-invest in the game. That in turn sounds like preparation and non-save-based defences like immunity become even more important. Plus, martials aren't preparing or giving friends immunities anyways, so the martial-caster disparity isn't solved.
The change to DCs makes lower-level opponents irrelevant even for cannon fodder, and conversely makes higher-level opponents more dangerous. In other words you've broken the CR system. Is that what you want?The CR system is nothing but a measuring stick. It serves no purpose beyond, thus, as long as monsters are classified to a CR consistently, then it can't be broken, even if the CR number is drastically different from the APL of the party they are set against.
The existing CR system assumes that, for example, EL8 = 1xCR8 = 2xCR6=4xCR4 and so on. You've broken that. You've also changed the CR of casters and other creatures that have DCs (eg poison) but not greatly changed that of monsters that don't.
The risk you've exacerbated is that a single BBEG has sufficiently high DCs and saves that a) it takes out a PC every round and b) the PCs can't affect it. And conversely a horde of mooks go down like ninepins while achieving nothing.I'm not seeing this at all. The range of levels a party can fight is narrowed a bit, but still more than 5 levels in either direction, and I haven't met a GM in over 15 years that would even consider pitting a party against enemies even 3 levels different.
YMMV, I guess. I see it a lot. A variety of mooks make fights a lot less swingy and more dynamic.
Additionally, I actually like that a lvl 10 is almost irresistible to a level 1. I ascribe to the philosophy that most of the game's subsystems align with level 5 being the maximum a real world human ever achieves. So a level 10 is a supernatural being and therefore should feel supernaturally powerful against level 1s.
I can accept that...but I wonder if you should then be changing things like skills and AC in a similar way. It does also stretch worldbuilding a bit, as (for example) most Fey become (even more) unbeatable by your average villagers.