D&D 4E Changing the 4e save mechanism.

Although a huge 4e fan, I am still bothered by the 4e save mechanism. The flip-a-coin approach just feels wrong to me. I realize it is simple and smooth, but I have been thinking if there was an easy way to replace it. This is what I came up with.

Example: a wizard +8 to hit with his spells casts sleep on a Bugbear Strangler which has a Will defence of 16.

Normal play: The wizard rolls to hit, and if hit the Bugbear is slowed. Next round, the bugbear rolls a save, and on 1-9, he falls asleep.

My version: The wizard rolls to hit, and if hit, the Bugbear is slowed. Next round, the bugbear makes a save. However now, instead of it being a flip of the coin, the bugbear rolls a Will save (his modifier to his Will Defense, in this case a +6) against the wizard's Attack (10+attack modifier), which gives us an 18, in this example. If he fails to hit the required DC, he falls asleep.

So, in my example, the bugbear retains the same chance of being hit by the spell, but suffers a lower chance to escape it.

Now, had the spell been another spell, and targeted fortitude, the bugbear would have had an +8 modifier (since his fortitude defense is 18) in his attempt to get out of the wizard's spell. (The DC would still be 18, since the wizard's attack modifier most likely is the same, no matter if it is a spell that targets fortitude or will).

Since the attack +'s and defenses are pretty streamlined across the board, I do not think the change would be a big problem, or create some unbalancing issues. Yes, higher level monsters' spells and effects will be harder to escape/avoid, but is that so bad?

Anyway, it would be nice if you could point out some issues (that I seem to miss) that this change would cause in other parts of 4e.

Jack99 said:

My version: The wizard rolls to hit, and if hit, the Bugbear is slowed. Next round, the bugbear makes a save. However now, instead of it being a flip of the coin, the bugbear rolls a Will save (his modifier to his Will Defense, in this case a +6) against the wizard's Attack (10+attack modifier), which gives us an 18, in this example. If he fails to hit the required DC, he falls asleep.

Click to expand...

The bug bear rolls his will save, versus the wizards attack.

The wizard pumps his attack to make the save impossible to make.

The bug bear automatically fails.

Any power that disables a foe with a "save ends" becomes an instant win.

This already happens with the various "-x to saves" powers, and it's a very bad thing for the game.

Under your system it would become much, much easier to do.

Think of saving throws as an alternative to tracking how many rounds an effect has run for, rather than some sort of resistance to effects.

WIll there also be "AC" Saves? (I think you'll find a few ongoing effects based on AC, too)

It leads to a certain "double punishment/reward" this way - the guy that is harder to affect in the first place will also suffer the effect only for a short time. The guy that is easy to affect in the first place will have a great difficulty to end the effect. Level difference will also matter more and might make higher level NPC stronger.
It might be what you're going for, but it makes the system more swingy, which can lead to frustrating moments on either side of the screen.

What do you do about death saves?

You could try to make the thing a little simpler - just add the ability modifiers in question to the save DC and save roll. (So a Rogue power with save ends effect against AC would need a 1d20 + INT/DEX vs 10+DEX.) It removes the level "swing" from the equation, and it's still straightforward.

Saeviomagy said:

Think of saving throws as an alternative to tracking how many rounds an effect has run for, rather than some sort of resistance to effects.

Click to expand...

You are preaching to the choir. Been telling that to people from the day we first heard about the new save. Maybe it's just in some instances.

However, regarding the "pumping" of the to-hit roll. Maybe the save is made based on the base to-hit of the caster (stat, items, feats, ½ level, etc), instead of random short-term modifiers such as power-bonuses and action point bonuses?

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

WIll there also be "AC" Saves? (I think you'll find a few ongoing effects based on AC, too)

Click to expand...

Nope. I would switch to the most logical save instead. Usually fortitude I reckon, but some might be reflex as well.

It leads to a certain "double punishment/reward" this way - the guy that is harder to affect in the first place will also suffer the effect only for a short time. The guy that is easy to affect in the first place will have a great difficulty to end the effect. Level difference will also matter more and might make higher level NPC stronger.
It might be what you're going for, but it makes the system more swingy, which can lead to frustrating moments on either side of the screen.

Click to expand...

Well, most characters will have two saves that are good, and one that is not so good, so I do not see it as doubt punishment, but rather as diversified punishment.

What do you do about death saves?

Click to expand...

Yeah. Haven't come up with anything yet. Could be a keeper I guess.

You could try to make the thing a little simpler - just add the ability modifiers in question to the save DC and save roll. (So a Rogue power with save ends effect against AC would need a 1d20 + INT/DEX vs 10+DEX.) It removes the level "swing" from the equation, and it's still straightforward.

Click to expand...

I am not sure I understood that example, any chance you could rephrase it?

I think it would be very easy to abused / skew results with this.

First off, temporary buffs to attack are quite common. Would your system use a character's standard attack bonus, or the specific bonus for the attack that delivered the status effect? Would it account for a 1 round buff to hit? An encounter-long buff to hit? Conditional modifiers? Etc?

I also foresee it bulking up solo and elites even more (against non-optimized PCs), or making it vastly easier to defeat them (against characters designed to abuse this system.)

Secondly... I'm a level 13 wizard with Str 9, Con 11 and a +3 Amulet of Protection. My Fortitude Defense is 19. A destrachan hits me with Reverberate - which leaves me Stunned (save ends). My +9 modifier is needing to roll a 29 to end that stun - in other word, fight's over for me.

There are plenty of other creatures who have attack bonuses that, when targeting a character's weakest Defense, are going to make it impossible to save against in your system. Both PCs and NPCs have a wide range of Defenses, some strong, some weak. Right now, a weak defense might mean that once a fight, one attack is guaranteed to hit you - but in your system, that one attack could also disable a character for an entire fight.

Honestly, I think it is a bad idea all around. What is the goal of the change, and how do you feel it would enhance the game?

There are four real effects of it:
1) A PC hits an NPC with a high defense, and lands a status effect. The PC is rejoicing, since the NPC's high defense made the attack very difficult to land! Unfortunately, the NPC will only suffer a round of it before easily shaking it off. Net effect: Negative.
2) A PC hits an NPC with a low defense, and lands a status effect. That opponent is out of the fight! Yet... at higher levels, this quickly trivializes encounters. Our wizard loads up on "Stunned (save ends)" spells that hit multiple enemies, and fights become a joke. Net effect: Negative.
3) An NPC hits a PC with a low defense, and lands a status effect. The PC is stuck with it for much of the fight. If it is a painful enough effect, they might be unable to act at all. Not much fun, and the very thing the current saving throw system was designed to avoid. Net effect: Negative.
4) An NPC hits a PC with a high defense, and the PC quickly shrugs it off. In the long run, perhaps too much of a boost for the ease of encounters, but in the short term, not too big a deal - and makes the player feel like they are able to quickly get back in the action. Net effect: Positive.

Oh, and one final effect: It will slow down the game, as characters have to roll one specific number against a different target DC for every effect on them, and you as the DM need to do the same, instead of simply rolling for a 10 on a d20.

While I can understand the appeal to make the 4E saving throw system feel like the 3.5 saving throw system, I think any attempts to do so will only have a detrimental experience on the game. The 4E saving throw system should probably have been called something else, just to avoid confusion... but the thing to realize is that it is simply a duration mechanic. It isn't designed to represent the difficult of being affected by something - that is what the attack vs Defense mechanic is for.

Trying to change the save mechanic to fit another role is going to profoundly alter the way the game plays - and not, I think, for the better.

Okay, I guess my idea kinda sucked. Maybe I should have thought it a bit more through. What can I say, I was bored...

Actually, the biggest problem I have with the save mechanism, is when used to see if people are pushed into dangerous terrain, or if they are prone on the ground. What's up with that?

Jack99 said:

Okay, I guess my idea kinda sucked. Maybe I should have thought it a bit more through. What can I say, I was bored...

Actually, the biggest problem I have with the save mechanism, is when used to see if people are pushed into dangerous terrain, or if they are prone on the ground. What's up with that?

Click to expand...

It's better than "sorry, I can't use dangerous terrain because forced movement would be insanely powerful." Putting people where you want them is already incredibly useful. If they can't stop you from putting them over a ledge or into a fire it's even worse.

What you can do is judiciously change some effects from save ends to repeat attack until you miss.

It should have the same effect as what you want, but work within the system better while still letting other effects use the save mechanic when that is better.

James McMurray said:

It's better than "sorry, I can't use dangerous terrain because forced movement would be insanely powerful." Putting people where you want them is already incredibly useful. If they can't stop you from putting them over a ledge or into a fire it's even worse.

Click to expand...

I agree mate, I think you misunderstood my comment. I do not think that there shouldn't be a roll to avoid being pushed over a ledge, but the save just seems weird in that regard, since is it normally used to emulate the duration of effects.

keterys said:

What you can do is judiciously change some effects from save ends to repeat attack until you miss.

It should have the same effect as what you want, but work within the system better while still letting other effects use the save mechanic when that is better.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought about that. Should give the same amount of rolls. Hmm, might be worth considering. Thanks for reminding me of that option.

Cheers

Jack99 said:

I am not sure I understood that example, any chance you could rephrase it?

Click to expand...

The Saving Throw DC is currently always 10. Change this to 10 + ability modifier (without level modifiers) of the attack.
The rolled save is d20 + ability modifier of the defense that the power attacked you with.

A more solid example. A Level 6 Wizard casts Flame Shroud (Int vs Fort) against an Orc Bloordager and a Shadar-Kai Witch. THis results in 5 fire (save ends) (IIRC). Let's pretend our Wizard had an Int of 19 (+4 bonus without level modifier).
The Orc Bloodrager has a Strength of 20 (+5) and a Constitution of 17 (+3). So to end the fire damage, the Orc rolls 1d20+5 vs 14.
The Shadar-Kai Witch has a Strength of 13 (+1) and a Constitution of 13 (+1). So to end the fire damage, she rolls 1d20+1 vs 14.