D&D 5E 07/29/2013 - Legends & Lore It’s Mathemagical!

[Sword of Spirit]

My feelings are similar to Blackwarder's: the more I think about it the more I dislike the idea of save DCs by level.

It seems so unnecessary. The original problem to be addressed was that it should be easier to save against attacks from lower level sources (ie, higher level characters vs. ghouls). Sure, makes sense. So we give characters scaling save bonuses, and make save DCs scale for higher level sources (ie, high level monsters).

But then Mike throws in something that makes no sense: scale spell DCs by spell level rather than by caster level. ...Why? The caster is as much the source of the attack as a monster is the source of an attack. I suppose if they plan to have monsters with multiple magical attacks with different saves for each then it makes sense--but it's such a mess.

I'd much rather see all standard spell-like attacks coming from the same source having the same DC. Sure, a dragon might have a different breath DC than his spell DC, just like a wizard might have a different DC using a magic item than casting a spell.. But when he is calling on his mystical might, it's a lot easier simply to have a single number that applies the vast majority of the time.

I've played years of 3e with its by spell level save DCs. It's okay for 3e, but it's not ideal. 3e is slow. Looking at a character sheet to see what your spell DC is for a particular spell level is one of the easier things a caster routinely does and it's hardly one of the worst offenders to game speed. However, it does take time out of the game whenever a spell is cast (unless you have players memorizing their DC for each spell level). In Next, the idea is to prune it down and get rid of that sort of overhead. I agree with that design goal, and think reverting to a 3e style by spell level DC is at odds with it.

Keep it fast, keep it simple, keep it Next.

 

[innerdude]

Keep it fast, keep it simple, keep it Savage.

I think this is the REAL way you wanted to say this, Sword.

Am I right, [MENTION=26651]amerigoV[/MENTION] ?

 

[amerigoV]

I think this is the REAL way you wanted to say this, Sword.

Am I right, [MENTION=26651]amerigoV[/MENTION] ?

Amen, Brother. I am not sure what the question is, but the answer is Savage Worlds - Fast! Furious! Fun!


You may now return to your regularly scheduled conversion AFTER you pledge to the Weird War Rome Kickstarter
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/545820095/weird-wars-rome-savage-worlds

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think this is the REAL way you wanted to say this, Sword.

It's like you read my mind.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Lol. Yeah, yeah, I still need to actually pick up a copy of Savage Worlds instead of just analyzing the quick start.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Or were you suggesting that high-level combat should skew more and more heavily toward offense over defense? That's one way to go, but it tends to result in "whoever wins initiative, wins."

That's one way to do it.

I'm not a fan of save or die or save or suck spells for this very reason. Their very existence goes AROUND the hitpoint system. So spells that do X damage, save for half really need to have scaling DCs or they get worse as you go up levels(assuming the monsters get bonuses to saves). However, if you give this same bonus to save or X spells and simply give better save or x spells as you go up levels then, as you say, you go from having a 50% chance to knock someone down to a 50% chance to kill someone outright.

The only real solution is to make a specific saving throw for save or X spells. I.e. a save vs Death Magic type thing where the DC vs these spells is lower than other spells.

 

[billd91]

But then Mike throws in something that makes no sense: scale spell DCs by spell level rather than by caster level. ...Why? The caster is as much the source of the attack as a monster is the source of an attack. I suppose if they plan to have monsters with multiple magical attacks with different saves for each then it makes sense--but it's such a mess.

I don't see how it makes no sense. It's just another way of making sure that low level spells aren't as effective as high level ones, an assumption that D&D has incorporated in various ways for a very long time, particularly strongly since 1989 with 2e. There are a number of ways to accomplish this that various D&D editions have incorporated.

1) Design higher level spells so that they do quite a bit more than lower level ones or have a broader scope. Example - charm monster compared to charm person. Pretty much every edition I've cared to play has done this.

2) Cap the scalability of lower level spells. 2e and 3e do this but it mostly affects spells that directly damage the target. This worked better for 2e than 3e with 3e's tendency toward creatures larger sacks of hit points thanks to the proliferation of high Con bonuses.

3) Include the spell level in the DC calculation. 3e does this. It has the benefit of obsoleting low-level save or sit spells as more powerful ones become available, but it also encourages the spellcaster to argue for the 15 minute work day as they will always want to have their highest DC spells available to them.

You may not prefer the method and it does add a bit of complexity, but I can't understand the argument that it makes no sense.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

2) Cap the scalability of lower level spells. 2e and 3e do this but it mostly affects spells that directly damage the target. This worked better for 2e than 3e with 3e's tendency toward creatures larger sacks of hit points thanks to the proliferation of high Con bonuses.

I would think this approach might be the best, except modified to account for save or X spells. Base the DC on the caster level in the same range they are proposing for attack bonuses (+1 to +6). Then have save or X spells effect up to a capped amount of hit dice (like OS Sleep did). The effect of putting a save or X spell in a higher slot then is to increase the HD cap. At 9th level you might have a save-or-die spell, but if your wizard doesn't want to kill his targets he casts save-or-sleep in his 9th-level slot, e.g.

 

[mlund]

I'm not a fan of save or die or save or suck spells for this very reason. Their very existence goes AROUND the hitpoint system. So spells that do X damage, save for half really need to have scaling DCs or they get worse as you go up levels(assuming the monsters get bonuses to saves). However, if you give this same bonus to save or X spells and simply give better save or x spells as you go up levels then, as you say, you go from having a 50% chance to knock someone down to a 50% chance to kill someone outright.

That's really the elephant in the room that we keep seeing cludgey hacks for in every edition. Bypassing Hit Points with Save-or-Suck effects is the underlying problem that should be refactored directly. It sucks when it happens to player characters (see the pack of Ghouls in the A1 playtest) and it really isn't much more fun when it happens to antagonists. It is so anti-climactic that big-bad monsters have had hacks built into them for several editions: Legendary Status in Next, +5 saves for Solos in 4E, and silly blanket Spell Resistance in 3.X.

A Magic Missile can kill a kobold flunky outright. It might scuff the scales on a Dragon ... or it might kill him if he's on his last leg (down to 3-4 hit points when he started with 200). It's a strict might vs. might comparison. If someone has enough Hit Points then Magic Missile from a level 1 Wizard isn't going to kill him, not even on a Critical Hit. If a high-HD target is worn down he's more vulnerable and it might finish him off. The same should go for a Sleep spell or Power Word: Kill. The impact should be a matter of Spell Level vs. Target Hit Points, not "I hope he rolls a 1 on his Saving Throw" or "He's got more than 4HD, so he's immune."

Even something like an HP "buy out" from the suckage of Save-or-Suck could work. Something like a spell having a lesser effect on targets that pass their saving throw -or- that expend X Hit Points to fight off the effects, some sort of heroic exertion mechanic. The efforts keep you from being knocked out (and subsequently Coup de Graced by any intelligent foe worth his salt) but they do eat up some of that margin that keeps you from catching a fatal blow in combat. That kind of mechanic might be more balanced than HP thresholds too, since it allows characters with small Hit Dice to still use it, since grinding their own HP in combat isn't something they normally put themselves out for like a high HD character does (like the Barbarian or Fighter).

We should also address player-resources vs. antagonist resources. Straight level-ports with spell slots was a terrible idea, and still is. Antagonists are balances to appear in a single scene. Player characters are balanced to appear in a series of sequential scenes. Just slapping on character-level spell resources to antagonists creates a Nova Problem. If the Evil NPC Wizard (TM) isn't unloading an entire 15th Level PC Wizard's bag of tricks onto PCs in a single encounter then maybe the spam save-or-die problems diminish somewhat.

- Marty Lund

 

[innerdude]

Amen, Brother. I am not sure what the question is, but the answer is Savage Worlds - Fast! Furious! Fun!

Holy crap in a box, @amerigoV !!! I just clicked the link to that Kickstarter . . .

Talk about PURE AWESOME wrapped in bacon sprinkled with a healthy topping of PWNAGE.

I don't think I've ever been happier to part with my money on an RPG product, almost ever.

Call me "Legatus," my friend!

**BACKED**