Saving throws for melee classes

[kitcik]

How do you feel about these feats?

 

[xigbar]

Well, for Will, I prefer the feat that allows you to use your CON modifier, but as for Fort. and Ref., I would use them. Which probably means their a bit overpowered.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Those feats are overpowered for not having true prereqs. The idea is pretty decent though, and I'd be inclined to nix the non-spellcasting parts and instead require certain prereqs such as Great Fortitude for Surge of Fortitude, etc.

I typically avoid Dandwiki if I'm trying to be serious about what I'm working on. Quite often the official splatbooks already have good variations or mechanically similar feats.

 

[kitcik]

Those feats are overpowered for not having true prereqs. The idea is pretty decent though, and I'd be inclined to nix the non-spellcasting parts and instead require certain prereqs such as Great Fortitude for Surge of Fortitude, etc.

The whole idea is to help balance melee vs. casters. This benefits the melee classes (get a slightly "overpowered" feat just for them) and nerfs the casters (because dudes can save easier).

I typically avoid Dandwiki if I'm trying to be serious about what I'm working on. Quite often the official splatbooks already have good variations or mechanically similar feats.

I posted them to DandDWiki LOL.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

The whole idea is to help balance melee vs. casters. This benefits the melee classes (get a slightly "overpowered" feat just for them) and nerfs the casters (because dudes can save easier).



I posted them to DandDWiki LOL.

The feats might be "necessary" for your boring old Fighter, but I can assure you with classes like the ones in Tome of Battle they'd be overkill.

To be honest, it sounds like you're in a WoW mindframe or something where supposedly everything absolutely must be balanced. That's just not how D&D works. Let's face it, some classes and abilities are meant to be better than others.

 

[Dandu]

Why should someone who loves fencing, Zorro, swashbuckling and Errol Flynn be forced to suck when he brings his Fighter/Duelist to the table? Can you see how this sort of thing might not be fun for a player?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I avoid dungeon.wiki and dandiwiki like the plague, everything I see there seems horribly unbalanced and poorly thought out.

Those feats are actually not that OP, albeit really dumb, IMHO. But your reasoning is unsound.

1) IME enemies make saves freaking often, it's the reason no save spells or ones that do something decent even on a success are so popular (well, the biggest reason...), there is no crisis of unbeatable saves. I'm strongly considering a tailored RAISING of save DCs to make certain types of spells more appealing compared to others. Direct damage getting a massive save boost, for example. Or save or die getting a penalty to make them less effective. The current system is too static, so you end up with spells like Unluck or Mind Fog that do cool things on a failed save, nothing on a success, but people respond "if I can get them to fail a save for that, why not just use a spell that will end the fight?" If the save DCs weren't the same for those spells, then that wouldn't necessarily be equatable any more. /rant

In any case, those feats don't help the problem, because the best way to screw someone over on a save spell is to target a weak save. Weak saves are almost always weak saves because it has a poor base progression for the creature. Your feat boosts the base component, and so will have neglible benefit for those who really need it. It's actually better as a fail-safe on a strong save in case of rolling a 1.

2) You could make the feats open to any class and thus avoid the gamist element you inserted, and I can guarantee you most full casters won't bother to take any of those feats and those that do would be nerfing themselves. They have better options already.

 

[kitcik]

albeit really dumb, IMHO.

Unnecessarily nasty as I simply made a post regarding homebrew feats.

In any case, those feats don't help the problem, because the best way to screw someone over on a save spell is to target a weak save. Weak saves are almost always weak saves because it has a poor base progression for the creature. Your feat boosts the base component, and so will have neglible benefit for those who really need it. It's actually better as a fail-safe on a strong save in case of rolling a 1.

Let's say you are a 10th level Ranger and your saves are +7 / +7 / +3 and you take Surge of Will. Let's say your Wis is 12.

Someone casts "save or suck" 5th level spell with a DC 19 Will save.

Your chance to fail before feat: roll 15 or higher --> 70%

Your chance to fail after feat: 65% (fail first after +1 from feat) x 50% (fail second with +3x2 +1 Wis +1 feat) --> 32.5%

Seems way more than negligible to me... in fact, it's the equivalent in this case of getting about +8 on this save (and +1 on all other Will saves that day).

I understand math can sometimes be challenging.

 

[kitcik]

To be honest, it sounds like you're in a WoW mindframe or something where supposedly everything absolutely must be balanced. That's just not how D&D works. Let's face it, some classes and abilities are meant to be better than others.

I don't like WOW or 4E. I am not interested in everything being balanced. I am simply interested in things not being so freaking unbalanced that anyone who does not play a full caster is useless at higher levels.

As I have said before, full caster = Tier 1, fighter, et al, = Tier 5. ToB = Tier 3. Better, but no cigar. Let's at least get a melee class or two into Tier 2 and call it a day.

A little more boost, without wildly changing the game mechanics, couldn't hurt IMHO. But that is just an opinion (albeit mine).

 

[Dandu]

Tier 3-4 is where the game works best, though.