D&D 4E 4E: Saving throws...

[Aloïsius]

I don't think wands will stack; a "wand" bonus should be named. If wands give a universal bonus, you'll only carry the best one you can get.

I though about + 6 for fireball, +4 for lightning bolt, +6 for cloudkill...

I hope there won't be an object that can give you +6 to ALL the offensive spells you cast.

 

[Dragonblade]

Does anyone think a +6 wand is scary? I thought DnD 4e would be less about the magic items, but (if I'm reading this right) that's double the save DC bonus granted by a Headband of Intellect?

I assume a +6 wand would be an epic level item.

 

[jeffh]

Rich Baker's already talked about this on his blog.

Re: "flipping" saves to attacks.

That's not necessarily confirmation that they're doing this. He said he'd discussed his thoughts on it. That discussion could have been hypothetical and/or about SWSE. Or even about why they'd decided against it. I can discuss my thoughts on a subject just as easily by saying "I think X is a stupid idea because..." as by saying "I'd really like to do X".

 

[Kwalish Kid]

All the classes have the same base bonus, which is equal to the character level. Since that's a tad too high for my taste, I'd cut the bonus to be equal to 1/2 the character level.

I suspect that for the math to work out, it pretty much has to be a bonus equal to the level. The idea is not to spread out the DCs too much. Attacks can't be spread out too much, because one idea is to reduce the chance that all of the PCs will go down to a single area effect from an opponent of equal (or appropriate) level. If attacks can't spread out too much, then neither can saves.

 

[The Grackle]

I though about + 6 for fireball, +4 for lightning bolt, +6 for cloudkill...

I hope there won't be an object that can give you +6 to ALL the offensive spells you cast.

I'm not sure wands boost spells at all, but rather your "wizard strike" class ability. It would be like a warlock getting a +6 to hit w/his eldritch blast.

That's what I inferred anyway.

 

[Victim]

A wand that can add +6 to spell damage is far LESS noteworthy than one that adds +6 to DC (or the attack roll if saves are flipped).

EDIT: words are important. Don't forget them.

 

[Branduil]

Do you think they'll try to eliminate spells that require both a touch attack and have a save?

 

[DreamChaser]

A wand that can add +6 to spell damage is far LESS noteworthy than one that adds +6 to DC (or the attack roll if saves are flipped).

EDIT: words are important. Don't forget them.

A very important thing to keep in mind is that any die roll is a potential penalty. The reason Save DCs are so rigidly fixed in 3.5 is that between 3.0 and 3.5 they realized they had given too many ways for casters to increase the DC of their spells and this causes problems for the defenders who possess an element of randomness that can easily ruin the day for them. Additionally, because each defender rolls individually, there is less of a chance of everyone saving.

If saves are flipped to defenses, the randomness moves from the defender to the attacker. This movement means that a bad role on a fireball = everyone taking half damage (a 1st level fighter or cleric would still have at least 10, barring a really sucky dexterity). Thus, a +X bonus to the spell attack makes sense. This allows the casters to keep some control over the efficacy of their powers while still streamlining the game to reduce the number of rolls.

(I tend to agree with the idea that the wands +X should not apply universally but should be thematically linked, much like a longsword +X gives a fighter a bonus to all attacks with the longsword but not with the longbow. Perhaps a Wand of Rays +2 would affect rays (and ranged touches in general, all of which are really rays), a Wand of Bursts +3 would affect bursts (like fireball) , a Wand of Strikes +1 would benefit melee touch attacks, etc.)

DC

ps. note that I am well aware the the terminology I used is based upon 3e and may become moot in 4e. Fireball may not have a "half damage" factor. (we have heard mention that fireball will no longer deal 1d6 damager per level so that sacred cow is off to the meat market, who knows what else has died with it).

 

[Green Knight]

I hope wands will still be keyed to a single spell... If they add their bonus to all the spells you cast, they will be such a no-brainer.

And I fear some wizards will have a dozen wands with them.

Your previous idea would lead to the second happening. If Wands only granted their bonus to one specific spell, then you'd find Wizards walking around wearing bandoliers carrying a dozen different wands. One for each of their most powerful spells.

Unless there is another "Poter-like" mechanism that force you to attune with only one wand.

That's a terrible idea, too. What would be so wrong with a wand granting a bonus to all spells cast? When you see Wizards using wands in books and such, they don't tend to tuck them away when they're casting a different spell. Take Harry Potter. Can you imagine how much it'd suck if his wand only worked for casting Expelliarmus?

 

[The Grackle]

Do you think they'll try to eliminate spells that require both a touch attack and have a save?

I think they'll eliminate touch attacks entirely.