Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6294173" data-attributes="member: 17106">Well, to an extent that's where the whole Christmas tree thing comes in. High level characters in the existing game will realize that a cloak of resistance is the most cost-effective item out there (while no comparable DC-boosting items exist). So the actual dynamic is not that the weak character is more vulnerable compared to his opposition, it's that he may only be slightly less vulnerable, where as really optimized characters rarely fail saves against anything at high levels.That is, if you simply take the average of all saving throw bonuses versus all typical DCs, the bonuses typically rise relative to the DCs with level. (Adding in more of a magic MAD element would make this even more true).If we were reimagining the math to where save bonuses and ability boosters aren't assumed, then I'm not sure what saving throws would/should look like. However, I do think we would want any difference between characters to scale with level to some extent; if your 20th level fighter only has the same advantage over his wizard pal that he had at level 1, something's not right.That can be an issue. I try not to build monsters that way, but these sorts of mathematical aberrations are remnants of the idea of treating monsters and characters differently. Squelching that idea, and making it so monster levels are as meaningful as PC levels and one doesn't just throw 10 HD on for the heck of it would stop this kind of situation from happening.Part of my in-depth PF 2e approach was to combine all numerical advancement and put it under one roof. That way there would be none of this business where you have a base save but you also potentially have feats, traits or other bonuses. Your save is your save, it scales the way it scales.I also think nonlinear advancement (the ability to reroll saves, for example) has different implications, and might allow for making characters different while keeping the raw numbers close.</blockquote>

Verification