[Fixing 5E] Saving Throws - Fortitude Reflex Will

[CapnZapp]

Hey Capp,

I created a system a while back to address the multitude of issues around saving throws. I still use it and highly recommend it. See http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkWNvU8TD

I think the distribution of saves and especially how they work on monsters is very important. That largely influenced the combinations I made. Under your combination system spells that target Reflex would become the best spells by far as monsters have low dex and int in general. This would be a poor result imo.

I would also not recommend using "the better of system". I'd recommend average of the ability scores, otherwise dumps have no consequences.

This sounds quite interesting. It is apparent you have put a lot of thought into this. I'll give it a read. Thank you

Do you happen to have discussed this previously? (I'm thinking of another forum thread - no reason asking you questions if those have already been discussed previously )

 

[Kryx]

I proposed it here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?492364-Balanced-Abilities-and-Saving-Throws

Though I involved a bit more options in the original OP that I don't use now (attacks vs reflex).

I have a spreadsheet that has all the distribution of saving throws: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1827749822
The original monster math comes from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...pts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=14309157 I had some other combinations originally, but as I mentioned above Reflex became by far the easiest to hit. I could put those numbers together again if you wish.

If you really wanted an even 2/2/2 split con+cha might work. Charisma is basically the spirit which covers similar things as the body (curse, possession, etc) while the body prevents changes to your body (levitate, poison, disease, etc).
I'm curious so I'll put together those numbers now.
EDIT: Ran the math (Success Rates under "Monster con/cha"). You'd end up with monsters succeeding on 49% of all fort saves, 46% of all reflex saves, and 41% of all will saves. Which is worse than 47,46,46 from the system I use. Therefore I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thank you.

Just a few assorted bits.

The Fortitude and Will counterparts to Reflex Evasion was indeed much less visible. I don't recall their names either.

The fact you can negate or remove effects from failed saves are great; but it does not excuse having to make saving throws with essentially no chance of success in the first place.

As for good/average/poor saves, I'm not so sure. My problem is that poor saves are too poor.

If the game featured save DCs in the 10-20 range and never higher, I could accept poor saves as low as, say, +4. You would need to roll a 16 to make such a save, which would grant you a 20% chance. That's about as low as I'd make any check. Maybe have an actual negative ability bonus lower that (so if you have an 8, your bonus would only be +3).

But there are two problems with that: One, the game does not limit save DCs to 20. Two, having a save lower than +4 is not a fluke. Almost every character will have one save lower than +4. In fact, most characters will have as many as three saves lower than +4.

It just doesn't add up. Not if you want to say "the game handles epic save DCs well". It just doesn't.

Now, making the game use Fort/Ref/Will fixes a lot of these problems. No, save DCs can still be higher than 20. But the probability of a character having more than one impossible save is much lower.

And if the player truly can't stand having such a low save, fixing it is just one Resilience feat away.

Even if both your Reflex and Intelligence is 10, you would still sport a +6 Reflex save at 20th level with a Resilience feat.

And versus a DC 22 or 24 save, that's just the bare minimum of what feels reasonable.

If, on the other hand, you feel the need for better saves is overblown, and that mitigating the effects of failing a save is as easy as you say, then: congratulations, that Resilience is not a must have, it is not a feat tax. Looks like a win win scenario to me

Based on what you've stated above, have you considered simply setting a baseline value for saves (in addition to or instead of the above ideas)? Maybe something like your saving throw bonus cannot be lower than +0 at 3rd level, +1 at 7th, +2 at 11th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 19th. This way PCs always have a chance to make their poor saves, without making success more likely with their good saves. It's also a change that requires effectively no rewriting of other abilities. Just a thought.

EDIT:
Also, you could add in auto-success on a 20 and auto-failure on a 1. This way, in extreme cases, a character has at least a 5% chance of success or failure.

 

[Kryx]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]: I ran the numbers on con/cha like I mentioned above and put the edit above.

Ran the math (Success Rates under "Monster con/cha"). You'd end up with monsters succeeding on 49% of all fort saves, 46% of all reflex saves, and 41% of all will saves. Which is worse than 47,46,46 from the system I use. Therefore I wouldn't recommend it.

I spent a lot of time on this area and have a good understanding of all the variables involved so let me know if you have any questions. Also feel free to PM me if you'd rather discuss over chat.

 

[One_Shots]

What we are talking about are the cases at high level when they're not easy to get out of. In fact, we're taking about how this edition can create situations when it is outright impossible to make your save.

Firstly, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and secondly, I think you haven't played high level 5e if that's what you think.

But please - please don't make any further posts until you understand the problem I'm having and you agree it is a real concern. Thank you.

I'm not allowed to post unless I agree with you? Are you seriously that fragile that you can't handle criticism of your ideas?

 

[Kryx]

I'm not allowed to post unless I agree with you? Are you seriously that fragile that you can't handle criticism of your ideas?

Likely more accurately he's tired of those like you wishing to impose your view of the game on him.

He has identified some issues, you don't agree. You state that if you desire to and then move on.

Making statements like the following is incredibly rude and condescending:

I think you haven't played high level 5e if that's what you think.

 

[One_Shots]

Likely more accurately he's tired of those like you wishing to impose your view of the game on him.

Are you serious? How am I imposing anything on anyone by merely discussing a subject on a public forum that the OP posted? To say I'm imposing anything is hyperbolic absurdity. I provided some points that even he agreed were relevant and then because I disagreed on something, I get attacked.

Perhaps it's you who's doing the imposing here. Have you thought about that? You certainly seem to want to shut down any actual conversation or discussion of the subject that doesn't agree with your own views.

You state that if you desire to and then move on.

I did move on, until I was forced to defend myself against you and him.

Making statements like the following is incredibly rude and condescending:

No it's not. I've played high level games extensively and have not found any of this to be an issue. This is one of those areas where on paper, in isolation, you're seeing a problem, but at the table that problem just doesn't exist. Between high level spells, abilities and items, it's actually almost impossible to seriously harm even a group with only a small amount of play experience.

But you're welcome to disagree with me. Unlike you, I don't need to give permission to people to do so.

 

[Kryx]

Definitely serious. People experience games differently and you're telling him his experience means he hasn't played the game (in other words his experience is wrong).

Ain't nobody got time to be spoken to in that manner.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not allowed to post unless I agree with you? Are you seriously that fragile that you can't handle criticism of your ideas?

No, that is not it. It is simply not helpful to say, "it is not a problem." When it is a problem for him. He has already identified a pronlem and he is asking for help fixing it. So any reasonable person would want posters to focus on helping solve, that is just more efficient (and frankly it is more kind).

 

[dave2008]

Hey Capp,

I created a system a while back to address the multitude of issues around saving throws. I still use it and highly recommend it. See http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkWNvU8TD

I think the distribution of saves and especially how they work on monsters is very important. That largely influenced the combinations I made. Under your combination system spells that target Reflex would become the best spells by far as monsters have low dex and int in general. This would be a poor result imo.

I would also not recommend using "the better of system". I'd recommend average of the ability scores, otherwise dumps have no consequences.

Kryx,
That's a great system - thank you for sharing! Did you look at possible the old 4e method, but with averages?

Fort = average of STR and CON
Reflex = average of DEX and INT
Will = average of WIS and CHA

That being said I kind of like Reflex as STR + DEX, thought there was something compelling to the idea by being smart enough you could sorta predict how things were going down and could thus react (Reflex) better.

I think I might use your system for attacks (use Reflex for mundane and Will for magic attacks and DCs, not sure about Fortitude attacks) too and even many ability checks. I would keep the 6 abilities (save and checks), but they would generally be secondary and used only in special situations.