Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6919697" data-attributes="member: 12731">Assuming it is, a few thoughts:First I consider the way Fort saves aren't based on averages a potential weakness, but when I realized you are probably counting on the fact that Con is the least likely ability to be "average", I see that might not be an issue after all. Nice.Then, a question. Am I right in guessing you're not actually planning to change how a feat such as Resilient works? That is, you still need to pick an actual ability for the feat, rather than directly picking something like Reflex or Will?One concern however, and this is more like a review of your document than anything else. You present a lot of numbers. But I'm afraid that assumes an equal distribution of monsters, which is highly unlikely in practice. The overall idea is still sound, but to present numbers with your degree of accuracy isn't really appropriate here. Intelligence saves might account for 2% of the saves in the Monster Manual, but after meeting three NPC wizards all casting Feeblemind, that number loses all relevance. I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong. I'm just asking you to consider that equality on paper might not be such a valuable measure to strive for. And perhaps to replace percentage numbers (that suggest accuracy) with less defined terms. For example:Strength saves: Common overall, common damage, common hard control, and pervasive light control.Intelligence saves: Very rare overall, pervasive damage, pervasive hard control, common light control.By avoiding putting numbers on it, you avoid implicitly suggesting the numbers mean something, that they're scientifically calculated. When in reality they might mean nothing at all, and will probably vary wildly from one campaign to the next. After all, you are only describing trends, and vague likelyhoods.</blockquote>

Verification