"Flipping" saves to attacks

[AllisterH]

DM: "Okay, the enemy wizard casts Confusion on all of you.... Oops, natural 20. Sorry, guys. Now, we can play out all of you killing each other and the bad guys mopping up the survivors if you want, or you can just start making new characters now. Which do you prefer?"

That's a problem.

Then again, a natural 20 might be like a skill roll where it doesn't mean automatic success. Thus, even if their spellcasting roll is at max, depending on the class/race/feat/talent combo, characters might still survive it without much trouble.

 

[Grog]

Then again, a natural 20 might be like a skill roll where it doesn't mean automatic success. Thus, even if their spellcasting roll is at max, depending on the class/race/feat/talent combo, characters might still survive it without much trouble.

Well, assuming that average spellcasting "defense" numbers are roughly on par with average spellcasting "attack" modifiers, you'd have to have some pretty extreme bonuses to be able to negate a natural 20, even if it wasn't an autosuccess. I don't want my players to have to make super min-maxed characters just to cope with a weakness in the game system.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry, I did not understand you question. Can you remake it please?

You dislike that, in Saga, where we're both wielding 20/x2 weapons, 5% of my attacks against you will be critical hits, and 5% of your attacks against me will be critical hits.

In 3E, if I've got a 19-20/x2 weapon (like a longsword), and you've got a 19-20/x2 weapon, then 10% of my hits will be criticals, and 10% of your hits will be criticals. And if we both hit roughly 50% of the time with our attacks (not a bad assumption), then 5% of my attacks against you will be critical hits, and 5% of your attacks against me will be critical hits.

Or, in other words, two equal opponents, with equal skill, in either system will crit each other just as often.

Why is Saga's flat 5% so bad, then?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In practice, when you used a spell versus a group of monsters, if a lower level mook actually passed their saving throw, it was something of a rarity. So why bother rolling it since the mooks really aren't going to be a factor in the battle?

To hear some folks you'd think Fireball was only ever used against "mooks."

1d6 damage per caster level, assuming a group of targets who are roughly your equal, is going to average out to some serious damage.

All of the Evocation spells scale so well with caster level that they are almost always a good opening or finishing spell against opponents who have about the same number of hit dice as you have caster levels.

If my adventuring party rounds the corner and finds itself facing down an evil adventuring party, the exact (but evil!) mirror image of my own, I'd definitely consider a fireball a worthy contribution to the fight. Likewise, is there anybody in our heroic party that particularly relishes the thought of being Fireballed by my evil twin? Show of hands?

I think we might see a revision of these spells where . . . the target simply takes the effect as if the spellcaster had rolled a lower spellcasting value.

I'd bank on that! The description of "25th level spells" leads me to believe that there will be far fewer "spells" (probably grouped into themes or templates) and that they will have a variable effect based on a spellcasting roll, or your caster level, or both. To me, a "25th level spell" simply means, "A spell cast at 25th caster level of power."

 

[MarkB]

You dislike that, in Saga, where we're both wielding 20/x2 weapons, 5% of my attacks against you will be critical hits, and 5% of your attacks against me will be critical hits.

In 3E, if I've got a 19-20/x2 weapon (like a longsword), and you've got a 19-20/x2 weapon, then 10% of my hits will be criticals, and 10% of your hits will be criticals. And if we both hit roughly 50% of the time with our attacks (not a bad assumption), then 5% of my attacks against you will be critical hits, and 5% of your attacks against me will be critical hits.

As I recall, your original statement suggested that this ratio pertained regardless of each character's AC. If you vary the AC of one participant, then he will no longer be hit an average of 50% of the time, and thus the percentage of attacks against him that are criticals will also vary.

 

[MarkB]

One concept I really dislike in a D&D context is that of opponents being divided into "mooks" and non-mooks. I much prefer 3.xe's approach of all PCs, NPCs and monsters being built on essentially the same ruleset and being subject to the same rules. I very much hope that 4e does not introduce the concept of 'mooks' as a formal classification with game-mechanical implications.

One option for variable results from single-attack area effects would be to give each such effect an 'epicentre' of half the spell's total area radius. Against creatures within that epicentre, your spell gains, say, a +5 bonus to its attack roll. That would allow for variable spell effects across a group of identical creatures - but on the other hand, applying two area templates whenever you cast an area-effect spell would add more book-keeping back into the game.

 

[F4NBOY]

You dislike that, in Saga, where we're both wielding 20/x2 weapons, 5% of my attacks against you will be critical hits, and 5% of your attacks against me will be critical hits.

In 3E, if I've got a 19-20/x2 weapon (like a longsword), and you've got a 19-20/x2 weapon, then 10% of my hits will be criticals, and 10% of your hits will be criticals. And if we both hit roughly 50% of the time with our attacks (not a bad assumption), then 5% of my attacks against you will be critical hits, and 5% of your attacks against me will be critical hits.

Or, in other words, two equal opponents, with equal skill, in either system will crit each other just as often.

Why is Saga's flat 5% so bad, then?

Now I got it.

But that's not true, in D&D weapons do have different crit ranges, but a 19 is not a crit unless I can hit you with a 19, so our ACs also matter. In D&D you also need to confirm the crit, so AC matters once again. Using the example you gave, if my AC is higher than yours, we're not gonna crit each other the same % of the time. My chances of confirming my crits will be higher than yours.

Of course, if we have the same attack bonus, same weapon, same AC, same feats, we're gonna crit each other the same % of the time in D&D

But in SAGA, no matter the weapon, attack bonus, and AC, we WILL critical hit eachs other 5% of the time. It's pure luck.

In D&D, if I know you are a powerful opponent, I can fight defensively, so the chances you have of getting a crit, and confirming a crit will be lower.

In SAGA nothing else matter, only the dice.

OBS: To be 100% correct, there is a jedi knight talent in SAGA that increases the crit range of the lightsaber. Can't remember anything else like that. But anyway, it's still pure luck.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As I recall, your original statement suggested that this ratio pertained regardless of each character's AC. If you vary the AC of one participant, then he will no longer be hit an average of 50% of the time, and thus the percentage of attacks against him that are criticals will also vary.

Yes, but we're the same "power," so roughly the same AC.

And as our ACs moves up, then the percentage of attacks that are crits will decrease slightly, and as it moves down, then the percentage of attacks that are crits will increase slightly.

Still, I'm still critting him about as often as he's critting me.

 

[MarkB]

Yes, but we're the same "power," so roughly the same AC.

And as our ACs moves up, then the percentage of attacks that are crits will decrease slightly, and as it moves down, then the percentage of attacks that are crits will increase slightly.

Still, I'm still critting him about as often as he's critting me.

On the contrary, there are so many different character builds available even amongst straight fighter-types that two characters of the same overall power might have wildly differing ACs. And those differences will alter the percentage of attacks against them that are critical hits - at least under 3e rules. Not under SWS rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Now I got it.

But that's not true, in D&D weapons do have different crit ranges, but a 19 is not a crit unless I can hit you with a 19,

Correct. However, assuming you can hit me across the threat range of your weapon, the percentage of criticals with respect to hits will be the same as your threat range.

If we can only hit each other on natural 20s, then we're still both critting each other exactly the same amount; it's just not very often.

if my AC is higher than yours,

... then we're not "equal" opponents, are we?

Moreover, consider the case that your AC is a couple points higher than mine. Now you crit and confirm 5% of the time, and I crit and confirm 4% of the time. Then, you Fight Defensively, and you crit and confirm 3% of the time, and I crit and confirm 3% of the time.

Are these changes really adding all that much at the table?

But in SAGA, no matter the weapon, attack bonus, and AC, we WILL critical hit eachs other 5% of the time. It's pure luck.

Yep - apart from higher-level abilities which modify that, or talents which let me reroll attacks, or the fact that I'm using Rapid Shot and adding additional dice to even my normal attacks, etc.

OBS: To be 100% correct, there is a jedi knight talent in SAGA that increases the crit range of the lightsaber. Can't remember anything else like that. But anyway, it's still pure luck.

Actually, there're two lightsaber-specific talents like that: Juyo, which lets you reroll your first attack of the round against a particular opponent and keep the better of the two; and Vaapad, which expands the crit range to 19-20.

There's also the Scoundrel talent Lucky Shot (1/day reroll an attack and take the better of the two; can be taken multiple times; 1 prereq talent).