"Flipping" saves to attacks

[DonTadow]

This (autocrit on a 20) is one of the few rules that I really didn't like in SAGA. As a number of other people have said, it makes defenses useless after a certain point, and brings back the glass ninja problem to D20. It also makes mooks more dangerous, since the only damage they'll end up doing is a critical hit...an orc with a great axe can be a real threat to a medium level character if he gets an attack off.

A number of people have said "that's a good thing," and I can't disagree more: what's the point of having mook rules to make a class of opponents less dangerous, while also making them significantly more dangerous in a way that's not immediately apparent. Might be good for a Grim Tales game, but it's less than heroic.

The house rule I use for SAGA is that if the attack would not have hit the target's Reflex defense, the 20 hits, but only has normal effect. It's worked quite well for now.

--Steve

You're thinking in terms of 3rd edition, and ou got to step out the box. Maybe mooks don't crit. There's your answer. Or mooks don't crit as much. Or a 20 crit in 4e is completely different, maybe even nothing to do with damage at all



Step outside the box of 3e.

 

[DonTadow]

This has been one of the changes I welcomed in D&D 3.X. In my games critical threats rarely come up, so there's no noticeable slowdown.
In fact, it's more dramatic because you have to confirm it with another roll. It's definitely a memorable event when it happens.

In everygame I've played its pretty much aforgone conclusion or impossible to begin with, so the "drama" is not there. Plus its one of those times where the rpg focuses on the "gamey" aspect of it instead of the role playing aspect.

More drama in
1 attack, crit, describe attack

than

1 attack, crit, wait confirm the crit, what's the creature's ac?, miss but still hit

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Making multi-target spells all or nothing is so obviously problematic that there's no way that Mearls would let it ride (without changing some other core 3e mechanic to compensate...).

 

[AllisterH]

I can see both sides of the argument but personally I'm leaning towards the "saga" method.

THe worry that "it is all or nothing" isn't exactly true IME.

For example, if you're a 10th level mage throwing a fireball against a CR 1 opponent, it doesn;t really matter whether or not they succeed since they're toasted either way. If it is against an equivalent level foe, you don't bother using an area-spell since the area-level spell tends to be "weak" against an entire group of same CR creatures so that isn't an issue.

The most likely scenario is using a fireball against the BBEG, his two lieutenants and the cannon fodder. In this scenario, wouldn't the "defense" of each creature be different thus, in effect, you get the same thing as before? Namely, the fireball affects the group differently?

 

[drothgery]

Making multi-target spells all or nothing is so obviously problematic that there's no way that Mearls would let it ride (without changing some other core 3e mechanic to compensate...).

How about a wholesale dumping of multi-target 'save negates' spells? In D&D 3.x the horde of low-level kobold warriors are probably dead even if they make the save against your fireball...

 

[DonTadow]

Making multi-target spells all or nothing is so obviously problematic that there's no way that Mearls would let it ride (without changing some other core 3e mechanic to compensate...).

Obviously problematic, there's only one problem, what if it misses. There are more solutions for this problem that have been listed.

There are two problems whichis worse
1. DM headache in rolling for each creature. Micromanaging each creature
2. Spells may be ineffective or actions may be wasted on bad rolls

1 is the worst problem right now . Takes a lot of time away from the DM, makes the RPG gamey and causes dm turns to be longer making for board players.
2. really just hurts the feelings of the wizards.

The drama is increased with 2. Every incantation and ritual must be done right. The wizard gets the same thrill of do or die that the fighter does.

to fix the problems with 2 you can
1. give minimum effects per spell regardless of roll

Now the wizard feels good.

 

[SteveC]

You're thinking in terms of 3rd edition, and ou got to step out the box. Maybe mooks don't crit. There's your answer. Or mooks don't crit as much. Or a 20 crit in 4e is completely different, maybe even nothing to do with damage at all



Step outside the box of 3e.

...and you're right here. If the mook mechanic ends up working that way, then that would be an example of good design. That's not the way it works in SAGA, however, so porting it wholesale would be, in my opinion, a bad thing.

At this point we don't know too much about the game, so everything that's said by anyone should be taken with a huge block of salt. The Internet being what it is, however, we're still going to have, I don't know, a couple thousand threads on speculation before 4E comes out.

I trust the designers to make improvements, and I'm definitely going to pick up the core three books, but I figure I also have a responsibility to comment on things I think are bad until the books are finalized.

--Steve

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

How about a wholesale dumping of multi-target 'save negates' spells? In D&D 3.x the horde of low-level kobold warriors are probably dead even if they make the save against your fireball...

Well, fireball isn't a save negates spell.

The save-for-half spells are much more granular. They have a variable amount of damage (variable effect), AND they have some effect regardless of the outcome of the save.

The "expected efficacy" graph of Fireball looks VERY different from the "expected efficacy" graph of Deep Slumber, which also has a much different expected efficacy than Stinking Cloud. (Stinking Cloud, at least, helps control the battlefield by sticking around...)

Those spells graph VERY differently when you start looking at batch saving throws. With batch saving throws, Fireball remains a curve, because the damage is a curve.

The other two spells are hammered flat by batch saving throws. They are either 100% effecitive against 100% of the enemy, or they are 0% effective against 100% of the enemy.

It's just not feasible. It is obviously bad design. Mearls is not a bad designer. Ergo, this is NOT what we will see.

As others have stated, you will most likely see some kind of granularity built into every spell effect.

 

[DonTadow]

Well, fireball isn't a save negates spell.

The save-for-half spells are much more granular. They have a variable amount of damage (variable effect), AND they have some effect regardless of the outcome of the save.

The "expected efficacy" graph of Fireball looks VERY different from the "expected efficacy" graph of Deep Slumber, which also has a much different expected efficacy than Stinking Cloud. (Stinking Cloud, at least, helps control the battlefield by sticking around...)

Those spells graph VERY differently when you start looking at batch saving throws. With batch saving throws, Fireball remains a curve, because the damage is a curve.

The other two spells are hammered flat by batch saving throws. They are either 100% effecitive against 100% of the enemy, or they are 0% effective against 100% of the enemy.

It's just not feasible. It is obviously bad design. Mearls is not a bad designer. Ergo, this is NOT what we will see.

As others have stated, you will most likely see some kind of granularity built into every spell effect.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz snoooooooooooozzzzzzzzze

Oh is it time to wake up. All that math bored the heck out of me. Not too many players are going to start pulling out graph paper trying to tranglate the theory of fireball because a goblim takes 1.2343 damage than he used to.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz snoooooooooooozzzzzzzzze

Oh is it time to wake up. All that math bored the heck out of me. Not too many players are going to start pulling out graph paper trying to tranglate the theory of fireball because a goblim takes 1.2343 damage than he used to.

Well, I wouldn't want to tranglate your fun. You just keep buying your games from the Happy Game Fairies who come out of the woodwork at night to design games by sprinkling magic pixie dust on bags of dice.