hobgoblin Resilience
- Thread starter zlorf
- Start date
There is no "initial save", just their defense score (which actually serves much of the role that old-style Saving Throws served in earlier D&D editions). Normally (that is, unless some rule specifically says otherwise), the first save isn't rolled until the end of the individual under the effect's next round, and it's a simple "d20 roll, 10+ saves" unless explicit modifiers apply.
Hobgoblins get to roll a save immediately (once per encounter), which is a big bonus because it means they might not even suffer a single round of the effect.
Of course, for the progressive effects (minor effect initially, worse effect upon failing one or more saves, such as Sleep or Medusa turn-to-stone), the bonus save can actually make things WORSE, as you fall to the worse stages more quickly. So there may be times when they would be smarter to NOT use their ability.
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
Personally, I don't ever allow a character to be worse off because he was given an extra attempt to save. In the examples you give, I wouldn't have a character (or NPC) worsen until they failed a normal save. The alternative is that often extra saves will have no actual effect on the final outcome, just the speed at which the situation progresses (for better or worse).
Last edited:
Agreed. I am considering a similar house rule myself, and I mentioned the issue primarily to see if anyone else considered it a problem. Hobgoblins being unusually affected by Sleep is far less an issue than a Cleric/Paladin attempting to help someone out of gradual Petrification only to accelerate the process when the die rolls low.
abyssaldeath
First Post
I think it the risk you take for using the power. Think about the Halflings racial "second chance". It makes that attcker roll to hit again and they have to use the new result. What if they roll a crit? Are you going to just make it a normal hit?
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
Edit: Responding to JGulik, not abyssaldeath.
Yeah. As I'm sure you're aware, the issue isn't merely that it accelerates the process -- it's that the chance of a best-case final outcome doesn't actually improve at all.
For save-ends effects with no penalty on failure, extra saves are nifty. As written, for situations where fails are bad, they're pretty much value-neutral. As soon as I became aware of the implications of extra saves on things like petrification, I immediately decided my houserule was required, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was intended to work like that, even though the text of the rules offers no actual support for such a ruling.
@abbysaldeath: The halfling feat in your example can be relied upon to provide better or equivalent results almost every time. The odds of a worse result don't outweigh, or even equal, the odds of a better or equivalent one. The only reason (based on the odds) not to use it is because you think it might be more useful later.
OTOH, with extra saves vs progressively worse effects, you're making a decision to live/die quickly or live/die at the normal rate. But you don't effect the chances of living or dying at all. If you're happy with that, cool. It doesn't sit right with me, though.
Essentially, using Second Chance might hurt you, but it reliably increases your odds of surviving the fight. Using a bonus save on the sorts of effects we're discussing has zero net effect on your odds of survival.
Yeah. As I'm sure you're aware, the issue isn't merely that it accelerates the process -- it's that the chance of a best-case final outcome doesn't actually improve at all.
For save-ends effects with no penalty on failure, extra saves are nifty. As written, for situations where fails are bad, they're pretty much value-neutral. As soon as I became aware of the implications of extra saves on things like petrification, I immediately decided my houserule was required, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was intended to work like that, even though the text of the rules offers no actual support for such a ruling.
@abbysaldeath: The halfling feat in your example can be relied upon to provide better or equivalent results almost every time. The odds of a worse result don't outweigh, or even equal, the odds of a better or equivalent one. The only reason (based on the odds) not to use it is because you think it might be more useful later.
OTOH, with extra saves vs progressively worse effects, you're making a decision to live/die quickly or live/die at the normal rate. But you don't effect the chances of living or dying at all. If you're happy with that, cool. It doesn't sit right with me, though.
Essentially, using Second Chance might hurt you, but it reliably increases your odds of surviving the fight. Using a bonus save on the sorts of effects we're discussing has zero net effect on your odds of survival.
Last edited:
I'm not sure they're even value-neutral. Time is a resource to be managed, just like AP and Healing Surges and Daily Powers. It's the whole "economy of actions" concept.
If I accelerate my save to end a normal (i.e., not progressively worse on failures) effect, I get the chance to act for an extra round without suffering its effects. That's clearly a good thing, one more suite of actions with less statuses reducing their value. The save itself is, in most cases, the same die roll I'd've done at the end of my turn, so moving it back in time only changes my status for this round.
But if I fail that bonus save and the effect is progressive, then I can take myself out of the fight a whole round sooner. And a round under a status, even a severe status like Weakened, is still far better than no round at all.
So I'm trading a 55% (ignoring any bonuses I may have due to my nature or the nature of the power granting the early save) of removing the status and a 45% chance of worsening it. That is only value neutral if the utility of my round of unimpaired vs. impaired actions is more than the reduced utility of my extra-impaired actions (perhaps no actions!) vs. the current impaired ones.
Using Sleep as an example, it's the relative value of (Normal) vs. (Slowed) with a 55% chance vs. (Slowed) vs. (Unconscious) with a 45% chance. Slowed is not anything like the limit Unconscious is in almost any situation, so I'm pretty sure I lose in terms of expected utility by getting the bonus save.
If I accelerate my save to end a normal (i.e., not progressively worse on failures) effect, I get the chance to act for an extra round without suffering its effects. That's clearly a good thing, one more suite of actions with less statuses reducing their value. The save itself is, in most cases, the same die roll I'd've done at the end of my turn, so moving it back in time only changes my status for this round.
But if I fail that bonus save and the effect is progressive, then I can take myself out of the fight a whole round sooner. And a round under a status, even a severe status like Weakened, is still far better than no round at all.
So I'm trading a 55% (ignoring any bonuses I may have due to my nature or the nature of the power granting the early save) of removing the status and a 45% chance of worsening it. That is only value neutral if the utility of my round of unimpaired vs. impaired actions is more than the reduced utility of my extra-impaired actions (perhaps no actions!) vs. the current impaired ones.
Using Sleep as an example, it's the relative value of (Normal) vs. (Slowed) with a 55% chance vs. (Slowed) vs. (Unconscious) with a 45% chance. Slowed is not anything like the limit Unconscious is in almost any situation, so I'm pretty sure I lose in terms of expected utility by getting the bonus save.
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
Hmm ... I suppose it depends what hard ratings of "loss of utility" you apply to various conditions. If you consider Slowed to be 100 times better than Unconscious, but Perfectly A-OK is only 10 times better than Slowed, you have a good point. We're moving into an area of extreme subjectivity there, though.
It's also worth noting that big bonuses to saves (which, admitedly, are very hard to come by) can make extra saves more useful. Penalties, OTOH, make bonus saves really bad.
It's also worth noting that big bonuses to saves (which, admitedly, are very hard to come by) can make extra saves more useful. Penalties, OTOH, make bonus saves really bad.
Extremely subjective, and also quite situational. The impact of a round Slowed to an in-position Defender is almost nothing, while to most Strikers or to severely out-of-position Defenders, it's pretty crippling.
And yes, bonuses make extra saves MUCH more worth having and penalties make them almost certainly undesirable if there's a progressive effect involved.
I suppose if I trust the person making the choice to evaluate it properly, then I leave them with the choice. But most other healing-style powers don't have such a distinct down-side risk.
And yes, bonuses make extra saves MUCH more worth having and penalties make them almost certainly undesirable if there's a progressive effect involved.
I suppose if I trust the person making the choice to evaluate it properly, then I leave them with the choice. But most other healing-style powers don't have such a distinct down-side risk.
Oompa
First Post
@ TS:
No, lets make an attack sequence..
Attacker: Makes an attack that has an effect that [save ends], Hobgoblin can chose to make an immediate reaction and make an save.. losing his encounter power when he does..
Fighter does his thing..
Hobgoblin: Can do his stuff and when his fist save failed or he needs to make two saves, he can make another save.. If the effect is ignored after the first save, the hobgoblin doesnt need to make an save now..
No, lets make an attack sequence..
Attacker: Makes an attack that has an effect that [save ends], Hobgoblin can chose to make an immediate reaction and make an save.. losing his encounter power when he does..
Fighter does his thing..
Hobgoblin: Can do his stuff and when his fist save failed or he needs to make two saves, he can make another save.. If the effect is ignored after the first save, the hobgoblin doesnt need to make an save now..
