D&D General Hot Take: D&D Has Not Recovered From 2E to 3.0 Transition

[Zardnaar]

I think I have a solution.

@Zardnaar , would you agree that if bad saves were only "somewhat" bad and not the almost guaranteed failure leading to a shutdown (like say hold person) situation we have now, it would be a lot better?

The design goal here would be not "bounded accuracy" but, uh, "bounded suckitude". I thought about how to do this, and I was writing this post in a "this is a desirable goal, but how to make it simple" form, but I found a partial solution.

Saves should always succeed on a X on the dice, not just 20. Say 15 - so your chance of making a save (where "you" is both the PCs but also NPCs and monsters) would never be worse than 30%

Should it be 15? 18? 12? Should this number change with level? I don't know. But I think that I've demonstrated that it can be done in a simple, easy to use and remember manner.

Well saves could be a flat save (DC20 was essentially the old ones), could be 10, 15 or whatever.

Divorceing saves from ability scores is another option 3E and 5E both did this.

DCs in both 3E and 5E get double whammy from ability score modifier and spellcaster going up in level (Spell level or proficiency bonus) on top of more power spells.

Or massive rewrites of the spells or something like the 3.5 Warmage being the most powerful caster available.

If you skipped 4E its a 22 year old tradition now.

Spell DC could also be 10+ ability modifier.

 

[Ancalagon]

Divorceing saves from ability scores is another option 3E and 5E both did this.

I don't understand this statement at all. In both 3.x, pathfinder and 5e games I've played, saves were linked to ability scores via the ability score modifier... unless you mean something different by divorce?

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't understand this statement at all. In both 3.x, pathfinder and 5e games I've played, saves were linked to ability scores via the ability score modifier... unless you mean something different by divorce?

Yeah that's a hot mess my bad.

3E and 5E conceptually saves scale based on your level and ability scores.

That might need to be dumped.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Spells should just not be balanced around the assumtion that you make the saving throws, but that you fail it

In 2e, you left out, that spell damage and duration and area of effect scaled dramatically with caster level.
Thus, if you failed a saving throw, the penalties got worse, but your chances to not be affected ever increased.

In 5e it is reversed: spell effects and duration are fixed. But it is easier for the caster to get the full effect and have it stick a few more rounds. Which in principle sounds like the better design.

I repeat, that the mistake of 5e is having some spells, where the initial saving throw totally removes a character from the game (like banishment, or suggestion or hypnotic pattern).

I think good design would be granting bonuses for the first saving throws in the initial round at higher character level. Actually that design exists (meta magic: heightened spell) already.
Maybe the best idea is just designing spells, to have an intial effect, that is lesser, then only at the second saving throw, the spell takes full effect.
So the slow spell might be only granting dazzled on the initial saving throw, or slow speed by half, then after failing your next saving throw, you become slowed.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Adding proficiency to all saves and a class bonus to the good ones is one thought I've had.

Please not. Having casters at high level, that can never stick a spell on enemies was something I had enough of in 2e.
Casters often just casted magic missile to actually feel that the turn was not just wasted.

That is not worse than 3.x but equally bad.

See my post above for a solution.

 

[Zardnaar]

Please not. Having casters at high level, that can never stick a spell on enemies was something I had enough of in 2e.
Casters often just casted magic missile to actually feel that the turn was not just wasted.

That is not worse than 3.x but equally bad.

See my post above for a solution.

I'm thinking direct dame sowlks don't matter to much, minior debuffs no save and crippling spells well you might wanna debuff to stick one.

Magic missile was decent back then but you also had power words. Spell design matters yes.

Things like finger of death and disintegrate deal damage the nasty effect is if they reduce you to 0hp.

 

[John R Davis]

On the OP.

Never in the field of gaming has one post been so wrong

 

[Horwath]

remove str, dex, con, int wis and cha saves category.

add/reintroduce charm/poison/disease/area(explosion)/traps/energy drain/illusion/endurance etc...

have a total of 8 to 10 categories.

everyone adds proficiency bonus to all saves, proficiency adds 2×prof bonus instead.

all classes give 2-4 saves. every subclass gives 1 save. Resilient feat gives +1 ASI and 2 save categories. Race/species/lineage might give advantage on saves in one or more categories.

 

[Ancalagon]

On the OP.

Never in the field of gaming has one post been so wrong

you need to read more posts

 

[Zardnaar]

remove str, dex, con, int wis and cha saves category.

add/reintroduce charm/poison/disease/area(explosion)/traps/energy drain/illusion/endurance etc...

have a total of 8 to 10 categories.

everyone adds proficiency bonus to all saves, proficiency adds 2×prof bonus instead.

all classes give 2-4 saves. every subclass gives 1 save. Resilient feat gives +1 ASI and 2 save categories. Race/species/lineage might give advantage on saves in one or more categories.

Leaning towards removing 5E 6 saves.

Go back to 3 or something like your suggestion.

Martials get an extra save proficiency or two with save 6+ saves.

Have also considered your expertise in a save as a class bonus.