Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 9413811" data-attributes="member: 20564">No, I got your point, I just disagree with it.No it doesn't.&nbsp; It's rarely about health, it's about save-or-suck effects, from spells like Banishment to a Monk's Stunning Strike.&nbsp; As I said in the part you &quot;solidly agreed with&quot;, it's to keep the creature getting their actions.&nbsp; Various save effects that have nothing to do with health but do about action denial, lockdown and/or debuff are a critical part of it.Which regardless of it's truth (and I will debate that as well), is still entirely secondary.We solidly agree (your words) on what the goal of Legendary Saves are.&nbsp; Not one lick of that goal is &quot;provide characters with normal spellcasting incentives&quot;.That's not the goal of Legendary Saves, and any change which prioritizes that over the actual goal we agree on is, by literal definition, flawed.Now, if you want to do a complete rework of it which meets both the primary goal and, without reducing it's effectiveness, also adds in this secondary goal, I think that would be a real winner.&nbsp; I'd play with it.&nbsp; But reducing the primary goal is a non-starter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 9413811, member: 20564"] No, I got your point, I just disagree with it. No it doesn't. It's rarely about health, it's about save-or-suck effects, from spells like Banishment to a Monk's Stunning Strike. As I said in the part you "solidly agreed with", it's to keep the creature getting their actions. Various save effects that have nothing to do with health but do about action denial, lockdown and/or debuff are a critical part of it. Which regardless of it's truth (and I will debate that as well), is still entirely secondary. We solidly agree (your words) on what the goal of Legendary Saves are. Not one lick of that goal is "provide characters with normal spellcasting incentives". That's not the goal of Legendary Saves, and any change which prioritizes that over the actual goal we agree on is, by literal definition, flawed. Now, if you want to do a complete rework of it which meets both the primary goal and, without reducing it's effectiveness, also adds in this secondary goal, I think that would be a real winner. I'd play with it. But reducing the primary goal is a non-starter. [/QUOTE]

Verification