Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8522553" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I mean, there are already spells that do this exact thing--where they have a spell attack roll, rather than forcing a saving throw. And, mathematically, it should be pretty much the same thing either way: someone rolls a d20 and adds bonuses, which are usually soft-capped. It's not <em>perfectly</em> equivalent since (for example) it's usually easier to gain advantage on your own rolls than to force disadvantage on an enemy's rolls, but plenty of features apply symmetrically. Since, yes, attack rolls tend to be easier to juice up, that would warrant keeping the numbers more modest on the proposed stuff.</p><p></p><p>But...well, you seem to be fixating on "this ONE SPECIFIC proposal, which can be read as being unbalanced-as-stated," rather than considering the whole thing in bulk. Again, I've mentioned my own proposal, which requires a <em>sequence</em> of successful attack rolls in order to access the powerful spells. That is, in principle, actually a <em>harder</em> requirement than saving throws, because even if you have a 90% chance to succeed on any given attack, and you need 4 hits in order to cast a particular spell, you only have (0.9^4) = 0.6561, a 65.61% chance to succeed. If you have a more normal ~65% chance to succeed on any given attack, your chance to pull off the overall spell drops to only 17.85%. And most enemies don't have more than an 80% chance to pass a save! That's the whole reason I made that proposal, it actually <em>leverages</em> the difficulty of iterative probability to make big spells costly but justifiably powerful, while smaller spells are nearly guaranteed to work but far less powerful as a result.</p><p></p><p>So, ignoring the thing that you found innately problematic (though I disagree with that assessment), would you find <em>this</em> proposal close enough to the realm of reasonable that, if genuinely iterated on and playtested and not simply yeeted onto the page with reckless abandon, it might actually be fine?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8522553, member: 6790260"] I mean, there are already spells that do this exact thing--where they have a spell attack roll, rather than forcing a saving throw. And, mathematically, it should be pretty much the same thing either way: someone rolls a d20 and adds bonuses, which are usually soft-capped. It's not [I]perfectly[/I] equivalent since (for example) it's usually easier to gain advantage on your own rolls than to force disadvantage on an enemy's rolls, but plenty of features apply symmetrically. Since, yes, attack rolls tend to be easier to juice up, that would warrant keeping the numbers more modest on the proposed stuff. But...well, you seem to be fixating on "this ONE SPECIFIC proposal, which can be read as being unbalanced-as-stated," rather than considering the whole thing in bulk. Again, I've mentioned my own proposal, which requires a [I]sequence[/I] of successful attack rolls in order to access the powerful spells. That is, in principle, actually a [I]harder[/I] requirement than saving throws, because even if you have a 90% chance to succeed on any given attack, and you need 4 hits in order to cast a particular spell, you only have (0.9^4) = 0.6561, a 65.61% chance to succeed. If you have a more normal ~65% chance to succeed on any given attack, your chance to pull off the overall spell drops to only 17.85%. And most enemies don't have more than an 80% chance to pass a save! That's the whole reason I made that proposal, it actually [I]leverages[/I] the difficulty of iterative probability to make big spells costly but justifiably powerful, while smaller spells are nearly guaranteed to work but far less powerful as a result. So, ignoring the thing that you found innately problematic (though I disagree with that assessment), would you find [I]this[/I] proposal close enough to the realm of reasonable that, if genuinely iterated on and playtested and not simply yeeted onto the page with reckless abandon, it might actually be fine? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?
Top