Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kelleris" data-source="post: 1855466" data-attributes="member: 19130">Rikandur - Of course I'm willing to do so.  I have a +5 luck bonus to all saves that I could drop.  That would give me a lowly +19 to Will saves, but what're you gonna do?  Besides, having a single abysmal save can be quite entertaining, since it gives me something to worry about, plan for, and have fun facing up to the challenge of.  And it's my own fault for sticking with the 7 Wisdom for RP purposes.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Wrahn - Okay, then.  Point by point:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> That's the thing.  A certain kind of spellcaster can already do the most damage, the kind that doesn't rely on save or- spells.  Look at Caira, for example.  Facing NPCs with saves in the range that I've mentioned would not greatly affect her power one way or the other, because she pretty much bypasses the save mechanic anyway.  Buff casters, sneak-attack casters, and summoner casters are all viable at this level.  The master illusionist, the necromancer, and the artillery cannon really aren't, or their options are so restricted as to make them both predictable and boring.  Lowering our saves en masse would mean that we can add the latter to our list of potential foes without being (any more) overwhelmed by the former sort of casters. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> I am comparing saves against the wrong things?  I am explicitly comparing them to the save DCs of spells and spell-like abilities, which make up easily half of the save-requiring effects in the game.  Looking at the ELH, the same range is pretty good for most monster abilities, except for those that are just off the charts anyway.  That seems to me to be exactly the right thing to compare them to. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> More importantly, and not merely localized with your character, is the very point you so helpfully make in #8.  Our relative saves are all that matter as far as being well- or ill-equipped for challenges goes.  I'll say it again: I have no interest in really weakening anyone's character.  Lowering numbers that are, after all, completely abstract, is not really a weakening of you character in this particular context. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Yes, I perhaps it could (though I have my doubts).  However, there are two things that make saves worth worrying about more than simply being really, really good at what you're supposed to be really, really good at.  First, saves are ubiquitous.  If I lowered my skill checks and nobody else did, I'm just worse at what I do.  Lowering saves instead puts a range of interesting challenges within feasible terms, and doing it all at once means that we are all just as good overall, since we have a DM and not an unintelligent program running the game.  Second, there is the conflict of saves with another aspect of characters, their save DCs.  Save bonuses are a heck of a lot cheaper than DC bonuses, so unless we self-regulate saves become extremely high and eventually meaningless after a point.  For example, my skills can be matched by someone who puts as much work into finding people as I do into not being seen.  Sigrun's constructs can be matched by someone who puts as much work into creating an opposing army of constructs as he does.  However, if we all cheese out on our saves, someone who puts just as much work into his or her save DCs will just be hoping we roll a 1.  There's a fundamental disparity in ease-of-acquisition that isn't there in your other examples. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Yes, and that's why I propose we all do it as a group instead of one person doing it and relinquishing an advantage,  There is no advantage-relinquishing going on here whatsoever, in fact, and that's exactly my point.  Rahveon and Solarion will still be the guys with really good saves, I will still have a gaping hole for a Will save, and so forth.  The only difference is that everyone will be 5 points (say) lower, and a d20 will matter again.  All of this is not to say that there's no such thing as having too much of an advantage, which there certainly is and which I'm not prepared to accuse anyone of. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> So just drop the morale bonus from greater heroism.  Instead of making it an item of greater heroism, have it be an item that grants the same bonuses granted by greater heroism except the saving throw bonuses, and then subtract out the cost of a +4 morale bonus to all saves (32,000 by the guidelines).  Simple as pie, and the same goes for other effects as well.  You can hardly complain that doing so is arbitrarily making up a new item for a specific effect, in the light of our character sheets' equipment lists. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Yeah, and there's probably 8 times as many that do care about saves.  And I want to reiterate the crucial distinction here: there is a difference between high saves and saves that only involve a d20 as a formality.  The former is a legitimate character advanatge, and the latter is a breakdown of the game system that should be addressed. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Exactly my point.  The difference is that Isida isn't just arbitrarily picking numbers for us to save against, she's implicitly playing by (mostly) the same rules as us.  If we lower our saves as I've suggested, those rules let us have more fun because they let Isida challenge us in a greater variety of ways.  Isn't that what the game is about, really?  Surely it's not about collecting the highest possible abstract numbers on our character sheets.  If she was arbitrarily picking numbers, then you should just be glad that we can transfer that gold to something more interesting, something with more character than "+X bonus to X", and we're better off than before, having not wasted gold en masse on something that Isida's just going to judge relatively or arbitrarily anyway.</li> </ol>* - Except of course for his massive hp, his immunity to death and negative energy effects, his constant true seeing, his 9 levels of spell turning 3/day, his immunity to mind-affecting abilities and divinations, his immunity to environmental effects, and the fact that he'll still have the best saves in the group (Solarion excepted).  If I didn't know better, I would almost think you would rather be playing rock-paper-scissors instead of D&D, with all those unbeatable immunities.  By contrast, my immunities consist of the following: Enchantment spells and abilities; I don't think it's foolish, and Arion has a lot more to worry about than your character.  You callin' me an utter moron, punk?!   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" />  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> </blockquote>

Verification