Repeat saves against the same effect

[Menexenus]

This is a deep problem with 3.0/3.5 edition D&D that needs to be solved!

Clearly, I see that it was a bad idea to use troglodytes as an example. This bad example caused people to get sidetracked by the revision to that particular creature in 3.5 as well as the phenomenology of bad smells.

Nail was the one who got the point of the question quite precisely. The statistics of making a new Save for each individual creature encountered weigh heavily against a party of PCs when faced by more than a dozen opponents, no matter how easy the save is to make! (BTW, thanks for providing a tabular breakdown of cumulative save likelihoods, Nail.)

Plus, it seems to me that in many cases, once I've made a few saves against a specific effect, it should be less likely that I would succumb to that specific effect when faced with it for the upteenth time in just a few rounds. For instance, suppose I'm fighting Shadow Mastiffs who have a Fear effect caused by their baying (Will DC 13). Suppose I'm a fighter who has saved 10 times against this Fear effect and am happily hacking-and-slashing my way through these opponents. Then I turn a corner and see another one and hear its bay. Should the likelihood that I succumb to Fear on this Save be exactly the same as the likelihood on all the previous Saves? Shouldn't I be getting used to hearing this awful sound at some point? (Sure, you can rationalize the RAW if you really want to, but before you succumb to this knee-jerk reaction, ask yourself if you really want to.)

I'm honestly not sure what the solution to this problem is. Should a single save be made at a higher DC to represent multiple targets? That would be effective when you face a bunch of opponents all at once, but what about the scenario that I just described where you turn a corner and suddenly encounter more of the same creature. If you only make one save at a higher DC, should that DC include the creatures (like the one around the corner) that you haven't encountered yet, or just the ones you see/hear? If you take the former option, it doesn't quite seem fair to the PCs that their Save is getting harder for creatures they haven't faced yet (and may never face). If you take the latter option, then you arrive at the same statistical problem all over again simply by spreading out the foes.

BTW, this problem isn't limited to just Saves. It also applies to competitive rolls. A staple of the fantasy fiction genre is the infiltration mission: a small band of brave adventurers sneaks into the heavily guarded fortress of the evil overlord. Well, if I've got 4 PCs all making Move Silently checks past 25 low-level guards, the chances that my lowest Move Silently roll will beat the highest Listen check are virtually nil. Hence, we see the same statistical problem rearing its ugly head again. This core game mechanic that requires multiple rolls for multiple adversaries is getting in the way of the what should be possible for PCs to do in a fantasy genre role-playing game.

It would surprise me greatly if no one has attempted to overcome this serious problem since it seems to be one that lies at the very heart of the d20 system. If anyone knows of a satisfactory solution, please share it.

P.S. If anyone who reads this is working on 4E for Wizards of the Coast, please make fixing this problem in a workable way one of your top priorities! Thanks.

 

[KarinsDad]

So a community of 30 trogs would really stink and make you roll a DC 23 (base 13+10) Fort save. but you only roll once and if you make it, you're safe for 24 hrs.

By comparrison, with Cmanos's suggestion, the DC for 30 trogs would be 42 (Base 13+29)

Or, why not just understand that if you fight an entire tribe of Trogs and get within 30 feet of several of them, you are bound to get nauseated? It's just one of the hazards of fighting Trogs.


Old Timer: "Yup, we've been fighting Trogs for bout 40 years now. Never once fought them where I didn't puke my guts out."

 

[Infiniti2000]

Considering how often I've been caught on the "indefensible end" of debates here....I wouldn't let this point worry you.

Much.

I don't. I feel quite secure in my posterhood.

So, for low save PCs, it will make the odds better. For high save PCs, it will make the odds worse.

Yeah! What he said!

I2K, who's taking after his petulant 18-month-old.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The smell of that particular trog can no longer affect you.

If you are in the Aoe of a mage's Stinking Cloud, and successfully save...... why should you have to save again if another mage hits you with another one?

He used different (magical) chemicals because his spell used a slightly different technique. It's a different color, it smell different, etc.

 

[Cabral]

KD: Lol
Nail: Good job hitting ... the nail ...on the head?

As for the move silently example: Sounds right to me actually. But don't forget to apply distance modifiers to the guards' listen checks

As for encountering more of the same creature:
Option 1) For each of the same ability you've already faced in a 24 hr period, your next rolls gain +1. (hey, even failing your save can make you more resistant ... you only had so much lunch)
Option 2) Save the roll from the first save. If the effect (ie a trog's stench) is still applicable, increase DC as appropriate. Check new DC against original roll.
Option 3) Since it seems that what you really want is a way to take 10 on saves, how about take 1? You roll a 1 on your save, but it is not automaticly a failure.

 

[KarinsDad]

Plus, it seems to me that in many cases, once I've made a few saves against a specific effect, it should be less likely that I would succumb to that specific effect when faced with it for the upteenth time in just a few rounds.

Why? I can see the opposite effect occurring. You get hit with so much of something that you cannot avoid it.

Take Stunning Fist for example. The Boxer gets hit once. Shakes it off. Gets hit twice, shakes that off. Gets hit the 6th time, he gets stunned.

For instance, suppose I'm fighting Shadow Mastiffs who have a Fear effect caused by their baying (Will DC 13). Suppose I'm a fighter who has saved 10 times against this Fear effect and am happily hacking-and-slashing my way through these opponents. Then I turn a corner and see another one and hear its bay. Should the likelihood that I succumb to Fear on this Save be exactly the same as the likelihood on all the previous Saves? Shouldn't I be getting used to hearing this awful sound at some point? (Sure, you can rationalize the RAW if you really want to, but before you succumb to this knee-jerk reaction, ask yourself if you really want to.)

No, you should be getting very very afraid if you run into that many Shadow Mastiffs.

I don't see a problem at all.

 

[Lamoni]

For instance, suppose I'm fighting Shadow Mastiffs who have a Fear effect caused by their baying (Will DC 13). Suppose I'm a fighter who has saved 10 times against this Fear effect and am happily hacking-and-slashing my way through these opponents. Then I turn a corner and see another one and hear its bay. Should the likelihood that I succumb to Fear on this Save be exactly the same as the likelihood on all the previous Saves? Shouldn't I be getting used to hearing this awful sound at some point?

Yes, it should be easier. Although I don't really see this as a problem with the rules. In order to add in situations like these, it would take too much room. Well, maybe they could use a footnote that it is sometimes good to apply rule zero or to add circumstancial modifiers to saves. For fear, you could argue both ways. Maybe it is getting tougher to save against it because the first few put you almost to the breaking point so you would have a penalty. Maybe it is getting easier because you gained confidence after not dying from the first few so you would get a bonus to your save. The rules already include circumstancial modifiers to checks and it isn't too hard to also use them for saving throws and not just skills. Many times it is best to not include any modifier though.

In response to the house rule of adding a +2 to the DC for each additional creature... I like this idea for large groups of things. No, it wouldn't work if they were all in different rooms. After making my own excel spreadsheet I thought I'd add some more data. Column 1 is the number you have to roll to make the save. Column 2 is the sizes of groups where using the houserule would be beneficial for the player.

Need a: | best for groups of:
2 . . . . . . not 2-58
3 . . . . . . not 2-28
4 . . . . . . not 6-18
5 . . . . . . not 7-13
6 . . . . . . not 8-10
7 . . . . . . not 8
8-20. . . . all sizes

so if you need to roll at least a 7 to make your save, the houserule is almost always beneficial (with a group of 8 being about the same odds). If you only need to get a 3, the houserule is almost always detrimental (how often will you see groups of more than 28?). If you need a 4, 5, or 6 you might want to consider the size of the group before deciding what rule you'd prefer to use.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

BTW, this problem isn't limited to just Saves. It also applies to competitive rolls. A staple of the fantasy fiction genre is the infiltration mission: a small band of brave adventurers sneaks into the heavily guarded fortress of the evil overlord. Well, if I've got 4 PCs all making Move Silently checks past 25 low-level guards, the chances that my lowest Move Silently roll will beat the highest Listen check are virtually nil. Hence, we see the same statistical problem rearing its ugly head again. This core game mechanic that requires multiple rolls for multiple adversaries is getting in the way of the what should be possible for PCs to do in a fantasy genre role-playing game.

It would surprise me greatly if no one has attempted to overcome this serious problem since it seems to be one that lies at the very heart of the d20 system. If anyone knows of a satisfactory solution, please share it.

Take 10.

I routinely advise players of sneaky types to Take 10 on their Move Silently and Hide checks to avoid having their really high Move Silently check ruined by a really low Hide check (for example), but it's also useful when you need a consistent result again and again and again. It's surprising to me how many people fail to take advantage of this excellent tool.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think that one saving throw instead of 30 is a good way to rule this situation after all, but there has to be a limit to it. If for instance the nauseating effect has DC 20, if there is no limit then there is a certain number of creatures which raise the DC to a point that you can only succeed on a 20, but I'm not sure whether this would be sensible.

Anyway, when large masses are involved, I usually add +2 to the DC every time the number doubles, so it's less than linear.