Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lamoni" data-source="post: 2777263" data-attributes="member: 12680">Yes, it should be easier.&nbsp; Although I don't really see this as a problem with the rules.&nbsp; In order to add in situations like these, it would take too much room.&nbsp; Well, maybe they could use a footnote that it is sometimes good to apply rule zero or to add circumstancial modifiers to saves.&nbsp; For fear, you could argue both ways.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; No, it wouldn't work if they were all in different rooms.&nbsp; After making my own excel spreadsheet I thought I'd add some more data.&nbsp; Column 1 is the number you have to roll to make the save.&nbsp; 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 2-583 . . . . . . not 2-284 . . . . . . not 6-185 . . . . . . not 7-136 . . . . . . not 8-107 . . . . . . not 88-20. . . . all sizesso 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).&nbsp; If you only need to get a 3, the houserule is almost always detrimental (how often will you see groups of more than 28?).&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lamoni, post: 2777263, member: 12680"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification