D&D (2024) Return to the 3 saves for 1D&D?

[UngeheuerLich]

Not really. Not nearly as much as the +1 on the save.

Consider a 1st-level false life will give you half that.

I disagree. A 0 level resistance gives you +1d4 on a save.
You realy value a 1 in 20 chance higher than 5hp at level 5?

 

[Andvari]

The Rules Cyclopedia for BECM(I) offers optional rules for saving throws which allow all ability scores, except for Charisma, to contribute. The optional rule is applied on top of the existing saving throw system (save vs breath, save vs rods, save vs spells etc.), which improves PCs' saves automatically as they level.

Ability Scores and Saving Throws

In the standard rules, the only ability score
that can affect a saving throw is Wisdom (affects
saving throws vs. spells). The DM does, however,
have the option to apply ability score bonuses
and penalties to other saving throws:

Strength: Modifies saving throws vs. paralysis
and turn to stone.
Intelligence*: Modifies saving throws vs.
mind attacks (charm, confusion, control, fear,
feeblemind, sleep, etc.).
Wisdom*: Modifies saving throws vs. spells.
Dexterity: Modifies saving throws vs. wands
and dragon breath.
Constitution: Modifies saving throws vs. poison (but not vs. death ray).
Charisma: No bonus to saving throws.
* Combined modifier cannot exceed + / — 3.

One thing I like about Wisdom as a general save against spells in that system is that it helps clerics resist those effects a little better, enabling them to better use their support spells to aid allies who fail their saves.

I do think saves should improve as characters level. Bad and good saves can remain bad and good, but I prefer it to be relative to the DCs a PC can be reasonably expected to face as they increase in level.

 

[Pauln6]

EB is not nearly as good as a weapon attack unless you get the agonizing blast evocation through a feat or Warlock class and that is a high price to pay to boost it.

Without that EB does the same average damage as a dagger with a 16 in your attack ability. At no point do I think it is straight overpowered compared to weapons (compared to other cantrips yes).

Yes I was referring to agonising blast. You say it's a high price to pay and yet most Warlocks are willing to pay it. I wish Warlock improvements existed for other cantrips too. It might be more balanced, albeit far less popular, if the damage only applied once per round. In fact layering that on top of all the invocations might please me and just ditch agonising blast.

 

[Horwath]

Yes I was referring to agonising blast. You say it's a high price to pay and yet most Warlocks are willing to pay it. I wish Warlock improvements existed for other cantrips too. It might be more balanced, albeit far less popular, if the damage only applied once per round. In fact layering that on top of all the invocations might please me and just ditch agonising blast.

The buy in for agonizing blast for EB is cost for multiclass dip.
you need 2 levels and you need one out of two invocations that you get at 2nd level.

 

[Staffan]

I think it would be interesting if different spells had different DCs (or DC modifiers, same difference). The way I'd do it that low-stakes debuffs would have very high DCs, while higher-stakes one would have fairly low ones. So something like bane or faerie fire would be a near auto-hit, while something like banishment would be significantly less likely to work.

 

[Horwath]

I think it would be interesting if different spells had different DCs (or DC modifiers, same difference). The way I'd do it that low-stakes debuffs would have very high DCs, while higher-stakes one would have fairly low ones. So something like bane or faerie fire would be a near auto-hit, while something like banishment would be significantly less likely to work.

please no.

that would lead to all kind of mess.
certain spells, in certain circumstances could give disadvantage on save vs it's effect.

better balance would be:

1. no save
2. partial effect on save
3. no effect on save.

but I would not want any spell to have no effect on save.
It's a limited daily resource, so all spells(except cantrips) should have partial or half effect(damage) on successful save or missed attack roll.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it would be interesting if different spells had different DCs (or DC modifiers, same difference). The way I'd do it that low-stakes debuffs would have very high DCs, while higher-stakes one would have fairly low ones. So something like bane or faerie fire would be a near auto-hit, while something like banishment would be significantly less likely to work.

That's a really complicated way to imiment spell resistance just to avoid giving some monsters a spell resistance value for the needed spell raft check when casting a SR:yes spell & adding a ST: yes/no tag logically set to each spell.

SR was a useful & meaningful tool that added a lot but this would just be a pointless complexity to avoid calling it or letting it look like spell resistance

 

[Staffan]

That's a really complicated way to imiment spell resistance just to avoid giving some monsters a spell resistance value for the needed spell raft check when casting a SR:yes spell & adding a ST: yes/no tag logically swt to each spell.

AR was a useful & meaningful tool that added a lot but this would just be a pointless complexity to avoid calling it or letting it look like spell resistance

The intent would be to make "setup" spells easy to succeed with, and "effect" spells hard. 3e Spell Resistance generally dealt with whether a spell had a direct or indirect effect, which is a different issue.

 

[tetrasodium]

The intent would be to make "setup" spells easy to succeed with, and "effect" spells hard. 3e Spell Resistance generally dealt with whether a spell had a direct or indirect effect, which is a different issue.

What the heck is a "set up spell"?

 

[Horwath]

What the heck is a "set up spell"?

I would say any spell than makes your/your allies attacks easier to land or make enemy attacks less likely to land.