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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Rules clarifications
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="Dausuul" data-source="post: 4124840" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>Yup. It's the number one rule for 3.5E spellslingers--make sure you have an array of spells to target each saving throw, so you can attack the enemy's weak point.</p><p></p><p>I do wonder if picking the "right defense" in 4E will be like 3.5E. My approach in 3.5E is to target the Will save for anything that looks dumb; the Fort save for anything that looks fragile and smart; and the Reflex save for anything that looks tough and smart. So, for example, ogre -> Will save, mind flayer -> Fort save, ogre mage -> Reflex save. I find this works pretty reliably.</p><p></p><p>I must also admit to using some general metagame knowledge about creature types (e.g., outsiders have strong saves across the board and SR into the bargain, dragons have ungodly Fort and Will saves but are weak on Reflex, undead have crap Fort saves but are immune to almost everything that calls for them, et cetera), though I try to avoid using any knowledge of a creature's specific stats.</p><p></p><p>In 4E, creature type will probably be a much less reliable guide. However, you make the attack roll instead of the monster rolling a saving throw. That means it will be relatively easy to "nail down" a monster's defenses through observation, just as it was usually possible to nail down a monster's AC within a couple of rounds in earlier editions. You have a +5 bonus on a Will attack, you roll a 14 on the first round and hit, roll an 11 on the second round and miss? The monster's Will defense is somewhere between 17 and 19.</p><p></p><p>So you can probably figure out without too much trouble what the best spell is, and then apply that insight to other such monsters. On the other hand, the existence of 2-4 variants per monster means such insights will not be foolproof...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 4124840, member: 58197"] Yup. It's the number one rule for 3.5E spellslingers--make sure you have an array of spells to target each saving throw, so you can attack the enemy's weak point. I do wonder if picking the "right defense" in 4E will be like 3.5E. My approach in 3.5E is to target the Will save for anything that looks dumb; the Fort save for anything that looks fragile and smart; and the Reflex save for anything that looks tough and smart. So, for example, ogre -> Will save, mind flayer -> Fort save, ogre mage -> Reflex save. I find this works pretty reliably. I must also admit to using some general metagame knowledge about creature types (e.g., outsiders have strong saves across the board and SR into the bargain, dragons have ungodly Fort and Will saves but are weak on Reflex, undead have crap Fort saves but are immune to almost everything that calls for them, et cetera), though I try to avoid using any knowledge of a creature's specific stats. In 4E, creature type will probably be a much less reliable guide. However, you make the attack roll instead of the monster rolling a saving throw. That means it will be relatively easy to "nail down" a monster's defenses through observation, just as it was usually possible to nail down a monster's AC within a couple of rounds in earlier editions. You have a +5 bonus on a Will attack, you roll a 14 on the first round and hit, roll an 11 on the second round and miss? The monster's Will defense is somewhere between 17 and 19. So you can probably figure out without too much trouble what the best spell is, and then apply that insight to other such monsters. On the other hand, the existence of 2-4 variants per monster means such insights will not be foolproof... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Rules clarifications
Top