Saving throws are a coin toss?

[Morrus]

Can anybody with more experience of 4E rules tell me whether my conjectures are correct?

Sure. They're not. And I haven't played the game!

The way to get to frips with it is to rethink the terminology, as I said above. "Save" doesn't mean the same thing any more. You have to ignore the fact that the word "save" is used. Think like this:

4E "Attack roll vs. Ref/Will/Fort" = 3E Saving Throw (i.e. takes place at the time of casting, one roll, dependent on target's scores).

4E Save" = 3E duration roll (i.e. takes place if the above if failed, sometimes affacted by victim's abilities but not always).

I LOVE that duration isn't generated beforehand. Now nobody knows how long an effect willl last, and nobody has to keep track of it. Just roll each round to see if it has ended. Adds some unpredictability to the durations of spell effects, makes it less easy to plan exactly round a specifically known duration, etc.

 

[MerricB]

Actually, I think the one mistake with this is making it 10+ rather than 11+ because it is harder to remember. But again, maybe there is a very good reason that I am not seeing..

10+ is easier to remember. Make a save - the DC is always 10.

Note the Bodak's death ability - if you're still weakened, you're dead. Tag-teaming Bodaks? eek!

Cheers!

 

[glass]

However, in 4e you have defenses, not saves, so they don't have a readily available way to say "make a save every round". They would need to have the Wizard make a new attack roll every round (potentially for each target), or would have to keep the save modifiers as well as the defense total, so one could make a save. (That might not be bad, actually.)

It isn't just that. With a save every round, even a +1 or -1 modifier makes a huge difference to the expected duration. Therefore you want fewer/smaller modifiers to a 'duration save' than you would to a one-off save (whether it is actually a save or an attack roll).

The other alternative I can see is just assigning these spells a random duration, as was suggested up-thread. But then, that's no better than using a coin flip each round - you're just trading one set of probabilities for another, with the difference that now the incapacitated PC's player doesn't get the illusion that there's something he can do about his character's predicament.

It also doesn't make the duration depend on relative power levels any more than the proposed system does and creates extra bookkeeping to boot.


glass.

 

[McBard]

...That's not the saving throw, that's the duration determinant.

Not quite. The "spell attack" (+5 vs Will) determines whether the creature is slowed, and then, yes, the save (10+ on a d20) determines the duration of this slow condition. However, with Sleep, there's a sub-effect that is seemingly purely random: whether the target falls asleep after being slowed (if that first d20 10+ roll fails, then the target sleeps).

Frankly, some of the issues for the Sleep spell would be mitigated for me with a change in semantics. It strikes me that the core effect of the spell is whether the target is slowed (with this additional random effect that might put the target to sleep): perhaps Sleep would be better entitled...er...Slow. If it wasn't so clunky sounding, "Weariness" (from the spell's fluff description) probably most accurately captures both its core slow effect and the kicker sleep effect. <shrug>

 

[Plane Sailing]

I LOVE that duration isn't generated beforehand. Now nobody knows how long an effect willl last, and nobody has to keep track of it. Just roll each round to see if it has ended. Adds some unpredictability to the durations of spell effects, makes it less easy to plan exactly round a specifically known duration, etc.

Exactly.

Plus it gives an additional dimension on which bonuses can be added - so stuff often doesn't get to 'stick' to hobgoblins (they get a "duration check" immediately upon being affected), humans are a bit tougher than other PC races (they get +1 on all "duration checks"), Eladrin don't stay charmed for long (they get +5 on "duration checks" against charms), Dragons shrug off everything quickly (Young Black dragon gets +5 on ALL "duration checks").

 

[glass]

10+ is easier to remember. Make a save - the DC is always 10.

11+ is 50-50. That is easier to remember IMO because it is so obvious. In fact, until I happened on this thread, I thought it was 11+.


glass.

 

[Blue]

I've been almost nothing but enthusiastic about the vast majority of the 4E mechanics, but a save mechanic where relative power level has nothing to do with the outcome flies in the face of what D&D has always been - a level-based roleplaying game where experience and treasure makes your character more powerful.

Actually, this reminds me of EVERY edition except 3ed.

Go back to AD&D 2nd ed. You had your five saves, and they were based on your class level. Guess what - it didn't matter who was casting the spell on you or how powerful they were. At low levels you needed high numbers, regardless if it was Meepo's cousin or an Archmage. At high levels you needed low numbers, so you almost always made your save - again regardless if it was a 1st level caster or it was Elminster and the Council of Eight.

Saying this "flies in the face of what D&D has always been" is just rhetoric - it's been a flat number regardless of who cast it for quite a bit. This just amkes it so that 1st level folks don't get insta-killed by the first thing to cast a save-or-suck spell at them because they have a chance to save, and high level folks can't ignore everything.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[Morrus]

Not quite. The "spell attack" (+5 vs Will) determines whether the creature is slowed, and then, yes, the save (10+ on a d20) determines the duration of this slow condition. However, with Sleep, there's a sub-effect that is seemingly purely random: whether the target falls asleep after being slowed (if that first d20 10+ roll fails, then the target sleeps).

Yeah, of course everything doesn't map over perfectly. I was generalising for the sake of simplicity. It's a different system, not a "translation" of the old system.

What I was trying to point out was that the DC 10 "save" is NOT the 3.5 "saving throw" just because it has the word "save" in it. On a rough, approximate level, the "attack roll" vs. will/fort/ref is the closest mechanical equivalent to the 3.5 "saving throw".

Thus people claiming that "saving throws" are now a 50/50 coin toss are drawing the wrong conclusion mainly, to my eyes, based on the fact that WotC used the word "save". In my opinion, they should have used an entirely new word.

 

[vagabundo]

I'm really liking the sound of the new saving throw. At first I was huh? Then I was, like, yay!!!



The feel of 4e combat sounds different from 3e. Will need to play a good few sessions over the (hopefully hot) summer nights ...

 

[McBard]

In my opinion, they should have used an entirely new word [rather than "save"]

Good point, I agree. Something like "Duration check", or--more generally--"Random check".

On another point regarding the Sleep spell specifically: I don't see why they just didn't use another spell attack roll (+5 vs Will) to determine whether a slowed target also falls asleep, and so divorce a bit this deeper, more powerful sleep effect from the slow's duration check.

Or, better yet, if they're going to call the spell "Sleep", then have the initial "Hit" result actually be that the target falls asleep. Thus:

Hit: The target becomes unconscious (save ends)
Miss: The target is slowed (save ends)

And if the above result is too powerful for their nerfed 4E Wizard, then make it a 2nd or 3rd level spell.