Saving throws improve?

[Sunseeker]

Has anyone else noticed this from the playtest? Right now the randomness of the D20 pretty much trumps any supposed skill or special ability a PC may have, and while I like the idea of advantage because it encourages description and RP, it's pretty much necessary for the PCs to look like they are succeeding via anything but dumb luck.

Considering they're level 1-3 PCs, I think "blind luck" is a pretty okay thing to succeed by for now.

 

[Wiseblood]

I'm looking forward to finding this out as well. I love the idea of using ability bonuses for save, and I like the idea of a flatter progression so I'm not trying to add up 1d20+37 or some other nonsense on a regular basis, but right now the math seems really flat to me.

My tough fighter who has a strength of 16 only has a 15% better chance to push that heavy rock then the 4 foot tall halfing thief? I think the game would be a little better served with just a bit more differentiation between PCs when it comes to their saves and abilities.

Has anyone else noticed this from the playtest? Right now the randomness of the D20 pretty much trumps any supposed skill or special ability a PC may have, and while I like the idea of advantage because it encourages description and RP, it's pretty much necessary for the PCs to look like they are succeeding via anything but dumb luck.

If the Fighter is substantially stronger than the thief, the rock could be an automatic success for him. Alternatively a Dice roll for the fighter might be labeled impossible for the thief unless the narrative changes.

 

[Kraydak]

I agree, players should become more resilient as they become more powerful.

Spell DC's obviously increase, so why wouldn't saves? We'd eventually reach a point where it would be impossible to save. I don't think that's a good design idea.

I actually meant I want Saves to increase faster than Spell DCs. Significantly faster. This is to make up for the consequence of failure going from a moderate penalty at lower levels to Death or Domination at high levels, and to make up for the increasing number of spell slots of the casters (if you only have 2 combat spells in memory, you REALLY don't want the targets to save. If you have 20, it isn't as important).

Of course, you also want the Sleeps, the absolutely devastating spells with hard caps on the hit dice or hp of the opponents they affect. These spells are there to let the spellcasters get good value from their very, very few spell slots and give low level parties some Hail Mary effects.

This would be a repudiation of 3e in favor of 1e/2e design (or rather, accident, as I strongly doubt there was deliberate intent in the original rules). In my experience (up to 10th level 1e, 20th in 3e), Spell caster/non caster balance suffered highly in 3e thanks to the *very* hard high level save DCs, so I am strongly in favor of such a change.

 

[Meophist]

But by that logic, arent saves also increasing, since save are based on stats?

In a way, however, since all ability scores are used for saves, and for any one character, you usually only need a single ability score to set your DC, you'll need to increase six scores to increase your save and only one to increase your DC.

This won't be too much of a problem if ability increases are mostly generalized, like in 4E, but if it's anything like the +1/4 levels, then DC's will likely go up faster than saves.

 

[chitzk0i]

On another note. From what I have read so far in this area Im pretty happy. Two thumbs up for restricting scaling against probability mathematics in general.

Now, if I had something which "improved" a saving throw outside of stat growth, I would FAR prefer to see that handballed into the advantage/disadvantage systems.

For instance

Ring Of Clarity
When you save against charm and dominate based effects you are considered to have advantage.

"Can I consider myself to have advantage on this roll?"
"Consider me to have said yes."

 

[BobTheNob]

In a way, however, since all ability scores are used for saves, and for any one character, you usually only need a single ability score to set your DC, you'll need to increase six scores to increase your save and only one to increase your DC.

This won't be too much of a problem if ability increases are mostly generalized, like in 4E, but if it's anything like the +1/4 levels, then DC's will likely go up faster than saves.

Acknowledged.

It works, but my desired effect is the old 2e "You save more often, but you damn well better, cause the spells are getting worse!" and this stat against stat with growth in saves from stat growth only goes in the wrong direction for me.

Hmmm, a bit to think about.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I think that the problem with the playtest rulers is that the dice matters too much, d20 is too randon and the numbers are too low. It would be better if the bonus were abillity - 10 and/or if 3d6 or 2d10 were used instead the d20.

 

[Meophist]

Acknowledged.

It works, but my desired effect is the old 2e "You save more often, but you damn well better, cause the spells are getting worse!" and this stat against stat with growth in saves from stat growth only goes in the wrong direction for me.

Hmmm, a bit to think about.

It might be possible to get around the DC problem with the HP Threshold mechanic. Particularly for more deadly attacks, it could be made possible to avoid facing up against severe DC by simply keeping your HP at a certain level.

Your saving throw may not scale up too well, but at least you'll have other options to avoid the effects while still keeping them deadly. It may not be the exact same as how it worked in 2e, but the end result may feel similar.

Depends on the implementation, however.