High level spell/effects are scarier than low level spell/effects. If Save-or-Suck is limited to "eat a mild penalty/lose a round or two", the effect can land over 50% of the time. If Save-or-Suck/Die climbs up to "removed from combat/dead", then a level-appropriate target needs to solidly expect to save. That means that, at low levels, level-appropriate targets should save a bit under 50% of the time. At high levels, level-appropriate targets need to save almost all the time. In other words, saves need to get more reliable with level. This may not be "fun" for the spellcasters, but it is the penalty for even *having* Save-or-be-removed-from-combat scale effects. The "not-being-fun" aspect is part of why 3e changed the saving throw system. The need for easy-to-make high level saves became obvious shortly after people starting playing 3e.
D&D 5E Saving Throws
High level spell/effects are scarier than low level spell/effects. If Save-or-Suck is limited to "eat a mild penalty/lose a round or two", the effect can land over 50% of the time. If Save-or-Suck/Die climbs up to "removed from combat/dead", then a level-appropriate target needs to solidly expect to save. That means that, at low levels, level-appropriate targets should save a bit under 50% of the time. At high levels, level-appropriate targets need to save almost all the time. In other words, saves need to get more reliable with level. This may not be "fun" for the spellcasters, but it is the penalty for even *having* Save-or-be-removed-from-combat scale effects. The "not-being-fun" aspect is part of why 3e changed the saving throw system. The need for easy-to-make high level saves became obvious shortly after people starting playing 3e.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Because if they advance at the same pace, there's no reason to have either.
Viking Bastard
Adventurer
Yeah, I have. And more. I'm in the planning stages of compiling my own D&D, standardizing and streamlining either Labyrinth Lord or S&W to a few base mechanics (a d20, and probably either a d6 or 2d6). Thief skills will definitely go d20.
But I digress.
Li Shenron
Legend
Sure why not. But not too many, because the more, the harder to run the game smoothly. Some compromise is needed.
Li Shenron
Legend
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
At the same time, the more powerful effects are more rare, and the ability to recover from them is more readily available.
Your point is valid, but your approach is wrong. If the goal is to make the most crippling effects easier to save against, then it's the DC of the effect that needs to be altered. Either that, or some other factor, such as current hit points, needs to be taken into account.
That really depends on the goal. I tend to agree that we shouldn't have either. Saves aren't necessarily something that should improve with experience, and neither are spell effects.
One of the goals that has been stated is to make higher level characters better able to resist the effects of lower level casters, as well as having low level characters be more vulnerable to the effects of high level casters. Having both a save bonus and a spellcasting bonus would accomplish this. It don't agree with the goal, but the solution is viable.
Blackwarder
Adventurer
Li Shenron
Legend
I would prefer not to scale either of them, but I'm prepared to see it happen.
I don't think the goal is really "to make higher level characters better able to resist the effects of lower level casters, as well as having low level characters be more vulnerable to the effects of high level casters". The PCs rarely meet casters of much lower level or much higher level.
Rather, a stated goal is "to have low-level monsters be a threat to high-level PCs". However, see the Ghoul thread... if a single Ghoul has the same chance of paralizing a 1st level PC or a 20th level PC, that's not inherently bad. But this is a bit different to what happens for monsters which don't have special attacks, because those are going to be a threat to higher-level PCs only if they are many. So if they have in mind that many Ghouls (rather than just 1) should remain a threat for high-level PCs, most likely they don't want each Ghoul to have the same chance of paralizing a PC, otherwise there's too many of them.
My guess is that they rather want a group of Ghouls to have about the same chance at paralizing a 10th level PC than a single Ghoul had against that PC when it was 1st level. It's more about monsters than spellcasters IMO.
KidSnide
Adventurer
Well, sure, but an orc shaman with the ability to cast a few 1st or 2nd level spells is a classic monster, as is the evil wizard's 2nd-4th level pupils. The issue is the same whether you view it as low-level monsters or low-level spellcasters.
In short, I disagree with your assertion that "PCs rarely meet casters of much lower level or much higher level." A lich is scary precisely because it is a "much higher level" caster (that is somewhat less vulnerable to being whacked by a sword). Sure, you might not see those encounters often if the game mechanics render them unsatisfying, but they are a classic part of D&D.
-KS
Similar Threads
