Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6288151" data-attributes="member: 14506">I think if they can make the rolls go either way as an attack or a save and clearly write them that way they will do a great service to the community. There are those that really want saves to be like saves of yore (1e thru 3e) and then there are those who felt 4e got it right with attack rolls for saves. If the math can work out either way everyone wins.As Save8 + Ability (-1 to +5) + Proficiency (+2 to +5) = DC (9 to 18)d20 + Ability (-1 to +5) + Proficiency (+2 to +5) = Save (+1 to +10)Save must be equal or greater to DC (all things equal save success is 65%)As Attackd20 + Ability (-1 to +5) + Proficiency (+2 to +5) = Attack (+1 to +10)14 + Ability (-1 to +5) + Proficiency (+2 to +5) = Defense (15 to 24)Attack must be equal or greater to Defense (all things equal attack success is 35%)So if the caster is maxed out in casting stat and targeting a stat of 10 then that adds another +20% attack success or -20% save success. So meaning that 45% save success or 55% attack success. Are these numbers right? They do not really improve too much based on level. So a high level caster going against a high level monster is going to have the same odds of attacking/monster saving as if both the monster and the caster were low level.I am not sure I like these percentages of success/failure though... Some scaling is good, but if both sides scale the same then there is no point.Question for you all, do you think casters should get better at affecting or do you think the save should become easier as the defender gets better? Right now it is both. But should it be one or the other?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadrik, post: 6288151, member: 14506"] I think if they can make the rolls go either way as an attack or a save and clearly write them that way they will do a great service to the community. There are those that really want saves to be like saves of yore (1e thru 3e) and then there are those who felt 4e got it right with attack rolls for saves. If the math can work out either way everyone wins. As Save 8 + Ability (-1 to +5) + Proficiency (+2 to +5) = DC (9 to 18) d20 + Ability (-1 to +5) + Proficiency (+2 to +5) = Save (+1 to +10) Save must be equal or greater to DC (all things equal save success is 65%) As Attack d20 + Ability (-1 to +5) + Proficiency (+2 to +5) = Attack (+1 to +10) 14 + Ability (-1 to +5) + Proficiency (+2 to +5) = Defense (15 to 24) Attack must be equal or greater to Defense (all things equal attack success is 35%) So if the caster is maxed out in casting stat and targeting a stat of 10 then that adds another +20% attack success or -20% save success. So meaning that 45% save success or 55% attack success. Are these numbers right? They do not really improve too much based on level. So a high level caster going against a high level monster is going to have the same odds of attacking/monster saving as if both the monster and the caster were low level. I am not sure I like these percentages of success/failure though... Some scaling is good, but if both sides scale the same then there is no point. Question for you all, do you think casters should get better at affecting or do you think the save should become easier as the defender gets better? Right now it is both. But should it be one or the other? [/QUOTE]

Verification