Static Save Defense instead of dynamic saving throws.

[Thornir Alekeg]

I am looking forward to the idea of a spellcaster getting an attack bonus against a defense bonus (not sure where people are getting that it is static).

In 3e we get three saving throws that increase with level depending upon your class. This has to rolled against a static DC based upon the spell level and the ability modifier of the caster. A first level wizard with Int 18 casting Charm Person has the exact same chance to succeed with his spell as a 17th level caster with Int 18 when cast upon the same target. If the 17th level caster is facing a level-appropriate challenge, he probably has a much lower chance to succeed. The power is in the spell, not in the caster.

What is the result? At high level, low-level spells that require saves are essentially useless.

What we are hearing for 4e seems to indicate a change in this. If the spellcasters now get an attack bonus with their spells, low level spells might still have some use. They won't be as potent, but they will still be effective. The ability of spell to affect someone will be based upon the skill and experience of the caster. The overall potency of the spell will be the only determinant of the spell level.

I like this.

 

[Li Shenron]

What is the result? At high level, low-level spells that require saves are essentially useless.

Yeah ok, but the same problem could remain if the only change is who makes the roll. I'm sure that such a problem is being addressed during the saves/defense design! But I think the discussion here now is only about who should make that roll, what will be the benefit of the change, and what the change is going to make worse.

 

[KarinsDad]

What we are hearing for 4e seems to indicate a change in this. If the spellcasters now get an attack bonus with their spells, low level spells might still have some use. They won't be as potent, but they will still be effective. The ability of spell to affect someone will be based upon the skill and experience of the caster. The overall potency of the spell will be the only determinant of the spell level.

I like this.

I like the concept as well. I also like the increased speed concept.

I just don't think it is a good idea to make one aspect of the system worse in order to make a different aspect better.

However, I cannot think of a nice way to improve both. For example, an area effect spell could be more potent at it's origin point and get weaker towards the edges. This would allow some "less capable" opponents to "save" if they are further from the center and might mitigate some of the issues with the SWSE version. However, this adds more rules and they might not be simple. So, ...

Pros and Cons.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Yeah ok, but the same problem could remain if the only change is who makes the roll. I'm sure that such a problem is being addressed during the saves/defense design! But I think the discussion here now is only about who should make that roll, what will be the benefit of the change, and what the change is going to make worse.

But all the "who rolls" question does is make it exactly the same for spells as it is for melee: attacker rolls against defense. Do fighters get less thrill from not having to wait for the DM to roll a save against their longsword attack? I just don't get this point. If it speeds things up, that is a good thing.

And my post was addressing the "Stacked Bonus" concerns of the OP. The changes will make this better by making the high level wizard effective no matter what spell level he chooses to use, not just effective because he can cast the high level ones.

 

[Someone]

I think the best solution is to let the DM decide how many rolls must the player make in each situation - it may be the best iea to make a single roll against a group of mooks, but if there's a BBEG with them it may be worth the time spent to make a roll against the mooks and another one against the leader.

Of course, the DM can decide how many rolls to make even if the rules don't let him, but it'd be a nce detail to put it in the books...

 

[Li Shenron]

If it speeds things up, that is a good thing.

What about determine combat resolution by tossing a coin? Speeds things up, not much of a good thing. :\

I'm not saying this change won't speed up combat, because I understand it will, although in a limited amount of circumstances (spells that affect many targets and used to require a save).

I'm saying that there are 100 ways of speeding up the game, but this one is taking away some fun from me, hence I don't like it.

Just because it speeds up the game it's not something that must be done. And the opposite also holds true, something that slows the game down is indeed being done by 4e, for example keeping track of HP % to apply certain conditions, or having lots of abilities that can work as AoOs or reactions. Are they good or bad? I don't know, it depends on which one.

But you can't use "speed up" as the universal reason to change a rule on the odd days, and then use "fun" as the universal reason on the even days. There is no universal reason in game design. It's a mix of all things. All I am defending is something I like that is being changed for something I like less, with benefits that I consider not enough.

 

[Imaro]

I personally think the static saves will make alot of players irritated after a while, especially if it pertains to their characters the same as NPC's/monsters. With an area attack it removes the power from the PC's(rolling the dice) and makes it so that one good roll by the DM will affect all of them. It's a forgone conclusion once the roll is made by the DM, whether they take damage or not. As a player I would rather roll, since there's always that chance I can compensate for my low whatever save and hit a 20...this is just more fun and exciting tome. It's that escaping by a the skin of your teeth and alot of luck thing.

We've had this happen in our games before and it is often met with cheering and high-fives. Especially when they needed the wizard to make a high fortitude save so he could keep using his magic. If the static save is based on 10+level+attribute modifier, I'll take my chances with attribute modifier+level and a roll. I've got a 50% chance of rolling higher than what they're giving me, plus it's just more fun IMHO.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I would not be surprised if they included a Variant Sidebar in the DMG that detailed how to do dynamic Saving Throws.

 

[Azgulor]

Just think about this, but replace fireball with arrow or sword at a static level. With the same attack is parried/avoided by the minions, but hits the BBEG. How were the minions able to parry an attack that the BBEG couldn't?

It is true that one of the options not longer exists, but is it really a problem. Does it break suspension of disbelief more to have the BBEG survive while all minions are incinerated, or does it break suspension of disbelief more to have a few minions still standing, while the BBEG is incinerated?

First of all, an arrow isn't a fireball. Cover, a shield, better armor, etc. could all impact the effectiveness of the arrow (or other attack). Maybe the mooks are warriors but the BBEG was a nefarious necromancer with less combat training? Maybe his concentration or casting of a spell prevented him from mounting an effective defense?

Furthermore, why can't it be a tactical choice/effect? For example, I centered the fireball on the BBEG and he's toast, but his minions on the perimeter are still fighting.

Also, this change effectively nerfs those unexpected campaign gems that you'd never think of on your own. I've run games where all of my attention was focused on the BBEG as was the players'. I've had wounded henchmen escape to be able to lick their wounds, fill the void left by the now dead BBEG, and become a bigger threat than the original ever was. Or perhaps they become a recurring threat, or sign up with the next BBEG. I never planned for that to happen when I created the original encounter, but I took an unexpected outcome and ran with it.

Under the new defense paradigm, that can't happen.

 

[Stalker0]

I propose that the 4th edition variant on this guideline is, 'if your justification of the rule involves stating that you can spend action points, then its probably not a very good rule.'

However, there is a HUGE difference between a readied action and an action point. Readied actions require a player conscious choice without foreknowledge of the future. Often, action points can be spent as immediate action in response to something else.

Its the equivalent of "oh, he's throwing a fireball? Well I move out of the way before it lands."

The reason I like action points is that this is exactly the kind of bridge they build in rules systems. For example, with standard rules it is very hard to create a very gritty yet big overarching story campaign. If a character can easily die in one hit, then how can you expect players to survive several adventures without dieing? Answer...action points!! They allow you to set the world a certain way, but allow the players to cheat a bit...just like heroes do in stories all the time.