Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6873406" data-attributes="member: 12731">Well, in 3rd edition the way you boosted your saves by multiclassing (dipping into several prestige classes) was definitely not a feature. It was a horrible horrible crippling bug. While I won't defend the decision to go with six saves, I will say that the way the game makes EVERY character have at least one bad save that matters, is a good thing. A very very good thing. If you want to call fixing a major error in previous editions &quot;a significant departure&quot; I can't stop you. But it does make it sound much more desirable than it actually is to have characters that basically can't be affected by spells. Especially since it wasn't very hard to combine that with very good defenses everywhere else too. I mean, if you were to view defenses as four main statistics, such as Ref, Fort, Will and AC, and actually made sure one stayed low no matter what you did, then I would be much more warm to the idea of a character &quot;good against magic&quot;.But to me, that's a theoretical exercise. I don't believe the game can or should be set up in such a way that you can get high bonuses on all three (or six) saves, only your AC stays low. As just one quick example: how do you justify that the saves can't stay high just because I put on plate mail, or find a way to cast a &quot;magic armor&quot; kind of spell on myself.Because what we should never have is a way to have all high saves, and then an easily circumvented restriction on AC. Put otherwise: If you can get medium AC or better, better make sure you can't get all high saves.And since the game can't and shan't forbid you from improving your AC, it's best if it actually makes &quot;all high&quot; saves outright impossible.Which brings us back to 5th Edition <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6873406, member: 12731"] Well, in 3rd edition the way you boosted your saves by multiclassing (dipping into several prestige classes) was definitely not a feature. It was a horrible horrible crippling bug. While I won't defend the decision to go with six saves, I will say that the way the game makes EVERY character have at least one bad save that matters, is a good thing. A very very good thing. If you want to call fixing a major error in previous editions "a significant departure" I can't stop you. But it does make it sound much more desirable than it actually is to have characters that basically can't be affected by spells. Especially since it wasn't very hard to combine that with very good defenses everywhere else too. I mean, if you were to view defenses as four main statistics, such as Ref, Fort, Will and AC, and actually made sure [B]one stayed low no matter what[/B] you did, then I would be much more warm to the idea of a character "good against magic". But to me, that's a theoretical exercise. I don't believe the game can or should be set up in such a way that you can get high bonuses on all three (or six) saves, only your AC stays low. As just one quick example: how do you justify that the saves can't stay high just because I put on plate mail, or find a way to cast a "magic armor" kind of spell on myself. Because what we should never have is a way to have all high saves, and then an easily circumvented restriction on AC. Put otherwise: If you can get medium AC or better, better make sure you can't get all high saves. And since the game can't and shan't forbid you from improving your AC, it's best if it actually makes "all high" saves outright impossible. Which brings us back to 5th Edition :) [/QUOTE]

Verification