Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6873757" data-attributes="member: 6701872">I'm not sure if you are aware that a natural 20 is not an automatic success on a saving throw in D&amp;D 5th edition (and neither is a natural 1 on a saving throw an automatic failure).They've ensured that players can keep the difference in save bonus within 10 or 12 steps if they wish to - it's as easy as not letting your &quot;bad saves&quot; ever be less than -1, and accepting a &quot;good enough&quot; 16 for the ability scores tied to your good saves, rather than following the not necessarily most beneficial anymore old-edition idea of cranking your important score(s) as high as possible while ignoring all the others, which keeps you in the 10 step range. 12 steps is even easier, as that allows for lower rolled scores or point buy then max out style.This is not something I particularly agree would add enough to the game to be worth the required changes - which could be as simple as 2e-inspired rules stating a natural 1-4 is always a failure regardless of what is otherwise needed to be rolled, and a hard cap on save DC (which would look entirely out of place without a similar hard cap on at least one of AC or attack bonus), or could be as complicated as actually reducing the available effects which can be added to one side or the other of the equation (such as magic items which exist and alter save bonus or save DC, spells that provide saving throw bonuses, class features, and so forth) to make sure that the established cap didn't have the same effect as the AC cap in 2e - where eventually every character or monster that wasn't designed to be frail on purpose was sitting at, or very near, the cap.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 6873757, member: 6701872"] I'm not sure if you are aware that a natural 20 is not an automatic success on a saving throw in D&D 5th edition (and neither is a natural 1 on a saving throw an automatic failure). They've ensured that players can keep the difference in save bonus within 10 or 12 steps if they wish to - it's as easy as not letting your "bad saves" ever be less than -1, and accepting a "good enough" 16 for the ability scores tied to your good saves, rather than following the not necessarily most beneficial anymore old-edition idea of cranking your important score(s) as high as possible while ignoring all the others, which keeps you in the 10 step range. 12 steps is even easier, as that allows for lower rolled scores or point buy then max out style. This is not something I particularly agree would add enough to the game to be worth the required changes - which could be as simple as 2e-inspired rules stating a natural 1-4 is always a failure regardless of what is otherwise needed to be rolled, and a hard cap on save DC (which would look entirely out of place without a similar hard cap on at least one of AC or attack bonus), or could be as complicated as actually reducing the available effects which can be added to one side or the other of the equation (such as magic items which exist and alter save bonus or save DC, spells that provide saving throw bonuses, class features, and so forth) to make sure that the established cap didn't have the same effect as the AC cap in 2e - where eventually every character or monster that wasn't designed to be frail on purpose was sitting at, or very near, the cap. [/QUOTE]

Verification