[3.5] House Rule Analysis: Changing "no save" to "random save"?

[Maginomicon]

Generally, optimized builds that utilize things where saves are relevant pick things that don't allow saves,. Thus, things that allow saves are often binned almost to exclusion even if the rest of the effect is otherwise cool.

What if every time a no-save effect would go through on a creature, you roll a d6. On a result of...

It's Fort Negates
It's Ref Negates
It's Will Negates
Defender picks which saving throw negates.
Attacker picks which saving throw negates.
It's a no-save effect as normal.


Forget for a moment the thematic reasons why things do or don't have a save. I'm working on the fluff for why I might implement this in my games but it's incomplete ATM (think chaotic magic). Obviously, you can voluntarily fail a save or count as "willing" just like you always could and it'll go through just fine. Also, obviously this only applies to creatures (objects don't get a save unless it's a magic item).

What I want to know is: (I want to improve the system and find fluff reasoning)

How would this impact the game as a whole, generally-speaking? (For example, classes that have 2 or 3 good saves get a boon, but that's not much.)

How would this affect optimization?

What if the d6 results were as follows instead?

It's Fort Negates, but uses half the Fort save modifier (round down).
It's Ref Negates, but uses half the Ref save modifier (round down).
It's Will Negates, but uses half the Will save modifier (round down).
Defender picks which one negates, but he uses half that save's modifier.
Attacker picks which one negates, but the defender uses half that save's modifier.
It's a no-save effect as normal.


What I don't want to hear is: (No thread-crapping!)

"This is a stupid/misguided idea." (or some variant thereof)

"Some things have no business having a save." (or some variant thereof)

"My build becomes useless now because _insert_whining_here_!"

[AuraTwilight]

It's Fort Negates, but uses half the Fort save modifier (round down).
It's Ref Negates, but uses half the Ref save modifier (round down).
It's Will Negates, but uses half the Will save modifier (round down).
Defender picks which one negates, but he uses half that save's modifier.
Attacker picks which one negates, but the defender uses half that save's modifier.
It's a no-save effect as normal.


I like this a lot.

[HammeredWharf]

I guess this would only apply to magic? It would obviously make save optimization much more important and lower the power of casters. It wouldn't do anything to fix some broken spells, like Polymorph and Gate.

[Alent]

What about having a "generic save" which is the average of your three saves?

(It might get odd with cloak of resistance behavior, but that could debatably be a feature rather than a bug.)

[Zanos]

Casters move away from using spells to directly control the battlefield, and more into summoning and buffing their allies, from an optimization standpoint. Summoning becomes much, much more desirable than it already was.

Casters will probably prepare very few previous no-save spells because they'll unreliably target high creature saves, which may result in certain no-save spells being nerfed more than desired, or simply being the "always worse" option that current spells that provoke saves are. Many no-save effects were already providing lesser effects than abilities that did require a save.

In addition, you'll have to deal with spells that lie about offering a saving throw. Web, for example, is a great spell on failed reflex save, and then still a great spell on a passed reflex save. Several similar spells are "save or don't save, just suck", so you'll want to address that as well.

[Spore]

I would prefer the caster having to make a CL + d20 check to overcome the target's HD +x. Resulting in the phrase - often used in films - "My magic isn't strong enough for this huge creature."

I think there is enough emphasis on being forced to have good saves (so that you always debate cloak slot items vs. the cloak of resistance).

[Courier6]

First, I would like to say that many people still use spells that have saves (Glitterdust, Web, Slow) their powerful effects make up for the inconsistency. As for the variant I think it's fine, but really does a worse job than just banning a few trouble spells and has the unfortunate side effect of making some spells (such as Magic Missile) completely useless.

[Duke of Urrel]

You may already have noticed this, but randomized saves would weaken some spells that require you to make a ranged or mêlée touch attack. A significant handful of ray spells and mêlée touch spells don't allow saves, because for them, the required attack roll is already a built-in failure chance, and I think the game designers wanted to compensate for this by denying them saving throws. So a few spells, such as the Scorching Ray spell, would become weaker and less attractive.

I feel that randomized saves deprive us of the tasty "flavor" of the three distinct saving throws, but would be a very appropriate effect on Alternate Planes with a Chaotic trait.

[Artillery]

Things that don't have a save are normally due to having something else they need to do. Normally a melee or ranged touch attack. Ray spells don't have saves.

Scorching ray doesn't have a save because you need to hit them for it to work.

That does sound like a very cool idea if people are ok with it. Makes me think of Anarchic Initiate from Complete Psionic

[Amphetryon]

This is an excellent idea. Now my monk will finally be able to save against all those monsters attacking him with melee weapons!

As the OP presents the house rule, this is an excellent point.

[eggynack]

Y'know, you said you didn't want folks to talk about this, but some spells really don't have any business allowing a save. In other words, what does it mean to "save" against a wall of stone that's not completely surrounding you, either as it's being cast or afterwords? What does it mean to "save" against a summoned creature? Can you just walk through walls, or as was pointed out, simply ignore the attacks of the summoned creature (or anything else)? I don't really know what this rule means in quite a few situations.

[Duke of Urrel]

Let me add something to my "flavor" comment above. The crunchy aspect of randomized saves for everything would be a loss of strategic options for aggressive action. If you don't know what kind of save your opponent is going to make, there's no strategy involved in choosing your mode of attack. So rather than targeting rogues and fighters with effects that require Will saves, clerics with effects that require Reflex saves, and wizards with effects that require Fortitude saves, I just shrug and throw at them whatever I've got, because it won't make any difference.

[Brookshw]

I could see this being interesting and fun in a wild magic area perhaps, but otherwise I think you should just house rule a save type for the spell to allow informed spell selection.

[Snowbluff]

No one would ever use a no-save spell offensively ever again, since targeting a particular save will always be a better bet. The whole reason why people favor no-save effects is so that they can add an element of reliability to their effects.

Simply put:
Optimizers work to mitigate the effect of die rolls on their play.
This greatly increases the number of die rolls for no returns.
Therefore, optimizers will avoid them. A whole subsection of spells removed from the game.

1/2 of the time, the effect has a save. 1/6 of the time you are guessing. 1/6 of the time the target is laughing the effect off. 1/6 of the time we wonder why we are using this rule. :smalltongue:

Many no-save effects are subject to other forms of defense, such as AC or SR. Not that all no-save spells are balanced. Shivering touch is broken. Hail of Stone is not. I just think a blanket effect is absolutely unnecessary. I would prefer spot-fixing or banning certain spells for the sake of balance.

[Fitz10019]

No one would ever use a no-save spell offensively ever again

I don't know if Snowbluff is correct, but when considering a new houserule, the single most important question is:

How will this change affect player choices and behavior?

[Roog]

Forget for a moment the thematic reasons why things do or don't have a save. I'm working on the fluff for why I might implement this in my games but it's incomplete ATM (think chaotic magic).

What are your goals? Do you want to weaken no-save spells, or do you just want a more chaotic feel to magic?

If you are doing this for chaotic magic, would this be the only change, or are the other related rules that you will also be implementing?

If there are other changes, then it's hard to comment on this change in isolation. If there are no other changes, then you may end up with magic having a feel that is no more chaotic than normal, as spellcasters just avoid using offensive no-save spells.

[Hurnn]

Personally I would just rule on each spell and assign it a save, or just ban the problem spells. Anyone who says there aren't some insanely broken no save spells out there (shivering touch, i'm looking at you) are being dishonest.

[Roog]

But that is an entirely separate issue, as it would not advance the stated goal of "think chaotic magic".

[Maginomicon]

First-off, I should make clear that this only matters to effects which target creatures. I thought I had made that clear in my OP, but apparently not.


What are your goals? Do you want to weaken no-save spells, or do you just want a more chaotic feel to magic?
I want to weaken anything with a "saving throw" line. I've already nerfed most things with Save Points (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306961), but that system will be largely untouched by optimizers that go after no-save effects. I've thus been pondering how to handle no-save effects. The above idea is a rough draft of the first thing that came to mind.

Fluff-wise, it's more around the lines that I think that no non-mundane effect should be unimpeachable (no save + no SR + no attack roll) or easily unimpeachable (no save + maybe SR + maybe attack roll) without it either being iffy or there being a "gradual defense". There should be an unpredictable element to it. This isn't just about magic, it's about anything with a "saving throw" line. Pumping the save DC is one of the toughest things to accomplish and with good reason.

Ideally, I'd like no-save effects to target some kind of gradual defense and use that gradual defense to determine whether it's negated. For example, one way this could be done would be as follows:

Every time you're hit by a no-save effect, check your current nonlethal damage against half of your HP. If it's greater than this value, the effect goes through as normal.

If it's not greater than half, you take nonlethal damage equal to half of what the save DC normally would be (rounded down). Then you check your nonlethal damage vs half your HP again. If your nonlethal damage now exceeds half your HP, the effect goes through as normal. Otherwise, you negate the effect.
This system would kill two birds with one stone, as nonlethal damage is a vastly underused defense, and this would make it relevant again.

Of course, there's loads of ways to become immune to nonlethal damage, so this particular idea wouldn't work really.

[NichG]

Game balance aside, the main issue I'd have with this is that it potentially introduces a lot of extra rolling, and combat is slow enough as it is. Basically now you add two die rolls and a chart lookup (plus potentially a decision branch for the attacker or defender) to anything like this.

What I might do instead is say, make feats such that 'against things that would apply a status condition without a save, you get a Fortitude save against those effects' (or Reflex, or Will depending on the feat line - probably they'd each have the +2 to save type X feats as a prereq). This way, no-save effects work just fine against small-fry with no extra rolling, but you can use the feats on significant NPCs and the like (and the PCs can take them as well). The other nice thing about this is that there aren't lookups in the resolution process - if you know your BBEG rolls a Fort save against all no-save status effects, then you can just go and roll that save when such an effect is used; whereas with the d6 method, you have to roll the d6, do a lookup, and then evaluate the appropriate save.

Also, I think the uncertainty of 'I don't know whether or not this guy is going to be able to defend against my effect' can be more effective psychologically than 'I know exactly how this thing is randomized'.

[eggynack]

First-off, I should make clear that this only matters to effects which target creatures. I thought I had made that clear in my OP, but apparently not.
Ah. That makes more sense. However, then you face that whole issue, where people will mostly cast the wall of stones of the world and avoid the not wall of stones. It's pretty difficult to eliminate the unconditional nature of wizards completely.

[weckar]

So, where do you draw the line here? Magic missile has no saving throw, would it get one? How about spells on objects, would they all roll object saves now for every spell?

[Maginomicon]

Of course, there's loads of ways to become immune to nonlethal damage, so this particular idea wouldn't work really.
Hmmm....

Maybe I could reword it as follows using a new stat called "Strife":


There is a new gradual defense called "strife". It has a minimum of and starts at 0 and goes up in certain circumstances. Any effect which removes nonlethal damage also removes an equal amount of strife.

Every time you fail a save-allowed effect, you take strife equal to half that effect's DC (round down).

Every time you're directly affected by a no-save effect and you don't want it to affect you, if your strife + nonlethal damage is greater than half your HP, the effect goes through as normal. If it's not greater than half, you take strife equal to what the save DC normally would be. If your new strife + nonlethal damage now exceeds half your HP, the effect goes through as normal. Otherwise, you negate the effect.


As for the "line", yes, magic missile would be affected since it directly affects a creature. However, the save DC of magic missile at ECL 1 is 10+1+Stat, which is easily more than half of the HP for most creatures of your CR and so it'd go through anyway. Once they get more HP though, no-save effects will become less and less effective unless you beat up their HP a lot first. Honestly, I'm okay with that. It makes HP damage relevant, it makes nonlethal damage relevant, and accomplishes the goals I wanted.

I'm open to other names for this new stat than "strife" (it seems like a somewhat silly name).