Save Progressions

[AugustNights]

I see a lot of talk about the foibles and facts of D&D (3.5e) and it's lack of balancing points... skills, base attack bonus progressions, feats, spells, class features, weapons, armors, shields, and so on, but I don't think (outside of discussing fractional progressions), I've ever seen a discussion based around the mechanics of the Good & Bad save progressions.

Are they solid as is?

It seems good saves provide a simple +2 advantage in an evenly matched contest.

(1d20 + 2 + 1/2 HD + Significant Modifier) is roughly the save, where as DCs tend to be 10 + 1/2 HD + Significant Modifier.

Where as a poor saves start evenly matched but fall off faster

(1d20 + 1/3 HD + Significant Modifier) is roughly the save, where as DCs tend to be 10 + 1/2 HD + Significant Modifier.


What do people generally think about this? Are there thoughts? Are there better systems?

[Urpriest]

Your analysis is roughly correct, and contributes to the ability of those who target saves to always target something's weakest save and thus have a pretty good chance of landing a disabling effect.

That said, you're neglecting the fact that resistance bonuses to saves are quite cheap, while there's almost nothing comparable for DCs. Also, ability score scaling is pretty haphazard. So both of those mess up your picture a bit.

[AugustNights]

Good points, thanks for the input.

[Chronos]

Even against strong saves, the attacker will often have the advantage. A spellcaster (those who target saves most often) will have their highest score in the relevant ability, while their target may well have taken Wis or Dex as a dump stat, and Con probably at only their second or third best.