I don't think trees have a good dex save.

[R.Shackleford]

http://i.imgur.com/wdss0tp.gifv

I've always wondered why bursts weren't Con saves.

[pwykersotz]

Does toughing out the damage make that much more sense than rolling with it?

I think if I was going for verisimilitude, I'd prefer some sort of "Deflect" save where you anything that's not your torso to try and lessen the damage. Shield, armor, leather bracers, whatever.

But yeah, that tree had a terrible Dex save. Unless that was alchemist's fire, in which case that guy had an awesome attack roll. :smalltongue:

[R.Shackleford]

Does toughing out the damage make that much more sense than rolling with it?

I think if I was going for verisimilitude, I'd prefer some sort of "Deflect" save where you anything that's not your torso to try and lessen the damage. Shield, armor, leather bracers, whatever.

But yeah, that tree had a terrible Dex save. Unless that was alchemist's fire, in which case that guy had an awesome attack roll. :smalltongue:

I could see someone "toughing" it up or ignoring the painmore so than dodging the burst.

On the reflex versus attack... They are really the exact same thing. Really all attack rolls should be versus a reflex save and have armor reduce damage but... Yeah...

[pwykersotz]

I could see someone "toughing" it up or ignoring the pain no real than dodging the burst.

On the reflex versus attack... They are really the exact same thing. Really all attack rolls should be versus a reflex save and have armor reduce damage but... Yeah...

Yeah, that'd be a slick system.

[Kryx]

On the reflex versus attack... They are really the exact same thing. Really all attack rolls should be versus a reflex save and have armor reduce damage but... Yeah...
Make it happen!

[R.Shackleford]

Make it happen!

All attack rolls target reflex, save negates effects.

Use 3e4e saving throws (fort, ref, will as saving throws using highest of two ability scores).

Attack DC: 8 + Strength or Dexterity + Proficiency Bonus

Armor reduces each damage by...

Light/Mage Armor
1 + Prof

Medium Armor/Unarmored Defense
2 + Prof

Heavy Armor
3 + Prof

Gain prof score IF prof in armor

Shields and shield spells give bonus to reflex save.

(note: spitballed the numbers, I don't endorse them but the mechanics I will lol)


Edit

Crits

Anytime you use a feature that is an attack you roll a d20 before the target rolls their save. On a natural 20 you automatically hit and deal critical hit damage.

[Kryx]

I like the idea.

Combining saving throws (see numbers (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=336259531)):
Combining Strength and Constitution gives you 247 things to save against
Dexterity has 114 saving throws. Assume illusion saves go to Wisdom.
Combining Wisdom, Charisma, and illusions gives 120 things to save against

Fortitude is absolutely ridiculous in that system. You'd likely have to move all proning effects to dexterity. That would be 46.
Fort: 201
Ref: 160
Will: 120

Seems better.
_____________________

Reflex to dodge an attack seems pretty ok. Especially if you give half proficiency to proficient saves (so they aren't awful late game)

At 20:
Atk: d20 + 6 + 5
Save: d20 + 3/6 + stat = 7.5 on average dex according to the monster manual (int isn't higher than dex very much).

So that's a 61.75% chance to hit and a 38.25% chance to miss (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8999)). Looks good. About normal.

There is a problem of a Wizard being quite good at dodging. Int/Dex for Reflex always seemed strange. I wonder if it would be better to combine the 3 mental and leave Dex all by itself.

_____________________

Damage reduction is a problematic feature as it inherently reduces multi attacks more than single big attacks. You could argue that is by design, but then you'd have to fix TWF for players to be a bit more competitive. DR 5 is too strong early. You could literally not be hurt by many small creatures. Not sure how to fix this or TWF.

Shield should add 1 to reflex and 1 to DR (shield to dex save already exists in shield master). No so sure on spell shields..

Very interesting idea...

[R.Shackleford]

I like the idea.

Combining saving throws (see numbers (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=336259531)):
Combining Strength and Constitution gives you 247 things to save against
Dexterity has 114 saving throws. Assume illusion saves go to Wisdom.
Combining Wisdom, Charisma, and illusions gives 120 things to save against

Fortitude is absolutely ridiculous in that system. You'd likely have to move all proning effects to dexterity. That would be 46.
Fort: 201
Ref: 160
Will: 120

Seems better.
_____________________

Reflex to dodge an attack seems pretty ok. Especially if you give half proficiency to proficient saves (so they aren't awful late game)

At 20:
Atk: d20 + 6 + 5
Save: d20 + 3/6 + stat = 7.5 on average dex according to the monster manual (int isn't higher than dex very much).

So that's a 61.75% chance to hit and a 38.25% chance to miss (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/8999)). Looks good. About normal.

There is a problem of a Wizard being quite good at dodging. Int/Dex for Reflex always seemed strange. I wonder if it would be better to combine the 3 mental and leave Dex all by itself.

_____________________

Damage reduction is a problematic feature as it inherently reduces multi attacks more than single big attacks. You could argue that is by design, but then you'd have to fix TWF for players to be a bit more competitive. DR 5 is too strong early. You could literally not be hurt by many small creatures. Not sure how to fix this or TWF.

Shield should add 1 to reflex and 1 to DR (shield to dex save already exists in shield master). No so sure on spell shields..

Very interesting idea...

To be fair... Wizards should be great at dodging things, that's how they survive. Fluff them dodging fireball by bending the magical energies around them and swords because the first thing they learn in wizard school is to play tag and to run the Hell away lol.

Instead of damage reduction you could make armor give you temp HP on a short rest.

Shields could give a +1 to all saves. Placebo effect for Will saves at the very least. Although D&D isn't realistic... In reality placebos work better even if you know it is a placebo, if the placebo is big, and if it is expensive.

Have magic shield spells give a smaller bonus to saves. It blocks a physical effect or blocks the magical energy of a spell... Of course if it is a reaction you have to know the creature is attacking you.

I'm ok with Prone = Reflex. You could keep the ability check type system in place and make it defender's choice.

Example: The target is knocked prone. A successful Fort or Reflex save negates the prone.

Or just leave them as ability contests.

[Kryx]

To be fair... Wizards should be great at dodging things, that's how they survive. Fluff them dodging fireball by bending the magical energies around them and swords because the first thing they learn in wizard school is to play tag and to run the Hell away lol.
You could argue the same for Sorcerers or really any class. It doesn't make much sense. I think Str/Con = Fort, Dex = Ref, Int/Wis/Cha = Will

I recalculated them: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1573680031
Fort 213
Ref 156
Will 129


Instead of damage reduction you could make armor give you temp HP on a short rest.
DR could work and it seems like the best option. I think it just needs to scale better. Not sure how.



I'm ok with Prone = Reflex. You could keep the ability check type system in place and make it defender's choice.

Example: The target is knocked prone. A successful Fort or Reflex save negates the prone.

Or just leave them as ability contests.
Ya, I could probably go either way on this, though I'd lean toward saves. This came up in the expertise thread. I'd have to think this through.

[R.Shackleford]

You could argue the same for Sorcerers or really any class. It doesn't make much sense. I think Str/Con = Fort, Dex = Ref, Int/Wis/Cha = Will

I recalculated them: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit#gid=1573680031
Fort 213
Ref 156
Will 129


DR could work and it seems like the best option. I think it just needs to scale better. Not sure how.



Ya, I could probably go either way on this, though I'd lean toward saves. This came up in the expertise thread. I'd have to think this through.

The biggest issue with Int =/= Ref is that Intelligence goes a long way for helping people react to stuff. Investigation and Perceptions are skills that really should determine who reacts first. Just because you physically can move fast doesn't mean you noticed the danger quick enough...

Perhaps just don't make the wizard so powerful on the class side and the fact that they can dodge well won't be an issue?

How about having AC raise your maximum HP by a set amount? Have set amounts based on class that improve base on Proficiency.

Brute Classes: 10 x Proficiency

Hybrid Classes: 7 x Proficiency

Glass Classes: 5 × Proficiency

(numbers are place holders)

Add this to your base HP to get your HP max. Of your gain features that boost your AC you can go up a rank.

[Kryx]

The biggest issue with Int =/= Ref is that Intelligence goes a long way for helping people react to stuff. Investigation and Perceptions are skills that really should determine who reacts first. Just because you physically can move fast doesn't mean you noticed the danger quick enough...
Perception is Wisdom. So should AC involve Wisdom as well?

Investigation isn't involved much at all. Here are the examples given:


deduce the location of a hidden object
discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it
determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse
poring through ancient scralls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge

You're talking about Perception. Many GMs incorrectly use Investigation interchangeably with Perception.


Perhaps just don't make the wizard so powerful on the class side and the fact that they can dodge well won't be an issue?
Wizard being better at dodging due to their smarts (Intelligence) makes no more sense than a Ranger being better at dodging due to their experience (Wisdom).

I can't imagine a Wizard being great at balancing because they are smart. Nor a Wizard being good at avoiding a fireball because they are smart.

Imagine a Wizard falling off a pirate ship: "Oh, I'm so damn smart I grab the side of the boat, no problem!"




How about having AC raise your maximum HP by a set amount? Have set amounts based on class that improve base on Proficiency.
Add this to your base HP to get your HP max. Of your gain features that boost your AC you can go up a rank.
Combine this with 1/2/3 DR for Light/Medium/Heavy and I think you have a system in place.

(AC - 10) * prof extra HP.

1st level:
Leather classes (rogue) have 2 extra hp.
Scale mail classes (barbarian, ranger) have 8 extra hp
Chain mail classes (fighter, paladin) have 12 extra hp

5th level:
Studded Leather classes (rogue) have 6 extra hp.
Half plate classes (barbarian, ranger) have 15 extra hp
Plate classes (fighter, paladin) have 24 extra hp

Seems ok. Barbarian rage should account for enough extra hp to make up any difference.

[R.Shackleford]

Perception is Wisdom. So should AC involve Wisdom as well?

Investigation isn't involved much at all. Here are the examples given:


deduce the location of a hidden object
discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it
determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse
poring through ancient scralls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge


You're talking about Perception. Many GMs incorrectly use Investigation interchangeably with Perception.


Wizard being better at dodging due to their smarts (Intelligence) makes no more sense than a Ranger being better at dodging due to their experience (Wisdom).

I can't imagine a Wizard being great at balancing because they are smart. I can't imagine a Wizard being good at avoiding a fireball because they are smart.

Imagine a Wizard falling off a pirate ship: "Oh, I'm so damn smart I grab the side of the boat, no problem!"




Combine this with 1/2/3 DR for Light/Medium/Heavy and I think you have a system in place.

(AC - 10) * prof extra HP.

1st level:
Leather classes (rogue) have 2 extra hp.
Scale mail classes (barbarian, ranger) have 8 extra hp
Chain mail classes (fighter, paladin) have 12 extra hp

5th level:
Studded Leather classes (rogue) have 6 extra hp.
Half plate classes (barbarian, ranger) have 15 extra hp
Plate classes (fighter, paladin) have 24 extra hp

Seems ok. Barbarian rage should account for enough extra hp to make up any difference.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/08/intelligence-instead-of-dex-for-initiative/

Wisdom also works for initiative as it is the other ability score that governs "finding stuff".

Really initiative could be Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, or Wisdom quite easily as those ability scores are explained.

Strength: You are powerful enough to make up for not seeing the danger. Your strength allows you to move faster than others. In a race the first person to start running has an advantage but if the other person is flat out stronger than they are (high school track runner versus Olympic track runner) then their strength will allow them to make that reaction time become negated.

Dex: As normal.

Int: You saw the clues of an ambush/trap before others. Sherlock is a good example of this, high Int allows you to connect the dots faster.

Wisdom: You saw the ambush play out first and reacted to it. High Wis allows your to see the big picture.

Initiative is one of those silly sacred cow things in D&D.

***

I'll try out the 1/2/3 DR and (Normal AC - 10) × Prof Bonus HP stuff soon.

I have a group that likes to mess around with weird stuff like this.

[BurgerBeast]

Yeah I don't really mind using intelligence to modify
AC or reflex because of anticipation. The number of professional athletes who are physically outperformed but mentally better at positioning and anticipation is justification enough for me. Not to mention the ability to jump out of the way really quickly says nothing about one's ability to quickly choose a desirable location to which to jump.

On the idea of Armor as DR, and issues raised by TWF versus GWF, I think this just adds to and improves the differences between them. TWF should be better at landing blows but worse at penetrating armour, and GWF should be worse at landing but better at penetrating armour.

On the issue of 5 DR being too powerful at low levels, what if it became standard practice to add proficiency bonus damage? You could then scale the DRs granted by armours, and avoid the problem of having DR 5 be too high. DR 5 functions as DR 3 if everyone has +2 to damage.

[Kryx]

In 4e: Initiative is dex only, Reflex is dex or int + shield (+1 or +2), AC is dex or int.
If I remember correctly int to reflex/AC was a major complaint of that edition.

Personally, I'd prefer a Wizard having a stronger mind that is better able to resist illusions or mind effects than dodge a fireball. It makes much more thematic sense imo.
But people are free to choose what they think is best

[R.Shackleford]

In 4e: Initiative is dex only, Reflex is dex or int + shield (+1 or +2), AC is dex or int.
If I remember correctly int to reflex/AC was a major complaint of that edition.

Personally, I'd prefer a Wizard having a stronger mind that is better able to resist illusions or mind effects than dodge a fireball. It makes much more thematic sense imo.
But people are free to choose what they think is best

Yes, 4e had Dex initiative, it is a sacred Cow.

However in 3.5 you can find an option to add any mental ability score to initiative. The core cow is there but there is a precedent for adding other mental scores to initiative.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?125732-3-x-X-stat-to-Y-bonus

You could gain Int to AC in 3e, actually people optimized to do just that quite a bit.

The biggest complaint most people had was that it didn't "look like D&D" (which 3e doesn't look like 2e either lol), a lot of rules in 4e could be found in 3e... Some slightly changed.

That and Magic Missile wasn't auto hit when the game was first put out.

The issue here is that by saying that wizards can't be good at anything defensively except mental issues... Well it puts strain and hurts the rest of the game for the sake of one class. You are putting one class above the rest of the game (which is where WotC tends to go wrong every time).

Getting the core and then working with the classes to fit within the core should be priority.

You could say that Initiative is proficiency, if you are proficient then you can replace Dex. Them don't give wizards that proficiency. Or, you could say martial classes can add Int, Wis, or Cha to Initiative and AC (in place of dex) because they have learned to fight in a special way.

Don't throw out an idea just for the sake of one class. :(

Since casters get options that martials specifically can't use no matter how hard they try (without going outside their class). Martials should get options that casters can't use unless they go outside their class. Options like this could be a way of doing that. /shrug

[Kryx]

The issue here is that by saying that wizards can't be good at anything defensively except mental issues... Well it puts strain and hurts the rest of the game for the sake of one class. You are putting one class above the rest of the game (which is where WotC tends to go wrong every time).

...

Don't throw out an idea just for the sake of one class. :(
As you have pointed out you can make a case for every ability to apply to pretty much every bonus in D&D's history. I don't view albert einstein as a reflexive guy, nor stephen hawking, nor carl sagan, etc. I couldn't image any of those very intelligent people being acrobats as a result of their intelligence.

Any argument that could be made for "he figured out that it will be cast there so he moved early" could also be made for Wisdom. But that, in my opinion, doesn't work. Intelligence just does not equate to more physical defenses. The issue with your argument is I can make the same case for Cleric/Druid/Warlock/Sorcerer/Bard all only having mental defenses. It's not just Wizard.

I've also never read a fantasy book about a character who is good at dodging blows as a result of his intelligence.

But again, you're free to play it that way.

[R.Shackleford]

As you have pointed out you can make a case for every ability to apply to pretty much every bonus in D&D's history. I don't view albert einstein as a reflexive guy, nor stephen hawking, nor carl sagan, etc. I couldn't image any of those very intelligent people being acrobats as a result of their intelligence.

Any argument that could be made for "he figured out that it will be cast there so he moved early" could also be made for Wisdom. But that, in my opinion, doesn't work. Intelligence just does not equate to more physical defenses. The issue with your argument is I can make the same case for Cleric/Druid/Warlock/Sorcerer/Bard all only having mental defenses. It's not just Wizard.

It isn't about withstanding a hit, it is about dodging a hit. If you notice that someone is leading with their left foot and their body is contorted in a certain way... They are most likely going to throw a right handed punch.

Intelligence allows you to see what's going on and analyze it instantly. The faster you can think the faster you can start reacting.

The wizard isn't Stephen Hawkins (really dude????) Eistien, or Sagan. They didn't travel around fighting goblins, trolls, and dragons while adventuring in caves, forests, and mountains.

Fighting is 2 parts mental and 1 part physical. Being smarter, wiser, or more charismatic than a stronger/faster enemy means that you win. Even boxing is a mental game, Ali knew that better than anyone.

It seems like you have the issue of "I can't do that so no one else can" or "I've never seen that done, no one else can do that".

If you watch sports there are some teams that you know are better than others but for whatever reason that other team has an edge. It is typically a mentalissue where the players just think "I can't beat them cause of XYZ". Last year the Pirates sucked against the Reds which cost them the division. The pirates were a waaaay better MLB team but the Reds "have their number". The reds also know how the Pirates play and they knew the Pirates thought this way and they used it to their advantage.

But anyways...

Martial Options

Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues: Gain access to martial rules. These are rules that allow them to transcend normal abilities. You may use the following rules in place of the normal rules.

Initiative: You may replace Dexterity mod with Str, Int, Wis, or Cha mod.

AC: You may replace your Dexterity mod with Int, Wis, or Cha mod.

Whenevr you use the basic maneuvers in the PHB the size of a creature doesn't matter.

Etc...

***


I just realized something... Don't Wizards, in 5e, use their Int to AC when they are a blade singer.

Int to AC is already in 5e...

[Kryx]

It isn't about withstanding a hit, it is about dodging a hit. If you notice that someone is leading with their left foot and their body is contorted in a certain way... They are most likely going to throw a right handed punch.

Intelligence allows you to see what's going on and analyze it instantly. The faster you can think the faster you can start reacting.
Wisdom could do the same. Wisdom is experience. Fighting comes from experience.

In 5e an intelligence save comprises: Resist Psychic Damage, Avoid Trickery, See through illusions.

It's a moot point. Neither apply to AC imo. But once again you're free to play it as such. Can we stop discussing this, please?


Gain access to martial rules.
Not a fan. The rules should be the same for everyone with exceptions made after for cases like monk.



Int to AC is already in 5e...
So is Wisdom (Monk) and Charisma (see Cambion). Specific cases are fine to me. Int to AC is the most limited - lasting a few minutes a day.

[R.Shackleford]

Not a fan. The rules should be the same for everyone with exceptions made after for cases like monk.


Sorry but that's a horrible dea, we wouldn't have spellcasting of we followed that ideology.

Without going very specific routes or going outside their class Martials (and a ton of monsters) have no access to specific rules.

So if we go with "everyone has the same rules" We lose a huge part of D&D.

I don't know if anyone who really wants that.

Having a set of special rules for martials is no different than having a special set of rules for casters. Well, except you have to put effort into the martial side of the game.

Personally I would like to see a Feats/Spell distinction. Casters diversify themselves with spells while martials use feats. Partial Martials/Casters can gain a little bit of both.

[Kryx]

Sorry but that's a horrible dea, we wouldn't have spellcasting of we followed that ideology.
I'm merely expressing my favor of the system that existed in 3, 3.5, pf, 4e, and 5e: dex is what determines ac with others either being replacements or additions. That's all.

You're suggesting something different. You want larger changes than I do and once again that's totally fine. Please stop browbeating.

[R.Shackleford]

I'm merely expressing my favor of the system that existed in 3, 3.5, pf, 4e, and 5e: dex is what determines ac with others either being replacements or additions. That's all.

You're suggesting something different. You want larger changes than I do and once again that's totally fine. Please stop browbeating.

That's not the system in any D&D. Having everyone run off the same rules has never been part of D&D.

Having martials run off the same rules and then casters getting special rules has happened. But martials have also gained their own special rules from time to time.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that everyone has the same rules. There is a chapter specifically on spell casting that Barbarians, 2/3 Fighters, 2/3 Rogues, and a 1/3 Monks don't get access to through their class.

It isn't about large changes, it's about taking what is already happening and applying it to the entire spectrum of the game.

You don't even have to go Tome of Battle or 4e to do this either.

Basic Rules: When you shove the target can be no larger than 2 size categories above you.

Martial Rule: No size restrictions.

This could be done in a series of different ways. You could have martial feats (micro feats) that tweak basic rules or you could just have class features that break the rules of the world much how casting does but on a personal level rather than externally.

This way NPCs, Some Monsters, and Casters just can't raise their Str/Athletics score and be emulate a martial character. Just like how if a champion fighter raises their Int they will never be able to cast spells (unless they take optional options outside their class), no matter how hard they wave their hands and shout abra kadabra alakazam.

Why should a pure martial class, which there are only 3 of so they are the special case, fight as if they were a partial caster or a full caster? That's like saying that a caster should cast spells like a non-caster (as in they don't get to cast spells). That would be terrible.

Either take martials classes out of the game and relegate them to NPCs or out them on the same playing field as casters. Give them their own special quality of customization.

Full Casters: Spells
Full Martials: Feats
Partial Classes: Some Feats and Some Spells

A Cleric would never gain access to feats unless they MC'ed into a martial, MC into a Partial class, or took a subclass that have access to feats.

This sets the game up so everyone is on the same page. Not that martials can simulate casters or caster can simulate martials but that everyone gets their own unique way of customizing their character that isn't easy for others to do.

With this a Str or Dex Abjuration Wizard can still go fight in melee but won't be able to do the things a Barbarian can. A Barbarian might be able to grapple a dragon but the wizard, with the same strength, just doesnt have the training to do such a thing.

[Kryx]

Once again: you're free to do it however you want. Again, please stop browbeating. I believe you have misunderstood from step 1 what I'm trying to say.

Let me know how the attacks vs reflex goes. I'm curious.

[Waffle_Iron]

Armor reduces each damage by...

Light/Mage Armor
Prof - 1

Medium Armor/Unarmored Defense Features
=Prof

Heavy Armor
Prof + 1



Damage resist 3 as a max at first level. Heavy armor master feat would need to be retooled/ omitted.

[Rhynear]

Damage resist 3 as a max at first level. Heavy armor master feat would need to be retooled/ omitted.

With this system you would need to make armour affect the Reflex save, so, when wearing heavy armour for instance you don't add Dex mod to your save, and in medium armour you only add half your Dex mod to your save, or something along those lines.

[R.Shackleford]

With this system you would need to make armour affect the Reflex save, so, when wearing heavy armour for instance you don't add Dex mod to your save, and in medium armour you only add half your Dex mod to your save, or something along those lines.

Perhaps if you aren't strong enough then yes, but people in plate armor (and especially so for a fantasy character) don't have as much problems moving as people think.

I posted a link to (TL;DR) Russian play armor shield and sword full contact fighting.

If someone from real life can be at least as agile as them, then I don't think a fantasy character should have a problem.

Technically armor helps your reflex, stopping things from hitting you specifically, by letting things hit the armor. like jumping behind a wall but the wall is already all around you. You may take some damage but the armor (or wall) will take the brunt of it.

Which is where DR and bonus HP comes into play.

[Sigreid]

I could see someone "toughing" it up or ignoring the painmore so than dodging the burst.

On the reflex versus attack... They are really the exact same thing. Really all attack rolls should be versus a reflex save and have armor reduce damage but... Yeah...

Well, you could do the Star Wars Saga Edition thing. Reflex Defense is 10+Dex Mod+Level+1/2 armor rating if your proficient, or AC of the armor if you aren't.

Not exactly what was in the game, but pretty close.

[NecroDancer]

Some very angry druids have some strong words to say about this.....

[R.Shackleford]

Some very angry druids have some strong words to say about this.....

If it matters much, I'm an Environmental Scientist who does civil/construction inspection who oversees landfills being built for coal fired electric companies.

[Tanarii]

Not sure what your point was in this thread. To share a video of a failed dex save, or to claim that it shouldn't be a dex save?

If the latter: That looks exactly how I would expect the mechanics of a failed dex save, followed by loss of hit points, to work. (Assuming simulation of the mechanics of course.) Trees just have a lot of hit points to burn through.

[R.Shackleford]

Not sure what your point was in this thread. To share a video of a failed dex save, or to claim that it shouldn't be a dex save?

If the latter: That looks exactly how I would expect the mechanics of a failed dex save, followed by loss of hit points, to work. (Assuming simulation of the mechanics of course.) Trees just have a lot of hit points to burn through.

Originally just a cool gif that shows how fireball would work in real life (so pretty much not like in D&D's liquid fire) which road to me saying fireball should/could be a Fort save to reduce damage.

There are quite a few ways to do it but yeah.

In starting to think the ability scores for a character should be Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. Then you show how charismatic you are by taking charismatic skills. You show how dexterous you are by taking dexterous skills. Etc...

[Tanarii]

In starting to think the ability scores for a character should be Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. Then you show how charismatic you are by taking charismatic skills. You show how dexterous you are by taking dexterous skills. Etc...The problem with pairing ability scores is it inevitably leads to pumping one and dumping one.

Look at Str/Dex for example. Unless you're talking a medium armor character (which is typically considered a MAD build), the standard for builds is one is maxed and the other becomes 8.

[TheProfessor85]

Barbs get to add Con to AC like trees. Lol. And while Int may let you know how a enemy moves it's Wisdom that gives you the experience in dealing with an attack from said creature.

People with high Int may very like over think an attack while getting clobbered from lack of attention

[Kryx]

The problem with pairing ability scores is it inevitably leads to pumping one and dumping one.
The problem of not pairing is 6 saves that are very unbalanced, but that's a different thread.

Even without pairing anything beyond secondary for some classes and tertiary for most others is rarely above a 12. Those kind of stats are really painful, especially as levels progress.

You can easily swap "will" in this case for "Charisma", "Int", or "Strength" and lower the percentage by 5-10% to see how bad the balance is:

If we use DCs from DMG 274 and assume a Fighter is unproficient with his Fort and Will save. He has 16 con and has 14 in one of his will abilities:

Level 1-4 (DC 13):
Proficient primary save (ref) = 60% chance of success.
Half-prof seconday save (fort) = 55% chance of success.
Unproficient seconday save (fort) = 50% chance of success.
Half-prof tertiary save (will) = 50% chance of success.
Unproficient tertiary save (will) = 45% chance of success.
Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/89c9)

Level 5-8 (DC 15):
Proficient primary save (ref) = 60% chance of success.
Half-prof seconday save (fort) = 45% chance of success.
Unproficient seconday save (fort) = 40% chance of success.
Half-prof tertiary save (will) = 40% chance of success.
Unproficient tertiary save (will) = 35% chance of success.
Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/89cb)

Level 9-12 (DC 16-17 - call it 17):
Proficient primary save (ref) = 60% chance of success.
Half-prof seconday save (fort) = 40% chance of success.
Unproficient seconday save (fort) = 30% chance of success.
Half-prof tertiary save (will) = 35% chance of success.
Unproficient tertiary save (will) = 25% chance of success.
Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/89cc)

Level 13-16 (DC 18):
Proficient primary save (ref) = 60% chance of success.
Half-prof seconday save (fort) = 35% chance of success.
Unproficient seconday save (fort) = 25% chance of success.
Half-prof tertiary save (will) = 30% chance of success.
Unproficient tertiary save (will) = 20% chance of success.
Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/89cd)

Level 17-20 (DC 19):
Proficient primary save (ref) = 60% chance of success.
Half-prof seconday save (fort) = 35% chance of success.
Unproficient seconday save (fort) = 20% chance of success.
Half-prof tertiary save (will) = 30% chance of success.
Unproficient tertiary save (will) = 15% chance of success.
Anydice (http://anydice.com/program/89ce)

Some people call this a feature. I'd consider it a bug.

[Tanarii]

The problem of not pairing is 6 saves that are very unbalanced, but that's a different thread.Yes indeed. But that's a problem caused by choice of frequency for encountering each kind of save. (Note: not frequency/count of abilities that have those kind of saves. That's not a solid measure of how often they'll actually be encountered.)


Even without pairing anything beyond secondary for some classes and tertiary for most others is rarely above a 12. Those kind of stats are really painful, especially as levels progress.Yeah. 4e tried the "only three saves" method to address this. 5e went with "only three strong saves". IMO it's a problem that stems from tying ability scores to saves at all. Although I can understand why they wanted to go that route. Before 3e ability scores didn't feel as important. But that's because originally they were a measurement of how good you were at your class. Not how good you were at everything. That started to change as early as 1e, but it didn't become pronounced until 3e.

[Kryx]

Yeah. 4e tried the "only three saves" method to address this. 5e went with "only three strong saves". IMO it's a problem that stems from tying ability scores to saves at all. Although I can understand why they wanted to go that route. Before 3e ability scores didn't feel as important. But that's because originally they were a measurement of how good you were at your class. Not how good you were at everything. That started to change as early as 1e, but it didn't become pronounced until 3e.
There were 3 saves in all editions from 3-4.

Out of curiosity since I'm currently exploring ways of balancing this - what would you suggest (assuming you wanted it to be balanced)?

[Tanarii]

Out of curiosity since I'm currently exploring ways of balancing this - what would you suggest (assuming you wanted it to be balanced)?Probably divorce saves from ability scores completely again. Then probably reduce the number of saves, although if they are divorced from ability scores that may be unnecessary. Hell, you could even resurrect the 5 groups from BECMI, although I personally like Fort/Ref/Will better.

And balance the chance of success between 'strong' and 'weak' somewhat carefully across 20 levels. IMO something like 4e's expectation that saves should scale in difficulty and bonus to succeed as levels go up, although not necessarily as dramatically. Otherwise you end up with BECMI/1e where you usually fail at low levels and auto-succeed at high levels vs everything. Or you end up with 3e/5e where you have a reasonable chance of success on strong saves, but you get progressively relatively worse at weak saves as you gain levels.

[Kryx]

Probably divorce saves from ability scores completely again. Then probably reduce the number of saves, although if they are divorced from ability scores that may be unnecessary.
What would they be based on then? Just the class? If you divorce them from abilities what are they called? And if you remove things that cause saves what do you replace the save with?

[Tanarii]

What would they be based on then? Just the class? If you divorce them from abilities what are they called? And if you remove things that cause saves what do you replace the save with?Class and level. You could call them anything you wanted, depending on how you wanted to structure it. I was just off-the-cuff theorizing a 'next edition' route to improve the way saves worked overall.

If you're talking specifically about house-ruling 5e, then probably Fort/Ref/Will would be the easiest way to go. I wouldn't remove the things that cause saves. But I would take a long hard look at how many of which kind of saves are encountered in play first, which would require some data collection at tables. (Depending on how many games you play, that could easily take anything from a month of daily play to several months of weekend play.)

[Kryx]

If you're talking specifically about house-ruling 5e, then probably Fort/Ref/Will would be the easiest way to go.
Cool then I'll go that route.


But I would take a long hard look at how many of which kind of saves are encountered in play first, which would require some data collection at tables. (Depending on how many games you play, that could easily take anything from a month of daily play to several months of weekend play.)
As has come up in other threads - this is something nearly impossible to test at a table. Monster abilities make up the vast majority of saving throws. There are 574 monsters that I know of and have in my statistics system (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=14309157). The frequency of usage of each monster would heavily bias any results. The classes played would also heavily bias how many of each type the enemy rolls. The spell choices made by players would also bias it.

You can't playtest this system without a massive undertaking that I'm pretty sure the designers didn't even do. imo the best that can be done is counts of each and level of severity of failure.

[R.Shackleford]

Always hated the idea of your saving throws not being affected by your ability scores.

It would be like my intelligence not mattering when my boss asks me a question. They didn't hire me to just be a body they actually need my input and to think that my Intelligence has no effect on my answer.

Or that when I'm walking around white HDPE liner (90+ degree day, horrid humidity) my personal health has no effect on If I pass out from heat stroke ... That the guy who is hasn't hydrated himself has the same chance as I do when it comes to passing out.

No. That's just silly.

My personal ability and health has more of an effect on my ability to withinstand punishment, solve a problem, or stop myself from being charmed by the cute Latino chick who is trying to stop me from marking so many repair spots.

(not calling anyone silly for liking it, just that there is a disconnect that is silly to me).

[Tanarii]

Always hated the idea of your saving throws not being affected by your ability scores.
{Snip}
My personal ability and health has more of an effect on my ability to withinstand punishment, solve a problem, or stop myself from being charmed by the cute Latino chick who is trying to stop me from marking so many repair spots.
Except that saving throws, as originally envisioned, were mostly a function of pure luck. With role (ie class) making you better as some that were thematically appropriate, and heroic awesomeness (ie level) coming into it later on.

What your talking about could be equally represented by an ability check to overcome an effect. Assuming we were revamping the system of course. If you were sticking with Fort/Ref/Will, it does seem a little weird that your ability scores wouldn't affect those, since they imply it's not just luck, but rather some kind of resistance.

Edit: But this comes down to the assumption that the ability scores represent something that is your characters inner nature. A personal trait inherent to the character. That intelligence is in fact intelligence for example. Not an abstract mechanical representation. 5e certainly goes along with that way of thinking (mostly), but that's not the only thing they have to represent. They could just be "stat that drives this classes ability to do stuff and these skills modifiers".

[R.Shackleford]

Except that saving throws, as originally envisioned, were mostly a function of pure luck. With role (ie class) making you better as some that were thematically appropriate, and heroic awesomeness (ie level) coming into it later on.

Then go 4e's route and roll a d20, on a 10 Or higher you pass. On a roll of 1 to 9 you fail.

As I recall people didn't like ability scores being disconnected from the saving throw.

[Tanarii]

Then go 4e's route and roll a d20, on a 10 Or higher you pass. On a roll of 1 to 9 you fail.

As I recall people didn't like ability scores being disconnected from the saving throw.
That doesn't surprise me. Lots of people change when things change dramatically from the previous edition. I remember the uproar against changes in 3e (like standardizing ability score bonuses, BAB, Fort/Ref/Will for saves), and even in 3.5 (OMG Ranger HD are d8 WTF?!?).

[warty goblin]

Except that saving throws, as originally envisioned, were mostly a function of pure luck. With role (ie class) making you better as some that were thematically appropriate, and heroic awesomeness (ie level) coming into it later on.

What your talking about could be equally represented by an ability check to overcome an effect. Assuming we were revamping the system of course. If you were sticking with Fort/Ref/Will, it does seem a little weird that your ability scores wouldn't affect those, since they imply it's not just luck, but rather some kind of resistance.

Edit: But this comes down to the assumption that the ability scores represent something that is your characters inner nature. A personal trait inherent to the character. That intelligence is in fact intelligence for example. Not an abstract mechanical representation. 5e certainly goes along with that way of thinking (mostly), but that's not the only thing they have to represent. They could just be "stat that drives this classes ability to do stuff and these skills modifiers".

Wasn't this also when saves were against specific sorts of threat, e.g. save vs. instant death? Because that's a fairly substantial thematic difference from the save as generic defense, e.g. reflex as ability to get out of the way. A high save against instant death just means you're hard to instantly kill, but doesn't say anything about why you are hard to instantly kill. So not adding attributes to that makes a certain degree of sense, since there's no implicit link between an attribute and defense. A reflex save pretty clearly says 'you get out of the way', so it would be something of a thematic non-sequitur if the statistic that represented your general twitchiness didn't contribute.

[Tanarii]

Right. That's why I said it'd seem a little weird if you were sticking with Fort/Ref/Will.

[R.Shackleford]

That doesn't surprise me. Lots of people change when things change dramatically from the previous edition. I remember the uproar against changes in 3e (like standardizing ability score bonuses, BAB, Fort/Ref/Will for saves), and even in 3.5 (OMG Ranger HD are d8 WTF?!?).

Yeah, I didn't play pre 3e but I played with people who did and omg was that hilarious.

Especially since the same complaints against 3e were later used against 4e haha.

If we were to divorce ability scores from saves I would do...

You could have a set of saving throws (6 or 8 in total?), make it a d20 (1-9 = fail, 10+ = pass) and if you are trained you gain advantage on the save.

Have a proficiency in saves come from race (1), background (1), and class (2).

This allows you to still attach ability scores to the save in a role-playing way. My background is farmer so I'm really tough and have advantage against poison.


Edit

Some enemies could make you have disadvantage on the initial save but it's normal on the rest of your saves.

Make everything, well most things, "save ends" (like Hold Person).