PDA

View Full Version : Fixing saves(explanation follows).



Mordokai
2007-10-08, 01:32 PM
It is a sort of house rule that I have been thinking about for some time now, but never gotten to it's realisation. Since I'm about to start my first adventure as DM, I was thinking of offering a chance to my PC's to improve their saves, and I would like, and indeed, need, some more info on this.

We all know that certain core classes(and PrCs) have one save that has good progression and two saves that have bad progression, such as fighters an rogues. I was thinking of offering the players who would choose such class a chance to get another good progression save base on their ability scores. How this would work you ask? Quite simple actually.

Say that player wants to play a wizard. They have good will saves and bad reflex and fortitude saves. Lets say that given wizard has 15 DEX and 13 CON, so he gets good reflex saves as well. This would represent that he trained his body to somehow overcome for his weakness. If he had 13 DEX and 15 CON he would get good fortitude saves. If he has the same scores in both abilities(say, 15 DEX and CON), a player can choose which saves he wants to have as good saves.

Alternative to this would be that the ability with worse score would get good saves. Thus, a fighter with 12 DEX and 8 WIS would get good will saves, again to overcome something he's bad at.

Both versions seem logical from some point to me so I would like some opinions on this. Will this broke the game? And it remains mystery to me what to do with classes that get two or more good saves, such as cleric, ranger, bard and monk.

So please, all comments are greatly appreciated.

brian c
2007-10-08, 01:41 PM
I don't think there's anything to fix. A character with 15 con, compared to say 10, is already getting +2 on his fortitude saves. At low levels, that makes a huge difference but at high levels he still has a lower fort save than a fighter, because fighters do fortitude-y stuff (ie get hit with weapons, exposed to poisons) much more often, so they're better at resisting it.

Draz74
2007-10-08, 02:09 PM
So wait, I'm working under the assumption that Will is a more important save than Reflex (as it is in many campaigns).

This "fix" would make it so that a fighter with 14 Wisdom and 13 Dexterity is actually better than a fighter with 14 Wisdom and 15 Dexterity? :smallconfused:

Chronos
2007-10-08, 03:44 PM
This "fix" would make it so that a fighter with 14 Wisdom and 13 Dexterity is actually better than a fighter with 14 Wisdom and 15 Dexterity?And the idea of "compensating" for the poor scores is even worse: "I want to make sure to give my fighter a low Wisdom, so he can have good Will saves".

Riffington
2007-10-08, 07:20 PM
I don't think there's any logic to the save system to begin with. Why do wizards have good Will Saves and Fighters poor Will Saves? I mean, if you name a novel where a warrior protagonist stands up against evil sorcerors, that warrior inevitably has an indomitable will. In contrast all kinds of mythological wizards get mind controlled by the djinns or demons they summon.

I don't think there's any balance or flavor reason why characters have to get the saves the books give them. You could just let everyone pick two strong saves at level 1, and keep those regardless of multiclassing. Let Monk keep three, as long as Monk stays his highest class. Give the bards and rangers a couple free hp. Give the cleric one extra silver piece.

Neftren
2007-10-08, 07:23 PM
Doesn't make sense from a roleplaying standpoint. Since when have Wizards been the type to duke it out with weapons at close range and take hits without dying?

Fortitude Saves = The ability to take a hit
Reflex Saves = The ability to dodge a hit
Will Saves = The ability to resist an intrusion of the mind

Basically, that's the idea behind the above. It may not be 100% correct, but that's the general gist of the idea.

Riffington
2007-10-08, 07:29 PM
Doesn't make sense from a roleplaying standpoint. Since when have Wizards been the type to duke it out with weapons at close range and take hits without dying?

Since Rasputin.
Now I'll grant that wizards should have poor BAB. But why should they have to be vulnerable to poison? Can't you imagine a wizard who laughs off the lich's death magic just as easily (or more easily) than the one who is immune to the succubus's charms?

Dairun Cates
2007-10-08, 07:41 PM
Personally, I'm a fan of the Slayers d20 versions of the save boosting feats for save boosting. The Slayers d20 versions of Iron will, Great Fortitude, and Lightning Reflexes add a +4 instead of a +2 but they have a minor drawback that gets worse every time you take them.

Great Fortitude- Your Fort save is 4 higher to show your generally more resistant form, but you must eat twice as much as the average human to maintain it. Time you can go without eating halves every time you take the feat.

Lightning Reflexes- You have fast reflexes. You gain a +4 to your Ref saves, but you're twitchy. As a result, botching movement skill checks causes bumbling results (ie. On a nat 1 on an attack, you cut your pants off. A nat 1 on a run = tripping and rolling for 10 feet).

Iron Will- You have a strong will, but you are obsessed with your ideals. You gain a +4 to will saves, but your character must choose something they are completely obsessed with (Justice, World Domination, Your God, Beer, etc). This is the source of your iron will. Your character must act accordingly and cannot betray the obsession without losing the feat.

Edit: Also, I thought we were past the "Wizards need buffing" phase.

Riffington
2007-10-08, 07:53 PM
Also, I thought we were past the "Wizards need buffing" phase.

Even if you give wizards an extra save, they are still weakened by this.
After all, a lot of their spells tend to force enemies to make saves...

Dairun Cates
2007-10-08, 08:10 PM
Even if you give wizards an extra save, they are still weakened by this.
After all, a lot of their spells tend to force enemies to make saves...

Wasn't the entire point of a Batman Wizard to use spell combinations at higher levels that get no save or just force enough saves until the enemy nat 1's? It's really more of a benefit than it is a nerf.

Besides, what about classes that use saves in class abilities that AREN'T spellcasters?

On top of that, what happens to the monks whose entire purpose was having good saves in everything? Do we now invent MEGA save progression or just tell one of the few advantages of a monk that it's overpowered?

Edit: I think my point is that if you want nice saves so bad, that there's no reason not to raise the impact of the increased save feats, but increasing the saves in and of themselves just seems to take away the advantages of classes that already have good save progressions.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-10-08, 08:25 PM
I mean, if you name a novel where a warrior protagonist stands up against evil sorcerors, that warrior inevitably has an indomitable will.
In my experience, that trope happens most often in the "Barbarian vs. Wizard" genre. So the warriors with the indomitable will are tyipcally best modeled with a level or two of barbarian. Rage grants a bonus to Will saves. It's really not enough of a bonus to model the idea perfectly, but that is why the bonus is there to begin with.

In any case, the warrior in such a story rarely breaks through their opponent's spells because of extensive mental training, as would be modeled by a high Will save. It's usually sheer willpower, as modeled by a high Wisdom and the Iron Will feat.


In contrast all kinds of mythological wizards get mind controlled by the djinns or demons they summon.
Likewise, this genre trope features the wizard getting controlled because the djinn or demon is too powerful. It is a "Do not meddle in that which is beyond you" type lesson. Meanwhile, these wizards are never fooled by the magic of their peers, whose magic would be of a similar or lower power level. As such, this would be best modeled by a demon with an exceptionally high save DC rather than a low will save.


Now I'll grant that wizards should have poor BAB. But why should they have to be vulnerable to poison? Can't you imagine a wizard who laughs off the lich's death magic just as easily (or more easily) than the one who is immune to the succubus's charms?
This is generally where the proper abjurations come in. And that makes sense, 'cause the general idea behind a wizard being able to resist an opponent's spell is usually because the wizard was using spells of his or her own rather than any innate resistance, as modeled by the save itself.

Remember, a class's base save models what areas the class trains in. Warriors train their bodies, so they get better base physical saves. Wizards train their minds, so they get better base mental saves. Anything that is a result of natural talent or sheer stick-to-it-ness is meant to be modeled by high ability scores or the proper feats.

I agree that the model is not perfect. There is too much of a gap between good and poor base saves for ability scores and save-boosting feats to pay off. But, in order to keep with the model's logic—which is just fine—I'd make the fix by closing that gap through changing the save progression and/or by making the save-boosting feats scale with level. (For the record, I'm thinking ut should be in the vicinity of +2 plus 1 per five character levels. This makes a poor save enhanced by the feat trail a good save without the feat pretty closely up to 20th level, assuming all other modifiers are equal.)

Riffington
2007-10-08, 08:44 PM
Your games play very differently than mine. I've never had a problem with no-save-combo wizards, only with save-or-die/suck spells. And I've never played in a game where "wait until my enemy rolls a 1" was anything other than a cry of desperation.

I have no objection to your "raise the power of +save feats".

But I don't think Mordokai's giving extra saves out breaks the game either. I just think he'll do better to let players choose good saves than to force the choice based on their attributes.



Wasn't the entire point of a Batman Wizard to use spell combinations at higher levels that get no save or just force enough saves until the enemy nat 1's? It's really more of a benefit than it is a nerf.

Besides, what about classes that use saves in class abilities that AREN'T spellcasters?

On top of that, what happens to the monks whose entire purpose was having good saves in everything? Do we now invent MEGA save progression or just tell one of the few advantages of a monk that it's overpowered?

Edit: I think my point is that if you want nice saves so bad, that there's no reason not to raise the impact of the increased save feats, but increasing the saves in and of themselves just seems to take away the advantages of classes that already have good save progressions.

Dairun Cates
2007-10-08, 09:03 PM
But I don't think Mordokai's giving extra saves out breaks the game either. I just think he'll do better to let players choose good saves than to force the choice based on their attributes.

You still didn't answer my questions about how it's balanced for monks who already have a good progression in all three. They can't get any better without making a new progression?

Even barring that you have never seen a Batman Wizard (although it seems to happen eventually even in the best of groups in lesser or more degrees), how can you justify nerfing classes that are actually pretty well-balanced or underpowered that use saves as one of their class skills? Saves are not only based on spell attacks.

Another question is whether this is fair to classes with two good saves and one bad save. They lose any flexibility in their choice. They're stuck with the last save being upped. That's pretty good, but it seems like the Wizards, Rogues, and Fighters are getting the better option here.

I'm pointing out that it seems like a very poorly balanced house rule. You're free to house rule whatever you want, but if the point of the house rule is to bring balance in the first place, a less balanced option does not seem like the ideal choice.

Draz74
2007-10-08, 09:32 PM
If you do go around adding more good saves to a lot of characters, one way or the other, then here's a suggestion about what to do for those who already have good saves: make them able to not fail saves on a Natural 1. Give this ability to Monks for all three saves, to Rangers and Bards for Reflex saves, and ... don't give it to Clerics and Druids at all. :smalltongue:

Kaelik
2007-10-08, 09:59 PM
Even barring that you have never seen a Batman Wizard

Apparently you need to reread TLN. 50% of Batman is save-or-lose/suck. And 40% is having your save DC so high that by targeting a weak save your guarantee failure.

Dairun Cates
2007-10-08, 10:16 PM
Apparently you need to reread TLN. 50% of Batman is save-or-lose/suck. And 40% is having your save DC so high that by targeting a weak save your guarantee failure.

Yeah. I have actually. That's not the only source for wizards though. Besides, it seems that every time someone brings up something having high enough saves to consistently avoid said save or suck or save or die spells, someone brings up force cage and cloud kill or forcing it to nat 1 its save. This includes even on monks. So, from that combined with observations of actual games and personal experience with twinked wizards, there is a lot of cheap comboing going on.

Either way, I still stand by that wizards don't need an improved save. It helps them a whole hell of a lot for a class that gets constantly touted as needing a rebalancing. Even if you can argue that it nerfs wizards, you can't really argue that it also nerfs any non-spell-casting use of saves as well.

To be perfectly honest, I kinda find the whole "low save classes should get better inherent saves" argument to be very similar to an argument like, "It's not fair that fighters, paladins, and rangers get full BAB, all the classes should get a buff in their BAB" or "Let's bump all the hit dice except for barbarians up a dice category" or "All races should get a bonus feat at level 1". You honestly should have to spend effort in your character's development to get better at a weak spot. I'm willing to except the idea that classes with already good saves get the chance to not insta-fail on 1's, but the general consensus of those that agree here seems to be that classes that don't get good saves are entitled to catch up a bit to the classes that do with equivalent compensation to the classes that already had them.

What's the point of making classes different if every class is going to have immediate envy of another classes specialties. There is SUPPOSED to be a penalty for specializing.

Kaelik
2007-10-08, 11:04 PM
Yeah. I have actually. That's not the only source for wizards though. Besides, it seems that every time someone brings up something having high enough saves to consistently avoid said save or suck or save or die spells, someone brings up force cage and cloud kill or forcing it to nat 1 its save. This includes even on monks. So, from that combined with observations of actual games and personal experience with twinked wizards, there is a lot of cheap comboing going on.

A) But it is the preeminent source for "Batman Wizards" which you declared never use save or suck.
B) No one ever brings up forcing natural ones, that requires more spell slots and actions then it is worth. But yes, part of that 10% involves no save spells to deal with the (exceedingly rare) instances of people who can save against your spells.
C) I never said a single thing about the actual proposed mechanics of changing saves, and I certainly did not defend them, so most of your post is wasted.

Tor the Fallen
2007-10-08, 11:16 PM
A) But it is the preeminent source for "Batman Wizards" which you declared never use save or suck.
B) No one ever brings up forcing natural ones, that requires more spell slots and actions then it is worth. But yes, part of that 10% involves no save spells to deal with the (exceedingly rare) instances of people who can save against your spells.
C) I never said a single thing about the actual proposed mechanics of changing saves, and I certainly did not defend them, so most of your post is wasted.

This is not a thread about wizards. Please put your spellbook back in your pants.

Dairun Cates
2007-10-08, 11:22 PM
A) But it is the preeminent source for "Batman Wizards" which you declared never use save or suck.
B) No one ever brings up forcing natural ones, that requires more spell slots and actions then it is worth. But yes, part of that 10% involves no save spells to deal with the (exceedingly rare) instances of people who can save against your spells.
C) I never said a single thing about the actual proposed mechanics of changing saves, and I certainly did not defend them, so most of your post is wasted.

For the record, I never said that they never use save or die/suck spells. I just was pointing out that given the opportunity, most people start going for the ones that can't be saved against. While people usually can't avoid your spells a lot of high level monsters have pure BS saves. That 10% seems to come up a whole lot for me personally. That's all I'm saying.

Either way, I think we're arguing over a small difference at certain levels.

I think my overall point for the topic itself though, is that I think that this house rule is inherently unbalanced in that it takes an aspect that is the edge for a couple of classes and makes it moot.

Roderick_BR
2007-10-09, 05:10 AM
The thing about saves, is how they are supposed to work.
The "poor" save means something anyone can do. Nothing special.
The "good" save means something you are particularly good.

From that point of view, fighters doesn't have "low" will saves. It's wizards and the others spell casters that have a high Will, because they deal with magic and all that stuff.

I'm thinking about just replacing the low saves with the average saves (starting at +1 and ending at +9), leaving the low saves for NPC classes. I think that is more balancing for most classes.
And maybe allow a paladin to have a high will, but that's a personal bias.

Riffington
2007-10-09, 11:53 AM
I won't say more about balance except to say that I don't think the classes with 2 good saves are weaker on average (if you take away that advantage) than the classes with 1 good save. This will be very campaign dependent - in some campaigns, Rangers rock and others they suck. Same with bards.

I want to talk more about letting players choose their good save. I think that for Conan, for example... if you asked Schwarzenegger he would say that Will was what he worked most on. And he'd say that because of his experience body building. That is an endeavor that focuses on willpower. He didn't make himself healthier with all that lifting, or work so very much on his reflexes. But day after day he pushed himself to overcome his limits, to break through that mental barrier. The same would be said of a Spartan warrior.

If your fighter-icon is a soldier in Fallujah, you'll want him to have reflex saves. If your notion of war is to constantly look for danger, and react to get out of its way (whether it's grenades, IEDs, or fireballs), you'll work on that.

And if you're the Athenian ideal, you work on endurance and basic health - Fort would be a great choice for "good save".

Whether the ideal number of good saves for a fighter is 1 or 2... I don't know. But it's very reasonable to let him pick.

A wizard is a type of expert. That's why they get will saves - WOTC decided all people who work with their minds get high will. But computer programmers and doctors don't necessarily train their willpower. Some programmers might train their reflexes, and most doctors might train their fortitude. I can easily imagine a wizard whose training emphasized any of those three (or any two, if you prefer).

As to Mr. Windrider... well written, but I think you could write the opposite opinion even better.
Conan's high will had nothing to do with raging. He just continually trained his will (at least as much if not more than his reflexes or fortitude). A wizard might be resistant to the magics of his peers - but specifically the will magics? Maybe some (Hermione Granger springs to mind) - but others are at least as resistant to death magics and poisons. Still others (Ron Weasley) are really best at getting quickly out of danger.

Mordokai
2007-10-09, 03:12 PM
Lots of good points were made, but sadly, at the moment I don't have time, neither the will to answer to everyone personally. I like the idea of enhancing the saves boosting feats at the expense.

Thanks to everybody for your participation.