Greywander
2022-08-29, 07:40 PM
I was thinking about the idea of swapping out saving throws for attack rolls made against static saves. You can set it up so that the math is exactly the same, but now the attacker is making an attack roll against a static save value, rather than the defender making a saving throw against a static attack DC. I know some people have mixed feelings about that, but that's not what I'm here to discuss.
The idea came to me that you could have an attack make a single attack roll and then compare the results of that attack roll against multiple defenses of the target. This could save time over making multiple attack rolls, one against each relevant defense, and allow for the effects of an attack to change depending on which defenses that attack beats and which ones it does not. You could actually do this with traditional saving throws, too, but it's just so much easier with static saves; there's close to no additional complexity in comparing the result of the same attack roll against multiple static saves that have already been pre-calculated.
As a simple example, let's say we want armor to help defend against Fireballs. When the wizard casts Fireball, he makes an attack roll against each target. The results of that attack roll are compared to both that target's AC and their DEX save. If the attack beats both, the target takes full damage; if it beats only one, the target takes half damage; if the attack fails to beat either defense, the target takes no damage.
As you can see, this can allow for degrees of success, where defeating more defenses increases the potency of the effect. But that's not all we can do. Perhaps the effect must beat all relevant defenses to have any effect at all, or perhaps it only needs to beat one defense to take full effect. Most interesting of all is that beating one defense might produce a different effect from beating a different defense.
Consider, for example, a spell that requires an attack to be made against all six saves. Each save that the attack beats creates a different effect, and if the attack beats all six saves then all six effects are created. This necessarily means that certain enemies will only see some effects at the same time as others, due to how their saves are arranged. As long as the wizard's STR save is lower than their INT save, it simply isn't possible to have their INT save be beaten by an attack that doesn't also beat their STR save. This can mean that an attack that targets multiple defenses will affect different targets differently; while the wizard is likely to have their STR save beaten, the fighter is likely to have their INT save beaten instead. Each of these then produces a different effect.
It feels like there's some interesting potential here, though some caution is required. If a spell or effect requires beating multiple defenses to have any effect at all, then that spell or effect is weaker and less reliable as a result. If the spell or effect creates some kind of effect on beating any defense, and possible multiple effects if several defenses are beaten, then that spell or effect is stronger and more reliable as a result. So those should be taken into consideration.
The idea came to me that you could have an attack make a single attack roll and then compare the results of that attack roll against multiple defenses of the target. This could save time over making multiple attack rolls, one against each relevant defense, and allow for the effects of an attack to change depending on which defenses that attack beats and which ones it does not. You could actually do this with traditional saving throws, too, but it's just so much easier with static saves; there's close to no additional complexity in comparing the result of the same attack roll against multiple static saves that have already been pre-calculated.
As a simple example, let's say we want armor to help defend against Fireballs. When the wizard casts Fireball, he makes an attack roll against each target. The results of that attack roll are compared to both that target's AC and their DEX save. If the attack beats both, the target takes full damage; if it beats only one, the target takes half damage; if the attack fails to beat either defense, the target takes no damage.
As you can see, this can allow for degrees of success, where defeating more defenses increases the potency of the effect. But that's not all we can do. Perhaps the effect must beat all relevant defenses to have any effect at all, or perhaps it only needs to beat one defense to take full effect. Most interesting of all is that beating one defense might produce a different effect from beating a different defense.
Consider, for example, a spell that requires an attack to be made against all six saves. Each save that the attack beats creates a different effect, and if the attack beats all six saves then all six effects are created. This necessarily means that certain enemies will only see some effects at the same time as others, due to how their saves are arranged. As long as the wizard's STR save is lower than their INT save, it simply isn't possible to have their INT save be beaten by an attack that doesn't also beat their STR save. This can mean that an attack that targets multiple defenses will affect different targets differently; while the wizard is likely to have their STR save beaten, the fighter is likely to have their INT save beaten instead. Each of these then produces a different effect.
It feels like there's some interesting potential here, though some caution is required. If a spell or effect requires beating multiple defenses to have any effect at all, then that spell or effect is weaker and less reliable as a result. If the spell or effect creates some kind of effect on beating any defense, and possible multiple effects if several defenses are beaten, then that spell or effect is stronger and more reliable as a result. So those should be taken into consideration.