While I'm thinking about saving throws, I need to revisit the whole issue of static saves.
Back in September I was miffed about static saves being in 4e. As I wrote here, I felt that having static saving throws took away some of the tension and randomness that is inherently fun.
I still feel that if saving throws are reduced to a simple comparison between two static numbers then the game loses a huge fun factor. For example, there is a trap that requires a reflex save DC 15. A character with a reflex save of 12 blunders into it. DM compares and starts rolling damage. Sorry chump.
However, if the DC of the trap or the spell is dynamic (and in the case of traps Noonan hinted that would be the case), then the static save might not be so bad.
Using the same trap example, this time the reflex save is determined by 1d20+5. The character still has a static Reflex save of 12, but the DM now informs him that he's blundered into a trap and rolls d20 to see if it affects the character. There's a moment of tension built in, and tension is good.
Of course, a good DM will pause for effect and milk the tension whether it's dynamic vs static or static vs static. The crucial difference from the player's perspective is the knowledge that he had a chance of escaping unharmed vs the pre-determined static vs static.
Yes, the player is losing a die roll and therefore a sense of control over one's destiny. As stupid as it is, we players all feel deep down that if we're the one rolling the die the outcome will be better. If I follow my little ritual, recite the proper prayers, and pick the die that "feels hot" then everything will be okay. If I leave it up to the capricious and malicious DM, well, my poor character is screwed.
I am willing to trade that superstitious nonsense for one thing. Give me the player the die roll to determine the DC for anything I do that provokes a target to save.
The first thing that pops to mind is the DC to save against spells.
Right now in 3.5 the save DC is 10+level of the spell+stat modifier+any feats etc... This static number is what the target rolls against. It currently works pretty well. I cast a spell and tension builds as I wait to see if the target makes or fails it's saving throw. In reverse I'm told to attempt a save and tension builds as I roll and await the outcome.
However, I'll trade that for rolling to set the DC of my spells or special abilities. Allow me to cast a spell, roll d20 and add the spell level, the stat modifier, and whatever else then see if that's enough to beat the bad guy's Reflex or Will or Fort save. Not only is this more in line with the process for any other attack (ie. d20+mods vs AC or Save) it gives the player that same sense of control. Maybe even more control.
But what about the dreaded Natural 1?
Okay, casting a crucial Finger of Death and getting a 1 will suck (I say "will" because I just know it'll happen eventually). It'll suck even more than a 1 on an attack roll. With the latter, it's just a miss and possibly a fumble. Next round, swing and try again. The former means a wasted spell. Next round, no more Finger of Death, try something else and a different d20.
This downside is most likely going to be countered by the replacement of the Vancian spellcasting system. With spells being one of "at will", or "per encounter", or "per day" having a natural 1 isn't quite so crushing. And the flip side of a natural 20 adds extra sweetness to spellcasting.
The puzzle pieces are starting to fall into place and I'm beginning to form a pretty good idea of what 4e is gonna look like. If I'm not too far off, then I've got reason for optimism. Weird.
Showing posts with label spell DCs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spell DCs. Show all posts
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Wishlist, part 2
In continuation of my ongoing wishlist for 4e, I bring you...
2. Keep saving throws on par with spell DCs
It's no secret. I love to play arcane spellcasters. The chapter on spells in the PHB and the Spell Compendium have replaced the Sears catalog of my youth. I can spend hours pouring over those pages, dreaming up which spells my caster will take and when. I'll soak in every detail from the school to the components required. For the higher level spells (4th and up) I'm particularly interested in two things. Is it affected by SR and what kind of save the target gets?
Anything that ignores SR (the bane of every high level caster) always grabs my attention. Also as my casters are almost exclusively sorcerers, my characters don't have a Swiss Army Knife (aka, spellbook) and they don't get mulligans when it comes to spell selection. So I also strive to pick a good balance of spells based upon what kind of save the target gets.
In other words, I try to make sure that I'll always have a decent spell regardless of what the target's best save is. If it's a big brute with tons of Fort Save bonuses, I'll hit it with spells that require Reflex or Will saves. If it's fast and agile, I use Fort save spells. Cerebral monsters are notoriously feeble so skip the Will save spells and use Fort or Reflex based ones. It's not a perfect system but my high level casters are rarely left without anything to throw at an enemy.
However, no matter how high I think the DC on my spell is, chances are still good that Crwth will roll a d20 and poof. He doesn't even need to say the words. The smug grin says it all. My spell had no effect.
Obviously I don't expect every spell I cast to get through the target's defenses every time. It's a game of chance and that randomness is what makes it great. For every time that a critical spell failed to get through due to a saving throw, there's one-shot-in-the-dark, hail Mary, final prayer spell that unbelievably succeeded. I'm talking about that Finger of Death that somehow struck down a Red Dragon Wyrm with one shot (thanks to a series of 1s on the d20). It's that kind of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat that I love.
However, I do feel that the saving throws for monsters advance at a faster pace than the DCs of my caster's spells. Crwth has a much greater head for the mathematics behind it than I do, so I'm admittedly low on statistical proof and long on subjective observation. Still, it seems to me that higher the CR of the monster, the more "spell proof" they are.
Take, as an example, a look at Graz'zt's saves from this article. "Fort +36, Ref +31, Will +27". Granted, he's a demon lord but I don't think his saves are all that unusual for a CR 32 encounter.
Now take a 32nd level Sorcerer with maxed out Charisma. Start with 18, put every point into it, buy the best +8 item, and read a +5 Tome. Cha 39 by my math. That's a very respectable +14 bonus. This means his 9th level spells (his biggest guns) have a DC of 33 (10+9+14). Throw in some specialization/focus and you can get that up to 35. I'm sure some min/maxer out there could bump that up another point or two.
Still, that gives the sorcerer a 50/50 chance of getting a Will based spell to affect Graz'zt. And that's picking on his weakest save. And that's only if he gets past that SR 45. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how this battle would go.
That's an extreme example to be sure, but my base argument is that high level casters shouldn't feel useless against foes that are their equals.
2. Keep saving throws on par with spell DCs
It's no secret. I love to play arcane spellcasters. The chapter on spells in the PHB and the Spell Compendium have replaced the Sears catalog of my youth. I can spend hours pouring over those pages, dreaming up which spells my caster will take and when. I'll soak in every detail from the school to the components required. For the higher level spells (4th and up) I'm particularly interested in two things. Is it affected by SR and what kind of save the target gets?
Anything that ignores SR (the bane of every high level caster) always grabs my attention. Also as my casters are almost exclusively sorcerers, my characters don't have a Swiss Army Knife (aka, spellbook) and they don't get mulligans when it comes to spell selection. So I also strive to pick a good balance of spells based upon what kind of save the target gets.
In other words, I try to make sure that I'll always have a decent spell regardless of what the target's best save is. If it's a big brute with tons of Fort Save bonuses, I'll hit it with spells that require Reflex or Will saves. If it's fast and agile, I use Fort save spells. Cerebral monsters are notoriously feeble so skip the Will save spells and use Fort or Reflex based ones. It's not a perfect system but my high level casters are rarely left without anything to throw at an enemy.
However, no matter how high I think the DC on my spell is, chances are still good that Crwth will roll a d20 and poof. He doesn't even need to say the words. The smug grin says it all. My spell had no effect.
Obviously I don't expect every spell I cast to get through the target's defenses every time. It's a game of chance and that randomness is what makes it great. For every time that a critical spell failed to get through due to a saving throw, there's one-shot-in-the-dark, hail Mary, final prayer spell that unbelievably succeeded. I'm talking about that Finger of Death that somehow struck down a Red Dragon Wyrm with one shot (thanks to a series of 1s on the d20). It's that kind of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat that I love.
However, I do feel that the saving throws for monsters advance at a faster pace than the DCs of my caster's spells. Crwth has a much greater head for the mathematics behind it than I do, so I'm admittedly low on statistical proof and long on subjective observation. Still, it seems to me that higher the CR of the monster, the more "spell proof" they are.
Take, as an example, a look at Graz'zt's saves from this article. "Fort +36, Ref +31, Will +27". Granted, he's a demon lord but I don't think his saves are all that unusual for a CR 32 encounter.
Now take a 32nd level Sorcerer with maxed out Charisma. Start with 18, put every point into it, buy the best +8 item, and read a +5 Tome. Cha 39 by my math. That's a very respectable +14 bonus. This means his 9th level spells (his biggest guns) have a DC of 33 (10+9+14). Throw in some specialization/focus and you can get that up to 35. I'm sure some min/maxer out there could bump that up another point or two.
Still, that gives the sorcerer a 50/50 chance of getting a Will based spell to affect Graz'zt. And that's picking on his weakest save. And that's only if he gets past that SR 45. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how this battle would go.
That's an extreme example to be sure, but my base argument is that high level casters shouldn't feel useless against foes that are their equals.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Static boredom vs Dynamic excitement
Crwth just pointed out to me that there is a rumor of 4e having "static saves".
In theory these "static saves" would replace the 3.5 method of saving throws as a modifier. You'd no longer roll 1d20 and add your Will save, but you'd simply compare the DC of the attack/effect against your static Will.
Has there been some epidemic of gamers with strained wrists? Are the hospital wards and emergency rooms filling up with dnd players with their wrists and hands bound in slings and casts after excessive die rolling?
Or, is this part of WotC's goal of speeding up game play while dumbing down the rules?
I can respect that but... a saving throw is probably the simplest roll in the game. It's rolling 1d20 and adding one number. One number plus one number. An average third grader can do it. Hell, I can do it.
Sure there are modifiers and special effects that can modify the saving throw modifier. Sometimes these modifiers on modifiers can be tricky. But it's no different than rolling an attack. Or a skill check. Why aren't they dumbing those rolls down as well?
Hey! Let's have everything static!
We can boil down an entire combat down to a quick excercise in mathematics that can be worked out in less than a minute. Fighter A with a static attack will hit Goblin A with a static AC enough times to do enough static damage against the goblin's static hit points to drop him in 5 rounds. Goblin A to do the same to Fighter A will take 7 rounds. Fighter A wins. Pass the Doritos.
I'm sure that's an extreme example but I'm just trying to make a point. And that point is, that the rolling of dice is one of the three pillars that DnD is based on. It's that randomness that makes the game exciting. From the elation of that natural 20 to the horror of that dreaded 1, it's all about the tension, the hope, the optimism dashed to pieces.
If anything I want more die rolls. I'd like to see the spell DCs determined by a d20+caster level (or hit die or stat modifier) vs the 1d20+Reflex save (or whatever). For sure it's a bit more math, but let's streamline the math that makes up the modifiers. Going static ain't the answer.
In theory these "static saves" would replace the 3.5 method of saving throws as a modifier. You'd no longer roll 1d20 and add your Will save, but you'd simply compare the DC of the attack/effect against your static Will.
Has there been some epidemic of gamers with strained wrists? Are the hospital wards and emergency rooms filling up with dnd players with their wrists and hands bound in slings and casts after excessive die rolling?
Or, is this part of WotC's goal of speeding up game play while dumbing down the rules?
I can respect that but... a saving throw is probably the simplest roll in the game. It's rolling 1d20 and adding one number. One number plus one number. An average third grader can do it. Hell, I can do it.
Sure there are modifiers and special effects that can modify the saving throw modifier. Sometimes these modifiers on modifiers can be tricky. But it's no different than rolling an attack. Or a skill check. Why aren't they dumbing those rolls down as well?
Hey! Let's have everything static!
We can boil down an entire combat down to a quick excercise in mathematics that can be worked out in less than a minute. Fighter A with a static attack will hit Goblin A with a static AC enough times to do enough static damage against the goblin's static hit points to drop him in 5 rounds. Goblin A to do the same to Fighter A will take 7 rounds. Fighter A wins. Pass the Doritos.
I'm sure that's an extreme example but I'm just trying to make a point. And that point is, that the rolling of dice is one of the three pillars that DnD is based on. It's that randomness that makes the game exciting. From the elation of that natural 20 to the horror of that dreaded 1, it's all about the tension, the hope, the optimism dashed to pieces.
If anything I want more die rolls. I'd like to see the spell DCs determined by a d20+caster level (or hit die or stat modifier) vs the 1d20+Reflex save (or whatever). For sure it's a bit more math, but let's streamline the math that makes up the modifiers. Going static ain't the answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
