Iterative Saving Throws [Archive] - Wizards Community

Iterative Saving Throws [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tectorman
04-28-08, 11:46 AM I recently had a really cool idea that I have no idea how it would work in practice, so let me run it by here.

Save or Die spells and Save or Suck spells are a pain in 3.X. The way I see it, it mostly comes down to "Make a roll. Whoops, not high enough. Now your character dies, ceases to exist, all that work you did on his backstory, leveling up progression, everything, because of a single die roll."

So what if saving throws had iterative uses like attack bonuses? Say your Fortitude base save is now +6. Now, anytime you're required to roll a Fort save, you roll once at a +6 bonus, and again at a +1 bonus. You take the higher of the two (since with iterative attacks, the only penalty of a failed attack is that it didn't work, the later attacks still could), and a natural 1 doesn't count.

This is not fleshed out entirely, but I want to know what ya'll think.
Ananvilhurtz
04-28-08, 02:02 PM I like it.
Talisman
04-28-08, 05:55 PM The only thing about it I don't altogether like is that it simply makes the strong saves stronger and the weak saves weaker. Sure, a 5th-level fighter's Fort save will be +6/+1, but his Reflex and Will saves still trail at +1. It's not until 18th level (slightly sooner with multiclassing) that you get a second chance on a bad save.

In partiuclar, this seems to help the cleric and druid (like they needed it) and doesn't help the rogue much - his Ref save should be godlike anyway (and evasion helps immensely), but nearly all the SoD's are Fort- or Will-based.
nonsi
05-01-08, 06:23 AM I recently had a really cool idea that I have no idea how it would work in practice, so let me run it by here.

Save or Die spells and Save or Suck spells are a pain in 3.X. The way I see it, it mostly comes down to "Make a roll. Whoops, not high enough. Now your character dies, ceases to exist, all that work you did on his backstory, leveling up progression, everything, because of a single die roll."

So what if saving throws had iterative uses like attack bonuses? Say your Fortitude base save is now +6. Now, anytime you're required to roll a Fort save, you roll once at a +6 bonus, and again at a +1 bonus. You take the higher of the two (since with iterative attacks, the only penalty of a failed attack is that it didn't work, the later attacks still could), with the exception of a natural 1.

This is not fleshed out entirely, but I want to know what ya'll think.

Not as simplified as your suggestion, but . . . (check it out and see if you like it):

SoD & SoS spells and effects:
All "save or Die/Suck" and Polymorph spells and effects have 3 possibilities:
1. Save successful: no effect.
2. Save failed: Partial effect (detailed below) and a 2nd save against the given DC +4 is required.
3. 2nd Save failed: Full effect (partial effect is irrelevant).
"Save or Die": Partial effect means taking damage of 1d10 / spell-level and the target is stunned for 1d3 rounds.
Polymorph: Partial effect means taking damage of 1d6 / spell-level and the target is nauseated for 1d3 rounds.
"All or Nothing" mind effects: Partial effect means confusion for 1d3 rounds.

Edit: I simplified things a bit, to make this option more playable.
Nathreet
05-01-08, 04:10 PM I wouldn't make a natural 1 an exception. Having a 5% chance of dying from every attack at high levels is what makes SoD's lame.

Saves don't progress as fast as BAB, so you have the problem of characters never get iterative saves on their poor saves until level 20. Perhaps you could make it iterate every +3 instead of every +5.

Still dunno about the iterative-save system, but it may work.
crinos43
05-04-08, 10:35 PM What about feats instead? Have one feat for each save, the ebnefit being that you get the option to make two saving throws (the second one at half the bonus of the first), taking the better total.
Talisman
05-05-08, 12:25 AM What about feats instead? Have one feat for each save, the ebnefit being that you get the option to make two saving throws (the second one at half the bonus of the first), taking the better total.

...The downside being that it costs precious feat slots.
OneWinged4ngel
05-06-08, 04:26 AM I recently had a really cool idea that I have no idea how it would work in practice, so let me run it by here.

Save or Die spells and Save or Suck spells are a pain in 3.X. The way I see it, it mostly comes down to "Make a roll. Whoops, not high enough. Now your character dies, ceases to exist, all that work you did on his backstory, leveling up progression, everything, because of a single die roll."

So what if saving throws had iterative uses like attack bonuses? Say your Fortitude base save is now +6. Now, anytime you're required to roll a Fort save, you roll once at a +6 bonus, and again at a +1 bonus. You take the higher of the two (since with iterative attacks, the only penalty of a failed attack is that it didn't work, the later attacks still could), with the exception of a natural 1.

This is not fleshed out entirely, but I want to know what ya'll think.

Instead of solving the problem you are concerned with, this variant will somewhat lower the chances of you failing a saving throw in *every* category, not just the save or die ones, and will serve to slow down gameplay with more rolls and have people still die from a bad die roll or two. It also serves to penalize players who use save-based actions, and make them feel like they got hit with a nerf-bat.

This "fix" does not address your concern about save or dies.
Tectorman
05-12-08, 03:41 PM I just realized that keeping the natural 1 penalty doesn't change it (in fact, since you're rolling more often, you're more likely to fail more of your saves). So consider that taken out.

Also, I can see the wisdom in not making it based on fives. The +3 idea that Nathreet had seems good. I'll write that in later.

And let me go ahead and put this disclaimer: I don't care if this mechanic slows gameplay down, so that's a nonissue.
navar100
05-12-08, 04:55 PM I like the concept and sympathise why you want to do it, but I think it unfairly nerfs spellcasters. With multiple rolls to save against a spell, spells will be saved against more often. Casting a spell won't become useless, but it will become less effective. Spellcasters will then resoort to no save spells. Even ones that require a roll to hit are better since they retain only using one die roll to determine success.

It would probably be more work, but I think the better solution is to change the individual spells in question that inspired this idea. Finger of Death, for example, might be save or suffer 2d4 CON damage instead of save or die. Baleful Polymorph could be a rearrangement of ability scores. Still, there are low level save or suck spells, such as Sleep and Color Spray. For low level encounters, these are "save or die". They'd be harder to modify.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tectorman 04-28-08, 11:46 AM	I recently had a really cool idea that I have no idea how it would work in practice, so let me run it by here. Save or Die spells and Save or Suck spells are a pain in 3.X. The way I see it, it mostly comes down to "Make a roll. Whoops, not high enough. Now your character dies, ceases to exist, all that work you did on his backstory, leveling up progression, everything, because of a single die roll." So what if saving throws had iterative uses like attack bonuses? Say your Fortitude base save is now +6. Now, anytime you're required to roll a Fort save, you roll once at a +6 bonus, and again at a +1 bonus. You take the higher of the two (since with iterative attacks, the only penalty of a failed attack is that it didn't work, the later attacks still could), and a natural 1 doesn't count. This is not fleshed out entirely, but I want to know what ya'll think.
Ananvilhurtz 04-28-08, 02:02 PM	I like it.
Talisman 04-28-08, 05:55 PM	The only thing about it I don't altogether like is that it simply makes the strong saves stronger and the weak saves weaker. Sure, a 5th-level fighter's Fort save will be +6/+1, but his Reflex and Will saves still trail at +1. It's not until 18th level (slightly sooner with multiclassing) that you get a second chance on a bad save. In partiuclar, this seems to help the cleric and druid (like they needed it) and doesn't help the rogue much - his Ref save should be godlike anyway (and evasion helps immensely), but nearly all the SoD's are Fort- or Will-based.
nonsi 05-01-08, 06:23 AM	I recently had a really cool idea that I have no idea how it would work in practice, so let me run it by here. Save or Die spells and Save or Suck spells are a pain in 3.X. The way I see it, it mostly comes down to "Make a roll. Whoops, not high enough. Now your character dies, ceases to exist, all that work you did on his backstory, leveling up progression, everything, because of a single die roll." So what if saving throws had iterative uses like attack bonuses? Say your Fortitude base save is now +6. Now, anytime you're required to roll a Fort save, you roll once at a +6 bonus, and again at a +1 bonus. You take the higher of the two (since with iterative attacks, the only penalty of a failed attack is that it didn't work, the later attacks still could), with the exception of a natural 1. This is not fleshed out entirely, but I want to know what ya'll think. Not as simplified as your suggestion, but . . . (check it out and see if you like it): SoD & SoS spells and effects: All "save or Die/Suck" and Polymorph spells and effects have 3 possibilities: 1. Save successful: no effect. 2. Save failed: Partial effect (detailed below) and a 2nd save against the given DC +4 is required. 3. 2nd Save failed: Full effect (partial effect is irrelevant). "Save or Die": Partial effect means taking damage of 1d10 / spell-level and the target is stunned for 1d3 rounds. Polymorph: Partial effect means taking damage of 1d6 / spell-level and the target is nauseated for 1d3 rounds. "All or Nothing" mind effects: Partial effect means confusion for 1d3 rounds. Edit: I simplified things a bit, to make this option more playable.
Nathreet 05-01-08, 04:10 PM	I wouldn't make a natural 1 an exception. Having a 5% chance of dying from every attack at high levels is what makes SoD's lame. Saves don't progress as fast as BAB, so you have the problem of characters never get iterative saves on their poor saves until level 20. Perhaps you could make it iterate every +3 instead of every +5. Still dunno about the iterative-save system, but it may work.
crinos43 05-04-08, 10:35 PM	What about feats instead? Have one feat for each save, the ebnefit being that you get the option to make two saving throws (the second one at half the bonus of the first), taking the better total.
Talisman 05-05-08, 12:25 AM	What about feats instead? Have one feat for each save, the ebnefit being that you get the option to make two saving throws (the second one at half the bonus of the first), taking the better total. ...The downside being that it costs precious feat slots.
OneWinged4ngel 05-06-08, 04:26 AM	I recently had a really cool idea that I have no idea how it would work in practice, so let me run it by here. Save or Die spells and Save or Suck spells are a pain in 3.X. The way I see it, it mostly comes down to "Make a roll. Whoops, not high enough. Now your character dies, ceases to exist, all that work you did on his backstory, leveling up progression, everything, because of a single die roll." So what if saving throws had iterative uses like attack bonuses? Say your Fortitude base save is now +6. Now, anytime you're required to roll a Fort save, you roll once at a +6 bonus, and again at a +1 bonus. You take the higher of the two (since with iterative attacks, the only penalty of a failed attack is that it didn't work, the later attacks still could), with the exception of a natural 1. This is not fleshed out entirely, but I want to know what ya'll think. Instead of solving the problem you are concerned with, this variant will somewhat lower the chances of you failing a saving throw in every category, not just the save or die ones, and will serve to slow down gameplay with more rolls and have people still die from a bad die roll or two. It also serves to penalize players who use save-based actions, and make them feel like they got hit with a nerf-bat. This "fix" does not address your concern about save or dies.
Tectorman 05-12-08, 03:41 PM	I just realized that keeping the natural 1 penalty doesn't change it (in fact, since you're rolling more often, you're more likely to fail more of your saves). So consider that taken out. Also, I can see the wisdom in not making it based on fives. The +3 idea that Nathreet had seems good. I'll write that in later. And let me go ahead and put this disclaimer: I don't care if this mechanic slows gameplay down, so that's a nonissue.
navar100 05-12-08, 04:55 PM	I like the concept and sympathise why you want to do it, but I think it unfairly nerfs spellcasters. With multiple rolls to save against a spell, spells will be saved against more often. Casting a spell won't become useless, but it will become less effective. Spellcasters will then resoort to no save spells. Even ones that require a roll to hit are better since they retain only using one die roll to determine success. It would probably be more work, but I think the better solution is to change the individual spells in question that inspired this idea. Finger of Death, for example, might be save or suffer 2d4 CON damage instead of save or die. Baleful Polymorph could be a rearrangement of ability scores. Still, there are low level save or suck spells, such as Sleep and Color Spray. For low level encounters, these are "save or die". They'd be harder to modify.