Another idea for saves - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Another idea for saves

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
wrightdjohn_dup
Apr 18, 2009 9:06:01 If you like to hand wave everything and internal world consistency and versimilitude is of little concern to you just go to the next topic.

I like saves overall but I do have a houserule that I thought might "fix" the issue for some people without really affecting the dungeon experience.

I subtract the level of the person saving from the level of the original causer of the effect and if the number is from -4 to +4 I just make it 0. Otherwise if its less than -4 I add 4. If it is greater than 4 I subtract 4. I then adjust the save by the number.

Here is an example. A 14th level mage casts a spell on a 6th level fighter. I subtract 6 from 14 to get 8. I subtract 4 from 8 to get 4. So the new DC is 14 instead of 10. A 20th level mage against a 2nd level fighter would have a save DC 24. So at this level the level 2 guy can't save. Maybe the DM rules a 20 still saves depending on the effect.

This allows for powerful people to be able to affect lower level people and feel ultra powerful. If damage was the only issue here I wouldn't even use this rule. I'm thinking of things like dominate etc... Practically for monsters up to 4 levels higher to 4 levels lower nothing will change. Well that pretty much covers the dungeoneering aspects of the game. Its just a mechanic to explain out of game things.

Thoughts?
#2
dragondeadite
Apr 18, 2009 9:21:27 Saves in 4th ed are perfectly fine as they are. Frankly, if you want complicated saves, go pick up a 1st or even 2nd edition version of the game and start playing that.

I think most people forget that the saves are based off of the idea that the initial effect is an attack against your other defences, which are a reflection of you ability to stave off effects. The "saving throw" is simply a way of determining how long it effects you, not the actual strength of the effect and thus the level of the caster isn't an issue.

BTW: Get ready for a nice little war here...
#3
rovin
Apr 18, 2009 9:23:36 I don't see the need for this. Higher (or lower) level attackers are already more (or less) likely to hit a target's defenses. Altering the probable duration of the "save ends" effects they might impose is excessive, and almost certainly unbalancing. There are already quite sufficient bonuses (or penalties) for level differences in the game.
#4
wrightdjohn_dup
Apr 18, 2009 13:05:06 What you guys are missing is that normal dungeoneering is unaffected. All this rule change would do is make some out of game things possible that are somewhat inexplainable now. For example a high level wizard using some sort of domination magic to control a lower level character. Very plausible as a plot device.

No one faces monsters more than 4 levels above their own or more than 4 levels beneath their own. So inside the dungeon nothing changes.

Also for those who are talking about saves as a duration mechanic I understand the concept. And its fine in a lot of situations like being on fire or something. It is a little harder though to explain some types of magic ending no matter what in a few rounds regardless of the power of the individuals involved. It makes no sense.
#5
Rustmonster
Apr 18, 2009 13:19:38
What you guys are missing is that normal dungeoneering is unaffected. All this rule change would do is make some out of game things possible that are somewhat inexplainable now. For example a high level wizard using some sort of domination magic to control a lower level character. Very plausible as a plot device.

A plot device doesn't need mechanics. You just say "He got mind controlled!"

No one faces monsters more than 4 levels above their own or more than 4 levels beneath their own. So inside the dungeon nothing changes.

Some players do.

Also for those who are talking about saves as a duration mechanic I understand the concept. And its fine in a lot of situations like being on fire or something. It is a little harder though to explain some types of magic ending no matter what in a few rounds regardless of the power of the individuals involved. It makes no sense.

Which ones, in particular? Did it "make no sense" that a duration of 1d4+1 rounds in 3E wasn't affected at all by the HD of the attacker and defender?

And to address something from your first post:

If you like to hand wave everything and internal world consistency and versimilitude is of little concern to you just go to the next topic.

This is BS.

Your little "fix" doesn't add any "internal world consistancy" or "versimilitude", and your implication that anyone who dislikes your rule has "little concern" for them is pathetic. Your "fix" removes consistancy. A level difference of up to plus or minus 4 has no effect, but above that, it magically does. How is that consistant?

Bottom line, you are going about this wrong. You don't need a mechanical "fix" for this, as what you described was a plot device. I have no idea why some DMs have seemingly lost the ability to do anything unless a mechanic is telling them "I grant you permission to do that". It's a plot device!
#6
mithmurr
Apr 18, 2009 14:41:05
Also for those who are talking about saves as a duration mechanic I understand the concept. And its fine in a lot of situations like being on fire or something. It is a little harder though to explain some types of magic ending no matter what in a few rounds regardless of the power of the individuals involved. It makes no sense.

There is a mechanic for long duration magical effects already. They are called rituals.
(disclaimer: some rituals require the ritual caster to wave their hands while performing the ritual, so I guess there may be some hand waving involved in my answer)
#7
Kalnaur
Apr 18, 2009 15:00:23 I have this awesome idea for saves! When someone is effected by a power that might confer an ongoing penalty, let that player roll a d20 and (this is where it gets good) see if they can roll a 10 or higher! You could even work in certain bonuses so Dwarves could be more resistant to poison and . . .

What? They already did that? Oh, my bad.
#8
daidojitaidoru
Apr 18, 2009 15:07:27
Which ones, in particular? Did it "make no sense" that a duration of 1d4+1 rounds in 3E wasn't affected at all by the HD of the attacker and defender?

This.

Saves are a duration mechanic not a power mechanic. The power mechanic is dealt with by the damage of the attack, to hit variance and monster editing (minion <-> normal <-> elite <-> solo).
#9
grayhand
Apr 18, 2009 15:14:21
If you like to hand wave everything and internal world consistency and versimilitude is of little concern to you just go to the next topic.

I like saves overall but I do have a houserule that I thought might "fix" the issue for some people without really affecting the dungeon experience.

I subtract the level of the person saving from the level of the original causer of the effect and if the number is from -4 to +4 I just make it 0. Otherwise if its less than -4 I add 4. If it is greater than 4 I subtract 4. I then adjust the save by the number.

Here is an example. A 14th level mage casts a spell on a 6th level fighter. I subtract 6 from 14 to get 8. I subtract 4 from 8 to get 4. So the new DC is 14 instead of 10. A 20th level mage against a 2nd level fighter would have a save DC 24. So at this level the level 2 guy can't save. Maybe the DM rules a 20 still saves depending on the effect.

This allows for powerful people to be able to affect lower level people and feel ultra powerful. If damage was the only issue here I wouldn't even use this rule. I'm thinking of things like dominate etc... Practically for monsters up to 4 levels higher to 4 levels lower nothing will change. Well that pretty much covers the dungeoneering aspects of the game. Its just a mechanic to explain out of game things.

Thoughts?

I like it, but in a game where high level wizards can't even kill low level monsters, (save minions), in one shot the idea of bringing in new mechanics to up the "consistency" so to speak is absurd. 4e is based around the idea of the hand-wave and trying to make it something it is not would be an enormous task best left for an entirely new edition.
#10
daeva
Apr 18, 2009 19:39:17
If you like to hand wave everything and internal world consistency and versimilitude is of little concern to you just go to the next topic.

i stopped here, not because i don't care about your opinion, but you started with an insulting statement that is more than just a little elitist sounding.
#11
wrightdjohn_dup
Apr 18, 2009 21:26:21 Well the reason I put the initial comment at the top was that if your satisified by a hand wave then go on to the next topic. Some people are happy with that, some are happy with it to some degree, and some are not happy with it.

I personally think 100% handwaving everything for monsters is harmful to versimilitude. But hey if your players enjoy it I'm not telling you what or how to play. I was trying to help those that maybe felt the need for a fix in that area.

I personally, (and this could be another topic and may already be for all I know), am not happy with 100% handwaving everything. I mean we don't hand wave combat... why not? You handwave what you think is unimportant. 4e handwaved everything outside the dungeon. I like the system overall and I just "fixed" with some houserules all the crap they left out for outside the dungeon activities. But I don't want it to sound like I'm just picking on 4e. 3e had many of the same problems in this area. I believe Gygax and the 1e rules understood that the world drove the dungeons not the dungeons drive the world. I think 4e has got it backwards. And I play 4e and prefer it to 3e. So I'm not a hater here.
#12
mithmurr
Apr 18, 2009 21:37:39 If you are happy with your fix, then more power to you. But to me, the saving throws are a combat mechanic. They aren't designed or intended for non-combat things or extended duration effects like you are trying to modify it for. In my opinion, the general mechanic for something like that is already in place, even if specifically it isn't cover. Namely, the ritual.

If you can't get a ritual to work the way you want it to without getting needlessly complex, then try the disease mechanic, which actually is a duration mechanic, with the added bonus of having multiple tiers of effects. So for something like domination, you could have anywhere from barely dominated (will twist orders given to hurt the dominator or such) all the way to complete domination (will actually do actions to benefit the dominator without being asked, mind totally bent to your will). Instead of endurance checks, possibly change it to wisdom or charisma checks.
#13
arderkrag
Apr 18, 2009 21:45:07
I believe Gygax and the 1e rules understood that the world drove the dungeons not the dungeons drive the world.

Then, honest curiousity here - Why not play 1st ed/OSRIC instead? OSRIC is free, after all.
#14
wrightdjohn_dup
Apr 18, 2009 22:10:22
If you are happy with your fix, then more power to you. But to me, the saving throws are a combat mechanic. They aren't designed or intended for non-combat things or extended duration effects like you are trying to modify it for. In my opinion, the general mechanic for something like that is already in place, even if specifically it isn't cover. Namely, the ritual.

If you can't get a ritual to work the way you want it to without getting needlessly complex, then try the disease mechanic, which actually is a duration mechanic, with the added bonus of having multiple tiers of effects. So for something like domination, you could have anywhere from barely dominated (will twist orders given to hurt the dominator or such) all the way to complete domination (will actually do actions to benefit the dominator without being asked, mind totally bent to your will). Instead of endurance checks, possibly change it to wisdom or charisma checks.

Thanks. This at the kind of response I was hoping for from the community. Just hashing around ideas not arguing about the merits of the concept which is why I put in the disclaimer at the beginning.

I agree my example may be bad. Dominate could easily be a ritual. But I still think there are times when a high level character should be able to dominate the lower levels.

On the other hand, I really like your idea for the disease mechanic. I have to say that is one mechanic I love about 4e. So that might be a good idea especially for domination where instead of death its total domination. And of course if you fight it off in the meantime eventually you regain control. Fairly dramatic in some cases I think.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 wrightdjohn_dup Apr 18, 2009 9:06:01	If you like to hand wave everything and internal world consistency and versimilitude is of little concern to you just go to the next topic. I like saves overall but I do have a houserule that I thought might "fix" the issue for some people without really affecting the dungeon experience. I subtract the level of the person saving from the level of the original causer of the effect and if the number is from -4 to +4 I just make it 0. Otherwise if its less than -4 I add 4. If it is greater than 4 I subtract 4. I then adjust the save by the number. Here is an example. A 14th level mage casts a spell on a 6th level fighter. I subtract 6 from 14 to get 8. I subtract 4 from 8 to get 4. So the new DC is 14 instead of 10. A 20th level mage against a 2nd level fighter would have a save DC 24. So at this level the level 2 guy can't save. Maybe the DM rules a 20 still saves depending on the effect. This allows for powerful people to be able to affect lower level people and feel ultra powerful. If damage was the only issue here I wouldn't even use this rule. I'm thinking of things like dominate etc... Practically for monsters up to 4 levels higher to 4 levels lower nothing will change. Well that pretty much covers the dungeoneering aspects of the game. Its just a mechanic to explain out of game things. Thoughts?
#2 dragondeadite Apr 18, 2009 9:21:27	Saves in 4th ed are perfectly fine as they are. Frankly, if you want complicated saves, go pick up a 1st or even 2nd edition version of the game and start playing that. I think most people forget that the saves are based off of the idea that the initial effect is an attack against your other defences, which are a reflection of you ability to stave off effects. The "saving throw" is simply a way of determining how long it effects you, not the actual strength of the effect and thus the level of the caster isn't an issue. BTW: Get ready for a nice little war here...
#3 rovin Apr 18, 2009 9:23:36	I don't see the need for this. Higher (or lower) level attackers are already more (or less) likely to hit a target's defenses. Altering the probable duration of the "save ends" effects they might impose is excessive, and almost certainly unbalancing. There are already quite sufficient bonuses (or penalties) for level differences in the game.
#4 wrightdjohn_dup Apr 18, 2009 13:05:06	What you guys are missing is that normal dungeoneering is unaffected. All this rule change would do is make some out of game things possible that are somewhat inexplainable now. For example a high level wizard using some sort of domination magic to control a lower level character. Very plausible as a plot device. No one faces monsters more than 4 levels above their own or more than 4 levels beneath their own. So inside the dungeon nothing changes. Also for those who are talking about saves as a duration mechanic I understand the concept. And its fine in a lot of situations like being on fire or something. It is a little harder though to explain some types of magic ending no matter what in a few rounds regardless of the power of the individuals involved. It makes no sense.
#5 Rustmonster Apr 18, 2009 13:19:38	What you guys are missing is that normal dungeoneering is unaffected. All this rule change would do is make some out of game things possible that are somewhat inexplainable now. For example a high level wizard using some sort of domination magic to control a lower level character. Very plausible as a plot device. A plot device doesn't need mechanics. You just say "He got mind controlled!" No one faces monsters more than 4 levels above their own or more than 4 levels beneath their own. So inside the dungeon nothing changes. Some players do. Also for those who are talking about saves as a duration mechanic I understand the concept. And its fine in a lot of situations like being on fire or something. It is a little harder though to explain some types of magic ending no matter what in a few rounds regardless of the power of the individuals involved. It makes no sense. Which ones, in particular? Did it "make no sense" that a duration of 1d4+1 rounds in 3E wasn't affected at all by the HD of the attacker and defender? And to address something from your first post: If you like to hand wave everything and internal world consistency and versimilitude is of little concern to you just go to the next topic. This is BS. Your little "fix" doesn't add any "internal world consistancy" or "versimilitude", and your implication that anyone who dislikes your rule has "little concern" for them is pathetic. Your "fix" removes consistancy. A level difference of up to plus or minus 4 has no effect, but above that, it magically does. How is that consistant? Bottom line, you are going about this wrong. You don't need a mechanical "fix" for this, as what you described was a plot device. I have no idea why some DMs have seemingly lost the ability to do anything unless a mechanic is telling them "I grant you permission to do that". It's a plot device!
#6 mithmurr Apr 18, 2009 14:41:05	Also for those who are talking about saves as a duration mechanic I understand the concept. And its fine in a lot of situations like being on fire or something. It is a little harder though to explain some types of magic ending no matter what in a few rounds regardless of the power of the individuals involved. It makes no sense. There is a mechanic for long duration magical effects already. They are called rituals. (disclaimer: some rituals require the ritual caster to wave their hands while performing the ritual, so I guess there may be some hand waving involved in my answer)
#7 Kalnaur Apr 18, 2009 15:00:23	I have this awesome idea for saves! When someone is effected by a power that might confer an ongoing penalty, let that player roll a d20 and (this is where it gets good) see if they can roll a 10 or higher! You could even work in certain bonuses so Dwarves could be more resistant to poison and . . . What? They already did that? Oh, my bad.
#8 daidojitaidoru Apr 18, 2009 15:07:27	Which ones, in particular? Did it "make no sense" that a duration of 1d4+1 rounds in 3E wasn't affected at all by the HD of the attacker and defender? This. Saves are a duration mechanic not a power mechanic. The power mechanic is dealt with by the damage of the attack, to hit variance and monster editing (minion <-> normal <-> elite <-> solo).
#9 grayhand Apr 18, 2009 15:14:21	If you like to hand wave everything and internal world consistency and versimilitude is of little concern to you just go to the next topic. I like saves overall but I do have a houserule that I thought might "fix" the issue for some people without really affecting the dungeon experience. I subtract the level of the person saving from the level of the original causer of the effect and if the number is from -4 to +4 I just make it 0. Otherwise if its less than -4 I add 4. If it is greater than 4 I subtract 4. I then adjust the save by the number. Here is an example. A 14th level mage casts a spell on a 6th level fighter. I subtract 6 from 14 to get 8. I subtract 4 from 8 to get 4. So the new DC is 14 instead of 10. A 20th level mage against a 2nd level fighter would have a save DC 24. So at this level the level 2 guy can't save. Maybe the DM rules a 20 still saves depending on the effect. This allows for powerful people to be able to affect lower level people and feel ultra powerful. If damage was the only issue here I wouldn't even use this rule. I'm thinking of things like dominate etc... Practically for monsters up to 4 levels higher to 4 levels lower nothing will change. Well that pretty much covers the dungeoneering aspects of the game. Its just a mechanic to explain out of game things. Thoughts? I like it, but in a game where high level wizards can't even kill low level monsters, (save minions), in one shot the idea of bringing in new mechanics to up the "consistency" so to speak is absurd. 4e is based around the idea of the hand-wave and trying to make it something it is not would be an enormous task best left for an entirely new edition.
#10 daeva Apr 18, 2009 19:39:17	If you like to hand wave everything and internal world consistency and versimilitude is of little concern to you just go to the next topic. i stopped here, not because i don't care about your opinion, but you started with an insulting statement that is more than just a little elitist sounding.
#11 wrightdjohn_dup Apr 18, 2009 21:26:21	Well the reason I put the initial comment at the top was that if your satisified by a hand wave then go on to the next topic. Some people are happy with that, some are happy with it to some degree, and some are not happy with it. I personally think 100% handwaving everything for monsters is harmful to versimilitude. But hey if your players enjoy it I'm not telling you what or how to play. I was trying to help those that maybe felt the need for a fix in that area. I personally, (and this could be another topic and may already be for all I know), am not happy with 100% handwaving everything. I mean we don't hand wave combat... why not? You handwave what you think is unimportant. 4e handwaved everything outside the dungeon. I like the system overall and I just "fixed" with some houserules all the crap they left out for outside the dungeon activities. But I don't want it to sound like I'm just picking on 4e. 3e had many of the same problems in this area. I believe Gygax and the 1e rules understood that the world drove the dungeons not the dungeons drive the world. I think 4e has got it backwards. And I play 4e and prefer it to 3e. So I'm not a hater here.
#12 mithmurr Apr 18, 2009 21:37:39	If you are happy with your fix, then more power to you. But to me, the saving throws are a combat mechanic. They aren't designed or intended for non-combat things or extended duration effects like you are trying to modify it for. In my opinion, the general mechanic for something like that is already in place, even if specifically it isn't cover. Namely, the ritual. If you can't get a ritual to work the way you want it to without getting needlessly complex, then try the disease mechanic, which actually is a duration mechanic, with the added bonus of having multiple tiers of effects. So for something like domination, you could have anywhere from barely dominated (will twist orders given to hurt the dominator or such) all the way to complete domination (will actually do actions to benefit the dominator without being asked, mind totally bent to your will). Instead of endurance checks, possibly change it to wisdom or charisma checks.
#13 arderkrag Apr 18, 2009 21:45:07	I believe Gygax and the 1e rules understood that the world drove the dungeons not the dungeons drive the world. Then, honest curiousity here - Why not play 1st ed/OSRIC instead? OSRIC is free, after all.
#14 wrightdjohn_dup Apr 18, 2009 22:10:22	If you are happy with your fix, then more power to you. But to me, the saving throws are a combat mechanic. They aren't designed or intended for non-combat things or extended duration effects like you are trying to modify it for. In my opinion, the general mechanic for something like that is already in place, even if specifically it isn't cover. Namely, the ritual. If you can't get a ritual to work the way you want it to without getting needlessly complex, then try the disease mechanic, which actually is a duration mechanic, with the added bonus of having multiple tiers of effects. So for something like domination, you could have anywhere from barely dominated (will twist orders given to hurt the dominator or such) all the way to complete domination (will actually do actions to benefit the dominator without being asked, mind totally bent to your will). Instead of endurance checks, possibly change it to wisdom or charisma checks. Thanks. This at the kind of response I was hoping for from the community. Just hashing around ideas not arguing about the merits of the concept which is why I put in the disclaimer at the beginning. I agree my example may be bad. Dominate could easily be a ritual. But I still think there are times when a high level character should be able to dominate the lower levels. On the other hand, I really like your idea for the disease mechanic. I have to say that is one mechanic I love about 4e. So that might be a good idea especially for domination where instead of death its total domination. And of course if you fight it off in the meantime eventually you regain control. Fairly dramatic in some cases I think.