Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 yostage Oct 22, 2008 2:26:49	For conditions where you get worse on a failed save (like sleep or carrion crawler poison), a save granted by an allied player doesn't such a great boon. If you were going to save, it does mean you saved a turn early. If you were going to fail your roll, though, it means you start taking the fail effects a turn early. (maybe losing another turn to sleep, for example) I'm considering house ruling these so that conditions that get worse on a save only trigger on the saves at the end of your turn, thus making powers that grant saves relatively more powerful. I'm looking for any input on the relative balance level - do you think this nerfs those enemy powers too much?
#2 veritascitor Oct 22, 2008 16:19:12	Personally, I think that's the intended rule, and they just forgot to account for it in the rulebook. Otherwise, it makes save-granting powers useless in those situations. I don't think it will affect your gameplay balance at all.
#3 yostage Oct 22, 2008 18:13:36	Going directly by the numbers, you could argue that the number of saves it would take for the player to recover is fixed, and granting more saves per turn means they recover in fewer turns. But I think it will be more fun for the players if they don't drop unconscious before their turn because the warlord granted an early save and they failed it.
#4 veritascitor Oct 22, 2008 22:29:33	Exactly my point. Just say that extra saves granted by powers have no effect on a failure.
#5 raymond_turney Oct 22, 2008 23:09:12	Hi, Whether to assume that granted saves never makes things worse turns out to vary with how important the time saved by getting to roll early is, and the likelihood of making the save. If the character is pretty likely to make the save, the dominant effect of granting an extra one is likely to be that the character recovers early. In this case, the likelihood that the character will get worse is low. So you might as well round it down to 0, since the players will go for it. If the character has a good chance to fail the save, so the risk of failing is significant enough to maybe make the player maybe wish it were not granted, the question becomes: Do you want players to view whether or not to go for it as a tactical decision. If your players have a good grip on D&D, and play in a wargaming style, you should leave the tactical decision in. After all, having tactical options is part of what some players enjoy about D&D 4th edition. But if you don't have a mostly wargaming group of players, rule that the extra saves never make things worse. It is easier for everyone and makes the power of granting extra saves more useful. By the way, I was the co-designer of RuneQuest I and RuneQuest II back in the Dark Ages {pre-1980} and if you would like to look at more from me, my new system Fire and Sword is available under an open source license as a free download. There is a long version PDF, a short version PDF, and a Designer's commentary Even if you don't switch {and you probably won't} it may contain some useful ideas for you to adapt to your game Good luck in your gaming, Ray,
#6 veritascitor Oct 23, 2008 16:05:54	Hi Ray, In 4E, all saving throws are 55% success rate, unless you have some particular bonus to them, and those bonuses are very rare. (The reason for this is that they're now a duration mechanic, as opposed to the old 3.x saving throws, which were a defense mechanic. The old 3.x saves have been converted to the defense values.) So, assuming this, the fact that powers that are unequivocally supposed to help your teammates have a chance to actually harm them in certain cases seems like a small oversight.