Forum > Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion

Saving Throws in fantasy rpg

<< < (3/7) > >>

Zalman:

--- Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 21, 2021, 12:55:53 AM ---If you get a +1 at the same time all your difficulties go up by 1, those are phantom improvements in regular play.

--- End quote ---

Hm, except that "all your difficulties" don't go up by one in regular play, unless every creature in the world also levels up with you, since the "difficulty" of affecting an enemy with a spell, etc., is largely level-based. Keeping offensive and defensive bonuses closely aligned as characters level up doesn't negate either -- it just make level a core power metric.

Persimmon:
Thanks! 

I really like the tone & feel of SotDL from what I've seen on youtube videos and I'm also intrigued by the bounded campaign of 10-11 adventures since we don't play that often anyhow.  My main concern is learning and teaching a new game system to my current group, family members who are much more casual gamers only familiar with B/X in OSE form.  No one wants to spend lots of time learning new mechanics.  And while I like the idea of the expert paths and the like, not sure if they'll be into that.  I may grab the core book at least and read through it, create some PCs, and see what I think. 

Steven Mitchell:

--- Quote from: Zalman on September 22, 2021, 10:20:50 AM ---
--- Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 21, 2021, 12:55:53 AM ---If you get a +1 at the same time all your difficulties go up by 1, those are phantom improvements in regular play.

--- End quote ---

Hm, except that "all your difficulties" don't go up by one in regular play, unless every creature in the world also levels up with you, since the "difficulty" of affecting an enemy with a spell, etc., is largely level-based. Keeping offensive and defensive bonuses closely aligned as characters level up doesn't negate either -- it just make level a core power metric.

--- End quote ---

Yes, I agree.  In that quote, I was thinking more along the lines of how the 3E/4E stuff is based on the assumption that your opponents are scaling with you.  That is, it's true that a 10th level fighter can mow through standard goblins easily, since he has scaled and they have not.  If in practice, however, when the fighter meets goblins, they are scaled up special goblins, then it is a phantom improvement. 

Naturally, how the GM runs it is going to affect things immensely.  Even if the system is rigid, phantom scaling, the GM can still have the party go against weaker creatures sometimes.  I was mainly using the +1 for +1 example for illustration of the extreme.  It would be a pretty poor GM, a glorified video game scaling bot, that followed that exactly in a real game.

It's easier to visualize in attacks and defenses than it is in saves.  If I get +1 to hit, then my chances of hitting a guy in chain mail (and a given set of bonus for other AC, such as Dex, magic, etc.) are better now than they were prior.  If every time I get the +1 to hit, the opponents also get special chain mail that is harder to hit, then phantom improvement in practice. Even though if I got a chance to fight the original guy in chain mail, I'd have a real improvement.

If I were to criticize 5E in this regard, I would say that when they ran the math and designed the system, they were aware of the about 50% to 75% of the scope of the problem.  Bounded accuracy addresses a lot to getting them back to what worked in earlier D&D.  Where they missed out, IMO, is that they tried to hang onto some of the 3E/4E scaling quirks, which compressed the bounded accuracy so tight that it led to new problems.  One example would be the very small increase in attacks through the levels, because there isn't any room left for more improvements without breaking their model.  It's less obvious, but this is the root cause of why 5E saves are better than 3E, different than 4E, but still "off".

Chris24601:

--- Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 22, 2021, 11:41:30 AM ---
--- Quote from: Zalman on September 22, 2021, 10:20:50 AM ---
--- Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 21, 2021, 12:55:53 AM ---If you get a +1 at the same time all your difficulties go up by 1, those are phantom improvements in regular play.

--- End quote ---

Hm, except that "all your difficulties" don't go up by one in regular play, unless every creature in the world also levels up with you, since the "difficulty" of affecting an enemy with a spell, etc., is largely level-based. Keeping offensive and defensive bonuses closely aligned as characters level up doesn't negate either -- it just make level a core power metric.

--- End quote ---

Yes, I agree.  In that quote, I was thinking more along the lines of how the 3E/4E stuff is based on the assumption that your opponents are scaling with you.  That is, it's true that a 10th level fighter can mow through standard goblins easily, since he has scaled and they have not.  If in practice, however, when the fighter meets goblins, they are scaled up special goblins, then it is a phantom improvement. 

Naturally, how the GM runs it is going to affect things immensely.  Even if the system is rigid, phantom scaling, the GM can still have the party go against weaker creatures sometimes.  I was mainly using the +1 for +1 example for illustration of the extreme.  It would be a pretty poor GM, a glorified video game scaling bot, that followed that exactly in a real game.

It's easier to visualize in attacks and defenses than it is in saves.  If I get +1 to hit, then my chances of hitting a guy in chain mail (and a given set of bonus for other AC, such as Dex, magic, etc.) are better now than they were prior.  If every time I get the +1 to hit, the opponents also get special chain mail that is harder to hit, then phantom improvement in practice. Even though if I got a chance to fight the original guy in chain mail, I'd have a real improvement.

If I were to criticize 5E in this regard, I would say that when they ran the math and designed the system, they were aware of the about 50% to 75% of the scope of the problem.  Bounded accuracy addresses a lot to getting them back to what worked in earlier D&D.  Where they missed out, IMO, is that they tried to hang onto some of the 3E/4E scaling quirks, which compressed the bounded accuracy so tight that it led to new problems.  One example would be the very small increase in attacks through the levels, because there isn't any room left for more improvements without breaking their model.  It's less obvious, but this is the root cause of why 5E saves are better than 3E, different than 4E, but still "off".

--- End quote ---
This is why I ended up completely flattening the Attack/Defense axis in my own system (flatter than even bounded accuracy) with only effect/resistance scaling linearly (rather than through iterative attacks that tend to cause spikes).

The big thing that does is ensure that mooks can be threats in sufficient numbers regardless of level, but since it takes ever more of them to be a challenge, the PCs feel like they’re advancing in competence and GMs aren’t required to use ever stronger opponents to keep a treadmill running for PCs to feel threatened (i.e. 5 goblins are a threat at first level, but 25 goblins will still be a threat at 15th level… though 5 groups of 5 one group at a time will be cake to them).

The main advantages of things like dragons are they tend to have large AoE’s that can obliterate waves of mooks in a single action meaning only high level PC’s have the stamina needed to keep up a fight with them for more than a round or two… which is why kingdoms hire adventurers to deal with giant fire breathing lizards unless they have no other choice (a kingdom could kill a dragon by throwing enough bodies at it, but it would be a textbook Pyrrhic victory that would devastate the kingdom for years to come due to a lack of sufficient manpower to plant, harvest and all the other tasks you pulled conscripts from to deal with the dragon… adventurers on the other hand; point them at the dragon and tell them they can keep its horde as a reward and the problem will be solved without even needing to dip into the king’s own purse).

Jaeger:

--- Quote from: David Johansen on September 20, 2021, 10:36:38 PM ---In D&D 5e you either roll to hit or they get a saving throw.  Area effect stuff is more likely to use the savingthrow.

--- End quote ---

This is always one of those things that bugged me about some saves in 5e.

You don't save against arrows? Why a big deadly blast like Dragon Breath?

So you are standing in the corridor - end of your turn with nowhere to run. Dragon blasts you, but you still get to 'save' to only take half damage!? Really?

Maybe you can only "save" against Dragon Breath for 1/2 dmg if you have a large shield or bigger.

Or maybe in the system if you have a large enough shield you can 'save' to avoid most of the damage?

Or shields are factored into your AC and if the dragon 'misses' with their dragon breath attack it is assumed that you raised your shield / hit the dirt, etc.

IMHO - you really have to define what a save is for and how it fits into your action economy to not have it seem overly arbitrary.

And in systems that subsume active defense into something like AC, is an attack roll a literal roll to hit? Or a roll to 'damage'.



Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version