Tenacity (Rerolling Saving Throws)

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I think there's two arguments here.

Argument one, skill vs RnG: People who have invested their effort into learning the ins and outs of all the kinks of nwn pvp don't want to lose to a bad roll.

My opinion: I think RnG is the great equalizer and will actually make pvp fun for a wider swath of players, and I am definitely in the camp of make wizards scary.

Argument two, do we need to reinvent the wheel to make save spells a thing?: People are worried that a drastic overhaul of the spell system will move us even further away from the game we have been playing for over 20 years in many cases.

My opinion: Probably not. I don't think the change will be as drastic as people are making it out to be, but it seems like a lot of work to just end up in the same space. Or worse, going too far and then having to roll back when 75% of the server are now dc casters. I think you can accomplish the same thing by just boosting the current dcs and adjusting as necessary. That turns a months long project (or longer) into something that can be accomplished in a couple of days. I would personally look to boost specialists and leave generalists as they are, adding pvp caliber spells to the schools that are lacking. And any boosts to dc gotten from a specialists school (I would start with +3) doesn't stack with shadowmage, it takes the higher of the two. Simple, clean, and if it needs to be adjusted no one is really getting screwed over.

[Ork]

do it

[Dancing]

The focus should be on normalizing saving throws. Currently, at max level, a character's saves can range from below 10 (weak save, stat malus, ungeared save) to the high 50s. The causes are complex but include build competency, CHA to saves, runes (and how differently various classes/builds can utilize them), and legacy 5% items that create outliers. The server is close to releasing an enchanting update that will make it much easier to achieve these numbers (while maintaining several high-ceiling skills, but that's another conversation).

Normalizing saving throws should be the first step. Establish an acceptable range of saving throws based on a normalized set of possible DCs. Once that's done, assess whether a radical change, like Tenacity, is necessary.

[Second Breakfast]

A bit of a tangent, but on the subject of saving throws:

When making arguments about high saving throws, it seems like renowned PvP experts will put everything but the kitchen sink on their characters to do their end calculations; I’m talking stuff like Fresh Mead and the perfumes that are sold only ONCE per reset in Dis, from a merchant who isn’t even there half the time. Can we maybe give that a rest? I guarantee you the average player knows nothing about either of those things.

[Coolguy McMagic]

Everyone is coming into this by talking about how this will affect PvP, and I think that’s pretty well covered. Thus, I would instead like to talk about how this will affect how spells are roleplayed.

How are you supposed to roleplay around, say, managing a successful Hold Person? There’s no time to give a diabolical monologue now, because they’re rolling saves every round to get free; sorry, were you trying to perform a SCENE with this person? Oh, that’s right. You’re supposed to be bursting them down so you can then later killbash them, I am a numpty.

Beyond that, no matter what scaling effects are added or adjustments are made to DCs, spells will just in general feel weaker and that WILL have an affect on how people play casters. Imagine playing an enchanter when your core spells can get broken out of in a round or two in ADDITION to everything else (you can pray out of them, sip your way out of the spell, use MB, etc). Even if you tack on, say, a token amount of psychic damage to many of the spells, your concept is going to seem anemic.

I'm not quite following the RP argument here. If your victim is willing to play along and hear you monologue, you can let disabling spells play out via RP, the same way curses, magical compulsions and many other rituals that cannot be represented mechanically are currently handled by players. If that solution is not "immersive" enough, the victim may opt into auto-failure to achieve the exact same effect even with tenacity.
If your victim is NOT willing to play along then you should respect their decision and not try to force unwanted RP on them anyway, so I don't really see the loss there.

If the problem lies with these spells not being effective, I would point out that these spells ALREADY are not very effective. So right now you cast hold monster and nothing happens. If tenacity is a thing and saves are - hypothetically - low enough for someone to reliably fail those saves, then at least you can notice an effect before they shrug it off.

[Kuma]

I'm not quite following the RP argument here. If your victim is willing to play along and hear you monologue, you can let disabling spells play out via RP, the same way curses, magical compulsions and many other rituals that cannot be represented mechanically are currently handled by players. If that solution is not "immersive" enough, the victim may opt into auto-failure to achieve the exact same effect even with tenacity.
If your victim is NOT willing to play along then you should respect their decision and not try to force unwanted RP on them anyway, so I don't really see the loss there.

If the problem lies with these spells not being effective, I would point out that these spells ALREADY are not very effective. So right now you cast hold monster and nothing happens. If tenacity is a thing and saves are - hypothetically - low enough for someone to reliably fail those saves, then at least you can notice an effect before they shrug it off.

roleplay on this server is not 'opt-in'

[silverpheonix]

Everyone is coming into this by talking about how this will affect PvP, and I think that’s pretty well covered. Thus, I would instead like to talk about how this will affect how spells are roleplayed.

How are you supposed to roleplay around, say, managing a successful Hold Person? There’s no time to give a diabolical monologue now, because they’re rolling saves every round to get free; sorry, were you trying to perform a SCENE with this person? Oh, that’s right. You’re supposed to be bursting them down so you can then later killbash them, I am a numpty.

Beyond that, no matter what scaling effects are added or adjustments are made to DCs, spells will just in general feel weaker and that WILL have an affect on how people play casters. Imagine playing an enchanter when your core spells can get broken out of in a round or two in ADDITION to everything else (you can pray out of them, sip your way out of the spell, use MB, etc). Even if you tack on, say, a token amount of psychic damage to many of the spells, your concept is going to seem anemic.

I'm not quite following the RP argument here. If your victim is willing to play along and hear you monologue, you can let disabling spells play out via RP, the same way curses, magical compulsions and many other rituals that cannot be represented mechanically are currently handled by players. If that solution is not "immersive" enough, the victim may opt into auto-failure to achieve the exact same effect even with tenacity.
If your victim is NOT willing to play along then you should respect their decision and not try to force unwanted RP on them anyway, so I don't really see the loss there.

If the problem lies with these spells not being effective, I would point out that these spells ALREADY are not very effective. So right now you cast hold monster and nothing happens. If tenacity is a thing and saves are - hypothetically - low enough for someone to reliably fail those saves, then at least you can notice an effect before they shrug it off.

I mean, this kinda conflates IC vs OOC consent. If my character won't go along with it and sit for a monologue when they're free to pike off, it doesn't matter what I the player am fine with. So if my PC is now free of a CC spell because I managed to not roll a 1 the next round, then they're going to either fight or run.

[-XXX-]

I cannot believe that the "You sly dog! You got me monologuing!" scene from the Incredibles is being unironically thrown around as an argument in here

[Coolguy McMagic]

I'm not quite following the RP argument here. If your victim is willing to play along and hear you monologue, you can let disabling spells play out via RP, the same way curses, magical compulsions and many other rituals that cannot be represented mechanically are currently handled by players. If that solution is not "immersive" enough, the victim may opt into auto-failure to achieve the exact same effect even with tenacity.
If your victim is NOT willing to play along then you should respect their decision and not try to force unwanted RP on them anyway, so I don't really see the loss there.

If the problem lies with these spells not being effective, I would point out that these spells ALREADY are not very effective. So right now you cast hold monster and nothing happens. If tenacity is a thing and saves are - hypothetically - low enough for someone to reliably fail those saves, then at least you can notice an effect before they shrug it off.

roleplay on this server is not 'opt-in'

Then you whack them and keep them subdued if you absolutely have to keep someone in place for 10 minutes. I don't think "my hold monster spell needs to last 30 rounds for RP purposes" is a valid argument.

[Ork]

I don't think "my hold monster spell needs to last 30 rounds for RP purposes" is a valid argument.

Why is it not valid?

[silverpheonix]

I cannot believe that the "You sly dog! You got me monologuing!" scene from the Incredibles is being unironically thrown around as an argument in here

Have you seen Second Brekkie's characters?

[Coolguy McMagic]

I don't think "my hold monster spell needs to last 30 rounds for RP purposes" is a valid argument.

Why is it not valid?

Because as it stands right now it already hinges on the other party to either be underleveled or undergeared - unless the other party is interested in playing along, in which case it doesn't matter whether a tenacity mechanic exists or how high saving throws are on paper. I don't think your RP should hinge on a level difference between you and the other party.

It's cool if it happens naturally and you get the other party with a Hold Monster, but it's not a reliable tool unless you're seeking out lowbies on purpose or something.

[Kythana]

I don't think "my hold monster spell needs to last 30 rounds for RP purposes" is a valid argument.

Why is it not valid?

We have subdual and manacles. If you want to get creative, throw a -ward right on top of them. Put a cloudkill field on top of them to keep them constantly subdued. Mind fog to stay perma dazed, acid bombs for perma slow, ect.

Chances are, if you could get a hold person off with these proposed changes, you likely would be able to do one of the above in the time before they break out.

There are systems already that can be used to achieve the same goal, without needing to have spells in place that are extremely unfun to fight against.

[silverpheonix]

Subdual is nice and all until people immediately hit giveup instead of RPing.

[Kythana]

If someone instantly giveups on Subdual instead of RPing, then you probably wouldn't want to RP with them anyways.

I fail to see the problem.

[silverpheonix]

If someone instantly giveups on Subdual instead of RPing, then you probably wouldn't want to RP with them anyways.

I fail to see the problem.

Well maybe you want to interrogate them about a thing. Maybe you want to detain them but it isn't worth bringing them down subdual for.

[Ork]

There are systems already that can be used to achieve the same goal, without needing to have spells in place that are extremely unfun to fight against.

Extremely unfun is your opinion and not evidence of any validity to the concern that was raised. The affects you're subjected to matter when creating a scene in roleplay. Roleplaying a scene when you're forced in a spell-bound paralysization is vastly different than what you're suggesting.

Their concerns are no less valid under your purposed alternative, in fact I'd say your example confirms their validity.

[chris a gogo]

Lets see currently.
Random guy attacks you after one line exchange, you manage to get off hold/bigby's they type -pray and continue the attack.

New system.
Random guy attacks you after one line exchange, you manage to get off hold/bigby's they type -pray and continue the attack or if pray is removed...
They know you can't do enough damage with your 2 spells per round to kill them before they make the save and just drink a couple of heal potions when free to remove any damage done to them.

So the effectual change for solo PvP is nil, the wizard still has to run away or die.

The big difference is in PvE where all CC spells are now worthless as they cannot be relied upon to last beyond a round.

Least that's how i read this change.

[Iceborn]

To clarify -
Tenacity is part of a very, very long discussion regarding, but not limited to:
Save or suck abilities
Spell effectiveness vs Save Bloat
Magic/Mundane action economy
PvP and combat dynamism
The existence of -pray

With brevity in mind:
Most of us in the Team feel that save-or-suck abilities are fine in PnP, but that they do not translate all too well to a consistent, roleplaying world such as Arelith, where PvP is a valid narrative tool to resolve conflicts. Very personally speaking, I do not like spells to be a gamble for success every time, and in regards for PvP, a 5% fishing minigame.
I feel that magic being as easily resisted as it is now diminishes its value, it ridicules a huge aspect of the game we play, thematically and mechanically.

That said, if magic wasn't as easily resisted without thinking of the consequences we would enable stunlocking, and all we'd achieve is flip the meta in the other direction - shelf your martials, it's the era of magic again.

We do not want that.

The ultimate goal is to make spells worthwhile to cast. Neither overwhelming nor underwhelming.
We've considered countless solutions. Smaller, surgical updates and larger overhauls. If we didn't push for either, you can be sure the reason is somewhere in the last 3 pages.
This proposed update, for reference, sits somewhere inbetween. It's additive, it's impactful, but it's nothing revolutionary - as far as where adherence to 3e is concerned, it is also entirely canonical, as many abilities feature rerolls-to-save every round.

[Xerah]

The big difference is in PvE where all CC spells are now worthless as they cannot be relied upon to last beyond a round.

Least that's how i read this change.

PVE is not going to change how NPCs are affected by this.

[chris a gogo]

Proposed Save System Adjustments

1) Enable Tenacity – Ongoing Saving Throw Rolls
When a character is affected by a debilitating effect (such as Fear, Daze, Stun, etc.), they automatically reroll their saving throw each round against the original DC for the duration of the effect.
If a stronger version of the same effect is applied (e.g., a more intense Fear effect), the DC adjusts accordingly.
Each failed reroll grants a +1 bonus to the saving throw type associated with the effect.
Example: If a character fails a save against Fear, they gain +1 to Will saves on each failed reroll.
Once the effect ends, all reroll bonuses are removed, and the character gains a temporary, non-stacking bonus to the related saving throw for 5 rounds. This helps prevent chain crowd control (CC) locking.

2) Adjusting Save-or-Die Mechanics
Example: Finger of Death
Current: The target must make a Fortitude save or die. On a successful save, they take 3d6 damage + 1 per caster level.

Proposed Change:
Instead of a flat (3d6 + 1 per caster level), improve the base scaling.
Introduce percentage-based HP damage on a failed save, ensuring the spell feels impactful without making it an all-or-nothing mechanic.
This allows for more balanced and engaging gameplay while maintaining the core 'Save or Die' theme.

3) Adjusting Save & Spell DC Balance
With Tenacity in place, characters have a fairer chance to break out of CC effects rather than being permanently locked down.
Lower overall saving throw bonuses or increase spell DCs to reflect this change.
Since saving throws are rerolled every round, excessively high saves are no longer necessary for CC defense.
Even being locked down for a single round is still impactful, allowing casters time to reposition or follow up with another spell.

4) Removing Absolute Immunities (Reworking Freedom of Movement)
Absolute immunities should be phased out in favor of active counterplay.
Example: Freedom of Movement
Instead of making a character permanently immune to movement-impairing effects, it should function similarly to Remove Fear:
Instantly removes all movement-hindering effects.
Prevents new movement-impairing effects for 3 rounds.
Grants a long-term Reflex save bonus vs. movement effects.
This keeps counterplay options without completely negating an entire class of debuffs.

A potential further improvement could involve implementing tiered effects based on how severely a saving throw is failed. However, since this would be a much larger systemic change, it may feel overwhelming to implement. As such, the proposed adjustments should serve as an effective stopgap to quickly enhance mage effectiveness while maintaining a clean and streamlined system.

by Xerah » 25 Mar 2025 18:40

chris a gogo wrote: 25 Mar 2025 18:17
The big difference is in PvE where all CC spells are now worthless as they cannot be relied upon to last beyond a round.

Least that's how i read this change.

PVE is not going to change how NPCs are affected by this.

Couldn't find where that was stated mind pointing it out please?

[Xerah]

I’m going to chime in briefly to clear up some concerns:

PVE will remain unchanged.
NPCs will not gain access to Tenacity.
NPCs will still be vulnerable to save-or-die effects.

Nothing in this proposal is set in stone — everything’s open to adjustment based on the feedback we get here.

This is a standalone update and doesn’t affect the dweomer rework.

There was a bit of an update.

[But Will It Blend]

So I've taken more time to read over this and sort of think about the goals and objectives that this is trying to accomplish. I've also sort of read the takes of others here and I'll admit some of them have changed my mind. I'm not sure how this would necessarily help or work. If you're forced to stand still for 2 rounds you're kind of dead already regardless of how many times you're rolling. It'd sort of make the need for saves to be the exact same as it was before. You either make the save or you're kind of dead.

I think as much as it would be a stupid amount of work the only way to really 'solve' this is to have a tiered system where even on a save, spells have... some effect. And on a successful save, they have an increased effect that isn't necessarily 'Save or suck'.

Let's look at an example.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1622&Redirected=1

I know this is a different game but it kind of helped make these things a bit less bad? I guess?

This is a 3rd level spell, Paralyze.

If a target fails their save, they are paralyzed for a round.

If they succeed the save, they are stunned for a round.

There is a difference, Paralysis in this system is a far worse condition than stunned. A full on paralysis VS basically losing an APR/some AC/a second spellcast per round (If hasted).

Are either good? No. But if you critically save (A nat 20 or beat the DC on your save by 10+) you take no affect at all.

On a critical failure, where you roll a 1 or you fail the save by 10 or more, you're paralyzed for a lot longer, and you can attempt a will save to reduce duration a bit.

Basically what we see here is that unless an extreme circumstance happens, the spell -does- something. Whatever that might look like, the spell probably won't be the penultimate killer, but it isn't worthless. Casting it has a purpose except in the most extreme circumstances.

It still rewards gearing saves, because it means you might take less punishing spells. But it doesn't delete any counterplay.

This is just sort of a thought. My mind does go into depth on just how much work would be needed to overhaul literally every single spell to function in this though. It would not be an easy thing to suggest or ask any team to do.

[RedGiant]

Soapboxed pretty dang well!

Even staunchly DnD RG can get behind this explanation.

I still think escalating save bonuses are /probably/ a bad idea. This is generally not how it works. Yes, spells like hold person allow you to continue rolling saves every round, but you do not get better at it. I would tentatively think this gives too much to the defender and would be a step too far toward the "trivializing magic" part of the balancing act.

Still also would like to see a discussion on normalizing martial DPS. Your average Arelith character these days gets 400-500 hp, which is still easily one-shotted in a round. A good step here would be, as some servers have done, to only use physical damage in crit calculations. This keeps all the damage cookies significant (smite, divmgt, weapon imbue, etc.), but greatly reduces the possibilities/instances of shotgun PvP.

[Ork]

Very personally speaking, I do not like spells to be a gamble for success every time, and in regards for PvP, a 5% fishing minigame.

Every d20 system involves gambling. If dice rolls exist, there's a gamble. It's a gamble to hit, it's a gamble to save. Direct damage buffs casters leaving melee and mundanes in the dust.