Tenacity (Rerolling Saving Throws)

[Heroic Spirit]

We’ve been chatting internally about a system called Tenacity, and we’re a bit divided on whether it’s something we should implement. Irongron suggested we gather community feedback, so we're sharing it here. Below, in quotes, you’ll find the original proposal laid out in detail.

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.

Following this link is a video demonstrating Tenacity in action. https://streamable.com/44c3c8

We’d love to hear your thoughts, questions, and concerns!

[Aog]

I agree with all the proposed changes here. Save or suck spells feel awful to both use and have used on you, this seems to solve both problems in my mind? As well as maybe address total immunity spells you can slap on with a potion infinite times like FoM

[Anomandaris]

Thanks for asking for feedback. I’m very much opposed, please don’t.

In my opinion this is the exact kind of “reinventing” of mechanics we should avoid. Firstly, it’s so hard to predict how tremendously such substantive changes will affect server balance it’s just not worth the rub. It’s also a significant departure from the core spell lore, mechanics, and setting we know and love; which is why many of us still play this ancient game (plus the rp of course).

Simpler answer: Reduce duration of hard CC effects. Lower saves, divine specifically. Adjust specific spells to make them more useful with damage or secondary effects iteratively over time.

Pray already exists. Immunities provide great counterplay and force breaching. The dance between immunities and breaching provides a lot of room for skill expression and offers counter play already.

This also already exists as a feat for will saves (slippery mind). You could add epic feats for the other saves but still I really wouldn’t, a re-roll is very powerful statistically.

As someone playing a wizard as a main, it’s simply unnecessary. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Dial back saves from divine builds and add a little more damage output in the kit on successful saves.

Please please please do not completely redesign casting this way. I think I’d probably lose interest in the server. It’d no longer be DND anymore and would start to feel more and more like a MOBA or MMO. I can go play those other games if I wanted to. I’d literally rather play my wizard as it is NOW, an egregiously unbalanced dumpster fire, compared to most of the server’s “meta builds,” than have these changes that ostensibly “help” me as a caster but change the game I know and love.

I also have no idea why ppl are so afraid of save or die. It’s ok if our characters die. It rarely ever happens to death magic; death ward is unbreachable. You can also get one rounded by a str martials just as easily. This fear of “save or suck” is way overblown and inconsistent based on how pvp actually plays out.

[-XXX-]

I kinda like it.
There'd still be some obvious things to reevaluate or this'd turn out to be a further straight up nerf to DC spells:

• -prays can't stay in its current form or it'd only become even further improved free out of jail card that could now be played against death effects as well.
• spell DC vs saves. If the target can overcome a spell effect the next round after they got hit with it, the spell working only 5% of the time isn't reasonable.

[Someone Lost]

This whole idea sounds like a another nail on the caster coffin.
-pray exist making wizards need of rolling 1 TWICE to win a battle
-saves are absolutely insane with spellcraft dumps, high save base class and grimoires from umd to further increase (protection from spells +8 to all saves against spells)

Only acceptable solution is the pathfinder three part success table
critical success - spell does not affect.
success save - spell does not work in full effect but still does some damage, because everyone hates losing a spell slot and end up with freaking nothing.
failed save - spell does insane damage the glass cannon fantasy

[Xerah]

In my opinion this is the exact kind of “reinventing” of mechanics we should avoid. Firstly, it’s so hard to predict how tremendously such substantive changes will affect server balance it’s just not worth the rub. It’s also a significant departure from the core spell lore, mechanics, and setting we know and love; which is why many of us still play this ancient game (plus the rp of course).

We should not be handcuffed by avoiding re-inventing mechanics.

D&D is an awful system for an always online game like Arelith. It's designed to be played with a handful of people and watched over by a DM. The Devs of most PWs recognize this and have tried to stay within the range of D&D but changes are necessary to make it a more enjoyable experience for everyone involved. That's one of the reasons why Arelith is successful, as it's not handcuffed to stay true to D&D but merely inspired by D&D.

That aside, this is a prefix -mageddon level change. I'm all for changing things up in this old game; let us do new things and learn new mechanics. Great stuff. But, it's difficult to know how this will change things on a balance side. As long as you branch it and can revert back, I don't see the negatives in trying it out (aside from the time required to script all the changes).

It's probably a good thing that someone doesn't stay CCed for 6minutes.

This whole idea sounds like a another nail on the caster coffin.

Perhaps you missed this part:

Lower overall saving throw bonuses or increase spell DCs to reflect this change.

Why would they invest this kind of time to put another nail in the caster coffin?

[Anomandaris]

In my opinion this is the exact kind of “reinventing” of mechanics we should avoid. Firstly, it’s so hard to predict how tremendously such substantive changes will affect server balance it’s just not worth the rub. It’s also a significant departure from the core spell lore, mechanics, and setting we know and love; which is why many of us still play this ancient game (plus the rp of course).

We should not be handcuffed by avoiding re-inventing mechanics.

D&D is an awful system for an always online game like Arelith. It's designed to be played with a handful of people and watched over by a DM. The Devs of most PWs recognize this and have tried to stay within the range of D&D but changes are necessary to make it a more enjoyable experience for everyone involved. That's one of the reasons why Arelith is successful, as it's not handcuffed to stay true to D&D but merely inspired by D&D.

That aside, this is a prefix -mageddon level change. I'm all for changing things up in this old game; let us do new things and learn new mechanics. Great stuff. But, it's difficult to know how this will change things on a balance side. As long as you branch it and can revert back, I don't see the negatives in trying it out (aside from the time required to script all the changes).

It's probably a good thing that someone doesn't stay CCed for 6minutes.

This whole idea sounds like a another nail on the caster coffin.

Perhaps you missed this part:

Lower overall saving throw bonuses or increase spell DCs to reflect this change.

Why would they invest this kind of time to put another nail in the caster coffin?

IMO it’s a solution seeking a problem. Sure, we can reinvent some mechanics where necessary, but it’s not in this case. Lots of us are here to play “enhanced nwn” not reinvented NwN; I think this is a faulty premise. Concentration is a bigger issue than the state of DCs. If you want to overhaul a system overhaul how concentration checks work.

All of these problems are solve-able without a -magedon level change. It’s also lots of work. I main casters and play a shadowmage wizard presently. Feedback was asked for. Mine is I don’t want it and would rather suffer with the current state of balance than see this “complete overhaul.”

Reduce cc duration and dial back saves. Don’t reinvent the entire system. Scalpel not sledgehammer please.

[Paint]

Considering many spells in D&D-like games like PF1e allow you another save each round, I vibe with this. I like the idea of getting rid of absolute immunity, too. Allowing spells to have reduced impact but still be useful means that the whole argument that 90% of the wizard spellbook is useless would evaporate overnight.

I think a lot of the knee-jerk reactions here don't really see the potential to tweak and balance around this to get to a comfortable place where spells can be powerful without winning fights immediately, and I endorse this. This seems like a good idea.

The one thing I worry about with the freedom of movement example, however, is that freedom of movement potions are currently very expensive, and they're super useful in PVE, too. While this wouldn't affect a lot of people who have access to wands as much, it would be a pretty heavy burden for mundanes who don't have access to those wands, seeing as FoM potions tend to be some of the more expensive ones, and are pretty easy to burn through in a lot of situations.

Additionally, while I hate to say it, having to stop to reapply FoM every time a wizard does a funny would absolutely change the action economy a lot. This could be bad or good? I do think that wizards need more stalling tactics if current admin team is allergic to giving them more survivability in the form of more HP, but I worry that too much of the wizard PVP game right now is -already- stalling.

[PowerWord Rage]

First...i don't think the change actually going to solve anything because you're simply throwing one Can away to open another Can.
Nevermind that both Cans are probably going to be rotten anyway.

The reason is because to make such major overhaul, it's much much more complex than just loremaggedon. We're talking about overhaul of hundred of spells that almost all players are familiar with, no matter DND or NWN. It's something that takes more than just couple of months to adapt.

Finally, is everyone prepared for the sheer amount of bugs that will definitely be coming on such major overhaul?
If this change is meant to fix Wizard / Sorcerer, i say that it is not a good choice amongst all other available choice.

Some things before it changed, are beautified when you simply look at the Pros. The Ugly side, the Cons, normally surface after the change is in effect. By then, is everyone ready for the outburst?

Edit: And i'll hope that fellow players can also view the Spells on PVE rather always on PVP point of view.
For example, CC spells like Confusion and Fear, Hold Monsters, Dominate Monsters. The interaction with PVE Monsters, do they remain as it interacts with Players or not? If they interact the same, doesn't that makes these spells unreliable in PVE? You wouldn't want your monsters to 'wake' up reliably and so quickly.
I need to remind everyone that NWN or in fact Arelith, are always having 80% of the battle encounter in PVE.
We should not make any major overhaul because of PVP. It's not the right direction.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I think you can remove -pray as a function as easily as removing the spell immunities and be in the same place, and I've never been a fan of -pray (unless I'm the one using it, then I love it) so thats probably where I would start. I understand some of the concerns about changing the game too much and creating new problems, but when it comes to any attempts at making wizards scary again, I say run for the flag and ignore those paint ball guns all aimed at ya on the other side.

[AstralUniverse]

It will be a long rework. By the time the dust settles and all spells feel more or less balanced, it'll take a while. However if the devs are up for it and decide to go for it, I'm all in favor of that because I play the long game and I understand that some systems take a while to fine-tune. I would appreciate if the community feedback will revolve around the balance aspect of the spells (and their counter spells, like Freedom) rather than repeatedly pointing out it's a big pandora box to open. I think the devs are well aware of the incoming piles of work in this regard.

[Dreams]

1) Tenacity is a bad idea. It rewards people who are minmaxing without a focus on saves. It also harms casters, who are already at a spot where DCs are difficult to balance on. Alternatively, having something similar to the KD immunity going in to stop a complete lockdown of the same sort would be good. Keep in mind that mages will just adjust the way they lock down someone in CC if this happens. Will save is up? Now I'll use reflex. Now I'll use fort. Overall I don't think we need tenacity.

2) I really like this one. I'm not sure it should be adjusted too high, otherwise every spell cast will be a save or die, since the caster knows they're also getting reasonable damage in.

3) I think our save/DC balance has been a thing that's changed over time. We are where we're at and really the team should be thinking about how they balance new introductions, rather than overhauling this. Saving throws are a critical element of the base game. It's not going to only affect spells, it's also going to have massive impacts across all classes and abilities.

4) I don't think we should remove complete immunity spells, however I think they should be specific and should be short-term spells. e.g. Freedom could be rounds instead of turns. Again, keep in mind that devs have slowly added more and more spells that add these immunities.

Maybe you can balance out new content better whilst it's being introduced instead of slamming everyone afterward. Look at the many spells added for Hemomancer, or the Harbinger. Hemo has been brought in line over time but the cats out of the bag for a bunch of the spells added specifically for it. Harbinger is still a ridiculous class. I play it, I enjoy it, but it's really powerful - it's just so poorly written that people find it hard to work out how it all works.

imo there are so many more productive things we could be working on instead of reworking core components of the base game.

edit: +1 to removing -pray entirely.

[Azensor]

What is this change trying to fix exactly?

and imo it shouldnt just be fom,death-ward also?

People can still build/gear for saves..so you'd have slightly more leeway for those that dont,but you'd also have a massive aid for those that do

[Azensor]

that and if this system is used by npcs..then what needs to happen first is summons need another pass over.

its been well more than ten days

[Security_Blanket]

Some of us like the "save or die" mechanics, it's thematic to the setting, adventurers die, ALL THE TIME! Please don't butcher a perfectly fine game to fix the other issues that were made, you're just creating new problems.

[silverpheonix]

1) Tenacity is a bad idea. It rewards people who are minmaxing without a focus on saves. It also harms casters, who are already at a spot where DCs are difficult to balance on. Alternatively, having something similar to the KD immunity going in to stop a complete lockdown of the same sort would be good. Keep in mind that mages will just adjust the way they lock down someone in CC if this happens. Will save is up? Now I'll use reflex. Now I'll use fort. Overall I don't think we need tenacity.

2) I really like this one. I'm not sure it should be adjusted too high, otherwise every spell cast will be a save or die, since the caster knows they're also getting reasonable damage in.

3) I think our save/DC balance has been a thing that's changed over time. We are where we're at and really the team should be thinking about how they balance new introductions, rather than overhauling this. Saving throws are a critical element of the base game. It's not going to only affect spells, it's also going to have massive impacts across all classes and abilities.

4) I don't think we should remove complete immunity spells, however I think they should be specific and should be short-term spells. e.g. Freedom could be rounds instead of turns. Again, keep in mind that devs have slowly added more and more spells that add these immunities.

Maybe you can balance out new content better whilst it's being introduced instead of slamming everyone afterward. Look at the many spells added for Hemomancer, or the Harbinger. Hemo has been brought in line over time but the cats out of the bag for a bunch of the spells added specifically for it. Harbinger is still a ridiculous class. I play it, I enjoy it, but it's really powerful - it's just so poorly written that people find it hard to work out how it all works.

imo there are so many more productive things we could be working on instead of reworking core components of the base game.

edit: +1 to removing -pray entirely.

I agree with this entirely. I'd also add that 1) is just going to make PvE harder for classes that have already been repeatedly handed the dungeoning nerf bat.

[RaeRey]

Tenacity is an excellent move towards the D&D 3.5e and Pathfinder 1E mechanics. This isn't really reinventing the wheel, and we've seen these how these systems would work elsewhere.

e.g.

Code: Select all

Hold Person (3.5e / NWN2):
Will negates 
The target makes a Will saving throw each round and upon a successful result it is freed of the condition.

Code: Select all

Wail of the Banshee (Pathfinder 1e / Pathfinder Kingmaker+WotR cRPGs):
Fortitude negates
The spell affects up to one creature per caster level, inflicting 10 points of damage per caster level.

Of course, the save bloat and HP bloat on the server is going to be a big problem, in both PvE and PvP.

When targeting these spells against non-player creatures, the spells should probably keep their original effects, or else death spells will struggle to kill even trash mobs in high level dungeons.

[But Will It Blend]

A few notes.

1) Yes having follow up saves would be useful to allow for less 'save or suck'.

2) I think having scaling effects is going to be very useful. As noted it's what PF2E did to get rid of a lot of save or suck.

3) -Pray already exists as the 'Get out of jail free card'.

4) There is already counterplay to things like Freedom of movement and NEP etc. Honestly I'd just move a couple outliers to the breach list. Having to stand there any use all of your turns because a hasted wizard is casting 2 times a round to hit you with status effects also feels about as exhausting as a wizards spells being pointless.

Being able to up spell DC's would be nice as a result. I suggest this rather than trying to go into the world and smash every save item with a nerf bat because that has other knock on effects that might be hard to judge.

[Coolguy McMagic]

I generally support these plans, though the exact implementation will be key.

For example, decreasing saves across the board would be a fair and expected adjustment in response to weaker CC effects but we should also remember that some classes get a LOT better saves than others and the ability to make a save against a full disable doesn't matter much if you can only pass it on a 20. There are also some fairly potent mundane save checkers even now, although they tend to be somewhat balanced by their effects being a little weaker.
For that reason I'd suggest starting with making spellcraft be based on hard ranks only. I would certainly enjoy not having this particular tax on my gear pieces and it would prevent mundane save checkers being made unreasonably strong by this.

I also hope that this change comes with an across-the-board save reduction to enemy mobs in PVE. A lot of these have unreasonably high saving throws for no good reason.

Save-Or-Die effects are unpleasant in PVP but I find them enjoyable in PVE. Is there a way to make them work differently on mobs vs players?

Lastly, I am not quite sure about the proposed changes to immunities. While I generally don't like the "either you have them or you don't" approach, a lot of the game seems balanced around them and I wonder what the implications of such a vast change would be.

On a final note, this is a pretty ambitious undertaking and I hope the team will stick to it once the first changes are made. I think a half-finished spell balance pass could be incredibly detrimental to the server's health.

[X4V0C]

Hello, and thank you for the hard work.

At first glance, Tenacity certainly solves some problems an moves things into a direction that seems relatively normalized in the modern RPG/tabletop sphere - that is, the ability to 'repeat' a save, however, Tenacity goes a step farther that I believe crosses a line, and then it continues to cross lines. What's worse, for me, is the overall proposal of 'Tenacity' is only a small fraction of an overall small post - and for how immense it's impact will be, I would much prefer to see a robust design document that gives me confidence the ramifications of such an implementation will have on Arelith in general are actually being considered.

At present, I do not have that confidence. There are no numbers, no averages, no examples, no comparisons. Given the magnitude of chaining caveats upon caveats as 'mechanics' has, it's difficult to have faith this will ultimately be healthy for long-term play.

Tenacity immediately expresses an overwhelming problem for me. For the sake of my explanation, the one who casts a save-prompting spell the 'attacker', and the victim of such the 'defender'. I do not believe it is a healthy design process to reward a defender, passively, for prompting for save - as proposed, Tenacity does that very thing.

You failed a save? You're now rerolling each turn. This is a good change.

In addition, you're being granted a stacking buff per failure - until you save (or it ends). This has noble intentions, but if the problem is 'someone being CC'd for 6 minutes', perhaps address that particular instance? By introducing a stacking buff, it puts an artificial timer on spells that already have artificial timers in an environment where most high level PvP will already feature individuals with such an obscene amount of wards it's produced memes in the community. Important to note many of those wards already solve such problems - mind blank, freedom of movement - counterplay should be active, not passive. Preparation should be rewarded

Finally, when the effect ends (save or otherwise) a flat buff is applied for five rounds to 'avoid CC stacking'. Once more, noble intentions, but what this boils down to disproportionately rewarding glass builds that manage to survive an initial save application (say, corner-sneaking) and making divine-save based classes even stronger (unless it doesn't stack with such, which then begs the question what unequal application is intended to achieve).

So now we're presented a situation where an attacker is punished if they cannot immediately capitalize on whatever their save-based initiation is meant to achieve - because now the defender is acquiring passive, ticking, buffs, and another in the same category. The defender is rewarded for being attacked!

In an environment where a tactical corner-sneak hide can invalidate gameplay, entirely, or the coinflip power of Knockdown vs Discipline, and how highly-built strength builds can simply one-flurry most of the mages that would allegedly benefit from the listed changes, anyway.. I truly wish to see the noble intentions of such changes supported by a more robust investigation in how impactful such changes will be.

Following- I do think 'Absolute Immunities' should perhaps be looked at. The problem is proposing changes to such things as Freedom of Movement (making it shorter, or reactive, etc) comes with it's own issues. Namely - in many situations.. nothing changes? Let us assume an attacker places Grease. In the most ideal scenario, the defender is forced to react, and casts Freedom of Movement. The attacker gains a round (another spell cast, at most), whilst a round is spent by the defender in order to move again.

That is the absolute best case (I can think of as a useful example), for the Attacker, in favor of these changes. The more likely reality is that the moment combat starts FoM is popped, and the defenders (who become the attackers, probably) have now just preemptively neutralized anything that would slow them down for three rounds. And you can .. do a lot in three rounds with haste. Which is to emphasize - broadly, and unfortunately - little would change.

This shifts the meta to punish the unprepared more than they already are, and narrow the list of spells intended to achieve results - as I do not believe you can reactively cast defenses if one is 'paralyzed'.

For arguments that Absolute Immunities are too strong - yes, but also no? They've already got counterplay implemented: Breaches (It is 22 on the list, noted for transparency).

Thank you for permitting we of the community to air our thoughts on such matters. Messy as my thoughts are, I hope they offer some insights and concerns with the proposals.

[In passion, patience]

I think we're thinking too hard about this while the solution strikes me as rather obvious.
The reason saves are currently terrible is because we can't dweomer them.
Either release the dweomer rework or enable hard 5% until the rework is ready. This is why there's an overwhelming number of divine builds and divine dips nowadays. It's because you've restricted mundanes out of being able to dweomer their saves. And being able to use T3 runes for saves is not a valid argument because they cost hundreds of thousands and mundanes are already chronically poor due to the cost of their usual wards.

[Nazmina]

We’ve been chatting internally about a system called Tenacity, and we’re a bit divided on whether it’s something we should implement. Irongron suggested we gather community feedback, so we're sharing it here. Below, in quotes, you’ll find the original proposal laid out in detail.

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.

Following this link is a video demonstrating Tenacity in action. https://streamable.com/44c3c8

We’d love to hear your thoughts, questions, and concerns!

1) Rolling a save every round you are affected by a total loss of control (so not daze which lets you drink potions, or slow, blind, etc) should be fine, but a stacking save bonus is unneeded. A person should still be gearing and buffing their saves such that their chance to fail a save regardless of DC increases should be no more than 25% or so (at the high end) Pray should still exist for you to instantly break out of a CC that might get you killed (IE stunned and surrounded or feared and low health etc)
Rolling saves when affected by loss of control also should not be universal and should be done on a spell by spell basis, as many non spell effects are already balanced separately and some spells already have short durations or other balancing effects.

2) A person without death protection should still outright die if they fail a death save. making a death spell always have some effect will make everyone use nothing but death spells. Death spells should still be balanced around deathward (and similar effects) see below.

3) Saves are tricky to change, having a large knock on effect on gearing, dirty fighting, other various non spell effects. I would suggest buffing spell dcs, but only for non infini casters such as sorcerer, wizard, shaman, druid, and maybe some paths of cleric and the like. Shouldnt go over board, even a minmaxed char shouldnt have more than a 25% chance to effect a unprotected target that has reasonable saves.
The one excpetion to save adjustments should be div chars, those that get cha to saves. The cha to saves should no longer be untyped and be counted as unisaves towards to +20 cap, letting them hit it more easily but not exceeed it.

4) Absolute immunities should be changed to "Near" immunites. Arelith is heavily based around breaching and making former immunities last mere seconds breaks the action economy. Keep in mind that some effects are saveless such as ground slows and the like.
Instead make it so that mind blank, freedom, etc give "slippery mind" like effect to their protected effects. Reroll a failure so that instead of out right immunity you have as low as a 1 in 400 chance to fail even with minkblank up (assuming your saves are high enough that you only fail on a 1) This also means that with higher dc's a person can effect someone who is protected, but it is rare. And thus combat would still likely revolve around stripping defenses.
Death immunity would be different, while affected by a death immunity if a person fails a save twice to effect a target instead of outright death they suffer 120% of their maximum health in dmg (magical or entropy) over 4 rounds so as to allow counterplay. As before a target without death protection that fails a save simply dies.

Edit: For savless effects such as slows, either stuff like freedom can stil block such effects completely or can add a saving throw to formerly savless effects, such as grease, acid cloud ect.

[Kythana]

imo there are so many more productive things we could be working on instead of reworking core components of the base game.

+1

At a glance, this just looks like another giant rework that will be abandoned, and we end up with yet another half-baked implementation. There is just too much to consider here, and these reworks generally follow a trend of never having any follow-up.

How about we actually release the new dweomer system first? We haven't even seen the landscape of what saves are going to look like realistically, so any sort of rework involving them will need to be changed again once we get the new implementation.

[AskRyze]

This is, when coupled with gutting save bloat, doubtless a step in the right direction for a more enjoyable and playable video game.

[Apothys]

wow this looks amazing, as for my thoughts:

1 - I like this, it means those without divine saves have a growing chance of breaking free. I like the small buff they get at the end of the spell, it seems thematic, steeling yourself against other spells. Im all for this.

2 - Adjusting save or die mechanics would be amazing. I really like the idea of a scaling damage, the percentage based damage would be excellent in my eyes and would indeed make even saving against the spell at least give it some punch against the really high saves in this game.

3 - This one about increasing DCs or reducing saves i like, Makes sense with option 1 and the high saves, though i do think players will try and max out spell saves despite option 1 giving them more chance to save. But i could be wrong...

4 - Phasing out total immunities for spells that need to cast a counter spell with limited buffs afterwards for a limited time is awesome! My toon would love to play a support character who casts these sort of spells to aid there front line fighters as these spells effect them. Its a hell yes from me. It so demoralizing when someone walks up covered in wards and knowing your not gonna be able to affect them in time to stop there continuous knockdown spamming.

This Tenacity system sounds like a coat of fresh paint on your old vintage car you refuse to give up! 10/10 Do it!