Later today I plan on writing up a short report on the key events of this week's D&D game, but first I wanted to talk just a tad about my new saving throw rules. It all started a session or two back with Charles. He's one of my groovy regular players and a very smart dude. Charles started out with WotC's 3rd edition D&D and one of the trickier things for him to grok in my campaigns has been the saving throw system. The old saves just made no sense to him. So a few weeks back he asked me to explain the thinking behind the original Poison/Dragon Breath/Whatever/Whatever system.
And I couldn't do it. I came up completely blank. Ever since I've been brooding over this situation. I feel certain that a logical justification for the Gygaxian saving throw can be constructed and almost assuredly has. But a system that can be justified and one that actually makes sense are not the same things. Finally I came to the conclusion that for me the saving throw chart was a clunky matrix that didn't help as much as it should. Every time I use it play is slowed down and someone has to be reminded whether rolling high is good or bad and someone then asks whether its roll above the target number or equal to and higher.
So it's time for me to retire the saving throw chart and replace it with some more sleek and modern. On Wednesday I pitched two options to the group. One was the 3.x system of bonuses for saves based upon the three categories Fortitude, Reflexes and Will. The other was an adaptation of the Swords & Wizardry one-save-fits-all system. They opted for the latter.
So here's my new house rule for saves.
All saves are d20 roll, with a 20 or more needed to save.
Everyone adds to their roll a base +4.
You also add your level.
Magic-Users get +2 versus anything magical.
Fighters get +2 versus anything where sheer physical toughness is a factor.
Thieves get +2 versus anything that can be dodged.
Changelings get a flat +1 bonus to all saves.
So a third level magic-user could record his saves as "+7 save/+9 versus magic". Or a ninth level changeling as simply "save +14".
PoP!
-
I have drawn three pieces today, and this -- with no hint of irony or
self-deprecation -- is the best of them all.
%202.png)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Posts
I use something similar. Watch out for adding your level, though, you might be better off with adding half your level for this.
ReplyDeleteThats funny Jeff. Last night I was wondering the same exact thing. I like your new system. I think I agree with Matthew that half your level (always rounded down) is the way to go as well. Otherwise its sleek and simple. I like it a lot.
ReplyDeleteNotice too that fighters improve faster than the others so that at higher levels his saves are best on average. Id give the fighter a bonus.
ReplyDeleteThe change to saving throws was one of the things that I think the upgrade to 3rd edition almost did completely right. Almost because I think they are still too concrete - where the original save system is concrete based on effects, the 3e save system is concrete based on physical attributes.
ReplyDeleteI like your changes. It's similar to something I'm thinking about doing the next time I run Basic D&D, which is to steal the Mazes and Minotaurs saving throw breakdown of "Athletic Prowess", "Physical Vigor", "Mystic Fortitude" and "Danger Evasion" and port it over to D&D. Mostly because I like the names and I think it gives more flavor and flexibility than "Reflexes" or "Willpower" do :) But your alternative might be cleaner.
I also like the single save system, myself. I proposed a similar set of adjustments by race and class and thought it was a pretty good solution.
ReplyDeleteAnd was totally shot down by the players. They prefer the oldschool way of doing it. And they're not oldschool. Weird.
In my Wandering Age homebrew, we're using S&W's unified saving throw. Although I haven't codified any class-specific bonuses, I suspect those will get fleshed out in play based on the situation (ie, rogues get a bonus against poison, elves against magic, &c).
ReplyDeleteThat said, most of the "outside-the-box" situations have been resolved by ability checks rather than saving throws.
My knowledge of D&D history is pretty weak; does anyone know if any of the early published material or the Great Old Ones themselves addresses when saving throws are more appropriate than ability checks, or vice versa?
So you now basically do what 4E does with saves.
ReplyDeleteFunny that, as an old school gamer, when you went to redo what you felt were broken old school saving throw rules you gave your players the choice of the way 3E does it or 4E does it. Maybe those "new fangled" RPGs aren't so bad after all?
cibet -
ReplyDeleteThis is "basically" what 4e does with saves because it's roll a d20 and try to beat a number. You can characterize a lot of stuff as roll a d20 and try to beat a number - that doesn't mean they're the same.
In 4e the number is 10 rather than 20, making saves easier.
In 4e leveling-up does not improve your chances at saves. Instead you have to pick feats/powers/whatnot to improve at your saves. Which you are already succeeding at 55% of the time because the target number is 10.
In 4e saving throws do not distinguish among types of effect or reasons for making the save. You always get the same bonus regardless of whether you're rolling against falling into a pit or shaking off some magical effect.
And this is because saving throws in 4e are basically luck rolls - all the stuff that used to be part of saving throws in editions prior to 4e was doled out into the various Defenses.
Mechanically it makes for a different game. I like 4e well enough, but it plays differently than 3e because of the Defenses/Saving throw changes, and 3e played a lot differently than Basic/Expert did.
Also to add -
ReplyDeleteIn 4e you make a LOT more saves than in prior editions of the game. Since they moved to a power model everyone seems to have some kind of power that can throw out a "save ends" effect. Which is mechanically part of the reason why saves are so much easier in 4e than in prior editions - they serve a different purpose. Saves in 4e mostly serve a purpose in the tactical battles that the game rules focus on. Saves in previous editions were an early attempt at a skill-like system - something that indicates your character's dungeon crawling abilities and improves as they gain experience at dungeon crawling. Yeah you used them in combat, but they were more general purpose adventuring knowledge than they were physical attributes of your character.
Ok, hold on; for the uninitiated 4e eliminated the traditional saving throws anymore and replaced them with 4 defenses: Armor Class, Reflex, Will, Fortitude and whatever powers you use just attack one of those four on whatever you are attacking. They also eliminated death effects and any type of 'save vs. death'.
ReplyDeleteSaving throw in 4e refers to a few times (dying, falling off a cliff, the ubiquitous 'save ends' effects) where you get a base 55% chance of success and you can get some a bonuses to the roll.
So yes, its a single roll but I don't think it really is the same thing. Jeff kills at least one character a session; I don't think this will make much of a difference.
Instead of rolling >= 20 on a d20 with everyone getting a +4 couldn't you just make it >= 16?
ReplyDeleteI think I'd also be inclined to do +1/2 lvl.
For anyone interested, you can find my port of Fort/Ref/Will saves to OD&D here
ReplyDeleteIt still requires tables, but they're pretty easy to figure out if you stare at them long enough. Actually used it in play and it seems good so far (only tested with level 2 party)
Nice!
ReplyDeleteSo you now basically do what 4E does with saves.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I did. I dunno. I don't own those rules. I was looking at the S&W books for ideas, as I said.
Funny that, as an old school gamer, when you went to redo what you felt were broken old school saving throw rules you gave your players the choice of the way 3E does it or 4E does it. Maybe those "new fangled" RPGs aren't so bad after all?
Everything's fair game for stealing new mechanics. On Wednesday I inquired whether 4e had mounted combat mechanics worth stealing. (The answer seems to be "no" as far as I can tell.)
On the other hand, I found 4e considered on its own merits to be further from what I wanted out of D&D than any other edition I've every played. MERP strikes me as more D&D like than 4e.
I've run 20 levels of 3.5 and played a bit. Did some 3e too. I had fun with it but as a DM the prep seemed a lot less fun than any other edition I've run. Making stuff for D&D should be part of the fun, not homework. Also I find the miniature focus encouraged by WotC D&D tends to focus things on the tabletop spectacle rather than the shared imaginary space.
So overall I'd say my relationship with the WotC editions is slightly more nuanced than "WotC D&D suxxorz, TSR D&D rulz". On the other hand, my opinion of WotC as a company and the leader of the hobby tends to be a less mixed negative. Even then I managed to say something nice about their figure line just two days ago.
And I've got nothing against people who groove on a different edition than I do. Even when they come onto my blog to be snarky.
I like your system in the sense that its simple and elegant but what about dwarves, halflings, etc.? I mean, everyone's always saying that their better saves are a big part of the reason behind slower progression and level caps. Mainly I'm talking basic here cuz I don't have the s&w rules to hand. But with the level caps in place and the same saves across the board the little guys seem pretty disadvantaged. Not that I'm a balance nazi (and I know you're not); I just wondered if you'd factored that in...
ReplyDeleteI'll soon be starting up a Mutant Future game, and I'll definitely keep your ideas in mind, as it's been ages since I've actually had to GM a game with ol' skool Saving Throws.
ReplyDeleteI always loved that 'death ray' was included in the savings throws tables of my original D&D book, but, as far as I can remember, there were no 'death rays' in the game. 'Death Rays' sounds so Buck Rogers (and I mean Buster Crabbe Buck Rodgers, not Gil Gerard Buck Rogers).
ReplyDeleteI think that for me, the 'old schoolness' flavor of former editions, however, was not in the mechanic of how savingsthrows were calculated or rolled, but instead that they were usually so catastrophic when you failed them. Back in the day, if you were bit by a giant spider and failed your save, your PC died. Later this was revised so that characters lost STR or CON or DEX (and that only temporarily). I'll let others debate what is ultimately 'better' (I have mixed feelings), but think the more forgiving saving throws of 3e is a break with tradition. Don't know anything about 4e.
That's a great system, Jeff. I may try it out myself. If I were asked to explain the old system, I'd say the save categories of D&D are just examples of several common saving throws, listed on the character sheet for easy reference, but other saving throws are possible, and up to the DM. I agree it's cumbersome though, and have always thought so, ever since I started playing, with AD&D.
ReplyDeleteOne note on the lethalness of saving throws... if you are making a save roll, you are basically already screwed/dead, and are being allowed one last desperate chance to survive. Don't think of it as an unfair "check" you have to make, think of it as a bonus chance to avoid something terrible that you got into by your own previous actions and decisions. It's the game's way of being forgiving once you already made a big mistake. :)
ReplyDeleteOne note on the lethalness of saving throws... if you are making a save roll, you are basically already screwed/dead, and are being allowed one last desperate chance to survive. Don't think of it as an unfair "check" you have to make, think of it as a bonus chance to avoid something terrible that you got into by your own previous actions and decisions. It's the game's way of being forgiving once you already made a big mistake. :)
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with this analysis. Some days I wonder if maybe the best way to adjudicate a save would be to say "Your character falls in the pit. You are dead. *beat* Unless maybe you make a saving throw?" rather than "Save or you fall into the pit."
Jeff: In cased you probably never saw it, here's an analysis I wrote of why old school saves are awesome.
ReplyDeleteBasically, instead of describing a specific action you take (dodging, fighting off, resisting), they describe your classes ability to avoid types of negative effects.
This leaves the *how* up to the individual class and player, which is totally retro (not stupid or pretentious).
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-abstraction.html
Hmm so torn. Ascending Ac and a cleaner save system sans a chart were two nice things to come out of 3E. And the one save ala Swords and Wizardry is easy peasy.
ReplyDeleteBut fiddlyness aside, there is something cool about having weird saves with cool names like Death Ray.
I know Ill probably never change.
"And I couldn't do it. I came up completely blank. Ever since I've been brooding over this situation. I feel certain that a logical justification for the Gygaxian saving throw can be constructed and almost assuredly has. But a system that can be justified and one that actually makes sense are not the same things. "
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think they make perfect sense as written, and don't require justification. See this (short) blog post on the subject:
http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2009/07/save-versus-epiphany.html
The peeve I always had with Gygaxian saving throws is that they are too unilateral.
ReplyDeleteYou take into account the capacity of the reaction, but not the capacity of the action that originated the reaction.
I like the idea of having a Base Save score (based on class and level range), with bonuses to different types of attacks, hazards, and magic effects. e.g.: "You get blasted by a Red Dragon, so you'll have to roll an 11 or more, but you get a +3 for 'Breath Weapons', and +2 'cause of your Ring of Fire Resistance." It only requires you to keep only one score, but you'll have to note down all the bonuses. This makes things a lot more flexable.
ReplyDeleteI think the original saving throws is based on that the most frequent attack type of the monsters/npcs/traps. Later the designers put the other spec. attack type to the existing categories. And it became a huge mess.
ReplyDeleteSome days I wonder if maybe the best way to adjudicate a save would be to say "Your character falls in the pit. You are dead. *beat* Unless maybe you make a saving throw?" rather than "Save or you fall into the pit."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. +1. That is usually how I see saves.
Word Verificatoin: ungled
As in: You are ungled. Unless you save vs. death ray.
"Oddily enough" it's exactly how we roll. S&W saves are great with an added +2 for elves and +5 for halflings and dwarves.
ReplyDelete"You are dead. unless you save" sounds exactly like what STs should be: the player acted in a silly way and the PC died because of a stupid error. Luckily enough he's expert/tough enough to be able to maybe not die." :)