Are three enough?

[Sammael]

Fatebinder utilizes six saves:

Might(Athletics + Str) - straining your muscles to avoid being moved, resist the effects that diminish your muscle capacity or cause paralysis, or reduce damage caused by constriction. Might is often used as a save against transmutations.

Reflex (Acrobatics + Dex) - hastily moving to avoid or minimize the damage caused by area effects (both natural and magical) or effects that can affect you regardless of your armor (magic effects with a range of "touch"). Reflex is commonly used as a save against evocations.

Fortitude (Endurance + Con) - fighting off the effects of disease, poison, petrification, polymorph, negative energy, and similar effects that assault your physical form and metabolism. Fortitude is often used as a save against necromantic effects and transmutations.

Disbelief (Perception + Int) - recognizing false sensations and seeing the truth they are trying to conceal. Disbelief is commonly used as a save against illusions.

Composure (Insight + Wis) - shielding your mind from the effects that attempt to frighten you, overload your senses, penetrate your thoughts, and assault your mental faculties. Composure is often used as a save against divinations.

Willpower (Resolve + Cha) - actively forcing your mind to shrug off mental influence and resist attempts to override your personality. Will is often used as a save against enchantments.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I prefer the 4e line of thinking, wherein overcoming some resistance is task of the attacker. So I like static defenses with active attacks. 4e saves aren't saving throws in the traditional sense but the suffering creature trying to end some condition applied by the successful attack.

What I don't like in this system is the flat "+2 to saves" on the monsters' side. This is an un-stickiness factor: how good is a creature at shedding *any* condition.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am quite satisfied with three defenses. More would be too fiddly, I think.

 

[nedjer]

Each to their own; but there's maybe a trade-off with more. Not so much minor extra glances at the odd table or any noticeable extra hurdle for beginners. More in that those combine with pausing to work out which saving throw applies where and when if a save doesn't fit neatly into a particular category.

Whether one or many, the saving throw is a great cliffhanger mechanism, which gives the mightiest an Achilles' Heel along with controllable swingyness.

 

[IronWolf]

I don't think we need more. It just makes things more complex. Three broad categories seems to work just fine for me. For those cases that don't fall into the traditional saving throw category one can always have the character make an ability check.

 

[Wiseblood]

[MENTION=40398]Tequila Sunrise[/MENTION]

I must admit Endurance and Resistance are synonims but in my mind when writing it down I was picturing them a bit differently.

Endurance was for situations where you had already been struck and were trying to prevent further harm.

Endurance Constitution would be the defense against a wyverns sting.

Endurance Charisma to defend against a ghoul's touch.

Resistance was composed of an active opposition through action or willpower to prevent an effect.

Resistance Strength to escape from Web or Entangle.

Resistance Will to shake off the effects of charm person.

I tend to diagree that it would be more complicated in play. 3.5, PF and 4E all list the defense that is used against a given attack. I'll also add a reminder that DC's are not intuitive either and need to be noted if they are not looked up.

It would be more complicated to create new material.

Like I have stated the three used have worked, logic holes appear. These holes are the inconsistencies that arise. When a common sense solution is presented by players it is completely ignored by the rules. This is when a DM steps in and either ignores common sense and sticks by the rules or adjudicates to include the revalation. I think that the three could use some help in some ways.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I don't think there should be *any* saves. They should be replaced with ability checks, or maybe ability checks + LVL.

Poisoned? Make a CON check.

Dodging a fireball? Make a DEX check.

Trying to see through an illusion? Make a WIS check.

Big rock just dropped on your head? Make a STR check.

I disagree because one size does not fit all. Not every poison is equally lethal. Not every illusion is equally convincing. I'm not just talking about modifiers of +1, +2 here.

When you make an ability check the score you're trying to hit is always the same (aside from a modifier or two). It's your ability score itself. When you make a saving throw the score you're trying to hit is set by... what? The level of the opponent doing the casting; the strength of the poison; the degree of complication of the illusion; or whatever other scale is desired can be used to set the DC for that saving throw.

One size does not fit all. It may be vastly simpler but it's also boring and, though I hesitate to use the word, "unrealistic".

Now, it actually made sense for 3rd Edition to simplify down to 3 categories of saves given that they were complicating the hell out of saving throws in a lot of other ways - modifiers out the wazoo. It similarly does NOT make sense to revert to more categories without ALSO again contemplating what it is that saving throws are for and how best to execute them within the overall system.

Simpler is NOT always better. More complicated is NOT always a meaningful obstacle. More complicated often makes things more meaningful; leaves things less open to question. "New players" are given far too little credit for the ability to use their brains. Don't just train new players that they don't EVER need to use their brain.

 

[IronWolf]

When you make an ability check the score you're trying to hit is always the same (aside from a modifier or two). It's your ability score itself.

Ability checks are rolled against DCs, not the ability score itself.

Simpler is NOT always better. More complicated is NOT always a meaningful obstacle. More complicated often makes things more meaningful; leaves things less open to question. "New players" are given far too little credit for the ability to use their brains. Don't just train new players that they don't EVER need to use their brain.

And I counter with DMs are given far too little credit and they can apply common sense to setting appropriate DCs and bonuses for player rolls. We don't need to attempt to define every single possible climb check or poison save. We need to provide some guidelines and trust the DM to use their head and using those guidelines determine appropriate DCs and modifiers.

 

[IronWolf]

Endurance Constitution would be the defense against a wyverns sting.

Fort Save.

Endurance Charisma to defend against a ghoul's touch.

Not sure I get why this would be charisma? But if so - a charisma check.

Resistance was composed of an active opposition through action or willpower to prevent an effect.

Will save.

Resistance Strength to escape from Web or Entangle.

Strength Check.

Resistance Will to shake off the effects of charm person.

Will Save.

Like I have stated the three used have worked, logic holes appear. These holes are the inconsistencies that arise. When a common sense solution is presented by players it is completely ignored by the rules. This is when a DM steps in and either ignores common sense and sticks by the rules or adjudicates to include the revalation. I think that the three could use some help in some ways.

All the examples above have a way to handle with rules as written. One of the roles of a DM is to adjudicate various situations come up. All the situations that come up in a game simply can't have specified DCs because no climb or what have you is exactly the same. The DM can be provided guidelines on how to adjust a DC or apply appropriate modifiers and work with that.

 

[steenan]

I don't really care if the defense is represented by static values or by some kind of rolls. Static defenses are faster in play, but give a feeling of being a passive target and that's something some players don't like. Maybe just let players roll for their attacks and their defenses, with opponents always using static values?

As for number of saves, I think that 3 is three few.
Specifically, using "will" as the only social/mental defense is a bad idea. I definitely see three different areas of mental attack that different characters may be good or bad at defending against:
- false sensory input (illusions, disguises)
- emotional manipulation (lies, seduction, charms)
- direct mental assault to intimidate, compel, dominate or possess
Thus, there should be three separate defenses, something like:
Perception (based on Int)
Self-control (based on Wis)
Willpower (based on Cha)

As for physical defenses, I don't like treating armor class separately from all other defense types. Dodging a sword strike is not that different than dodging a falling boulder or something. So, they need to either be merged together or split in a different way.