Are three enough?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Most classes in 3.5, PF and 4e make it through their careers with 66% of their saving throws being kind of crappy and a mere 33% of them being decent.

And what percentage of statistics would you say are just made up numbers with no factual basis?

 

[IronWolf]

And what percentage of statistics would you say are just made up numbers with no factual basis?

95.34% Give or take a few percent.

 

[Wiseblood]

And what percentage of statistics would you say are just made up numbers with no factual basis?

If you are implying that I just made that up, you are mistaken.

One good saving throw advancement, two saving throw advancements suck. That is 33%/66% with less than one percent being not worth counting on either side. There are classes with 66%good/33%bad and only one that I can think of that has 100% good saves.

 

[Jhaelen]

Three's good for me - Fort, Will, Reflex. Though I wouldn't mind something like Physical, Mental, and Magical.

Yup, three should suffice, you just need to decide which three you want, e.g. Earthdawn uses: Physical, Spell, Social.

Midgard (a German rpg) uses: Physical, Psychological, and, well, Physical*.

*: in German: 'Physisch' (directly affecting the body, comparable to D&D's Fortitude) vs. 'Physikalisch' (indirect effects using some kind of spontaneously created or conjured matter or energy, comparable to D&D's Reflex).

 

[Noir le Lotus]

Three is good, all the clerics say so !!!

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once at the number three, being the third number to be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think I preferred more saving throw types (as I used to use in my variant D&D in pre 3e days). The additional saving throw types allowed me more flexibility in showcasing the different classes benefits or penalties.

There was a save vs poison for which assassins, rangers and druids had the best starting save, because they came across poisons in their line of work. Paladins tended to be pretty bad at this.

There was a save vs gaze attack, which thieves were great at (they are used to not meeting peoples gazes) but paladins were rubbish at (they never dropped their eyes to anyone!)

There was a save vs death magic, which paladins and clerics were better at because of their faith and divine protection.

and so on.

It would take a lot of effort to retrofit to a 3e+ world, but worked well for me back in the day.

Cheers

 

[Desdichado]

Are three saving throws enough?

Yes.

They've worked ok. What came before worked too.

They've worked great. What came before didn't really. I never understood what Save vs. Breath Weapon was supposed to be other than against a dragon breathing on you, and that seemed like too esoteric and niche of an application to be a general mechanic.

What I would propose is six saves.

Two groups of three. One group Physical and one group Mental.
Within each group there are three categories Resistance, Endurance and Avoidance. Each could be tied to an ability score.

Physical Resistance = Strength
Physical Endurance = Constitution
Physical Avoidance = Dexterity
Mental Resistance = Willpower
Mental Endurance = Charisma
Mental Avoidance = Intelligence

It sounds to me like you haven't proposed six saves at all. You've proposed replacing saves with ability checks.

That's valid, I guess.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Is that not what the 3e model already did? Tools not rules and all that?

I've always played (and ran) 3e and 3.5 and other d20 variant games that way. The examples given weren't meant to be exhaustive, weren't meant to be definitive, and most especially weren't meant to be looked up in the middle of play. They were simply examples of how to set a reasonable DC, on the fly if necessary, during play.

Yes, I realize I'm being a bit obtuse. I know a lot of folks make exactly those complaints about the 3e/d20 system. But I've never understood why the most obvious and simple solution to that overcomplexity wasn't adopted--just ignore it; treat it as a bunch of examples and everything works quite well.

 

[IronWolf]

Is that not what the 3e model already did? Tools not rules and all that?

Absolutely! I wasn't arguing against the 3.x system at all. I was countering the earlier poster who said "More complicated often makes things more meaningful; leaves things less open to question."

I don't want to see more rules and stipulations as I think the tools 3.x provides are great and can accommodate a tremendous number of scenarios and such if the DM is willing to use them as guidelines.

So I think you and I are on the same page.

I've always played (and ran) 3e and 3.5 and other d20 variant games that way. The examples given weren't meant to be exhaustive, weren't meant to be definitive, and most especially weren't meant to be looked up in the middle of play. They were simply examples of how to set a reasonable DC, on the fly if necessary, during play.

Yes, I realize I'm being a bit obtuse. I know a lot of folks make exactly those complaints about the 3e/d20 system. But I've never understood why the most obvious and simple solution to that overcomplexity wasn't adopted--just ignore it; treat it as a bunch of examples and everything works quite well.

Agreed. I really like the framework the skill resolution system sets out for us. It provides me all the tools I need to make rulings on the fly. I don't want to see every possible scenario for a climb to know how to set the DC. I want a couple rough guidelines to help guide me a bit in setting a DC and I'll take it from there.

 

[Wiseblood]

Yes.

They've worked great. What came before didn't really. I never understood what Save vs. Breath Weapon was supposed to be other than against a dragon breathing on you, and that seemed like too esoteric and niche of an application to be a general mechanic.

It sounds to me like you haven't proposed six saves at all. You've proposed replacing saves with ability checks.

That's valid, I guess.

The save categories were esoteric. The save mechanics were solid. You got better saves when you went up in levels. That aspect was a bit more detatched from ability scores and equipment though.

I would not use ability checks i would use saves tied to specific abilities. Just like fort, ref and will are tied to Con, Dex and Wis. I may have pointed this out but it bears repeating. The category against which you are saving is found in the description, as it is in current rulesets. The saving throw priority found in earlier editions is less obvious because it isn't repeated in every spell.

Just as we always have, we are probably going to memorize the things we use often. It does not matter how esoteric or obtuse it might seem. Some people memorized 3e grapple rules.