D&D 5E Innovations I'd like to keep in 5E

[P1NBACK]

And what is the logic for the 'classic' D&D save categories? There's no rhyme or reason to it whatsoever. The whole thing is utterly arbitrary and each category is used virtually at random for different things, lol. At least with FORT/REF/WILL defenses there's some logic to what each save represents and why your PC has a better or worse defense in that category.

At random? It's pretty specific actually. In fact, the problem with early saves is it might be TOO specific. So, this whole "random" argument is entirely BS.

And, what you're missing is that Fort / Ref / Will doesn't account for @DMKastmaria arguments at all.

The main benefit of earlier saves is that it WASN'T unified. So, the Thief could have just as good of a Save vs. Poison as the Fighter.

Why? Because the Thief is good at dodging poison attacks. The Fighter on the other hand is just plain tougher.

In the F/R/W crap, we have to deal with the Thief who SUCKS at Poison saves because it's all rooted in Con and can't take into account anything else. And, the Fighter who BLOWS at Will saves because it only takes into account his Charisma or Wisdom or whatever. With the old school saves, a Fighter could use the same saving throw and be good at it for different reasons. So, each class can be taken on its own merits and tied to save numbers that make sense for that class.

There are benefits and downsides to each.

But, to try and claim F/R/W is inherently better is just bogus. You seem to do this a lot.

 

[CM]

4e's monsters that are easy to create and run which still have interesting, unique tricks to catch the players off-guard.

3e's detailed monster-building for those occasional BBEG villains when needed.

 

[herrozerro]

The "4E saving throw" is NOT a saving throw like any other edition. And, while it's actually a charming duration mechanic, other than the name, it has nothing to do with the concept of a save at all.

I have to disagree, there are plenty of examples of conditions getting worse after failed saves. Yes saves in general are a duration mechanic, but they also function as they once did as well.

My Medusa example is a great one, when you get hit by the gaze attack you are slowed save ends, first failed save you are immobilized save ends and after that you are petrified.

 

[P1NBACK]

I have to disagree, there are plenty of examples of conditions getting worse after failed saves. Yes saves in general are a duration mechanic, but they also function as they once did as well.

My Medusa example is a great one, when you get hit by the gaze attack you are slowed save ends, first failed save you are immobilized save ends and after that you are petrified.

Herro, you're wrong. Sorry.

The attack against your defense is the actual "saving throw". It's just, you don't throw anything... It's a static defense.

4E's "saves" serve two purposes: the duration of the effect and the scaling power of the effect. So, medusa attacks "Fort" defense or whatever. That's the saving throw. Does the medusa hit or not? Are you affected? The "save" determines how much you are affected, slowed - immobilized - or petrified.

I think it's a neat mechanic, but to compare it with pre-4E saves is incorrect. Pre-4E durations were usually time based. So, I failed my save vs. poison (in 4E, this would be a monster successfully attacks my Fort defensive). Then, in 1 turn (10 minutes) I die unless neutralized. In 4E, it might be "Each round, roll a save. If you fail 3 before being neutralized, you die" or something.

Same name (kind of...). Totally different mechanic.

 

[Mattachine]

Hey, folks. We already have threads with people arguing back and forth on those topics.

Let's keep this thread on-topic and try to talk more about innovations we like.

 

[P1NBACK]

Hey, folks. We already have threads with people arguing back and forth on those topics.

Let's keep this thread on-topic and try to talk more about innovations we like.

Apologies.

Herro, send me a PM or start a new thread if you want to continue the debate.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've something thought of doing it a different way altogether - unifying mechanic is PCs roll all their attacks, and NPCs/Monsters don't.

Monsters have an AC, and Hit # (not bonus) etc - Hit number is 10+hit bonus.
Players have a Def Bonus and a hit bonus.
Player rolls if he hits. Player rolls to see if he is hit (ie. Monster has it's hit # of 17, and player rolls d20 and adds Defense bonus (AC-10)). Player rolls attacking DCs for spells. Player's roll Saves.

Then the GM doesn't have to roll dice, and can concentrate on running all the NPCs. And the players are completely in control of their own fate. Anything that affects them or that they affect they roll.

Never implemented it, but thought it could work.

I ran the last half of a 3E/Arcana Evolved campaign this way. It was a little annoying dealing with the monster stats on the fly, but by that point I was nearly always embedding the monster blocks in my adventure documents anyway. Once I got in the habit of recording the monsters in ways that directly tied in (10 or 11 already added to attacks, for example), nothing to it.

I had an average of seven players for those sessions, and sometimes as many as 10. That's the thing about changes like this. If things are bogged down because players are not paying attention, this kind of change will only help around the edges (by getting them rolling more). But with lots of players, anything that takes work off of the DM is helpful and magnified.

 

[herrozerro]

just to go back to this.

The game took what was once a crucial point in a player's interaction with the game - rolling dice - and took that away from them for the sake of "simplicity".

There's a real psychological suck that comes when your character is about to potentially have some horrible thing happen to them, and instead of the outcome being in their hands - literally, with the dice - they get to sit there and have someone else roll for them. Yay.

This is one thing every other edition got right with saves and 4E ruined. But, hey, that's just my opinion. And I'm not presenting it as some kind of TRUTH.

4e didnt ruin the game with its static defenses, it just unified the burden of the attack to one side, the attacker.

4e saves put the die rolls back onto the player with the duration/worsening mechanic.

And as I said before, if putting the die rolls onto the player is the best thing why not have all interactions be a player die roll? Attack a monster? Roll a die. Get attacked by a monster? Roll a die.

 

[seregil]

Just to add my 0,02$ CDN to my own thread.

Some more things have occurred to me as i read the thread.

Minions: I LOVE the idea of minions. Really good idea.

Rituals: while they apparently have problems, I LIKE the idea of rituals too. I would keep them for important long, fluffy, non-combat stuff like Raise Dead, Teleport Without error, Create Magic Item and other stuff. Mind you, they are, essentially, magic scrolls that anyone can use.

**************
Why do I prefer F/W/S to the old saves?

Well, I do LIKE the idea of rolling the save myself, but the actual save numbers were a pain because they were arbitrary. Why 17? Why not 16?

Also, as mentioned by someone, the actual categories were weird. Spell, Rod Staff wand, Death magic? There doesn't seem to be any reason for it.

Now, all that having been said, why not a combination type save? Rolled by the affected player, based on the save stats as F/W/D, with perhaps a greater number of types of save?

Anyways, my original comment still stands. Saving throws that are systematic and based on something. Doesn't mean we can't find a combo solution, I simply like the evolution for save in 3E.

 

[Dausuul]

AD&D? Who the heck knows why any given save is what it is. Why is 'death magic' different from 'spells'??? Who knows? Half the time it is a death magic spell, so what logic says which of the two types that save should be?

Paralyzation/poison/death magic has top priority, then rod/staff/wand, then petrification/polymorph, then breath weapon, then spell. Easy! I can't imagine why you would think this was confusing, and I totally didn't have to search on Google and dig through random forum threads to find it.