D&D 5E A Brief History of Saving Throws, the Original Plot Armor

[Yora]

It's a bit of a headscratcher that D&D is bifurcated into two opposite resolution mechanics--1.) Attacker rolls to hit against AC and 2.) defender rolls to save against DC. Why? Holdover from an older paradigm of play.

The original idea seems to have been that defenders also make an armor throw against the attackers attack score. Since you have to add AC to the die roll and the attackers attack value is the target number.

I think. I still don't understand how you made attack rolls for the first 25 years.

 

[squibbles]

Aside from in 4th ed?

/facepalm

you've got me there.

maybe I should have added "again"

 

[John R Davis]

"Yet because the player character is all-important, he or she must always - or nearly always - have a chance, no matter how small, a chance of somehow escaping what otherwise would be inevitable destruction"

This. Players uber alles.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

But more on topic:
It's a bit of a headscratcher that D&D is bifurcated into two opposite resolution mechanics--1.) Attacker rolls to hit against AC and 2.) defender rolls to save against DC. Why? Holdover from an older paradigm of play.

It would make better sense to have most spells use attack rolls instead of saving throws and retain saving throws only for especially nasty and/or unusual spell effects. I mean, it would be easy enough to change save for half damage to missed spell attacks deal half damage.

But--of course--that's never going to happen.

Well it also simulates particular targets being more susceptible to certain types of attacks without having to have a half-dozen different ACs calculated and listed.

 

[squibbles]

Well it also simulates particular targets being more susceptible to certain types of attacks without having to have a half-dozen different ACs calculated and listed.

Yes, that's true--but only because there are a half-dozen different types of Saving Throws calculated and listed.

 

[turnip_farmer]

There are games like dungeon world, where the players roll the dice.

When you fight monsters, you roll dice; a good roll means you hurt the monsters, a bad roll means they hurt you.

In such a system, the dragon would breathe fire, and the PCs would decide how to deal with it. Dodge it? Tough it out? Conjure an ice wall to block it?

Each would result in a different reaction by the PC.

And that's wrong! DMs deserve to roll too!

Though the idea of giving PCs options on how they respond is good, but you can have something like Hackmaster which really leans into opposed rolls (even where they are totally unnessecary). So every attack roll is opposed by a defence roll. GM and player both roll, and the attack hits if the attacker has the higher roll (after modifiers).

 

[Malmuria]

Save DC is one of my least favorite things about 5e. Players never write it down, don't know how to calculate it, and always get it wrong.

 

[Rabulias]

Save DC is one of my least favorite things about 5e. Players never write it down, don't know how to calculate it, and always get it wrong.

Houserule that if you do not know your spell save DC, it defaults to an 8. That should motivate them to learn it.

 

[Mannahnin]

The original idea seems to have been that defenders also make an armor throw against the attackers attack score. Since you have to add AC to the die roll and the attackers attack value is the target number.

Sorry, what?

I think. I still don't understand how you made attack rolls for the first 25 years.

Pretty much the same way we do today. Just expressed differently.

In OD&D and AD&D 1E it was with a table lookup, but you're still rolling a d20 and trying to get high enough to hit the AC, though lower ACs were better. There was no auto-miss on a 1 rule or auto-hit on a 20 (I believe they first added those in B/X), but there was a series of repeating 20s at the upper end of the table so you still had a 5% chance for a while against the best defenses, though at some point it stopped and you simply couldn't hit.

In 2E they formalized THAC0 (it had appeared in the monster appendix of the 1E DMG but wasn't fully integrated), which got rid of the repeating 20s, and turned it into a simpler number scale, but the mechanic was still using attack tables/matrices. Check my level and class against the matrix to see what score I need to hit AC 0, then roll my attack adding any applicable bonuses for strength or dex, specialization, race or class abilities with a particular weapon, magic weapon bonuses, etc.

Say for example that I have a 2nd Ed AD&D 2nd level Elf Fighter with a +1 longsword and +1 Strength bonus to hit. I also get a +1 to hit with Longswords for being an elf; it was a racial ability. Looking at the THAC0 table my number needed to hit AC 0 is a 19. I roll a d20 and add 3. Say I roll a 12. 12+3 = 15, subtract that from my THAC0 of 19, and I know I've hit AC4 (which happens to be the AC of Chainmail + Shield).

Compare to 5E. A 2nd level Elf Fighter has +2 Proficiency bonus with his longsword (this basically replaces THAC0), and probably a +3 either Strength or Dex bonus to hit (AD&D was stingier with ability bonuses to hit). Roll a d20 and add +5. Say I roll a 12. That's 17. I've hit AC17. Heck, Chainmail & shield is 18 because they made shields better! Oh well, missed by 1. Unless I had that longsword (or rapier) +1, but I didn't include it as those are rarer in 5E.

 

[The Old Crow]

It's a bit of a headscratcher that D&D is bifurcated into two opposite resolution mechanics--1.) Attacker rolls to hit against AC and 2.) defender rolls to save against DC. Why? Holdover from an older paradigm of play.

I think saves were originally more akin to hp than AC. Hit points scaled with level and stood between a character and death; saving throws scaled with level and stood between a character and death, paralysis, petrification, poison, and a bunch of other effects.