You do realize 6 is more than 3 though, don't you? 5e has 6 saves. Each save is based on an ability check, but can be very different from one. Sometimes you have abilities that modify only Ability checks. Sometimes you have ones that modify only saving throws. Sometimes you have ones that modify both. There will never be a character who's ability check bonus is the exact same as all his saving throw bonuses though (because all PCs have proficiency with two saves). At the very best, the claim that 6 saving throws is smaller than 3 is willful ignorance of many 5e mechanics.
OSR Any Demand For a Simplified/OSR 5E?
You do realize 6 is more than 3 though, don't you? 5e has 6 saves. Each save is based on an ability check, but can be very different from one. Sometimes you have abilities that modify only Ability checks. Sometimes you have ones that modify only saving throws. Sometimes you have ones that modify both. There will never be a character who's ability check bonus is the exact same as all his saving throw bonuses though (because all PCs have proficiency with two saves). At the very best, the claim that 6 saving throws is smaller than 3 is willful ignorance of many 5e mechanics.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
But if you retain Attributes, you have nine, and have to recall which of the first six arbitrarily relate to the rest of the nije.
Overly fiddly 3.xism: everything good in 3E is in base 5E already.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I count six: only question is of Prof applies or not. Simple as pudding.
Nine complexly interrelated numbers, not a simplification.
Zardnaar
Legend
Not really. There were several things in 3.5 I like over 5E. Fort/Ref/Will is one of them, micro feats another at least I miss them on occasion.
I also liked some fo the 3.5 monsters better than their 5E equivalents such as Dragons. At least I will likely use the 5E ones with things like spells, resistance to non magical weapons and SR as a static number added back into the game.
Can't think of to much else from 3E I miss except maybe some of the weapons (Rapiers being d6) and the armor table as 5E heavily rewards plate and studded leather and medium armor is a bit useless. My armour table will be overhauled as well.
You can have class features that give advantage to certain saves like danger sense, rage, or Spell resistance. You can have proficiency in certain saves. You can have class features that affect certain saves such as the paladin's aura. You can have magic items that affect saves. You can have spells that affect saves as well.
Next you have all the abilities that affect ability checks but not saving throws. Your saving throw number will rarely be equivalent to your ability check modifier. In 5e, you are really tracking 12 numbers. Your 6 numbers for saving throws and your 6 numbers for ability checks.
All in all, there is more to keep track of with 6 saves than with the 3 of Fort, Reflex, and Will. It is a difference of tracking 12 things as compared to 9.
@Zard: If Fort, Reflex, and Will are used, I think they would be better served as an average of 2 ability modifiers. Fort being the average of Str and Con, Reflex being the average of Dex and Int, and Will being the average of Wis and Cha.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Legend
Well others seem to like my take on Fort/Ref/Will as well. I liked the concept from 3E just not their take on the numbers.
I took the 3E saves, buffed the good save to +3, added a +1 medium save and the bad save was +0. I took 5E proficiency system and added them to the class saves so a fighter ends up with +9/+7/+6 as base saves.
In 5E 90% of the saves are con/dex/wisdom anyway and most of what is left is strength with hardly any intelligence saves and a few charisma saves.
You do not even have to add your proficiency save to the numbers as I have already done that, all you have to do is add yor abilty score modifier to 3 saves. In 5E you do that to 6 saves and add you proficiency bonus to at least 2 of them. You have an extra 3 saves to keep track of and an extra step in 5E.
Back in the day we often memorised the 3 saves, in 5E we normally have to look at the character sheet. The save DCs are more or less the same I am adding things like a static SR roll back into the game. a 90% MR AD&D monster in my game has SR of 19 which is not modified by caster level. You have to roll a 19 or higher too effect the creature with your spell. There is a spell penetration feat same as 3E but the mechanics behind SR have changed as you do not add caster level.
Basically its a throw back and more gritty. Dragons for example will have spells as Sorcerers a'la 3.5.
Sacrosanct
Legend
I agree. Saves based on attributes isn't that more complex because attributes already exist. Introducing a new mechanic all together is added complexity. It's like this:
I can have 12 jobs to work on when repairing my car, all of them use the metric system
or
I can have 6 jobs that require the metric system, but also need to know what 3 additional jobs require the imperial system.
For me, the second is more complex because I'm dealing with more systems to know, even if 9 is less than 12.
*Edit* or to use a real world example. I am a systems analyst. It is much less complex for me to write a dozen test scripts that are all on the same workflow, than it is to write 6 scripts with one workflow, and then write another 3 using an entirely different workflow. There are more things I need to know and remember with the latter.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Exactly; with attributes-as-saves, everything flows well: derived attributes muddy the waters.
Zardnaar
Legend
I'm not that worried. Can you tell me with a straight face you can't get a number off the class descrption and addd your ability score to it?
Also have you played 5E to the point where you start blowing saves 75 to 95% of the time if its not a good save?
Parmandur
Book-Friend
It's not a matter of "can't" so much as "won't."
Low Saves are WAD, as far as I can see: Conan won't have good saves against the Mindflayer, that's why Harry Potter is in the party.
Similar Threads
