Are three enough?

[Wiseblood]

Are three saving throws enough?
They've worked ok. What came before worked too. More categories would be satisfying to me, I think. 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.

I am certainly not Implying we should have six saves and 66% of them suck too. What I think would be more fun would have formulaic advancement over a class based array. Similar to older editions but without the overlapping categories.

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

Seeing it layed out it looks boring and bland to me. ( perhaps it's the labels, just not as catchy as Breath Weapon) What do you folks think?

 

[kitsune9]

Actually, I'm kind of a fan of the old saves though I'm very comfortable with just the three. I would even play a game that really spelled out a whole bunch of saves for very specific purposes. But that's just me.

 

[AeroDm]

I think it depends on what role saves play in the game. I think 4e has an interesting balance with three defenses for physical, dodge, and mental attacks and then a single save. Third edition basically reversed that with a single defense (setting aside, touch attacks) and then three saves.

I prefer both setups over the old saving throws which were a bit eclectic at times. It is much easier to figure out where any given attack belongs with just the three categories and then you can differentiate characters with small bonuses (i.e. +2 Fort saves against poison).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can see the argument for six saves, particularly given that not all mental challenges are about "willpower". That being said, three just works so well I have a hard time seeing that adding complexity and making the game less beginner-friendly is worth it.

Maybe it would be if the role of saving throws were broadened.

 

[am181d]

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.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I didn't vote, because I prefer three static defenses; aka 4e's style.

Seeing it layed out it looks boring and bland to me. ( perhaps it's the labels, just not as catchy as Breath Weapon) What do you folks think?

It's not that they're bland, it's that I can't imagine the distinction between 'resistance' and 'endurance' in the context of saves.

A good litmus test is "Can I clearly describe the distinction in two sentences or less?" If yes, you may be on to something; if not, you're going to end up with a lot of glazed-over eyes.

 

[dm4hire]

What about more than three, say six, that are subdivisions of the three stats that currently rule over saving throws, but you can only apply the ability modifier to one save related to it? So you'd have to choose between reflex saves and armor bonus using the common applications for dex modifier.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not really a fan of rolling defense against attack rolls, but there's an old 2nd edition variant called The Arcanum that does that. It uses 8 ability scores, and no static defenses. If an attack roll is successful, a save is rolled with a modifier based on the relevant ability score; an 11+ defends while 10- means you get hit. It sounds similar to your idea, so I'm just mentioning it in case it's of interest to you.

I prefer static defenses in general. I suppose you could replace all attack rolls with a save-like defense roll, though I'm not sure there's much to be gained by that. I wouldn't want to see the old saves and defenses approach from 3.x come back though. IMO, that adds complexity with little to no mechanical gain.

To be clear, saves and defenses had a purpose, IMO, before 3.x. They scaled quite differently, and saves were arguably a counterbalance against the power of high level spells. High level monsters would make their saves more often than not, helping to rein in spellcasters. It became a mess in 3.x though (again, IMO). At high levels, saves tended to be either so good that a creature couldn't fail or so bad that they couldn't succeed; add to that the ability for spellcasters to inflate their spell DCs, and the checks and balances of earlier editions went out the window.

On the other hand, I don't mind saves used against ongoing effects, as in 4e. Depending on how that is implemented, I could also see adding a relevant ability score modifier to the saving throw. In this paradigm, however, saves are at least as much condition timer as defense. You always know when you're rolling a save because you only use saves to end conditions, rather than avoiding attacks.

What I'm trying to say is that I think there should never be any question as to whether an attack requires an attack roll or a saving throw. Acid Arrow was an attack roll; Fireball was a saving throw; Disintegrate required both. Unless the players are intimately familiar with these spells, that kind of design slows play without benefit. I can't just roll a d20 because I don't know whether the player or I should make the roll. I think that a single, standardized method is the more elegant solution.

 

[Stormonu]

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

 

[Szatany]

Three static defenses and two saves are best:
Defenses
-Fortitude
-Will
-Armor
Saves
-Parry/Block
-Reflex