Are three enough?

[Wiseblood]

[MENTION=86876]Iron Wolf[/MENTION] I know you were talking to Hobo but this post has iluminated some things for me. I have commented below and wonder what you think.

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.".

That might be me, I'll stand by it though.

Do you think this proposal could leave things less open to question?

I feel that if some rules are mores specific players and DM's are more likely to be on the same page.

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.

I agree with this statement. I would add that I do not want rules to reference other rules. If that make sense.

I will pick on entangle here. ( I love to pick on entangle.) Especially PF's entangle. Fail your reflex save. You become entangled. The entire area becomes difficult terrain. So in my case the spell effect is actually "When this spell is cast, regardless of the outcome of the save, Someone must look up Entangled (condition) and difficult terrain." This spell is fractal.

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.

I like the skill systems framework also.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

As was so often the case with early editions much of the justifications and explanations went UNWRITTEN. Pre-2nd Edition used 5 categories. When you just look at the surface the categories seem random, arbitrary. When you look at what ELSE they were used for they make a lot more sense. It just wasn't written down in a rulebook why THOSE categories or how you should use them beyond the obvious. When you look at modules (and paid attention) you could see there was more method behind the madness.

2nd Edition actually put it into words in the DMG that those categories were meant to cover more than a few specific effects. These had generally been percieved and used prior to that - just not written out for greater general understanding.

Parlyzation, poison, death magic - also used in situations where force of will or physical fortitude applies.

Petrification, polymorph - withstanding massive physical alteration of the body. Aging is probably a good example.

Rod, staff, wand - magical attacks from an unusual source.

Breath weapons - Mostly seemed to be dexterity-related, but ostensibly also a combination with physical stamina. Used A LOT for traps when some other specific effect from the trap is not applicable.

Spells - Also a catch-all category. Any miscellaneous effect that doesn't fall into another category.

The categories were also hierarchical. Start at the top with PPD. If the save did not fit that category (either because it was not a paralyzation, poison, or death effect specifically, or because it wasn't an attack upon physical fortitude or willpower) then you moved to the next lower category of PP to see if it fit there. If not you moved further down the list of categories until you got to Spell which applied to everything else not already covered.

What you might notice is that the DM is free to assign a save to whatever category HE thinks best suits any particular effect. Here's a really wacky example just to illustrate: suppose a PC researches a new spell which creates an arrow that springs forth from the casters hand, hits the enemy in the gut and then turns his liver inside out. The saving throw could actually be assigned to a couple of different categories.

It could be PP because its a bodily trauma effect. It could be Breath Weapon because the arrow might be dodgedable to an extent. Or, it could be given just an ordinary save of "Spell" because the DM doesn't feel any of its effects are terribly applicable to the other categories. Or maybe he's looking at the fact that thieves have really pathetic Breath Weapon saves. Whatever the motivations, the DM can use this to "fine tune" the game to how he believes it should be.

One more thing to remember - something that's been overlooked in this thread yet can't be overemphasized. Prior to 3rd Edition saving throws were based on TWO factors - character level and the effect itself. There were few modifiers. The saving throw was a last-chance for your character to avoid or reduce effects that were otherwise foregone conclusions. As of 3rd Edition saves too into account not just the victims level but the casters level, the level of the spell, the characters ability scores, and added metric buttloads of potential modifiers on top of all that. Even though the ultimate result was still going to be "save for half", or "save negates" the process of making that determination was made a STUNNINGLY complicated calculation by comparison.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both post-2E and pre-3E methods. With just 3 categories I think its fitting that there are more variables to the latter but far more than are needed or wanted. The former could do with a bit of loosening up and revision but its ultimately fitting of a more hard-core approach to character death by being far less fiddly in its execution.

However, one thing IS certain: what came before DID work and DID make perfect sense, even if it wasn't well-explained or its underlying framework widely understood.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Prior to 3rd Edition saving throws were based on TWO factors - character level and the effect itself. There were few modifiers.

I'm not sure I agree with this. My memories of 2nd Edition play include a lot of, "For this specific spell, you make a PPD save at a -4 penalty," or, "If used against a single target, the target takes a -X penalty to his save vs. spell; against two or more targets, they get a +Y bonus" etc.

 

[Desdichado]

Sounds like special pleading. Over time, writers started being more consistent in what they used, and players and GMs could detect patterns. That doesn't mean that the method made sense, it just meant that players and writers were sufficiently skilled to band-aid up a nonsensical system and make it work for them.

And I'll emphasise (again) my rebuttal to your re-emphasis. There were not "metric buttloads" of modifiers, nor was there a "STUNNINGLY complication calculation" to figure out save DCs in 3rd edition. There were a lot of examples given in the rules of factors that could be taken into account for GMs to figure out what appropriate save DCs were. But they were just examples (am I the only person left who still remembers the tools, not rules motto? Sometimes I feel like I am) and the GM was, of course, always free to handwave whatever DC he felt was appropriate--he had, after all, tons of examples to give him a flavor for what an appropriate DC should be.

Plus, unless you play with some very unusual group that audits GM save DCs, and armor classes, and skill check DCs and all that jazz, how was a player supposed to know what "metric buttload" of modifiers apply anyway? For that matter, it's not even a given that he knows what the DC is when he makes a saving throw or check--I only tell my players the target numbers that they need to hit when I'm feeling a bit short-cuttish and want to move quickly through a dice challenge of some sort or other without turning it into a major "thing." Otherwise, I describe the percieved difficulty of what they're proposing in prose form, let them roll and give me their numerical result, and I tell them whether it's good enough or not.

You're trying to create a false dichotomy around how the game was played when in reality that's just a playstyle issue that can be easily applied to either post 2e or pre 3e eras (to use your own labels.)

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure I agree with this. My memories of 2nd Edition play include a lot of, "For this specific spell, you make a PPD save at a -4 penalty," or, "If used against a single target, the target takes a -X penalty to his save vs. spell; against two or more targets, they get a +Y bonus" etc.

I think I would classify that as part of the effect itself. A few spells had specific modifiers (feeblemind, hold person) based on the nature of the spell itself, but there were really only a handful of them.

The vast majority of bonuses that could be involved in saving throws were on the target end thanks to cloaks/rings of protection, high wisdom, magic armor, boots of speed, cloaks of displacement, druid bonuses, dwarf/gnome/halfling bonuses, paladin bonuses, and so on.

 

[Wiseblood]

Sounds like special pleading. Over time, writers started being more consistent in what they used, and players and GMs could detect patterns. That doesn't mean that the method made sense, it just meant that players and writers were sufficiently skilled to band-aid up a nonsensical system and make it work for them.

And I'll emphasise (again) my rebuttal to your re-emphasis. There were not "metric buttloads" of modifiers, nor was there a "STUNNINGLY complication calculation" to figure out save DCs in 3rd edition. There were a lot of examples given in the rules of factors that could be taken into account for GMs to figure out what appropriate save DCs were. But they were just examples (am I the only person left who still remembers the tools, not rules motto? Sometimes I feel like I am) and the GM was, of course, always free to handwave whatever DC he felt was appropriate--he had, after all, tons of examples to give him a flavor for what an appropriate DC should be.

Plus, unless you play with some very unusual group that audits GM save DCs, and armor classes, and skill check DCs and all that jazz, how was a player supposed to know what "metric buttload" of modifiers apply anyway? For that matter, it's not even a given that he knows what the DC is when he makes a saving throw or check--I only tell my players the target numbers that they need to hit when I'm feeling a bit short-cuttish and want to move quickly through a dice challenge of some sort or other without turning it into a major "thing." Otherwise, I describe the percieved difficulty of what they're proposing in prose form, let them roll and give me their numerical result, and I tell them whether it's good enough or not.

You're trying to create a false dichotomy around how the game was played when in reality that's just a playstyle issue that can be easily applied to either post 2e or pre 3e eras (to use your own labels.)

I had to look up special pleading. It was a distant memory, perhaps more of an echo of a memory.

Thank you for the impetus to seek edification.