Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5725970" data-attributes="member: 32740">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.</blockquote>

Verification