jedavis
First Post
Part of the reason save-or-die worked as well as it did in older editions was that, as someone mentioned upthread, the chance for a high-level opponents to save went up as HD increased. This is something which 3e did very wrong (I've played B/X, 1e, and 3.x; can't speak for 4e or 2e) - good saves scaled at the same rate as spell save DCs, and poor saves lagged behind. This meant that high-level characters were just as succeptible to a high-level save-or-die as low-level characters were to a low-level save-or-die if it was aimed at their strong saves, and much more vulnerable if their weak saves were targeted. In 1e or B/X games, spell save DCs did not scale with spell level or caster capabilities; a Death Spell generated a save vs death, and the probability of effectiveness was purely a function of the target. A high-level fighter might have a 2+ to save, providing a 95% chance of survival just as a function of his level against any given save-or-die effect; by comparison, an nth-level 3.x fighter might be expected to have something like a 50-75% chance to save against a spell of (n+1)/2th level for all n between 1 and 20 on his strong saves and something abysmal like 45% at 1st level dropping to <20% success rate at high levels on his bad saves (barring Cloaks of Resistance; this divergent save scaling was one of the reasons magic items were essential to PC survival at mid-levels. Without a Cloak, you died. Been there, fought the bodak, was the only survivor, got the t-shirt). The old method of non-scaling save DCs solves many of the problems discussed above; it protects powerful individuals from save-or-dies quite effectively, while retaining their supreme effectiveness for mook control and granting them moderate gambling usage against mid-range foes. Likewise, low-level PCs are fragile and their saves reflect that, while high-level PCs are more durable on the save front, rather than less durable like they are in 3.x because of weak saves scaling at 1/3 of level.
Last edited:
