- 1E has a table of static saving throws groups into weird categories based strictly on the level of the person rolling.
I'm starting to lean back towards that.
- 1E has a table of static saving throws groups into weird categories based strictly on the level of the person rolling.
I'm starting to lean back towards that.
So now you can have 5 tables at a convention, all playing the same adventure, but none of them using quite the same set of rules. One table "feels" more like 4e, the next like 3e, the next like 1e/2e, the next like Basic/Expert, and finally one that is the core 5e game. These are all tailored for fans of various editions, without being those actual editions.
That is my guess as to how this is going to work. We shall see.
Ugh. No thanks. Spells themselves are one save... but spells that come out of rods, staves, and wands are another save. But if any of those spells are petrification or polymorph, then they're even another save. Why exactly? What is the sense there? And why is a lightning bolt that a wizard throws at you different than if a blue dragon breathes it on you that you have a different save? Makes little to no sense.
I believe the change of saving throws from the random groups in 1/2E to ones based upon what they actually did and which ability score affected them was the second-most positive change in the creation of 3E (right behind the flipping of AC.) I would NEVER want to go back to 1/2E saves.
Ugh. No thanks. Spells themselves are one save...
I really can't see that level of complexity being at all viable, especially if we want a half-decent rate of adventure output. More likely, adventure formats will assume the most complex style of game, and give sidebars on how to throttle everything back for less inclusive tables or different table styles.That is my guess as to how this is going to work. We shall see.
You realize how much effort your model means for each single adventure, don't you? And you don't even mention possible combinations (story-based plus deeply tactical combat). While I could see a storygame add-on as PDF to outline areas for player control, and maybe even a scaled-down version for bare bones games, this still means a lot of work on WotC's side. Will it be worth the effort? I can't believe it.
You realize how much effort your model means for each single adventure, don't you?
And you don't even mention possible combinations (story-based plus deeply tactical combat).
I really can't see that level of complexity being at all viable, especially if we want a half-decent rate of adventure output. More likely, adventure formats will assume the most complex style of game, and give sidebars on how to throttle everything back for less inclusive tables or different table styles.