Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5878878" data-attributes="member: 82106">And what is the logic for the 'classic' D&amp;D save categories? There's no rhyme or reason to it whatsoever. The whole thing is utterly arbitrary and each category is used virtually at random for different things, lol. At least with FORT/REF/WILL defenses there's some logic to what each save represents and why your PC has a better or worse defense in that category.Nor is anything you mention narratively any less reasonable in 4e than it is in 2e. The spider failed to poison you, there's some reason for that, like you got your hand out of the way, etc. The narrative is attached to how things came out, not the mechanics of who rolled which die when. The difference is that in 4e at least poison hits FORT, but hey, if it is say a mind affecting poison, then maybe it hits WILL, and that makes sense. Because the system is intelligible to the designers of game material they can consistently apply the same saves to the same sort of things, and the categories make sense. My high fort dwarf resists poisons quite well simply because he DOES have a high FORT. AD&amp;D? Who the heck knows why any given save is what it is. Why is 'death magic' different from 'spells'??? Who knows? Half the time it is a death magic spell, so what logic says which of the two types that save should be? How do these mechanics support &quot;this type of character is really tough and resists things&quot;, they don't... And AD&amp;D has no way at all to portray something like &quot;all I need to do is touch this guy&quot; (REF defense or in 3e 'touch AC').</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5878878, member: 82106"] And what is the logic for the 'classic' D&D save categories? There's no rhyme or reason to it whatsoever. The whole thing is utterly arbitrary and each category is used virtually at random for different things, lol. At least with FORT/REF/WILL defenses there's some logic to what each save represents and why your PC has a better or worse defense in that category. Nor is anything you mention narratively any less reasonable in 4e than it is in 2e. The spider failed to poison you, there's some reason for that, like you got your hand out of the way, etc. The narrative is attached to how things came out, not the mechanics of who rolled which die when. The difference is that in 4e at least poison hits FORT, but hey, if it is say a mind affecting poison, then maybe it hits WILL, and that makes sense. Because the system is intelligible to the designers of game material they can consistently apply the same saves to the same sort of things, and the categories make sense. My high fort dwarf resists poisons quite well simply because he DOES have a high FORT. AD&D? Who the heck knows why any given save is what it is. Why is 'death magic' different from 'spells'??? Who knows? Half the time it is a death magic spell, so what logic says which of the two types that save should be? How do these mechanics support "this type of character is really tough and resists things", they don't... And AD&D has no way at all to portray something like "all I need to do is touch this guy" (REF defense or in 3e 'touch AC'). [/QUOTE]

Verification