Mixing old saves in the new game.

[QuaziquestGM]

I tend to run alot of older modules for 3.x players and I have many old monster books. Usually I convert on the fly, or just plug in the new monster write ups. Sometimes however, this just isn't feesable. Either the monsters haven't been converted, or the new save types just don't make sense. Often, the conversion just isn't as hard as it should be....

Calculating form THAC0 to Bab usually isn't a problem, and Converting form Odnd HD based attack bonuses isn't too much of a problem using the chart from DragonFoot. The only big problem is the saves.

I've been thinking of giving my players a new set of the "old" saves along with thier Fort, Will, and Ref saves for use when we play the old modules. I'm not posting this to the conversion forum as I am wondering about rules interactions.

I'm mostly concered with playablity.

One nice wrinkle is that saves don't stack for multiclass characters. You get only the lowersave (lower = better) on each category that you qualify for.

 

[TheNovaLord]

I guesss actually you could mix and match saves somewhat

use Fort bonus with dex bonus, for say dragons breath, Fort bonus with Wis for paralysation. I dunno if you mix the three saves of F,W and R with the three differing stats gets nice variation of save types.

 

[glass]

One nice wrinkle is that saves don't stack for multiclass characters. You get only the lowersave (lower = better) on each category that you qualify for.

How is that nice? A multiclassed character could easily end up with the saves of a character half his level. That strikes me as a bad thing.

Other than that, I don't see any huge problems. You are disrupting the notion of 'higher is always better', but if your players came with you from previous editions they'll be used to that. I would recommend you do something like this with new players, of course.

But, I have to ask, what particular monsters or effects are you thinking of that can't be allocated to Fort, Ref or Will? They seem to cover pretty much everything at least passably well, AFAICS.


glass.

 

[glass]

I guesss actually you could mix and match saves somewhat

use Fort bonus with dex bonus, for say dragons breath, Fort bonus with Wis for paralysation. I dunno if you mix the three saves of F,W and R with the three differing stats gets nice variation of save types.

I could be wrong (I'm not a mind reader), but I don't think that was what the OP was suggesting.

I got the impression that his players' characters would have both Fort/Ref/Will saves and Spell/Breath Weapon/PPDM/etc saves on their character sheets, so he could ask for whichever suited the encounter he was running at the time.

If I was wrong in this Q, what did you mean? (and please ignore my previous post ).


glass.

 

[dorentir]

I think you could use the existing Fort, Reflex and Will saves and simply adjust the DC to suit your adventure. I don't know what classic modules you are thinking of converting, but having a player suddenly make a save according to the old charts it will seem somewhat arbitrary -- although my impression is that saving throws caused a lot more player anxiety in 1e simply because the results were often a lot more catastrophic --- especially when dealing with poisons and things.
I'd make a chart of average Fort, reflex and will saves for player characters and use that to extrapolate an appropriate DC. If the old module you are looking at calls for a "saving throw" that the average PC will fail 1/3rd of the time, you can simply use your chart to set an appropriate DC.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I don't see how hard it is to apply the old saves to the new ones. They seem self-explainatory on how they would apply.

 

[billd91]

I don't see how hard it is to apply the old saves to the new ones. They seem self-explainatory on how they would apply.

I'm more or less in agreement. The new saves are very easy to apply. Which type of defense applies? Physical resistance, Physical avoidance, or Mental resistance? Fort, Ref, Will.

Just match up whichever defense seems to work best for the attack mode if not clearly translated already in 3E. Paralysis and Poison are clearly mapped to Fort. Charms to Will. Massive area effects to Ref.

Granted, this makes some break between editions because Thief saves, for example, were poor against breath weapons but are now excellent due to Rogue's high Ref save and evasion. But overall I don't think that's a problem.

Setting the DC is where things get hardest, I think. How does the Drow sleep poison's -6 to the poison save translate? How far do you increase the DC to be reasonably equivalent? That's a question, I think, of art rather than science. You could compare the base save of a 10th level fighter in 1st ed vs 3E, determine how likely the save was to be made with the penalty and then raise the DC in 3E to give the character the same chance of failing, but the level of fighter (or any other character) you'd be picking is pretty much arbitrary and probably too much work. But whatever floats your boat and provides what you feel to be a decent balance.

 

[pawsplay]

I'd imagine that a particularly puissant poison would get +2 DC, for parity with other particularly potent 3.5 effects (Ability Focus, Spell Focus, Virulent Poison, etc).

The only old saves that don't map clearly are things like spell and rod, which map to whatever the underlying effect maps to, and death and petrification, which could be Fort or Will depending on the effect.

 

[QuaziquestGM]

How is that nice? A multiclassed character could easily end up with the saves of a character half his level. That strikes me as a bad thing.

glass.

Bad for the PC, Nice for the GM and for common sense. There is no logical reason why training as a fighter would increase your resistance to magic.....Of for that matter, why training in two different arcane classes that use the same spells would nessicarly make you any better at resisting magic in general.

part of the goal is to return the old modules to some sembelence of their original difficulty. They were designed for multiclass characters whose class saves didn't stack.

billd91

-I'm more or less in agreement. The new saves are very easy to apply. Which type of defense applies? Physical resistance, Physical avoidance, or Mental resistance? Fort, Ref, Will.

This is exactly what doesn't make sense. Some effects simply can't be avoided, and neither physical nor mental resistance makes much sense either. It's MAGIC. Why should your mental ablity stop you form being physically moved by a teleportation spell? Why should your physique protect you from a spell that magically changes your structure? I can understand how you could get better at resisting magic by having training in a magical class though exposure to magic. The 3.X save system, like any other, only makes sense from a certain frame of mind.

glass

-I got the impression that his players' characters would have both Fort/Ref/Will saves and Spell/Breath Weapon/PPDM/etc saves on their character sheets, so he could ask for whichever suited the encounter he was running at the time.

-If I was wrong in this Q, what did you mean? (and please ignore my previous post ).


You are correct as to my intentions.

dorentir
-If the old module you are looking at calls for a "saving throw" that the average PC will fail 1/3rd of the time, you can simply use your chart to set an appropriate DC.

Yes, but that is a third of ALL saves encountered, not a 33.33% chance of failure on each save. The old system effectivly gave each class a different save dc for each different type of effect compared to any other class. The current class based save bonuses for 3 different save types doesn't quite compare to the older system.

 

[billd91]

billd91

-I'm more or less in agreement. The new saves are very easy to apply. Which type of defense applies? Physical resistance, Physical avoidance, or Mental resistance? Fort, Ref, Will.

This is exactly what doesn't make sense. Some effects simply can't be avoided, and neither physical nor mental resistance makes much sense either. It's MAGIC. Why should your mental ablity stop you form being physically moved by a teleportation spell? Why should your physique protect you from a spell that magically changes your structure? I can understand how you could get better at resisting magic by having training in a magical class though exposure to magic. The 3.X save system, like any other, only makes sense from a certain frame of mind.

glass

I fail to see how it doesn't make sense? Use your physical resistance to resist a change to your physique. Simple.
What I don't understand is why nearly every spell (except for the death magic, paralyzation, poison, polymorph, oh, and those from spells and wands) would all be defended against in the exact same way regardless of whether the effect is a damaging explosion or bending someone to your will. And then why would ever spell from a wand be defended against in the exact same way regardless of whether it's a damaging explosion or something that bends someone to your will.
In 3E, you figure out which type of defense fits best and use it. Three saves instead of 5, predictable advancement in them for everybody (unlike 1st ed, check those advancements and weird progressions, ugh!).
And if being trained in wielding magic makes you better at dissipating magical attacks, then why does the 1st edition fighter end up king of saves? That's a stumper. I won't say that everything in 3E's save system is perfect (multiclassing getting that extra +2 is a bit much), but the saving throw system was one place in 1st/2nd edition D&D that needed the most reform.