Problems with saving throws?

[rogueattorney]

One of the objections fans of 3+e D&D have raised that I've never understood in the slightest is issues with saving throws. I never thought twice about pre-3e D&D's saving throws, which essentially boiled down to, "here's a short list of special attacks that allow a saving throw to lessen or avoid their effect. Roll the number listed in the chart or above to make the saving throw."

I don't understand why a short list of discreet attacks is worse than the broad categories of later editions. Isn't it easier to determine whether or not you're being shot with a "death ray" than to know whether being shot with a death ray is a "fortitude" or "reflex" save?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The categories were inconsistent and the differentiation between them was sketchy, at best.

Why is it inherently harder or easier (depending on level or class) to save against a spell as it is being cast vs. the same spell in a wand?

 

[nightwyrm]

The categories also seems arbitrary and inconsistent. Some categories are based on attack source (ie. breath weapon, rod etc.) others are based on attack effects (ie. death, polymorph etc.).

 

[steeldragons]

One of the objections fans of 3+e D&D have raised that I've never understood in the slightest is issues with saving throws. I never thought twice about pre-3e D&D's saving throws, which essentially boiled down to, "here's a short list of special attacks that allow a saving throw to lessen or avoid their effect. Roll the number listed in the chart or above to make the saving throw."

I don't understand why a short list of discreet attacks is worse than the broad categories of later editions. Isn't it easier to determine whether or not you're being shot with a "death ray" than to know whether being shot with a death ray is a "fortitude" or "reflex" save?

Short answer? YUP! It is easier to use the original saving throws.

"Well I'm wiley enough to avoid it" (i.e. a Reflex roll) or "I'm sturdy enough to resist it" (i.e. a Fortitude roll) is something that has become...I dunno...enjoyable (?) for some players. Or nice for those that take the numbers as law.

I do see the appeal of Fort/Wis/Reflex as they can be applied to a significantly broader amount of trials/challenges than the original Saving Throw list. Howver, at least when I played it, in 1e when you met some challlenge that wasn't necessarily a "poison" or a "death ray" or a "rod, staff, wand"...it could easily be applied/substituted if necessary.

Seems to me, you're getting hit with a death ray...you can be as sturdy as ya wanna be...yer still turning to dust if you miss the save. BUT, that's why the different classes had different saves...and races had adjustments to varying effects...and your level mattered! Not just for how many "feats" you got or spells you could cast...or "dailies" you have. The LEVEL of the character mattered...for your flippin' survival!

This is not meant to encourage any kind of flame/edition war. I am simply stating how it WAS (and IS for some of us) in AD&D which is what the tag on the thread is.

Personally, I've never understood the animosity for THAC0...it was one less table to look up/share books for. Saved TONS of space on the character sheet! One number...Roll d20, apply whatever modifiers (high strength, magic weapons, whatever), get the number you need to hit a given AC...DM tells you if you hit or not. Is subtraction really so foreign/difficult for people? My group seemed to operate without issue in that area for years.

Is it really so different than "hitting" something in later additions?

-SD

 

[Crothian]

Why is it inherently harder or easier (depending on level or class) to save against a spell as it is being cast vs. the same spell in a wand?

In 3e though it usually works out to be a different DC for a spell cast by a caster or a wand since the lowest attribute needed to cast the spell.

But yes, the old system was clumsy and not everyone was always clear on which type of save an attack was. And then in modules they would have special situations that needed a save and they would just pick one of the categories. In a different module the same effect would require a different save.

 

[Jimlock]

Saving throw are just fine in all editions...

The only problems I have with saving throws is that i usually fail them...

(especially those Will nasty ones... no luck at ALL!)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In 3e though it usually works out to be a different DC for a spell cast by a caster or a wand since the lowest attribute needed to cast the spell.

Heh - true, but there's no difference in the save DC between a Burning Hands cast from a wand vs. that of a Burning Hands cast by an Int 11 / Cha 11 caster.

Plus, 3E staves let casters use their own casting stat to determine the DC, so there's no difference at all between the DC of Burning Hands from an Int 16 Wizard and the same wizard casting Burning Hands from a staff.

 

[steeldragons]

But yes, the old system was clumsy and not everyone was always clear on which type of save an attack was. And then in modules they would have special situations that needed a save and they would just pick one of the categories. In a different module the same effect would require a different save.

Due respect Crothian...I must disagree. If the module called for a certain kind of save then that's what had to be made...I don't believe it was random, at least as my poor cloudy mind can recall, but attributed to the closest possible option.

As for "not everyone was always clear on which type"...I don't see that being the case either...um, that's the DMs job! When the DM says "Make a petrification save"...that's what you did. The DM said "make a poison save"...that what you did.

Where's the confusion?

Respectfully,
Steel Dragons

 

[Crothian]

Due respect Crothian...I must disagree. If the module called for a certain kind of save then that's what had to be made...I don't believe it was random, at least as my poor cloudy mind can recall, but attributed to the closest possible option.

The problem was in two different modules characters needed to say jump across a cavern. In one module it called for a save verse petrification to do that and in another module it called for a save verse spells. I'm totally making up that example and I don't recall what modules this happened in but we did see it happen. But modules were not consistent in what was needed for these special actions.

In other instances there would be an action described by did not list specifically what type of save was needed. The DM then was the one trying to determine what made the best sense as it was not always clear.

 

[steeldragons]

The categories were inconsistent and the differentiation between them was sketchy, at best.

Why is it inherently harder or easier (depending on level or class) to save against a spell as it is being cast vs. the same spell in a wand?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, Patryn of Elvenshae, and say because it was coming from a wand...it had to be aimed to hit? That's how we rationalized it, anyway. But no, not involved a "to hit" roll...but the fact that it was a separate saving throw...seemed to be, for my groups (meaning the groups I played with, not just "my" groups that I DMed)...meant it was more "localized", if you will, and so warranted a specific save to avoid versus the actual "spell" version.

As for level, everything is supposed to be easier to overcome with the more levels you have. That's the nature of the game.

Dependent on class? That's because every class, in 1e D&D, had it's own special advantages over other classes in an attempt at "game balance" (which, if you ask me has gotten comPLETEly out of hand...but that's for another thread).

A mage or, excuse me, in 1e a "magic-user" a.k.a. MU, was better at avoiding spells and wands because that's 'their business"/they know how they work...a thief was good at it because he/she had exceptional reflexes (a.k.a. high Dexterity)...a cleric might be able to avoid it because they were tough and had the "faith" to resist it...etc...

I dunno...it all boils down to "play what you like." No edition "does it better" than another...just differently, IMHO.
--SD