To jump off what I posted earlier re: long campaigns, I think that for any system, it's wise to start with the intention of running a short game (3-6ish sessions) to see if it gels with your group. For us, SW is enjoyable for a short time (we just had a short campaign in Holler). My friend is alternating between SW Pathfinder and Castles and Crusades campaigns.
Savage Worlds vs DnD 5e
- Thread starter AK81
- Start date
It is a swingy system to be sure, but the meta currencies for the GM are a key balance to that. If your main villain is going to be one-shoted then try to soak that wound. It isn’t guaranteed and it’s all above board. Similarly, if you villain’s big attack wiffs then re-roll the attack. As long as the GM is using the tools to keep the game fun through avoiding a cake walk or damp squib it’s all good.
And there are many, many tools to make NPCs tougher. Abilites to avoid wound penalties, abilities where being shaken twice doesn’t result in a wound, abilities were you are so tough you can only take one wound max from an attack. NPCs don’t follow the rules for character advancement, so give them whatever they need to fill their role in the campaign.
Last edited:
grimmgoose
Adventurer
Re: long campaigns
I've run two full-to-Legendary campaigns, and it's been a smooth experience. I never had an issue with the swinginess (none moreso than 5E, at least). Anytime a big swing has happened, it's been a cool moment.
In my Star Wars campaign, two Inquisitors hunted the party constantly. In the second-to-last session, after killing the party's loveable droid, the decision was made to finally put all the cards on the table and deal with them.
The fight lasted two rounds, but it is still the most talked about battle that group has ever done. The wookie mandalorian one-shot the Sith Inquisitor that tortured his droid. I could've soaked (negated the Wounds), but the table practically broke the table cheering so loud. I chose not to, because the dice spoke, and it led to a really great moment.
I've also had a recurring villain in my Timesplitters campaign that started out as a medium-level boss, but the dice decided that he was a much bigger deal than I thought. Now he's 'the biggest bad' the group has faced (and he's still lurking in the shadows!)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the swing is intentional, and Savage Worlds works best when you lean into it.
The worst thing about late-game Savage Worlds is that the fights take a long time, mostly because the modifiers increase, and multi-action penalties aren't as big of a deal. This is fixed by simply having less combats (using the "Quick Encounters" system to deal with fights that aren't narratively important, for example).
I've run two full-to-Legendary campaigns, and it's been a smooth experience. I never had an issue with the swinginess (none moreso than 5E, at least). Anytime a big swing has happened, it's been a cool moment.
In my Star Wars campaign, two Inquisitors hunted the party constantly. In the second-to-last session, after killing the party's loveable droid, the decision was made to finally put all the cards on the table and deal with them.
The fight lasted two rounds, but it is still the most talked about battle that group has ever done. The wookie mandalorian one-shot the Sith Inquisitor that tortured his droid. I could've soaked (negated the Wounds), but the table practically broke the table cheering so loud. I chose not to, because the dice spoke, and it led to a really great moment.
I've also had a recurring villain in my Timesplitters campaign that started out as a medium-level boss, but the dice decided that he was a much bigger deal than I thought. Now he's 'the biggest bad' the group has faced (and he's still lurking in the shadows!)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the swing is intentional, and Savage Worlds works best when you lean into it.
The worst thing about late-game Savage Worlds is that the fights take a long time, mostly because the modifiers increase, and multi-action penalties aren't as big of a deal. This is fixed by simply having less combats (using the "Quick Encounters" system to deal with fights that aren't narratively important, for example).
kronovan
Adventurer
I've been playing and running SW for 3 editions and I'd say how well it works for long campaigns depends very much on the GM. During a PC's lifetime ther're 5 ranks (Novice, Seasoned, Veteran, Heroic, Legendary) with 4 advancements (equivalent to D&D level ups) per rank. So advancements 0-3 for Novice rank, advancements 4-7 for Seasoned, 8-11 for Veteran, etc. You can use different paces for the frequency of advancements - eg. PC's can advance after every session for short/mini campaigns , or can advance every other session, or ideally every 3rd session for long campaigns, .
If you goal is to run a campaign with weekly sessions that's more than a year long, you need to pace PC progression by having advances every 3rd session, or possibly even less frequently. Otherwise your player's PCs will be at Legendary rank within 4 months (advances every session), or 8 months (advances every 2nd session). I've been surprised with SWADE at how many GMs don't get that and I've played in 2 campaigns where the GM had advancement every session and then bailed around Heroic rank due to PCs becoming to omnipotent. What an advancement grants a PC at Legendary rank slows, but IME PCs becomes too competent at that rank and I typically plan my campaigns to conclude there. In 2 of my homebrewed settings I embrace the concept of generational PCs with inheritance. For those, PCs retire out at legendary rank and a new, younger PC with some form of a bond to them (familial, clan, guild, faction, etc) follows in their footsteps. I sometimes have those 2nd PCs start at Seasoned rank and they may inherit some of their benefactor's gear.
There's no equivalent in SW of XP rewards for every monster/threat elimated, so the focus on advancement is more towards important encounters, whether those be social, explorative or combative in nature. In the previous edition of the rules (Savage World Deluxe) there was a system of XP rewards (1-3 points) for encounters with advancement occuring every 5 XP points. For lengthy campaigns I still sometimes use that system and typically reward 1 or 2 points, with 3 rarely given and only for encounters where the challenge was very steep.
In terms of stories, there's good features in the rules to support it. Most importantly there's Hindrances; somewhat similar to 5e background flaws or bonds. As GM I often exploit those as short adventure hooks, to briefly put that player's PC into the driver seat. Dramatic Tasks have already been mentioned many times, but there's also Social Conflicts which work well to support social encounters. Then there's Interludes, where a player draws a card and depending upon the suit ad-libs an event that occured in their PC's past - not every player's cup of tea, but fun for those who like player-driven narrative.
It's common for SW setting creators to feature adventure generators in their publications. I don't necessarily use them, but I find them helpful in that they show what the author thinks an adventure for their setting should comprise. Some are better than others and one of them (Thrilling Tales pulp) has even been adapted as an Android app. There's also a history with SW content creators using a plot-point model for campaigns. Those are typically good at providing the GM a lot of flexibility with the adventures/missions they run between plot points. Those adventures/missons could be prewritten ones included with the setting book, something the GM rolled up with an adventure generator, or something they homebrewed.
IMO Wizard of the Coast's different editions of D&D are more designed around selling their own settings and campaign books. Whereas SW is more of a toolkit for 3rd parties and homebrewers. Consequently, genre independent story arcs and campaigns are better supported by it.
Last edited:
aramis erak
Legend
Character leveling: after 5 XP (earning 0-3 per session, nominally 1 or 2), pick one of:
- Raise an attribute 1 die type
- Raise two skills 1 die type, neither to above its linked attribute
- Raise one skill 1 die type if already equal to attribute
- Start a skill you didn't have
- Take an edge
- Remove a major flaw or two minor flaws
Every fourth level, increase the experience bracket, which determines available edges.
Character arcs work fine, be they deep or shallow - provided the character survives.
There are downtime rules, not as robust as the 5E DMG.
Character safety is absent if combat happens. Due to open ending, even a lowly rabbit can kill a PC with enough luck on the dice.
Armor matters, as it raises Toughness. Attributes matter in play for one of two reasons: they count towards the figured stats which get a lot of use, and they are used for unskilled attempts.
Downtime activities carry little risk. Materials cost. My players invented several things in play, and made a number of others, so they definitely used the downtime rules.
The feel is relatively pulp-ish.
For downtime, this includes a player getting to narrate downtime, but the theme is chosen by card flip...
For me, the biggest issue with the cards is that of risk to cards. So I use plastic cards. (Avoid the Hoyle branded transparent "waterproof" cards - they scuff easily, and lose print readily.) Kem, Copag, Ace, and Bicycle all have decent plastic cards. Oh, and that aces are high. (I always hated Aces high.)
I am also wondering how the Wound and Armor system feels compared to Hit Points and AC? As a DM I really like the idea that characters get wounded and aren't as effective at 1 health as they are at full health. But how does the players like it?
Also, how does it feel to be unable to do damage if you don't get past their toughness, even if they managed to hit? Does that get annoying after a while?
Also, how does it feel to be unable to do damage if you don't get past their toughness, even if they managed to hit? Does that get annoying after a while?
thullgrim
Hero
Yes it can get annoying. To hit and do nothing can be frustrating for D&D players. It’s like always having monsters with damage resistance. Since the attrition models is different every time you do manage to do damage there is a concrete response. The opponent either suffers wound penalties or, in the case of an extra, is removed from the table.
There are also ways for players to inflict more damage. Called shots, wild attacks, and other tactics exist to help overcome some of the issues.
It definitely requires a realigning of expectations on both sides of the equation. In D&D you might be fighting a monster with 50HP and your first five or six hits might do nothing in terms of degrading the monster’s combat ability but you can see the HP whittling down and feel like you are making progress. In Savage Worlds you might hit four times where you fail to match their Toughness but on the fourth hit you do and they go down. Same number of attacks but a different surface experience.
As @thullgrim says, there are ways round this including having allies Test the enemy to make them vulnerable and support you as well. I personally find it encourages a broader approach to combat than just trying to beat down HP totals.
The attrition due to wounds is also both a double edged sword and something that encourages perhaps more considered approach to combat. Degrading your enemy feels great, and knowing that they will become less dangerous due to their attack penalty and also easier to suppress or wound as they have penalties to recovering from shaken and to soaking wounds is also a good feeling. On the flip side, when you take a wound it makes you think twice about just standing there and beating down. Should you pull back and regroup? If you have access to healing it isn’t vastly different to D&D since a healer can potentially put you back to full effectiveness, but in situations where you don’t then accumulating fatigue and wounds is a big deal.
Again, this should all be viewed in the context of probably having a smaller number of more significant combats rather than a long procession of minor combats landing to a climactic one.
As @thullgrim says, there are ways round this including having allies Test the enemy to make them vulnerable and support you as well. I personally find it encourages a broader approach to combat than just trying to beat down HP totals.
The attrition due to wounds is also both a double edged sword and something that encourages perhaps more considered approach to combat. Degrading your enemy feels great, and knowing that they will become less dangerous due to their attack penalty and also easier to suppress or wound as they have penalties to recovering from shaken and to soaking wounds is also a good feeling. On the flip side, when you take a wound it makes you think twice about just standing there and beating down. Should you pull back and regroup? If you have access to healing it isn’t vastly different to D&D since a healer can potentially put you back to full effectiveness, but in situations where you don’t then accumulating fatigue and wounds is a big deal.
Again, this should all be viewed in the context of probably having a smaller number of more significant combats rather than a long procession of minor combats landing to a climactic one.
grimmgoose
Adventurer
I love Savage Worlds (see my comment above), but honestly, the Wound/Toughness system is one of my least favorite parts about it. It's clunky, for sure, but it does something that would basically be impossible for hit points to replicate.
When starting the game, I would keep enemies as close to the 5-7 Toughness range, with "heavily armored" folks in the 8-10. Eventually, players will learn they have options on dealing with High Toughness enemies (such as Called Shots), but if they're coming from D&D, it'll be hype-killer to see a lot of whiff-ping.
Eventually you'll throw a Toughness 25 monster on your players and watch as they melt it in two turns (but hey, that's the fun of the system!)
kronovan
Adventurer
It depends upon the audience of players. Since you're contrasting SW to 5E, IME it can be annoying for players coming from D&D. For players coming from tabletop miniature games (I have 2 such groups) or other TTRPGs where armor and armor penetration are features, it's more or less expected and not annoying. My 2nd to last campaign, the entire group had been playing 5E and I found it was annoying for them at times, but that disappeared after the couple of times a player rolled exploding damage and obliterated a wild card threat. They liked that, since the result was far more impactful than rolling crit damage in 5e.
For threats, close attention needs to be given to Toughness. There's times as GM when you'll need to adjust it up or down to provide an adquate challenge. Shooting (ranged) Vs Fighting (melee) can be a factor, as short range attacks roll unpenalized against a universal Target Number of 4, whereas melee attacks roll against the target's Parry. That results in ranged attacks often being more likely to roll a raise, granting the attacker an extra d6 (average +3) roll to their damage. For some genres like SciFi, ranged weapons are more common, so that should be taken into consideration. Having Toughness too low for Extras can result in the party wasting groups of them at will, to the point where it's no longer a challenge or fun. There's almost an art to tweaking Toughness, and as a 1st time GM you shouldn't be too worried about getting it wrong at the beginning.
Similar Threads
