Saving Throws or Defenses?

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Everyone,

One of the significant changes from 3E to 4E was the switch from Saving Throws to Defenses. I'm wondering how you or your group have found both systems, is it an improvement for you or no?

Personally, this was one of the things that I initally thought might speed up play a little but so far, it has been much of a muchness. What I have found though is that by having powers attack one of four different defenses, it allows more tactical scope for all party members, rather than just for third edition's spellcasters.

Initially, I did not like the idea of changing saving throws to defenses and particularly 4e's vanilla saving throw to end particular effects still feels incredibly wonky. However, the system does seem to blend well with the ethos of getting rid of save or die effects and I'm sure most would say that things play smoothly (more smoothly though, I'm not too sure). In 3E, if your character's existence was based upon making a save, it was far more appropriate for the player to roll the chance to avoid it. With 4E, that roll belongs to the attacker but admittedly, the effects are not of the save or die variety.

However, we have still been left with a generic saving throw to end effects. In the end, would it have been easier to have just left saving throws alone, reduce the number of save or die effects, and allow non-spellcasters to target the fort/ref/will saves as well as the ACs of their opponents?

On a slightly different front, I think 4E has managed to mathematically deal very well with saving throws so there is a suitable partity between a party of level x and a suitable encounter. Our group has found things so far to be well balanced with encounters. How has your group found this in terms of saves/defenses?

The angel in this (but also the devil) is the half level bonus. This allows parity to be held between the characters and the monsters they face. 3E has had difficulty in maintaining this parity particularly at mid to high levels. However, this vanilla half-level bonus also produces a few anomalies where a mid level wizard is a paragon of the defenses compared to the 1st level fighter "hero". There's just an itch with this that I can't scratch, but again in-game, smooth as silk gameplay. How has your group found the half-level bonus? Smooth, or thematically clunky where certain classes are getting bonuses they are perhaps not entitled to.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: This is meant to be a critical review of the saving throw/defense system for recent D&D editions. If talking critically about this aspect of your favoured edition (be it 3e or 4e) gets you riled up and feeling like you need to don armor to venture forth and protect it's virtue... please don't. Criticism (good or bad) is fine, hate is not.

 

[Crothian]

The difference is not so much defenses and saving throws. They are the same thing. Defences assumes taking a ten and saving throws someone gets to roll a die. Well before 4e came out I've seen people play with static saves that worked the same way.

What is a difference I fell is having a wider range of abilities from all the classes that can target different things. It used to be saves were just something that involved spells and the occasional trap. 4e seems to use the defences more then 3e used saves.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah - like Crothian says, all four are pretty much targetted by everything and everyone. For me, I've found this reduces flavour, as people simply have four scores they need to get as high as possible. They can't situationally concentrate on one (e.g. a fighter used to be able to not worry too much about his Will save and fixate on his AC - now he has to have all four equally high).

This reduces the difference between characters, in the same way that everyone attacking the same way, doing the same rough amount of damage with the same rough chance of hitting, with similar secondary effects that could apply does.

The only yhing that seems to differentiate things is the name. And the flavour text, if you can be bothered to read it out every time.

 

[Treebore]

Yep, I agree with Crothian and Morrus, they are both essentially the same thing, I just like how it requires the "attacker" to do the roll instead of the defender.

 

[DeusExMachina]

What I like most about defenses/saving throws 4e style is that the dice are rolled by the people taking the action. When casting a spell/using a power, it's the attacker that is acting and thus (s)he rolls, not the target. With a saving throw in 4e, it's to end an ongoing effect and thus the target rolls, because the attacker no longer is directly involved, only the target trying to shrug something off.
This system where you almost always only have to roll when it's your turn and not on other people's turns makes to me for a much clearer and faster game.

 

[Irda Ranger]

One of the significant changes from 3E to 4E was the switch from Saving Throws to Defenses.

If that's a significant change I'm a pink elephant. The only difference is that the DM rolls instead of the player. The roll is the same. There was no other change.

What I have found though is that by having powers attack one of four different defenses, it allows more tactical scope for all party members, rather than just for third edition's spellcasters.

That's a change in the powers, not the Defenses. You could have written a Feat in 3.x (some sort of Weapon Finesse) that caused Rapiers to attack the Ref Save, and it would have amounted to the same thing.

But of course they never did. It's the change in the Powers that's the real innovation.

On a slightly different front, I think 4E has managed to mathematically deal very well with saving throws so there is a suitable partity between a party of level x and a suitable encounter. Our group has found things so far to be well balanced with encounters. How has your group found this in terms of saves/defenses?

I don't like 4E Saves much. Or did you get your terminology wrong and mean Defense?

However, this vanilla half-level bonus also produces a few anomalies where a mid level wizard is a paragon of the defenses compared to the 1st level fighter "hero".

So? He's 10th level. A 10th level Hero should be better than a 1st level Hero in every respect, regardless of class.

There's just an itch with this that I can't scratch, but again in-game, smooth as silk gameplay. How has your group found the half-level bonus? Smooth, or thematically clunky where certain classes are getting bonuses they are perhaps not entitled to.

I'm fine with it. Per above, I think Gandalf brought the hurt with Glamdring. He didn't need to be as good a fighter as a Fighter of the same level, but he was able to lay into those soldiers of Sauron with much badassery. And I'm a fan of badassery, all things being equal.

 

[Psion]

I the inconsistancy between touch AC and reflex save never sat well with me. Differences in "who rolls" aside, I like the idea of making them the same thing.

 

[justanobody]

One of the significant changes from 3E to 4E was the switch from Saving Throws to Defenses.

~~~~~~

PS: This is meant to be a critical review of the saving throw/defense system for recent D&D editions.

Sorry, but to be quite frank, I must say up front you can't really have what you want in you PS, as the first bit above is not entirely true.

There were mostly saves prior to 4th so it is really, pre-4th edition saves vs 4th edition defenses. Which does not limit to just 3rd and 4th editions.

If you mean to only discuss the manner of Will, Fortitude and Reflex, then they are more closely related to just 3rd and 4th, but still have throwbacks to pre-3rd play.

To answer the assumed question at hand:

I feel the defenses, just make for weird versions of AC. You might as well be rolling directly against the Dexterity of your opponent for Reflex, or constitution for fortitude, etc.

It isn't exactly the difference of save vs defense for me, but what they represent in terms of those defenses. Aside from that it does feel a bit weird without any random factor involve to suggest times of better "defense" against an attack on one's will say when their spirit has been slightly broken, because it will remain constant and the only one able to make a difference is the attacker.

It becomes luck vs static numbers from the attacker, with nothing really the defender can do, or on his behalf to "defend" against the attack such as a saving roll would offer.

Defenses make it easier to hit any of them, while a save required luck for the attacker and defender both to fail and/or succeed. Which does offer for a more chaotic nature to the universe which the dice are meant to represent with a chance.

Defenses give little chance for the attackee to defend against the initial effects and just have to hope it is not long term and a "save" later can retroactively do something about it.

 

[Kunimatyu]

3e save : 4e defenses :: 3e spell duration : 4e saving throw

 

[Herremann the Wise]

If that's a significant change I'm a pink elephant. The only difference is that the DM rolls instead of the player. The roll is the same. There was no other change.

I disagree. The design ethos behind it was a little bit more involved than arbitrarily switching who rolls the die. As DeusExMachina points out, it is designed so that you almost always only have to roll when it's your turn and not on other people's turns. In terms of the Core Mechanic, it is the cleaning up of who's attacking, looking for clarity in what provides the DC and what deserves the modifier. Hmmm... maybe you're right though. Maybe it's not that significant, replacing an old sacred cow with a younger one. Whatever the case, it is something I thought significant enough to warrant a thread. YMMV.

So? He's 10th level. A 10th level Hero should be better than a 1st level Hero in every respect, regardless of class.

Hmmm... I disagree again. Personally, I don't like the idea of a 10th level wizard having a better fortitude than a 1st level fighter. I prefer the idea that some classes are allowed to be poor at something, rather than having the half-level mechanic mean the worst you can be is average. Again, that's just a personal thing of what I prefer. YMOV.

I'm fine with it. Per above, I think Gandalf brought the hurt with Glamdring. He didn't need to be as good a fighter as a Fighter of the same level, but he was able to lay into those soldiers of Sauron with much badassery. And I'm a fan of badassery, all things being equal.

I think there was some discussion in The Dragon a long time ago putting forward how Gandalf was at best a 5th level wizard. In the end I think Gandalf has never equated very well to D&D for whatever reason. However, following your premise, I can't see why you can't have a badass wizard with particular options taken. To be halfway to badass as a baseline though, I don't think I like.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise