Saving Throws through the editions

[Sadrik]

1e and 2e
Saves were based on class and level only and broken into 5 categories, as you gained level effects were more difficult to affect you. So as those save or die effects came on board, your saves were much better and made them much less likely to affect you. So single variable based on defenders level.

There was also Magic Resistance expressed as a percentage, in 1e there was a complex % modification based on the level differences. In 2e the % was static and could not be changed. Single variable.

3e
Saves were based on class, level, and stats. Also only 3 saves based on 3 stats. Then DCs were generally 10 + 1/2 level + stat, or 10 + spell level + stat. So lots of variables. The net goal though was to make the bonuses and DCs stay relatively in the same ball park. This system did have some notable problems muticlassing save bonus stacking, spellcaster's ability to get DCs out of the range of the defender to make a save.

You also had Spell Resistance which replaced the Magic Resistance rules. The subsystem was basically a caster level check against a DC, the more powerful the monster or effect that granted the SR the higher the DC. So two variables.

4e
Saves were flipped on there head and no longer were something that you made a roll on, but became like an Armor Class score. Now the attacker rolled to hit you and the defender set the DC. The math remained the same as in 3e however was streamlined to +1/2 level on both the attackers end and defenders end. This also had a major problem, stat polarity. Saves were generated from, the highest of two stats. So in effect characters were designed to pump one stat and dump the other stat. Another problem is that the iconic "I failed my save" term was lost, due to the attacker rolling to hit their opponent with their powers.

It has been been a while since I have played 4e, but I think SR was removed. This is a good choice imho.

5e
Saves in 5e are based on all 6 stats, remove the +1/2 level, and go back to having the defender roll them. They are stat checks vs a DC that is 10+stat. I favor this system the best, likely because this is something I proposed in the way back. LOL.

One potential issue I see, is that in 1e and 2e, saves of higher level characters got much better, so as more powerful effects came the character's save was better equipped to deal with them. He could resist finger of death at a higher clip. 3e took a detour from this concept, which used a very similar spell system as 1e/2e but more powerful effects were couple with more difficult to resist higher DCs. High level spellcasters became even that much more potent.

The system as presented in the 5e playtest keeps the higher level DCs flat (another thing I proposed in the way back) with the lower level spells. So the DC of a first level spell is the same DC of a 9th level spell. Again the effect is much more powerful, why double down with a higher DC too.

So my concern is that characters should get better at saving throws as they level up like in 1e/2e to combat the higher level effects. I like the 1e/2e method of savings throws. I also really like the flat DCs and save modifiers. This does fly in the face of another concept that I like about the currently drafted 5e save rules though. I like that a 20th level fighter has the same chance of getting drunk as a 1st level fighter. Both have the same chance of failing their save (barring magic items and stat boosts to the 20th level fighter).

I like the saves based on all 6 stats. However, with this regard some work needs to be done on clearly delineating the mental saves. INT is figuring things out. In 1e/2e a high INT made you immune to illusions, illusions should be based on INT saves. If perception is synonymous wisdom, wisdom should only provide perception like saves ("surprise" save for instance) and if CHA is your force of personality, this should be your willpower. This will allow you to resist mind control and stuff like that. The other new save is STR and this is an easy save to delineate, resist grapples, resist getting knocked down, resist letting go of the rope when it is yanked etc.

One last stride is the removal of SR/MR from the game, this is a secondary save mechanic that really added a lot of complexity and not a lot of value. Want to make golems immune to magic just give them a trait that says immune to direct magical effects.

All in all, I think the direction is very good.

So what was your favorite edition for saves and why?

 

[MarkB]

You forgot to mention that saving throws still exist in 4e, but as a straight DC10 check to shrug off an effect, mostly acting as a duration-limiter.

Among other things, that means the phrase "I failed my save" is still alive and well in 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I first saw 4e, I thought it would be cool to just have players roll to resolve all attacks: So if they attacked a monster, they'd roll to hit AC, or if it was a spell, roll to overcome a defense like REF (rather than the monster rolling a REF save). If the monster attacked, the PC would roll his AC bonus to "defend," or his FORT/REF/WILL to 'save.' Less work for the DM, more involvement for the player.


I feel that 4e "saving throws" were miss-named, they were a duration mechanic. Calling them 'saves' made us old hands feel like there should be bonuses available for them.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I feel that 4e "saving throws" were miss-named, they were a duration mechanic. Calling them 'saves' made us old hands feel like there should be bonuses available for them.

There are plenty of bonuses to saves in 4E.

 

[billd91]

So far, I think 5e has some serious potential - making all stats drive the saving throws, so I voted for it. I think they have a ways to go in balancing them out, though. There needs to be more consideration for both Int and Cha saves.

I may have voted for 5e, but both the 1e/2e and 3e systems have some good things going for them. I prefer 3e's categories to 1e/2e's, but the way the saves in 1e/2e were entirely based on the hit dice of the target made sure that save or sit spells were a very risky proposition. The tougher the opponent, the more likely it was the wizard would lose his action by casting an ineffective charm or domination spell. 3e, by basing the save DCs on things the players could control, opened the door to too much min-maxing and gave too much power to the save or sit spells compared to damaging spells.

After having played 4e and a substantial amount of SWSE, I find I really don't like the save as static defense mechanic. I want that in the players' hands, in no small part, because I like to use action point/force point systems that add a modest amount to die rolls for both attack and, with non-static saves rather than defenses, defense. I've enjoyed doing that ever since the shukenja's Ki powers surfaced in 1e Oriental Adventures. If D&D Next included static defenses rather than saving throws, it would probably be a non-starter with me.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think it's important to note that in the current playtest doc, many magic spells attack your AC.

I expect/hope that doesn't make it past playtesting, as every bonus-to-saves effect will have to say "you have advantage on saves vs. fire, and fire attacks against you have disadvantage."

 

[Raith5]

I like the 4 th Ed principle that the attacker rolls. It is intuitive and fun!

But I do think the break 10 mechanic would make more sense if relevant stats were included. It doesn't make sense for the high WIS pc and the low WIS pc to both have same chance to save against a charm or fear etc. I think the break 10 system for saves is adjust a touch too simplistic.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'd like a blend between the 3e and 4e approaches.

One of the (many) reasons that spellcasters were too powerful in 3e was that save DCs for their highest-level spells scaled faster than saving throw bonuses did. Technically, save DC for your highest-level spells is 10 + ability mod + 1/2 level and bonus for good saves is 12 + ability mod + 1/2 level... but spellcasters put all of their level increases and other resources into boosting their casting stat while saving throws were based on three different stats.

So spellcasters gained more powerful spells as they gained in level, and those spells were more likely to affect level-appropriate opponents-- even when cast against their supposed strengths.

Compared that to AD&D, in which the caster's abilities made no impact whatsoever on the probability of making a save-- high-level characters were just that much harder to affect with spells, period. You either hit them with direct damage or you cast spells that didn't target your enemies directly.

What I would like to see is 4e-style attack against static defense-- 10 + ability mod + class mod-- with saving throws using the same bonuses, against a DC equal to the attack that saddled them with the effect.

 

[Sadrik]

When I first saw 4e, I thought it would be cool to just have players roll to resolve all attacks: So if they attacked a monster, they'd roll to hit AC, or if it was a spell, roll to overcome a defense like REF (rather than the monster rolling a REF save). If the monster attacked, the PC would roll his AC bonus to "defend," or his FORT/REF/WILL to 'save.' Less work for the DM, more involvement for the player.


I feel that 4e "saving throws" were miss-named, they were a duration mechanic. Calling them 'saves' made us old hands feel like there should be bonuses available for them.

I think you are right. At first I really liked the concept of making all the saves into attack rolls. But then I realized it sapped some of the excitement out of the game (for me). Those key rolls where play all hinges on that all important saving throw roll. And yes I did forget about that "saving throw" roll in 4e.

Honestly I dont see why there cannot be a rules module that turn the saves into defenses. It would make 4e players happy as well as those who like to try having poison rolling to hit their fortitude defense.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the 5e approach is solid; I like the 3e approach a little better simply because the larger bonuses differentiate characters more, but the numbers can get problematic in a variety of ways. I am not a fan of shifting the roll to the attacker, nor of earlier editions' approach of having the level-based aspect or the nonsensical categories.