Saving Throws: What Should Become of Them?

[Felon]

One of the 4e mechanics that never grew on me was how they handled saving throws as a way of ending conditions. They basically just made it a flat-up coin toss, causing many "big gun" attacks from both players and monsters fizzle out after a single round's duration.

I liked 3e's division between Fort, Reflex, and Will. It allowed for variation where certain character types could shrug off some conditions more easily than others. Of course, there are some other mechanical differences in 4e's saving throws. They didn't mitigate damage up front; no save for half against a fireball or dragon's breath, for instance.

Any thoughts?

 

[Minigiant]

4th edition's saving throw system was a good idea, the problem like you said is the high chance of the same being made by the second round.

I think if they went back to good and poor saving throw while using the 4th edition save system. Good saving throws need a 5 or higher to succeed. Average needs an 11+. And poor requires a 16+. Split it in physical and mental saving throws and give VERY VERY few ways to increase saving throws after creation and call it a day.

 

[Dragonblade]

The 4e model is ideal for me. But I could see them borrow from M&M 3e where your Fort, Ref, and Will can act as both a save AND a defense (just add 10) depending on the situation and the effect used against you.

But I never again want to play a D&D game where I fail a save and essentially sit and watch my friend's play for the rest of the night while I can do nothing. NEVER. The mere thought of 5e going back to something like that makes me want to unleash a torrent of profanity.

Being able to save every round with a chance to get back into the action was a godsend. Even Paizo recognized this and changed a few spells to save every round in Pathfinder, but they didn't go nearly far enough, IMO.

 

[delericho]

I like that 4e had the ascending defences in place of the old saving throws. That certainly seemed to give more variety in attacks, and worked really well IMO.

I was never keen on the 4e saving throw mechanic. As you say, it did seem like too much of a coin toss. Unfortunately, I don't see an obvious alternative - perhaps each ongoing condition should instead make an attack against a specified defence with an attack bonus appropriate to the condition (rather than the attack that applied the condition)? The problem with this is that it makes the conditions even more complex, and tracking them was an area of 4e that I thought was already way too complex.

 

[Felon]

The 4e model is ideal for me. But I could see them borrow from M&M 3e where your Fort, Ref, and Will can act as both a save AND a defense (just add 10) depending on the situation and the effect used against you.

But I never again want to play a D&D game where I fail a save and essentially sit and watch my friend's play for the rest of the night while I can do nothing. NEVER. The mere thought of 5e going back to something like that makes me want to unleash a torrent of profanity.

Being able to save every round with a chance to get back into the action was a godsend. Even Paizo recognized this and changed a few spells to save every round in Pathfinder, but they didn't go nearly far enough, IMO.

OK, that's a legitimate beef. So let me ask you this: what should happen when a spellcaster throws a hold person, or a mind flayer cuts loose with its mind blast, or a medusa catches you with its gaze? These are effects expressly intended to stop an opponent in their tracks. Should they do nothing more than cause a momentary delay?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Saving throws would be better if they depended on some innate quality of the character to determine the probabilities-- and if the chances of success improved every time you rolled one.

It's frustrating being stuck unable to do anything, but if the odds of the saving throw mean something and your odds get better every round, the saving throw itself can be a source of tension and thus excitement. That, and it means that the duration of save-or-suck effects will be a measure of relative power.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

4E saving throws replace a lot of the duration mechanics. The 4E defenses of Fort, Reflex, and Will are 3E saving throws in all but name, most of the time. The biggest difference is who rolls, and this of course has ramifications for who gets bonuses or penalties, and where.

You can see it most clearly in a single target spell that used to alllow a save for no damage. Say it is Fort-based. In 3E, the wizard automatically hits you with it. Then you either save against Fort and take no damage, or you fail and take full. In 4E, the wizard rolls to hit your Fort. He either hits for full damage, or fails and you take nothing. When you get into "miss effects" versus the older half damage on saves, it diverges more, but the essense is still there.

I happen to favor the 4E version for the thing being modeled, because it is generally faster handling time for the players to be making these rolls than the DM, in my experience.

Now, it is true that saving throws modeling durations is not as good or interesting as it could be, currently. I see that, however, as a separate issue from who should roll to determine the rough effectiveness of an attack.

 

[delericho]

OK, that's a legitimate beef. So let me ask you this: what should happen when a spellcaster throws a hold person, or a mind flayer cuts loose with its mind blast, or a medusa catches you with its gaze? These are effects expressly intended to stop an opponent in their tracks. Should they do nothing more than cause a momentary delay?

I can see two ways of dealing with this:

1) Keep the "save or suck", but make damn sure that the combat is really short. It's maybe okay to be held for the duration of a 5-minute combat; it certainly isn't acceptable if the combat lasts the whole night! (And, if you do this, keep the duration down to a small number of rounds.)

Probably better:

2) Allow the save each round. Particularly nasty effects could apply an ever-reducing penalty to the save. So, the first round you save at -5, then -4, -3, -2, -1, no mod, +1, +2... That way, you get a greater likelihood of the effect lasting more than a couple of rounds (but probably no guarantee), you still get a save every round, and you also eliminate the problem of "stun locks" that 4e had.

(That said, effects that apply any modifier to a save should be extremely rare.)

 

[Dragonblade]

OK, that's a legitimate beef. So let me ask you this: what should happen when a spellcaster throws a hold person, or a mind flayer cuts loose with its mind blast, or a medusa catches you with its gaze? These are effects expressly intended to stop an opponent in their tracks. Should they do nothing more than cause a momentary delay?

4e addressed the medusa issue. If she hits you I think you start out paralyzed as you slowly turn to stone. If you fail two saves you turn to stone, otherwise you manage to shake it off.

For everything else, I think players should be able shake off most other effects. There are a few things that can take you out of a combat in 4e, like turning to stone, but they are exceedingly rare as I think they should be. Long term effects should be more in the purview of DM fiat for story reasons.

I think 4e design of saves (success on a 10+) was predicated on the notion that mathematically most people will save within two rounds, and often only miss one round. And that two rounds is most you should have to sit out of the action. I think that is a good reasonable number.

It is a paradigm shift for those used to failing a save and just being dead, stone, paralyzed, dominated, or whatever. And if that is the reality of the game world to you, then yes the 4e way feels gamist.

But I think this is one area where we have to recognize that D&D is a game and what good is simulating some kind of fantasy reality that you don't have fun playing in?

And yes, someone will post that simulation makes the game fun for them. I get that. But I've been playing this game for over two decades and I think most people want to actually play, not fail a save and do nothing. And besides, I think the 4e approach is equally valid from a simulationist standpoint if you imagine that those mechanics simulate a world where heroes can shake off debilitating effects as opposed to being more prone to succumb to them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

OK, that's a legitimate beef. So let me ask you this: what should happen when a spellcaster throws a hold person, or a mind flayer cuts loose with its mind blast, or a medusa catches you with its gaze? These are effects expressly intended to stop an opponent in their tracks. Should they do nothing more than cause a momentary delay?

I'd like to see them at least experiment with a condition track model that included positive conditions, as was briefly discussed on the 4E house rules forum some time ago. (I've lost track of the thread with all the forum thread moving and merging since.) Anyway, I've been experimenting with that idea for some homebrew (only somewhat D&D-ish) stuff, where it seems to work very well. I'm not as sure if it will work for D&D though.

You'd have several tracks for major types of conditions. For example:

Movement: Petrified | Held | Restrained | Normal | Loose | Mobile | Free

Most effects move you a spot up or down the track. Only really powerful effects move you more. The big advantage is in how stacking would work. You only get the worst and best effect on your track at any time, but you do get to slide for whatever that best effect is. (That is, number of slots from "Normal". If you best good effect is "Loose", that moves you one slot to right from wherever you otherwise would be with a bad effect, if any.")

So a medusa petrifies you. You aren't making your save. Your cleric or wizard buddy isn't nearly powerful enough to hit you with a "freedom" spell, which would apply the "free" condition and cancel out the petrification while the durations overlap. But he can hit you with a lesser spell that gives you the "mobile" condition for a short time. This lets you shift the petrification up to restrained (which works much like 4E difficult terrain). After the fight, the spell will wear off, and the party will have to find a more permanent reversal. You got to participate, but the nasty effects are still nasty. OTOH, the spells they needed to keep you in the fight are also useful in lesser situations. Making you "mobile" when no nasty monster effects are thrown around can still help with environment.

In this system, too, "Held" wouldn't be quite as bad as the AD&D hold spells. You'd have limited movement with it on. So if your cleric buddy has a permanent cure type spell that slides you one step up, you can at least talk and walk with them while they find a complete fix. In a pinch, you can even keep going, depending upon the casters to keep you "Mobile" in every fight. But you definitely know you've been hit.