Saving Throws: What Should Become of Them?

[DonTadow]

Then why not skip the extra step and just make saves be Ability checks?

Sounds good, especially if you have stats that are somewhat built for that.

Another benefit is, it keeps scores similar around a certain level. (this is if ability scores are capped by level in some what) .

But you're right, i imagine a word where there is nothing but ability scores and bonuses are added to it.

There hasn't been a skills thread yet, but i hope skills go away. This way, there's no "what skills to have ". I think you have the 6 ability scores, have 5 to 8 skills that they can be used for and use abilities to issue bonuses for performing certain actions.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think save-or-suck effects should allow a saving throw each round, but the saving throw should be based on the character's stats, not basically a coin toss like in 4e, IMO.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There hasn't been a skills thread yet, but i hope skills go away. This way, there's no "what skills to have ". I think you have the 6 ability scores, have 5 to 8 skills that they can be used for and use abilities to issue bonuses for performing certain actions.

I take it you didn't see the Mearls L&L topic several months back that suggested something along those lines for the base system, with more complicated skills as options?

 

[DonTadow]

I take it you didn't see the Mearls L&L topic several months back that suggested something along those lines for the base system, with more complicated skills as options?

no, but the game would be easier to teach if all i had to do was explain ability scores and let them know in general how they worked. Detail they can learn as the game goes.

 

[DonTadow]

Oh yeah,

This was the idea in my head. Then add in that the ability score is defense. And some thing, modifiers to situations. (poison + 2, fire + 2) etc

Then you eliminate the dozen or so different stats you are foced to keep track of . 10 resistance here, dr 5 here.
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Skills in D&D)

 

[Felon]

How about "two Saves end"? I mean, you have to make two saves to end effect.
One round of effect is guaranteed, and simpler(IMO) than "one Save per two rounds".
Can be "three Saves end" or whatever, if you want.

Essentially, 4e used aftereffects to induce a "two saves end" requirement.

 

[Hassassin]

I think 4e defenses were an improvement over 3e saves. I'd like to see touch AC go away (that's reflexes) - I don't know if they did this in essentials. Initiative could also be a reflex check. It makes sense to have the option of player rolling defenses, whether or not they are used as saves.

Abilities as defenses wouldn't work, I think. Firstly, there's no skill increase due to experience unless you allow ability scores to rise a lot, which leads to all sorts of problems. Secondly, you are still left with AC, so you don't actually gain all that much.

If you are thinking about defenses as static values and abilities as saves for ending conditions, that might work. Not sure it's better than defenses as saves, though.

 

[Felon]

Sorry it took me so long to reply to the comments on the first page. I think this was came closest to being on the money:

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.

While I think the example track provided is a little too protracted, I agree with the basic idea that the correct approach is to avoid all-or-nothing results, and have something more along the lines of an action track. For example, perhaps you progressively lose a minor, then a medium, and then a standard action, at which point you are effectively immobilized. Without intermediate stages--a buffer of some kind--it's essentially like having 1 hit point.

I am sympathetic to, but don't agree with, the sense of entitlement players have to the "I want to do something every round" mentality. 5e should make no such absolute promises. Some opponents are nasty, and their nastyness should translate into the potential to rip through buffers quickly.

My stance is that just as there are opponents capable of inflicting grievous amounts of damage in one round, there are foes that can move you down a track pronto. Of course, just as DM's should use dragons or other heavy-hitters with care, so should a potent action-stealer be used sparingly. In this way, players will have the fear and respect something like a beholder or medusa for the havoc they can wreak, yet they don't mutter curses every time a spider spits a web or a drow hits them with a lousy dart.

On a related tangent, I think one of the reasons why steath and subterfuge is often foregone in RPG's is that it too is all-or-nothing. A character essentially has 1 HP in the being-sneaky department, because a failed check tends to mean the jig is instantly up. This is one of those areas where we can indeed learn from video games. Games like Assassin's Creed and Skyrim, for instance, wisely have the intermediate stage between "hidden" and "detected" wherein an enemy is aroused and their guard is up, but the player has a chance to switch tactics or back off.

So in summary, all-or-nothing oughta go.