We went from 5 saving throws to...64!
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
Nellisir said:
Come to think of it, there already ARE "dodge points" in d20, just not in D&D: They're called Vitality Points!
Emirikol: I guess I'm just not seeing it. Keep in mind that all Skills can't be done by just anyone; quite a few (a third of them, maybe?) can only be used untrained; That would be like saying that you can only make a reflex save if you're trained in it. Also, I think they were right to have an auto-succeed on saves and attacks, but not on skills; there are some skills that anyone well-trained cannot FAIL to do unless they refuse to do it, or physically can't do it, even with moderate difficulties due to circumstances.
One could go the other way, with something like Castles and Crusades, where six stats control every single skill check and attack roll, but I'm not sure that's a good way for the whole of D&D to go.
Someone said it earlier: skills are active, saves are passive. Each class advances differently because of the nature of the class. Rogues train more on dodging traps and fireballs and stuff, while fighters train to be tough to withstand poisons, being gut-punched, etc.
Natural abilities help, too. That fighter with the DEX of 20 is going to be pretty darn good at dodging fireballs, even if it's not the focus of his class. The rogue with a CON of 20 can take a nutshot with the best of them.
The reason skills don't factor in is that they're not always applicable. I'd say that in some cases, a high skill might provide a synergy bonus in certain situations, but skills are a separate mechanic, and not used reactively.
Example: Floor tilts suddenly. Make a Reflex save, DC 20, to stay standing. If you do, you have to make a Balance check (note the different term, save vs. check) to move forward.
The difference - saves depend on something an outside force does (reactive), skill checks depend on something you choose to do.
Natural abilities help, too. That fighter with the DEX of 20 is going to be pretty darn good at dodging fireballs, even if it's not the focus of his class. The rogue with a CON of 20 can take a nutshot with the best of them.
The reason skills don't factor in is that they're not always applicable. I'd say that in some cases, a high skill might provide a synergy bonus in certain situations, but skills are a separate mechanic, and not used reactively.
Example: Floor tilts suddenly. Make a Reflex save, DC 20, to stay standing. If you do, you have to make a Balance check (note the different term, save vs. check) to move forward.
The difference - saves depend on something an outside force does (reactive), skill checks depend on something you choose to do.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yeah, I think a comparison can be made (both skill checks and saves use d20 + modifier mechanics, but skill DC's are set by the world's interaction and DM's determination, while saves use an expressed formula), but it doesn't seem accurate to say that they're the same thing. They both use fairly extremely different success curves, for one.
Why conflate them?
Why conflate them?
Remathilis
Legend
Here, I'll try to play devil's advocate and sum up his argument.
There are three saves. Fort, Ref, Will. Each is a reflex to a specific event. However, if the rules were tweaked, skills could cover almost all of those situations...
* The floor opens, and you begin to fall into a pit. Reflex or Balance?
* A wizard casts an enchantment to make you his best friend. Will of Sense Motive?
* You are hit with a gust of hot, steamy air, pushing you back. Fortitude or Concentration?
* A sorcerer casts an illusion of a orc attacking you. Will or Spot?
The only one I can't figure out: what to do about poison. Perhaps if we added a Con-based skill called "Endurance" that covers everything the current Endurance feat does AND could be used vs. poison or other "tough it out" saves, it could work.
However, I'd rather three saves than 61 skill checks...
There are three saves. Fort, Ref, Will. Each is a reflex to a specific event. However, if the rules were tweaked, skills could cover almost all of those situations...
* The floor opens, and you begin to fall into a pit. Reflex or Balance?
* A wizard casts an enchantment to make you his best friend. Will of Sense Motive?
* You are hit with a gust of hot, steamy air, pushing you back. Fortitude or Concentration?
* A sorcerer casts an illusion of a orc attacking you. Will or Spot?
The only one I can't figure out: what to do about poison. Perhaps if we added a Con-based skill called "Endurance" that covers everything the current Endurance feat does AND could be used vs. poison or other "tough it out" saves, it could work.
However, I'd rather three saves than 61 skill checks...
Another thought - the three saving throws represent innate qualities of your character, things that cannot be "trained". It's literally a part of their makeup that they don't choose, it just is. A sort of natural ability, independent of any learning curve.
As folks who have been through different types of military experience can tell you, no amount of training or drilling or repetition can substitute for natural ability and instinct. Some people just can't be trained to deal with stress despite being well-learned (naturally low Will save, despite a high Concentration skill), others are always going to be slow on a cross-country 30km march (low Fortitude save, despite high Survival skill).
Using skill checks in place of saves gives the idea that "oh, anyone can do this", and IMO cheapens the idea that a rogue SHOULD dodge that fireball easier than the fighter, even if the rogue has no ranks in Tumble and the fighter has pumped every skill point he can into it.
As folks who have been through different types of military experience can tell you, no amount of training or drilling or repetition can substitute for natural ability and instinct. Some people just can't be trained to deal with stress despite being well-learned (naturally low Will save, despite a high Concentration skill), others are always going to be slow on a cross-country 30km march (low Fortitude save, despite high Survival skill).
Using skill checks in place of saves gives the idea that "oh, anyone can do this", and IMO cheapens the idea that a rogue SHOULD dodge that fireball easier than the fighter, even if the rogue has no ranks in Tumble and the fighter has pumped every skill point he can into it.
Little Tangent
Another take on what the OP is saying -- mechanically, rather than his true argument -- is that rather than saves being more like skills, skills should be more like saves.
Specifically, in a game where archetypes map 1-1 with classes, there should be no ranger who does not have at least a few ranks in spot and listen; no bard without a few ranks in perform, no wizard without spellcraft and know(arcana), and so forth.
This would be pretty easy to represent, if skills and saves were the same: Give every class a "skill progression" along whatever its core competencies (so... unclean...) are; reduce the number of skill points given appropriately, and ta-dah, much character design is cheap-and-easy.
The problem being that there has to be a new way of boosting these skill progressions; it might just be skill points on *top* of this system, which seems a little awkward, but doable; or perhaps use only feats, and change the rogue to grant feats from a bonus list much like the fighter (which, in fairness, is closer to non weapon proficiencies, so does have some pedigree... Though it also makes player choice much more atomic, which is hardly nice or fun; with a good DM, they just grant your character a rank or two in the skill to represent the time you've spent working on it, but that kind of freebie is very group-dependent).
(there are probably other problems too!)
Ramble over :-D
Another take on what the OP is saying -- mechanically, rather than his true argument -- is that rather than saves being more like skills, skills should be more like saves.
Specifically, in a game where archetypes map 1-1 with classes, there should be no ranger who does not have at least a few ranks in spot and listen; no bard without a few ranks in perform, no wizard without spellcraft and know(arcana), and so forth.
This would be pretty easy to represent, if skills and saves were the same: Give every class a "skill progression" along whatever its core competencies (so... unclean...) are; reduce the number of skill points given appropriately, and ta-dah, much character design is cheap-and-easy.
The problem being that there has to be a new way of boosting these skill progressions; it might just be skill points on *top* of this system, which seems a little awkward, but doable; or perhaps use only feats, and change the rogue to grant feats from a bonus list much like the fighter (which, in fairness, is closer to non weapon proficiencies, so does have some pedigree... Though it also makes player choice much more atomic, which is hardly nice or fun; with a good DM, they just grant your character a rank or two in the skill to represent the time you've spent working on it, but that kind of freebie is very group-dependent).
(there are probably other problems too!)
Ramble over :-D
Agamon
Adventurer
nute said:
This is a good point. Saving Throws have little to do with training, and more to do with a PCs mettle and survivability (much like HPs have more to do with the same then with raw toughness). Skills are things that a PCs specifically learned.
That said, there are too many skills in 3.5E. As has been stated over and over, Spot and Listen, Hide and Moce Silently, etc, should be combined to make less skills.
buzz
Adventurer
Quick aside: saves and skills are not mechanically identical.
- Saves have auto-fail and auto-succeed, skills do not.
- Both are also affected by different types of situational modifiers.
- Skills are not directly tied to level advancement.
- You can't Take 10 or 20 on Saves.
- Saves are passive; they are always rolled in reaction to something.
- Skills are active; the player chooses to use them to act on the game world.
Similar Threads
