Why Defenses (saves)?

[billd91]

It is odd, isn't it, that physical wounds are treated like whittling, but other dangers are save-or-die? Getting hit -- in the D&D sense of not just getting touched with the weapon, but having your armor bypassed or overcome -- really does sound like a save-or-die situation -- or even a you-already-failed-your-save-and-die situation.

Good, dramatic fights need momentum, and player characters who are supposed to survive risky adventures need plot protection, so a buffer of points makes some sense -- but bypassing that pool completely for some dangers defeats the purpose, and providing that pool for everyone kind of misses the point too.

I don't think it's odd at all. Not every blow that bypasses your defenses is going to be lethal. Some might be, but there's a lot of variability in the mix. Plus, I think it makes sense for multiple physical injuries to have a cumulative effect, eventually causing the target to give up the fight in some way (usually bleeding to death).

With respect to having multiple ways of targeting a creature (AC, saves, etc), you're allowing the game to incorporate a broader variety of effects. Physical battering and other things that cause hit point ablation wear a character down but also give him chances to deal with it. Saves and save or sit effects provides ways for characters to be completely overwhelmed in a single go, which can be really useful. If my wizard wants to charm the hysterical shopkeeper to calm him down, would it really make sense for the spell to have to ablate him down in the same way that hitting him with a bar stool would? I don't think so. I think I'd prefer it if there were a way to overcome the challenge without significantly hurting the target.

 

[steenan]

If my wizard wants to charm the hysterical shopkeeper to calm him down, would it really make sense for the spell to have to ablate him down in the same way that hitting him with a bar stool would? I don't think so. I think I'd prefer it if there were a way to overcome the challenge without significantly hurting the target.

Why would depleting his HP-equivalent "hurt" him? In this model, HPs are a completely abstract defense and have very little to do with injuring someone. Either your charm is powerful enough to take all shopkeeper's HPs and he's charmed or not - and if he's not charmed, then he'll be easier to hit and injure later, because his willpower/luck got used up in resisting the charm.

 

[the Jester]

Why would depleting his HP-equivalent "hurt" him? In this model, HPs are a completely abstract defense and have very little to do with injuring someone. Either your charm is powerful enough to take all shopkeeper's HPs and he's charmed or not - and if he's not charmed, then he'll be easier to hit and injure later, because his willpower/luck got used up in resisting the charm.

What about effects like slow, that debilitate without defeating someone? Do these come out of the same pool as your charm, petrification and polymorph resistance points?

For that matter, why would you ever use anything that wasn't effectively save-or-die again? You can hold someone as easily as you can slow them, assuming you have the same pool of points to ablate, so why not go for the effect that leaves them at your mercy?

It also sounds like nothing bad ever happens to you until you're defeated this way.

 

[Fanaelialae]

[MENTION=20187]GSHamster[/MENTION] has a good point. Multiple avenues to achieve an objective increases players' freedom in the game. If a magic-user can cast a Finger of Death spell on a creature and it fails its save, then it dies. Alternately one can chop it down due to structural damage via hit points. Or, one could even convince one's foe to flee, or agree to a truce, or even join on and become an ally (though this last actually increases the party's resources, so it should that much harder to accomplish).

Saving throws can be read about on p.80 in the DMG. Also its glossary has a decent definition, "A die roll which is used in adverse circumstances to determine the efficacy of a spell, whether a character fell into a pit or not, whether a character escaped a dragon's breath, etc."

I saving throws as character and object ability to accept or reject a kind of binary transformation. Stone to Flesh, Petrify, Save vs. Death, Poison (save 2x or die), and other effects which are understood as binary in nature. Hit points do not need to be the only point-based resource that can be spent (remember gold?), but the game defines certain effects as attrition and others as conditional.

I think it's a matter of taste for any one of them. But I wouldn't want to remove either or any option from the table.

In all fairness though, by this logic, allowing martial classes to perform called shots to instantly kill their enemies increases the players' freedom in the game, and is therefore a good thing.

On the other hand, if a high level wizard can insta-kill using Finger of Death while a high level fighter can insta-kill via Chop Off the Head, that would be fair and balanced (at least with regard to balance between PC classes).

 

[Frostmarrow]

plenty of good caveats for the OP to consider.

Here's an alternative.

What if saving throws weren't throws but HP pools.

You have 20 Fortitude, 10 WillPower and 10 Reflex

A sword might attack your Fortitude points for 1d6 damage

A siren's wail might attack your Willpower for 1d6 damage

Basically take the OP's idea and flip it on its head again.

It's an interesting suggestion. I can't quite wrap my head around the REF-pool but I'm sure I will. On a similar note, an internet-friend of mine is designing a retroclone for convention use. In his latest pitch he gave thieves better AC progression than fighters. Kind of neat in my opinion. Fighters still hit harder and wear more armor but thieves are the hardest to hit.

 

[steenan]

What about effects like slow, that debilitate without defeating someone? Do these come out of the same pool as your charm, petrification and polymorph resistance points?

For that matter, why would you ever use anything that wasn't effectively save-or-die again? You can hold someone as easily as you can slow them, assuming you have the same pool of points to ablate, so why not go for the effect that leaves them at your mercy?

That's why I suggested, in an earlier post, that HP-equivalent shouldn't be passively lost to attacks - spending them to negate an attack should be defender's choice.

In this case, it is possible for the defender to spend HPs and block everything you try to do, but he'll use them up very quickly. And if your slowing attack has higher "damage" than your lethal attack, or affects several enemies at the same time, or something like that, many opponents will rather accept a minor condition than spend points and leave themselves defenseless against a next attack that may be lethal.

With such system, you need high-effect attacks (killing, dominating, turning to stone etc.) to win a fight. But if it's balanced, these high-effect attacks will also be moderate or low on "damage". Low-effect attacks (slowing, tripping etc.) have higher "damage"; they won't win the fight by themselves, but they will force your opponent into a hard choice between spending a lot of HPs and accepting a debuff.

But the real value of this kind of mechanics is that it works well with PCs on the receiving end, especially against social and mental influence. You keep the danger of long-term domination or similar effects while giving players an option of using an absolute (but costly) defense. A choice like this is both less frustrating and more dramatically appropriate than letting a single roll decide in a matter that, for many characters, is more important than life and death.

 

[SSquirrel]

I was wondering, if hit points are abstract why is there a need for defenses (saves)?

Because everything that comes your way is not a sword, arrow or fist. Some things are spells. Why would a spell be stopped by leather, hide or plate mail? You have other aspects of your character that help defend you against those non-physical things. Before anyone brings up something like the Bigby's spells being physical, yes it is, but it was created from nothing. So defenses are something to cover any non-melee or ranged attack. you can even get feats to let you attack those tho, I know my Rogue is working toward one in our game

 

[the Jester]

That's why I suggested, in an earlier post, that HP-equivalent shouldn't be passively lost to attacks - spending them to negate an attack should be defender's choice.

So the dm decides which of the wizard pc's spells work on the monsters and which don't?

I just see way too many issues with this proposed system, personally. As the dm, I'd feel awful if I decided which spells are a complete waste. But then again, when a BBEG fails a save vs. death magic, I don't fudge that either.

 

[Dausuul]

So the dm decides which of the wizard pc's spells work on the monsters and which don't?

I just see way too many issues with this proposed system, personally. As the dm, I'd feel awful if I decided which spells are a complete waste. But then again, when a BBEG fails a save vs. death magic, I don't fudge that either.

It's not a waste--you've forced the monster to burn one of its "defense points." Obviously if you're the target of a death spell, you'll block it if you can! And PC wizards would know this and not expect their death spells to work in the first few rounds of combat. Instead, they'd open with some lesser debuffs.

Then the monster has to choose: It can either spend its defense points blocking the debuffs, or conserve its defense points and accept the penalties. If it blocks the debuffs, it gets to fight at full power in the opening rounds and hopefully gain a decisive advantage; but if it doesn't succeed in ending the fight early, it's open to a kill shot later on. If it accepts the penalties, it's protected from the death spell, but at the cost of being weakened against the wizard's allies.

The more I think about how this approach would play out, the more I like it.

 

[Walking Dad]

I'm thinking two pools of hit points: life and mana. That would take care of verisimilitude and highlight the differences between the sly wizard and the burly fighter.

And which one need to be reduced to 0 as only possibility to remove a weapon/wand from the enemies hand?

It works for anything: Trip, disarm, humiliate, intimidate, ...

BBM

I don't like the idea, to be honest. Have you looked at Mutants and Masterminds 3e? No HP, but staged conditions for failed saves and compound conditions. And it works.

HP + another pool that have to be reduced to 0 and covers everything? Not my cup of tea.