Why does no one ever bring up how well designed (and gamist) saving throws were?

Spell
Breath Weapon
Rod Staff Wand
Petrification or Polymorph
Death, Paralysis, or Poison

That seems like the most counter-intutitive and unmemorable thing ever. (Well, arguably not). But when you understand it it's actually very good and makes perfect sense. It's really good gamist logic disguised by a layer of obscurist versimilitude.

Let's rename the categories:

Spell
Physical Effect
Spell-in-a-can
Save or Lose
Save or Die

Spell and Physical Effect saves should be obvious although the main physical effect save was always breath weapon. And the question is what you can do to prevent yourself being affected by them. How they relate to each other is very much class dependent.

A spell in a can is, as far as I know, never any harder to to save against in every edition on every line of the saving throw table than an actual spell that would be using the spell save.

The Save or Lose spells are spells that will take you out of the fight but there is normally a way back from so you won't lose your character. Petrification turns you into a statue. When a statue, sure you can't do anything, but it can be reversed at a later date. Gone but not forgotten. And when you're polymorphed, unless it's a tpk, you can generally hop to safety. Again, you're out of it but not forgotten.

Save or die. Yes. Well. Death magic or poison. You be dead.

All perfect gamism. The more dangerous and the further round the hit point system something goes, the easier it is to save against with the exception of the spell/breath weapon split. And the splitting off of spells-in-a-can.


So. How did this vary by editions?

If we look at any of the pre-WotC editions we find there are five categories of saving throw. The common points are:
  • Spell
  • Breath Weapon
  • Wand
  • Turned to Stone
  • Death or Poison

Every TSR edition of D&D from the 1974 brown box onwards has five saving throw categories with these five distinct effects. Magic. Physical. Spell-in-a-can. Save or Lose. Save or Die.

But there have over the editions been some floaters. Let's look at them.

Rod and Staff. Holmes Basic and B/X consider rods and staves wizard's tools. So they count as spell saves rather than saves for canned spells. Gandalf with his staff, etc. And it makes staves more interesting and powerful than wands.

Polymorph is only its own thing in AD&D. It doesn't appear as a category anywhere else.

Paralysis. B/X thinks it's a save or lose and doesn't outright kill you. AD&D thinks that getting paralysed in combat means you gonna die. No prior edition had Paralysis as a save (RC went with B/X and 2e of course). Is Hold Person Save or Die? IME yes. Normally. But not quite so directly as a death ray. Both very defensible choices.

So that's two basic saves for physical damage (magical and semi-mundane), a bonus against canned spells, a save or lose category, and a save or die category. And with those categories the wizards went for fireballs because the save or dies and save or loses wouldn't make it through.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MoutonRustique

Explorer
Something that just popped in my head - for 5e, if you wanted to give fighters and such their good saves back, you could very easily change saves to d20 + Hit Die + Stat (the last is "for tradition"). If you're proficient, you can re-roll any result on the Hit Die equal to or lower than your proficiency bonus (ignore if prof = max).

No idea if this would be any good, it just occurred to me to couple saves with the Hit Die as a way of making the more durable characters... well, the more durable characters.

Also [snark]psst... *whispering voice* you're not allowed to imply, much less say that gamist considerations could be good for the game. Now, quit you're yammering before we both get in trouble...[/snark] :p
 


Celebrim

Legend
1) People have.
2) I have heard much more lucid versions of the argument than you present here.

For example, start with this essay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crRdwU085Kc&index=45&list=LLjbXBzv8kP7jws3_jlBsS4A

3) Even so, even when offered in a far more logical form than you here offer, I don't find the argument fully compelling. All that such arguments convince me of is that it would be possible to make the 1e/BECMI saving throw tables coherent. It doesn't convince me that they were actually coherent or balanced.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I can't agree on it being terribly coherent or sensible, but one thing that made sense about AD&D-and-earlier saves is that high level characters had a very easy time making them. Saves, like hps, are a way for the game to model the way heroes in fiction survive against what seem like impossible odds, over and over.

The WotC era could almost be called the Age of Failed Saves, because of it's insistence on giving everyone a bad save category - or two - out of the three it's narrowed 'em down to. I don't see anything conceptually wrong with Fort/Ref/Will (or CON/DEX/WIS) saves or defenses. I just think it's a bad idea to make everyone have one or two of them so low, and falling further behind, not catching up, that they're screwed whenever they come up against it. It's just lame and counter-genre at high level.

In 5e, I'd like to see every save get full proficiency bonus, at least for the few non-caster classes, or non-proficient saves actually improve with level (even 3e 'bad' saves improved with level, nominally).
 

Let's rename the categories:

Spell
Physical Effect
Spell-in-a-can
Save or Lose
Save or Die
I think you're reading too far into it. A more likely explanation is that these were the sorts of common perils that the designer thought they characters might face, and he merely imagined who would perform best in each situation.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I can't agree on it being terribly coherent or sensible, but one thing that made sense about AD&D-and-earlier saves is that high level characters had a very easy time making them. Saves, like hps, are a way for the game to model the way heroes in fiction survive against what seem like impossible odds, over and over.

I agree.

I've modified 3.0e edition so that spell level doesn't had to save DC, and HD doesn't add to the DC of saves versus innate abilities. I personally feel that it was double counting, since normally ability score rises with level anyway.

I think this helps a lot compared to stock 3.X, where we tend to see DC inflating much faster than saving throw bonuses (for fights versus high HD monsters, this is true even of good saves). Save or suck returns to some of the problems it had in 1e, where yes, it could win you the combat, but also involved a very high chance of a wasted action. And in general, it returns the dynamic seen in 1e where about the time that save or die was getting common, the saving throws were tending to become more often effective than not. Also the Christmas tree becomes less essential for keeping up with the expected difficulty curve. And for myself, I'm perfectly ok with high level characters only failing saving throws 5-25% of the time.
 

Voadam

Legend
Rod, Staff, Wand is more like ray zaps you dodge than spells not cast as spells. That's why thieves are usually good against them.

Petrification and polymorph is body changing, basically fortitude so fighters are good at it.

Breath weapons are basically area effects you dodge or brace your shield against, so fighters and thieves are good, clerics and magic users not so much.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I'd say that their gamist value, in their original context, was limited, largely due to the player's lack of choice concerning them.

On the attack, most characters didn't have too many attack types they could choose from, so trying to target the enemy's weak saves was often not an option. On defense, you didn't have many choices about how to distribute your defense - your saves were largely fixed by your class choice (and stat choice, if you had such) at game start.
 

I'd say that their gamist value, in their original context, was limited, largely due to the player's lack of choice concerning them.

On the attack, most characters didn't have too many attack types they could choose from, so trying to target the enemy's weak saves was often not an option. On defense, you didn't have many choices about how to distribute your defense - your saves were largely fixed by your class choice (and stat choice, if you had such) at game start.

That's the wrong end of the decision tree. TSR-era D&D was action-dependant, not build-dependant.

Characters can choose their actions based on the expected saves of their opponents. Enemy has a good paralyzation save? Don't waste your slot or action with a hold effect.
 

Remove ads

Top