As I already said, characters poften didn't have many choices on that front. The choice was available in theory, but not so much in practice if you weren't a wizard with lots of equipment.
Why does no one ever bring up how well designed (and gamist) saving throws were?
As I already said, characters poften didn't have many choices on that front. The choice was available in theory, but not so much in practice if you weren't a wizard with lots of equipment.
delericho
Legend
If only they'd called them that in the first place, I'd agree. As it was, by giving them named categories that weren't quite, they built up quite a lot of odd artifacts in the system, such as the 2nd Ed Dwarf's bonuses on Saves vs Spells that left them better in that least-bad category than they were in the most-bad "Save or Die" category (excluding poison, specifically, since they also had a bonus there).
Having said that, I think they probably also missed a trick by not just having one save that then gets modified by a "lethality offset" - so maybe you need a 15 for your base save (save vs spells) but get a +1 for "physical effect", +2 for "spell in can", +3 for "save or lose", and +4 for "save or die". Though that in turn leads you to flip it to a "save bonus" and turn the "lethality offset" into target numbers - and pretty quickly you're heading towards 5e's saves...
Celebrim
Legend
Well, as long as we are going there, why don't we have really clearly named save categories like:
Mental Effect
Physical Effect
Dodge
Luck
Then you might do some coherent rules like:
"All classes get a +1 bonus on saves for each two levels they gain."
"Fighters have a +2 bonus on saves versus Physical, Mental, and Dodge"
"Wizards have a +2 bonus on Mental saves, and an additional +2 bonus to any save provoked by a spell or spell-like ability."
"Thieves have a +3 bonus on Dodge and Luck saves."
"Clerics have a +3 bonus on Physical and Luck saves."
There are all sorts of nice things that happen with that sort of clarity. One of them is that it is a lot more obvious what save should be used ad hoc to avoid falling in pit trap or something like that. Another would be that someone might notice that even if they were a level or two ahead, the thieves saving throws pretty much always sucked even against things they were supposed to be resistant too.
The thing about 1e is that it's odd quirks do have a certain charm, until you have to put up with them for 15 years. The gloss starts to come off eventually.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Seems like we've gotten pretty close:
3e:
WILL save ... Mental Effect
FORT save ... Physical Effect
REF save ... Dodge
4e:
WILL DEF ... Mental Effect
FORT DEF ... Physical Effect
REF DEF ... Dodge
save ... Luck
5e:
WIS/CHA/INT save ... Mental effect
CON/STR save ... Physical effect
DEX save ... Dodge.
Lucky re-roll ... Luck
Stat saves really do make it pretty clear.
Does being Fast avoid the effect? Strong? Tough? Quick-witted? Perceptive/Disciplined? Strong-willed?
Li Shenron
Legend
In short, older editions' ST were defined in terms of the source of the effects (a spell, a magical item, a 'death-type' effect etc) while later editions' ST are defined in terms of way of saving yourself (avoidance, willpower, passive physical endurance... and in 5e also counterstrength, reasoning, active force of personality).
Both ways worked for me, but I feel that the current way fits a little better the idea and name of saving throws.
Both ways worked for me, but I feel that the current way fits a little better the idea and name of saving throws.
Celebrim
Legend
Briefly, the 1e system had the following problems:
1) It was not always clear, and very easy to become confused, regarding which saving throw was applicable in which situation. If a spell could kill you, did you save versus spells or death magic or was the death magic category only for non-spell death effects like a Bodak's gaze? If a spell could turn you to stone or change your shape, did you save versus spells or petrification/polymorph? What about a wand of polymorph? Some have argued that if more than one category was applicable, you always took the leftmost column. If that was the intention, it was not exactly made clear and isn't at all intuitive.
2) It was not clear what saving throw was applicable in a novel situation or versus an unclassified effect. For example, although it can be argued that the logic of 'Rod/Staff/Wand' saves was based on the idea of which class was best able to dodge a ray, it was not immediately obvious that the logic of the save versus 'Rod/Staff/Wand' was based off the idea of dodging a ray aimed at you. Therefore, many DM's might not pick up on the fact that 'Rod/Staff/Wand' was the ideal save for a similar idea of dodging away from something. This can be seen in 1e modules, where frequently when saves were called for in similar situations, different designers even of published official TSR material would call for very different sorts of saves: save vs 'rod/staff/wand', roll under dexterity (semi-formalized as an 'ability check'), straight percentage chance of avoidance, etc.
3) While using the saving throw tables is fairly easy in the best case, analyzing them is actually highly difficult. This is because classes did not gain levels at an equal rate in 1e, and so an actual analysis has to be made on the basis of how much XP earned grants what sort of saving throw bonus in which categories. This is a 3 dimensional array of not so easy to recognize divisions and once you do actually do this analysis it becomes clear that the saving throws really aren't that well thought out if the idea is to produce some sort of balanced intuitive system that grants predictable advantages depending on the archetype of your character. In particular, there is the usual masochism if you want to play a thief of being significantly worse than every other class at just about everything that seems to have been largely ignored until 3e.
4) 'Spell' was a very catch all category, but it isn't at all clear that if the logic of the system is based on the sort of a effect you are saving against that it should be. If 'petrification' is better thought of as being its own category, or 'death magic' is better thought of as being its own category, why shouldn't 'fireball' or 'cone of cold' be more like saving versus a 'breath weapon'? I mean why save versus Rod/Staff/Wand when the wand shot a fireball at you, and against spell when a spellcaster did? What's the logic of that? Why save versus 'breath weapon' when a white dragon breathed a cone of cold at you, and 'spell' when a caster cast a 'cone of cold' at you? Aren't you in game experiencing more or less the exact same effect?
1) It was not always clear, and very easy to become confused, regarding which saving throw was applicable in which situation. If a spell could kill you, did you save versus spells or death magic or was the death magic category only for non-spell death effects like a Bodak's gaze? If a spell could turn you to stone or change your shape, did you save versus spells or petrification/polymorph? What about a wand of polymorph? Some have argued that if more than one category was applicable, you always took the leftmost column. If that was the intention, it was not exactly made clear and isn't at all intuitive.
2) It was not clear what saving throw was applicable in a novel situation or versus an unclassified effect. For example, although it can be argued that the logic of 'Rod/Staff/Wand' saves was based on the idea of which class was best able to dodge a ray, it was not immediately obvious that the logic of the save versus 'Rod/Staff/Wand' was based off the idea of dodging a ray aimed at you. Therefore, many DM's might not pick up on the fact that 'Rod/Staff/Wand' was the ideal save for a similar idea of dodging away from something. This can be seen in 1e modules, where frequently when saves were called for in similar situations, different designers even of published official TSR material would call for very different sorts of saves: save vs 'rod/staff/wand', roll under dexterity (semi-formalized as an 'ability check'), straight percentage chance of avoidance, etc.
3) While using the saving throw tables is fairly easy in the best case, analyzing them is actually highly difficult. This is because classes did not gain levels at an equal rate in 1e, and so an actual analysis has to be made on the basis of how much XP earned grants what sort of saving throw bonus in which categories. This is a 3 dimensional array of not so easy to recognize divisions and once you do actually do this analysis it becomes clear that the saving throws really aren't that well thought out if the idea is to produce some sort of balanced intuitive system that grants predictable advantages depending on the archetype of your character. In particular, there is the usual masochism if you want to play a thief of being significantly worse than every other class at just about everything that seems to have been largely ignored until 3e.
4) 'Spell' was a very catch all category, but it isn't at all clear that if the logic of the system is based on the sort of a effect you are saving against that it should be. If 'petrification' is better thought of as being its own category, or 'death magic' is better thought of as being its own category, why shouldn't 'fireball' or 'cone of cold' be more like saving versus a 'breath weapon'? I mean why save versus Rod/Staff/Wand when the wand shot a fireball at you, and against spell when a spellcaster did? What's the logic of that? Why save versus 'breath weapon' when a white dragon breathed a cone of cold at you, and 'spell' when a caster cast a 'cone of cold' at you? Aren't you in game experiencing more or less the exact same effect?
delericho
Legend
Well, they would if we could ever quite pin down what the stats themselves mean. It's not such an issue with the physical stats, but the boundaries between the three mental ones are fluid at best.
Tony Vargas
Legend
They don't seem /that/ vague. Vague, sure, as natural language mixing with jargon in vague ways will be, but not all that bad. And 5e seems to call for WIS (mostly) vs INT/CHA (more rarely) fairly consistently, such that it shouldn't be too hard to decide which mental stat a novel effect forces a save from.
Not exactly shockers.
I think this third one was well, maybe not intentional, exactly, but in keeping with the overall philosophy or feel of 1e. IIRC, Gygax even articulated the idea that the players weren't supposed to understand the game, at least, not as well as the DM (part of the convoluted form of DM empowerment that 5e emulates in a somewhat more straightforward way).
So matrices opaque to reverse-engineering efforts, and difficult to use without a judge's ruling, rather than clear categories and consistent formulas, make a certain sort of sense, in that they help make the players dependent on the DM's knowledge and rulings.
Amusingly put.
But, really, you could rationalize any of these inconsistencies and oddities:
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
I think you misunderstand me entirely.
My point is that analysis of the system is so complicated, even the designers didn't understand the consequences of their own system.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Or maybe just didn't care.
But it's not /that/ complicated, really, just arbitrary and inconsistent. There's nothing complicated about looking up a saving throw target in a class/level matrix, and most things that called for saves called for a specific save, so not complicated to choose the right column. But it was inconsistent. A magic Wand might produce a paralyzation effect, and call out a save vs spells. Even more fun, things would call out a 'save vs magic' or other category that wasn't in any of those column headings. Que DM ruling.
...ah, the good old days...
Similar Threads
