Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6681762" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Of course, if we're speaking of the 5e version here, it's more like "three saves plus some oddballs." Dex, Wis, and Con saves dramatically outnumber all others, and (nearly?) every class gets proficiency in one of those three, and one of the other three. Of the remaining saves, Cha is the least useful IIRC, as it has few truly "debilitating" effects (unlike Int) but is relatively rare even in monster abilities (unlike Str).All of that is kind of neither here nor there, though, since this is not the 5e board and the topic is OD&D.On the one hand, OD&D is dramatically more gamist than a lot of people give it credit for--it's just got the benefit of obfuscation, tradition, and familiarity (yes, the last two are different!) to make that harder to see. On the other hand, just as  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] puts it, a lot of it was "grown organically," or perhaps more accurately (if less charitably) cobbled together over time, and what particular things fell under any given save were often among the bits you had to squint to make sense of. Neonchameleon's OP doesn't quite sell the "well-designed" aspect of it, since a number of his statements (especially about the consistency of particular end-effects falling under particular saves) doesn't seem to line up with the reports I have heard previously. I've never played OD&D (my closest experience is a handful of B/X, or LL, sessions) so I cannot speak from personal experience, and thus cannot overtly deny any of the claims here. But...that said, it strikes me as...doing a similar thing as what the "what do you mean it's gamist" group does, just inverted. Brushing aside the clutter and focusing only on the parts that are consistent, rather than overlooking the parts that are consistent and focusing on the clutter.</blockquote>

Verification