D&D 5E Zone of truth 5e: Justice system revolution!

[The Crimson Binome]

There was no "auto-fail on 1" rule for saving throws in AD&D either. I think that rule is mostly a 3E thing.

From what I recall, AD&D used charts and modifiers were uncommon, so the charts simply didn't include entries where that would come up. I don't even remember whether you were trying to roll high or low, back in those days. Weren't saving throws covered in the DMG?

So I guess this is one area where they just borrowed the rule directly from 3E, and then made a change in order to simplify things.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But, fwiw, 1e (AD&D) did use a lot of tables (charts), including to hit and saving throw (both by class and level).

There were a fair number of modifiers (abilities, magic items, etc.) but nothing compared to what I understand was in 3e.

If you remember those tables, was it ever possible that you could roll a 20 and fail a saving throw? Like, if the table said you needed a 19, but you had a -2 penalty for low Wisdom so you would actually need a 21 on the die, and there was no point in even rolling?

Third edition didn't have all that many modifiers to the saving throw itself (-2 to +10 depending on your stat, up to +12 from your class level, up to +5 for your cloak, maybe +2 from a feat and +3 from various other items). The big difference is that spell level and spellcasting ability were factored into the save DC, so a level 1 mage casting charm person might only be DC 15, where a level 17 mage casting Mass Dominate might have DC 30. By varying the numbers on both sides of the equation independently of each other, it became relatively easy to wind up in a situation where you needed a 1 to fail or a 20 to succeed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Geoarrge]

One thing you might get, in a society where clerics are officially entrenched in the legal system (as opposed to being treated as contracted professionals), is a division of labor between different clerical orders, where the priests of, say, Anubis, are responsible for using zone of truth at trials for capital crimes while the priests of Ptah have jurisdiction over contracts.

Interesting note: If you do use this with the Egyptian pantheon, it does seem to fit pretty well, just looking at their portfolios, to assign them aspects of the legal system that coincidentally exclude all of the gods with the Knowledge domain from criminal trials. Why that might be significant -- 6th level Knowledge clerics get to use Channel Divinity to cast a version of detect thoughts, which can be combined with zone of truth to powerful effect. 3rd level bards can do the same, but they might be excluded from casting spells in a courtroom.

It could be an adventure hook if this loophole was designed deliberately.