On saving throws

[nexusphere]

Hi!

Upon reading the early reviews and playtesting of this game, I'm quite excited. More excited about this then I've been over any other release in recent memory.

I did note however that the playtest reports show that you're using 3e style saving throws. I don't much like them, so I wrote this for my blog.

New (!) Old school saves

The reasons why new school saves are against the old school aesthetic can be found here.

I wanted to let you know that you are free to use it without compunction. Please do. Having Reflex/Will/Fortitude staring up at me will be a bit of an eyesore. Not that I couldn't Rule 0 it, just that it's better if it's not broken from the get go.

Thank you!

Thank you.

[finarvyn]

I believe that the three-save model is one of the 3E functions that Joseph plans on keeping. I'm not sure what you mean about the system being "broken from the get-go" since a lot of players of 3E and Pathfinder and other games have used it quite successfully.

As far as I know, changing the three-save model isn't on Joseph's "to do" list.

[smathis]

As far as I read, the changes to the saves were more about honing the description of what they save against and giving them new names.

Saves were okay for me in 3e. I didn't loath them. My biggest beef with them was that they required me to math it up on the other end. Whereas before a Fighter needed to roll over a 12 to save against something. Now, a Fighter had a +8 bonus and I had to figure out the DC.

This especially annoyed me with spells.

"Mkay... so the Drow casts as a 3rd level Wizard... Um... mkay... that's 10 plus one-half level... Ack! do I round up or down? Uh... What's a Drow's INT bonus? Screw it. Just beat a 13. Yeah, a 13. What? Round down? Crap. An 11 then. Whatever. Ah! You rolled a 5! Oh, but your +8 bonus gives you a pass... What level are you? 1st Level? Oh to hell with it!"

Here's an idea for saving throws.

Just have us beat a target number. Whatever it is. Just set it. Let's say a 20. Just roll a die. Add bonuses off the character sheet and get better than a 20.

A class' "good" save can roll a d24. Their "bad" save can roll a d16. The other save rolls a d20. Let the classes add 1/2 level. Boom. Done.

Call them Chicanery, Obstinance and Destiny. Or Will, Fortitude and Reflex. Or Larry, Moe and Curly.

Just, for the love of Crom, don't make me think about them. Because calculating a save DC is one of the last things I want to be thinking about when I'm DMing.

[nexusphere]

It appears that either I am a poor communicator, or the commenters so far have failed to read what I have actually written.

Let me try again, here on this forum - since there has been some difficulty in following my reasoning in the two linked blog posts.

Old school saves (Death/paralyzation/poison, spells, etc) were abstract. This is why they were given the name of what you saved against, instead of how you saved versus them.

New school saves (Reflex, fortitude, and will) are concrete. This is why they were given the names of the actions you take to avoid the effect.

The problem with this is that it breaks suspension of disbelief in a way that new school play does not support. (i.e. If I reflex save versus a fireball, how am I in the same square and why am I not prone? If I will save versus a charm, how come I still get my action?) This may not be true of this old school flavor game, but if it is not, then having the same names implies what action your character takes to avoid the threat, a very new school feature. (see my original post on abstraction and saving throws for further examples).

There is nothing wrong with having three saves instead of five or whatever. The issue is that in old school games saves are abstract. This is an old school game, therefore taking the saves whole cloth (although I'm sure necessary from a comparability standpoint) is another thing that works against the very vibe that old school is known for.

The names I provided are irrelevant. The names of the saves are not.

It is broken from the get-go, because it describes a specific action the character removing control from the player.

I'm not sure what the 'calculating DC' solution is. Perhaps I'll think on it.

[smathis]

The names I provided are irrelevant. The names of the saves are not.

It is broken from the get-go, because it describes a specific action the character removing control from the player.

I'm not sure what the 'calculating DC' solution is. Perhaps I'll think on it.

I got that from the blog. But I failed to see it as a major issue. I think I get it. I see the point that a "Save vs. Dragon Breath" does not imply how a character avoided the damage from a Dragon's Breath Weapon.

But I disagree on the proposed solution. To me, the word "Reflex" doesn't necessarily mean that the character dodged. Maybe there's something there that isn't clicking mentally with me. But I don't see how "Reflex" implies anything that "Chicanery" or "Obstinance" doesn't. I think Reflex implies an ability to duck behind something or get out of the way quickly. Not necessarily dropping to the ground or diving out of the way -- but it could include those. While "Chicanery" (to me) implies the ability to glibly and dexterously deceive another. And "Obstinance" implies (to me) that my character lacks Intelligence.

Granted, I can agree that it would be nice if the saves were more abstract or geared towards what a character was saving against -- like old schools saves. Or do like C&C and just align saves with all the attributes. One problem with 3e saves is that they created an even stronger class of dump stat in D&D. I never had a cast of PCs that were uglier and less well-mannered than when I ran 3e. A Charisma of 8 was often among the highest Charisma scores in the entire party.

And while I can agree on the point of abstracting the saves. I'm not sure I agree on the terminology. It sounds very Vancian and Dying Earth, no doubt. But I'm not sure it addresses the problem of abstraction. Personally, I'd rather my character resist a poison because of his exceptional Fortitude, not because of his Obstinance.

As far as the DC issue, I think it would be nice if there were just a target number. Barring that, I wouldn't mind seeing either C&C style attribute-based saves, a general save target number by class (ala Swords & Wizardry) or straight up old schools saves "vs. Magic", "vs. Poison" etc. Looking back over them, all of those utilize a fairly set Target Number system. I guess I'm just stuck on an endless loop.

[Nahat Anoj]

These days I'm intrigued by the idea of using ability scores as saves (which is what C&C does I think). I don't know what all the ability scores are for DCC RPG (I know we have Agility, Stamina, and Luck), but I like the idea of rolling Stamina to resist poisons, Agility to dodge area attacks, and Luck as a catch-all save. I'm pretty sure there'll be scores like Str and Int, so Str could be used to resist immobilization effects, and Int could be used to resist mental domination or illusions (I'm not sure what the last ability score is). I like this schema because it hearkens back a bit to the variety of saves in Old School games while utilizing more intuitive terminology.

Having said all that, I don't particularly mind Fort-Ref-Will saves, and I don't believe they are less abstract than Old School saves. While Fort-Ref-Will refer to character qualities, there are a variety of ways to interpret a successful roll. For example, I don't see why a paladin's successful Reflex save against a dragon's breath weapon can't be described as divine grace intervening on her behalf, giving her the reflexes she needs to get her shield up in time. Similarly, I don't see why a 3e/4e wizard's successful Fort, Ref, or Will save can't be explained by inscribing arcane counter-spell runes that temporarily increase the relevant save. Finally, I don't see why a thief's successful Fort, Ref, or Will save against the effect of a magic rod, staff, or wand can't be explained as the use of a protective magic item. (these were examples mentioned in an entry on the blog the OP linked)

In each case, an element of the character's concept or background can be brought in to describe why the character rolled as high as they did to succeed on their save. To me at least, this is no less abstract than Old School saves.

[mntnjeff]

This response will probably be laughed straight out of town...But, I've actually gone all the way back to a single saving throw / class or race. And allowed the PC to add an ability modifier (if existent) on a per-situational basis.

I love this system. It's simple and allows for attributes to be relevant. And talk about abstract... It's not a "Save versus..." but rather, "Save".

And as an aside, I've always used charisma as the basis for saves v. charm / domination / etc. After all, it's the force of your personality that overcomes the magical impetus to do another's will. At least that's the way I've always looked at it. And it helps charisma become more than just a "dump" stat.

[geordie racer]

This response will probably be laughed straight out of town...But, I've actually gone all the way back to a single saving throw / class or race. And allowed the PC to add an ability modifier (if existent) on a per-situational basis.

That's what I do too - it works !

[smathis]

This response will probably be laughed straight out of town...But, I've actually gone all the way back to a single saving throw / class or race. And allowed the PC to add an ability modifier (if existent) on a per-situational basis.

I love this system. It's simple and allows for attributes to be relevant. And talk about abstract... It's not a "Save versus..." but rather, "Save".

And as an aside, I've always used charisma as the basis for saves v. charm / domination / etc. After all, it's the force of your personality that overcomes the magical impetus to do another's will. At least that's the way I've always looked at it. And it helps charisma become more than just a "dump" stat.

That's a simple, flexible and relevant system. No unnecessary complexity. No needless and ultimately meaningless differentiation beyond just race/class and what a character brings to the table. It puts more emphasis on the character. Less on the class/race. The character's attributes are paramount and ALL of them come into play.

Moreover, it could allow for things like a Fighter relying on his Stamina (at a penalty) to withstand the force of Dragon Breath. Sign. Me. Up. Please.

Hopefully, DCC will consider something like this to solve the problem of dump stats in 3e (Charisma/Personality) and meaningless distinctions (Fort/Will/Reflex) in Saving Throws where there need be none. It would also be throwing a bone to the grognards. Grognards like bones. They turn them into Dracoliches that don't suck.

If I'm laughing, it's with tears of joy streaming down my cheeks.

[Sunsword]

This response will probably be laughed straight out of town...But, I've actually gone all the way back to a single saving throw / class or race. And allowed the PC to add an ability modifier (if existent) on a per-situational basis.

I love this system. It's simple and allows for attributes to be relevant. And talk about abstract... It's not a "Save versus..." but rather, "Save".

And as an aside, I've always used charisma as the basis for saves v. charm / domination / etc. After all, it's the force of your personality that overcomes the magical impetus to do another's will. At least that's the way I've always looked at it. And it helps charisma become more than just a "dump" stat.

The single Save is a thing of beauty. I remember the first time I saw it in S&W. I was aghast for a moment. And then the elegant simplicity began to fire through my head. Its a tempting solution. If its combat related, I add my BAB. If its anything else, I make a Save & add the appropriate Attribute Mod. Maybe make that Attribute Mod a minimum Mod based on Class (for Thieves, for example they get to use a minimum Attribute Mod of 0 or +1 to anything related to their class, even if their Dex Mod normally is a -1)

PS - Since, I don't own any original products before AD&D 1E. Was the single save used in OD&D? Or did S&W introduce it?

[mntnjeff]

PS - Since, I don't own any original products before AD&D 1E. Was the single save used in OD&D? Or did S&W introduce it?

It was OD&D (Brown Box) that used that system, and S&W carried that forward in the OSR (yay!). I'd forgotten all about it until I saw S&W..then 'Ding!', a lightbulb went on. At the time I was teaching my young daughters to play the game, and for some reason the saving throw concept as described in Red Box just wasn't clicking for them. So...I went to S&W instead. And that's where I'm firmly ensconced today.

Today I'm all about elegance and simplicity. (Guess it's the advancing years, eh?)

[smathis]

Today I'm all about elegance and simplicity. (Guess it's the advancing years, eh?)

I like to think of it as wisdom. Sometimes that comes with advancing years. Sometimes not. Sometimes just a really lucky set of six-siders can hook you up too.

As I've gotten older, both my time and my money have gotten more valuable. I'm reluctant to just throw away either like I did when I was a young-un. Hence B/X clone, not 4e. Marvel FASERIP, not M&M. Barbarians of the Aftermath, not Aftermath.

[Geoffrey]

Was the single save used in OD&D? Or did S&W introduce it?

OD&D does not use a single save. It uses five categories:

Death Ray or Poison
All Wands - Including Polymorph or Paralization
Stone
Dragon Breath
Staves & Spells

S&W introduced the single save.

[mntnjeff]

OD&D does not use a single save. It uses five categories:

Death Ray or Poison
All Wands - Including Polymorph or Paralization
Stone
Dragon Breath
Staves & Spells

S&W introduced the single save.

D'Oh! My bad...Guess I should have looked first, eh? I just assumed. It's been a lot of years since I've played out of the LBBs.

Thanks for the clarification Geoffrey, and setting me on the path to righteousness.

[finarvyn]

Was the single save used in OD&D? Or did S&W introduce it?

OD&D does not use a single save. It uses five categories

S&W introduced the single save.

Geoffrey is correct. Remember that the intent of a "clone" game system is to recreate an out-of-print game. S&W isn't an exact clone but is one of the closest on the market, but it wasn't possible to exactly duplicate everything. The single saving throw model was one way that S&S (both the "core" and the "WB" versions) could establish itself as its own game line. I'm pretty sure I've seen other RPGs with a single save in them, but OD&D didn't have that.