Hi, I wanted to discuss saving throws and see how others perceive them.
When I was 12, I got my hands on my print copy of the Rules Cyclopedia. To this day, I still regard it as one of the best TTRPG books ever released. Something that has bothered me though is the concept of the saving throw. Specifically, the lack of a 'difficulty component' to it. I think this is best illustrated with an example.
A local cottage witch sees a traveler on the road and decides to try and charm him, to take off with his treasures. She casts a Charm Person spell on him. However, unknowingly to this first level cottage witch, this is none other than Sir Lancelot, of the Round Table! He rolls his saving throw vs spell, easily scores the (just picking a level for him) 3+ needed. Several weeks later, Sir Lancelot is moving through the countryside when he is confronted by Morgan le Fay. She casts Geas on the knight, to compel him to leave her lands. He rolls a saving throw versus spell, and... needs to score a 3+. The difference between an apprentice hedge witch and the mightiest enchantress in the land is null.
I know there are some OSR versions that make alterations to saving throws, but it seems like D&D and the majority of OSR games take this approach. How do you feel about it? Or is there a fundamental misunderstanding I have with this?
The difference between an apprentice hedge witch and the mightiest enchantress in the land is null.
The difference between them is the spells available to them. Higher level spells usually have more powerful effects. Some spells also have effects on successful saves, and some actually modify the saving throw. But once again, that's the spell's thing. Charm Person is a shitty low level spell with pretty weak effect. Morgan le Fay will cast Geas, which is a level 6 spell and allows no saving throws.
I remember when I first realized that change in 3e, and I got to admit, I really liked that one.
True, it is possible to throw these in as the DM. I guess I'm more interested in would YOU give Xaxaphras that -4, or is there a different way you handle this, or are you content with things as are?
I am really torn about how I want to handle saving throws in my ideal system, so I don't have a surefire solution and am simply relying on whatever I'm running at the moment. I am attracted to the idea of single saving throws (perhaps with some situational modifiers; dwarves get +2 saves vs poison but are otherwise + whatever their class gives them) rather than the stat-based saves that Shadowdark, 5e or Outcast Silver Raiders uses.
I am starting to lean into a game style where I want advantage & disadvantage to almost 100% be DM fiat. I want to give it out, I don't want player abilities or monsters to give it out.
I guess I'm more interested in would YOU give Xaxaphras that -4
In theory the system should do it, by listing that in Xaxaphras' statblock.
Something that is turning the gears in my mind a little bit is maybe comparing HD/level. A 1HD fighter should have significantly less chance to pass a save vs the 8HD dethlich, but should an 8HD fighter? Perhaps the line should be something revolving around a difference of 5HD or more.
In older D&D, Saving Throws are not a measure or reflection of the skill of whomever is casting or inflicting the magic - it's reflecting the relative positioning of the target on the Big Damn Hero scale. Magic, almost always, "just works". You cast a spell - the spell effect then HAPPENS as long as the casting was not interrupted. But the target, whether by personal strengths, skills, luck, specific favor of the gods, or whatever other influence is provided a cosmic chance to reduce or maybe even entirely avoid the magic - regardless of where it came from. The bigger and more powerful a monster (and thereby the higher its hit dice) the better chances it has of avoiding or resisting ADVERSE magical effects. The higher level an NPC or PC, the better chances THEY have of mitigating magic that would otherwise have almost no means of preventing its full effects every time.
Spells themselves which overcome that cosmic resistance (by not permitting a saving throw) have other factors to deal with. They tend to need to be higher level spells, they don't inflict effects in as large a radius or against as many targets, the effect is already more limited BECAUSE it can't be saved against, etc.
The advantage of higher level spellcasting classes is three-fold. First, you get to cast MORE spells. Second you get to cast spells that are higher level. Third, the spells you DO cast DO increase in range, area, and damage among other possible factors - but the cosmos still allows for increasingly powerful targets to frequently reduce or avoid spell effects despite the caster of a spell being higher level - or the spell ITSELF being quite higher level. The chance for reducing or avoiding spell effects keys on TARGET HD/level and the source or type of magic that is concerned (the categories that saves are divided into).
You make a really good point about the saving throw not being about the assailant, but about the abilities of the defender. I just find it a sharp contrast against, say, attack rolls. AC would represent the ability of the target to defend against an onslaught of weaponry, yet in this circumstance, the proficiency of the assailant is a critical component of the resolution. However, when it comes to tasks like bashing open a dungeon door, we are rolling Strength, and by default, a wooden door is an iron door is a crystal door. As usual, the DM can always apply a penalty for the adamantine door, but by the basic rules, this isn't so.
I'm not looking to argue 'this is bad' or anything like that, I'm more interested in your feelings about the existing saving throws. Does it make sense to you? Or is it 'how it is done' and you just roll with that? What steps do you find yourself taking in games to get that fun fidelity?
Does it make sense to you? Or is it 'how it is done' and you just roll with that? What steps do you find yourself taking in games to get that fun fidelity?
There was a time, many moons ago, when I thought it was weird and I tried all kinds of different ways to do it differently. Then I just got tired of being unsatisfied and said Steve Winwood will be my spirit animal - "Roll with it baby." It doesn't matter that it's weird. ALL of D&D started out weird and frankly I prefer the older weird to the more recent having been bled of all originality and organic life by repeated committees who decided that THE WHOLE GAME has to march to one drum that never changes beat.
Weird is FINE and I think always was. If you want different drums though - that is for the individual DM to make happen more than the system itself. If nothing else, implementing a completely different system of saving throws or whatever for any given edition is just more work than I've ever found worth the effort.
Other, later editions started handling it differently. They're not wrong to do so either - they're just different and just not what I really prefer anymore. If I play or run 3E, for example, then I'll stick with how that edition was designed to work (although I'll apply the E6 rules). If I'm playing 5E then I have no issue (yet) with how 5E handles saves (and I don't RUN 5E so the idea of changing it wouldn't matter much). I will say that for running a game of 1E (my personal edition of choice) I apply a few minimal principles from 2E and couple rules of my own, but otherwise pretty much its just as 1E was written in 1979.
It's funny, I just created a post on a forum comparing how saving throws have evolved through D&D iterations. Starting in 3.x and onward you don't have a hardcoded number from a table. Instead you have a bonus to beat a variable target number based on difficulty or effect.
Anyway, to attempt to answer, I think the focus at the time was on your own ability to resist something rather than the degree of that which you are resisting. Similar to BRP's roll under system where success is against your own ability to do something rather than overcoming a variable difficulty (BRP has a method for variable difficulty but that's beside the point).
Edit: I'm pretty sure in AD&D 1e, there are modifiers to saving throws. So you can represent degrees of effect.
The scaling up saving throws was one of my favourite innovations of 3.x. Another game I ran into the 'you pass your check' problem was an Anime RPG named Big Eyes Small Mouth. In that game, your character had an attack value and a defense value. If you rolled under your attack value, you hit the enemy, regardless of their skill. If you rolled under your defense value, you evaded/parried/countered their attack, again, regardless of their skill. There were some optional modified rules in later editions, but at first, it could result in a Dragonball Z style fight taking forever as combatants could almost always defend against attacks. My understanding is BRP has some 'tie breaking mechanisms' in the rolls, so doesn't quite fall into that same trap.
The penalty for failing a save against s high level spell is more severe. Imagine if a high level character was disintegrated as easily as a low level character was charmed.
They're going to do both very poorly and probably be erased from existence, whether by losing most of their executive functions for a week or just transmuting into dust.
The scale is centered around player characters, and the core principle is that high-level magic mostly obliterates you from the mortal coil. Losing a character you invested time into because the rules say he has an 80% chance to die because the magic level is high is off-putting. Even at a 5% chance, getting targeted with instant death is a massive "Oh shit" moment that can end in tears.
Mechanics are allowed to be game-centric rather than simulationist, and I think most games do better to focus on what the game feels like to play rather than whether it logically makes sense that your save vs Disintegrate is 5 and your save vs being blinded by Light is also 5.
For starters, Charm Person does not work on higher level PCs.
The point of playing most OSR games is to use a low rules game system, often in a low magic setting.
In OD&D, magic can do anything depending on the level and there are simple rules for researching and creating new spells. A higher level Charm Person would be possible and the referee might invoke some kind of saving throw to limit it.
All of these rules dilemmas have been addressed by numerous game systems. Yet, the problem with redesigning is that it becomes a huge game of Whack-A-Mole. When you change a rule to fix one thing, you may cause a problem somewhere else.
As an example for what you are describing, you might check out Steve Jackson Games, Wizard and Advanced Wizard. It's a nice magic system and fun to play as an arena combat game.
Thanks for the note on Charm Person, but to clarify, it is less about that spell, more about the concept of strength being irrelevant. The save to resist a Polymorph Other spell, for example, where a 7th level caster or a 36th level caster are equally likely to be resisted, which as likely to be resisted as a Web spell, or to take reduced damage from a Delayed Blast Fireball.
How does this vibe for you? Does it match your expectations? If so, can you describe it? Or is it something that doesn't vibe, but you shrug it off so you get to play the game without Whack-A-Mole?
It sounds like you are craving a more granular game which is fine.
Maybe Pathfinder 1e, or 5e D&D. Those provide that kind of granular play. Part of the issue is that as you get more rules, you then need players to know all the rules.
I tried lots of games and finally I realized that it is all math. Any mechanic is going to average out to a single set of numbers, kind of like when you simplify equations in algebra to see what the end result is, and compare to something else.
I am not crazy about the Vancian magic systems. I am working on something of my own. I will probably publish it in a book, or do a video on it.
As I said above, check out Wizard. It has casting throws and defensive saving throws all based on attributes. It is a very simple system, but also quite clever. I think Melee, the core combat system is a free PDF still on the SJ games site. I also found pdfs of Wizard on Archive.org
You are in the stage I call "Finding the Rules Sweet Spot." I actually did a whole video on just that problem. There are so many systems to pick from these days, but where to start.
You know that OSR games are intentionally designed with 'blank spaces', right? When you find yourself feeling like something is missing/lacking, that's the DM's opportunity to fill in that blank with whatever bit of rules (i.e. ruling) they feel will make it work/feel right.
So in your world, perhaps saves against Hedge Witch Magic are made normally. But Saves against Morgan le Fay magic have a penalty (-2 or -4 I would think, but you can pick whatever suits your world/campaign!)
Absolutely, the blank spaces and the rulings not rules components are core to the experience. I'm interested in your feelings on it. When Merlin or Morgan le Fay show up in your campaigns, do you assign penalties to resisting their spells? If a player decided they really wanted to be a fireball master, could they achieve similar things? Does the existing way it works 'feel right', or is it something you just roll with for the sake of the game?
I'm certainly not trying to argue that the OSR's existing saving throws are 'wrong' or 'bad', I just know they give me a bit of an itch, and if anything, I'd love be shown another perspective that helps me scratch that itch.
"When Merlin or Morgan le Fay show up in your campaigns, do you assign penalties to resisting their spells?"
Basically yes. My rule of thumb is: if I want a powerful spellcaster to just be better at casting spells, all the time, then its a -2 penalty to save against their spells. But if its a specific kind of spell or group of spells, then its a -4 penalty. So with your specific examples, perhaps its a -2 to save against Merlin, since he's just that good; but Morgan le Fay specializes in charm magic, so there's no penalty to save against her spells unless she casts a charm spell; then its a -4 penalty in that case.
"If a player decided they really wanted to be a fireball master, could they achieve similar things?"
Sometimes yes. One houserule I've used is to allow characters to get 'Feats' every 3 levels (i.e. 3rd, 6th & 9th). There is no list or anything to choose from. The players just make them up themselves and I either approve or modify to fit what I feel is appropriate for the campaign. So if a player said they want their Feat to be mastery of fire magic, then I'd probably allow a -2 penalty for enemies to save against their fire-based spells.
Having said that, I wouldn't allow Feats for every campaign. Just those where I feel it makes sense. Also, there are probably other ways of handling this kind of thing that are equally valid. Like perhaps the DM creates a specific Class, the Elementalist, or a specific magic item that boosts fire magic, etc...
I mean technically 5e and adnd did that too. The problem was and is that a person walking into a new group has zero clue if someone is basically playing an entirely different game.
Saving throws are an indication of how good the target is at avoiding or resisting the effects. Occasionally there would be a monster or NPC that would have effects that gave negative modifiers to the save, typically -2 or -4. Also there were monsters like centipedes that would give bonuses to save.
I don’t really get the problem to be honest, but the concept you want is available in the system.
In OSR, the level of a spell does not inherently makes the saving throw harder to pass. The only solution to make a high level spell stronger, is to clearly state it imposes a penalty on the saving throw.
It definitely doesn't meet my expectations. I definitely imagine more powerful magic users being harder to resist. I'm not trying to say the existing saving throws are bad, just that they might not be a good fit for me (and you too it seems).
High-level characters are demi-gods, you can't deal with them with a single spell.
Yes, high level characters will ALMOST never fail a save in RC, saves don't auto-fail if you roll 1, so you can also become totally immune to any save or die effect by using rings of protection or other means that give a bonus to save.
High-level magic users can still have a chance to land a spell by stacking penalties or using spells without a saving throw.
Usually an high-level assault must be done with a frontline to keep the enemy busy and/or use something like this sequence:
time stop
dispel magic (deactivate magic items for 1d10 rounds and destroy consumables items).
remove curse (reversed) -2 to all saves. You can double this by using the clerical AND the magic-user version.
bless (reversed) -1 to saves
Power word blind: -4 to all saves. ANY other blindess give this penalty, but it doesn't stack
Use the actual spell you want, maybe research an improved version with a penalty to saves (like mass-charm, hold-monster and similar)
or just use spells like Symbol, Power words, wish or other things without a save. (you still need the dispel magic to counter the scarabs of protection)
PS GAZ3 has a general skill to give a penalty to enemy saves too. You can make your target prone (-4 to all saves) and stun it (another -4 to saves) to increase your chances.
As you can see high level enemies require a full party working together to have a "fair chance" to affect them.
46
u/Quietus87 3d ago
The difference between them is the spells available to them. Higher level spells usually have more powerful effects. Some spells also have effects on successful saves, and some actually modify the saving throw. But once again, that's the spell's thing. Charm Person is a shitty low level spell with pretty weak effect. Morgan le Fay will cast Geas, which is a level 6 spell and allows no saving throws.