Saves based on abilities

[WSmith]

In the 2d6 thread, I posted a rough idea of how I would try to make the ability scores the saving throws. While I would still like to do this, I am unsure about some things and would love feedback.

One issue lies with the fact that saving throws in the original versions are strickly based on class, except for maybe a few racial and ability modifiers to such things as poison and charms. The saving throw target number is basically otherwise unchanged, unless a level is attained by the character to better the chance of success. If the fighter knows he has to roll a 12 to succeed, it doesn't matter what the level of the magic user casting the spell is. I much prefer this method, as it is simpler and there are less modifiers.

The more contemporary method is to have the level of the character or the source causing the save modify the target number to succeed. While in theory, this does add a sense of realism, it does increase calculations to succed, (even sometimes very minor) and really doesn't seem to add anything IMO, after some long hard thought. But there is something more to this.

As someone brought up somewhere on the net, this is one of the heroic aspects of (O or A)D&D. A low level PC may be attacked by a higher level adversary, and by the luck of a good saving throw, survive. In the more current models, lower level character will have tougher times against stronger opponents, and lessen the chance for such a "heroic occurance." Then, to bring this back inline, a mess of modifiers are needed based on class, race, ability scores, etc. which in turn increase the modifiers and complexity of the game. Again, after some thought, this far from what I desire in a RPG.

Okay, what does all this have to do with ability scores and saving throws, you say?

A challenge arises, when trying to use abilties as ST, cause this method deviates from the intent of the original. However, it just seems "right" to me to make ability scores more important. I am a guy who wants less claculations and modifiers, not more. So, unless some kind of class modifers are added to the ability saves, it just doesn't seem to retain the flavor of olde, but now is the paradox of "more modifiers."

One way is to have the prime req save mean more, maybe a +2 bonus.

Also, I am not sure of the resolution method. Traditionally it has been 1d20, roll high. Keeping this method would be fine, however, would a 2d6 or better yet a 3d6 be more in line with what I am trying to do?

Any thoughts and feedback are appriciated.

[WSmith]

Here are some thoughts by DCS from DF that might have some potential:

...And as with many ideas, I got it from EGG, this time via Lejendary Adventure.) Multiply your ability score by a difficulty rating assigned to the save, low = difficult, high = easy. Then roll d% against this target number.

Default difficulty rating is 4. This gives PCs an approximately 50% chance of making any save (depending on the method used to generate scores).

In order to obtain DRs for spells/traps/effects, etc., compare the PCs experience level with the level of the spellcaster/dungeon/etc.

PC Level vs. Effect Level
11+ Levels higher ---> DR +4 (4+4 = 8 ==> automatic Save in most cases)
8-10 Lvls higher ---> +3
5-7 Lvls higher ---> +2
2-4 Lvls higher ---> +1
1 lvl lower - 1 lvl higher ---> n/c (no change)
2-4 lvls lower ---> -1
5-7 lvls lower ---> -2
8-10 lvls lower ---> -3
11+ lvls lower ---> -4 (4-4 = 0 ==> automatic failure)

Note that there may be racial adjustments; for example, Dwarves might get +1 DR to all saving throws vs. Poison.

Granted this close to the sliding scale I was trying to avoid, but somehow I think something here has potnetial. I just don't know what that is.

To avoid doing math during the game, have the PCs write down multiples of their ability scores (from 2 to 7) directly on their character sheets, like so:

STR 18 --- 36 54 72 90 108 126
INT 10 --- 20 30 40 50  60  70
WIS  7 --- 14 21 28 35  42  49
DEX 11 --- 22 33 44 55  66  77
CON 13 --- 26 39 52 65  78  91
CHA 15 --- 30 45 60 75  90 105

Any ideas for this d% method?

[northrundicandus]

In a level based game, levels should ultimately lead to better chances of success than abilities.

D&D and AD&D have their classic save system, which is (as you have mentioned) primarily level based. Rolemaster, Spacemaster, & HARP's Resistance Roll system is similarly level based – abilities and race have minor affects on rolls, but level is still the ultimate determining factor. For example, a 5th level character has to save against a level 8 poison.

BRP however uses ability scores as the primary method of "saving throws", because levels are not used. Ye ole handy Resistance Table determines success or failure - e.g. to save versus spells, one compares POWER versus POWER to see the percentage chance of an enchantment taking affect.

I personally don't think that ability scores should be the primary influence on saves in a level based game. It detracts from the importance of one’s level. The concept though works great in games where levels don’t exist.

[WSmith]

Catagories would be similar to this:

STR: Paralysis, Constriction
INT: MU spells*, Illusion
WIS: Cleric spells*, Confusion, Gaze Attack, Polymorph/Petrification
DEX: Breath Weapon, Traps
CON: Disease, Energy Drain, Poison
CHA: Death, Charm, Fear

*if not already in another catagory.

[WSmith]

northrundicandus said:

In a level based game, levels should ultimately lead to better chances of success than abilities.

(SNIP)

I personally don't think that ability scores should be the primary influence on saves in a level based game. It detracts from the importance of one’s level. The concept though works great in games where levels don’t exist.

That is the problem I am encountering. It seems like abilities cannot be used soley as saves unless modified by level somehow to keep the game level based. Hum, I really have to think about this one.

Maybe I am really itching to create a fantasy game based off of OD&D where levels don't exisit.

[foster1941]

I really don't like any system (such as one which shall remain nameless, IYKWIM,AITYD) that requires DM fiat 'levels' to be added to challenges in order to obtain a target number for tasks or saving throws (how exactly is a level 1 pit trap different from a level 5 pit trap?). I also agree with the general principle that stat-based saving throws work better for games that don't have classes and levels (such as RuneQuest or Traveller) and that in a class/level-based game the character's chance of success should be dictated more by his class & level than by his stats.

As quirky and non-intuitive and hard to judge what category non-named effects should fall under as it is, I really like the D&D saving throw system just as it is -- I like that clerics have an anomalously low save against poison and death magic, that fighters have pretty good saves against everything, that magic-users have crappy saves against everything (especially dragon breath) except spells, etc. -- little 'flavorful' quirks that would be hard to model in a more 'logical' or 'regular' stat-based system. (Of course, being me, I changed the table from 1d20 rolls to 2d6 rolls -- it actually translated surprisingly well, and the progression on the 2d6 table looks more regular than the 1d20 table -- most classes get +1 per category per chart-entry -- which makes me wonder if the d20-based chart in the book wasn't itself adapted from a d6-based original (perhaps by Dave Arneson?).)

[rogattny]

foster1941 said:

I really don't like any system (such as one which shall remain nameless, IYKWIM,AITYD) that requires DM fiat 'levels' to be added to challenges in order to obtain a target number for tasks or saving throws (how exactly is a level 1 pit trap different from a level 5 pit trap?).

I've written about this in the past. It's all about how objective/subjective pc gains are in the campaign world.

In a system like D&D, where there is generally no DM added Challenge Rating, player power relative to the campaign world is objective - when they go up in level, they grow relative to the world around them. They have to move to different challenges in order to remain challenged. You see the traditional monster progression - giant rat > orc > troll > dragon > demon. You see more and more world building type action on the part of the pc's...

In other systems, the numbers just get bigger. To make the challenges increase, the referee just increases the difficulty rating. Characters essentially just stay in first level mode their entire careers.

The subjectivity/objectivity issue is one of my main problems with the later versions of the game - Saving Throws, Armor Class, thieves' skills, monsters with levels, etc., etc., etc. It's entirely possible for a referee to use the exact same challenges against 20th level charactes as they did against 1st level characters, just with a higher DC.

(Of course when the O(A)D&D DM gets creative and tries to challenge his high level charactes a la S1, he's "cheating"... :

R.A.

[foster1941]

Gary Gygax discussed this somewhere (there are so many interviews and Q&A threads with him floating around the net that I couldn't possibly begin to keep them all straight anymore) with regard to pit traps in Greyhawk Castle. The first dungeon level had open pits -- as long as you had a light source and weren't running you wouldn't typically fall in, but you still had to maneuver past them somehow. When the players got used to handling those on level 2 he began to add covered pit traps. Then pit traps with extra features -- pits with spikes, flooding pits, pits where the cover snapped back closed and trapped the characters inside, etc. -- and then, when the players got good at avoiding such traps altogether, he began hiding treasures and secret doors inside the pits (I believe there are a couple of these in S1, and in Necropolis too). This, at least to me, is a much more interesting way to continue to challenge players than to simply declare that this is a 'level 5' pit rather than a 'level 1' pit and thus requires a higher roll to avoid...

[WSmith]

That is my dilema. I too do not want a difference between a 5th level trap and a 1st level trap. I don't want a save vs. charm to be harder against a 5th level magic user than a 1st level one. I want that objective power where the PC is based on the PC. I also don't want a lot of modifiers, either. I have some thoughts I will post later.

[Lord Cias]

Why not just let the saving throw be base on level, as it currently is, but then modified by ability score? That seems to be the easiest and most obvious answer, unless I'm missing something.

For example a saving throw vs. poison might get a modifier based upon the character's constitution, an ad-hoc save to see if a character is harmed by a sprung trap could be modified by dexterity or whatever.

Of course the original saving throw numbers might need to be changed slightly, but besides that it shouldn't be very difficult.

[WSmith]

Lord said:

Why not just let the saving throw be base on level, as it currently is, but then modified by ability score? That seems to be the easiest and most obvious answer, unless I'm missing something.

Funny enough, this just hit me about 20 minutes ago.

It IS the most logical answer. I might use the save catagories or retool:

Paralysis, Constriction (STR)
MU spells*, Illusion (INT)
Cleric spells*, Confusion, Gaze Attack, Polymorph/Petrification (WIS)
Breath Weapon, Traps (DEX)
Disease, Energy Drain, Poison (CON)
Death, Charm, Fear (CHA)
*if not already in another catagory

Then, add some kind of ability modifier to the save (which is based on the level of the character) .

This also keeps me away from the dilema of having to produce abiltiy score for monsters, (YUCK) It can be based on HD as usual.

It would take some extrapolating from the original saving throw table to come up with the numbers.

[WSmith]

This is from Men and Magic. Just placing the OD&D save cat's here so I can think out loud.

Death Ray or Poison
All wands including Polymorph and Paralyzation
Stone
Dragon Breath
Staves and Spells

Things requiring Saves:
Death Ray: not sure about this one

Poison: surely CON

Wands: ?

Polymorph: ?

Paralyzation: WIS maybe?

Turn to Stone: why is this different than polymorph?

Dragon Breath: DEX since it provides 1/2 damage is save is successful.

Staves: Wouldn this be similar to Wands?

Spells: INT.

Humm. I am not so sure I know what I want to do know. I need to check something in M&M and cross check it with Holmes before I go any further. I am not sure I need to do as much as I thought.

[WSmith]

As quirky and non-intuitive and hard to judge what category non-named effects should fall under as it is, I really like the D&D saving throw system just as it is --

This is partially my problem. Otherwise I don't really think the Saving Throws are that far off.

I like that clerics have an anomalously low save against poison and death magic, that fighters have pretty good saves against everything, that magic-users have crappy saves against everything (especially dragon breath) except spells, etc. -- little 'flavorful' quirks that would be hard to model in a more 'logical' or 'regular' stat-based system.

This is good food for thought. I have to ponder this for a minute.

(Of course, being me, I changed the table from 1d20 rolls to 2d6 rolls -- it actually translated surprisingly well, and the progression on the 2d6 table looks more regular than the 1d20 table -- most classes get +1 per category per chart-entry -- which makes me wonder if the d20-based chart in the book wasn't itself adapted from a d6-based original (perhaps by Dave Arneson?).)

Do you have these notes somewhere? I would love to see these.

[foster1941]

WSmith said:

Do you have these notes somewhere? I would love to see these.

Sure, in a notebook at home . I'll try to post the full table next time I get a chance.

[foster1941]

WSmith said:

Wands: ?

Staves: Wouldn this be similar to Wands?

Magic wands generally operate by shooting out a narrow ray -- if the ray hits you you're affected (paralyzed, polymorphed, 'feared', whatever), and if it misses you you're okay. Thus, the magic wand save is probably the closest thing D&D has to a pure 'reflex' save -- did you jump out of the way in time or not?

Staves (at least in OD&D vol. II) generally don't fire 'magic rays' in the same way as wands, but rather have spell-like effects that either cover an area (web or whirlwind effect from staff of wizardry, etc.) or are targeted at an individual's mind/'aura' (staff of command, etc.), and thus are more appropriately categorized with spells than with magic wands/rays. At least that's my guess...