A disputed saving throw

Recently in a PbP game I run (house ruled Classic D&D), this situation happened.

Context:
The player in question is no stranger to older editions of D&D. He's been playing longer than I have (says he started in '79), and he's played most editions of the game although he mostly plays 5E now.

The game is set in my megadungeon.

To speed up PbP gaming, and to get a bit of rivalry/competition like I read about in the old days, each player runs their own party through the dungeon.

I make no bones about it being deadly. Only one person who signed up to play the game has managed not to lose a character, and that's because he quit as soon as he had his first encounter.

The Situation:
The player in question has his party (all still level 1, with 2 hirelings) exploring the ruins above the dungeon. There's a tower in part of the wall that opens up on two different courtyards at different elevations (it's a hilltop castle ruin with a sprawling dungeon beneath it). The party was at the middle level but didn't know that.

The party thief examines the door for traps, listens and hears nothing.

The player then says that his two fighters "barge into the room" and that the NPC hireling "is on their heels." This is even though, as I said, they heard no sounds from inside and had no reason to expect a creature inside. But if there was one, I guess they were hoping to surprise it.

What was really inside was a 3' wide landing (with no railing...it's a 400 year old castle ruin!) and a 20' drop.

My Ruling: 
If this were real life, there would be a good chance that they would not be able to halt their movement and plunge over the side. But I'm usually generous about these kinds of things. The clincher was that the player said the NPC was "on their heels."

If three dudes are charging through a doorway and there's only about 1 or 2 steps they can take inside before they fall, it seems logical to me that the third guy in would crash into the first two who had just managed to stop short. So I gave them all saving throws with a +2 bonus. Seemed fair to me.

The Result:
One Fighter made his save. The other failed. The NPC hireling failed. The PC was uninjured (9hp), but when I rolled 2d6, of course I got a 9! 0 is dead in this game. The NPC had 4hp and I rolled a 6. Also dead!

The Controversy:
Now I'm OK with how I ruled this situation. It's comical and sad that the fates did this. And it's not the first time this player has lost a PC. It's the third time. But he was apparently surprised and a bit upset at how the situation had unfolded.

My Take:
But really, he could have phrased his PCs' entrance to the tower in so many different ways that wouldn't have required the PCs to make saves to avoid falling. If he'd just said "We open the door," then I would have described the landing inside. He was careless in his orders IMO. And since this is Play-by-Post gaming, he had all the time he could want to decide how to phrase his post.

He seems to feel that I was setting up a "gotcha" moment, and not treating his characters as if they had any common sense. Well, I do make a lot of assumptions for the players in this game. I assume that thieves will be checking for traps when time allows. I assume that everyone in the party is trying to be as quiet as possible unless the player says otherwise. I try to assume competence on the part of the PCs. But in this case, I think an assumption of competence doesn't come into the picture.

Or maybe it's just that I'm a "Mel Brooks" sort of DM. He called it a Three Stooges moment. Either way, it's slapstick. And I'm fine with that. I guess he isn't.

He's not too terribly upset, though. He's still in the game, and rolled up a new Dwarf Fighter to replace the Human Fighter he lost.

A Solution to my Conversion Problem?

So my last post, about how the blogosphere seems to be picking back up again, got me thinking about old posts. I've never been the most popular blogger in the OSR. Don't really care to be either. JMal dropped Grognardia because of the flack he took for being the most popular guy around. Well, that and the kickstarter fiasco. Anyway, I'm happy to keep my head down and just plug along. Which is why a post that gets more than 2~3 comments for me is a success.

Anyway, scrolling down my list of posts, I saw this one from a year and a half ago discussing the exact same topic I'm on now -- conversion of the West Marches to Classic D&D.

And it has lots of comments.

Among them, FrDave commented that he lets the players run 5E PCs but he uses Labyrinth Lord for everything on his side of the screen.

I already use a few old school systems in my game. XP for GP. 2d6 Morale checks. 2d6 Reaction Roll checks. I randomly flip between 5E and BECMI treasure tables for loot and magic items.

FrDave mentioned that he gave monsters maximum hit points. Even then, though, 5E monsters have a lot more. A max HP goblin in BECMI has 7 hit points. In 5E, that's the average, the max is 12. A BECMI gnoll has a maximum 16 hit points. In 5E, the average is 22, maximum 40. That's not so different, since I tend to use the averages instead of rolling to save time.

However, when we get to even slightly bigger monsters, it gets stranger. An ogre in BECMI has a max of 33hp, while in 5E its average is 59 and maximum is 91. A gorgon has a max of 64hp in BECMI but an average of 114hp and a max of 164hp.

And of course, it's all about the dragons, really, so let's compare.

A small white dragon (6HD) could have 48hp, but the rules say you can give plus or minus 3, so one with 3HD could only have 24hp and one with 9HD could have 72 hit points. If we use the Masters Set/RC, a huge white dragon (12HD but let's bump it up to 15) could have a max of 120. In 5E, a wyrmling white has average 32hp, maximum 50. The young white has an average of 133, and a maximum of 196. We're at the second age category and already the average hp is higher than the very tip top maximum for a white dragon in BECMI. To make a long story short, the 5E adult white has an average of 200/maximum 288hp, while the ancient white has an average of 333/maximum 504hp.

So at low levels, using 5E PCs with Classic D&D behind the screen might work out alright, it's not suitable to long-term campaigns, unless you like the high level PCs mowing their way easily through flights of dragons and squads of giants the way mid-level PCs go through orcs in older editions.

Still, there's an appeal to doing this. Let the players have their 5E PHBs with their tieflings and eldritch knights and skills and feats and more damage dealing spells than you can shake a stick at. Let me use simple, elegant rules behind the screen.

There's one more hitch, though, which I mentioned to FrDave in that thread and he gave a sort of vague answer. That's saving throws. 5E has you roll d20+ability score to roll over a target number. Old school just has you roll d20 vs a target number that changes as you level up.

So even if I use BECMI or LL behind the screen, players making saving throws are going to want to know the DC to beat. When they cast spells, they expect me to have to roll vs their character's DC. As 5E characters get higher in level, and they boost their stats and proficiency bonus, the DC monsters need to beat goes up. But in BECMI, high HD monsters' saves go down. So if the monster only needs a 5 or better to save by BECMI, but needs a 10 or better to save in 5E, it's not really fair, is it? Lots of spell effects will get saved against.

And the spell effects are different. BECMI sleep spell has no save. 5E lets you roll a save every round. A 5E fireball spell's damage is keyed to the spell slot level used to cast it. A BECMI fireball is keyed to the level/HD of the caster. A 12HD monster can cast fireball for 12d6 damage as a 3rd level spell, while a 5E wizard would need to use a 7th level spell slot to get it to do 12d6 damage (or is it 12d8 in 5E? If so, it's still a 4th level spell slot to get roughly equivalent damage instead of a 3rd).

OK, I started this post out thinking I'd found a workable solution. Now I've convinced myself it's not so workable after all. Or at least at low levels it would be workable enough, but just enough hassle that I might as well stick to the full conversion to my house-ruled Classic D&D system. 100%

Save vs. Suck

I'm on about saving throws again tonight.  And why not?  Previous posts about saves seem to have been popular, or at least generated good discussions with people (links later).

Jeremy sent me a few links to potential products I might want to use when running a Gamma World game, and suggested I try Swords & Wizardry with a .pdf of random mutation tables.  And really, I didn't even consider it enough to look at the .pdf (which may be cool, if it has mutations beyond the GW/MF lists) because of how saving throws are handled in S&W. 

I really don't like the single save.  If you're going to have saving throws, IMO (and JB gives some good reasons why you might want to ditch them -- link to final post in series, with internal links to all the posts), I feel having different saves versus different types of situations is preferable. 

As I mentioned in this post which inspired JB's series, saves can be evocative and help focus players' imaginations on what's going on in the shared fiction of the game.  The categories are random and not necessarily well thought out.  They may not even make sense.

This is a Save vs. Wands.  There is a different Save vs. Spells. That does not make sense.

They do make for interesting moments in game play.  Where everyone sits up, puts down their smart phones or the Doritos, and takes notice as the DM says, "Alright, save vs. death ray."  Suddenly, everyone's paying attention because there's actually a death ray involved in the game!  And they could be next! 

S&W loses me because while I suppose you can say "Save vs. death ray" while playing, there's no need (unless one class has a bonus against death rays, but I don't remember seeing that).  You can just say, "Make a saving throw."

WotC's versions of the game also lose me with saves because (as I mentioned in the post linked above from last month) they focus on the PC and how you resist whatever effect it is, rather than on the effect.  I know a lot of gamers like that, and maybe it's because I'm not so egotistical, but I don't need the focus to be on me when I'm hit by a special attack. That makes it a not-so-special attack if it's all about me, right? 

Old school D&D sets the target number by my class/level, so I'm still in the equation although the focus is on the source of the attack, but newer D&D versions reverse that.  The special attack's source sets the target number (and can then be forgotten unless you fail the save), and then the focus is on me and how quick/tough/resilient I am as the dice are rolled.  This is not necessarily terrible, but the math screws it up. 

3E/5E D&D isn't so bad, when the saves aren't screwing it up.

4E...um, they don't really have saves.  Monsters get to attack different armor classes based on the 3E saves, with a generic "death save" that 5E retains and is sort of pointlessly bland.  So we'll just skip that.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying the old school five saves with arbitrary categories are the only way to do it, or that I'll only play a game with those types of saves.  But if I have a choice (say, between the Labyrinth Lord-based Mutant Future and Swords & Wizardry with mutations bolted on), I'll choose the variety of save types.  Because they may not make sense, they may be arbitrary, but they add flavor (and the math works).

Jesus saves! You suckers take full damage.

Thinking about saving throws.  And about a lot of the "saving throw hate" I've read on various forums (and rarely, blogs) in the past.

Mostly this stems from me looking over the save system in 5E (the Basic .pdf, the PHB has been ordered from the States but I'm not expecting it for another week).

For those who haven't checked it out, the new game uses the six ability scores as saving throws.  Roll d20 plus/minus your ability modifier, plus your proficiency bonus if it's a save you're proficient in.  Beat a target number, you pass the save.

I see some potentially big problems in that.  Now, with the bounded accuracy theory of design, this first one may not be so bad - most saves don't really improve with level.  Since they are tied to ability bonuses, which do increase every few levels, there is some improvement.  But you don't get a bonus to every score, only +2 in one score or +1 in two scores every four levels or so.  And most players are probably going to be pumping those increases into the prime abilities for their character at first, which are probably the ones already increasing because of the proficiency bonus.  The other saves will remain as poor at level 20 as they were at level 1.

Also, the Basic .pdf lists some things that can be trained in to gain proficiency, like tool use, weapons, armor and languages.  Saving throws are not listed.  I could see a DM house-ruling it (or maybe it's in the PHB, or will be an option in the DMG?), but it's not RAW.

So that's a potential weak point of the new game.  I'll need to examine some of the save DCs though to see if it's a big problem or merely an annoyance.  But it's kinda lame that the Fighter will almost never improve Wis/Int/Cha saves, or the Wizard in Str/Cha saves, or the Cleric in Dex/Int saves, etc.

I have read plenty of gamers extoll the 3E system of Fort/Ref/Will saves as being very logical.  The focus of the system is (like in the 5E ability score saves above) on YOU and how YOU negate the special attack.  It does have a sound logic to it, but it's also lacking in flavor at the game table.  You don't even need to think about what it is you're saving against, just your bonus to the die roll to resist whatever bad thing is happening.  Plus, high level DCs just get crazy, and unless you're focusing lots of your char-build into saves (or playing a Monk) you're gonna get burned because the DCs go up at the same rate or better than your save bonuses.

There's a lot of hate out there for the old school system, with it's arbitrary save categories.  But the math is solid, and the system has a more external focus that I think serves the game.  First of all, the math.  Old school characters just GET BETTER at saves.  Across the board, every few levels.  And while everyone sorta sucks against dragon breath or spells, there are varying levels of ability against other forms of attack (and Fighters get a boost against that old dragon breath even).  The BX/BECMI 1st level Cleric has a 50/50 chance to save against Death Ray/Poison.  Even their worst save, against dragon's breath weapons, has a 25% chance to succeed (although at that level, with those hit points, a successful save will still probably kill you...). 

All saves increase at every 3, 4 or 5 levels.  Fighters get the boost every 3 (when Thac0 also increases), but Clerics and Thieves get it every 4 levels, and have lower XP requirements, meaning they can keep up at first.  Magic-Users get stuck with advancement every 5 levels and the most expensive levels (of the human classes), but that's kind of the point of the class, right?  AWESOME COSMIC POWERS!  Itty bitty living space (or make that chances to live to next level). 

In 2E, Fighters get a definite boost in that they gain every 2 levels, IIRC.  But even the poor M-U, if he or she survives to mid to high levels, ends up with good chances to save versus most special attacks.  And that's a good thing! 

It also means that monsters get really good at saving at high HD, so all those awesome "save or die" spells of the M-U become gambles.  In 3E, you just need to target a creature's weak save with the proper save or die effect for a good chance for it to succeed.  In Classic or AD&D, you may end up wasting several spells before one sticks.  Those "overpowered" M-Us aren't necessarily dominating every combat the way some claim.

But let's move on to my other claim.  Old school saves are definitely arbitrary and illogical in their groupings and possibly their assignment of which classes are good at which and poor at others.  I won't argue that point.  But the saves are based on the attack you're trying to defend against.  That's a huge thing in play. 

When the DM calls for you to make a Save vs. Petrification, everyone at the table is likely to stop and listen, and pay attention to that roll.  A Fort Save?  Maybe, maybe not.  The thing is, the DM can call for a Fort, Ref or Will save at any time, and it doesn't give the players much to sink their imagination-teeth into.  Those arbitrary categories give description and focus the play on the effect happening IN THE GAME WORLD rather than on the numbers on the character sheet (although those do get referenced too, of course). 

This is also the reason I'm not fond of Swords & Wizardry's single save.  It's too generic, and with each class/race getting bonuses to certain arbitrary save types, there might as well be the whole old school system in place. 

So, in the end, if I do end up playing 5E a lot, and running the game ever, saving throws are one area I'm likely to come up with some house-rules.

Luck stats?

Some people house rule in a seventh "Luck" ability score to the classic six in D&D.  Some games include Luck as one of the options.

But D&D, as published, has always had luck scores for PCs. 

They're called Saving Throws.

That's all.

Hypothesis: Why some players really fear Save or Die

Hypothesis: Newer gamers tend to dislike, distrust, and complain about Save or Die effects, while older gamers brought up with the math of TSR editions don't mind them so much, because of the math behind saves in d20 D&D vs. TSR D&D.

Probably not a new insight, as the numbers have been out there for anyone to look at for 12 years now, but I've taken a hard look at some of those numbers in the game for the first time myself.  Boring, but oh well.  It sheds some light on the recent discussions revolving around Mike Mearls' posts about Save or Die threats in D&D.

I've mentioned this phenomenon before.  In old school D&D, as characters gain levels, they only get better and better at making saving throws.  This is because the save numbers are a function of class and level and are divorced from the threat that forces the save.  It doesn't matter if it's a weak ass Giant Centipede or a huge honking Nightwalker that forces you to Save vs. Poison.  You've got the same chance against either.  And as you get into the mid-to-high levels, you can be pretty confident that the odds are on your side (although never completely worry free).

In new school (d20) D&D, your save bonuses increase as you level, but so do many of the save DCs that you nee to hit to make that save.  So by the time you're 5th level, you can easily save against the Giant Centipede (but likely won't encounter any) but have about as tough a time saving against the Giant Scorpion's venom as you had against the Centipede's at level 1.  And by the time you're level 17 and facing Nightwalkers, you actually probably have a worse chance to save than you did against the lesser foes, unless you've optimized your magic item purchases/feats/multiclassing to boost your Fortitude save.

Let's compare the percentage chance to save of a Fighter in BX (Moldvay/Cook) D&D, where he maxes out at 14th level, a Fighter in BECMI (Mentzer) D&D up to level 20 (maxes out at level 36 with a 95% chance to make any save), and a 3.0/3.5 D&D Fighter.  Now, these are not hard numbers where the d20 system is concerned, because stat bonuses, feats, and common magic items can boost saves.  Of course, in Classic D&D it's not that hard to find rings of protection or other devices that boost saves, too.  Also, as noted above, there's no set number against which to save in d20 D&D.  The threat is relative to the power of the source of the attack.  At 20th level, a Fighter may only face a DC 25 spell-like ability from a Balor, or a DC 40 breath attack of a Great Wyrm Red Dragon.

Here's a chart.  Click to enlarge.

 What does this tell us?  That devoid of any magic items at all, the Classic Fighter just gets better and better at making saving throws.  They start off worse in most areas, but improve over time.

If you play a Fighter up from 1st level to the "sweet spot" 4-8 range, you notice you're getting better and better odds to avoid poisons, spells, petrification, and dragon breath.  No, you're not invincible, but there is improvement.  Throw in a ring of protection or a displacer cloak, and you can be fairly confident as a player that the odds are on your side.

What about the d20 Fighter*?  well, you start out fairly good against poison or other body-affecting attacks, and decent against others.  It's likely as a Fighter you'll have a bit of a bonus to Con and maybe even Dex, improving the Fort and Ref saves.  Wisdom?  Not likely, so your Will save is gonna be right where it is (because you're not gonna take Iron Will as a feat over Power Attack or Weapon Focus, now, are you?).

As the player advances, though, the DCs quickly outpace the by-the-book bonuses to saves.  Meaning the player had better invest in lots of cloaks of resistance, stat-boosting items, and maybe spend one or two of those feat slots on Lightning Reflexes and/or Iron Will.  If you don't have all of that stuff, there's not much chance you're gonna be making any saves against Fireballs or Confusion spells up in the mid-to-high levels.  And remember, the numbers I'm using above assume low stat bonuses, so even with the magic item Christmas Tree effect, high level saves are hard to make.

So what do players who've been brought up on 3E and later games learn?  That Save or Die effects suck, ESPECIALLY at higher levels, because their character is more than likely going to fail that save.  Old Schoolers, and those who've been introduced to RPGs through the clones/simulacrums, learn that you've got less to fear from that dragon's breath (unless it's one of Frank's Large or Huge dragons!) when you're name level, and if you play into the Companion/Masters levels, you've got little to fear from any sort of special attack.

This is something that should be addressed in the discussions involving 5E, I think.




*Any class, actually, as they use the same progressions for all classes, with the Monk having good progression in all 3, a couple classes good progression in two areas, and most having good progression in only one Save category.

Taoist Element Saving Throws

Just a little more thought on the Taoist (Daoist) Motions, commonly called Elements for use as saving throw types for Flying Swordsmen.

Wood (Yang) - Generative: strength, flexibility, cooperation, growth, life

Fire (Yang) - Expansive: dynamism, persistence, heat, agression

Earth (balance) - Stabilizing: stability, conservation, empathy, harmony

Metal (Yin) - Contracting: rigidity, control, materialism, transformation

Water (Yin) - Conserving: stillness, intelligence, softness, fear/calm

So how to best use this in an RPG context, specifically a D&D-based context?  First was deciding which element to replace each traditional save category.  That was fairly easy.

Death/Poison/Paralysis is now Wood.  Your vitality/life force counteracts these negative forces.

Magic Wands is now Water.  This one ended up actually by default, but since there aren't magic wands in the game, there wasn't really anything for this save to do, besides 'unofficial uses' like saves vs. traps and stuff.  And in that context, your stillness/calm can save you from getting decapitated by the spinning blades or from plunging feet first into a pit trap, so it sorta makes sense.

Petrification/Polymorph is now Metal.  Your affinity for Metal prevents you from being transformed to another shape/substance against your will.

Dragon Breath is now Fire.  Your dynamic nature and persistence allow you to avoid or resist area attacks and heat (and come on, despite there being 5 basic types of dragon breath, don't we usually imagine a fiery blast of dragon breath by default?  I know I do.)

Spells is now Earth.  Your stability and harmony with nature, not to mention balance of Yin/Yang, becomes the default save vs. magic without any type, and against many unusual monster attacks.

How they work in play:

First of all, if a spell has an element type listed, use that element to save.  Second, all spells are labeled as Yin, Yang, or Chi.  If there's no element to override Yin/Yang association, use the better Yin or Yang value for your class.  Chi spells only have one save to use, Earth.

Now to tinker with the numbers for the classes.  Traditionally, every class in D&D is best at saving against Death/Poison, and worst against either Spells or Dragon Breath.  That will be changed.  I'm currently thinking about which element to assign as best to each of the 4 classes.  Here's the best I've got so far:

Fighter: strongest in Wood.  High hit points, lots of vitality and strength.

Wizard: strongest in Metal.  Control and transformation being the key points of magic, this seems to fit to me.

Shaman: strongest in Water.  Stillness and conservation seem to fit the image of the Shaman/Cleric.

Thief: strongest in Fire.  The image of the Thief is one of action and motion contrasted with patience and perseverance. 

I may also consider using Earth for the Shaman and then Water for the Wizard, but I kinda like the idea of keeping Earth as the default "everyone sucks at this, and any attack that doesn't fall into another category goes here" save, like traditional Save vs. Spells.  So I'm probably going to go with the above.

Now, the final question I'll have to decide.  Once the 'best' save is set, do I order the other saves by the generative motion (circle in the image above) or the opposition motion (star in the image above)?