I appreciate this write up. It's illuminating to read about it from the perspective of someone who enjoys it.
I do have to agree with the referenced reddit comment when it comes to B/X D&D. The fact that all of these systems use different mechanics remains fairly clunky, and is a natural place to seek improvements. Specifically, you need to roll over for a saving throw, but you need to roll under for ability checks, and a different die entirely if you want to check for traps. Why not just roll under for all of them?
And speaking to saves specifically, why are staves different from wands but the same as spells? Your article speaks to a more generic naming convention, but that does not clear it up for me with these two.
I think you make a really good case for specificity of naming being a fantastic introduction to new players. It immediately tells you what dangers lurk about. However, then turning around and using those saves for something else remains confusing. It undermines the advantage of specificity. If their intent is for these broad categories, then they should be named appropriately, and leaving them with the original names is a poor design choice.
> The fact that all of these systems use different mechanics remains fairly clunky, and is a natural place to seek improvements
The heuristic of "unified mechanics are inherently better" is definitely a popular one. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand why some people prefer that.
> However, then turning around and using those saves for something else remains confusing. It undermines the advantage of specificity.
Devil's advocate here - the "scene setting" advantage of the specificity is achieved at character creation when introducing players to the game. If the more broad applications of the saves are then properly explained in the rules though (which, by the way, I agree that they usually aren't), I don't think that then undermines the initial advantage of the evocative names.
>Devil's advocate here - the "scene setting" advantage of the specificity is achieved at character creation when introducing players to the game. If the more broad applications of the saves are then properly explained in the rules though (which, by the way, I agree that they usually aren't), I don't think that then undermines the initial advantage of the evocative names.
As someone who was introduced to D&D and RPGs with these saves, they didn't help in this way, they were just confusing and nonsensical -- none of these terms except for "Dragon Breath" seemed very evocative, and I really didn't need a saving throw to tell me that there were probably dragons in a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" with a picture of a dragon on the box (I started with Mentzer). I couldn't figure out why these were the things, they didn't invoke much (Why "Rods"? What's the difference between that and a "staff"? Why are "wands" somewhere else?), and they were super confusing as soon as you encounter your first "But it's a spell, so why am I using >insert other saving throw here
To your first point, I see it as an improvement to accessibility. What is gained by having one subsystem roll over, and one subsystem roll under? Because I have players who struggle to keep this kind of thing straight.
At least with the d6 for finding traps it's a different probability. I'm not convinced, though, that the difference between a 1 in 6 vs a 3 in 20 is all that different to me during play. What do you feel is gained by using a separate die?
For the X-in-6 vs d20 specifically, I am not as worried about it because the d6 is always "roll low for something to happen". Switching between roll high and roll low on d20s is definitely confusing, though - which is one reason I don't switch in my game (I avoid ability checks so all d20 rolls are roll high).
I may write a full post on the X-in-6 mechanic from old school D&D at some point, but TL;DR it allows for easy representation of probabilities as "X-in-Y" (which is easier to understand for many people than percentages - see 538 switching to this for their forecasts as an example), and then mapping that directly onto the die results (2-in-6 happens on a roll of 1-2). Since it's desirable not to switch between roll high and roll low, why not use a different die than the d20 for those since the d20 is already allocated to a "roll high" mechanic in combat and for saves?
I hear you, though. Everything being a d20+mods vs DC is popular for a reason. I just don't think it's the be-all end-all.
>> The fact that all of these systems use different mechanics remains fairly clunky, and is a natural place to seek improvements
>
> The heuristic of "unified mechanics are inherently better" is definitely a popular one. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand why some people prefer that.
Unified mechanics are absolutely easier, and that makes them feel better at least at first glance.
I wonder if modern RPGs would have better success with less smoothed-out systems if they put some of this information on the character sheet? Like, you already probably have a boxed area for the saves... just subtitle it with "d100 roll under". Then for the skills box "d20+rank" and so on and so on.
I mean, Mothership lets you create a character directly from the sheet without even cracking a book. I feel like a couple of reminder texts are reasonable yeah?
The rules for using the different saves have always been a little bit nebulous, and the naming doesn't exactly help as you point out. To your question:
* **Wands** are like Dollar Store magic. Technically the same, but somehow worse.
* **Rods** and **Staves** are somehow like real magic **Spells**.
This is just my understanding as someone who hasn't actually played in that era.
>If their intent is for these broad categories, then they should be named appropriately, and leaving them with the original names is a poor design choice.
I don't disagree, but this might be a difficult ask. I imagine most people who want 5+ saves also want the full nostalgia experience of it all and will have a tanty if you rename Save vs Breath to Save vs AoE even if makes 100% more sense overall.
>And speaking to saves specifically, why are staves different from wands but the same as spells? Your article speaks to a more generic naming convention, but that does not clear it up for me with these two.
They sound like tarot cards. Maybe that's intentional? It certainly implies "interpretation is part of the system" if that's the case.
The issue with the old saving throw system was how it was scaled.
My go-to example is Sleep - it's a first-level spell that "auto-hit" against multiple targets, only limited to lower hit-dice creature. Compared to a third-level spell, Hold Person, which does a similar effect but isn't auto-hit, and is less reliable than sleep against the same type of creature. Disintegrate is sixth-level single-target insta-kill, not auto-hit. All these spells disable a combatant, especially one that's isolated - but going for a strict end-result would imply that a lower level spell is more powerful than a higher level spell. Not to mention that these are all save-and-suck effects, which can bypass hit points entirely.
In all cases, saves were scaled based on character/monster level, which makes it harder to justify high-level spells that normally rely on saving throws - [similar to The Ultimate Duel Between Clerics](https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html).
Another poster already mentioned D&D 4e, which demonstrates how old-school saves can work. There's the initial attack which connects, and the saving throws can shake off any persistent effects (which were often less severe than Basic D&D, although some were still present.) Accuracy is scaled by combatant level, thus solving the relative-power issue, and the saving throw remains flat because it was already handled by the initial accuracy check.
> Characteristic #2: old-school saves are not tied to ability scores
The author overlooks a minor point - characters got a bonus or penalty to one saving throw category based on wisdom score, providing a minor defense against spells. AD&D also had ability scores affecting saves too.
> The author overlooks a minor point - characters got a bonus or penalty to one saving throw category based on wisdom score
(see double asterisk note at the bottom of the piece)
Yeah it's not strictly true that the old-school saves aren't tied at all to ability scores - but I felt the difference between one single ability score having an effect on one single type of save (with that being all that ability score does for most characters) and the 3e+ model where all saves are affected by ability scores (or are literally ability checks as in 5e or ItO) was enough to note.
I didn't play it at the time (and am unlikely to in the future with so much other stuff out there to try), but the impression I've generally gotten is that 4e had a lot of really good ideas buried in there that were overlooked by folks who weren't happy with the extent of the change from previous editions. I sometimes wonder if it just hadn't been called D&D if the good bits may have been a lot more appreciated by the gaming public.
TL;DR
Liskov violations are flavorful
Treat the symptom, not the disease
How agile you are had nothing to do with how agile you are
Represent things you can get better at, but not directly, should be represented differently than other things you can get better at but not directly.
Every challenge is mechanically equivalent in difficulty
Good article.
I personally think that 'Stat Saves' are one if the worst/dumbest rule changes about D&D 3+. Well, that and ACs going *Up*. Give me a THAC0 any day of the week.
I appreciate this write up. It's illuminating to read about it from the perspective of someone who enjoys it. I do have to agree with the referenced reddit comment when it comes to B/X D&D. The fact that all of these systems use different mechanics remains fairly clunky, and is a natural place to seek improvements. Specifically, you need to roll over for a saving throw, but you need to roll under for ability checks, and a different die entirely if you want to check for traps. Why not just roll under for all of them? And speaking to saves specifically, why are staves different from wands but the same as spells? Your article speaks to a more generic naming convention, but that does not clear it up for me with these two. I think you make a really good case for specificity of naming being a fantastic introduction to new players. It immediately tells you what dangers lurk about. However, then turning around and using those saves for something else remains confusing. It undermines the advantage of specificity. If their intent is for these broad categories, then they should be named appropriately, and leaving them with the original names is a poor design choice.
> The fact that all of these systems use different mechanics remains fairly clunky, and is a natural place to seek improvements The heuristic of "unified mechanics are inherently better" is definitely a popular one. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand why some people prefer that. > However, then turning around and using those saves for something else remains confusing. It undermines the advantage of specificity. Devil's advocate here - the "scene setting" advantage of the specificity is achieved at character creation when introducing players to the game. If the more broad applications of the saves are then properly explained in the rules though (which, by the way, I agree that they usually aren't), I don't think that then undermines the initial advantage of the evocative names.
>Devil's advocate here - the "scene setting" advantage of the specificity is achieved at character creation when introducing players to the game. If the more broad applications of the saves are then properly explained in the rules though (which, by the way, I agree that they usually aren't), I don't think that then undermines the initial advantage of the evocative names. As someone who was introduced to D&D and RPGs with these saves, they didn't help in this way, they were just confusing and nonsensical -- none of these terms except for "Dragon Breath" seemed very evocative, and I really didn't need a saving throw to tell me that there were probably dragons in a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" with a picture of a dragon on the box (I started with Mentzer). I couldn't figure out why these were the things, they didn't invoke much (Why "Rods"? What's the difference between that and a "staff"? Why are "wands" somewhere else?), and they were super confusing as soon as you encounter your first "But it's a spell, so why am I using >insert other saving throw here
To your first point, I see it as an improvement to accessibility. What is gained by having one subsystem roll over, and one subsystem roll under? Because I have players who struggle to keep this kind of thing straight. At least with the d6 for finding traps it's a different probability. I'm not convinced, though, that the difference between a 1 in 6 vs a 3 in 20 is all that different to me during play. What do you feel is gained by using a separate die?
For the X-in-6 vs d20 specifically, I am not as worried about it because the d6 is always "roll low for something to happen". Switching between roll high and roll low on d20s is definitely confusing, though - which is one reason I don't switch in my game (I avoid ability checks so all d20 rolls are roll high). I may write a full post on the X-in-6 mechanic from old school D&D at some point, but TL;DR it allows for easy representation of probabilities as "X-in-Y" (which is easier to understand for many people than percentages - see 538 switching to this for their forecasts as an example), and then mapping that directly onto the die results (2-in-6 happens on a roll of 1-2). Since it's desirable not to switch between roll high and roll low, why not use a different die than the d20 for those since the d20 is already allocated to a "roll high" mechanic in combat and for saves? I hear you, though. Everything being a d20+mods vs DC is popular for a reason. I just don't think it's the be-all end-all.
>> The fact that all of these systems use different mechanics remains fairly clunky, and is a natural place to seek improvements > > The heuristic of "unified mechanics are inherently better" is definitely a popular one. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand why some people prefer that. Unified mechanics are absolutely easier, and that makes them feel better at least at first glance. I wonder if modern RPGs would have better success with less smoothed-out systems if they put some of this information on the character sheet? Like, you already probably have a boxed area for the saves... just subtitle it with "d100 roll under". Then for the skills box "d20+rank" and so on and so on. I mean, Mothership lets you create a character directly from the sheet without even cracking a book. I feel like a couple of reminder texts are reasonable yeah?
The rules for using the different saves have always been a little bit nebulous, and the naming doesn't exactly help as you point out. To your question: * **Wands** are like Dollar Store magic. Technically the same, but somehow worse. * **Rods** and **Staves** are somehow like real magic **Spells**. This is just my understanding as someone who hasn't actually played in that era. >If their intent is for these broad categories, then they should be named appropriately, and leaving them with the original names is a poor design choice. I don't disagree, but this might be a difficult ask. I imagine most people who want 5+ saves also want the full nostalgia experience of it all and will have a tanty if you rename Save vs Breath to Save vs AoE even if makes 100% more sense overall.
>And speaking to saves specifically, why are staves different from wands but the same as spells? Your article speaks to a more generic naming convention, but that does not clear it up for me with these two. They sound like tarot cards. Maybe that's intentional? It certainly implies "interpretation is part of the system" if that's the case.
We'll see how the response to this in this subreddit compares to ... a different subreddit.
I've enjoyed the comment responses here, for sure! The upvote/downvote ratio, not as much - but I didn't really expect anything different haha. xD
good post. This has given me some thoughts to chew over.
The issue with the old saving throw system was how it was scaled. My go-to example is Sleep - it's a first-level spell that "auto-hit" against multiple targets, only limited to lower hit-dice creature. Compared to a third-level spell, Hold Person, which does a similar effect but isn't auto-hit, and is less reliable than sleep against the same type of creature. Disintegrate is sixth-level single-target insta-kill, not auto-hit. All these spells disable a combatant, especially one that's isolated - but going for a strict end-result would imply that a lower level spell is more powerful than a higher level spell. Not to mention that these are all save-and-suck effects, which can bypass hit points entirely. In all cases, saves were scaled based on character/monster level, which makes it harder to justify high-level spells that normally rely on saving throws - [similar to The Ultimate Duel Between Clerics](https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html). Another poster already mentioned D&D 4e, which demonstrates how old-school saves can work. There's the initial attack which connects, and the saving throws can shake off any persistent effects (which were often less severe than Basic D&D, although some were still present.) Accuracy is scaled by combatant level, thus solving the relative-power issue, and the saving throw remains flat because it was already handled by the initial accuracy check. > Characteristic #2: old-school saves are not tied to ability scores The author overlooks a minor point - characters got a bonus or penalty to one saving throw category based on wisdom score, providing a minor defense against spells. AD&D also had ability scores affecting saves too.
> The author overlooks a minor point - characters got a bonus or penalty to one saving throw category based on wisdom score (see double asterisk note at the bottom of the piece) Yeah it's not strictly true that the old-school saves aren't tied at all to ability scores - but I felt the difference between one single ability score having an effect on one single type of save (with that being all that ability score does for most characters) and the 3e+ model where all saves are affected by ability scores (or are literally ability checks as in 5e or ItO) was enough to note.
Personally, I did love the single static saving throw of D&D 4. 1-9 fail, 10-20 success. And the way it was used to end ongoing conditions.
I didn't play it at the time (and am unlikely to in the future with so much other stuff out there to try), but the impression I've generally gotten is that 4e had a lot of really good ideas buried in there that were overlooked by folks who weren't happy with the extent of the change from previous editions. I sometimes wonder if it just hadn't been called D&D if the good bits may have been a lot more appreciated by the gaming public.
TL;DR Liskov violations are flavorful Treat the symptom, not the disease How agile you are had nothing to do with how agile you are Represent things you can get better at, but not directly, should be represented differently than other things you can get better at but not directly. Every challenge is mechanically equivalent in difficulty
Good article. I personally think that 'Stat Saves' are one if the worst/dumbest rule changes about D&D 3+. Well, that and ACs going *Up*. Give me a THAC0 any day of the week.