I’ve had a couple of comments raising the issue of my reference to 4th edition not having Saving Throws. So, this is just to state that my angle was that 4e deviated far enough away from how the Saving Throw is typically used in other editions to be very different. I realise there is reference to Saving Throws in the 4th edition PHB, but this is to end an effect, not to avoid an effect in the first place: in other words, to save oneself from an effect. Happy to be corrected again! 4e is not my strength. 😊
This is correct, effects were applied via an attack roll vs a defence (AC, Fort, Reflex, or Will which took the place of what earlier editions considered saves) then saves were used to end the effect. The most creative modification was the concept of the "after effect" so an effect might paralyze your character and once you saved to escape the paralysis an after effect might be "slow" so you were slow until you saved against that effect also.
Dolmenwood has modernized the saving throws in the right way: Doom, Ray, Hold, Blast and Spells... the same system but with much more evocative titles.
0:54 oh now you're making me really feel old. GenX! Actually it's really funny a co-worker and I were talking just this morning about how Lord of the Rings came out just over 20 years ago now in the movies... And you know what as a middle-aged adult, it doesn't feel like it's been 20 years 😀.
The best "in-world" justification for why wands have their own easier save compared to spells is that the need to physically point the wand at whatever you want to affect makes their projectiles easier to dodge. With a spell, the caster's gestures and words might not make their intended targets as obvious. But that might just be speculation I've run across online and not the "real" reason at all.
I love 'em. They're flavorful (intimidating, even) and traditional, a vital link to the roots of the hobby. And they *work*. No need to mess with what works.
Excellent video, sir. I do not use Saving Throws and mostly for reasons outlined here. LOL I'm glad you were able to objectively and succinctly explain them.
I actually find myself really liking that ability scores matter very differently compared to later editions. I love that saves are largely affected by level, and secondarily (if at all) by ability score. It always seemed obvious to me that experience would be the major factor in dealing with dragon breaths and looking at medusas.
Yes! This is why you can play a seemingly subpar character when it comes to ability scores. Because they don't seed themselves into literally every aspect of the game.
I think the wand saving throws exist to make wands less powerful than spells. A quick glance at some saving throws for some of the classes I noticed the wands seem to be easier to save against vs. a spell. Thats how I interpet it anyhow. Thanks for yet another informative video.
Separate comment for wands. I remember hearing some described as wands being made intentionally weaker than proper spells. Where as staves rivaled the caster being right there. It was a way to make wands a cheaper resource than staves or a spellcaster from what understanding I have. Admittedly My experience with the old school is quite limited.
Exactly, because wands tended to have more charges than rods or staffs, and more than a magic-user's spell slots, so the spells needed to be "weakened" a bit because once a magic user got a wand it would be used much more often. It was abit of a balancing mechanism.
I always felt that Saving Throws are very specific in pre-WotC D&D. One of the very few things I liked "a priori" in D&D3.x was the 3 categories of Saving Throws: Fortitude, Reflex and Will . Just 3 "generic" categories, with their progress tables per class. This is what I aimed for back then. Today, I'm happy to know about this optional rule that links Attributes to Saving Throws in BECMI/RC :)
In our BECMI campaign, we house-ruled the saving throws so that for all human classes, they improve 1 point every 2 levels, rather than 2 points every 3-5 levels. And once they hit 6, they slow down more. Since we are also using the limitless demihumans, I rewrote their saving throws as well, although I kept the starting point the same. Admittedly, since we are probably not getting much past the low-teens (assuming we get that far), this change probably doesn't matter too much. While I allow a CON bonus for poison, I am keeping WIS for all spells, and not giving ability score bonuses for anything else at the moment. STR, INT, and DEX are already important enough, especially since we are using the General Skills, too. House-ruled to my liking, of course.
I've always understood the Saving Throw categories as such: Death Ray / Poison: (Anything that can instantly kill you.) Wands: (Any Magic item) Paralysis or Turn to Stone: (Anything that puts you at the mercy of the other side) Dragon Breath: (Any signature magical creature attack) Rod Staff Spell: Spells and any channeled wizard magic item. If it crosses over both, and the saving throw isn't specified, use the more dangerous saving throw.
I also remember house ruling a point where if you are hit by the same effect and it would have put you out of the game (Not just damage) a successful save gave you very temporary immunity (a few rounds to a few minutes, usually a combat) to the exact same effect from a source of same or lower power.
From what I understand originally the save vs Wands was also Staves and Rods. The idea was the save was vs leveled magical devices that you could dive out if the way of. Also a minor clarification 4e does have saving throws, well just one actually. Most ongoing effects in 4e were tracked as (save ends) meaning that at the end of your turn you make a save (by default a roll of 10+ on a d20) to check and see if the effected ended. I remember one time my sister's character was dazed (save ends) for 8 turns in a row! We sang a song about the dazed (save ends) blues. So 4e does have a saving throw, but it's more a randomized duration determinor than a check to avoid effect altogether since the attacker always rolls to hit in 4e.
Originally? Not really. The first 1974 D&D release also put wands in their own category and every other TSR version branded D&D kept it that way. AD&D, on the other hand, did roll staffs and rods into the wand save.
I've really like the version of saves presented in worlds without number. Which is a decent union of how saves worked in old school in that ot was about your characters ability to defend against certain harm, but was grouped somewhat like the third edition wirh physical, evasion, and mental instead of fortitude, reflex, and evasion. It also has a luck save for times when it just pure luck the character relies on. The saves are calculated by subtracting your level (1 to 10) and your relent ability score modifier from 16. Which you give you the target number you need to meet or beat to make your save. I found it to be quite elegant mix of old and new. I love how saves were all about your characters ability to defend against certain threats in old school. I do admittedly like the three save groping of 3e and 4e a fair bit. So this offers my personal best of both worlds.
I like simple, module systems that can be generalized across as many situations as possible. That means I like the OG save table being linked to class and level; but I like the newer saves being more unified and clearer to use in play. I also think three is the right number of saves. What I dislike about the newer save style is that they are dependent upon ability scores as well as class and level. It gives more weight to having good stats, which is something I try to avoid in general.
I started with 2nd edition in 1999 when I was around 13. So I got to use all of the old school Saving Throws. I didn't start playing 3.0/3.5 until like 2008 or 2009 maybe. Rolling above seems like a good mechanic, doesn't it? But, so does rolling under. So many good options!
The way it was explained to me is that it's a similar mindset to whether Pistols should be lumped with Carbines and Rifles. If you do the research and look across the internet and its many corners you'll find many explanations, but this one helped me understand (and resultingly disregard) the idea of Saving Throws.
If you look at the saving throw chart you'll notice that Save vs Wands is always slightly easier than Save vs Spell/Staff/Rod. This implies that wand charges are slightly weaker than spells and staff/rod casting. Wands are like spell pistols if you will. At least that's my interpretation.
Anyone know the contact email for Dave Boggs? He's the person to ask. Or maybe Greg Svenson if he still comes to conventions. There have been some long running flame wars about whether Dave Arneson or Tony Bath or Dan Nichols invented saving throws, ability scores, and character sheets. In the "Beyond this point be dragons" aka "Dullahn Manuscript" pre-publication draft of OD&D wands are already broken out separately from the others, so the split has to have happened sometime between 1966 and 1972. Beyond that, I haven't found any reliable evidence. Lucy Blumire in 2020 posted a take where she believes the split is that wands are aimed at their target, whereas with rods, staves, and spells it isn't obvious who the target is. But she doesn't have any evidence she just says that's how she does it and what she recommends for DMs. Her article is titled "which saving through should I use" and should be easy to find (If I put a link in a comment youtube delets my comment every time). In D&D specifically, Dave Arneson first used Saving Throws back before the OD&D set was published, in his earliest experiments with solo character gameplay. Originally characters died as soon as they got hit one time, but hero and superhero tier characters could save to avoid being killed, whereas flunkies just died. This is because the game grew out of wargames where each soldier has 1 hp. Pretty quickly the players mentioned that without whole units (though to be fair, the 6 players took 30 men at arms with them on the very first adventure into the dungeon below Castle Blackmoor) this didn't work. So Dave modified rules for ablative armor from his and Gary's ironclad battleship game which became what we call hit points today. Saves got moved to other areas, mostly rolled on 2d6 which was his favorite mechanic for rolling anything, mostly for stuff like getting your mind assaulted by a magic sword, sometimes for skills. And this is where the arguments come in, with perhaps my favorite one being ""Do you think Dan Nicholson would have been expected to roll a save vs King Kurt of Spain's wife's Health score, every time she popped out another kid, to see if she would have died in childbirth? He would have to have rolled in front of Arneson, as he was the referee." lol Most of what I've read credits Gary with applying specific stats to different categories, after Dave came up with the categories. I've seen people also say that the categories came from Chainmail mostly, and others say it was a third-party modification for Chainmail. But if you look at the pictures of the very oldest character sheets (Pete's and Greg's for example are some of the oldest that still exist), pre-publication, they don't have anything like saves, just skills and stats (which are not the same as the published OD&D stats). It's a question I've spent rather a lot of time looking into but it doesn't seem like the answer has survived.
Excellent Video. I love most things about old school D&D, but I really do not like the saving throws. The 3.0 Revised Fortification/Reflex/Will was a huge improvement and nothing I've seen has yet beat it. Having them modified the ability stats makes a lot of sense as does progression being related to the class. It never made sense to me that a spell effect from a wand would have a different save from that of a staff or direct from a magic user. Interesting that the Rules Cyclopedia included a similar system (pasted on top of a system that wasn't particularly sensible). It seems that the 3.0e Saving throws is a streamlined, efficient and rational system--a refinement of the BECMI optional modifier system.
I'm not 23 either, and seeing the old style array is always gonna tickle me. One thing I never fully got on with though, was the Save or Die mechanic. I know that life is cheap and death is always around the corner for low level adventurers (last Keep on the Borderlands campaign I had 9 characters over 8 sessions) but the arbitrary "you touched The Thing therefore you die" approach never felt right. I've been toying with the idea of taking an amount of d6 damage instead, either based on the HD of the poisoning thing or some other mechanism TBD. Enough dice that there's a chance of death, but also a chance of survival. I haven't used it in anger yet, and I'm still working on the notion. Just some food for thought.
Well, save vs. poison or die is slightly misleading. A Neutralize Poison spell will still save you if cast within... I think a turn? And anyway, in BECMI, you can Raise Dead all you want. There's no reduction in constitution or loss of experience. That said, i agree entirely with 'touch the thing and die' being rather annoying. There should be clues, or at the very least foreshadowing.
Higher level characters do have mitigations, I'll grant. For me, it leads to a reluctance to interact with anything even slightly suspicious. A friend ran Dungeon Crawl Classics some years ago and I remember, because I was enjoying the character I'd ended up with, refusing to engage with several things (a chalice on an island in a river springs to mind) in the scenario because I suspected I would die on a bad roll
The names for those saving throws seem to have stuck from their original use, as opposed to *how* the character is performing the save. If you boil them down, they seem to be applied as such: Death Ray or Poison -> Save vs. Death Effect. Magic Wands -> Save vs. Ranged Effect. Paralysis or Turn to Stone -> Save vs. Restraining Effect. Dragon's Breath -> Save vs. Area Effect. Rod, Staff or Spell -> Save vs. Magic Effect. It shouldn't be that hard to rename them to something more descriptive if you're homebrewing something, but at the same time the slight "clunk" of the traditional names does carry a certain special charm. That's something D&D lost in the transition to d20 and then even more so in 5e: the theme of the game wasn't really baked into the rules quite as much anymore.
My homebrew uses 2nd edition style saves but with 3e save categories with relevant stat mods reducing the save number. Things that are easy to save against give you a bonus to your roll, things that are hard to save against give you a penalty to your roll, like how AC effects Thac0.
I'll start by saying I grew up playing 3.5. I found it's saving throw system to be acceptable. I don't care much for 5e's ability-checks for saving throws, as you'd only get marginally better in two of the six as you increase in level. BECMI, AD&D, and the various clones thereof I find to do saving throws much better, even if you don't use variant rules for adding ability bonuses (if applicable).
It does feel a little bad in 5e that you rarely get to have more than two good saves. For what it's worth, though, I think that's intentional, to ensure that most PCs will have some weaknesses and that different classes will complement each other by being good at resisting different things.
Oh, I am used to OSE and 2E, so probably this is not really aimed at me. I thought this would have been something quirky specific to BECMI. Still, I'll watch the whole thing. Maybe I'll be surprised.
I loved BECMI and AD&D, but their saving throws categories always felt a bit strange and improvised to me. When 3rd edition came out, I found the three category saves to make a lot more sense: they represent avoidance or resistance of an unusual effect, with resistance being either physical or mental. They also tried to solve another issue of the old school saves, that is their absolute independence from the source of the attack to be saved against. The breath of a hatchling dragon and the one from a great wyrm were saved with the same target score. The same happened with spells from wizards of different levels or poisons of different strength. They were only partially successful in solving that, though. The kind of saves in 5e were actually first introduced in the 70's in the Tunnels & Trolls system. Each base stat of that game could be used for a saving throw, which were not used only to avoid unusual dangers, but also to achieve some particular results through active actions of the character.
First: great video. Second: I feel like the only reason i love seeing the words "Save vs Wands" etc on a sheet is nostalgia😂. The 5th edition has many faults but it definitely streamlined this aspect and it is more "elegant". But man...there is something about these terms that makes me want to delve dungeons. Maybe the old ways were janky, but they were evocative. If i could convince my group to return...
I started in 3rd edition, where there were only three saving throws. It made sense to us, with the previous editions' saves feeling limited in scope and possibly coming from tabletop wargames, where these were the only effects present.
I remember trying 3rd edition and being happy with the presentation of the saving throws. I know that might count as blasphemy coming from me. 🙂 Thanks for commenting!
The BECMI variant saving throws seems like the right way to go. No idea who had the terrible idea to make paralysis and petrification a constitution saving throw (which they generally are in 5e), strength seems much more apt in my opinion
I personally prefer the 3.x names of "Fortitude", "Reflex", and "Will", in large part because I grew up with them - but your reason of "evocative names" works well too. I would, however, take a leaf from 4e's book and allow _two_ Ability Mods to potentially affect a save, instead of just one - though I'd also put Wis to Reflex saves instead of Int, the way 4e did, and use Int and Cha for Will saves. Thoughts?
As far as wands vs rods/staves/spells... I always just interpreted it as wands were relatively weak magic items. That's why the saves are easier. Now, how that ties into Dexterity, I have no idea.
essentially the five categories were more ingame terms for a set of more broader but less evocative terms... remember early dungeon and dragons delighted in coining almost every game term as something people would find or say ingame.. like levels as specific terms.. apprentice.. mage.. wizard.. sorcerer.. etc. therefore, at least as my DM back in the days when he introduced me to the game in '84 he explained these categories as follows: poison & death ray : bodily resistance, fitness and the bodily ability to cling to life magic wands : dodging out of the way of directed attacks paralysis & petrification : bodily and mentally ability to superside shock and magical effects that changes your physical body dragon breath : dodging for cover or reducing area effects rod, staff or wand : any magical effect, that is not fall conceivably under any of the above, i.e. mind control, illusion, etc. that means, as it was almost always the case, there was no fixed allocation for a saving throw. for example, fireball would fall very well under dragon breath, whereas lightning bolt could be argued to be saved by magic wand... finger of death, though a spell, would be death ray... and depending of the kind of illusion this could fit for any of the categories.... By the same reasoning.. attribute modifiers could be added to one saving throw versus spells for some hazards and for other hazards other or even none attribute might apply. I feel, BECMI stats were much more a kind of example wording than a phrasing of exact rules phrasing as in paragraph of law. which, in my mind, is the main difference between BECMI and 5e. 5e is - still - trying for a tight fitting simulation rules set (or at least the main player audiance is), while the BECMI rules were more like an examplifaction for players and game masters who to rule things or what to expect.
I think the old system has more character (just like I think Imperial measurements have more character than metric, but I digress). They also allow for more narrative room. YMMV. IMO.
Just a homebrew idea: What if Charisma helped vs Death Ray? Idea being that a persons Force of Personality/Assured Sense of Place-in-the-World is so strong that Death Magic trying to work them over has to work even harder. Love to hear others ideas on this.
I'm biased toward 3rd edition in general (probably because I spent the most time playing it in my youth) but I personally prefer that save system. Admittedly it can get a but too convoluted at times.
The original saving throw matrices just seemed so arbitrary to me. I liked how they broke into three general categories tied to ability scores in 3rd edition/1e Pathfinder. I believe 5e is similar to 3e but don't give them labels but rather just refer to the ability score the save is tied to. Personally playing home brewed version of Basic Fantasy at the moment and while they use the old school save matrices, I came up with something akin to OSE's single saving throw number and then break the saves into similar categories to the old editions but each category is tied to an ability score so the mod is added to the saving throw roll.
Save vs Wands is always slightly easier than Save vs Spell. Implying that Wands are less accurate or slightly weaker than other spell casting types. At least that's my interpretation.
In my opinion, BECMI offers a kind of point or endgame to adventuring. With rules for strongholds, dominions, going to war, and achieving immortality, there is something to aim for apart from just levelling up. Add to this extensive rules for weapon mastery and magic item creation, then you have a very rounded game. I cover some of this towards the end of my Rules Cyclopedia video, if you’re interested in watching that. Otherwise, thanks for the comment and the opportunity to answer your question.
I failed my saving throw vs. time frame and took 6d6 damage from that intro. Thankfully I'm 36th level so will recover from that. Save vs. wands still bothers me, maybe it's supposed to mean that wands are point & shoot devices that can be avoided while magic is more subtle in the way it can be "aimed". Also, Charisma is the butt of the joke once again, that poor dump stat can't catch a break. A while back, when toying with the idea of adding more than 3 saving throws in my games, I looked to the older editions and came up with 6 saves each linked to an ability score "5e" style, never got around to actually using those. Doesn't help that my old playgroup refused to even look at things published before 2003.
For me, saves should be simplified, even in BECMI. Only one save number: 16 - Your save is 16 minus your Charisma modifier. - Reduce it by 1 every three levels. - Roll 1d20 plus your Str, Dex, Con, Int, or Wis mod to make a saving throw (five saves as in BECMI), if the total is equal or higher than the save number, you succeed.
First off. Love your content. Now for the nitpick. If I knew as little about 4e as you do, I might refrain from (incorrectly) citing game mechanics from that particular edition.
@@becmiberserkerif i heard you correctly, you stated that saving throws were not a thing in 4e. Having run a 4e campaign for 2 solid years, up to 16th level, I can assure you that they are.
I really liked the categories of save rather than stats for save. However, I never liked how they went from "almost impossible to succeed" to "almost impossible to fail". I would have preferred a more middlin' range. Though I also wonder what it would be like to use truly mythic effects which basically always work unless the player takes appropriate action to protect themselves. Like, no one saved vs Medusa's gaze, it was 100% effective, no exceptions. No one mortal saved vs the glamours of the Daoine Sidhe or the Tylweth Teg, again they were 100% effective. But then, the fey themselves could see through them all the time. Tolkien, in his essay "tree and leaf" wondered if the fey considered their glamours to be a form of drama and entertainment that we humans simply couldn't appreciate as art. I always wondered what it would be like to run a campaign without saves at all. But no one has ever agreed to play in such a game.
It might be very short! 🙂 Seriously though, I think the players would have enormous respect for the dangers they were facing, making the game quite tense and exciting. 👍
I don't like the Stat based Saves, never have. If you're told to make a DEX Save, you are being told "Dodge this!" But if you are told to "Save vs Breath Weapon" you are invited to invent the method you use. Almost every edition of D&D I've ever seen includes some picture of a guy with a shield protecting either themself or their party from a fire breathing/acid breathing/etc Dragon. Or some Conan Type Barbarian deflecting/absorbing an evil wizard's spell with his mighty axe or sword. Sure most players will go for the "Dodge out of the way..." option, but I played in a few games where players would come up with all sorts of narrative ways of avoiding something. "I quickly start to suck at the wound in my arm, I don't want that sticky green stuff getting into my blood!" OK, save vs Poison... (Which, if it had modifiers would be WIS or INT rather than CON) The typical Shield vs Breath/Spell Effect, (STR rather than DEX, with maybe a bonus from the shield if it's Magical) Good DMs will expand the Variant Rules, and adopt these ideas and encourage ways for Players to come up with ideas to utilise their characters' best available resources to save their skins in some clever way. It also offers Spell casters at lower level with few actual "Spells" a means by which to be a little bit more... "Magical" "As the Orc Shaman casts it's curse, I summon the power of the runes, and channel it into my staff... creating a target to draw the spell into it and diminish t!" OK... Save vs Spells! But "Make a CON Save" is more like how a computer game would do it, so...
Great comment. Especially on the point of dodging out of the way of things. It makes me wonder that, in a game that keeps you rigidly within a 5’ box, how does that actually work? Also loving the imagery of sucking poison out of wounds etc. Very classic Western, and funny until you tell the ‘sucker’ that they now has to save also. 🤣 Thanks for your comment.
Really interesting. Am I right in understanding that the save is based entirely on the person rolling it, not at all the person forcing the save? So if I have to resist a spell cast by a pixie, or one cast by a lich, both have the same target roll? That seems like the biggest weakness in this system, if that's the case.
The idea that a spell's power is tied to the spellcaster and not the spell itself is a personal preference. It's not a matter of one interpretation being "weaker" than the other. Classic D&D does not incorporate this idea by design, not by accident/omission.
@@willmistretta I never said it was an accident, and of course it's a preference. Coming from later editions of the game, it's just hard to imagine not having save DCs tied to the source of the save. Imagine if there were no attack rolls, and you just had to roll over/under your armor class whenever anyone attacked you, no matter who it was.
@@BuddhaMonkey7 As a preference/choice, it's fine. Every charm person spell being treated the same as every other charm person spell is also fine in that sense. I don't think either is necessarily the "more correct" way to handle it, though, if only because this magic is all made up in the first place.
Saving Throws are not archaic but ludicous. Take a poison for example. Why would character need a ST fro such things at all. There's Constitution already. And there are many types of poisons, or venom. Each one is different, which would mean each one of them would need its own modifier. Be it -2 or even -10 to a Constitution. A roll that is under or equal to modified Con could simly mean character is going to live, of effects are not as bad as expected. But no. Let's introduce another atribute with a different dice mechanic. Your roll has to be higher than ST in question. This made D&D a game that utilizes few dice mechanics. Or few types of dice rolls. 3e wasn't a solution to that. It replaced weird stuff with... weird stuff. D&D in general is full of bad solutions, but it is what it is. They just didn't know how to make better rules. And of of such examples is thief's backstab. To be frank each backstab, even done by an 90 years old house maid should be lethal. But no. Only theves have proper multiplier of the damage dealt to their targets. It's laughable. HP with its HD per level is another great example how not to make rules. With never "editions" HP goes higher and higher, turning a simple and pretty deadly combat into 2 hour session or ROLL playing. Cap PCs HP to max 20 or 30 and that's it. Cut monsters HP approprietly and you're done. Games will go faster. Less rollin more role playing, excavation of dungeons, brothels, or any other sightseeings. PS. The Wands ST is yet another example - in an example - of how poorly in terms of mechanics D&D was made. Its engineers just weren't good enought in this field. Either lack of talent, imagination, or they were too far gone into Chainmail and other poorly made war games Fairyland.
I’ve had a couple of comments raising the issue of my reference to 4th edition not having Saving Throws. So, this is just to state that my angle was that 4e deviated far enough away from how the Saving Throw is typically used in other editions to be very different. I realise there is reference to Saving Throws in the 4th edition PHB, but this is to end an effect, not to avoid an effect in the first place: in other words, to save oneself from an effect.
Happy to be corrected again! 4e is not my strength. 😊
This is correct, effects were applied via an attack roll vs a defence (AC, Fort, Reflex, or Will which took the place of what earlier editions considered saves) then saves were used to end the effect. The most creative modification was the concept of the "after effect" so an effect might paralyze your character and once you saved to escape the paralysis an after effect might be "slow" so you were slow until you saved against that effect also.
Dolmenwood has modernized the saving throws in the right way: Doom, Ray, Hold, Blast and Spells... the same system but with much more evocative titles.
Brilliant
0:54 oh now you're making me really feel old. GenX!
Actually it's really funny a co-worker and I were talking just this morning about how Lord of the Rings came out just over 20 years ago now in the movies... And you know what as a middle-aged adult, it doesn't feel like it's been 20 years 😀.
The best "in-world" justification for why wands have their own easier save compared to spells is that the need to physically point the wand at whatever you want to affect makes their projectiles easier to dodge. With a spell, the caster's gestures and words might not make their intended targets as obvious.
But that might just be speculation I've run across online and not the "real" reason at all.
Yo, that's actually pretty good.
Very clever rationale, consider it stolen!
Every time I watch your video it makes me want to play this system.
I love 'em. They're flavorful (intimidating, even) and traditional, a vital link to the roots of the hobby. And they *work*. No need to mess with what works.
Excellent video, sir. I do not use Saving Throws and mostly for reasons outlined here. LOL I'm glad you were able to objectively and succinctly explain them.
Glad it was helpful!
I actually find myself really liking that ability scores matter very differently compared to later editions. I love that saves are largely affected by level, and secondarily (if at all) by ability score. It always seemed obvious to me that experience would be the major factor in dealing with dragon breaths and looking at medusas.
Yes! This is why you can play a seemingly subpar character when it comes to ability scores. Because they don't seed themselves into literally every aspect of the game.
Another clear and concise summary, thank you.
You're very welcome!
I think the wand saving throws exist to make wands less powerful than spells. A quick glance at some saving throws for some of the classes I noticed the wands seem to be easier to save against vs. a spell. Thats how I interpet it anyhow.
Thanks for yet another informative video.
Separate comment for wands. I remember hearing some described as wands being made intentionally weaker than proper spells. Where as staves rivaled the caster being right there.
It was a way to make wands a cheaper resource than staves or a spellcaster from what understanding I have. Admittedly My experience with the old school is quite limited.
Exactly, because wands tended to have more charges than rods or staffs, and more than a magic-user's spell slots, so the spells needed to be "weakened" a bit because once a magic user got a wand it would be used much more often. It was abit of a balancing mechanism.
I absolutely love the idea of Saving Throws being determined by Class. A fantastic design choice.
I always felt that Saving Throws are very specific in pre-WotC D&D. One of the very few things I liked "a priori" in D&D3.x was the 3 categories of Saving Throws: Fortitude, Reflex and Will . Just 3 "generic" categories, with their progress tables per class. This is what I aimed for back then.
Today, I'm happy to know about this optional rule that links Attributes to Saving Throws in BECMI/RC :)
In our BECMI campaign, we house-ruled the saving throws so that for all human classes, they improve 1 point every 2 levels, rather than 2 points every 3-5 levels. And once they hit 6, they slow down more. Since we are also using the limitless demihumans, I rewrote their saving throws as well, although I kept the starting point the same. Admittedly, since we are probably not getting much past the low-teens (assuming we get that far), this change probably doesn't matter too much.
While I allow a CON bonus for poison, I am keeping WIS for all spells, and not giving ability score bonuses for anything else at the moment. STR, INT, and DEX are already important enough, especially since we are using the General Skills, too. House-ruled to my liking, of course.
Excellent video ty
I've always understood the Saving Throw categories as such:
Death Ray / Poison: (Anything that can instantly kill you.)
Wands: (Any Magic item)
Paralysis or Turn to Stone: (Anything that puts you at the mercy of the other side)
Dragon Breath: (Any signature magical creature attack)
Rod Staff Spell: Spells and any channeled wizard magic item.
If it crosses over both, and the saving throw isn't specified, use the more dangerous saving throw.
I also remember house ruling a point where if you are hit by the same effect and it would have put you out of the game (Not just damage) a successful save gave you very temporary immunity (a few rounds to a few minutes, usually a combat) to the exact same effect from a source of same or lower power.
From what I understand originally the save vs Wands was also Staves and Rods. The idea was the save was vs leveled magical devices that you could dive out if the way of.
Also a minor clarification 4e does have saving throws, well just one actually. Most ongoing effects in 4e were tracked as (save ends) meaning that at the end of your turn you make a save (by default a roll of 10+ on a d20) to check and see if the effected ended. I remember one time my sister's character was dazed (save ends) for 8 turns in a row! We sang a song about the dazed (save ends) blues. So 4e does have a saving throw, but it's more a randomized duration determinor than a check to avoid effect altogether since the attacker always rolls to hit in 4e.
Rods, staves and wands is one category and spells another in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D.
Originally? Not really. The first 1974 D&D release also put wands in their own category and every other TSR version branded D&D kept it that way. AD&D, on the other hand, did roll staffs and rods into the wand save.
I've really like the version of saves presented in worlds without number. Which is a decent union of how saves worked in old school in that ot was about your characters ability to defend against certain harm, but was grouped somewhat like the third edition wirh physical, evasion, and mental instead of fortitude, reflex, and evasion. It also has a luck save for times when it just pure luck the character relies on.
The saves are calculated by subtracting your level (1 to 10) and your relent ability score modifier from 16. Which you give you the target number you need to meet or beat to make your save.
I found it to be quite elegant mix of old and new. I love how saves were all about your characters ability to defend against certain threats in old school. I do admittedly like the three save groping of 3e and 4e a fair bit. So this offers my personal best of both worlds.
I like simple, module systems that can be generalized across as many situations as possible.
That means I like the OG save table being linked to class and level; but I like the newer saves being more unified and clearer to use in play. I also think three is the right number of saves.
What I dislike about the newer save style is that they are dependent upon ability scores as well as class and level. It gives more weight to having good stats, which is something I try to avoid in general.
This is the best thing I ever saw.
I always likened Wand effects as largely being ray-based: you're twisting or dodging out of the way of a ray-like beam or pew-pew effect.
That was always my understanding. And it ties in with a save vs wands being used in lieu of a dexterity check
Good stuff! I'm still a fan of the classic saving throw mechanic.
I started with 2nd edition in 1999 when I was around 13. So I got to use all of the old school Saving Throws.
I didn't start playing 3.0/3.5 until like 2008 or 2009 maybe.
Rolling above seems like a good mechanic, doesn't it?
But, so does rolling under.
So many good options!
I'd love to learn the reason behind wands getting their own Saving Throw entry too. I never understood why that was.
The way it was explained to me is that it's a similar mindset to whether Pistols should be lumped with Carbines and Rifles.
If you do the research and look across the internet and its many corners you'll find many explanations, but this one helped me understand (and resultingly disregard) the idea of Saving Throws.
@@DjigitDaniel Ha! That's an interesting idea behind it. :-)
If you look at the saving throw chart you'll notice that Save vs Wands is always slightly easier than Save vs Spell/Staff/Rod.
This implies that wand charges are slightly weaker than spells and staff/rod casting. Wands are like spell pistols if you will.
At least that's my interpretation.
@@admiralsnackbar2811 , precisely.
Hence the explanation I was given, hence everything else.
Anyone know the contact email for Dave Boggs? He's the person to ask. Or maybe Greg Svenson if he still comes to conventions. There have been some long running flame wars about whether Dave Arneson or Tony Bath or Dan Nichols invented saving throws, ability scores, and character sheets. In the "Beyond this point be dragons" aka "Dullahn Manuscript" pre-publication draft of OD&D wands are already broken out separately from the others, so the split has to have happened sometime between 1966 and 1972. Beyond that, I haven't found any reliable evidence. Lucy Blumire in 2020 posted a take where she believes the split is that wands are aimed at their target, whereas with rods, staves, and spells it isn't obvious who the target is. But she doesn't have any evidence she just says that's how she does it and what she recommends for DMs. Her article is titled "which saving through should I use" and should be easy to find (If I put a link in a comment youtube delets my comment every time).
In D&D specifically, Dave Arneson first used Saving Throws back before the OD&D set was published, in his earliest experiments with solo character gameplay. Originally characters died as soon as they got hit one time, but hero and superhero tier characters could save to avoid being killed, whereas flunkies just died. This is because the game grew out of wargames where each soldier has 1 hp. Pretty quickly the players mentioned that without whole units (though to be fair, the 6 players took 30 men at arms with them on the very first adventure into the dungeon below Castle Blackmoor) this didn't work. So Dave modified rules for ablative armor from his and Gary's ironclad battleship game which became what we call hit points today.
Saves got moved to other areas, mostly rolled on 2d6 which was his favorite mechanic for rolling anything, mostly for stuff like getting your mind assaulted by a magic sword, sometimes for skills. And this is where the arguments come in, with perhaps my favorite one being ""Do you think Dan Nicholson would have been expected to roll a save vs King Kurt of Spain's wife's Health score, every time she popped out another kid, to see if she would have died in childbirth? He would have to have rolled in front of Arneson, as he was the referee." lol
Most of what I've read credits Gary with applying specific stats to different categories, after Dave came up with the categories. I've seen people also say that the categories came from Chainmail mostly, and others say it was a third-party modification for Chainmail. But if you look at the pictures of the very oldest character sheets (Pete's and Greg's for example are some of the oldest that still exist), pre-publication, they don't have anything like saves, just skills and stats (which are not the same as the published OD&D stats).
It's a question I've spent rather a lot of time looking into but it doesn't seem like the answer has survived.
Excellent Video.
I love most things about old school D&D, but I really do not like the saving throws.
The 3.0 Revised Fortification/Reflex/Will was a huge improvement and nothing I've seen has yet beat it. Having them modified the ability stats makes a lot of sense as does progression being related to the class.
It never made sense to me that a spell effect from a wand would have a different save from that of a staff or direct from a magic user.
Interesting that the Rules Cyclopedia included a similar system (pasted on top of a system that wasn't particularly sensible).
It seems that the 3.0e Saving throws is a streamlined, efficient and rational system--a refinement of the BECMI optional modifier system.
I do have a soft spot for the 3rd edition saves.
I'm not 23 either, and seeing the old style array is always gonna tickle me.
One thing I never fully got on with though, was the Save or Die mechanic. I know that life is cheap and death is always around the corner for low level adventurers (last Keep on the Borderlands campaign I had 9 characters over 8 sessions) but the arbitrary "you touched The Thing therefore you die" approach never felt right.
I've been toying with the idea of taking an amount of d6 damage instead, either based on the HD of the poisoning thing or some other mechanism TBD. Enough dice that there's a chance of death, but also a chance of survival.
I haven't used it in anger yet, and I'm still working on the notion. Just some food for thought.
Well, save vs. poison or die is slightly misleading. A Neutralize Poison spell will still save you if cast within... I think a turn? And anyway, in BECMI, you can Raise Dead all you want. There's no reduction in constitution or loss of experience.
That said, i agree entirely with 'touch the thing and die' being rather annoying. There should be clues, or at the very least foreshadowing.
Higher level characters do have mitigations, I'll grant. For me, it leads to a reluctance to interact with anything even slightly suspicious. A friend ran Dungeon Crawl Classics some years ago and I remember, because I was enjoying the character I'd ended up with, refusing to engage with several things (a chalice on an island in a river springs to mind) in the scenario because I suspected I would die on a bad roll
The names for those saving throws seem to have stuck from their original use, as opposed to *how* the character is performing the save. If you boil them down, they seem to be applied as such:
Death Ray or Poison -> Save vs. Death Effect.
Magic Wands -> Save vs. Ranged Effect.
Paralysis or Turn to Stone -> Save vs. Restraining Effect.
Dragon's Breath -> Save vs. Area Effect.
Rod, Staff or Spell -> Save vs. Magic Effect.
It shouldn't be that hard to rename them to something more descriptive if you're homebrewing something, but at the same time the slight "clunk" of the traditional names does carry a certain special charm. That's something D&D lost in the transition to d20 and then even more so in 5e: the theme of the game wasn't really baked into the rules quite as much anymore.
That language is a great way of phrasing things, especially for outside players who might be interested.
My homebrew uses 2nd edition style saves but with 3e save categories with relevant stat mods reducing the save number. Things that are easy to save against give you a bonus to your roll, things that are hard to save against give you a penalty to your roll, like how AC effects Thac0.
I'll start by saying I grew up playing 3.5. I found it's saving throw system to be acceptable. I don't care much for 5e's ability-checks for saving throws, as you'd only get marginally better in two of the six as you increase in level. BECMI, AD&D, and the various clones thereof I find to do saving throws much better, even if you don't use variant rules for adding ability bonuses (if applicable).
It does feel a little bad in 5e that you rarely get to have more than two good saves. For what it's worth, though, I think that's intentional, to ensure that most PCs will have some weaknesses and that different classes will complement each other by being good at resisting different things.
Oh, I am used to OSE and 2E, so probably this is not really aimed at me. I thought this would have been something quirky specific to BECMI. Still, I'll watch the whole thing. Maybe I'll be surprised.
I loved BECMI and AD&D, but their saving throws categories always felt a bit strange and improvised to me. When 3rd edition came out, I found the three category saves to make a lot more sense: they represent avoidance or resistance of an unusual effect, with resistance being either physical or mental.
They also tried to solve another issue of the old school saves, that is their absolute independence from the source of the attack to be saved against. The breath of a hatchling dragon and the one from a great wyrm were saved with the same target score. The same happened with spells from wizards of different levels or poisons of different strength. They were only partially successful in solving that, though.
The kind of saves in 5e were actually first introduced in the 70's in the Tunnels & Trolls system. Each base stat of that game could be used for a saving throw, which were not used only to avoid unusual dangers, but also to achieve some particular results through active actions of the character.
First: great video.
Second: I feel like the only reason i love seeing the words "Save vs Wands" etc on a sheet is nostalgia😂. The 5th edition has many faults but it definitely streamlined this aspect and it is more "elegant".
But man...there is something about these terms that makes me want to delve dungeons. Maybe the old ways were janky, but they were evocative. If i could convince my group to return...
I started in 3rd edition, where there were only three saving throws. It made sense to us, with the previous editions' saves feeling limited in scope and possibly coming from tabletop wargames, where these were the only effects present.
I remember trying 3rd edition and being happy with the presentation of the saving throws. I know that might count as blasphemy coming from me. 🙂
Thanks for commenting!
I rename wands to “aimed” and breath to “area” and it pretty much covers everything. Arrow trap? Save vs wands. Pit trap? Save vs breath!
Always thought that wands shot spells like guns and the save represents dodging the spell, which also makes sense since it is modified by DEX.
The BECMI variant saving throws seems like the right way to go. No idea who had the terrible idea to make paralysis and petrification a constitution saving throw (which they generally are in 5e), strength seems much more apt in my opinion
I personally prefer the 3.x names of "Fortitude", "Reflex", and "Will", in large part because I grew up with them - but your reason of "evocative names" works well too.
I would, however, take a leaf from 4e's book and allow _two_ Ability Mods to potentially affect a save, instead of just one - though I'd also put Wis to Reflex saves instead of Int, the way 4e did, and use Int and Cha for Will saves. Thoughts?
As far as wands vs rods/staves/spells... I always just interpreted it as wands were relatively weak magic items. That's why the saves are easier. Now, how that ties into Dexterity, I have no idea.
essentially the five categories were more ingame terms for a set of more broader but less evocative terms... remember early dungeon and dragons delighted in coining almost every game term as something people would find or say ingame.. like levels as specific terms.. apprentice.. mage.. wizard.. sorcerer.. etc.
therefore, at least as my DM back in the days when he introduced me to the game in '84 he explained these categories as follows:
poison & death ray : bodily resistance, fitness and the bodily ability to cling to life
magic wands : dodging out of the way of directed attacks
paralysis & petrification : bodily and mentally ability to superside shock and magical effects that changes your physical body
dragon breath : dodging for cover or reducing area effects
rod, staff or wand : any magical effect, that is not fall conceivably under any of the above, i.e. mind control, illusion, etc.
that means, as it was almost always the case, there was no fixed allocation for a saving throw. for example, fireball would fall very well under dragon breath, whereas lightning bolt could be argued to be saved by magic wand... finger of death, though a spell, would be death ray... and depending of the kind of illusion this could fit for any of the categories....
By the same reasoning.. attribute modifiers could be added to one saving throw versus spells for some hazards and for other hazards other or even none attribute might apply.
I feel, BECMI stats were much more a kind of example wording than a phrasing of exact rules phrasing as in paragraph of law. which, in my mind, is the main difference between BECMI and 5e. 5e is - still - trying for a tight fitting simulation rules set (or at least the main player audiance is), while the BECMI rules were more like an examplifaction for players and game masters who to rule things or what to expect.
I think the old system has more character (just like I think Imperial measurements have more character than metric, but I digress). They also allow for more narrative room. YMMV. IMO.
Just a homebrew idea: What if Charisma helped vs Death Ray? Idea being that a persons Force of Personality/Assured Sense of Place-in-the-World is so strong that Death Magic trying to work them over has to work even harder. Love to hear others ideas on this.
I'm biased toward 3rd edition in general (probably because I spent the most time playing it in my youth) but I personally prefer that save system. Admittedly it can get a but too convoluted at times.
Third did it well, in my opinion.
The original saving throw matrices just seemed so arbitrary to me. I liked how they broke into three general categories tied to ability scores in 3rd edition/1e Pathfinder. I believe 5e is similar to 3e but don't give them labels but rather just refer to the ability score the save is tied to. Personally playing home brewed version of Basic Fantasy at the moment and while they use the old school save matrices, I came up with something akin to OSE's single saving throw number and then break the saves into similar categories to the old editions but each category is tied to an ability score so the mod is added to the saving throw roll.
For Wands being different than wands, Is say it's because wands can only be used by magic users and elves while Rods can be used by anyone
Save vs Wands is always slightly easier than Save vs Spell.
Implying that Wands are less accurate or slightly weaker than other spell casting types.
At least that's my interpretation.
What made you decide to choose BECMI over AD&D 1st edition?
In my opinion, BECMI offers a kind of point or endgame to adventuring. With rules for strongholds, dominions, going to war, and achieving immortality, there is something to aim for apart from just levelling up. Add to this extensive rules for weapon mastery and magic item creation, then you have a very rounded game. I cover some of this towards the end of my Rules Cyclopedia video, if you’re interested in watching that. Otherwise, thanks for the comment and the opportunity to answer your question.
I failed my saving throw vs. time frame and took 6d6 damage from that intro. Thankfully I'm 36th level so will recover from that.
Save vs. wands still bothers me, maybe it's supposed to mean that wands are point & shoot devices that can be avoided while magic is more subtle in the way it can be "aimed". Also, Charisma is the butt of the joke once again, that poor dump stat can't catch a break.
A while back, when toying with the idea of adding more than 3 saving throws in my games, I looked to the older editions and came up with 6 saves each linked to an ability score "5e" style, never got around to actually using those. Doesn't help that my old playgroup refused to even look at things published before 2003.
For me, saves should be simplified, even in BECMI. Only one save number: 16
- Your save is 16 minus your Charisma modifier.
- Reduce it by 1 every three levels.
- Roll 1d20 plus your Str, Dex, Con, Int, or Wis mod to make a saving throw (five saves as in BECMI), if the total is equal or higher than the save number, you succeed.
That's an interesting way of doing things...
It's been used in a few OSR titles like Fantastic Heroes & Witchery and Lion & Dragon... In my experience, it works really well.
First off. Love your content.
Now for the nitpick.
If I knew as little about 4e as you do, I might refrain from (incorrectly) citing game mechanics from that particular edition.
Can you elaborate? Genuinely interested.
@@becmiberserkerif i heard you correctly, you stated that saving throws were not a thing in 4e.
Having run a 4e campaign for 2 solid years, up to 16th level, I can assure you that they are.
I took BB to mean that the 4e saving throw is a catch-all mechanic, which has little resemblance to saves in other editions. I could easily be wrong.
@@EriktheRed2023 That is what I meant but if it isn’t clear I’ll pin a comment.
@@EriktheRed2023 in fairness to @becmiberserker they did completely change the saving throw paradigm so, I can understand the (minor) oversight.
I really liked the categories of save rather than stats for save. However, I never liked how they went from "almost impossible to succeed" to "almost impossible to fail". I would have preferred a more middlin' range.
Though I also wonder what it would be like to use truly mythic effects which basically always work unless the player takes appropriate action to protect themselves. Like, no one saved vs Medusa's gaze, it was 100% effective, no exceptions. No one mortal saved vs the glamours of the Daoine Sidhe or the Tylweth Teg, again they were 100% effective. But then, the fey themselves could see through them all the time. Tolkien, in his essay "tree and leaf" wondered if the fey considered their glamours to be a form of drama and entertainment that we humans simply couldn't appreciate as art. I always wondered what it would be like to run a campaign without saves at all. But no one has ever agreed to play in such a game.
It might be very short! 🙂 Seriously though, I think the players would have enormous respect for the dangers they were facing, making the game quite tense and exciting. 👍
I don't like the Stat based Saves, never have.
If you're told to make a DEX Save, you are being told "Dodge this!" But if you are told to "Save vs Breath Weapon" you are invited to invent the method you use.
Almost every edition of D&D I've ever seen includes some picture of a guy with a shield protecting either themself or their party from a fire breathing/acid breathing/etc Dragon. Or some Conan Type Barbarian deflecting/absorbing an evil wizard's spell with his mighty axe or sword.
Sure most players will go for the "Dodge out of the way..." option, but I played in a few games where players would come up with all sorts of narrative ways of avoiding something. "I quickly start to suck at the wound in my arm, I don't want that sticky green stuff getting into my blood!" OK, save vs Poison... (Which, if it had modifiers would be WIS or INT rather than CON) The typical Shield vs Breath/Spell Effect, (STR rather than DEX, with maybe a bonus from the shield if it's Magical)
Good DMs will expand the Variant Rules, and adopt these ideas and encourage ways for Players to come up with ideas to utilise their characters' best available resources to save their skins in some clever way.
It also offers Spell casters at lower level with few actual "Spells" a means by which to be a little bit more... "Magical"
"As the Orc Shaman casts it's curse, I summon the power of the runes, and channel it into my staff... creating a target to draw the spell into it and diminish t!" OK... Save vs Spells!
But "Make a CON Save" is more like how a computer game would do it, so...
Great comment. Especially on the point of dodging out of the way of things. It makes me wonder that, in a game that keeps you rigidly within a 5’ box, how does that actually work?
Also loving the imagery of sucking poison out of wounds etc. Very classic Western, and funny until you tell the ‘sucker’ that they now has to save also. 🤣
Thanks for your comment.
feed the 'rithm
A great explanation Berserker! It's time to show these whippersnappers how REAL D&D works! 🤣
Really interesting. Am I right in understanding that the save is based entirely on the person rolling it, not at all the person forcing the save? So if I have to resist a spell cast by a pixie, or one cast by a lich, both have the same target roll? That seems like the biggest weakness in this system, if that's the case.
The idea that a spell's power is tied to the spellcaster and not the spell itself is a personal preference. It's not a matter of one interpretation being "weaker" than the other. Classic D&D does not incorporate this idea by design, not by accident/omission.
@@willmistretta I never said it was an accident, and of course it's a preference. Coming from later editions of the game, it's just hard to imagine not having save DCs tied to the source of the save. Imagine if there were no attack rolls, and you just had to roll over/under your armor class whenever anyone attacked you, no matter who it was.
@@BuddhaMonkey7 As a preference/choice, it's fine. Every charm person spell being treated the same as every other charm person spell is also fine in that sense. I don't think either is necessarily the "more correct" way to handle it, though, if only because this magic is all made up in the first place.
Bump
You have to save vs Breath Weapons not to like the channel.
Saving throws should simply be vs ability scores. Every individual has their own weaknesses and strengths. Ability scores represent this.
Saving Throws are not archaic but ludicous. Take a poison for example. Why would character need a ST fro such things at all. There's Constitution already. And there are many types of poisons, or venom. Each one is different, which would mean each one of them would need its own modifier. Be it -2 or even -10 to a Constitution. A roll that is under or equal to modified Con could simly mean character is going to live, of effects are not as bad as expected. But no. Let's introduce another atribute with a different dice mechanic. Your roll has to be higher than ST in question. This made D&D a game that utilizes few dice mechanics. Or few types of dice rolls. 3e wasn't a solution to that. It replaced weird stuff with... weird stuff. D&D in general is full of bad solutions, but it is what it is. They just didn't know how to make better rules. And of of such examples is thief's backstab. To be frank each backstab, even done by an 90 years old house maid should be lethal. But no. Only theves have proper multiplier of the damage dealt to their targets. It's laughable. HP with its HD per level is another great example how not to make rules. With never "editions" HP goes higher and higher, turning a simple and pretty deadly combat into 2 hour session or ROLL playing. Cap PCs HP to max 20 or 30 and that's it. Cut monsters HP approprietly and you're done. Games will go faster. Less rollin more role playing, excavation of dungeons, brothels, or any other sightseeings.
PS. The Wands ST is yet another example - in an example - of how poorly in terms of mechanics D&D was made. Its engineers just weren't good enought in this field. Either lack of talent, imagination, or they were too far gone into Chainmail and other poorly made war games Fairyland.