This. Never played anything other than 5e but I have friends that played older editions. I noticed the artwork in the older books tend to have the party frantically defending themselves or flee for their lives, death was more permanent and something to be feared. In 5e it seems there is more artwork of the party being heroic, brave and slaying endless monsters, almost as if there is no real danger and death is a minor speed bump to your inevitable/scripted victory.
@@danielgoldberg5357 maybe. Lol It seems that the old style and rules were more crude & unforgiving than hard. One mistake and you're instantly killed.
AD&D1e player here. When I started MMORPG playing in 2000s I was bemused that "death" didn't seem to exist. Just a chore of running back from the graveyard while your mates guarded your stuff. Seems this has permeated back into 5e? How does a character's story come to a heroic/tragic/bizarre - but memorable - conclusion when death is so easily avoided? FGU's "Bushido" even had rules for ritual suicide where you could curse another character (PC or NPC). Other games had the concept of carrying over some bonus from your dead character into the next - applicable to character generation. So a worthy life and death would result in a better/advantage in the next.
@@jamesorth8231 I've DM'd 1e AD&D and 5e. In my experience, I think AD&D and Old School RPGs are more fun because of the fear of death, so the players will be more cautious and actually be thinking about what could happen. In 5th, the players take a more passive role, as if they're watching a movie. They know they're not going to die. I'm sure it's more comforting for the players, but there's no tension. People who are overly concerned about their character dying are pretty cringe and need to lighten up. It's just a game, bro.
Well, in actuall D&D 5e, the mechanical distinction is that checks require an action, as a mechanical action of which you only have one per turn, but saving throw require no action and you can do any amount of them per round. I think it's useful to have that distinction. Also, it makes sense that when there's lots of characters affected by one spell, that spell is not rolled on attacker side, as it'd often mean that they either roll low and the spell affects noone, or they roll high and the whole party is affected instantly at once. Saving throws for each individual character means that more often than not, some will be affected and some wont.
4th Edition handled that with a general rule that when rolling an attack that hits multiple targets, like a Fireball, you roll against each creature separately.
@Manek Iridius How so? It's not actually any slower than the way saving throw spells work in other editions: it's each creature rolling once rather than the attacker rolling once for each creature. The main thing that slowed 4E combat down was the plethora of actions characters could take on turns other than their own with Opportunity and Immediate Actions.
Andy English Depends on how your group plays. My group rolls all our own dice, so this forced one player to roll several times and check each of those against each defense number. In 5th, all the players roll their saves at the same time. The GM says the DC number and the players who fail say so and take the effect. At my table, one of those takes 15 seconds or so, the other takes 5. It’s not much, but it was a slow down. Analysis paralysis with all the actions was also a big culprit in keeping things from moving.
@Andy English Also, it's a little weird in 4th when you roll an attack against three or four creatures, and one of them crits, and the others don't. You have to roll damage to apply to those that don't, but the one crit takes maximum damage, and if you have any abilities or magic items that affect your crits, you then have to add those in, but only to the one crit, and not the others. And it is slower for one person to roll a die three or four times, than it is for three or four people to all roll a die. This can be mitigated if you have multiple d20s of different colors. I will admit that the 4th edition system did make sense, since the attacker was always the one rolling the dice, it was very weird that no matter how hard or easy it was to hit somebody with an effect, they always had a 55% chance of shaking it off each turn, since a save in 4th edition was just roll a 10 or higher on a (usually) unmodified d20. So, you could have a character with fortitude 25, another with fortitude 15, both could conceivably be affected by the same poisonous attack, and each would have the same 55% chance to recovering from it.
If you're taking requests, I'd love to hear your take on the history through editions of the Grapple action (and/or unarmed combat more broadly). Great channel and video content, thanks!
That’s not a bad idea. In AD&D being grappled meant you wouldn’t use large 2 handed weapons or somatic components for spells. It made grappling and pinning maneuvers a very viable option in combat.
Save-or-die mechanics and overall lethality of older editions can be really fun, but it requires or at least benefits greatly from a different narrative focus, DM design and player mindset and attitude towards their characters contra newer editions. Most of D&D's narrative exemplars are a character driven heroic fantasy epics (LotR, Conan the Barbarian, Nehwon stories, etc.), but rules are mostly influenced by wargames. Trying to recreate these character/protagonist centered narratives (like LotR) with old school D&D rules is an uphill battle. It can be done sure, but it typically requires either surgically crafted encounters fitted ad hoc to PCs, or a DM who actively pulls punches, fudges rolls and circumvents the rules (forcing out a desired narrative and/or tone through a DM fiat). When characters are so fragile and death can be so random, there's little point in expecting to get a story, which is centered around particular PCs with long character arcs and plots centered around them, with dramatically satisfying story beats and structure. Most fantasy stories are something like that (including video-games, novels, movies, tv-shows, etc), but trying to emulate them is not going to work very well with old school D&D rules*. Anticipating to play Conan or Grey Mouser, then dying at the first session due a failed saving throw against a random encounter basilisk is unsatisfying and "unfair" only so far, as the game tries to be like Conan story. When playing old school D&D, characters should be expected to quite incidental, temporal, fungible, and campaign's metaplot shouldn't be focused on them. Clowns come and go, but the circus goes on. A narrative focus should be fixed onto some objective, conflict, larger entity / corporation, environment, dynasty or basically anything except individual characters. Something which offers sensible continuum to bring in new characters and advance a campaign, when PCs are inevitable going to die. Some permanent structure in which new characters carry on whatever they are supposed to do in the campaign, instead of starting from the scratch each time. Some over-arching purpose or end-point which all different changing PCs are supposed to struggle for (ofc, this typically requires a metagame agreement on what that is. Though it's also possible to do run a full-blown sandbox simulation game, but they can become quite unwieldy with always trying to integrate yet-another-new-PC's agenda to an existing party). Designing adventures and campaigns in this style yields some unique advantages compared to character-centric narratives. Challenges are deadly, and there's no script immunity nor need for railroading or handhelding, thus a sense of achievement is totally something else. Also, as game isn't necessarily tailored towards PCs, there can be genuine sense of suspense and even dread about monsters and encounters. There can be quite strong immersion, as PCs are not the axis the world events revolve around, but a minor cog in much larger machine. There's also certain freedom in a character creation due the fleeting nature of their existence. It doesn't incentivize min/maxing or optimizing, but rather trying out many different, novel and unusual concepts. I suppose this can be a good or awful depending on many factors. I wouldn't exactly say this type of old school D&D is better than newer editions, in which PC have much larger control over the narrative and events, and there's so much more tools for them to survive prolonged campaigns. I've played my fair share of both and I enjoy both of them, but they require adapting a different mindset and design from the get got, to fully utilize advantages and possibilities different rules brings. Ofc, your video is about saving throws, and instant-death saving throws are just a part of all-out deadliness of old school D&D (less durable everything, so much more randomness overall, etc). A good video all and all, though I'd probably quarrel like many have in the comments about applying words illogical or inconsistent on several parts, but that's minor complaints about word choices, when I roughly agree with the general point. Addendum: also older editions fit well for challenge / gamist oriented playing (dungeon crawling and such), which are light on a narrative altogether. Although, its rare to see D&D played like that anymore, but in that context deadliness isn't all that troublesome. *disclaimer: I haven't played all the older editions and variations. I've played a lot of AD&D 1st edition, some 2nd ed. and a little bit of basic D&D (the Red Box one). Yet I suspect this probably true for all pre-3rd edition D&Ds.
Lemme appreciate dat wall of good points. Cant agree less myself, as I make own dare I say "fanrasy universe" using DnD5e with A LOT of homebrewed mechanics and changes for said system. I always warn players that they can die easily, and often with no chances to return, and that at levels 1-8 they can be "just some wandering brute/mysterious scholar" at best as world doesnt know about them and doesnt revolve around them. Its probably a shameless bragging but they just spamtexting me in a few days after session like its their addiction, in a good way.
I'll add on to this to say that part of the old-style of game is the ability for the characters to walk (or run) away. Even as far back as 0e, if I am remembering correctly, had some rules for getting monsters to stop chasing via things like dropping treasure as you ran. Usually "save-or-die" is the last ditch effort after making some very poor decisions or mistakes. It's "save to not fall into that pit because you weren't being careful" or "save to not get petrified by the medusa because you decided that fighting it head-on was a good idea". Not "here is a meatgrinder of a challenge you MUST go thru in order to continue the story, no way around it." In many cases the best solutions consist of ambush, setting traps, stealing treasure while its owner(s) are distracted, occupied, or asleep, or other forms of tilting the odds heavily in the PCs' favor. Because the best way to succeed at a saving throw is to make it so you don't have to roll one in the first place. Side thing: In many cases the desire for a character-focused story gets in the way of this for people used to newer editions & games, or who come into it from other media. For tone, I think of old school D&D as being more like a 19th/early 20th century expedition into dark unknown lands, with all the preparation and caution that requires. - This contrasts with a movie, show or story where you have 4 people, who are described or shown as carrying just their weapons and the clothes on their backs, travelling for a week and the only hardships are due to interference by a narratively-appropriate cause. That kind of thing is more suited to being run in FATE or similar systems.
One of my favorite rpg's was Stormbringer, published by Chaosium in 80's & '90s. In that game it actually recommended players have several characters on hand for any given session because life was so cheap and death was to be expected. But for that game -this was appropriate, as any one who ever read Michael Moorcock's Elric Saga (that Stormbringer was a rpg adaptation of) would understand. I guess my point is that back in those days, we just tended to accept that character death was a real possibility in every single encounter, and were usually stoic about it. I must admit though, i did have to work very hard to hold back the tears once or twice when a particularly beloved character died :) Oh yes, and something that was actually just as brutal as the save or die in AD&D was the way Surprise worked. One unlucky surprise roll could easily be a total party kill!
@@budahbaba7856 Oh man, that takes me back. I too played Strombringer back in the day, and I have fond memories of it. Definitely a prime example of 80s old school fantasy roleplaying design by all accounts (more specifically that period after the early wargaming and dungeoneering era of the seventies, after that more gaming orientated approach of very first RPGs. Heyday of what many refer as simulationist style of RPGs). Although, in my group it was for some reason always overshadowed in fantasy department by AD&D, MERP and especially Runequest, so we never really played it that much. I suppose, it was too similar to Runequest, and back then there was so much more material and buzz around Runequest (in the country I am from, I believe, Runequest was at that point the most popular fantasy RPG). The little I remember was fun, but I only remember some tidbits and trivia about it. Like the character creation was lol, there was 1% chance or something, that you could get to play a super saiyan Aryan master race melnibonéan, and if you did, you were pretty much more powerful than the rest of the party combined. As someone from our group described it once: "it's almost like running Sword&Sorcery novel in RPG form, but unless you roll that one, you are not going get to play Conan or Elric, but a nameless henchman who dies along with ten other nameless mooks, when Conan kills you passing by with one blow."
I've never played older editions but I definitely enjoy the simplicity of 5th edition even more after you explained previous versions. One thing that I didn't hear mentioned but would have been a good point, generally speaking the less common saves are a lot worse to fail. Failing an Int or Cha ST is the closest 5th gets to a save or die effect
i learned how to play Basic/Expert and AD&D at age 13. It couldn't have been that complicated. 5e is overcomplicated by a ridiculous amount of player options that a DM cannot possibly keep up with. The while premise of 5e appears to me to allow players to have characters that are so powerful -- even at first level -- than there is little chance of them dying (esp. if you use the balanced encounter approach in the DM Guide). 5e is simpler in that the players don't really have to play very smartly in order to survive. They can just roll in and dominate with little chance of dying without some really bad luck. OSR requires a lot more caution, cleverness and teamwork if you want your character to survive.
BTsMusicChannel All you need to defeat player characters are opponents with levels. If you fight an Adult Gold Dragon that’s an Oath of Ancients Paladin at 20th level, your players, even at 16th level, can’t just button-smash their way through. Come to think of it, every metallic dragon ought to be an Oath of Ancients Paladin of Bahamut, as the features of that class precisely fit the ideals of metallic dragons (such as basically unlimited longevity to protect a place from evil forever). By the same thread, basically every evil creature ought to be a Warlock other than those with power from other sources, such as liches (or undead in general). It would be fitting to have the party be shot at with Eldritch Blast from 1,200 feet away by a hag with the 300 foot Eldritch blast warlock invocation, the spell sniper feat, and the distant spell Sorcerer meta magic (with the fey ancestry, of course).
@@evannibbe9375 I would rather just avoid playing 5e, thank you. I tried it, found it unsatisfying after 2 1/2 years of trying it. I really don't even want to talk about Paladins and their relations to dragons or Warlocks. You don't need that stuff unless you don't read fantasy literature. If you read, you will have all the ideas you need. I am not into what has become -- over many years, but especially in the hands of Wizards of the Coast -- a little self-contained, tired, and predictable D&D mythology.
IMHO, 3E saves were the best of all. 5E is simple only on surface. For example, I totally forgot about proficient bonuses to a saving throws, and that classes apply these bonuses only to two categories of saving throws. It's not "simple". Swords and Wizardry has only one saving throw at all - now that is simple.
Nice discussion of an iconic D&D mechanical feature. I especially appreciate your acknowledgement of the fact that "some players continue to prefer the older saving throw systems". Being able to choose how we prefer to play is a really good thing to have. Respecting the choices of others is even better!
When talking about level 1 fighters getting the worst saves, you are highlighting lvl 0, which is what was used to represent untrained commoners - characters w/o a class.
Is there any sort of side rules for lvled characters without a class? i mean, because you never devoted to magic or combat doesn't mean you're as squishy as a wizard or that you are as shitty in all saving throws
Not usually. Some editions have non-combat classes for NPC's... But most do not. And generally even where such non-combat roles exist, they don't really level up. There's no such thing as a level 5 merchant for instance in most versions and spinoffs of the game. And in fact, while something like a soldier might have different HP to a farmer, both would usually be 0th level characters... Basically if you're not one of the 'heroic' classes, you're level 0 by default. Non-combat roles usually aren't counted. There's always been some logical inconsistencies here too, even in the core classes. Wizards have it by far the worst, because the rules assume you'd get to be a high level wizard by adventuring, but for most wizard archetypes that actually doesn't make much sense... You mean to tell me the Archwizard of the academy of magic spent most of his life adventuring, rather than studying obscure books? Seems... Unlikely... Basically, the best you're going to get out of most of the rulesets for non-combat roles is 0th level characters that have varying hit dice for other reasons. Though it's unlikely you'll find a character with more than a single hit die this way, there is a difference between say a small child having 1d3 and the town guard having 1d8. while the king may have 1d12 (there being advice that with important NPC's you may want to give them more hitpoints than would strictly make sense, just so they aren't overly easy to kill for no reason.)
in 3rd addition there were creature levels for those without classes. 0 level was for those that have started learning a profession but had yet to finish their education. basically squires were level 0 knights (fighters). human children were level 0 humans. all humans got a class when they grew up, which is a distinction from creatures. they had a ton of NPC classes for non-adventuring characters. as for archetypes that don't fit adventuring they tended to have a ton of other ways to get XP, such as quest or feat XP. finishing classes, or defeating a particularly tough trap could grant characters XP, though this was up to the DM's discretion and was typically overlooked over encounter XP. the ruleset tended to move away from each creature giving XP for killing it, and made the life or death situation the reason for XP.
There is no lack of consistency. There are differing conditions, which are dealt with differently. When an attacker swings at a target, the AC already represents the defender's ability to avoid damage. The attacker rolls to see how effective his attack is. A save doesn't address this situation. When a wizard casts a fireball, it happens. But it doesn't have the same level of effect on everyone. Maybe you duck behind your shield. Maybe you throw yourself to the side. Whatever, the question isn't whether there IS a fireball, but whether you take the brunt of it or are able to avoid some of it. Likewise, on a poison save, the question isn't whether you were exposed to poison (you wouldn't be rolling if you weren't). The question is whether you are affected by it, and how badly. Hence, you roll against your CON. These are consistent. An attack roll checks to see if something HAPPENS. A saving throw addresses that something HAS happened, and checks to see how it affects you. You're really overthinking this man. It's not complicated and it's not broken.
Yeah I think somewhere people started getting confused about AC. Good explanation. Though I've never been a fan of the poison saving throw and found it rather silly.
decline you ever enjoy a beer? Alcohol is a poison. Since you're typing msgs, I'm going to say you passed your CON save. Hangover? That's the poisoned condition.
It's not complicated or broken, but it is not consistent. If a fighter tries to hit someone with their weapon, something has happened: the movement of the weapon. There is a quality to the action that affects its chances of success (attack bonus) and a quality that affects the chances of defense (armor class). Armor class even is a good example for the abstract nature of this since it doesn't differentiate why the attack fails to hurt the target. If a wizard tries to cast sleep on someone, something has happened: the casting of the spell. There is a quality to the action that affects its chances of success (spell dc) and a quality that affects the chances of defense (will save). Between saving throws and attack rolls, there is a change of perspective. Attack rolls ask: "is my offense strong enough to break through your defense" while saving throws ask "is my defense strong enough to withstand your offense?"
@@AlexBermann ummm, that IS consistent. The AC that opposes an attack roll, accounts for DEX (the ability to dodge) as well as physical protection. There are then spells and features, which can be activated as a reaction, to modify this even further. Thus, it DOES (abstractly) represent taking many things into account. The saving throw isn't about avoiding an attack. It is about avoiding the effects (at least partially) of something you HAVE encountered (as opposed to avoided). When you roll a CON save against poison, it's because you've already been exposed to it. You're not avoiding the poison. You're avoiding the effect. Likewise, a DEX save against a Fireball doesn't prevent the spell from being cast. It simply avoids some of the damage, as the fire completely engulfs the area. Now, I do have objections to some of the things that allow multiple saving throws, like how Hold Person gets to save on every round, even if it takes no damage. But, it IS consistent with the fact that you're trying to resist the effects of a spell that has already been cast.
I don't get why someone wouldn't. When you look at the stats on the sheet for reference, you're overwhelmingly going to be looking for the modifier, so why would you make it the least visible number?
You guys are all correct. Here’s the “why” to do it the other way: stats tend to be two-digit numbers, mods tend to be one-digit numbers. You also roll for stats (at least at the tables I’ve played at). For a first time player rolling and writing those numbers for the first time before ever playing the game, that two digit number would appear to the important information. If no one corrects you and you don’t really think about that aspect (with everything else a first time RPer is dealing with), that just becomes what character sheets look like to you and doing it the “right” way may feel weird. It took a pandemic and Roll20 to make me see the light after al these years. I never even considered doing it with the mod in the big box until Roll20 did it automatically. Makes way more sense, but I just never thought about it.
You know, guys, your videos make me want to play D&D again even when I feel a bit of a burnout of playing it. It's great. I also love that you don't just smash on any specific edition. I've heard great line one time: The best D&D edition is the one you have the most fun with.
The AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide have a pretty interesting chapter about the use of the dices. In short, it explains how dices are meant to simulate probability tests, and how each dice could test a specific probability. 25% chance in a d4, 16,6 chance in a d6, etc. Newer editions simply streamlined that concept by making every throw have it's probability measured by 5% chance increments, so you only needed a d20 for any test. That being said, I believe older editons give much more freedom to the DM to decide how to solve each situation, while newer editions just give you the rule you must use. Although that makes the rules easier, I see many new DMs having trouble when their players want to try something beyond the scope of the rules. Oldscholl DMs usually can handle those situations much easier.
Speaking from experience, one of the systems that best handled 'saves' was Star Wars Saga Editon. It was similar to 4th edition in that characters had static numbers that the attacker had to overcome in order to inflict effects, but it differed in that it rolled Armor Class into the Reflex defense essentially making them one and the same. Armor in the system granted bonuses to Relfex (and sometimes Fortitude) defenses based on quality of the gear.
I love "save or die" effects and disposable, random-statted characters. "First see what your talents are, then choose a class from among the ones you qualify for."
@Golden Griffon I disagree. There is something magical about making your own character and not having the game make one for you. It's far more fun (to me at least) to play the character I want to play when I'm choosing to spend several hours out of my day to do it. The game world will still be unforgiving either way and nothing is stopping you from being clever just because you got to choose where your stats go. Unless you have bad stats in INT and WIS, then good luck being clever whether that was random or done on purpose. I get why people like that type of game, but it seems like something that would get boring really quickly.
@@shino4242 I personally don't enjoy making a character anywhere near as much as playing them. I just on-the-fly add personality or w/e to make the (often very simple) stats unique. A lack of int or wis just means expressing the actions you want to perform in other ways that are more like dumb luck in-character. If you think some NPC is lying, but you're playing some doofus with low wis, int and cha, then just grabbing the guy by the shirt and going "YOU TALK TOO MUCH, ANNOYING, TELL US NOW" is one way to act on that suspicion. Playing an idiot is harder than playing a genius - in the latter case you can ask the DM to feed you information that your character can know or understand more than you.
I believe wands/staves/rods were separated from spells, because most wands/staves/rods were essentially direct fire magic weapons, ie lightening bolt, fireball, magic missiles, etc.
If I remember my AD&D2 correctly, save values for rod/wand/staff matched those for spells exactly -- except r/w/s was one step easier. One of my house rules was just to fold them together. I had so many house rules for that old edition.
I was trying to teach 5th edition for a friend of mine, and the concept of saving throws was really confusing to her, because through most of the game you are rolling against a DC set by your obstacle (an enemy, in this case), but for saving throws it's your obstacle who's rolling the dice... I like how 4e keeps these systems more uniform, but I also think 5e makes more sense, being that you are actively defending yourself. Love your videos, btw.
Personally, as a 5e nerd, I really like saving throws. While you can argue that it's more streamlined to make either the target or the attacker roll in each scenario, I think it makes more sense for the defender to roll for a preset effect. If a trap goes off, for example, it makes less sense for the trap to roll, since the trap can't determine how well it will do. It just does what it does. Likewise, the medusa can stare at a target, but unless it grabs them or otherwise tips the odds, it's up to the target to dodge or resist the effect. On the other hand, if I'm swinging a sword or firing a spell, I should get to try and roll to see how well I do, because I can theoretically change what I'm doing more than the target can.
Other systems sorted this whole mess out far more cleanly by invoking a concept known as the 'opposed roll' Which is essentially a saving throw used against an attack roll. In effect, the defender uses their defensive skills, whatever that might be, to roll a difficulty, which the attacker then has to defeat. The upside is this is less predictable, since the defender won't always have the same defensive value... It also feels more like you're actually in conflict with someone, rather than just randomly doing stuff to someone. For situations where that doesn't make sense, the GM typically just sets a difficulty. Whether this constitutes a saving throw, attack roll or something else depends on context. A trap would equate to a saving throw. But breaking down a door would equate to an attack... But it's all handled roughly the same way. D&D has a lot of history behind it, but it certainly had never been a very good game in a purely mechanical sense. So much inconsistency...
@@KuraIthys the problem with DnD imo is that it is the first role playing system in existance, before DnD TTRPGs simply didnt existed the closest was war gaming which is from where DnD comes in the first place so there wasnt any effective way of doing things Gary Gaigax and his friends basically had to come up with everything on the run
I love Swords & Wizardry (OD&D retroclone) unique saving throw system, it makes all much more simple. Hey DM, there is any chance to see a video about the OSR movement and its D&D roots?
I personally like the save-or-die approach. While it does suck to die because of an unlucky die roll, it made players more careful about how they approached a conflict. What I've noticed about 5th edition players is that they usually just try to face-roll encounters. Something that usually succeeds because the mechanics allow you to mess up a lot before you face any real consequences.
As a GM I'm much more likely to err on the side of the player if they are playing carefully like their fragile lives depend on it. I don't know...people get too attached to characters. Maybe every so often people need to play some old CoC or something and find the joy in lasting only 2-4 adventures. lol.
I'm so down for more of videos like this. Keep it up. As for my favorite system, I'm a big fan of some modern systems that keep dice out of the GM's hands entirely. Having players be the only dice rollers keep them engaged even when it's not their turn, and some modern games so far as to remove the idea of "turns" entirely, making the game a constant back and forth between all the players and the DM at once, keeping everyone engaged at one time.
Not that unbalanced considering the strengths and weaknesses of each character class. For example, fighters are strongest in terms of combat due to armor availability, hit points, weapon use, etc. And so had horrible saves categorically until high level. Thieves (rogues) had terrible combat ability, but they levelled quicker and better saves overall. Magic-users had great magic-related saves but worse on things like poison, etc. In a way, fighters were the exact opposite of wizards - high melee, low saves at low levels, wizards we're terrible in melee and squishy, but had better saves at low level. I'm still glad for the current save system, though it still needs more expansion, because just like in the fort/reflex/will days, Con/Wis/Dex saves are far too common compared to the other three. Needs more intelligence charisma and strength sources.
I did a write up on this and how it was a terrible idea to split the saves. The numbers are insane and most people don't realize it just like you didn't. I guess I should be thankful though, that is what pushed me to start writing my own system.
I always viewed saving throws as an expression of luck. If you go into a situation unprepared, then the chances of survival can be impacted greatly. If there was a situation in my games that required a saving throw, it's because you were doing something wrong. The saving throw is there to save you from your own poor decisions.
Do a video on the origins of the different class. Where did druids first enter the game? What about sorcerers? I’d love a full rundown of each one, like a more condensed version of the monk video
I realize you have so many possible avenues to pursue in making these videos. Personally I'm really enjoying the in-depth looks on older module adventures. One thing I think might be an interesting series is an in-depth examination into some of the AD&D artifacts. The history of Vecna could be particularly fascinating.
Very interesting. Based on your description, I really like the way 4th edition did saving throws. The advantage of the attacker rolling for success comes to play if a player may become infected with a disease. If the GM rolls, the player has no idea how well they did and only learn of it when the first symptoms are showing. Furthermore, it sounds like a really good idea that some effects like petrification only happen as the last step of a chain of bad events. About 5th edition - I actually like that there are saving throws based on all ability scores. As with the skill system, it does seem like the developers wanted to make dumb stats more impactful to a character. One thing that annoyed me at 3rd edition was how it was possible that dumb stats had no effect. There was the underlying assumption of "appropriate difficulty" which made DC 15 diplomacy checks near nonexistent if your GM went along with the system expectations. Consequently, the barbarian wouldn't make the DC 25 diplomacy check anyway due to not having put any points in diplomacy (and even if they put points in it, it's still no class skill). So, a Charisma of 12 and a Charisma of 5 were effectively the same to them starting at medium levels.
You don't have to precisely aim a breath attack in the same manner as a sword strike or an arrow from a bow, it feels natural to me to assume whether it is effective or not is more up to if the one being targeted manages to avoid/negate it instead; hence the roll should fall on them.
Saving throws do not represent "a lack of consistency" when juxtaposed to attack rolls. They are simply a mirror of something that actually exists: resistance. They make perfect sense in a world where poison can kill and where an area is the focus of an attack, rather than an individual target. There's no inconsistency involved, merely a change of focus on where the action takes place. You can't expect somebody standing across the room with an empty poison jar to roll for attacking the bloodstream or organs of the person who just accidentally drank that poison, any more than you can expect the jar to roll for an attack. What you can do, and what 3rd Edition streamlined so well, is to use the skill of the person who created the poison to determine its potency, and then allow the physical wellness and experience of the person drinking the poison to determine how well he resists it. Yes, the original OD&D/1st Ed/2nd Ed saving throws were rather arbitrary, but the idea is the same. In fact, I would say, that rather than "inconsistent," the saving throw mechanic is amongst the very least dissociated mechanics ever created for the game. I think maybe there is too much of a drive in modern gaming to force a single mechanic to fit every imaginable need, but aside from Dread (where every major action or decision is determined through use of a Jenga tower), I don't see any game system accomplishing that without completely dissociating half of what it is trying to accomplish.
@@garynicolson5192 In the real world for one lol. Most poisons don't actually kill. Those are the rarest ones. Even most of those have to enter the bloodstream directly and be fresh, and be in large enough doses to kill.
@@MrBottlecapBill Most poisons do not kill humans, yes. Though poisons that do kill humans do exist, and many more that can kill other creatures. As for why the saving throw makes sense, making it an attack roll vs a saving throw really doesn't matter, because they are all abstractions. You can explain the narrative of either roll and they work just as well as the other. The person is being "attacked" by poison. The word attack is not so narrow as to not work in this scenario. Otherwise countries could say "We didn't attack their soldiers, we just sent poisonous gas out!" The argument that was being made is about the way the mechanics feel and how they require an extra layer of thinking as opposed to just putting the two together. It's also weird for almost everything to be in the player's hands, except when a spellcaster casts a spell they need to wait for the opponent to roll a check, instead of rolling one themselves.
I don't get the whole point: Why should different effects be handled always the same way to begin with? What does it matter if you throw die for saving character, attack etc... It's same why I don't get people getting "confused" about Negative AC. What does it matter? Lower AC means better armor simple as that. What's difficult to understand?
@@_Zuc_ So by the same logic Golf is unintuitive and difficult, because you have to understand lesser points means you've made less hits and thus better game? AC 10 simply means you have no armor at all, you're uncovered. Once at 0 you're fully covered, and better armor from there only reduces the damage. I think it's very simple and intuitive.
Great video as always. I still love this channel a lot. Bummer that the video wasn't in my subscription box. Still looking forward to the psionic video ;)
What's also notable is that the more class/character focused ways to avoid effects have been added as reactions. A wizard might not dodge a fireball, but he could use his reaction to counterspell, or increase his resistance to the damage done.
Another great video. You really do produce some solid content. I've been sharing your channel on my Facebook pages, hope it gets you some traffic. Just wish they came out quicker, but they are worth the wait for the production value.
One thing that feels inconsistent about 5e is that it can't decide which ability represents willpower: CHA or WIS. So a bunch of spells and abilities related to mind control, fear etc seem to randomly pick which kind of save to use. For example, you use WIS to have the willpower and bravery to resist Dominate Person and Fear, but CHA to have the willpower and bravery to resist Bane or the gaze of an umber hulk. It's pretty confusing.
I like the concept of tiered success/failure with saving throws and checks. Everything flipping based on a difference of just 1 number on the die can feel very swingy and lead to inconsistent outcomes with certain events. Tiered success allows for more nuanced play and I think rewards more risky behaviour because even the worst result isn't super likely. Conversely the save or die results in very conservative play, where the dm's have to pull their punches and be really careful with how they construct their dungeons and campaigns to not completely wipe the players with a misplaced fireball or "rocks fall and everyone dies" effect. Also the players become super paranoid about finding a trap that could insta kill them or badly weaken them, or if their spell fails to work or their attack roll misses suddenly their whole turn is wasted. I think tiered success is also much easier to understand narratively and intuitively. 1 worst result 2-4 quite bad but manageable 5-9 bad but not life ending bad 10-13 potential success depending on the difficulty/minor failure with no large consequences 14-16 potential failure depending on the difficulty but minor successes aren't going to be too troublesome to handle. 17-19 Decent success 20 Best result Also allows the dm to customise the die rolls even further for each number depending on the save or check needed. It might increase the admin a little? But for people who are heavily invested in their characters it's a bit easier to really see the link between what the dice say and what happens on the table. As opposed to roll 15+ to succeed or die Feels more like an ultimatum doesn't it?
I am a fan of the save-or-die base rules for everyone. Rock-solid. Before every session, I give my players some custom rule options for the session. I inform them the alterations will be applied both ways, everyone will have the pros and cons of the custom rule options. At low levels, they take the options against save-or-die for the most part. At higher levels, they leave the save-or-die system as it is and usually use it to their advantage.
I've been playing since 88 or so, and the 4th edition mechanic is my favorite. Roll to hit my defense with your magical attack and we go from there. Simple and easy to understand. The saving throw of an unmodified d20 of 10 or better was, again, simple and easy.
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate your videos. *really* well done - well thought out, the visuals are excellent and varied and the subject matter is well chosen and thoroughly explored. In short - good stuff man. :-) thanks **while I actually like long videos, (and I may be in the minority when it comes to YT viewers, but its probably because I'm a bit older) these are great as well and it never hurts to have variation.
Someone made the reasoning (can't remember where) regarding the save categories in OD&D that they were not arbitrary: when you look at the table from left to right, it's from the most delibitating (instant death) to less debilitating. I personally suscribe to this theory. Also in Chainmail, it's not 4 hit in a skirmish, it's literally 4 simultaneous hits. That's important because it's a huge change in powerlevel. Also, I'm unsure about the use of the term "D&D evolved", as if it was a linear progress. Not only some people might disagree with regards to 3rd vs 4th, but people keep playing OD&D or Basic and haven't stopped doing so since the 70s. They have just as much fun (if not more in some cases !) than new players. BTW all your videos are awesome, I just wanted to point this out. Keep up the good works. Would be awesome to see you do more stuff with OD&D historians. Thanks for your hard work !
i don’t think simple is always better - having a saving throw gives an alternative to attacking can inspire some problem solving by the party. for example, if an enemy has an obscenely high defense/AC, that no one in the party could feasibly hit him, relying on a CC spell like hideous laughter to also go by their AC would spell doom for most parties. instead, players can have other options to defeat an opponent, and it can create more weaknesses even in PCs - “make a wisdom throw, barbarian” is a classic DM move for a reason, and we wouldn’t have incredible plays like laura bailey’s blueberry cupcake without the idea of saving throws
you mentioned there not being a save for armor. Somewhere in 3rd edition they mention this. AC IS a save roll, but all characters essentially "take 10" on the roll for simplicity. There is a variant rule that allows you to actively use your AC and roll for it adding your armor bonuses for a "challenged" attack roll. I've contemplated carrying this variant forward as my players enjoyed using it.
Save or die is okay for rare monsters where it is a defining feature, like a Medusa with save or petrify. The whole point is to add unique flavor to some monsters, so watering save or die down to another damage effect just makes monsters less different. On the other hand, giving save or die to common creatures or even rare creatures that you meet in numbers is a mistake too. A Medusa is usually a singular creature for example. It’s the same with level drain effects - it’s no fun if there are vampires and spectres all over.
The attack roll vs defend roll is, at least to me, actually very intuitive. Think of it like this: who is most influential to a specific action's success? If I strike you with a hammer or shoot you with a bow, it is primarily me and my abilities that determine whether I succeed or fail. If I throw a grenade or cast an area of effect spell, then it is the defenders who determine the severity of the effect. With the Medusa gaze example, it's not like the Medusa needs to "aim" to hit the heroes, it's literally just looking at them. What determines whether the heroes resist the gaze is their own personal abilities. The same can be said for poisons, automatic traps, curses, and so on.
Now it's just simplistic. An Ability Score with or without a Skill modifier to determine if a character succeeded or failed accomplishing a task. While a Saving Throw determines if the character avoided some if not all harm the best way I could sum this up as a character's luck.
Another interesting thing ot hit 2nd edition was magical armor bonus's were applied to many saving throws, as would cover or shields. It was a fairly intense amount of book work to figure out exactly what your save was at any given time vs an attack tbh. Worse because most the time you weren't even the one doing it. Due to the secrecy of a lot of reasons to make a save, most DM's I Played with rolled your saving throws in secret. Thus if you failed a save vs illusion you wouldn't know it's there. Same with a slow acting poison or disease. This meant the DM had to be aware of all those many modifiers and tally them up for every player.
Gary said DMs should modify, change any rules they see fit. It is the DMs job to make the game fun. I have been playing AD&D since 1979. Most of the changes I see I have been using for years. Rule lawers should be put on a short leash. With that said DMs must stay consistant with their campaign. All in all AD&D is a wonderful game whether Basic, 1,2,3,4,5. With that said I rolled a 6 on iniative. (Wearing a Robe of Eyes.) Great job on the vid. Thanks.
I liked the Rolemaster system because you had the concept of a poison being a certain level, for example, meaning that a great hero might shrug off the effects or just take a little damage from something that would kill any ordinary man. I also like the idea of saving versus death in the case of falls. People have survived falls from aircraft through a series of lucky events. There's no way to do that for the early DND games, unless you are high level, and even then, 20d6 is enough to kill a lot of characters! There were a few cases in WW1 because they didn't use belts or anything. Should the craft tilt enough, you fell out. If you were very lucky, you hit a snowdrift after falling relatively flat, and the combination of terminal velocity and the best possible impact surface meant some ordinary guy might survive reasonably unharmed. It happened. But for every one that made it, most ... were not so fortunate, and their deaths were, shall we say, unpleasant! There was another case of a young woman who was in an airplane which tore apart. Her seat hit tree branches. She was the sole survivor. She then fought her way out of the jungle to civilisation, only to find the government absolutely refused to believe she could be who she said she was, since clearly no-one could have survived like that!!
The more treasured the characters became, the more saving throws grew to protect our beloved creations. In old days it took five minutes to whip out a new character and move obe
I like saving throws. I like occasionally putting the onus on the defender to avoid damage or effects. For example, in 5e my party was under an effect that imposed disadvantage on attack rolls, so the spellcasters used spells that required saves, bypassing the disadvantage. Good strategy option. My favourite saves are either the three saves from 3.x/Pathfinder or the single save from Swords & Wizardry, because saves don't need to be complicated.
One game that made great innovations with saving throws was Mutants & Masterminds, with its most pivotal mechanic being a damage save. As the editions progressed, there was more unification with how powers affected their targets using a 3-tier system of progressively worse conditions.
Personally, I set up a setting using what I learned in probability and statistics, where you take a value X from the uniform random distribution (0, spellcasting ability score of attacker + targeted ability score of defender), where X
Hehehe you talking about book keeping nightmares for saves... I played with a group that used speed factors and weapon vs. armor modifiers. (example, a weapon might be better vs chain mail than chain mail's normal AC would indicate, and worse vs plate.)
Take another look at the numbers on the wands column and compare it to the Spells column. Barring higher level magic-users, wands were easier to resist because they were weaker magic. Magic-users were better against spells at higher levels because it represented the magic-user being so adept with spells they could undo the magic before the spells could harm them. My fantasy heartbreaker, DungeonPunk, uses what I think of as a mashup of all three NuD&D save systems. 3.x's categories, 4E's better of two ability scores, and 5E's math (sorta, since I have different proficiency bonus math, and DCs are still 10 + ability + proficiency).
As a DM I allowed bonuses or additional rolls if the player could articulate a complex action that they would complete within seconds of the action causing the saving throw.
The beauty of the "save it die" roll is that it forces the players to actually plan their assault on the BBEG's lair. Players who plan ahead face fewer save or die rolls. Players who go Leroy Jenkins probably shouldn't go to Vegas.
Aside from what the saving throws were initially meant to represent I think they are also a tool for controlling the pace of encounters. Usually adding importance to a moment in the battle. This is why I also think saves for AC would be detrimental, muddling the pacing and the emphasis of moment to moment gameplay.
From the 1930s through the late 1950s, "Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot" was the most commonly used slogan in the days of old radio, classic motion pictures, and later television.
I liked 4th for the simple and easy *to hit* number so even fresh meat err players could pick it up fast. The older systems could and did get mathy but also added to the flavor of that time where as now its more likely bob just tosses his dice via his cellphone then resumes his video once his turn is over.
The concept of saving throws for certain effects makes sense to me, though the name is odd. If I want to stab you with a sword, it's complicated and I have to try hard. Mind you, you're probably trying hard not to get stabbed, but putting the onus on me makes sense. If I want to lob a fireball in your general direction, it's easy as I don't have to aim all that well. Close only counts with horse shoes, hand grenades, and fireballs, after all. It's up to you to dive for cover, hide behind your shield, or otherwise react fast enough and in the right way. Other special effects like instant death or petrification are harder to codify, but if we take the AoE spell as a guide, it makes sense. One thing I liked about the 5E system is that it makes it easy for creative players and DMs to adjust things. DM: "The medusa gases at you with a petrifying glance. Give me a Con save to resist the effect." Cleric: "I'm familiar with this spell. Can I use my Wis save instead as I call on the grace of my deity to resist the effect?" DM: "Ok, but the next time you call on the 'grace of your deity', it may be harder." DM: "The white dragon breathes his freezing breath on everyone! Give me a Dex save to dodge out of the way!" Wizard: "I'm a master of fire. Can I channel a fire spell in controlled fashion to counter the effect around me, using my Int save instead?" DM: "I'll allow it, but you need to spend a spell slot, and what level you spend will determine how effective it is."
Save or Die possibilities made players more careful about exploring & setting up combats. Nowadays you can pretty much Leroy Jenkins! your way through games. But I guess that just makes me the angry old man.
I personally believe a game's lethality should be inversely proportional to its mechanical complexity, at least on the player's end. As Dwarf Fortress teaches us; losing is part of the fun, but I'd have to drag the rest of the party down by hogging a copy of the player's guide to stat up a new red-shirt brimming with potential and ready for adventure. Could you please do a follow-up to this talking about Dexterity and how it's the god stat?
I think the earlier editions - with their saves against wands/stone/dragons breath, etc. - were a bit too arbitrary and inconsistent. Especially when these specific ones then needed to be jury-rigged on the fly to fight specific situations the designers didn't account for in the core books. I like 5e's take on the matter because it roots the character's capacity to resist effects in that most essential part of themselves: their Ability Scores. And I think using six saves instead of three is better, because it makes it seem like we're using "the whole cow", not just particular Ability Scores. Like, why _wouldn't_ a strong character be able to resist being moved with their Strength? Yes, not all saving throws are created equal, but it's better than certain Ability Scores contributing _NOTHING_ to the character's survivability. All possible character builds should be at least somewhat viable, even if the particular allocation of points only benefits the character in certain situations.
Something that I didn't see mentioned in this video is that although 4e had the same 3 save types as 3e, it also changed the formula to let you choose the better of 2 different ability modifiers. Fortitude is Strength or Constitution, Reflex is Dexterity or Intelligence, Will is Wisdom or Charisma.
Been playing D&D since early 1977. Yes, that's 45 years. I've played every edition, and have to say that I am split on my preference for edition. Adv 2e was my go-to for a very long time. I gave each new edition its chance, but always fell back to 2 because 3x and 4 were very poor substitutes. 5e, though standing on much of the 3x and 4x changes, harkens back to A2e in a much better way. It "simplified" and "streamlined" the game mechanics without losing nearly as much of the concept or "feel" of A2e. I play 5e now, exclusively, but. I hear that WotC is on the path to revamping again, with a "5.5" coming within the next year or so. If they botch the job the way they did going from 3 to 3.5, I will fall back to A2e yet again.
This was a pretty interesting look at the history of saving throws. I liked it. If you don't mind, could you to take a look at the 1st edition module Ruins of Adventure and the video game it is a tie-in for, AD&D the Pool of Radiance? I think it might be an interesting look at how TSR handled the burgeoning video game market.
Thanks for the suggestion! We hope to get to Ruins of Adventure/Pool of Radiance some time in the next couple of months. It would be an interesting exploration of the early D&D video game market and it would be fun to compare the game with the module.
One thing that’s common for D&D channels is to review old modules. I think one thing you could do is present original material that you’ve written. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be a home brew module but could be a monster or magic item of some sort. Presenting new original material is something the RPG channels just don’t do. A rare exception would be AJ Pickett who has presented a few examples
Very interesting! One more note...I love UA-cam and I love D&D vids. I think UA-cam's algorithm has to be slipping on certain topics. I should have seen this video back when it came out and not just lately.
Oh lordy... as someone that started in 2nd edition... the idea has changed very little. Roll and beat a number. The big changes were how it has been presented -5 being amazing to 40 not being enough, and how to get it, armor only to spells, items, armor, class abilities ect.
@@Pistonrager As someone that also started with second ed, ah memories. Armor Class in a nutshell is this. 10-0 and sometimes it went to (-10) in some cases. Clothing being 10 and 0 was Full Plate Mail. (-10) was magical armor mostly. This was used to as a tack onto Thac0. To Hit Armor Class Zero. Roll a d20+AC+/- bonuses= a hit or not hit. In later editions it became Armor Class is now 10+ Armor value + Dex Bonus +/- bonuses= Total AC need to hit. What changed, nothing to be honest, we went from lower numbers to now high numbers.
Way back in original advanced dungeons and dragons it was 10 (worse) to -10 (best). You looked up your to hit number on a chart of class with level v AC with fighters having the best progression chart and other classes worse hit value for the same AC.
me, I prefer the specifics of 1-2nd gameplay..it makes it more challenging but enlightening for how things should really work with regard to a case by case scenario.
I prefer either 4e or 5e's save systems. 4's flat defenses make a lot of sense to me and saves time rolling a bunch of dice, but makes things like magic resistance tricky. I like that 5 uses all the stats for saves and simplifies things like trips and disarms, granting extra utility to stats like Str (which most classes in 5 could basically dump otherwise).
While I'm probably looking at it more psychologically, I've always felt the merit of the saving throw is that it makes the player feel like they're participating more against momentous effects. Players almost always like to roll a die over being told what happens to them. In 4th I noticed how players who wouldn't question taking damage after something swung over their AC get grumbly over taking damage from a spell that rolled over their Reflex. There's a kind of ingrained idea that these 'special' attacks deserve more response from the player.
The extra saving throws in 5e confuse me a bit. As a DM how do I know if a random mental effect targets Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma? Fortitude, Reflex and Will saves were at least clear and easy to comprehend.
The effect will usually tell you what ability is targeted by any given effect in it's description, for example, Confusion targets Wisdom, Feeblemind targets Intelligence, Fireball targets Dexterity, Cloudkill targets Constitution, Banishment targets Charisma, and Gust of Wind targets Strength.
I think I prefer a chance to avoid an effect instead of letting my 'spell defense' block it. It leaves my avoidance of it in my own hands instead of just saying, "it hit me? oh."
It could be neat to do a history of death in D&D and how the hobby's attitude towards it has changed over time.
This. Never played anything other than 5e but I have friends that played older editions. I noticed the artwork in the older books tend to have the party frantically defending themselves or flee for their lives, death was more permanent and something to be feared.
In 5e it seems there is more artwork of the party being heroic, brave and slaying endless monsters, almost as if there is no real danger and death is a minor speed bump to your inevitable/scripted victory.
@@danielgoldberg5357 maybe. Lol It seems that the old style and rules were more crude & unforgiving than hard. One mistake and you're instantly killed.
@@danielgoldberg5357 Or they want to feel like an epic mythological figure.
I personally enjoy both styles
AD&D1e player here.
When I started MMORPG playing in 2000s I was bemused that "death" didn't seem to exist. Just a chore of running back from the graveyard while your mates guarded your stuff.
Seems this has permeated back into 5e?
How does a character's story come to a heroic/tragic/bizarre - but memorable - conclusion when death is so easily avoided?
FGU's "Bushido" even had rules for ritual suicide where you could curse another character (PC or NPC). Other games had the concept of carrying over some bonus from your dead character into the next - applicable to character generation. So a worthy life and death would result in a better/advantage in the next.
@@jamesorth8231 I've DM'd 1e AD&D and 5e. In my experience, I think AD&D and Old School RPGs are more fun because of the fear of death, so the players will be more cautious and actually be thinking about what could happen. In 5th, the players take a more passive role, as if they're watching a movie. They know they're not going to die. I'm sure it's more comforting for the players, but there's no tension. People who are overly concerned about their character dying are pretty cringe and need to lighten up. It's just a game, bro.
Well, in actuall D&D 5e, the mechanical distinction is that checks require an action, as a mechanical action of which you only have one per turn, but saving throw require no action and you can do any amount of them per round. I think it's useful to have that distinction. Also, it makes sense that when there's lots of characters affected by one spell, that spell is not rolled on attacker side, as it'd often mean that they either roll low and the spell affects noone, or they roll high and the whole party is affected instantly at once. Saving throws for each individual character means that more often than not, some will be affected and some wont.
4th Edition handled that with a general rule that when rolling an attack that hits multiple targets, like a Fireball, you roll against each creature separately.
@Manek Iridius How so? It's not actually any slower than the way saving throw spells work in other editions: it's each creature rolling once rather than the attacker rolling once for each creature.
The main thing that slowed 4E combat down was the plethora of actions characters could take on turns other than their own with Opportunity and Immediate Actions.
Andy English
Depends on how your group plays. My group rolls all our own dice, so this forced one player to roll several times and check each of those against each defense number.
In 5th, all the players roll their saves at the same time. The GM says the DC number and the players who fail say so and take the effect.
At my table, one of those takes 15 seconds or so, the other takes 5. It’s not much, but it was a slow down. Analysis paralysis with all the actions was also a big culprit in keeping things from moving.
@@TheMattrking I mean, yeah there are some advantages to both approaches.
@Andy English Also, it's a little weird in 4th when you roll an attack against three or four creatures, and one of them crits, and the others don't. You have to roll damage to apply to those that don't, but the one crit takes maximum damage, and if you have any abilities or magic items that affect your crits, you then have to add those in, but only to the one crit, and not the others.
And it is slower for one person to roll a die three or four times, than it is for three or four people to all roll a die. This can be mitigated if you have multiple d20s of different colors. I will admit that the 4th edition system did make sense, since the attacker was always the one rolling the dice, it was very weird that no matter how hard or easy it was to hit somebody with an effect, they always had a 55% chance of shaking it off each turn, since a save in 4th edition was just roll a 10 or higher on a (usually) unmodified d20. So, you could have a character with fortitude 25, another with fortitude 15, both could conceivably be affected by the same poisonous attack, and each would have the same 55% chance to recovering from it.
If you're taking requests, I'd love to hear your take on the history through editions of the Grapple action (and/or unarmed combat more broadly). Great channel and video content, thanks!
I hope he does
That’s not a bad idea. In AD&D being grappled meant you wouldn’t use large 2 handed weapons or somatic components for spells. It made grappling and pinning maneuvers a very viable option in combat.
Great video as always. I especially like the old school look back on saves, and you nailed it. thanks!
Save-or-die mechanics and overall lethality of older editions can be really fun, but it requires or at least benefits greatly from a different narrative focus, DM design and player mindset and attitude towards their characters contra newer editions. Most of D&D's narrative exemplars are a character driven heroic fantasy epics (LotR, Conan the Barbarian, Nehwon stories, etc.), but rules are mostly influenced by wargames. Trying to recreate these character/protagonist centered narratives (like LotR) with old school D&D rules is an uphill battle. It can be done sure, but it typically requires either surgically crafted encounters fitted ad hoc to PCs, or a DM who actively pulls punches, fudges rolls and circumvents the rules (forcing out a desired narrative and/or tone through a DM fiat).
When characters are so fragile and death can be so random, there's little point in expecting to get a story, which is centered around particular PCs with long character arcs and plots centered around them, with dramatically satisfying story beats and structure. Most fantasy stories are something like that (including video-games, novels, movies, tv-shows, etc), but trying to emulate them is not going to work very well with old school D&D rules*. Anticipating to play Conan or Grey Mouser, then dying at the first session due a failed saving throw against a random encounter basilisk is unsatisfying and "unfair" only so far, as the game tries to be like Conan story.
When playing old school D&D, characters should be expected to quite incidental, temporal, fungible, and campaign's metaplot shouldn't be focused on them. Clowns come and go, but the circus goes on. A narrative focus should be fixed onto some objective, conflict, larger entity / corporation, environment, dynasty or basically anything except individual characters. Something which offers sensible continuum to bring in new characters and advance a campaign, when PCs are inevitable going to die. Some permanent structure in which new characters carry on whatever they are supposed to do in the campaign, instead of starting from the scratch each time. Some over-arching purpose or end-point which all different changing PCs are supposed to struggle for (ofc, this typically requires a metagame agreement on what that is. Though it's also possible to do run a full-blown sandbox simulation game, but they can become quite unwieldy with always trying to integrate yet-another-new-PC's agenda to an existing party).
Designing adventures and campaigns in this style yields some unique advantages compared to character-centric narratives. Challenges are deadly, and there's no script immunity nor need for railroading or handhelding, thus a sense of achievement is totally something else. Also, as game isn't necessarily tailored towards PCs, there can be genuine sense of suspense and even dread about monsters and encounters. There can be quite strong immersion, as PCs are not the axis the world events revolve around, but a minor cog in much larger machine.
There's also certain freedom in a character creation due the fleeting nature of their existence. It doesn't incentivize min/maxing or optimizing, but rather trying out many different, novel and unusual concepts. I suppose this can be a good or awful depending on many factors.
I wouldn't exactly say this type of old school D&D is better than newer editions, in which PC have much larger control over the narrative and events, and there's so much more tools for them to survive prolonged campaigns. I've played my fair share of both and I enjoy both of them, but they require adapting a different mindset and design from the get got, to fully utilize advantages and possibilities different rules brings.
Ofc, your video is about saving throws, and instant-death saving throws are just a part of all-out deadliness of old school D&D (less durable everything, so much more randomness overall, etc). A good video all and all, though I'd probably quarrel like many have in the comments about applying words illogical or inconsistent on several parts, but that's minor complaints about word choices, when I roughly agree with the general point.
Addendum: also older editions fit well for challenge / gamist oriented playing (dungeon crawling and such), which are light on a narrative altogether. Although, its rare to see D&D played like that anymore, but in that context deadliness isn't all that troublesome.
*disclaimer: I haven't played all the older editions and variations. I've played a lot of AD&D 1st edition, some 2nd ed. and a little bit of basic D&D (the Red Box one). Yet I suspect this probably true for all pre-3rd edition D&Ds.
Lemme appreciate dat wall of good points. Cant agree less myself, as I make own dare I say "fanrasy universe" using DnD5e with A LOT of homebrewed mechanics and changes for said system. I always warn players that they can die easily, and often with no chances to return, and that at levels 1-8 they can be "just some wandering brute/mysterious scholar" at best as world doesnt know about them and doesnt revolve around them. Its probably a shameless bragging but they just spamtexting me in a few days after session like its their addiction, in a good way.
I'll add on to this to say that part of the old-style of game is the ability for the characters to walk (or run) away. Even as far back as 0e, if I am remembering correctly, had some rules for getting monsters to stop chasing via things like dropping treasure as you ran. Usually "save-or-die" is the last ditch effort after making some very poor decisions or mistakes.
It's "save to not fall into that pit because you weren't being careful" or "save to not get petrified by the medusa because you decided that fighting it head-on was a good idea". Not "here is a meatgrinder of a challenge you MUST go thru in order to continue the story, no way around it." In many cases the best solutions consist of ambush, setting traps, stealing treasure while its owner(s) are distracted, occupied, or asleep, or other forms of tilting the odds heavily in the PCs' favor. Because the best way to succeed at a saving throw is to make it so you don't have to roll one in the first place.
Side thing: In many cases the desire for a character-focused story gets in the way of this for people used to newer editions & games, or who come into it from other media. For tone, I think of old school D&D as being more like a 19th/early 20th century expedition into dark unknown lands, with all the preparation and caution that requires.
- This contrasts with a movie, show or story where you have 4 people, who are described or shown as carrying just their weapons and the clothes on their backs, travelling for a week and the only hardships are due to interference by a narratively-appropriate cause. That kind of thing is more suited to being run in FATE or similar systems.
Replying to your edit, it definitely applies to the white box. Those rules were deadly.
One of my favorite rpg's was Stormbringer, published by Chaosium in 80's & '90s. In that game it actually recommended players have several characters on hand for any given session because life was so cheap and death was to be expected. But for that game -this was appropriate, as any one who ever read Michael Moorcock's Elric Saga (that Stormbringer was a rpg adaptation of) would understand. I guess my point is that back in those days, we just tended to accept that character death was a real possibility in every single encounter, and were usually stoic about it. I must admit though, i did have to work very hard to hold back the tears once or twice when a particularly beloved character died :)
Oh yes, and something that was actually just as brutal as the save or die in AD&D was the way Surprise worked. One unlucky surprise roll could easily be a total party kill!
@@budahbaba7856 Oh man, that takes me back. I too played Strombringer back in the day, and I have fond memories of it. Definitely a prime example of 80s old school fantasy roleplaying design by all accounts (more specifically that period after the early wargaming and dungeoneering era of the seventies, after that more gaming orientated approach of very first RPGs. Heyday of what many refer as simulationist style of RPGs).
Although, in my group it was for some reason always overshadowed in fantasy department by AD&D, MERP and especially Runequest, so we never really played it that much. I suppose, it was too similar to Runequest, and back then there was so much more material and buzz around Runequest (in the country I am from, I believe, Runequest was at that point the most popular fantasy RPG). The little I remember was fun, but I only remember some tidbits and trivia about it. Like the character creation was lol, there was 1% chance or something, that you could get to play a super saiyan Aryan master race melnibonéan, and if you did, you were pretty much more powerful than the rest of the party combined.
As someone from our group described it once: "it's almost like running Sword&Sorcery novel in RPG form, but unless you roll that one, you are not going get to play Conan or Elric, but a nameless henchman who dies along with ten other nameless mooks, when Conan kills you passing by with one blow."
I've never played older editions but I definitely enjoy the simplicity of 5th edition even more after you explained previous versions. One thing that I didn't hear mentioned but would have been a good point, generally speaking the less common saves are a lot worse to fail. Failing an Int or Cha ST is the closest 5th gets to a save or die effect
i learned how to play Basic/Expert and AD&D at age 13. It couldn't have been that complicated. 5e is overcomplicated by a ridiculous amount of player options that a DM cannot possibly keep up with. The while premise of 5e appears to me to allow players to have characters that are so powerful -- even at first level -- than there is little chance of them dying (esp. if you use the balanced encounter approach in the DM Guide). 5e is simpler in that the players don't really have to play very smartly in order to survive. They can just roll in and dominate with little chance of dying without some really bad luck. OSR requires a lot more caution, cleverness and teamwork if you want your character to survive.
BTsMusicChannel All you need to defeat player characters are opponents with levels. If you fight an Adult Gold Dragon that’s an Oath of Ancients Paladin at 20th level, your players, even at 16th level, can’t just button-smash their way through.
Come to think of it, every metallic dragon ought to be an Oath of Ancients Paladin of Bahamut, as the features of that class precisely fit the ideals of metallic dragons (such as basically unlimited longevity to protect a place from evil forever).
By the same thread, basically every evil creature ought to be a Warlock other than those with power from other sources, such as liches (or undead in general). It would be fitting to have the party be shot at with Eldritch Blast from 1,200 feet away by a hag with the 300 foot Eldritch blast warlock invocation, the spell sniper feat, and the distant spell Sorcerer meta magic (with the fey ancestry, of course).
@@evannibbe9375 I would rather just avoid playing 5e, thank you. I tried it, found it unsatisfying after 2 1/2 years of trying it. I really don't even want to talk about Paladins and their relations to dragons or Warlocks. You don't need that stuff unless you don't read fantasy literature. If you read, you will have all the ideas you need. I am not into what has become -- over many years, but especially in the hands of Wizards of the Coast -- a little self-contained, tired, and predictable D&D mythology.
@@evannibbe9375 …the lich is either Wizard or Sorcerer turn undead
IMHO, 3E saves were the best of all. 5E is simple only on surface. For example, I totally forgot about proficient bonuses to a saving throws, and that classes apply these bonuses only to two categories of saving throws. It's not "simple". Swords and Wizardry has only one saving throw at all - now that is simple.
Nice discussion of an iconic D&D mechanical feature. I especially appreciate your acknowledgement of the fact that "some players continue to prefer the older saving throw systems". Being able to choose how we prefer to play is a really good thing to have. Respecting the choices of others is even better!
When talking about level 1 fighters getting the worst saves, you are highlighting lvl 0, which is what was used to represent untrained commoners - characters w/o a class.
Yep, that was a glitch
Is there any sort of side rules for lvled characters without a class? i mean, because you never devoted to magic or combat doesn't mean you're as squishy as a wizard or that you are as shitty in all saving throws
Not usually.
Some editions have non-combat classes for NPC's...
But most do not.
And generally even where such non-combat roles exist, they don't really level up.
There's no such thing as a level 5 merchant for instance in most versions and spinoffs of the game.
And in fact, while something like a soldier might have different HP to a farmer, both would usually be 0th level characters...
Basically if you're not one of the 'heroic' classes, you're level 0 by default. Non-combat roles usually aren't counted.
There's always been some logical inconsistencies here too, even in the core classes.
Wizards have it by far the worst, because the rules assume you'd get to be a high level wizard by adventuring, but for most wizard archetypes that actually doesn't make much sense...
You mean to tell me the Archwizard of the academy of magic spent most of his life adventuring, rather than studying obscure books? Seems... Unlikely...
Basically, the best you're going to get out of most of the rulesets for non-combat roles is 0th level characters that have varying hit dice for other reasons.
Though it's unlikely you'll find a character with more than a single hit die this way, there is a difference between say a small child having 1d3 and the town guard having 1d8. while the king may have 1d12 (there being advice that with important NPC's you may want to give them more hitpoints than would strictly make sense, just so they aren't overly easy to kill for no reason.)
@@KuraIthys actually there are. In Warhammer rpg, a character can take up "classes" like merchants. So do many other gaming rule systems.
in 3rd addition there were creature levels for those without classes. 0 level was for those that have started learning a profession but had yet to finish their education. basically squires were level 0 knights (fighters). human children were level 0 humans. all humans got a class when they grew up, which is a distinction from creatures. they had a ton of NPC classes for non-adventuring characters.
as for archetypes that don't fit adventuring they tended to have a ton of other ways to get XP, such as quest or feat XP. finishing classes, or defeating a particularly tough trap could grant characters XP, though this was up to the DM's discretion and was typically overlooked over encounter XP. the ruleset tended to move away from each creature giving XP for killing it, and made the life or death situation the reason for XP.
There is no lack of consistency. There are differing conditions, which are dealt with differently.
When an attacker swings at a target, the AC already represents the defender's ability to avoid damage. The attacker rolls to see how effective his attack is.
A save doesn't address this situation. When a wizard casts a fireball, it happens. But it doesn't have the same level of effect on everyone. Maybe you duck behind your shield. Maybe you throw yourself to the side. Whatever, the question isn't whether there IS a fireball, but whether you take the brunt of it or are able to avoid some of it.
Likewise, on a poison save, the question isn't whether you were exposed to poison (you wouldn't be rolling if you weren't). The question is whether you are affected by it, and how badly. Hence, you roll against your CON.
These are consistent. An attack roll checks to see if something HAPPENS. A saving throw addresses that something HAS happened, and checks to see how it affects you. You're really overthinking this man. It's not complicated and it's not broken.
Even though 2nd edition was the one I played, I really like the Fort/Dodge/Will save system of 3rd edition. It makes the most logical sense, IMO.
Yeah I think somewhere people started getting confused about AC. Good explanation.
Though I've never been a fan of the poison saving throw and found it rather silly.
decline you ever enjoy a beer? Alcohol is a poison. Since you're typing msgs, I'm going to say you passed your CON save.
Hangover? That's the poisoned condition.
It's not complicated or broken, but it is not consistent.
If a fighter tries to hit someone with their weapon, something has happened: the movement of the weapon. There is a quality to the action that affects its chances of success (attack bonus) and a quality that affects the chances of defense (armor class). Armor class even is a good example for the abstract nature of this since it doesn't differentiate why the attack fails to hurt the target.
If a wizard tries to cast sleep on someone, something has happened: the casting of the spell. There is a quality to the action that affects its chances of success (spell dc) and a quality that affects the chances of defense (will save).
Between saving throws and attack rolls, there is a change of perspective.
Attack rolls ask: "is my offense strong enough to break through your defense" while saving throws ask "is my defense strong enough to withstand your offense?"
@@AlexBermann ummm, that IS consistent.
The AC that opposes an attack roll, accounts for DEX (the ability to dodge) as well as physical protection. There are then spells and features, which can be activated as a reaction, to modify this even further. Thus, it DOES (abstractly) represent taking many things into account.
The saving throw isn't about avoiding an attack. It is about avoiding the effects (at least partially) of something you HAVE encountered (as opposed to avoided). When you roll a CON save against poison, it's because you've already been exposed to it. You're not avoiding the poison. You're avoiding the effect. Likewise, a DEX save against a Fireball doesn't prevent the spell from being cast. It simply avoids some of the damage, as the fire completely engulfs the area.
Now, I do have objections to some of the things that allow multiple saving throws, like how Hold Person gets to save on every round, even if it takes no damage. But, it IS consistent with the fact that you're trying to resist the effects of a spell that has already been cast.
14:05 "Why are you putting your modifiers in the big box?"
"... You wouldn't get it."
I didn't do that until 5e, but I can't even remember why I did it the other way before.
I don't get why someone wouldn't. When you look at the stats on the sheet for reference, you're overwhelmingly going to be looking for the modifier, so why would you make it the least visible number?
@@Hjernespreng I'm in the same boat, I've always done it that way, it just makes sense.
The important part is the modifier, not the number itself, why in the nine hells would you put the stat in the big box?
You guys are all correct. Here’s the “why” to do it the other way: stats tend to be two-digit numbers, mods tend to be one-digit numbers. You also roll for stats (at least at the tables I’ve played at).
For a first time player rolling and writing those numbers for the first time before ever playing the game, that two digit number would appear to the important information. If no one corrects you and you don’t really think about that aspect (with everything else a first time RPer is dealing with), that just becomes what character sheets look like to you and doing it the “right” way may feel weird.
It took a pandemic and Roll20 to make me see the light after al these years. I never even considered doing it with the mod in the big box until Roll20 did it automatically. Makes way more sense, but I just never thought about it.
You know, guys, your videos make me want to play D&D again even when I feel a bit of a burnout of playing it. It's great. I also love that you don't just smash on any specific edition. I've heard great line one time: The best D&D edition is the one you have the most fun with.
Take a look at Runehammer's ICRPG. It takes all the good parts of d&d and simplifies it so you can focus on the narrative instead of the numbers
The AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide have a pretty interesting chapter about the use of the dices. In short, it explains how dices are meant to simulate probability tests, and how each dice could test a specific probability. 25% chance in a d4, 16,6 chance in a d6, etc. Newer editions simply streamlined that concept by making every throw have it's probability measured by 5% chance increments, so you only needed a d20 for any test. That being said, I believe older editons give much more freedom to the DM to decide how to solve each situation, while newer editions just give you the rule you must use. Although that makes the rules easier, I see many new DMs having trouble when their players want to try something beyond the scope of the rules. Oldscholl DMs usually can handle those situations much easier.
Speaking from experience, one of the systems that best handled 'saves' was Star Wars Saga Editon. It was similar to 4th edition in that characters had static numbers that the attacker had to overcome in order to inflict effects, but it differed in that it rolled Armor Class into the Reflex defense essentially making them one and the same. Armor in the system granted bonuses to Relfex (and sometimes Fortitude) defenses based on quality of the gear.
I love "save or die" effects and disposable, random-statted characters. "First see what your talents are, then choose a class from among the ones you qualify for."
@Golden Griffon I disagree. There is something magical about making your own character and not having the game make one for you. It's far more fun (to me at least) to play the character I want to play when I'm choosing to spend several hours out of my day to do it. The game world will still be unforgiving either way and nothing is stopping you from being clever just because you got to choose where your stats go. Unless you have bad stats in INT and WIS, then good luck being clever whether that was random or done on purpose. I get why people like that type of game, but it seems like something that would get boring really quickly.
@@shino4242 I personally don't enjoy making a character anywhere near as much as playing them. I just on-the-fly add personality or w/e to make the (often very simple) stats unique. A lack of int or wis just means expressing the actions you want to perform in other ways that are more like dumb luck in-character. If you think some NPC is lying, but you're playing some doofus with low wis, int and cha, then just grabbing the guy by the shirt and going "YOU TALK TOO MUCH, ANNOYING, TELL US NOW" is one way to act on that suspicion. Playing an idiot is harder than playing a genius - in the latter case you can ask the DM to feed you information that your character can know or understand more than you.
I believe wands/staves/rods were separated from spells, because most wands/staves/rods were essentially direct fire magic weapons, ie lightening bolt, fireball, magic missiles, etc.
If I remember my AD&D2 correctly, save values for rod/wand/staff matched those for spells exactly -- except r/w/s was one step easier.
One of my house rules was just to fold them together. I had so many house rules for that old edition.
God I can never get enough DnD in my life.
It's alright, my friend. Take five.
I agree
Amen
I was trying to teach 5th edition for a friend of mine, and the concept of saving throws was really confusing to her, because through most of the game you are rolling against a DC set by your obstacle (an enemy, in this case), but for saving throws it's your obstacle who's rolling the dice... I like how 4e keeps these systems more uniform, but I also think 5e makes more sense, being that you are actively defending yourself. Love your videos, btw.
But you are rolling against it? Do you dodge or resist something.
Personally, as a 5e nerd, I really like saving throws. While you can argue that it's more streamlined to make either the target or the attacker roll in each scenario, I think it makes more sense for the defender to roll for a preset effect. If a trap goes off, for example, it makes less sense for the trap to roll, since the trap can't determine how well it will do. It just does what it does. Likewise, the medusa can stare at a target, but unless it grabs them or otherwise tips the odds, it's up to the target to dodge or resist the effect. On the other hand, if I'm swinging a sword or firing a spell, I should get to try and roll to see how well I do, because I can theoretically change what I'm doing more than the target can.
Other systems sorted this whole mess out far more cleanly by invoking a concept known as the 'opposed roll'
Which is essentially a saving throw used against an attack roll.
In effect, the defender uses their defensive skills, whatever that might be, to roll a difficulty, which the attacker then has to defeat.
The upside is this is less predictable, since the defender won't always have the same defensive value...
It also feels more like you're actually in conflict with someone, rather than just randomly doing stuff to someone.
For situations where that doesn't make sense, the GM typically just sets a difficulty. Whether this constitutes a saving throw, attack roll or something else depends on context.
A trap would equate to a saving throw.
But breaking down a door would equate to an attack...
But it's all handled roughly the same way.
D&D has a lot of history behind it, but it certainly had never been a very good game in a purely mechanical sense.
So much inconsistency...
@@KuraIthys the problem with DnD imo is that it is the first role playing system in existance, before DnD TTRPGs simply didnt existed the closest was war gaming which is from where DnD comes in the first place so there wasnt any effective way of doing things Gary Gaigax and his friends basically had to come up with everything on the run
Great video. Thanks! I like the simple but elegant system of 3.0 Fortitude, Reflex and Will
I love Swords & Wizardry (OD&D retroclone) unique saving throw system, it makes all much more simple.
Hey DM, there is any chance to see a video about the OSR movement and its D&D roots?
Damn, I just cannot get enough of your videos man!
I personally like the save-or-die approach. While it does suck to die because of an unlucky die roll, it made players more careful about how they approached a conflict. What I've noticed about 5th edition players is that they usually just try to face-roll encounters. Something that usually succeeds because the mechanics allow you to mess up a lot before you face any real consequences.
As a GM I'm much more likely to err on the side of the player if they are playing carefully like their fragile lives depend on it. I don't know...people get too attached to characters. Maybe every so often people need to play some old CoC or something and find the joy in lasting only 2-4 adventures. lol.
I'm new to D&D, but i love your channel its so interesting and well made video !
I'm so down for more of videos like this. Keep it up.
As for my favorite system, I'm a big fan of some modern systems that keep dice out of the GM's hands entirely. Having players be the only dice rollers keep them engaged even when it's not their turn, and some modern games so far as to remove the idea of "turns" entirely, making the game a constant back and forth between all the players and the DM at once, keeping everyone engaged at one time.
The production value of your videos is amazing. This is quickly becoming one of the BEST channels around... Congrats!
Really impressed by the consistently high level of quality of these videos! Cheers
That distribution table for the 6 different attribute based saving throws is really interesting. I hadn't realised how wildly unbalanced it was.
If I made a random mental effect that required a saving throw I would target wisdom on habit alone.
Not that unbalanced considering the strengths and weaknesses of each character class. For example, fighters are strongest in terms of combat due to armor availability, hit points, weapon use, etc. And so had horrible saves categorically until high level. Thieves (rogues) had terrible combat ability, but they levelled quicker and better saves overall. Magic-users had great magic-related saves but worse on things like poison, etc.
In a way, fighters were the exact opposite of wizards - high melee, low saves at low levels, wizards we're terrible in melee and squishy, but had better saves at low level.
I'm still glad for the current save system, though it still needs more expansion, because just like in the fort/reflex/will days, Con/Wis/Dex saves are far too common compared to the other three. Needs more intelligence charisma and strength sources.
I did a write up on this and how it was a terrible idea to split the saves. The numbers are insane and most people don't realize it just like you didn't. I guess I should be thankful though, that is what pushed me to start writing my own system.
I always viewed saving throws as an expression of luck. If you go into a situation unprepared, then the chances of survival can be impacted greatly. If there was a situation in my games that required a saving throw, it's because you were doing something wrong. The saving throw is there to save you from your own poor decisions.
Do a video on the origins of the different class. Where did druids first enter the game? What about sorcerers? I’d love a full rundown of each one, like a more condensed version of the monk video
ua-cam.com/video/vjijnTzA2TE/v-deo.html
I realize you have so many possible avenues to pursue in making these videos. Personally I'm really enjoying the in-depth looks on older module adventures. One thing I think might be an interesting series is an in-depth examination into some of the AD&D artifacts. The history of Vecna could be particularly fascinating.
This is seriously the best channel I have found in awhile.
I learned D&D in 3.5 and lean toward that system for saving throws. My playgroup went to Pathfinder when 4th ed. came out.
I love it when Players have a heart attack when they fail a constitution roll against a lycanthrope.
Very interesting.
Based on your description, I really like the way 4th edition did saving throws. The advantage of the attacker rolling for success comes to play if a player may become infected with a disease. If the GM rolls, the player has no idea how well they did and only learn of it when the first symptoms are showing. Furthermore, it sounds like a really good idea that some effects like petrification only happen as the last step of a chain of bad events.
About 5th edition - I actually like that there are saving throws based on all ability scores. As with the skill system, it does seem like the developers wanted to make dumb stats more impactful to a character. One thing that annoyed me at 3rd edition was how it was possible that dumb stats had no effect. There was the underlying assumption of "appropriate difficulty" which made DC 15 diplomacy checks near nonexistent if your GM went along with the system expectations. Consequently, the barbarian wouldn't make the DC 25 diplomacy check anyway due to not having put any points in diplomacy (and even if they put points in it, it's still no class skill). So, a Charisma of 12 and a Charisma of 5 were effectively the same to them starting at medium levels.
You don't have to precisely aim a breath attack in the same manner as a sword strike or an arrow from a bow, it feels natural to me to assume whether it is effective or not is more up to if the one being targeted manages to avoid/negate it instead; hence the roll should fall on them.
Love your channel. your presentation is great
Saving throws do not represent "a lack of consistency" when juxtaposed to attack rolls. They are simply a mirror of something that actually exists: resistance. They make perfect sense in a world where poison can kill and where an area is the focus of an attack, rather than an individual target. There's no inconsistency involved, merely a change of focus on where the action takes place. You can't expect somebody standing across the room with an empty poison jar to roll for attacking the bloodstream or organs of the person who just accidentally drank that poison, any more than you can expect the jar to roll for an attack. What you can do, and what 3rd Edition streamlined so well, is to use the skill of the person who created the poison to determine its potency, and then allow the physical wellness and experience of the person drinking the poison to determine how well he resists it. Yes, the original OD&D/1st Ed/2nd Ed saving throws were rather arbitrary, but the idea is the same. In fact, I would say, that rather than "inconsistent," the saving throw mechanic is amongst the very least dissociated mechanics ever created for the game. I think maybe there is too much of a drive in modern gaming to force a single mechanic to fit every imaginable need, but aside from Dread (where every major action or decision is determined through use of a Jenga tower), I don't see any game system accomplishing that without completely dissociating half of what it is trying to accomplish.
In what world does poison not Kill?
@@garynicolson5192 In the real world for one lol. Most poisons don't actually kill. Those are the rarest ones. Even most of those have to enter the bloodstream directly and be fresh, and be in large enough doses to kill.
@@MrBottlecapBill Most poisons do not kill humans, yes. Though poisons that do kill humans do exist, and many more that can kill other creatures. As for why the saving throw makes sense, making it an attack roll vs a saving throw really doesn't matter, because they are all abstractions. You can explain the narrative of either roll and they work just as well as the other. The person is being "attacked" by poison. The word attack is not so narrow as to not work in this scenario. Otherwise countries could say "We didn't attack their soldiers, we just sent poisonous gas out!" The argument that was being made is about the way the mechanics feel and how they require an extra layer of thinking as opposed to just putting the two together. It's also weird for almost everything to be in the player's hands, except when a spellcaster casts a spell they need to wait for the opponent to roll a check, instead of rolling one themselves.
I don't get the whole point: Why should different effects be handled always the same way to begin with? What does it matter if you throw die for saving character, attack etc...
It's same why I don't get people getting "confused" about Negative AC. What does it matter? Lower AC means better armor simple as that. What's difficult to understand?
@@_Zuc_ So by the same logic Golf is unintuitive and difficult, because you have to understand lesser points means you've made less hits and thus better game?
AC 10 simply means you have no armor at all, you're uncovered. Once at 0 you're fully covered, and better armor from there only reduces the damage. I think it's very simple and intuitive.
Keep up the great work. Love all the 1e content and seeing how things have evolved.
Great video as always. I still love this channel a lot. Bummer that the video wasn't in my subscription box.
Still looking forward to the psionic video ;)
My favourite saving throw set has always been the 2nd edition because it has a number for a specific action.
Thanks a lot for this video! I've been wondering about a lot of this stuff for many many years now!
What's also notable is that the more class/character focused ways to avoid effects have been added as reactions. A wizard might not dodge a fireball, but he could use his reaction to counterspell, or increase his resistance to the damage done.
Another great video. You really do produce some solid content. I've been sharing your channel on my Facebook pages, hope it gets you some traffic. Just wish they came out quicker, but they are worth the wait for the production value.
Very informative! Thank you. I kinda always wondered why/how it started.
One thing that feels inconsistent about 5e is that it can't decide which ability represents willpower: CHA or WIS. So a bunch of spells and abilities related to mind control, fear etc seem to randomly pick which kind of save to use. For example, you use WIS to have the willpower and bravery to resist Dominate Person and Fear, but CHA to have the willpower and bravery to resist Bane or the gaze of an umber hulk. It's pretty confusing.
I like the concept of tiered success/failure with saving throws and checks.
Everything flipping based on a difference of just 1 number on the die can feel very swingy and lead to inconsistent outcomes with certain events.
Tiered success allows for more nuanced play and I think rewards more risky behaviour because even the worst result isn't super likely.
Conversely the save or die results in very conservative play, where the dm's have to pull their punches and be really careful with how they construct their dungeons and campaigns to not completely wipe the players with a misplaced fireball or "rocks fall and everyone dies" effect.
Also the players become super paranoid about finding a trap that could insta kill them or badly weaken them, or if their spell fails to work or their attack roll misses suddenly their whole turn is wasted.
I think tiered success is also much easier to understand narratively and intuitively.
1 worst result
2-4 quite bad but manageable
5-9 bad but not life ending bad
10-13 potential success depending on the difficulty/minor failure with no large consequences
14-16 potential failure depending on the difficulty but minor successes aren't going to be too troublesome to handle.
17-19 Decent success
20 Best result
Also allows the dm to customise the die rolls even further for each number depending on the save or check needed.
It might increase the admin a little? But for people who are heavily invested in their characters it's a bit easier to really see the link between what the dice say and what happens on the table.
As opposed to
roll 15+ to succeed or die
Feels more like an ultimatum doesn't it?
So, idea for a dungeon Video:
The caverns of Tsojcanth and It's "connected" module lost Temple of Tharizdun
Classics! Loved both of those even though most of it was over my head when I first got them in junior high school.
I am a fan of the save-or-die base rules for everyone. Rock-solid. Before every session, I give my players some custom rule options for the session. I inform them the alterations will be applied both ways, everyone will have the pros and cons of the custom rule options. At low levels, they take the options against save-or-die for the most part. At higher levels, they leave the save-or-die system as it is and usually use it to their advantage.
I've been playing since 88 or so, and the 4th edition mechanic is my favorite. Roll to hit my defense with your magical attack and we go from there. Simple and easy to understand. The saving throw of an unmodified d20 of 10 or better was, again, simple and easy.
@Golden Griffon I don't really understand what you mean. Players rolled their saving throw in 4e.
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate your videos. *really* well done - well thought out, the visuals are excellent and varied and the subject matter is well chosen and thoroughly explored. In short - good stuff man. :-) thanks
**while I actually like long videos, (and I may be in the minority when it comes to YT viewers, but its probably because I'm a bit older) these are great as well and it never hurts to have variation.
Rolemaster. Insanely complicated, but very well done. Takes like an afternoon to create a character.
Ahhh yes good old character with its hundreds of charts that you could almost wallpaper your entire house with the charts
Somewhere between 2e and 3e. I like the level of saves you mentioned where a really bad roll equalled a more catastrophic consequence.
Someone made the reasoning (can't remember where) regarding the save categories in OD&D that they were not arbitrary: when you look at the table from left to right, it's from the most delibitating (instant death) to less debilitating. I personally suscribe to this theory. Also in Chainmail, it's not 4 hit in a skirmish, it's literally 4 simultaneous hits. That's important because it's a huge change in powerlevel. Also, I'm unsure about the use of the term "D&D evolved", as if it was a linear progress. Not only some people might disagree with regards to 3rd vs 4th, but people keep playing OD&D or Basic and haven't stopped doing so since the 70s. They have just as much fun (if not more in some cases !) than new players. BTW all your videos are awesome, I just wanted to point this out. Keep up the good works. Would be awesome to see you do more stuff with OD&D historians. Thanks for your hard work !
i don’t think simple is always better - having a saving throw gives an alternative to attacking can inspire some problem solving by the party. for example, if an enemy has an obscenely high defense/AC, that no one in the party could feasibly hit him, relying on a CC spell like hideous laughter to also go by their AC would spell doom for most parties. instead, players can have other options to defeat an opponent, and it can create more weaknesses even in PCs - “make a wisdom throw, barbarian” is a classic DM move for a reason, and we wouldn’t have incredible plays like laura bailey’s blueberry cupcake without the idea of saving throws
you mentioned there not being a save for armor. Somewhere in 3rd edition they mention this. AC IS a save roll, but all characters essentially "take 10" on the roll for simplicity. There is a variant rule that allows you to actively use your AC and roll for it adding your armor bonuses for a "challenged" attack roll. I've contemplated carrying this variant forward as my players enjoyed using it.
I like the idea of tiers-of-success based on how much a save is failed by.
Modules B1 & B2 please. Thanks for sharing!
Save or die is okay for rare monsters where it is a defining feature, like a Medusa with save or petrify. The whole point is to add unique flavor to some monsters, so watering save or die down to another damage effect just makes monsters less different. On the other hand, giving save or die to common creatures or even rare creatures that you meet in numbers is a mistake too. A Medusa is usually a singular creature for example. It’s the same with level drain effects - it’s no fun if there are vampires and spectres all over.
Any chance you will continue covering the Dragonlance modules? I really enjoyed the module series coverage and the continued contrast of the novels.
The attack roll vs defend roll is, at least to me, actually very intuitive. Think of it like this: who is most influential to a specific action's success?
If I strike you with a hammer or shoot you with a bow, it is primarily me and my abilities that determine whether I succeed or fail. If I throw a grenade or cast an area of effect spell, then it is the defenders who determine the severity of the effect.
With the Medusa gaze example, it's not like the Medusa needs to "aim" to hit the heroes, it's literally just looking at them. What determines whether the heroes resist the gaze is their own personal abilities. The same can be said for poisons, automatic traps, curses, and so on.
Now it's just simplistic. An Ability Score with or without a Skill modifier to determine if a character succeeded or failed accomplishing a task. While a Saving Throw determines if the character avoided some if not all harm the best way I could sum this up as a character's luck.
They exist so that you don't either take unsaveable damage or so that you can't just make a build for absurd AC and become invincible.
"at first we thought it was just another snake cult"
Another interesting thing ot hit 2nd edition was magical armor bonus's were applied to many saving throws, as would cover or shields. It was a fairly intense amount of book work to figure out exactly what your save was at any given time vs an attack tbh. Worse because most the time you weren't even the one doing it.
Due to the secrecy of a lot of reasons to make a save, most DM's I Played with rolled your saving throws in secret. Thus if you failed a save vs illusion you wouldn't know it's there. Same with a slow acting poison or disease. This meant the DM had to be aware of all those many modifiers and tally them up for every player.
Gary said DMs should modify, change any rules they see fit. It is the DMs job to make the game fun. I have been playing AD&D since 1979. Most of the changes I see I have been using for years. Rule lawers should be put on a short leash. With that said DMs must stay consistant with their campaign. All in all AD&D is a wonderful game whether Basic, 1,2,3,4,5. With that said I rolled a 6 on iniative. (Wearing a Robe of Eyes.) Great job on the vid. Thanks.
I liked the Rolemaster system because you had the concept of a poison being a certain level, for example, meaning that a great hero might shrug off the effects or just take a little damage from something that would kill any ordinary man.
I also like the idea of saving versus death in the case of falls. People have survived falls from aircraft through a series of lucky events. There's no way to do that for the early DND games, unless you are high level, and even then, 20d6 is enough to kill a lot of characters!
There were a few cases in WW1 because they didn't use belts or anything. Should the craft tilt enough, you fell out.
If you were very lucky, you hit a snowdrift after falling relatively flat, and the combination of terminal velocity and the best possible impact surface meant some ordinary guy might survive reasonably unharmed. It happened. But for every one that made it, most ... were not so fortunate, and their deaths were, shall we say, unpleasant!
There was another case of a young woman who was in an airplane which tore apart. Her seat hit tree branches. She was the sole survivor. She then fought her way out of the jungle to civilisation, only to find the government absolutely refused to believe she could be who she said she was, since clearly no-one could have survived like that!!
A great stroll through editions
The more treasured the characters became, the more saving throws grew to protect our beloved creations. In old days it took five minutes to whip out a new character and move obe
I like saving throws. I like occasionally putting the onus on the defender to avoid damage or effects. For example, in 5e my party was under an effect that imposed disadvantage on attack rolls, so the spellcasters used spells that required saves, bypassing the disadvantage. Good strategy option. My favourite saves are either the three saves from 3.x/Pathfinder or the single save from Swords & Wizardry, because saves don't need to be complicated.
One game that made great innovations with saving throws was Mutants & Masterminds, with its most pivotal mechanic being a damage save. As the editions progressed, there was more unification with how powers affected their targets using a 3-tier system of progressively worse conditions.
I've been watching "Jammed" (a Space Jammer inspired D&D game). The DM tells the players whether high or low is good for each roll.
great video
Personally, I set up a setting using what I learned in probability and statistics, where you take a value X from the uniform random distribution (0, spellcasting ability score of attacker + targeted ability score of defender), where X
Hehehe you talking about book keeping nightmares for saves...
I played with a group that used speed factors and weapon vs. armor modifiers. (example, a weapon might be better vs chain mail than chain mail's normal AC would indicate, and worse vs plate.)
Take another look at the numbers on the wands column and compare it to the Spells column. Barring higher level magic-users, wands were easier to resist because they were weaker magic. Magic-users were better against spells at higher levels because it represented the magic-user being so adept with spells they could undo the magic before the spells could harm them.
My fantasy heartbreaker, DungeonPunk, uses what I think of as a mashup of all three NuD&D save systems. 3.x's categories, 4E's better of two ability scores, and 5E's math (sorta, since I have different proficiency bonus math, and DCs are still 10 + ability + proficiency).
Great channel! would love to see a video about DCC and other systems based on oldschool gaming.
"Mercy is for the weak! We do not train to be merciful here!" -99% of DMs ;-)
yes sensai
As a DM I allowed bonuses or additional rolls if the player could articulate a complex action that they would complete within seconds of the action causing the saving throw.
The beauty of the "save it die" roll is that it forces the players to actually plan their assault on the BBEG's lair.
Players who plan ahead face fewer save or die rolls.
Players who go Leroy Jenkins probably shouldn't go to Vegas.
Aside from what the saving throws were initially meant to represent I think they are also a tool for controlling the pace of encounters. Usually adding importance to a moment in the battle. This is why I also think saves for AC would be detrimental, muddling the pacing and the emphasis of moment to moment gameplay.
From the 1930s through the late 1950s, "Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot" was the most commonly used slogan in the days of old radio, classic motion pictures, and later television.
You could always say
My fighter lies prone on his back
To avoid the wizards attack
But he got scathed on the back
And now he's lying flat.
Hard topic. Great video. Need sometime to think about. Searching for simple solution to put in OSR game.
I liked 4th for the simple and easy *to hit* number so even fresh meat err players could pick it up fast. The older systems could and did get mathy but also added to the flavor of that time where as now its more likely bob just tosses his dice via his cellphone then resumes his video once his turn is over.
The concept of saving throws for certain effects makes sense to me, though the name is odd. If I want to stab you with a sword, it's complicated and I have to try hard. Mind you, you're probably trying hard not to get stabbed, but putting the onus on me makes sense. If I want to lob a fireball in your general direction, it's easy as I don't have to aim all that well. Close only counts with horse shoes, hand grenades, and fireballs, after all. It's up to you to dive for cover, hide behind your shield, or otherwise react fast enough and in the right way. Other special effects like instant death or petrification are harder to codify, but if we take the AoE spell as a guide, it makes sense.
One thing I liked about the 5E system is that it makes it easy for creative players and DMs to adjust things.
DM: "The medusa gases at you with a petrifying glance. Give me a Con save to resist the effect."
Cleric: "I'm familiar with this spell. Can I use my Wis save instead as I call on the grace of my deity to resist the effect?"
DM: "Ok, but the next time you call on the 'grace of your deity', it may be harder."
DM: "The white dragon breathes his freezing breath on everyone! Give me a Dex save to dodge out of the way!"
Wizard: "I'm a master of fire. Can I channel a fire spell in controlled fashion to counter the effect around me, using my Int save instead?"
DM: "I'll allow it, but you need to spend a spell slot, and what level you spend will determine how effective it is."
Save or Die possibilities made players more careful about exploring & setting up combats. Nowadays you can pretty much Leroy Jenkins! your way through games. But I guess that just makes me the angry old man.
Different edition, different playstyle
I personally believe a game's lethality should be inversely proportional to its mechanical complexity, at least on the player's end. As Dwarf Fortress teaches us; losing is part of the fun, but I'd have to drag the rest of the party down by hogging a copy of the player's guide to stat up a new red-shirt brimming with potential and ready for adventure.
Could you please do a follow-up to this talking about Dexterity and how it's the god stat?
I think the earlier editions - with their saves against wands/stone/dragons breath, etc. - were a bit too arbitrary and inconsistent. Especially when these specific ones then needed to be jury-rigged on the fly to fight specific situations the designers didn't account for in the core books.
I like 5e's take on the matter because it roots the character's capacity to resist effects in that most essential part of themselves: their Ability Scores. And I think using six saves instead of three is better, because it makes it seem like we're using "the whole cow", not just particular Ability Scores. Like, why _wouldn't_ a strong character be able to resist being moved with their Strength?
Yes, not all saving throws are created equal, but it's better than certain Ability Scores contributing _NOTHING_ to the character's survivability. All possible character builds should be at least somewhat viable, even if the particular allocation of points only benefits the character in certain situations.
Something that I didn't see mentioned in this video is that although 4e had the same 3 save types as 3e, it also changed the formula to let you choose the better of 2 different ability modifiers. Fortitude is Strength or Constitution, Reflex is Dexterity or Intelligence, Will is Wisdom or Charisma.
4th edition is a beautiful and badly understood little gem
I would rather say that its extremely specific. Might be very precious to some, but not worth much to others, depending on taste.
Been playing D&D since early 1977. Yes, that's 45 years. I've played every edition, and have to say that I am split on my preference for edition. Adv 2e was my go-to for a very long time. I gave each new edition its chance, but always fell back to 2 because 3x and 4 were very poor substitutes. 5e, though standing on much of the 3x and 4x changes, harkens back to A2e in a much better way. It "simplified" and "streamlined" the game mechanics without losing nearly as much of the concept or "feel" of A2e.
I play 5e now, exclusively, but. I hear that WotC is on the path to revamping again, with a "5.5" coming within the next year or so. If they botch the job the way they did going from 3 to 3.5, I will fall back to A2e yet again.
I always figured they used d6 for doors because you can't roll a 16.6 on a d100. Thanks for the video
Damn I remember this channel.
This was a pretty interesting look at the history of saving throws. I liked it.
If you don't mind, could you to take a look at the 1st edition module Ruins of Adventure and the video game it is a tie-in for, AD&D the Pool of Radiance? I think it might be an interesting look at how TSR handled the burgeoning video game market.
Thanks for the suggestion! We hope to get to Ruins of Adventure/Pool of Radiance some time in the next couple of months. It would be an interesting exploration of the early D&D video game market and it would be fun to compare the game with the module.
@@DMItAll And thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment.
One thing that’s common for D&D channels is to review old modules. I think one thing you could do is present original material that you’ve written. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be a home brew module but could be a monster or magic item of some sort. Presenting new original material is something the RPG channels just don’t do. A rare exception would be AJ Pickett who has presented a few examples
3:00 is that a mirror on the right side of the table? Is that so someone standing around the table can sell tell what is a table level view? Clever.
Very interesting! One more note...I love UA-cam and I love D&D vids. I think UA-cam's algorithm has to be slipping on certain topics. I should have seen this video back when it came out and not just lately.
How about how Armor Class has changed through the editions.
Oh lordy... as someone that started in 2nd edition... the idea has changed very little. Roll and beat a number. The big changes were how it has been presented -5 being amazing to 40 not being enough, and how to get it, armor only to spells, items, armor, class abilities ect.
@@Pistonrager As someone that also started with second ed, ah memories. Armor Class in a nutshell is this. 10-0 and sometimes it went to (-10) in some cases. Clothing being 10 and 0 was Full Plate Mail. (-10) was magical armor mostly. This was used to as a tack onto Thac0. To Hit Armor Class Zero. Roll a d20+AC+/- bonuses= a hit or not hit. In later editions it became Armor Class is now 10+ Armor value + Dex Bonus +/- bonuses= Total AC need to hit. What changed, nothing to be honest, we went from lower numbers to now high numbers.
Way back in original advanced dungeons and dragons it was 10 (worse) to -10 (best). You looked up your to hit number on a chart of class with level v AC with fighters having the best progression chart and other classes worse hit value for the same AC.
Oh I forgot that the weapon you used vs their armor effected the roll.
THAC0
me, I prefer the specifics of 1-2nd gameplay..it makes it more challenging but enlightening for how things should really work with regard to a case by case scenario.
I prefer either 4e or 5e's save systems. 4's flat defenses make a lot of sense to me and saves time rolling a bunch of dice, but makes things like magic resistance tricky.
I like that 5 uses all the stats for saves and simplifies things like trips and disarms, granting extra utility to stats like Str (which most classes in 5 could basically dump otherwise).
While I'm probably looking at it more psychologically, I've always felt the merit of the saving throw is that it makes the player feel like they're participating more against momentous effects. Players almost always like to roll a die over being told what happens to them. In 4th I noticed how players who wouldn't question taking damage after something swung over their AC get grumbly over taking damage from a spell that rolled over their Reflex. There's a kind of ingrained idea that these 'special' attacks deserve more response from the player.
The extra saving throws in 5e confuse me a bit. As a DM how do I know if a random mental effect targets Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma? Fortitude, Reflex and Will saves were at least clear and easy to comprehend.
The effect will usually tell you what ability is targeted by any given effect in it's description, for example, Confusion targets Wisdom, Feeblemind targets Intelligence, Fireball targets Dexterity, Cloudkill targets Constitution, Banishment targets Charisma, and Gust of Wind targets Strength.
I think I prefer a chance to avoid an effect instead of letting my 'spell defense' block it. It leaves my avoidance of it in my own hands instead of just saying, "it hit me? oh."