Saving Throw categories

[peterlind]

I was wondering what was the underlying philosophy behind the various saving throw categories. One distinction that occurred to me is that a saving throw category may be defined, at least in part, based on how the attack form is delivered as an attack. With that in mind, I have a question about the saving throw category [Turn to] "Stone." If a character makes his or her saving throw against the gaze of a Medusa, was it because he or she physically resisted the effect of petrification, or because he or she simply was able to avoid its gaze per the Perseus myth? Thoughts?

[Deleted]

However you wish to describe it.

Rob Kuntz, who co-reffed with Gary, lurks around here. Ask him.

[Finarvyn]

I wasn't there, but I'd bet that they started out with a couple of saving throws and then added in more as play occurred and certain situations arose. They would probably say, "well, we don't have a save for that, so..." and put something together. Eventually they would have come up with a list that seemed comprehensive but not excessive.

In my own game I have tended to drift away from the by-the-book saving throws and towards attribute checks, so that a character might make a DEX check or STR check in place of the usual saves. I assume that's essentially what caused 3E to bring in the three-save system (reflex, fortitude, willpower), which are kind of generic but more universal in scope. 5E has some spells rolled as an attack and others as an attribute save (usually DEX but sometimes CON or WIS or whatever) which is an interesting mutation form of play.

A great question and I'd love to hear from Rob about this. I assume that Gronan's reply also means that the system was already in place by the time he got to experience it, which tells me that it was VERY early in the design process.

[aldarron]

Gygax gives a lengthy explanation in the DMG (pages 80-81) that I think kinda answers your question. Here is a couple excerpts: "By means of skill, luck, magical protections, quirks of fate and the aid of supernatural powers, the character making his or her saving throw takes none or only part of the indicated results-fireball damage, poisoning, being turned to stone, or whatever.
.... If you accept firebreathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, .... It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes ~ or fails to escape- the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game."

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2016 4:47:15 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

In my own game I have tended to drift away from the by-the-book saving throws and towards attribute checks, so that a character might make a DEX check or STR check in place of the usual saves. I assume that's essentially what caused 3E to bring in the three-save system (reflex, fortitude, willpower), which are kind of generic but more universal in scope.

I did that in my 3e days but I've gone back to traditional saving throws (at least those similar to S&W). Consider a typical save vs a poison needle trap. If the character passes his save, several things could have transpired. He could have noticed the needle and pulled away at the last second, he could have been hit with the needle but the poison didn't enter his system, or he could have been hit with the poison and toughened it out and survived. As soon as you replace that save with an ability check, you are limiting the possible outcomes to only one of those three things.

Similarly, different characters might "save" in different ways. While a thief might jump out of the way of a magical ray, a fighter could pick up the body of an enemy to use as a shield, whereas a wizard could quickly mutter a counter spell. Keeping the mechanic vague allows the DM (and players) to narrate the successful save in as many ways as they can imagine.

[peterlind]

Ok, should magical attacks always be described in terms of the nature of the attack AND how it is delivered, so that the attack can always be resisted by avoiding it and by resisting its effect? For example, if a polymorph spell was described as a green ray that it cast by a mage, then a character could justify making the save by jumping out of the way of the ray (thief) or by shrugging it off (fighter)?

[talysman]

I think the primary distinction between the categories is "how dangerous is the effect?" Death Ray/Poison, the effect that will put an instant end to your character, is always your best save. Save vs. Spells isn't as good because the majority of spells are non-lethal. Save vs. Wands is in between, because basically a wand is just a spell, but maybe you have a slight edge because you can see where the wand is pointing, maybe?

The other two categories aren't as clear-cut, because each class handles them a little differently. For Fighters, Save vs. Stone and Save vs. Dragon Breath are like less effective spells: Dragon Breath is Save vs. Spells +1, Turned to Stone is Save vs. Spells +2. Again, this fits the relative danger of the effects: being petrified is like being killed, except it's easier to reverse, even after long periods of time, while breath attacks generally cause damage, which is absorbed by hit points, which already increase with level, so a breath attack isn't as dangerous as instant death. Clerics and M-Us are less likely to resist breath attacks, though, and treat Save vs. Stone as identical to one of their other saves (Poison for M-Us, Spells for Clerics.) So my theory is that these two categories were added to provide more class variation.

[peterlind]

Yes I agree about the effort at class differentiation. I am thinking that the basic focus is on the "nature of the attack form", which will be a combination of the source of the magical attack involved, and what form the attack takes. However, did this approach start to change as the saving throw categories evolved even just through 1st edition? Here are a couple of examples:

In AD&D, Dragon Breath became Breath Weapon. So this means that the save is same vs. a dragon's breath and a hell hound's breath? Is it now just about the delivery mechanism of the attack that should be evaded?

In AD&D, Polymorph was moved from Wands to Stone (i.e. Petrification) but dropped in B/X. Is this category now just about effects involving transformation of the target? Or per B/X, does it simply depend if the Polymorph was cast as a spell or through a wand?

In AD&D, Paralyzation was moved to Death Magic & Poison, but in B/X was moved to Stone. So this means in Basic D&D, it is harder, generally, for a character to resist paralyzation than in AD&D . . .

So this goes back to my OOP, what was the underlying philosophy behind the design of the saving throw categories originally?

[Deleted]

There were four saving throws mentioned in the fantasy section of Chainmail. Saving vs spells (pg 31), vs Dragon Fire (pg 35), and saving vs poison & petrification via the giant spider and basilisk respectively (pg 36). The rules are not consistent. For example, spiders can only kill normal men with it's attack whereas a basilisk stones normal men and heroes automatically; allowing only super heroes and wizards a save at all.

These four saves comprise 4/5ths of the saving throw types in OD&D. Wands is the only save not present in Chainmail but magic wands aren't in that game at all. However, the Wand save is just the Poison save +1 (except in the case of Clerics of 13+ level). This is somewhat consistent with AD&D where the Wand saving throw is exactly the same as the Spell saving throw -1.


The Save or Die podcast did an episode about the history of saving throws. More general info but interesting none the less.
saveordie.info/?p=1484


My conclusion from all this is that the original saving throw categories were arbitrarily defined based on what was available in Chainmail. From this point, they were reworked to be consistent and to always give higher level characters a better save (something not true in Chainmail in some cases). Finally, a "Wands" category was added as a catch all for other types of effects not currently covered and to give magic wands an easier saving throw compared to spells. From this point on they were tweeked and continue to be tweeked to this day.

[Stormcrow]

I think the idea that the saving throw table's columns are categories is overstating their purpose. When D&D was published, the listed attack forms covered most non-weapon attacks. The numbers in each column aren't derived from some fundamental principle; they're just the numbers that seemed right. When resolving situations not covered by the table, the referee is supposed to come up with something that seems right.

Yes, the table is set up to "group" similar attack forms together. That is, I think, partly for the convenience of not having too many columns on the table, partly because there is some logic to having the same chance to save against attacks with similar delivery or effects, and partly because the numbers are pretty much arbitrary anyway, and varying arbitrary numbers into more arbitrary numbers isn't useful.

"Need a chance to save? Here's a table that might have something useful on it."

I also don't use "ability checks" regularly, because I don't happen to think the probabilities involved reflect the game reality well, and players come to demand consistency: "You use ability checks. Everything I do involving dexterity ought to be rolled against Dexterity!"

[Zenopus]

Oct 21, 2016 8:53:49 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Similarly, different characters might "save" in different ways. While a thief might jump out of the way of a magical ray, a fighter could pick up the body of an enemy to use as a shield, whereas a wizard could quickly mutter a counter spell. Keeping the mechanic vague allows the DM (and players) to narrate the successful save in as many ways as they can imagine.

Good point. In another reality we would have had a "Luck Roll" instead of a "Saving Throw".

[Zulgyan]

Oct 21, 2016 4:47:15 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

In my own game I have tended to drift away from the by-the-book saving throws and towards attribute checks, so that a character might make a DEX check or STR check in place of the usual saves.

And what would be the difficulty (target number) of the rolls? Do higher level characters get a bonus to the roll?

Or is it d20 o 3d6 roll under?

Cheers,

Z.

[Deleted]

There really isn't any verisimilitudinous (word?) way to explain that fireball and charm person are controlled by the same "ability" (saves vs. spells), and that that "ability" has nothing to do with one's general agility (Dex) or mental toughness (Wis). If you want realism enough, you should simply move to R/F/W or attribute checks. (Yes, I know this is a different question than the OP's post.)

[Zulgyan]

The thing about R/F/W, is that they are just unnecessary extensions of Dex, Con and Wis. If you move towards that direction, why do you need 3 additional stats when the basic ability scores already provide everything you need?

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2016 20:30:51 GMT -6 @sirravd said:

There really isn't any verisimilitudinous (word?) way to explain that fireball and charm person are controlled by the same "ability" (saves vs. spells), and that that "ability" has nothing to do with one's general agility (Dex) or mental toughness (Wis). If you want realism enough, you should simply move to R/F/W or attribute checks. (Yes, I know this is a different question than the OP's post.)

That's because these early Saving Throws aren't concerned with "how" you save, only with how likely you are to save. Realism isn't the goal, playability is.

[peterlind]

The saving throw categories seem to be based on the relative power and impact of the various attack forms. I wonder if the changes to the saving throw table that took place in B/X and AD&D were driven at least in part, though, by the inclusion of the thief as a new core class. In B/X, polymorph was dropped but in AD&D it was added to Stone. The relative saves of the classes vs. Stone seem to vary (sometimes better, sometimes worse, than save vs. spells or wands). Due to the nature of the attack involving transformation of the body, I am inclined to follow AD&D on this. But Paralyzation was moved to Death Magic/Poison in AD&D and to Stone in B/X. IMO, Paralyzation is actually closer in nature to poison and death magic/ray than stone. Paralyzation seems to be a "death-like" effect that manifests as an inability to move, but no physical transformation has taken place. Also, some poisons can cause paralysis. Finally, the saves of characters tends to be better vs. poison/death ray than vs. Stone, which might somewhat mitigate the possibility of a TPK when facing a group of ghouls. So I am inclined to follow AD&D on paralyzation too. After adding "Rods" to "Staves & Spells", I think I have my final save categories:

Death Rays, Poison, & Paralyzation
All Wands
Polymorph & Turn to Stone
Dragon Breath/Breath Weapon
Rods, Staves, & Spells

I think I am now ready to put into place a separate set of saves for thieves. What do you think of this?

[Harbinger]

I'm pretty certain saving throws come from miniature war gaming and thus pre-date ability checks and such. There are a lot of effects that are save-or-die in miniature war gaming (catapults, cannon, etc). So when chain mail added wizards, dragons, medusa and such it was natural to have them use save-or-die attacks. The types of units would then determine the 'save-vs' type (breath, wands, petrify). When hero and super-heros are added, they naturally had to have different saving throw scores. So when this was brought into OD&D, it was natural to have save or die tables with target scores per level.

[retrorob]

I used to think that All Wands — Including Polymorph or Paralyzation is one category, ie. including [wands of] Polymorph or Paralyzation, but in my recent campaign I separated them. One can read it as All Wands — Including Polymorph or Paralyzation, just like with Death Ray or Poison. BTPBD has a separate ST for Paralization.

[Vile Traveller]

This was why I chose the saving throw categories i did for BLUEHOLME (the reason I changed them at all being the OGL). The idea was to identify the source of the attack, e.g. "gaze". Still not happy, e.g. "breath" should really have been "area attack " or some such. But it showed me how difficult it is to be specific in a game with as many varied attack forms and environmental dangers as D&D (to say nothing of AD&D). I guess the categories made most sense in the beginning and then had to be co-opted for other dangers as they appeared in new books.

[retrorob]

At first I also tried to rationalize the categories, but eventually ended up with specific effects listed in vol. I. So I had 7 categories: poison, death ray, wands, paralysis, stone, dragon breath, spells.

Additionally, I used ST versus death ray in various sudden save-or-die situations (like in the supplement V where "ballista, catapult, trebuchet" were added to the ST). For example: a champion is walking down the street when all of a sudden a massive arch crumbles and falls! PC needs to make ST vs death ray or suffer the consequences (the actual situation from my recent campaign).

[tetramorph]

When I started boiling things down for my house rules, it seemed to me the two main things you saved against were: spells and mass damage. Spells are negated if you save. Mass damage is halved if you save.

Influenced by Swords and Wizardry, I've gone with a "single" save. Except I do give MUs a bonus against spells.

One thing I've imagined is two saves, one against spells, another against mass damage. MUs and FMs would have mirror image saves, MUs better at deflecting magic, FM better at halving damage. Clerics would have one save, as high as the highest for either other class.

All the different categories boggle my mind.

[retrorob]

Yesterday for the first time I used Chainmail-based Saving Throws in OD&D (2d6):



1) versus Spells (Fire Ball projected by enemy M-U 6):

- 6 for superhero (including a champion as in Fighting Capability, with no penalty)

- 9 for heroes

- 9 for bishop (hero status in FC)

- 10 for magician (as Wizard -3)



save for no damage, those who failed suffered full damage (6d6). Magician died miserably. Here I have some doubts - maybe I should rather use value of 7, as both M-U were of equal strength?

2) versus Poison

- 7 for all characters (as per touch by basilisk/cockatrice)

One Hero was bitten by a snake and failed his ST, fortunately for him the Bishop had Neutralize Poison

[peterlind]

I was reading the "fear" spell description in Greyhawk and saw that the saving throw is vs. fear. So I was thinking that perhaps fear could be seen as a cousin of paralyzation, with their own category together with wands, and then move polymorph with petrification as is done in later editions. So in trying to harmonize the save categories of the early forms of the game, here's another take on the categories:

Death, Poison
Fear, Paralyzation, Wands
Petrification/Stone, Polymorph
Breath/Dragon Weapon
Spells, Staves, Rods

This gives fear and paralyzation a relatively easier save #, in between death/poison and petrification/polymorph because they are arguably "fear-based" (e.g. how often have you heard of someone being paralyzed with fear?) and also usually have a dramatic (i.e. combat ending), though temporary result. What do you think?

[Deleted]

Aug 5, 2019 16:37:36 GMT -6 peterlind said:

I was reading the "fear" spell description in Greyhawk and saw that the saving throw is vs. fear.

A new Fear saving throw category would be a good way to add a save that is equal across all classes, based only on level. There are several cases where such a save might be handy to have around (vs Charm magic for example).

[retrorob]

peterlind

look at the description of Drums of Panic (vol. II):

"The beating of these kettle drums will cause men and fantastic creatures who fail to make their morale throw to flee in rout (for morale throw use saving throw vs. magic)."

[peterlind]

You are, of course, correct. Also, since the saving throw table does not specifically list "fear" as a save category, then if Fear is being cast as a spell, then the
save will be vs. magic. The description for "Wand of Fear" in Vol. 3 also states that the saving throw is vs. magic. But shouldn't the save be vs. wands?

The issue that I was looking at is how, and why, some of the saving throw categories were bundled together. Specifically, paralyzation as a save category got bundled
with death magic and poison in AD&D, and with Turn to Stone in B/X. So I was just taking re-look at that . . .

[retrorob]

Aug 11, 2019 0:03:00 GMT -6 peterlind said:

The description for "Wand of Fear" in Vol. 3 also states that the saving throw is vs. magic. But shouldn't the save be vs. wands?

Well, wands are also magic, right?

The issue that I was looking at is how, and why, some of the saving throw categories were bundled together.

To save space probably

[peterlind]

> To save space probably <

So you think that "All Wands" was included along with "Polymorph or Paralyzation" to save space? This may very well be true, but I thought that there must have been a game design rationale for the saving throw categories along with the save #s. I am still wondering why these got bundled together into one saving throw category/column. If you look at the Fighter saving throw progression, one might think that "All Wands" are included as weaker-form of spell if you compare the relative save #s between vs. All Wands and vs. Spells. However, if you look at the MU saving throw progression, you can see that they start off better vs. Wands than vs. Spells, but end up being worse vs. Wands than vs. Spells . . .

[talysman]

Aug 12, 2019 16:01:21 GMT -6 peterlind said:

> To save space probably <

So you think that "All Wands" was included along with "Polymorph or Paralyzation" to save space? This may very well be true, but I thought that there must have been a game design rationale for the saving throw categories along with the save #s. I am still wondering why these got bundled together into one saving throw category/column. If you look at the Fighter saving throw progression, one might think that "All Wands" are included as weaker-form of spell if you compare the relative save #s between vs. All Wands and vs. Spells. However, if you look at the MU saving throw progression, you can see that they start off better vs. Wands than vs. Spells, but end up being worse vs. Wands than vs. Spells . . .

I think retrorob is wrong on that score, but I also think the categories weren't "bundled together" for some game design rationale, other than "these saves should be easier than a normal Save vs. Magic, but not as easy as Save vs. Poison."

Dying is the worst thing that can happen to your character, because it's the hardest to come back from. So, it's the easiest save. Magic is less final. Everything else falls somewhere in between. That basically means "Save vs. Wands", because the remaining two categories -- Stone and Dragon Breath -- seem very specific and much more variable across classes than anything else.

Paralyzation and Polymorph are a bit worse than the typical spell, but a little bit easier to undo than death, so they get merged with Wands, rather than the highly erratic Stone and Dragon Breath categories.

It's misleading to call the M-U Save vs. Wands worse than Save vs. Spells, because it's not that bad a save, objectively. Instead, compare the same category across classes, based on hit dice. An M-U with 8 hit dice has the same chance of saving vs. Wands as a Fighter with 8 hit dice. An M-U with 9+2 hit dice (16th level, where the chart tops out) has a better save vs. Wands than a Fighter with either 9 hit dice or 10 hit dice. The reason why the M-U Save vs. Wands is "worse" than Save vs. Spells is because M-Us rise so much faster in Save vs. Spells than either Fighters or Clerics. It compensates for them having generally bad saves compared to other classes, and taking so long to progress in saves.

[peterlind]

I generally agree with you, though I think that “misleading” is a strong word. The entries on the saving throw table for Magic-Users at level 16+ shows that they save vs. wands on a 6+ and vs. staves/spells on a 3+.

Magical Wands are a weaker or lesser form of magic item than Magical Staves are. For example, a Wand of Fire Balls will shoot forth 6-die fire balls while a Staff of Power will shoot forth 8-die fire balls. So do you have an explanation as to why a high level Mage’s saving throw would be easier vs. magical staves than vs. magical wands?