Quote from: Phillip;454615It means that different weapons are more effective versus different targets. That adds "pure game" interest.

Whether it's "simulating" anything in particular, I don't know.

I'm just curious whether it is or not. My sense of the way Gygax wrote rules is that it probably has some origin in the fictional world, but maybe an elliptical one.

Quote from: Cole;454616I'm just curious whether it is or not. My sense of the way Gygax wrote rules is that it probably has some origin in the fictional world, but maybe an elliptical one.

Gygax did not create all the D&D rules. I am, for instance, pretty sure that he did not come up with 'descending' Armor Class numbers.

He almost certainly was responsible for the AD&D rule that has "Rod, Staff or Wand" as one category and "Spell" as another.

Quote from: Phillip;454617Gygax did not create all the rules. I am, for instance, pretty sure that he did not come up with 'descending' Armor Class numbers, or the Cleric, or a number of other classes and game systems.

That's true, but if I had to say one way or the other I would guess the saving throw categories come from Gygax. That kind of divison seems very Gygaxian to  me, just a feeling though. I could be wrong.

Quote from: Cole;454619That's true, but if I had to say one way or the other I would guess the saving throw categories come from Gygax. That kind of divison seems very Gygaxian to  me, just a feeling though. I could be wrong.

Why, then, should Gygax himself remove the 'Gygaxian' division in question? That doesn't make any rationale for it seem like a very deeply held conviction!

The division between items and spells is I think quite evident, and the reason (for me, at least) why the division between wands and staffs seems curious.

Quote from: Phillip;454628Why, then, should Gygax himself remove the 'Gygaxian' division in question? That doesn't make any rationale for it seem like a very deeply held conviction!

The "Gygaxian division" I am referring to is just the saving throw categories overall, not wands vs. staffs in particular.

Quote from: Phillip;454628The division between items and spells is I think quite evident, and the reason (for me, at least) why the division between wands and staffs seems curious.

That's what I'm talking about.

Quote from: Phillip;454522What special magic is there in saying "Reflex"?

(...)

I can do the same thing just as easily in OD&D if I like, but I also have the more unified selection of five saving throw numbers as a basis.

The difference is pretty simple. In OD&D here's what you can save against:

Death Ray
Poison
Wands
Polymorph
Paralyzation
Stone
Dragon Breath
Staves
Spells

The first problem, of course, is the question of what you do for effects that fall into multiple categories. (IIRC, AD&D largely fixed this by setting up a hierarchy which cleared up most of the problems.)

The far larger problem, however, are the plethora of effects which don't fall anywhere on that list. About the only thing you can do at that point is scratch you head and... I dunno... try to figure out what sort of effect the situation most closely resembles? Or should I just start creating new categories of saves for these new effects? Just default to an attribute check?

There's nothing "unified" about this mechanic. It's an essentially arbitrary and incomplete hodgepodge.

What makes the 3E saving throw system unified is that the combination of Reflex, Fortitude, and Will neatly cover the entire spectrum of saving throws in a generic fashion. I can use those generic structures to make specific rulings with a large degree of confidence and consistency.

Physically avoiding something, physically toughing something out, or mentally withstanding something isn't the only possible breakdown that would serve as a comprehensive, unified mechanic for saving throws. But it works.

The proof is in the pudding: In a decade of playing 3E, I've never run into a situation where (a) a character needs to make a roll to avoid an effect, but (b) I can't use the existing saving throws as written. But this happens all the time when I'm playing OD&D; and it happened back when I played BECMI and 2E years before 3E existed, too.

And this isn't something unique to me: A quick perusal of old TSR modules will reveal that "make a save vs. some arbitrary category that has nothing to do with what's happening... I dunno... dragon breath? sure, let's go with dragon breath" happened all the time. Even Gygax does it.

That's not a system. That's using a hammer to pound in a screw because you forgot to put a screwdriver in your toolkit.

QuoteAll you're doing is making up a number. The probability is whatever you decide it is, from 0% to 100%, regardless of someone's Reflex bonus.

This assumes that I assign saving throw DCs by first looking at the stats of the PCs and then trying to calculate the % chance of success I want. That sounds like a really stupid way to do it, so I don't do that.

Quote from: Spinachcat;454564This is exactly why I enjoy the S&W single universal saving throw. All modifiers depend on the situation and the character which frees up the GM wonderfully.  Also, the good save of fighters in S&W:WB is a nice class balancer.

Yup. This is also a unified system which again allows the GM to focus on making rulings and playing the game instead of making up rules and changing the game.

Personally, I like distinguishing between speedy, tough, and mental as broad categories. (For much the same reason I like having 6 ability scores for characters instead of 1.) But if you gave me a choice between either the OD&D pseudo-system of incomplete saves or a unified mechanic involving only one save, I'll take the unified mechanic any day of the week.

Could it be that at some point there was a implicit difference between the way wands and staves operated, i.e. what you were actually saving against? I always sort of assumed that the Staves/Wands save referred to aimed magic items, so that you would save to avoid an invisible ray or something "aimed at you". Just like Paralization would mean "resisting to your body getting stuck or frozen or anything that would impair movement" so you would make saves v. Paralization not only against Medusa and the like, but say if you wanted to break free from a mountain of crap over your head after a wall caved in and the like.

This is all complete extrapolation on my part, but from what I know, many DMs do this.

So maybe at some point whoever decided to separate Wands and Staves thought about these two types of magic items as working differently to deliver their effects, or vice versa, consolidating them as a single save because they work the same?

Fort, Ref, and Will was a fantastic innovation, good enough that you see it copied in game after game (MRQ2 has resilience, persistence, evade, for example). It's a very clear conceptual division that allows for rapid snap judgments. IME, the older versions had a lot of hemming and hawing and debating over what was the most relevant save, whereas we never had a problem with that in 3e.

Quote from: Benoist;454701Could it be that at some point there was a implicit difference between the way wands and staves operated, i.e. what you were actually saving against? I always sort of assumed that the Staves/Wands save referred to aimed magic items, so that you would save to avoid an invisible ray or something "aimed at you". Just like Paralization would mean "resisting to your body getting stuck or frozen or anything that would impair movement" so you would make saves v. Paralization not only against Medusa and the like, but say if you wanted to break free from a mountain of crap over your head after a wall caved in and the like. So maybe at some point whoever decided to separate Wands and Staves thought about these two types of magic items as working differently to deliver their effects, or vice versa, consolidating them as a single save because they work the same?

That's the best guess I can make. See also how Poison and Death Ray/Death Magic are the same save.

In LOTFP, James R. prioritizes the saves from most to least general in case of doubt and it makes a kind of sense.

But I'm still curious if somewhere out there, Gygax or Arneson answered that question. I doubt it was completely arbitrary.

I quite like Fort/Ref/Will as well. It does shift from "what do you escape from" to "how you escape from it", but it is one of those rule changes that originally made me take note of 3e's previews.

Quote from: Melan;454747I quite like Fort/Ref/Will as well. It does shift from "what do you escape from" to "how you escape from it", but it is one of those rule changes that originally made me take note of 3e's previews.

You remind me that, when we played TSR D&D, we looked at it as when saving against a fireball, a thief might dodge out of the way, while a fighter might put up his shield and grit his teeth, and a magic-user might yell "by the hoary hosts of hoggoth," dissipating some of the flames, that kind of thing.

But having since played 3e, the F/R/W will division plays very well.

Quote from: Benoist;454701Could it be that at some point there was a implicit difference between the way wands and staves operated, i.e. what you were actually saving against? I always sort of assumed that the Staves/Wands save referred to aimed magic items, so that you would save to avoid an invisible ray or something "aimed at you". Just like Paralization would mean "resisting to your body getting stuck or frozen or anything that would impair movement" so you would make saves v. Paralization not only against Medusa and the like, but say if you wanted to break free from a mountain of crap over your head after a wall caved in and the like.

This is all complete extrapolation on my part, but from what I know, many DMs do this.

One of the things I really like about C&C is how they tie distinct saves to distinct attributes. STR for Paralysis and Petrification, DEX for Breath Weapons and Traps, CHA for Charm, Fear and Death Magic, etc. There is a very similar (presented as optional) rule in the D&D RC, which I often used for my games, but I like C&C's implementation best (minus, of course, the SIEGE system that it ties into, but that's an entirely different topic).

CONSTITUTION = 'fortitude'
DEXTERITY = 'reflex'
WISDOM = 'will'

Nothing added, nothing gained.

As I pointed out, and as should be obvious, I can pull numbers out of my ass just as easily as Jason Alexander can. That's just fine with me, too!

The trouble is that Jason makes the claim that he has something more than that in "F/R/W", something I lack, something that relieves him of the burden of adjudication.

He very plainly has not.

I at least have actual % chances immediately at hand for common situations demanding chance.

QuoteThe difference is pretty simple. In OD&D here's what you can save against:

Death Ray
Poison
Wands
Polymorph
Paralyzation
Stone
Dragon Breath
Staves
Spells

Yes, the difference is simple: actual dice-rolls, not "whatever the DM makes up".

The actual categories are:

Death Ray or Poison
All Wands -- Including Polymorph or Paralyzation
Stone
Dragon Breath
Staves & Spells

QuoteThe first problem, of course, is the question of what you do for effects that fall into multiple categories.

Give us an example of such an imponderable, eh? I'll make a ruling, and you can write it down and henceforth refer to it as a rule.

It's not rocket science -- especially next to "attacks of opportunity" and interaction of skills+feats+powers+conditions+actions!

QuoteThe far larger problem, however, are the plethora of effects which don't fall anywhere on that list.

For which I have EXACTLY THE SAME recourse as you!

"I call that 10 or higher, modified for dexterity."

What's the great magic in saying "reflex" instead of "dexterity"? I'm not seeing any!

Quote from: Phillip;454776For which I have EXACTLY THE SAME recourse as you!

"I call that 10 or higher, modified for dexterity."

What's the great magic in saying "reflex" instead of "dexterity"? I'm not seeing any!

Only it's not the same. At all.

"10 or higher plus DEX" doesn't consider level - a 1st level character has the exact same chance of success as a 15th level one of the same DEX,  unlike the already established practice of saving throws. Whereas the reflex/fortitude/will system DOES take level into consideration. Like saving throws.

The fundamental & primary division between physical strength, physical dexterity/adeptness, and mental strength goes back a ways in RPGs. TFT used Strength, Dexterity, and IQ as the only ability scores, and often called on characters to roll under one of them using Nd6 in order to succeed at some task or avoid some danger.

The problem with the old D&D approach of using saves vs. (various), that I find, is that it's not immediately obvious which save to use. I suppose there are rules of thumb somewhere. For example, in B/X, somehow I picked up a sense (right or wrong) that "save vs. petrification" is the right one to use for avoiding a deadweight trap (like a swinging log or dropping stone).

As for why the categories are grouped the way they are, for any given edition of (A)D&D, I actually suspect that Gygax or the other respective designer did it pretty much for game-balance purposes, within that particular edition. These days it's popular to talk about "Gygaxian naturalism" but I really think that the designers were often motivated to keep various options such as choice of class & race balanced in the sense of trading off advantages/disadvantages so it would be impossible to flatly consider one to be better than the other--at the time you had to make the decision, if not for every conceivable point in a campaign. To extent this supported naturalism since it helped answer the question why anyone in the world would choose to be an X instead of a Y, or why the world wasn't dominated by Zs.