Quote from: Elliot Wilen;454792The 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).

In OD&D the "petrification" category is listed as "Stone," as in "turn to." I would not rule out the possibility that the save vs. stone was well known to Gygax's players from medusa, basilisks, etc., and then one fateful day an indiana-jones style boulder rolled down a chute at a PC, at which point with a terrible glee Gygax instructed the hapless player to "Save vs. Stone."

This has become really funny.

A heated debate about whether the saving throw mechanism Gygax pulled out of his arse in 1976 is superior to a revision to a mechainsm pulled out someone else's arse in 1995

Quote from: Premier;454782Only 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.

You don't know whether I have considered level or not. Why wouldn't I?

On the other hand, we both know that the OD&D saving rolls have taken it into account.

The OD&D saving rolls have TWO factors combined to yield a third.

Fortitude +x, or Reflex +y, or Will +z is ONLY HALF the equation. NO result whatsoever follows from it. The DM must ADD the other half, and that can cancel out anything at all in the first half.

I'll see your +10 and raise with a DC 31. Same 0% as +0 vs. 21.

"The Alexandrian" blog has demonstrated considerable understanding of the actual merits of 3e, so it's puzzling that the author should argue the wrong point at all, much less so badly.

Quote from: Cole;454750You 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.

We do pretty much the same thing. The Reflex save just determines if you were quick enough to dive out of the way, get your shield up in time, or make the dispelling micro-cantrip in time.

But this reminds me, yet again, that I really should work harder to include this kind of "wizards are using minor magic all the time" stuff. It's one of those things I always think is awesome when I read about it... and then promptly forget whenever I'm actually playing at the table.

Quote from: Cole;454794In OD&D the "petrification" category is listed as "Stone," as in "turn to." I would not rule out the possibility that the save vs. stone was well known to Gygax's players from medusa, basilisks, etc., and then one fateful day an indiana-jones style boulder rolled down a chute at a PC, at which point with a terrible glee Gygax instructed the hapless player to "Save vs. Stone."

That sounds ridiculously plausible. In the sense of "it should be true even if it isn't" if nothing else.

Quote from: Phillip;454776CONSTITUTION = 'fortitude'
DEXTERITY = 'reflex'
WISDOM = 'will'

Nothing added, nothing gained.

Yup. Ditching OD&D saving throws and going straight to ability checks would be another way to unify the mechanic.

I find letting saves scale by level and vary by class, however, to be a useful "gain" over the house rule you're proposing.

QuoteThe trouble is that Jason makes the claim that he has something more than that in "F/R/W",

Something more than a unified, universal mechanic? No. That's pretty much all I claimed that I had.

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

Using OD&D saving throws? No you don't. At least no more than you do using 3E's unified, universal mechanic. The only way you can calculate the actual percentage chance of an OD&D saving throw is:

(1) To know the base saving throw of the character.
(2) To know the difficulty of the saving throw being made.
(3) And then calculating the percentage chance of making the required die throw.

For example, if you've got a -2 saving throw vs. poison being made by a character with a saving throw of 13 vs. poison, then they have a 50% chance of succeeding. If their saving throw was 15 or the difficulty was -4, however, the odds would be different.

Similarly, however, if I know the character's saving throw (+8) and the difficulty of the check (DC 20), I can trivially calculate the percentage chance of success would be for that particular character. (Although I'm still unclear on what the point would be.)

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

What I don't think you're fully grasping here is that the actual math of the system has not actually changed in any meaningful sense.

(1) Take an OD&D Fighting-Man with a 12 save vs. poison. We assign a -2 difficulty to the poison, saying that he needs to make a -2 saving throw vs. poison or suffer the effects of the poison. What does he need to roll to save vs. the poison? 10 or higher.

(2) Take a 3E Fighter with a +8 bonus. The base DC is set to 20 and then we apply the same -2 modifier to give us a DC 18 check. What does he need to roll to save vs. the poison? 10 or higher.

If I'm just "pulling numbers out of my ass" when using 3E, I'm afraid Gygax was doing the exact same thing with OD&D.

This is not some sort of trick. This works exactly like ascending vs. descending AC. It's the basis for how 3E unified the core mechanics of the game (by getting all the math pointing in the same direction and making the method for applying modifiers to the checks trivial and consistent).

The pertinent difference I'm pointing to between the systems, however, is not ascending vs. descending math. It's the universal and unified nature of the 3E mechanic versus the incomplete hodgepodge of OD&D.

If a 1st level Fighting-Man in OD&D had saving throws of Fortitude 12, Reflex 14, and Will 16, I wouldn't have made the complaint I made. The mechanic would be universal and conducive to informed, consistent rulings.

Nor am I particularly privileging this particular breakdown: As I mentioned in my previous post, S&W's unified save is pretty good. And as I mentioned above, using ability checks would be another option.

You could also continue breaking down the save categories by the type of effect, as long as your save categories were actually universal. For example, you might have saves vs. Natural, Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spells (which I think, assuming spell-like abilities fell under spells, would give you essentially comprehensive coverage in 3E).

Quote from: Phillip;454811The DM must ADD the other half, and that can cancel out anything at all in the first half.

For someone who professes a liking for DM rulings, you appear to be fucking terrified of them.

Quote from: Phillip;454813"The Alexandrian" blog has demonstrated considerable understanding of the actual merits of 3e, so it's puzzling that the author should argue the wrong point at all, much less so badly.

Phillip's posts have never demonstrated coherence, logic, or intelligence. So it's completely unsurprising that the author should argue the wrong point so badly.

Quote from: Jason AlexanderI find letting saves scale by level and vary by class, however, to be a useful "gain" over the house rule you're proposing.

You are confused.

OD&D saves do vary by level and class, automatically. The numbers are right there.

It's no exceptional "house rule" to consider whatever I as DM deem worthy of consideration, whether the strength of a serpent's venom, the constitution of a victim, the strength of someone trying to force a door, or the dexterity of someone leaping clear of a net.

Very simply, nothing whatsoever is added where you claim something is added. You ought to know better, to know what WotC-D&D books (or for that matter the 1st ed. AD&D Survival Guides) in fact do contribute of real utility.

QuoteSimilarly, however, if I know the character's saving throw (+8) and the difficulty of the check (DC 20)...

Ah, but how do you 'know' the difficulty of the check?

I am sure you can figure this out!

QuoteWhat I don't think you're fully grasping here is that the actual math of the system has not actually changed in any meaningful sense.

No, it is YOU making claims of novelty. They have of course no support, and that is good for a little amusement.

QuoteFor someone who professes a liking for DM rulings, you appear to be fucking terrified of them.

You are being a weasel. The matter at hand is that for someone boasting of his freedom from DM rulings, you appear to have no notion of how actually to get it.

"Look, I have a purple cup, therefore my water is turned to wine!" Uh, no. I do notice that you have access to grapes, though. It's funny that you don't notice.

How long will it take you?

To be fair, calculating save DCs follows a fairly standard set of formulas (e.g. spells are, IIRC, 10 + casting stat ability mod + level of spell + any relevant feat or item bonus), and many of the ones that don't are laid out explicitly in the rules text of the effect causing the save.

The rule of thumb beyond that is level (of the challenge or effect) + 10 for easy checks, level + 15 for moderate checks, and level + 20 for hard checks.

I would consider the ability to perform these calculations to be a fairly basic but essential skill for competent 3.x DMs. Part of planning an encounter involved making sure I had save DCs for all relevant effects properly noted somewhere (spells on the caster's sheet; traps and the like in my one page encounter summary).

Quote from: Phillip;454847

QuoteI find letting saves scale by level and vary by class, however, to be a useful "gain" over the house rule you're proposing.

You are confused.

OD&D saves do vary by level and class, automatically.

You're confusing the house rules you proposed in this thread for the actual rules of OD&D now? And you're trying to rewrite those house rules while pretending you aren't doing it? You can't possibly be this stupid.

QuoteIt's no exceptional "house rule" to consider whatever I as DM deem worthy of consideration, whether the strength of a serpent's venom, the constitution of a victim, the strength of someone trying to force a door, or the dexterity of someone leaping clear of a net.

Oh. Fuck. You are that stupid.

Quote

QuoteSimilarly, however, if I know the character's saving throw (+8) and the difficulty of the check (DC 20)...

Ah, but how do you 'know' the difficulty of the check?

Because that's (a) how all the 3E designers have said they did it and (b) it's self-evident to anyone capable of grasping simple principles of arithmetic and subtraction?

It's not like this was some sort of radical new idea. THAC0 has been around for 30+ years now. Nor does the swap from descending values to ascending values actually change the fundamental mathematics of the system, no matter how much you try to claim that it does.

Whether you say it's a "-2 save vs. poison" or a "DC 22 save vs. poison" you are doing the exact same thing.

Similarly, if I give you the equations "x = 4 + 2" and "2 = x - 4" and ask you to solve for x, I am giving you the exact same math problem.

Quote

QuoteWhat I don't think you're fully grasping here is that the actual math of the system has not actually changed in any meaningful sense.

No, it is YOU making claims of novelty.

You realize that's a non sequitur, right?

Aww... Who am I kidding? Of course you don't. Let me explain it for you: When I say "the actual math of the system has not actually changed" replying to say that I'm making a "claim of novelty" regarding the mathematics of the system doesn't actually make a lick of sense.

Particularly when you're the one who claimed in your previous post that there was something different about the mathematics.

Now, if you want to talk about 3E offering a unified and universal mechanic for saving throws (which is basically a completely different topic of conversation), we can talk about that. I notice you were unable to comment on that at all in this last post.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;454852You're confusing the house rules you proposed in this thread for the actual rules of OD&D now?

Nope. I'm 'confusing' this:

Fighting-Men 1-3: 12
Magic-User 1-5: 13
Cleric 1-4: 11

with "varying by class and level".

QuoteBecause that's (a) how all the 3E designers have said they did it...

What is "that"?

Come on. How do you know what the DC is?

Golly, I thought you were a real 3e maven, but this is so obvious! It's what leaps out at people, fans and detractors alike, about the game.

The way class, level and ability score are lumped together has been mentioned, and this is neat because it leaves clear just what is missing.

There are four general factors we may consider:  ability score, class, level, and situation. OD&D lumps the last three, 3e the first three.

We can still break out the components in 3e, because we have filled in all the spaces on character sheets and in stat blocks. We can lump factors similarly in OD&D, but OD&D does not even specify writing down the save numbers on a character card. It's like the IRS vs. Fibber McGee's closet (a 10' pole in there somewhere).

OD&D just doesn't call for rolls for as many situations, and only with Supplement I gives ability scores besides charisma much significance in its essentially class-and-level system.

(There's a rule in the 1st AD&D DMG for finding out that an individual character is especially "keen eared", but in the Original set the only distinction is between humans and the faerie folk.)

3e not only calls for rolls for a zillion and one situations but has specific rules for each.

Poison Save? There is no single Poison Save. Is that poison from an aranea (DC 13), a spider eater (DC 17), a viper (DC 11), or some other monster? The number is particular to the monster. DMG Table 8-3 lists 29 more poisons.

Thieves doing their "human fly" routine are not the only climbers who need to roll in 3e. There's almost a whole page of rules devoted to climbing in the 3.5 PHB.

PHB Table 4-2 lists 45 skills, each with its DCs and other rules.

The encyclopedic treatment extends to other subjects, as well. If there's no rule for something in the first three books, odds are it's somewhere in the supplements.

Quote from: Phillip;454776CONSTITUTION = 'fortitude'
DEXTERITY = 'reflex'
WISDOM = 'will'

Quote from: Phillip;454859Nope. I'm 'confusing' this:

Fighting-Men 1-3: 12
Magic-User 1-5: 13
Cleric 1-4: 11

with "varying by class and level".

The fact that you apparently think those quotes both say the same thing says a lot about your inability to communicate using written language.

QuoteWhat is "that"?

The conversion from descending math to ascending math. C'mon, keep up.

QuoteCome on. How do you know what the DC is?

How do you know that poison save is made at -2?

QuotePoison Save? There is no single Poison Save. Is that poison from an aranea (DC 13), a spider eater (DC 17), a viper (DC 11), or some other monster? The number is particular to the monster.

Let's look at the AD&D Monster Manual. Is that poison from a giant ant (+0), a giant centipede (+4), a geryon (-4), a poisonous frog (+4), or some other monster? The number is particular to the monster!

And if we flip over to the 1st Edition DMG, we find a table of poison types. And the different poison types listed also vary the difficulty of the saving throw! Holy shit!

I'm not really sure where you got the idea that variable difficulty didn't exist in the pre-3E game. But do you understand how ridiculously wrong you are now? Or are you going to keep making yourself look like an idiot?

You have taken up arguing against yourself, Justin?

I leave you to it, then!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;454973But do you understand how ridiculously wrong you are now? Or are you going to keep making yourself look like an idiot?

Quote from: Phillip;454976You have taken up arguing against yourself, Justin?

I'll take that as a "yes" to both questions.

Although you did manage to finally figure out what my name is. Good work on that minor feat of literacy.

QuoteI leave you to it, then!

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Seriously, did anybody understand anything Phillip's been spouting off about?

I have nothing against the F/R/W split in 3e, seems a lot simpler and easier for the DM to use.  As for the full saving throw system, though, I found some problems in the math.  What it came down to, I found during my days of 3e, was that a character usually had either a really good chance to succeed at the saving throw, or it was near impossible (a nat 20 still counted as a success, right?).  But that was just from my point of view of playing in a few campaigns (most of them short), so I'm not sure how accurate it is.

Quote from: islan;455059Seriously, did anybody understand anything Phillip's been spouting off about?

He reminds me of CavScout.