Dice-Neutral Attack/Saving Throw Table, Adjusted

Almost immediately after I posted the Saving Throw table last Thursday, I realized I screwed up. Oh, sure, the table entries are correct and the table is usable – if you use the table a specific way. A non-intuitive way. But it can be improved.

The way I was expecting the table to be used:

1. Use the header to equate a saving throw category to an armor type, if necessary.
2. Find your dice rating or level title in the columns on the left.
3. Read across the row until you find the armor class you are attacking/saving against.
4. Move down the column to find the target number for the dice you are rolling.

This all works, but the headers are barely getting any use, and aren’t being used in the traditional way. Plus, you have to do some weird math adjustments if you are attacking a weaker armor class at higher levels. I made several attempts at explaining how to make the adjustments, but none of them sounded very clear, and I was not satisfied.

Simply reversing the entries on each row and changing the way you read the table fixes that. So, I made a new table. Here’s how to use it:

1. Look in the header for the column for your target armor type or saving throw category.
2. Move down the column to the row for your dice rating or level title.
3. Read the adjusted armor type (for example, Heroes attack opponents in Medium armor as if they were wearing Light armor.)
4. Find the adjusted armor type in the Suggested Dice Rolls section and use the listed target number.

If the adjusted armor type in Step 3 is blank, count how many columns you have to move to the right to get to an adjusted armor type of None. Subtract that from the target number for Armor Type None, if rolling 1d6 or 2d6. Double this modifier if rolling 1d20 or 4d6-4. This is easier to explain than the adjustments for the previous version of this table.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

I Hate Will Saves

On the previous post, Andreas Davour asked what my problem with Will saves is. I’ve answered bits and pieces of this question before, but maybe it’s time to address it directly in a single post.

Let’s start with my broadest objection: I like the old categories better. Part of that is because the old system names warn players about unexpected dangers in the game. They specifically do not include mundane dangers, like falling. The new system names are general actions and provide no special clues. Players should already know that their characters can dodge or resist urges, so a Reflex or Will save tells them nothing.

A more specific objection: having a Will save tells players they can resist magic by being strong-willed, instead of avoiding magic through luck, destiny, divine favor, or even a bit of magic of your own. My first rule of saving throws is: You escape supernatural dangers by supernatural means. If there are mundane means to avoid magical effects, such as diving into a river to escape a fireball, the mundane effect almost always works in marginal cases. Saving throws are meant for exceptions, not ordinary consequences of actions.

My second rule of saving throws is even more relevant: You play your character. The GM doesn’t play your character. Your character behaves the way you say your character behaves. Having a Will save tells players (and some bad GMs) the opposite: that you can lose control of your character if you fail a save. “You said your character is abrasive. Make a Will save or your character starts insulting the baron.”

In broader cases, like falling asleep because you are tired, I don’t allow a save if there is a mundane action that can solve the problem. If you are tired, sleeping will fix that. If you, the player, choose to have your character skip sleep, then your character is tired and suffers the ill effects until your character sleeps. There is no save to avoid the consequences of your actions.

For a Sleep spell, arguably a save vs. Magic might be appropriate, although notably there is no save for Sleep in the original description of the spell. Nor is there a save vs. Detect Evil, or vs. illusions like Phantasmal Forces. The way to avoid Detect Evil is to not be evil. The way to dispel an illusion is to announce “I don’t believe this is real. I try to touch it to prove it.” This automatically works. Allowing a Will save to “disbelieve” actually takes that benefit away and makes D&D more of a numbers game instead of allowing strategy and critical thinking.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Saving Throws as Attack Rolls

Everyone wants to simplify the way saving throws work, but the approaches I’ve seen all leave something to be desired. The single target number save system is just too simplistic, when it’s not the original system in disguise. The Fortitude/Reflex/Will system adds saving throws where I don’t want them, and I vehemently object to Will as a category.

How about this?

It merges the saving throw table with the attack table by equating saving throw categories to types of armor. It assumes the following for normal humans:

• Save vs. Magic or Dragon Breath is as difficult as “to hit” vs. Heavy armor (plate,)
• Save vs. Stone or Wands is as difficult as Medium armor (chain,)
• Save vs. Death is as difficult as Light armor (Leather.)

Character classes would get bonuses for some categories: Wands and Dragon Breath for Fighters, Magic and Death for Clerics, Stone and Magic for Magic-Users. Thieves could get a bonus to Wands and Death.

Since this is a dice-neutral table, the exact bonus depends on what dice you are rolling for attacks and saves. A +1 or +2 would do in most cases. The M-U save vs. Magic bonus should be Level/4 (round up) if you want it to be closer to the original probabilities. Or, as an alternative, you can use the advantage system on one or both of a class’s favored saves, rolling twice and taking the best, which will give a much greater benefit than a simple +2.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Rolling Unawares, Rolling Alert

I’ve written many times about my simple way of handling both skills and saves vs. natural or mundane situations: roll 5+ on 1d6. Very simple. But sometimes, I’m rolling to prevent something bad, and other times I’m rolling to undo something bad. One is better than the other. So how should the GM decide which to use?
I think I’ve come up with a clearer explanation:

If a character is alert (knows the danger,) the character avoids it unless the player rolls 5+ on 1d6.
If a character is unaware, the character can still escape danger if the player rolls 5+ on 1d6.

Example: Arrow trap. If the character can see a hole and the player says, “I think something’s going to shoot out of that hole. I’m being on my guard,” then there’s only a 5+ on 1d6 chance that the arrow hits the character.
If the character is stumbling around in darkness and has no idea there’s a hole in the wall, when the trap is triggered, there’s a 5+ on 1d6 chance that the character dodges the arrow.
Ability scores affect whether there is a roll or not, of course. My current thinking is this:

Score	Unaware	Alert
Worst	Fail	5+ or Fail
Standard	5+ or Fail	Fail on 5+
Best	Fail on 5+	Succeed

Worst here means an ability score of 3 and Best means a score of 18 (on 3d6.) Naturally, if a particular score is not rated on the 3 to 18 scale, these numbers would be different. There is no roll on either a simple Fail or simple Succeed result.
Some situations can adjust how either “Worst” or “Best” are interpreted. I would just write “Easy (15+)” to lower the minimum score needed for the Best result, or “Hard (6)” to raise the maximum score that counts as the Worst result. You could note which ability score is being checked, but I would just go with whatever seems right for the situation, because sometimes a player may have a good argument why they should be allowed to use other abilities.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

Treating Saving Throws As Attack Rolls

I've realized for some time now that you could combine the saving throw table with the combat table by setting each saving throw category as the equivalent of an armor type and just using one table. But I never got around to working out the equivalents -- until now.

Fighter

Save Categories		Armor Equivalent
Death		Leather
Wands		Leather+Shield
Stone		Chain
Breath		Chain+Shield
Spells		Plate

Magic-User

Save Categories		Armor Equivalent
Death		Leather+Shield
Wands		Chain
Stone		Leather+Shield
Breath		Plate
Spells		Chain+Shield

(plus bonus vs. spells = Level/4, round down)

Cleric

Save Categories		Armor Equivalent
Death		Shield
Wands		Leather
Stone		Chain
Breath		Plate
Spells		Chain+Shield

Thieves save as either clerics or magic-users, depending on whether you are using OD&D, Holmes Basic, or one of the other Basic D&D versions, or you can construct a unique saving throw scheme by comparing the other classes (perhaps save as clerics vs. death magic and wands, but as fighters vs. everything else.

Notes:

1. I'm using "Death [Magic]" as the name of the first category rather than "Poison" to emphasize my opinion that the saving throw categories should be reserved for supernatural situations. I don't believe in using save vs. wands to dodge javelins, for example. Poison is such an extreme situation that it gets the benefit of being treated like death magic.
2. Magic-Users get the bonus to save vs. spells because in OD&D, they improve in this category faster than their other saving throws. A bonus equal to 25% of their level is a good approximation.

Magic Item Saves

While looking up the information on magic items for the Magic Doesn't Stack posts, I was reminded of another set of rules that bear some re-examination: saving throws for magic items. Here's what page 38 of Monsters & Treasure says:

Magical items will, during the course of play, be struck by various forms of weapons. For the sake of simplicity it is generally easier to assume they survive unharmed if their wearer/user is not killed (exception, Helms). If the wearer is killed, or the items are alone, throw for them on the following table if struck by Fire (Dragon or Ball) or Lightning (Dragon or Bolt). Those items not listed should be assumed automatically destroyed.

There are only a few items listed:

1. Staff of Power, Ring of Fire Resistance, or +3 Shield/Weapon;
2. Staff of Wizardry, Ring of Protection, or +2 Armor/Shield/Weapon;
3. Wand of Fire Balls/Lightning Bolts or +1 Armor/Shield/Weapon.

These are listed in order of worsening saves; a Staff of Power saves on 10+, a Staff of Wizardry saves on 12+, and wands save on a 14+.

The interesting thing about this is that there are no other save categories listed. If a wizard researches some kind of Rot spell, it will automatically destroy an item that could rot, like a Staff of Power, if it's not in the possession of a living (or at least intact) creature. The Disintegrate spell does not get a saving throw. Items are simply not as resistant to magic as a character.

Another interesting thing: Fire and Lightning are described as "opposites". What this means is that Lightning is slightly more likely to destroy a Ring of Fire Resistance or Wand of Fire Balls, and Fire is more likely to destroy a Wand of Lighting Bolts. These get a -2 to the saving throw.

Characters aren't likely to have many of these specific items, so there won't be many saving throws for items. Any othe itme is destroyed by fire balls or lightning bolts. No Save. These rules are harsh.

I think I would make them slightly harsher, for two items: scrolls and potions. Fire should have a chance of destroying these, whether the character saves or not. A 5+ on 1d6 means the character's pack or satchel catches fire; if the character does nothing to stop this, the scrolls catch fire and the potions boil away in five minutes.

Mundane Saves

Wayne Rossi has a blog post up about saving throws, which got me thinking about the occasional complaint about the old-style saving throw categories (spells, wands, death-ray/poison, breath, polymorph): they aren't a "universal mechanic" and don't offer clues about what to use for walking a tightrope or dodging a spear launched from a trap. This is why the threefold Reflex/Fortitude/Will saves from the d20 system are so popular.

Except that there are other "saves" in the LBBs, like the 1 or 2 in 6 chance of falling into a pit trap, the chance to avoid damage from a fall from a ship's rigging, the chances of drowning, the vague reference to "avoiding adversity". Delving Deeper interpreted that as the rudiments of a skill system; I folded them into the concept of situation rolls instead.

The upshot of this is that there's a distinction between mundane "saves" and magical saves. All of the five categories (except for the "Poison" part of the Save vs. Death) deal with magical or unnatural effects. These are the saves that improve with level. Mundane stuff, like drowning, get a simpler save which doesn't improve with level, but might be adjusted by ability scores, armor worn, or other situational factors.

Gary Gygax himself undermined this simple distinction when he wrote later modules, inserting suggestions such as save vs. wands against a javelin trap. But I like the older distinction better, because it makes the scarier magical things easier to deal with at higher levels, but maintains the danger of ordinary hazards. You don't get better at avoiding drowning. You don't get better at avoiding a pit trap. You do, in a sense, get better at surviving a fall, because of the increase in hit points, but that's why some of us add extra complications to falling damage, so that there are always insurmountable dangers.

I agree with Wayne that making saving throws vs. spells dependent on casting level is a bad move, but I also think that using a universal "mundane saves" roll not tied to level is an important cap on a character's abilities. You may eventually be able to laugh at wizards, but you can't laugh at Mother Nature. It's better to avoid obvious physical dangers, and it should always be so.

Save vs. Bookkeeping

In a comment on the previous level drain post, Brandon brings up the similarities to level drain in v3.5, so I went to the d20 SRD to compare the details to what I suggest here. The penalties work about the same as what I suggested, except that I don't suggest altering hit points or spells memorized (they will take care of themselves.) But here's an important part of the 3.5 version:

Negative levels remain until 24 hours have passed or until they are removed with a spell, such as restoration. If a negative level is not removed before 24 hours have passed, the affected creature must attempt a Fortitude save (DC 10 + ½ draining creature’s racial HD + draining creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). On a success, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. On a failure, the negative level goes away, but the creature’s level is also reduced by one. A separate saving throw is required for each negative level.

What this means is that 3.5 adds a saving throw; if the save is successful, the energy drain doesn't work like old school level drain at all, but returns to normal quickly, while a failed save means the drain is permanent and you must now recalculate your level-dependent abilities, "undoing" your previous gains. Which, in the considerably more complicated 3.5 version of the game, means a substantial amount of changes to the character sheet.

I've heard several people complain that older editions of the game have "save vs. suck" rolls, which they consider bad. But this is a "save vs. bookkeeping" roll; your character is penalized either way, but depending on a die roll, you, the player, get a headache. And I haven't even addressed the problem of tracking level drain from multiple types of creatures so that you can calculate that marvelous DC for the saving throw.

No wonder some people hate level drain. What I don't understand is why they tout 3.5 as being a good fix.

Poison Effects

I talked a little bit about the Judges Guild poisons and how I would change them to get away from using a table. However, the JG poisons also have additional effects on a failed save, beyond mere damage. The three main effects are:

1. Illness: Unconscious most of the time, limited movement the rest of the time. There's no guideline here for determining consciousness, so I'd require a 5+ on a 1d6 roll to remain conscious for 1d6 rounds.
2. Paralyzed: Conscious and unable to act. I think I'd ruled that the character can still speak, with difficulty. Otherwise, there'd be little practical difference.
3. Coma: Unconscious and unable to act.

There are also two minor effects, Half Move and Half Action, that only occur in a couple places.

I tried to work out some kind of pattern in the table, but then I realized that, aside from the first three poisons listed, we're dealing with fantasy poisons, so we could just reassign the poison effects in a better pattern to eliminate the table completely. Divide the HD of the creature by 3 to get a quotient and remainder. Quotient 0 means the poison only affects man-sized creatures or smaller. If the quotient is 1 or higher, the remainder tells us which effect the poison has (1 = Ill, 2 = Paralyzed, 0 = Coma.) Add the quotient and the remainder and subtract 2 to find the effect on ogre-sized creatures; subtract 3 to find the effect on dragon-sized creatures.

Poison Types

I've been reading the JG Ready Reference Sheets, which I'll be reviewing eventually, but I sussed out a particular pattern in their poison table. Unlike the default old-school approach, JG poisons do not cause instant death; instead, they are arranged in a table as poison types 0 through 9 and each does a set damage per round for an equal number of rounds. There's also a bonus effect (illness, paralysis, or coma, in most cases.)

I tend to shy away from highly specific tables, preferring stuff I can memorize or easily adapt from one or two multi-purpose tables, so I had a negative reaction to this table when I first saw it. I still wasn't sold when I noticed that the poison type, damage, and # rounds were all identical, and the delay before onset was 10 minus the poison type.

But then I checked the listed monsters against their monster compendium and discovered: poison type = HD of monster (except for purple worms.) This means you really only have to worry about the bonus effect on a failed save.

I may want to address that in a future post, but the basic concept seems worth adopting: poisons are still dangerous, especially from wyverns or purple worms, but it's not a save or die roll.

Last-Chance Saves

There's been some lively discussion on the post about save or die which kind of raised a side issue: should you add a save-or-die roll to falls from above a certain height, say from a hundred-foot fall? You certainly could, and it would "fix" hundred-foot falls, if they bother you. My own solution is different and involves the injury system I've mentioned before (I'd link to both, but Google seems to have broken labels in the post manager.)

For me, a saving throw is one last chance to avoid really bad consequences from a situation. A couple other bloggers have mentioned the same belief. A character drinks from a fountain only to discover it's poison; the bad decision has already been made, but the saving throw is one last shot to avoid death.

But I go a little farther than that, in two ways. One is that I distinguish between magical/unnatural situations and mundane but deadly situations. With one exception, the standard saving throw categories all have to do with fantastic dangers: magical wands and spells, the gaze of a medusa, the breath of a dragon, a cursed scroll of polymorph. The exception is deadly poison, but one could argue that instant death poison is extreme enough it's worth counting it as fantastic. For non-fantastic dangers, like falling into a pit, the rules mention a simple d6 roll. The difference is that fantastic dangers become easier to shake off as characters increase in level, but natural dangers are a flat 2 in 6 (or whatever the roll is.) I believe in maintaining that distinction, so I would never apply one of the standard saves to something like crossing a tightrope; instead, I'd make a situation roll to see if the character slips.

The second way that saves in my games are different from saves in some other people's games is that I believe they should be the result of a last-chance action. You drink a potion, I say "it's poison!" you say "I spit it out!" This is worth a saving roll. I actually haven't been a real hard-ass on this so far, giving players a save for some things like poison even when they take no special action. I rationalize that some things, like drinking poison, might trigger an automatic physiological response, like vomiting. But save vs. dragon breath is supposed to represent ducking and covering, and save vs. petrification is supposed to be the character shutting their eyes and averting their gaze. If there's some reason a character would be unable to take effective action, there is no save.

The side effect of this way of thinking is that I will allow bonuses to the roll or other benefits if your last-chance action is exceptionally good. You drink an ipecac immediately after that bottle of poison? That might be worth a +1 or +2. You dive into a pond when the dragon breathes fire at you? Half damage even if you fail your save, no damage if you succeed. You were already under water before the round when the dragon breathed? No roll necessary.

Why Save or Die Works

People occasionally say they dislike "save or die" mechanics. The latest example is either Mike Mearls or Monte Cook, in a recent WotC article; I haven't read it, so I'm just going by blogger buzz that it is, in fact, the case. The usual reason given is: a high-level character can be suddenly laid low by a single rattlesnake bite, exactly as if the character were a measly 1st level flunky. It's unheroic. (I've even seen the same feelings expressed about "static armor classes" that don't improve with character level.)

I like save or die for exactly that reason. I could call "realism!" but it's really a matter of maintaining a minimum threat level. With save or die rules as written, absolutely anyone can die at any time. You can't become blasé about adventuring just because you've amassed a bunch of hit poiuts; you have to take precautions and play wisely.

Some people would prefer to ignore low-level threats after they've proved themselves worthy, so that they can just focus on "boss" monsters. I suppose they can play however they want, as long as they don't take up a contradictory position, like complaining about 10th level fighters walking away from 100-foot falls.

20 Questions, Part III: Threats

These three questions from Brendan's 20 questions deal with what kind of threats the players can expect to face.

9. Will we need to run from some encounters, or will we be able to kill everything?
    Yes, but just about anything can be defeated in some way, if not killed.
10. Level-draining monsters: yes or no?
    Yes, but recovery is easier.
11. Are there going to be cases where a failed save results in PC death?
    Yes, but if you think you can prevent it, try it!

I can't think of any monster that cannot under any circumstances be killed, but I won't rule it out. There will definitely not be much balance in my dungeons, though. I have been keeping the danger pretty low so far, but even that resulted in a TPK last time we played.

So far, level drainers haven't shown up. However, when they do, I will explain that the characters lose levels but not xp, a house rule I've explained previously. Thus, you can regain one level per adventure until you are back to normal.

We've already had one failed poison save resulting in a character nearly dying, but last-minute intervention averted actual death. So death as a consequence of a single failed roll is possible, but it can be circumvented with a clever response.

Disbelief

There was a brief discussion on the OD&D forums about Phantasmal Forces, so I thought I'd say something here about illusiona and disbelief. Some games, like The Fantasy Trip, have an explicit "roll to disbelieve", which in many cases actually dispels the illusion: you see a dragon, you say "I disbelieve!" and it vanishes. I have to admit, since I played both TFT and D&D back in the day, I have sometimes thought of magical illusions using this model; apparently, so have many others, as that seems to be the common interpretation even among D&D players.

But that's apparently not the original model for illusions in D&D. Consider the original Phantasmal Forces spell in Men & Magic:

"The creation of vivid illusions of nearly anything the user envisions (a projected mental image so to speak). As long as the caster concentrates on the spell, the illusion will continue unless touched by some living creature, so there is no limit on duration, per se. Damage caused to viewers of a Phantasmal Force will be real if the illusion is believed to be real. Range: 24"."

No saving throw is mentioned; unlike illusions in TFT's Wizard, which are designed to be playable in a no-GM environment, the GM calling for a saving throw immediately before describing an illusion would be a clue that perhaps things are not what they seem. Disbelief is only mentioned in the context of damage; disbelief doesn't cause the illusion to vanish, but touching it will. I'm seeing this as characters reaching out and having their hands pass through the insubstantial phantasm, after which it fades away. Ranged attacks won't dispel an illusion, unless you are using live cats as ammo; illusions can appear to dodge arrows, or an arrow will appear to stick in an illusory door when in reality it has fallen to the ground.

There's no mention in the spell description of a restriction to one sense, like sight or sound. I'd allow features that don't rely on substantiality, like heat, cold, even wind and moisture. In fact, the comment about damage is meaningless in combination with the insubstantiality restriction unless we accept the possibility of attacks that don't involve physical contact, like dragon's breath. Illusions of swordsmen or archers -- or, for that matter, pits -- are only useful in scaring or misdirecting enemies; fire, mist or gas, on the other hand, is insubstantial by nature, so illusory fire can burn, and poisonous clouds can suffocate (and instantly kill, if they are believed to be poison.)

So the real question in handling Phantasmal Forces is: what constitutes disbelief? I'd stick with the "no saving throw" approach; after all, if you can reach out and touch a phantasm, that dispels it automatically, with no roll required, so all you have to do is be close enough and brave enough to do that. For insubstantial attacks like fire or poisonous clouds, disbelief is automatic if the player can cite a reason for the disbelief, like noticing that your clothes are intact. Again, this doesn't cause the illusion to vanish, but it eliminates damage from the illusion. I'd give NPCs and monsters a morale bonus when ordered to attack a dragon they don't believe is real.

I'd handle actual illusionists a little different, because I would want to make their art a completely different kind of magic, with its own rules. But that's a matter for another post.

Save Or Die Must Die!

I've heard through the grapevine that someone, somewhere, is complaining about "save or die" again. Woo hoo! Just what we need! The argument in this particular case is that "save or die" takes away player choice and short-circuits stories. But really, it's not "save or die" that's the problem in such cases: it's how saving throws are being used.

Aside from the fact that saving throws weren't meant to be a "workhorse" mechanic, originally, but only for exceptional situations (as explained previously,) a save -- any save -- is used after a player has made a decision that turns out to be bad. Snakes are slithering towards you? If you're not sure whether they're poisonous or not, you might want to block their approach with flaming oil or just run. You don't have to stand and fight. As long as the GM is playing fair (no dick moves,) then players are not being deprived of their choice, and any story in the making is only short-circuited if the players choose to do so.

The other thing to be aware of is that if you choose to play in the heavily pre-plotted style, you should avoid designing (or using) adventures with bottlenecks. If you have a scene that character must go through to complete the plot and you include a non-optional element in that scene that can stop the plot dead, that's a badly-designed scene and it will short-circuit your adventure. This is true for a forced meeting with an NPC who lobs poison gas bombs; it's also true for a "clue" scene where the clue must be found for the plot to advance, or for a room where the characters can get stuck, or for many other kinds of bottlenecks that have nothing to do with "save or die" situations.

Don't use a hammer to polish your china.

Old Saves, New Saves

Andreas Davour has asked me to expand on my comparisons between the old five-category save system and the new Fortitude/Reflex/Will system, including why I think Will shouldn't be there, and why I think some interpretations of old school saves are easier on characters than 3e and later.

First, let's get something out of the way: neither system is really more complicated than the other. Superficially, it seems more complicated: five categories compared to three, right? Except that, as I explained previously, the old system is more like three+two system: Save vs. Polymorph for M-U and Cleric is essentially identical to one of the three main saves, it's just different for each class, and Save vs. Breath for both is almost identical to the Fighter's Save vs. Spells. And for Fighters, Polymorph and Breath are just bonuses to Save vs. Spells. On the other hand, there's really more than three saves in 3e: Fortitude, Reflex, and Will are base categories, but some classes and feats add bonuses to ad-hoc categories, like "enchantments" (druids get a bonus against these, when case by woodland creatures.)

So, really, it's three against three:

• Death/Poison matches Fortitude
• Wands matches Reflex
• Spells matches Will

Saving Throw Hierarchy

Just a quick post to save for later something I posted on RPGNet in answer to a question. It will probably be relevant to Liber Zero as well. It's about the hierarchy or priority of saving throws. You have three main saves in old-school D&D, but not the same ones as 3e: Death, Wands, and Spells. They all apply to magic, or instant death from poison; non-magical effects perhaps didn't get saving throws in the LBBs, just ordinary d6 rolls, like the "save" vs. traps (1 or 2 in 6.) [This is something that bears further thought... ]

Death Magic/Poison is the easiest to survive, Wands the second easiest, Spells the hardest. However, Magic-Users improve faster on their save vs. Spells, until it becomes their easiest save.

There are two extra saves: Polymorph and Breath. These are distinct from the main three because they vary much more between classes. Fighters treat both as if they were less effective spells: +1 to save vs. Breath, +2 to save vs. Polymorph. M-Us treat Polymorph as if it were Death Magic (in other words, the best possible save,) but Clerics treat it as if it were an ordinary Spell; both treat Magical Breath effects as if they were Fighters of the same level resisting Spells (more or less.)

There's thus a hierarchy: use Death for any death magic, Wands for any wand (but not a staff, in OD&D.) For everything else, use Spell, unless something breathes on you or tries to change your form, in which case you use Breath or Polymorph. A Wand of Polymorph thus does not count as Polymorph because all wands use save vs. Wands.

Mechanics-Neutral Rules

Check out this table:

You've seen variations of it before: it's the Liber Zero table to "universalize" ability score rolls, reaction rolls, and rolls to open doors, avoid wandering monsters, and other situation rolls. All I've done is add a d10 and d20 column plus a column for modifiers.

What lead me to do this? A couple things:

• A post a few weeks ago about using the standard saving throw categories (breath, petrification, poison) as suggestions only, improvising new categories for falling rocks and the like as needed;
• A forum discussion which turned into a debate about roll under vs. roll over and d6 vs. d20.

My thinking: it would be easier to divorce saving throws from the old school fixed categories (or the new school Reflex, Fortitude, and Will) if you could just say "this class has a Low resistance to wands or rays that can be dodged, but a High resistance to other magic". Or: "the rocks falling from the ceiling are easy to dodge (Very High chance of avoiding.)"

Similarly, we can avoid debates about whether all rolls should be OGL d20, Target 20, GURPS-like 3d6 under stat rolls, or pretty much any other non-dice pool roll by just describing rules in terms of Hi/Lo and directing people to a universal table that gives you a value that will work for your system. The rolls won't be *exact* across systems, but it will actually be mechanics-neutral in terms of Roll High or Roll Low, or Roll 3d6 vs. Roll 1d20.

If you are using Roll Under and your target number is described as Lo/Hi, look up the label on the table, then read across to the column for your dice mechanic (Xd6, 1d10, or 1d20.) That gives your target number.

If your difficulty is described as Lo/Hi, look up the label, then read across to the Mods column; double this for 2d6 or 1d10, triple for 3d6 or 1d20*. No, the probabilities won't match, but who cares? You're using the same kind of roll for a given situation every time. Add the mod to your roll. If higher rolls are better, add the mod to your target number instead.

*Edit: I'm considering changing this to double for 3d6/1d20 and no multiplier for 2d6/1d10, to keep bonuses small. There will certainly be some situations where the mod will be smaller or larger than indicated; these are merely the suggested defaults for adapting your preferred mechanic to the Liber Zero rules. I have some other potential changes I'll put in a follow-up.

If an advantage or magical benefit is described as Lo/Hi, find the mod as above, but add it to your target number if low rolls are better, or add it to your roll if high rolls are better.

Clone Project: Revised Saves

I'm basically using Target 20 for Liber Zero (with permission from Daniel Collins,) but with modifications. For one, instead of using level as a bonus to the roll, I'm using hit dice; this has the benefit of not needing to multiply level by a fraction for magic-users and clerics, since their hit dice are already respectively half or two-thirds of the fighter's hit dice.

But now I've adjusted the saving throws as well. I'm using the same basic categories as the LBBs: Death, Wand, Stone, Breath, Spell. However, the adjustments for each category is different for each class, and there is also a bonus at name level to reflect the "jumps" in effectiveness that occur around then. My saves aren't exactly the same as the ones in the LBBs, any more than the standard Target 20 saves are; however, I think they are closer to the feel I'm looking for.

Class	Death	Wand	Stone	Breath	Spell
Fighter	+6	+5	+4	+3	+2
Lord	+6	+5	+4	+4	+2
Cleric	+6	+5	+3	+1	+2
Patriarch	+8	+7	+6	+3	+5
Magic-User	+5	+4	+5	+2	+3
Wizard	+6	+5	+6	+3	+7

Adversity II

Here are more thoughts on the adversity roll. I decided this should be separate from yesterday's post, since I'm going to be talking about potential applications of the roll instead of the most likely interpretation of the rules as written.

From what little is said about the adversity roll, it appears to be meant to represent the body's resistance to natural damage, as opposed to the character's luck and determination to avoid unnatural effects, or unnaturally escape extreme natural effects like poison. Thus, character level has no effect on adversity rolls: some things are just going to cause significant real injury no matter how lucky the character is.

We might want to expand on this idea to add a simple injury system on top of the luck-based hit point system: a significant fall (more than twice the character's height) has a chance of breaking bones, reducing the character's movement to the overloaded (3") movement rate until healed. If we use the "2d6 => Con" rule instead of percentile or d20-based mechanics, we can even avoid the use of an additional roll: if damage is equal to or greater than Con, the character is physically injured.

We could also use an adversity roll to determine if a dead body is intact and thus subject to Raise Dead. Some forms of attack always render a corpse unraisable, as could aimed shots or post-mortem dismemberment; but if your comrade is swept over a waterfall and dies, an adversity roll determines whether the body is too battered to be raised.