D&D General Hot Take: D&D Has Not Recovered From 2E to 3.0 Transition

[Lanefan]

Yeah, but I tell you, a lot of people didn't really seem to understand the save hierarchy. Or what things added bonuses to saves). And there were always things that defaulted to "spells", to the point that I always felt like 80% of saving throws I made were against spells.

Now people not grokking the rules isn't a strike against those rules, but it does show that they could have been made clearer and simplified.

All it needed was something on the save matrix saying "To determine which save applies, start at the left column and work right; and the first column you hit that's appropriate, use that." I'm 99% sure this was the intent of how it was supposed to work, Gygax just forgot to include the instructions.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yep - that's exactly a) why it's a good idea to have a well-rounded party and b) how the game design (perhaps unintentionally!) enforced some teamwork.

And this is something, perhaps because it's the environment I started with and still play in, I'm fine with. Sometimes you're the star, sometimes you're the understudy, and sometimes you're the audience.

The main thing is that the DM has to make sure the oppositon is such that those roles can rotate in and out over at worst the medium-term.

It's part of a broader approach that dials down swinginess, which only serves to make it all more predictable.

Predicatable, for lack of a better word, is boring.

Perfectly predictable might be boring. On the other hand, too random is frustrating. You can't make real tactical decisions if things are too random.

Personally, I think 5e finds a pretty good range between those two extremes.

 

[James Gasik]

All it needed was something on the save matrix saying "To determine which save applies, start at the left column and work right; and the first column you hit that's appropriate, use that." I'm 99% sure this was the intent of how it was supposed to work, Gygax just forgot to include the instructions.

Yes, when an effect occurs without a specified save, you were supposed to go down the list and use whichever one applied. Although at first glance, knowing when one should make a save versus Rods/Staves/Wands (magic from an unusual source) did trip up some people.

Or if a spell that inflicts poison should be a poison save or a spell save (it's poison, by the way) or why one doesn't make a save versus Breath Weapons against a fireball ("this save can be used in situations where a combination of physical stamina and Dexterity are critical factors in survival"). Like so many things in AD&D, if you knew it, you knew it, and if you didn't, well...guess we're not adding defensive adjustment to saves vs. lightning bolt and most saves are against spells.

I really liked Fortitude, Reflex, and Will myself. In most cases, fairly easy to figure out which category to use. But anything is better than the current system, where the reason one is saving with Charisma instead of Wisdom can be very unclear (as an example).

 

[Krachek]

For me 4ed is the eleven edition.
It took a roll of 11 to succeed something at level 1, 10, 20, and 30 despite the bonus you have.

 

[Zardnaar]

For me 4ed is the eleven edition.
It took a roll of 11 to succeed something at level 1, 10, 20, and 30 despite the bonus you have.

Treadmill effect.

 

[GreyLord]

Then they wouldn't have been level 8 monsters, they would have been level 17 minions. I never specifically mentioned 4E. There were other editions before 4E that some of us played, I was thinking 3.5 if it matters.

If we're going to be pedantic and nitpicky about it, I could have thrown the same number of level 8 monsters at level 17 party in any edition, they just wouldn't have had a chance to have much, if any, effect in previous editions including but not limited to 4E.

Many actually see that as a GOOD thing.

What happens when 17th level characters can be challenged greatly by 1st level characters in 5e.

"Look...here's Samson, Greatest hero of our ancient age and slayer of a thousand men with the jawbone of an...err...donkey.

Oh...wait...Samson just got shot by a little boy. Hey....50 little boys just slew Samson!"

On the otherhand...in 3.5 or 4e...

"King Harold is an experienced Warrior going against the army of King Edward.

Hey...King Harold just slew the entire army of King Edward and now it is going to single combat between him and Edward...wonder if history will be different time and he'll actually win the Battle of Normandy!!"

 

[Retreater]

Reading this thread is making me nostalgic for 4e.

"That's my secret, Cap. I'm always nostalgic for 4e."

It's just unfortunate that Wizards is still hamstringing the edition so we can't play it as easily as literally any other iteration of the game.
Can't get the core rules in print through DMs Guild.
Can't access character builders or other resources.
Can't run it on any VTT with any sort of functionally or automation.
Can't allow Retro Clones to use any of the system.

If I want to play 4e, there's no option other than to make characters with dice and pencils, playing with books found in swap meets.

You can more easily play 1974's OD&D than a system being enjoyed a decade ago.

 

[Ancalagon]

Kinda odd people complain about martial/spellcaster divide I identify that which is contributing to it and yeah.

The save disparity also mean the classes that can exploit it the best also have the best defenses against it.

The marial classes defenses mostly are just damage with the spellcasters can mitigate as well with low level spells eg absorb elements.

Spell DCs scale 6 saves don't it's not just one weakness it's multiple ones.

I think you've laid your arguments preeeeety clearly, especially on the saving throws not scaling properly. I can't help but wonder if it would be possible to "fix" this somehow.

I do have to note however, that this is going to be a problem for tier 3 and 4 play mostly. At lower level the gap between a good and a bad save is not as immense.

That being said, I have been noting with alarm the proliferation of "things" that increase save DC or give disadvantage or force a reroll etc (magical items like the arcane grimoire, spells like silvery barb, or (sub)class abilities like a divination wizard).

Tonight we had a fight vs a manticore, a level 4 party (1 wiz, 1 apothecary (think the hulk), one ranger, one rogue and one cleric). We manage to lure it in a bad position for it, and the wizard zapped it with a phantasmal force that completely messed it up. Sure, it took the rest of the party to clobber it - and 4 level 4 PCs can do a lot of damage! - but the spell made the fight a joke. And because the spell targets int saves? ooof

 

[Zardnaar]

I think you've laid your arguments preeeeety clearly, especially on the saving throws not scaling properly. I can't help but wonder if it would be possible to "fix" this somehow.

I do have to note however, that this is going to be a problem for tier 3 and 4 play mostly. At lower level the gap between a good and a bad save is not as immense.

That being said, I have been noting with alarm the proliferation of "things" that increase save DC or give disadvantage or force a reroll etc (magical items like the arcane grimoire, spells like silvery barb, or (sub)class abilities like a divination wizard).

Tonight we had a fight vs a manticore, a level 4 party (1 wiz, 1 apothecary (think the hulk), one ranger, one rogue and one cleric). We manage to lure it in a bad position for it, and the wizard zapped it with a phantasmal force that completely messed it up. Sure, it took the rest of the party to clobber it - and 4 level 4 PCs can do a lot of damage! - but the spell made the fight a joke. And because the spell targets int saves? ooof

Adding proficiency to all saves and a class bonus to the good ones is one thought I've had.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think I have a solution.

@Zardnaar , would you agree that if bad saves were only "somewhat" bad and not the almost guaranteed failure leading to a shutdown (like say hold person) situation we have now, it would be a lot better?

The design goal here would be not "bounded accuracy" but, uh, "bounded suckitude". I thought about how to do this, and I was writing this post in a "this is a desirable goal, but how to make it simple" form, but I found a partial solution.

Saves should always succeed on a X on the dice, not just 20. Say 15 - so your chance of making a save (where "you" is both the PCs but also NPCs and monsters) would never be worse than 30%

Should it be 15? 18? 12? Should this number change with level? I don't know. But I think that I've demonstrated that it can be done in a simple, easy to use and remember manner.