The Gaming Den

This is just a hypothetical D&D-clone game idea, but what if we threw out "save versus poison/spell/whatever" and its offspring "save versus Fortitude" and instead made saves by function? Or rather, the "function" in this case is "what status it protects against." Status effects would have certain rules describing them, namely, what they do. If a status effect inflicts damage continuously (such as poison, disease), then if we wanted it to be an effect you could save against, it would use some kind of Damage/Time save, if it usurps control of your character (Dominate, Charm, Confusion) it would use some kind of Control save. Things that actually stopped your character from moving ("hold" spells, entangling) would be rolled against with a Binding save. I once took the 3e "condition summary" list and created a list of about five or six saves, but I didn't, er, save (har) the work.

You could either have multiple-effect statuses roll for each effect (a problem, if they're linked somehow), or just use the best or worst save. Probably best save, in order to disadvantage stacking multiple effects.

I suppose it's a highly "out of character" way of looking at it, but it also lets you have a system where you can take a character and say "Nothing can hold me down."

Heh, the advantage you mention does exist. But the thing is: especially if you take an "easy-learning" route that groups similar things together, you're gonna have a single "status" coming from not-similar-at-all sources. Examples: forced movement/lack thereof (physical restraining/limited mind control), Int damage (telepathic attack/head blow). Stuff like losing actions, as well, could come from a huuuge number of possible sources. So, I'm not seeing it so far. More thoughts?

Reminds me of the old "Save vs. Petrification / Save vs. Death / Save vs. Dragonbreath" thing that older version of D&D had going on.

-Username17

I think you are breaking the first rule of design:

What benefits does the approach bring?

The idea in 2e was good in theory (giving characters varying strengths and weaknesses against specific effects), but it's just too darn complicated.

You need to know how common various effects are before you know how they affect the value of the abilities.

So while you could do it, and have it simple, it eventually becomes frustrating when a character built yesterday doesn't have the right save bonuses against a character made today.

-Crissa

Psychic Robot wrote:The idea in 2e was good in theory (giving characters varying strengths and weaknesses against specific effects), but it's just too darn complicated.

No, the idea in 2e was that it was part of the 98% of the content that didn't change from 1e, because that would have involved actual work.

The categories, if I remember correctly, were these:

1 paralyzation/poison/death magic
2 spells
3 rod/staff/wand
4 breath weapon
and
5 petrification/polymorph

Now... call me a crazy person, but 80% of the things in categories 1 and 5 are going to come from category #2. And category 3 isn't particularly distinguishable from category 2 in any meaningful fashion. And category 5, when it doesn't come from category 2, has a decent chance to be category 4. As does category 1, come to think about it. (thinking of monsters with paralyzation, poison or petrification breath weapons, which includes several varieties of dragon).

This is what is called a bad idea. Not only is it completely arbitrary, the categories compete with each other.

In fact, the categories overlapped so much that they had to assign priorities to cover the overlaps. The OP's idea sounds like an improvement, since he wouldn't have "spells," "rod, staff, or wand," or "breath weapon" as categories. His system would only have the categories be things like "paralyzation" or "death," which would be discrete conditions.

One problem would be what you're going to do about saves against damage-dealing spells. Are you going to have a save against "burn damage" for fireballs, for example? If so, you could end up with a ton of categories to keep track of.