Saving throws rules question

Dungeons & Dragons The Royal Library
1

Ive been thinking about a house rules about saving throws for a while, but Im not yet sure if this is really workable. The argument goes like this:

Often, saves represent quite a bit of movement and effort. For example, a warrior trying to avoid a fireball effect or a dragons breath weapon has to jump out of harms way or at least he has to duck. As a result, Im considering a rule to declare saves as actions. Using this rule, the warrior would have to decide whether he wanted to take the heat, forfeiting a save to be able to still attack during the round or to duck out of harms way with the result that he uses his action for the round to escape damage.

I guess this rule (I have not playtested it ) would make combat run slightly longer and would make magic and special abilities more lethal.

Another question is whether all effects would require the subject to use an action to be eligible for a save or just same. Reflex saves would probably require an action nearly all the time, but what about resisiting poison or a charm spell? I guess one could argue in both directions in this case. Maybe a save against a charm spell would require so much of an effort on the subject`s part that he could take no other action besides moving during a round, but this does not have to be necessarily the case.

Has anyone experimented with a rule like this? Is it worth the bother? What do you think?

Christoph

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

2

On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 03:37:24PM +0100, Christoph Tiemann wrote:
> I`ve been thinking about a house rules about saving throws for a

while, but Im not yet sure if this is really workable. The argument > goes like this: > > Often, saves represent quite a bit of movement and effort. For > example, a warrior trying to avoid a fireball effect or a dragons
breath weapon has to jump out of harms way or at least he has to duck. > As a result, Im considering a rule to declare saves as actions. Using
this rule, the warrior would have to decide whether he wanted to take
the heat, forfeiting a save to be able to still attack during the round
or to duck out of harm`s way with the result that he uses his action
> for the round to escape damage.

It is my opinion that such a rule would highly skew the balance of
your campaign towards favoring the use of magic. Fighters would be
left with the option to take full damage from spells OR forfeit
their multiple attacks (which are the primary characteristic of
the warrior-type character). I dont really think that this is a desirable goal. Your point however is valid, and is certainly worth considering if you dont mind making magic more powerful.

Ive always interpreted saving throws, like combat itself, to be very abstract. Perhaps the character making the saving throw drops to one knee and hides behind a shield to deflect a large portion of the blast - as soon as the blast clears, they immediately return to their previous ready position and continue fighting; no one can take advantage of the situation due to the temporary chaos in _everyones_
ranks due to the spell effect.

The only spell for which this actually seems to be a major issue
in my experience is Wall of fire. When a wall of fire is cast ON
a character the rules state that they may move to either side (their
choice) on a successful save. I force characters who have made such
a save to move (with a 5ft step if nothing else) off of the Wall of
fire at the beginning of their next round. If they choose to stay
(or are boxed in) then they take half-damage again (as if they had
missed their save in the first place.

  • Doom

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

3

Unless otherwise stated in the spell, like the one Travis pointed out, a saving throw is a free action and is a reflexive response, similar to the AC bonus given against a dodge opponent (see the feat). If taken in any other context it will indeed make magic much more powerful and favor spellcasters. Check the spell description for certain spells like entangle for actions that may be taken if a saving throw is made (or failed).

The other to ask is how would you handle abilities like evasion and improved evasion (see rogue and monk) if you chang the way you handle saving throws.

4

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

> Perhaps the character making the saving throw drops to one knee and
> hides behind a shield to deflect a large portion of the blast - as
> soon as the blast clears, they immediately return to their previous
> ready position and continue fighting;

This was easier to believe in the days when a combat round was a whole
minute long, rather than just six seconds. In 3e, taking a moment to
dodge seems like it should fill up most of the standard time unit,
instead of just a tiny part of it.

Ryan Caveney

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

5

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

> > Perhaps the character making the saving throw drops to one knee and
> > hides behind a shield to deflect a large portion of the blast - as
> > soon as the blast clears, they immediately return to their previous
> > ready position and continue fighting;

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote in reply:

> This was easier to believe in the days when a combat round was a whole
> minute long, rather than just six seconds. In 3e, taking a moment to
> dodge seems like it should fill up most of the standard time unit,
> instead of just a tiny part of it.

Reflex saves probably fall into one of two catagories: 1) its a genuine
reflex action or instinct behavior that takes very little time. At most I
could see bumping someone down the initiative order, mostly to reflect
getting one`s bearings, not because of the move itself. Or 2) everyone is
out of combat mode for the moment (taking cover) and combat resumes as it
was moments later, unchanged.

Keep in mind as well, the effect on wizard`s duels during which using a save
as an action could allow one caster to get back to back, or worse, back to
back to back … and so on spells off, because they other guy is doing
nothing more than making saving throws.

Costing someone an action for taking a save might be used for rolling the
save exactly, or some other measure of just barely making it.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

6

At 03:37 PM 1/13/2003 +0100, Christoph Tiemann wrote:

>Often, saves represent quite a bit of movement and effort. For example, a
>warrior trying to avoid a fireball effect or a dragon`s breath weapon has

to jump out of harms way or at least he has to duck. As a result, Im
considering a rule to declare saves as actions. Using this rule, the
warrior would have to decide whether he wanted to take the heat,
forfeiting a save to be able to still attack during the round or to duck
out of harm`s way with the result that he uses his action for the round to
>escape damage.

This is an interesting and, I think, very valid point. Saving throws are
often described as having a physical aspect that would normally equate to
at least a move equivalent action, but that`s not reflected in any way by
the rules.

I guess this rule (I have not playtested it ) would make combat run
slightly longer and would make magic and special abilities more lethal.

Yeah, as pointed out by several folks (and you, obviously) it would make
magic more powerful in combat situations. That does rather beg the
question, though… so what? In D&D the most unbalanced aspect of
character classes has always been the magic system. Complaining about
something that will make that imbalance more obvious strikes me as just
illustrating certain faults of the present system rather than being a legit
critique of the proposed house rule. So would it make magic unreasonably
more powerful and what might be done to put it more into balance? Id argue that by the time it would become an influence it probably makes little difference. That is, if you make saving throws (particularly reflex saves) an action you do force those characters with a high BAB to forgo their multiple attacks as a standard action, and probably limit some of their own special abilities. Thats really only a factor for characters
that are 6th level and higher because one doesn`t start getting to the +6
BAB necessary for multiple attacks until that point and by then characters
tend to have a lot more hit points, so the various types of damage done
will have less affect.

In order to reflect the relative difficulty of such activities, however,
you might consider likewise increasing the amount of time necessary to
perform spellcasting and related tasks–which are presently skewed in favor
of the magic system. For instance, drawing a weapon or shield is a move
equivalent action (or done was part of a move equivalent action) without a
special feat while preparing spell components is free. Spellcasting itself
is more often than not a standard action. You might consider making most
spellcasting a full round action rather than a standard action (which kind
of makes sense anyway in many cases) or requiring some sort of
concentration check if performed as a standard action with movement (which
also makes sense) as part of an overall set of house rules.

You might also consider only making those saving throws that accompany a
special ability an action. Evasion, for instance, allows for more than the
standard fraction of damage without any greater effort. It would follow
that some sort of additional activity would be required for that to happen
(and would somewhat decrease the effectiveness of this rather too broad
special ability.)

>Another question is whether all effects would require the subject to use
>an action to be eligible for a save or just same. Reflex saves would
>probably require an action nearly all the time, but what about resisiting
>poison or a charm spell?

If youre going to go with a rule like this it would probably make more sense to make all saves an action rather than to differentiate between one or another. Unless you can come up with a very simple system to decide which kind of saves would be free and which would be an action it may be a pain to have to rule on (or look up on some list) every possible saving throw. I dont think it would really slow down play to do so, however. A
couple of standardized house rules does not in my experience slow down the
play time of combat. When I included a system of fumbles and extended
critical hit results the hew and cry was that combat would require all
kinds of references to tables and that kind of thing is so boring, but
quite the opposite happened. As long as your tweaks have some consistency
then you should be fine.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

7

Avoiding a blow is also really an action - you block and parry to the best
of your ability. Playing things this way, you ought to give each character
an offensive and a defensive action each round - attacks (including saves)
on which you don`t spend your defensive action have a much better chance of
success. The main effects are:

To slow down combat.

To make one-on-many situations more lethal

You would have to rewrite the combat rules more or less from the top to do
this. Try a “parrying” game like Rune Quest if this is the appoach you want.

Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

8

At 09:04 PM 1/13/2003 +0100, Stephen Starfox wrote:

>Avoiding a blow is also really an action - you block and parry to the best
>of your ability. Playing things this way, you ought to give each character
>an offensive and a defensive action each round - attacks (including saves)
>on which you don`t spend your defensive action have a much better chance of

success.

Offensive and defensive actions are pretty much all considered the same
sort of activity, at least as far as the amount of effort and time they
require in the combat system. The proposed tweak doesn`t really factor
into the differences between specific types of actions, just whether or not
saving throws should be on part with them in terms of how much effort is
required.

>The main effects are:
>
>To slow down combat.

There are really two considerations here, and Im not sure which youre
addressing. Will it slow down combat as in the actual game time in combat
rounds will be increased, or will it bog down play by making combat more
complex? The first, I don`t think, is really much of a concern. Combat in
D&D has been and still is quite abstracted, so if it takes six rounds to
resolve a fight as opposed to four then it makes little difference.

Whether it will bog down play or not is, however, a more serious
consideration. The proposed tweak, however, need not do that depending on
how its implemented. If one simply says "making a saving throw is an action" then that wont slow down play any more than any more than any
other activity that is handled similarly. Since the “action” mechanic is
already in place it will just take advantage of that. Another level of
complexity could slow down play more (if one had to rule or decide on a
case by case basis whether or not a particular type of saving throw would
constitute an action ) but in this case I dont think it would represent all that much of a slow in play. There are certainly those people who have large portions of the texts memorized and can tell you whether spell X is a standard or full round action off the tops of their heads, but other people (myself included) have to look that sort of thing up. The more commonly cast spells, of course, dont need to be looked up, but in the same way I
remember the effects of those spells I (and other folks) would be able to
remember whether or not the saving throw for a particular (and common)
situation would require an action or not.

I hear the “it will bog down play” from time to time. It seems to get
bandied about without much real consideration. Without playtesting someone
making that argument can carry very little weight, and rarely in my
experience has the person making the argument actually tried it before
making the case. In all honesty, when Ive heard that argument in the past Ive found the opposite to be true more often than not. Thats mostly I think because people seem to think a more intelligent and deliberate system that may take say 15% more play time to resolve using an alternate set of rules must be 15% more dull, but thats simply not the case. Unless
theres a level of complexity involved that requires people to start working things out on calculators and reading/discussing game mechanics then the session isnt diminished. In fact, simplistic combat rules can be
quite boring for all that they are resolved quickly. On other occasions
seemingly simple tweaks that no one predicted would slow down play did
exactly that. The point being that one really has to give this kind of
thing a try before one can say it will bog down play or not.

To make one-on-many situations more lethal

How do you mean it will make one-on-many situations more lethal? More
lethal for who? Is it things like the area effects of certain spells? If
thats the case then youre certainly correct. Making saving throws an
action for all those in the radius of a Fireball spell (probably the most
obvious example) would make that spell more lethal. I dont know if thats
really such a big problem, though. Being in the midst of a massive
explosion seems like the kind of thing that might require a little
attention if one wanted to duck and cover in order to avoid facing the full
force.

One way of addressing this kind of thing, however, might be to say that
making a saving throw requires an action, but making a saving throw itself
is optional. That is, if one doesnt mind taking all 6d6 damage and would rather not dedicate the time to ducking and covering in order to make a bee-line for the spellcaster to take off his head, then thats OK. You
just don`t get to roll for half damage.

>You would have to rewrite the combat rules more or less from the top to do
>this. Try a “parrying” game like Rune Quest if this is the appoach you want.

Its hardly a total rewrite. Its a simple tweak, and one that fits into
existing game mechanics at that.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

9

Thanks for all the insight on this topic. After reading your posts I have decided to give this system a try. Ill be starting a new campaign on Saturday with one experienced player and a bunch of total newbies who cant tell apart a d20 from a d4, so I guess I won`t run into too much trouble because I dared to change a line in the rule books.

For now, the rule will run as follows:

Making a saving throw is optional and requires a partial (or move-eqivalent - that`s essentially the same I guess) action.

I will make clear to my players that this rule will have to be tested and could be changed if it doesn`t work out. For now, I guess that this is a reasonable compromise.

Victims of a spell who take a save will still be able to accomplish something during a round, just not so much.
I believe the rule can be easily rationalized in all cases I could think of: Fireball - the victim jumps aside or ducks to cover; Charm - the victim has to exert a conscious effort to fight off the foreign influence in his mind trying to take over; Poison - the victim has to overcome severe pain, stomach cramps etc. before his body system is again under control.

This will of course, as pointed out, make magic more powerful. However, I already fiddled around with the magic system a lot, using 2e Player`s Option: Spells & Magic. I use a spellpoint system instead of the spell slots, as I believe this is easier to keep track of and offers more freedom of choice. Arcane Spellcasters channel a small amount of Mebhaighl through their bodies, an exhausting process. They have to make an exhaustion check every time they cast a spell or they become tired or even unconscious (Depending on the amount they fail their check by and/or pre-existing conditions). They check is basically identical to a KON save, but using the ability modifier for Intelligence or Charisma against a DC of 15+Spell level.

Divine Spellcaster use a set of Conditional magic. They don`t face exhaustion, but every caster has a number of positive or negative conditions determined by his belief which influence his spellcasting. A divine spellcaster who tries to get off a spell under unfavourable conditions faces the possibility that his spells are diminished in effect, fail entirely and he might even suffer from a magical backlash. Once again, this is a check against a DC of 15+Spell level.

All in all, I believe that these hindrances balance out enough against the increased power of magic by making saving throws partial actions.

To those of you, who think that this also requires to introduce a defence action into combat, Id like to point out p. 64 of the DMG. It introduces a variant rule regarding AC. Using this rule use a d20 and add all your AC modifiers to determine your Defence against an opponents attack roll. The rule also states that the normal use of AC can be regarded as “taking 10” on your defence roll. So, in a sense, we already have a defence action.

Christoph Tiemann

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

10

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Christoph Tiemann wrote:
> For now, the rule will run as follows:
>
> Making a saving throw is optional and requires a partial (or
> move-eqivalent - that`s essentially the same I guess) action.

Its not quite. For one thing, theres no such thing as a partial action
in a regular round, they only happen in hasted rounds or rounds of
suprise (essentially). Characters get a move and an action in a round.
If you make the saving throw equivalent to a move, then they can make two
in one round, but nothing else (you can move for your action too). If you
make it an action, they can only make 1 in a round. Making it a move is
better, I think. So you could make a saving throw and move, or make a
saving throw and attack (not full attack, regular), or make two saving
throws.

I will make clear to my players that this rule will have to be tested
and could be changed if it doesn`t work out. For now, I guess that
> this is a reasonable compromise.

Its not. Wizards dont have to spend their action for the round avoiding
the sword- if they get hit, they need a Concentration check, but that`s
free, and they can still take their own move-and-action combo.

This is essentially going to drag fighting wizards down to who wins initiative, because if you beat the wizard and can get there and disrupt
his first spell, you win. If you can`t, all you can do is hunker down
until he empties his clip.

> To those of you, who think that this also requires to introduce a
> defence action into combat, I`d like to point out p. 64 of the DMG. It

introduces a variant rule regarding AC. Using this rule use a d20 and
add all your AC modifiers to determine your Defence against an
opponent`s attack roll. The rule also states that the normal use of AC
> can be regarded as “taking 10” on your defence roll. So, in a sense,
> we already have a defence action.

Yes, but it`s automatic, and still gives the target a chance to act on his
own.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

11

At 10:57 AM 1/14/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

> > Making a saving throw is optional and requires a partial (or
> > move-eqivalent - that`s essentially the same I guess) action.

Its not quite. For one thing, theres no such thing as a partial action
in a regular round, they only happen in hasted rounds or rounds of
suprise (essentially). Characters get a move and an action in a round.
If you make the saving throw equivalent to a move, then they can make two
in one round, but nothing else (you can move for your action too). If you
make it an action, they can only make 1 in a round. Making it a move is
better, I think. So you could make a saving throw and move, or make a
saving throw and attack (not full attack, regular), or make two saving
throws.

Probably the simplest way to address this kind of thing is to say that ALL
saving throws (in any combination) are made as part of the same action in a
round, so if some poor benighted character gets poisoned, charmed and steps
on a trap door trap all in the same round all three saves are made as part
of the same action. Another option would be that one could make a saving
throw part of a move action in which case it would work the same way a
character can move and draw a weapon (if s/he has a BAB of +1 or better) in
the same round. That way a character fighting his way through a hail six
or ten consecutive rounds of Fireballs would effectively behave as if
slowed (before, you know, being burnt to a crisp) during those rounds.

I will make clear to my players that this rule will have to be tested
and could be changed if it doesnt work out. For now, I guess that > > this is a reasonable compromise. > >Its not. Wizards dont have to spend their action for the round avoiding >the sword- if they get hit, they need a Concentration check, but thats
free, and they can still take their own move-and-action combo.

This is essentially going to drag fighting wizards down to who wins >initiative, because if you beat the wizard and can get there and disrupt
his first spell, you win. If you can`t, all you can do is hunker down
>until he empties his clip.

I dont normally make this kind of prediction, but Im going to go ahead
and exert my meager powers of prognostication here… itll work. Therell
be a few bumps in the road, but this house rule will get implemented and
will function just fine sooner or later. Further, some incarnation of it
will show up in a D20 product in the near future (within about a year or
two) and it will be included in a later edition of D&D. At least, that
would be the smart way for the game to go, which I guess means theres about a 50/50 shot at it actually happening. Its probably too early for
it to get included in the next edition of the D&D rules that`ll be coming
out in a few months (edition 3.1?) but something like this will eventually
become part of the core system.

To those of you, who think that this also requires to introduce a
defence action into combat, Id like to point out p. 64 of the DMG. It > > introduces a variant rule regarding AC. Using this rule use a d20 and > > add all your AC modifiers to determine your Defence against an > > opponents attack roll. The rule also states that the normal use of AC
can be regarded as “taking 10” on your defence roll. So, in a sense,
we already have a defence action.

Yes, but it`s automatic, and still gives the target a chance to act on his
>own.

The total defense action (PHB 127) is probably a more apt way of describing
the standard way that 3e handles a “defense action.” Essentially it means
the character gives up his attack action in order to gain +4 dodge bonus to
AC. That is, for all intents and purposes, using one`s action to parry,
dodge, etc. rather than to get an attack. Point being that the 1 round = 1
move + 1 action still fits into the description of how this optional rule
would work. That one action can represent an attack or a parry while the
move equivalent can represent a move, a saving throw or can be used as part
of a full round (standard) action. Exactly how it will fit into that move
equivalent action will probably take a little playtesting to determine.

Another option would be to break up the different types of saves into
different types of actions. A reflex save, for instance, might be move
equivalent since it would figure that that could fit into some sort of
dodge/dive out of the way to accompany movement. A fortitude save might be
equivalent to an action and a will save might be free.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

12

Balancer-wise this seems OK. Instead of having the target make a save, the
caster makes a spell roll. The number of rolls stay the same, and the
probabilities probably won`t change that much.

As long as you figure how to handle the action. I guess what you are
sayingis that the chartacter uses up his NEXT action. . If it is a partial
action, do you then get a move-equivalent action on your next round? May I
suggest that this be a move-equivalent action - thay way you can save, and
still do a partial action in your next round

----- Original Message -----
From: “Christoph Tiemann” tiemach@UNI-MUENSTER.DE
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Saving throws rules question

Thanks for all the insight on this topic. After reading your posts I have
decided to give this system a try. Ill be starting a new campaign on Saturday with one experienced player and a bunch of total newbies who cant
tell apart a d20 from a d4, so I guess I won`t run into too much trouble
because I dared to change a line in the rule books.

For now, the rule will run as follows:

Making a saving throw is optional and requires a partial (or
move-eqivalent - that`s essentially the same I guess) action.

I will make clear to my players that this rule will have to be tested and
could be changed if it doesn`t work out. For now, I guess that this is a
reasonable compromise.

Victims of a spell who take a save will still be able to accomplish
something during a round, just not so much.
I believe the rule can be easily rationalized in all cases I could think of:
Fireball - the victim jumps aside or ducks to cover; Charm - the victim has
to exert a conscious effort to fight off the foreign influence in his mind
trying to take over; Poison - the victim has to overcome severe pain,
stomach cramps etc. before his body system is again under control.

This will of course, as pointed out, make magic more powerful. However, I
already fiddled around with the magic system a lot, using 2e Player`s
Option: Spells & Magic. I use a spellpoint system instead of the spell
slots, as I believe this is easier to keep track of and offers more freedom
of choice. Arcane Spellcasters channel a small amount of Mebhaighl through
their bodies, an exhausting process. They have to make an exhaustion check
every time they cast a spell or they become tired or even unconscious
(Depending on the amount they fail their check by and/or pre-existing
conditions). They check is basically identical to a KON save, but using the
ability modifier for Intelligence or Charisma against a DC of 15+Spell
level.

Divine Spellcaster use a set of Conditional magic. They don`t face
exhaustion, but every caster has a number of positive or negative conditions
determined by his belief which influence his spellcasting. A divine
spellcaster who tries to get off a spell under unfavourable conditions faces
the possibility that his spells are diminished in effect, fail entirely and
he might even suffer from a magical backlash. Once again, this is a check
against a DC of 15+Spell level.

All in all, I believe that these hindrances balance out enough against the
increased power of magic by making saving throws partial actions.

To those of you, who think that this also requires to introduce a defence
action into combat, Id like to point out p. 64 of the DMG. It introduces a variant rule regarding AC. Using this rule use a d20 and add all your AC modifiers to determine your Defence against an opponents attack roll. The
rule also states that the normal use of AC can be regarded as “taking 10” on
your defence roll. So, in a sense, we already have a defence action.

Christoph Tiemann

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

13

At 09:14 PM 1/14/2003 +0100, Stephen Starfox wrote:

>As long as you figure how to handle the action. I guess what you are
>sayingis that the chartacter uses up his NEXT action. . If it is a partial
>action, do you then get a move-equivalent action on your next round? May I
>suggest that this be a move-equivalent action - thay way you can save, and
>still do a partial action in your next round

The logistics of it during play might be a bit of a problem, since it means
characters will have to decide before their turn in the initiative order
whether or not they want to dedicate part of their time to a saving
throw. One way of handling this kind of thing might be to change how one
assesses damage for spells that have an instantaneous effect. If the spell
instead “lasts” one full round then one can assess damage on the initiative
of the affected characters rather than on the initiative of the
spellcaster. That way each character can decide whether or not to dedicate
an action to saving. Certain spells are already handled similarly (mostly
those having to do with a cloud effect.)

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

14

Gary has some good suggestions. I used to use channeling and conditional magic also when I used the Player’s Option rules.

One thing to consider is that the Player’s Option rules had ways to recover fatigue by resting (and doing nothing) for rounds. This method of recovering fatigue doesn’t really exist in 3rd ed, it takes a lot longer to recover fatigue, except for the barbarian’s recovery from raging. Also Conditional magic required the caster to memorize the spells ahead of time, while channeling did not. Are you going to modify those rules to allow divine caster the ability to not memorize their spells ahead of time?

If you require divine casters (i.e., clerics) to memorize their spells ahead of time are you going to incorporate the 3rd ed rules for spontaneous casting of cure spells? This was a very good modification since it didn’t make clerics “walking band aids” and allowed them to memorize some offensive spells and still be able to play medic when necessary.

Player’s Option also was based on different casting times taking up different “phases” of initiative, hence no initiative roll.

I’d require all spellcasting to be full round actions with nothing more than a 5’ step allowed to put things on a more even keel since fighters would never be able to do more than a single attack since using an action for a saving throw reduces their combat options to not a full attack, thus most of the feats wouldn’t work. No more than 1 attack in a round unless its a full attack action, not counting the single attack of opportunity rule.

15

Darn, theres obviously more to the rule than I thought. Im starting to think if its really worth the bother. However, I still like the rule so lets try to adress the different objections mentioned.

First, I guess, that I will limit the rule to Reflex saves, at least until I`ve seen how this will work out. We now have the following.

Reflex saves are move-equivalent actions. Will saves and Fortitude saves are free actions. In most cases, this should avoid a problem when several effects hit one target at once. In addition, several reflex saves can be combined into one action.

The reasoning behind the rule would be that reflex saves require you to actively jump out of harm`s way, while you simply shrug of an effect when you make a Will or Fortitude save, similar to shrugging of the effects of a hit during combat (and yes, I know that I contradict my last post here, but this is still work in progress).

Can the Ref save be combined with a move, similar to drawing a weapon? I would like to make this possible, if certain requirements are met. Im not yet sure what these might be. I dont think that BAB makes much sense here.
A Dex requirement might be okay (you need at least a Dex of 13 to incorporate a save into movement) or this could be an additional feature of an existing feat (Combat reflexes, Mobility or Dodge might be suitable). Opinions?

Initiative becomes more important using this rule, but I don`t think that this is much of a problem. Intitative order, however can become a problem. What happens if a fighter who won initiative has used up his actions for a round and becomes the target of a spell? Well, I see two possibilities here. The fighter might have to spend a move eqivalent action during the next round for the save (retrospectively, so to speak). This means, that even an instanteous spell might have repercussions on later rounds, which could make conducting combat rather complicated. Another option would be to introduce a declaration phase at the start of each round where the characters declare their intended actions before these are resolved and before Initiative is rolled. This way, the players get a warning that a spell is about to be cast and they can plan accordingly. Opinions?

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

16

irdeggman wrote:
>>One thing to consider is that the Players Option rules had ways to recover fatigue by resting (and doing nothing) for rounds. This method of recovering fatigue doesnt really exist in 3rd ed<<

Hm, okay, I have overlooked the sentence in the DMG that states that recovering from fatigue takes 8 hours of complete rest. However, I use something similar to the Player`s option rules or the Barbarian rage. I have 5 different stages of exhaustion, with differing effects and recovery rates. For example, to recover from serious fatigue you have to make a Fortitude save against a DC of 15, You can repeat the save for every ten minutes of rest with a cumulative +1 bonus. if you succeed, your moderately fatigued and can make a Fortitude save against DC 14 every minute to become slightly fatigued and so on.

>>If you require divine casters (i.e., clerics) to memorize their spells ahead of time are you going to incorporate the 3rd ed rules for spontaneous casting of cure spells?<<
Divine caster can prepare free (i.e. not specified beforehand) spells at a higher spell point cost. This way, they are still able to cast healing spontaneously, if not so often.

Christoph

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

17

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Christoph Tiemann wrote:
> Intitative order, however can become a
> problem. What happens if a fighter who won initiative has used up his
> actions for a round and becomes the target of a spell? Well, I see two
> possibilities here. The fighter might have to spend a move eqivalent
> action during the next round for the save (retrospectively, so to
> speak). This means, that even an instanteous spell might have
> repercussions on later rounds, which could make conducting combat
> rather complicated.

Arent there already spells which affect the characters next turn? It
doesnt seem like it would be that hard to track. Just make each player of a wizard in charge of keeping track of his own spell effects, and it shouldnt be a problem. The round is cyclical anyway, so everybody he hit
has to modify their action to account for the move until the wizard goes
again.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

18

You are correct in discovering that it becomes increasingly difficult to combine systems (i.e., trying to meld 2nd ed Player’s Options rules and 3rd ed rules). Good luck in the attempt.

It appears that you are allowing saving throws to occur earlier (or to borrow later actions) than the character’s actions (i.e., allowing an action before his initiative order). While on the surface this seems to work, things to think about (and at least resolve in your mind) are that when a spellcaster has to make a concentration check to see if his spell is disrupted - he only has to make it if he is is “hit” before his spell goes off. This is a similar mechanic that will cause mucho concern in your hybrid system me thinks.

I think that I’d allow the hyrbrid system to include “spntaneous” casting of cure spells for clerics. This is a “special” variation of the “free magic” system found in the Player’s Option system and is basically a core concept in 3rd ed that should probably be kept in any modification. The free magic allowed casting of any spell vice only substitution of any previously memorized spell with a cure spell.

Not all reflex saves require an action, just ducking from a lightning bolt (it is not the same area of affect as it used to be) is not the same as dodging the effects of an area affecting spell. You might want to look at these in a little different light, i.e., the area effect spells require an action while the targeting type spells don’t.

I’m not trying to diss your system, just help with some potential problems. there is nothing worse than trying to “dance” at the last minute with how something should be resolved, especially when it is of such broad ramification as opposed to a specific case.

Also the character with the higher Dexterity wins all ties in the case of initiative order, unless it was a “readied action” in which case he always goes just before the character that was the target of the action.

Combining with Combat reflexes seems to be a good method of allowing the save to proceed as a combined move action.

19

Something else that occurred to me - what about the attack of opportunity? Every character is entitled to a single attack of opportunity per round. This is a free action that occurs when the opportunity presents itself. Maybe giving one saving throw or attack of opportunity per round, player’s choice when the opportunity arrises.

The attack is just as much of a move action as is the reflex saving throw.

Just something else that crossed my mind.

20

Another way of handling this kind of situation is that you could make it an
optional bonus rather than an automatic part of the saving throw
mechanic. That is, a player could choose to delay until his turn in the
initiative order to make a saving throw in in exchange for giving up his
normal action (or move equivalent action) for the round he gains a +4 bonus
to his saving throw. That would be more in keeping with the way the total
defense option works, and a little symmetry with existing mechanics is
always nice. In keeping with that, a character could also take a +2/-2 on
his save/attack rolls in keeping with the fighting defensively option.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.