Saving Throws: The Clones

In a previous post I looked at saving throws across the ages as far as the official D&D releases are concerned. This time I'll look at a number of more recent clones instead. (The selection of clones below simply reflects what I am familiar with. If you think that I am missing an important innovation from some other system, please let me know!)

Let's start with Labyrinth Lord (LL), arguably the most popular clone out there. LL is billed as a clone of B/X, so the following saving throws should not come as a surprise:

Breath Attacks
Poison or Death
Petrify or Paralyze
Wands
Spells or Spell-like Devices

Aside from expressing and ordering things a bit differently, this list is a perfect match of B/X. The only "addition" is the generalization from "rods and staves" to "spell-like devices," something that sounds a little awkward but indeed clarifies what the saving throw is used for.

Another extremely popular clone is Swords & Wizardry (SW) which bills itself as a clone of the original 1974 rules. Somewhat surprisingly, however, SW uses a single saving throw regardless of the kind of effect a character has to defend against (although some classes get bonuses against some effects). SW also includes an optional system that matches the original game:

Death Rays and Poison
Wands (all)
Turned to Stone
Dragon's Breath
Spells and Staffs

Except for minor spelling changes, this alternate system is indeed identical to the 1974 rules for saving throws.

Next we look at the Old School Reference and Index Compilation (OSRIC), a popular clone of the first edition AD&D game that uses the following saving throws:

Aimed Magic Items (rod, staff, wand)
Breath Weapons
Death, Paralysis, Poison
Petrifaction, Polymorph
Spells for unlisted categories

As is to be expected, the categories are identical (aside from variant phraseology and the clarification about unlisted categories) to AD&D. I may be the only one, but the weird renaming of "petrification" to "petrifaction" seems exceedingly wrong to my ears (despite the fact that it may be absolutely correct from a geological perspective).

Not really a clone of anything in particular, although roughly inspired by B/X as far as I can tell, Lamentations of the Flame Princess (LotFP) uses the following saving throws:

Paralyze
Poison
Breath Weapon
Magical Device
Magic

On the one hand this is clearly more B/X than AD&D: Paralyze is different from poison. On the other hand this is clearly more AD&D than B/X: Magical devices (such as wands and staves) are different from magic itself (spells and innate magical abilities). In other words, this is actually the first "cross-over" saving throw system so far, so LotFP gets extra points for innovation here. Also notable is the absence of an explicit "petrification" category.

The LotFP saving throws also come with a decent rationalization: paralyze is for effects that somehow limit movement, poison is for effects where hit points are irrelevant, breath is for area effects, device is for effects caused by magic items, and magic is for all other spells or spell-like effects. This presumably means that "petrification" could fall under "paralyze" since it restricts movement, "poison" since it's not affected by hit points, or "magic (device)" if it's a spell effect?

The Adventurer Conqueror King System (ACKS) is not really a clone either, but it's certainly inspired by the BECMI approach to D&D. ACKS uses the following saving throws:

Petrification & Paralysis

Poison & Death

Blasts & Breath

Staffs & Wands

Spells

Compare this to LotFP above and you'll realize that the saving throw categories are pretty much identical. Whether ACKS actually copied from LotFP or not doesn't really matter, what does matter is that they came to the same conclusions (and their rationalization is pretty much identical too).

Much like SW (see above), Delving Deeper (DD) also bills itself as a clone of the original 1974 rules. DD uses the following saving throws:

Poison
Wands/Rays
Paralysis/Petrification
Breath Weapon
Spells

Despite the goal of cloning the 1974 rules rather closely, DD nevertheless modifies the saving throw categories: First "rays" move from being paired with "poison" to being paired with "wands" instead; second "paralysis" shows up as an effect again, but paired with "petrification" instead of "wands" this time. Most importantly, however, DD interprets all saving throws more based on effects rather than on sources.

The DD rationalization for saving throws goes as follows: poison is used against biological attacks, including things like cloudkill; wands is used against targeted attacks, including things like finger of death; paralysis is used against physiological attacks, including things like flesh-to-stone, polymorph, and slow; breath is used against area attacks, including things like fireball; and spells is used against mind-affecting attacks, including things like charm person and geas. In other words, DD deviates significantly from the original rules when it comes to saving throws.

BLUEHOLME (BH) bills itself as a clone of the Holmes Basic set. BH uses the following saving throws:

Breath Weapon
Magic Wand
Gaze
Ray or Poison
Spell or Staff

We do have quite a surprise here: the "gaze" category which replaces "turned to stone" from the actual 1977 rules. As far as I can tell, there is no precedent for a "gaze" category in any of the other D&D-variants I've studied, so BLUEHOLME should get extra points for innovation. Whether the category is actually useful or not I am a little confused about. For example, would it apply to all attacks a beholder can make?

Two more quickies to finish off: Both Basic Fantasy and Dark(er) Dungeons pretty much follow the B/X saving throws with very minor variations in spelling and application.

What can be learned from this?

1. Some of the newer reincarnations of D&D stick rather closely to the original saving throw categories for the system they are based on.
2. Others try to innovate, either by reshuffling the categories in a way that had not been tried before, or by offering different rationalizations.
3. Only two systems, LotFP and ACKS, actually agree on a "new" interpretation of saving throws; several systems agree (pretty much) with B/X, which probably makes those categories most widely known.

If I had to choose from among all these interpretations, I tend to like LotFP and ACKS best, followed by DD, followed by all the B/X interpretations. One particular reason for my preferences is that I like my elves to get a bonus versus any effect that restricts their movement, something that nicely dovetails with the traditional "immunity" elves get from ghoul paralyzation.

Saving Throws: The Originals

Saving throws have been around for almost 40 years now. I've been fighting with them quite a bit while trying to design my own D&D-variant and eventually decided that a "historical survey" would be helpful. Here's what I learned, starting with the original game from 1974:

Death Ray or Poison
All Wands - Including Polymorph or Paralization
Stone
Dragon Breath
Staves and Spells

For people who grew up with B/X or BECMI or AD&D there are quite a few surprises here:

1. The "polymorph or paralyzation" category was originally the "wands" category instead of being a separate "effect" category (the effects just being examples of wands).
2. Whereas a successful "death ray" saving throw means "no effect," a successful "poison" saving throw means "half of the total possible hit damage" instead; whether this means that the character could still die (half of maximum hit points) or not (half of current hit points) is not really clear.
3. The description for "spells" seems to imply that a successful saving throw means "no effect" at all, which is at odds with the description of "wands (and staves) of cold, fire ball, lightning" causing one-half damage if the saving throw is successful; presumably "spells" was meant as "all spells that don't otherwise cause damage"?

Next we have Holmes Basic from 1977:

Spell or Magic Staff
Magic Wand
Death Ray or Poison
Turned to Stone
Dragon Breath

Aside from the different labels, the descriptions are pretty much the same as in the 1974 game, including the "save against spells for no effect" approach. Note that complete absence of "polymorph or paralyzation" from this set of saving throws. Let's skip AD&D from 1979 for a moment and continue along the "basic D&D" line first, with the B/X sets from 1981:

Death Ray or Poison
Magic Wands
Paralysis or Turn to Stone
Dragon Breath
Rods, Staves, or Spells

First note that we're now back to the order in which saving throws were given in the 1974 game. Next note that "paralysis" has moved from the "wand" category into the "effect" category of "turn to stone" but "polymorph" is nowhere to be found (still covered by "wands" I would presume). Finally note that "rods" finally make their appearance (Holmes included the Rod of Cancellation as a magic item but there was no corresponding saving throw). Neither the BECMI sets from 1983 to 1985 nor the Rules Cyclopedia from 1991 change the saving throw categories further in this line of D&D development.

Let's look at AD&D, the first edition from 1979, next:

Paralyzation, Poison or Death Magic
Petrification or Polymorph
Rod, Staff or Wand
Breath Weapon
Spell

Here we have a number of significant departures from the original 1974 game and it's "basic set" offshoots:

1. Paralyzation moves from the "wands" category into an "effect" category just like in B/X, however instead of moving to "turn to stone" it ends up moving to "death magic" which is the more inclusive revision of "death ray" from 1974.
2. Polymorph is back from 1974 and also moves from the "wands" category into an "effect" category, but this time into "petrification" which is the move inclusive revision of "turn to stone" from earlier editions of the game.
3. Wands are no longer separate from rods and staves, implicitly giving rise to something like a "magical device" category (even though it's unclear whether this was actually the intention).
4. Spells are now their own category, further implying that there's a distinction between effects from devices and effects from actual casters.

There's some advice that "petrification and polymorph" should not be used for such effects from wands, that "breath weapon" should not be used if the breath causes "petrification or polymorph," and that "spells" does not apply when another saving throw has been specified (presumably in the spell description). I have to say that "breath weapon causing polymorph" is something I do not recall any monster for, so maybe I should design one? AD&D also goes into a lot of detail about saving throws for items, something that does not concern me here (except to point out that B/X and BECMI handle those with just the normal saving throws).

Ten years later we get to the second edition of AD&D from 1989:

Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic
Rod, Staff, or Wand
Petrification or Polymorph
Breath Weapon
Spell

Interestingly nothing really changed from 1979, they are even using just about identical footnotes to the saving throw tables. Not much innovation there! (I guess it all went into removing devils and demons?)

In 2000 with the third edition of (A)D&D we get the infamous "streamlined" saving throws: Fortitude, Will, and Reflex. In 2008 with the fourth edition we get something I don't even understand, but I know I don't want it. So we'll just ignore those strange developments here.

What can be learned from this?

1. Only the "breath weapon" category remains the same across the various revisions, although it does start out as "dragon breath" and thus got generalized a little with AD&D.
2. AD&D lowered the power level of staves and rods by lumping them together with wands instead of regular spells. This could be seen as a "magical device" category.
3. The "3P" effects of "paralyzation, petrification, polymorph" jump around a lot over the years. If we prefer them as distinct effects (rather than basing the saving throw on the source of the effect) then the AD&D version arguably makes the most sense: both petrification and polymorph are "radical changes to the body" and lumping them together based on that seems appropriate; paralyzation, on the other hand, simply takes the victim out of the game much like "death rays" or "poison" might.

Personally I still prefer the B/X revision when it comes to saving throws, mostly because I like the idea that wands are easier to resist than staves. However, the AD&D revision is a close second.

(You may also be interested in this followup article covering various clones of the original rules discussed above.)

Vancian Swords

The origins of these accursed swords are shrouded in mystery. Both long swords and short swords appear in historical accounts, all of them very cleverly made to give the appearance of being powerful elven weapons.

Clerics or magic-users who pick up a Vancian Sword suffer 1d6 of electricity damage per round until they let go. These characters will also get the distinct impression that a sweet elven voice whispers to them about sharing "their gift" with a powerful fighter or thief.

Fighters or thieves who pick up a Vancian Sword must save versus spells or be stricken by the curse. Those who make the save suffer 2d6 of ice damage per round until they let go. These characters will also hear an angry elven voice chide them about not being worthy of "the gift" the sword has to offer. Those who fail their saving throw will hear a sadistic voice, decidedly human in character, laugh and cackle diabolically. Despite feeling ashamed and insecure when they hear the laugh, these characters will be unable to let go of the sword and will prefer  it over all other weapons until a Remove Curse spell is cast on them.

Those using a Vancian Sword will fight rather strangely. Find the highest spell-level that a magic-user of the wielder's level can cast. The sword will strike unerringly that many times each day, no to-hit roll necessary. However, the target gets a saving throw versus magic for half damage. A Vancian Sword can hit creatures only harmed by magic weapons and does 1d6 regular damage as well as 1d6 acid damage on each hit.

After the sword's daily allowance of attacks has been used up, the wielder has to save versus spells for each additional attack. Success indicates that a normal to-hit roll can be made for 1d6 regular damage. Failure indicates that the wielder's morale fails: they will leave combat and try to hide behind fighters and clerics, begging for healing and support, quivering for their lives. The diabolic cackling continues in their heads until they can somehow leave combat and rest for at least one turn to calm down. Until the wielder gets 8 hours of sleep and another hour in the morning to "appreciate" their sword, they will have to keep making saves against spells for each attack with the same consequences for each failure.

(Optionally, while a Vancian Sword is being used, the characters around the wielder will hear a faint murmur of people arguing about magic systems.)

Turn Undead = Favored Enemy

I don't know exactly who started it, for me it began with Dyson's updated Turn Undead table, then came Delta's somewhat unrelated ruminations, and finally we got to Talysman's interpretation of turning as morale, so there was literally a whole "train" of cleric posts in the last few days. All of this made me think that I better share my take before someone else does. :-)

I've been fooling around for a while with a revised cleric class for my own "sorta B/X and sorta not" retroclone, and one of its key components is that clerics get something akin to the ranger's "giant-class enemy" or rather what became known as "favored enemy" in more recent iterations of the game.

Let's face it, while most religions like to think that they are "for something" they are almost always "against something" as well, and frequently they are against many more things than they are for. In a swords and sorcery setting in particular, there shouldn't be any shortage of religions, gods, whatever that are against a certain kind of "monster" or "creature" as it were. So gods of life and sun and all that should be against undead. Gods of nature and wilderness and all that should be against civilization (and anyone who stands for it: settlers, cavaliers, and rangers for instance). Gods of law and civilization should be against barbarians. There could be a god who's against wizards, a god who's against dwarves, heck even a god who's against other gods. And so on, and so forth.

With that in mind, I give clerics (who I choose to interpret much closer to the fighter/paladin end than the priest/wizard end) a favored enemy at first level. Depending on the background the player cooks up, there may be more favored enemies later. Some gods might be against several things after all. And everybody who can think knows that clerics are fanatics, maybe even bloodthirsty lunatics, who always bring down the hammer or sword or whatnot where they feel they must: on the heads of those their religions declare enemies.

Let's say the players encounter a bunch of wererats. There's a cleric of some god who is known for hating lycanthropes among them. The wererats might even know some other clan who's recently been wiped out by these "genocidal" clerics. What do you think will happen? First the wererats get a negative modifier to their reaction roll, making them more hostile than if the cleric wasn't there. Then, if they lose a few friends, they get a negative modifier on their morale check because they don't want to be the next clan to be wiped out.

The modifier will depend to some degree on the cleric's level of course, which is why this is similar to turning undead in the original game. What is very different, however, is that it works for all kinds of "monsters" as long as there's a suitable religion in the campaign. And as a fun twist, creatures with no intelligence are immune because they cannot understand the danger they are in. So no "turning" skeletons or zombies, not ever. Of course this assumes that the cleric isn't hiding what religion he or she follows, but most gods will probably expect that kind of boldness anyway.

Other combat-related changes for my cleric include a "no missile weapons" rule: your god expects you to fight bravely against those evil worms, no hiding in a tree with a sling or a bow. Also compared to "standard" clerics I slow down the spell progression, somewhat inspired by the Sohei class found in Oriental Adventures but not quite that extreme.

I really need to write that cleric class up in full sometime soon...

Garrik's Landing (Level 1)

Inspired by both Dyson Logos and Matt Jackson I decided to give mapping a try again. I had not done any in 15+ years which left me with no style to speak of. So I am simply cloning their style for now, badly I might add. But I guess with some practice I could get back into semi-decent shape? Anyway, I just grabbed a stack of four-by-six note cards from Staples and slapped together the first level of "Garrik's Landing" which you see here.

Garrik's Landing (Level 1)

You can also grab a larger version if you feel like it. I have totally overdone it with the tracks/footsteps, I know that. Also several things are severely off-center, however that's actually quite alright for this location: It wasn't built by "perfectionist dwarves" after all. Constructive feedback would be appreciated! And I'll try to do one of these on a semi-regular basis to get back into the swing of things. We'll see for how long I can keep it up!

Thieves Evolved

I've put the "Thieves Evolved" mechanic I outlined in an earlier post into a single-page PDF now. I also "evolved" it a bit more and there's even a worked example, although maybe not the best possible one. I'd like to thank Harald Wagener (for inspiring me to write my thieves up in the first place and for giving me feedback on the PDF) and Dyson Logos (for allowing me to use one of his excellent maps as a watermark). And now back to work...

Nice Example of World Design

Jason Lutes has two wonderful posts about world design over on his blog. He uses commonly available tools to put together a basic sandbox-style setting that he then slots existing modules into. Very nice work, and very inspirational.