Odd way to roll for saving throws

[ToniXX]

Okay, so my FtF group got three new members and we played on Friday night. One of the new people (who tried to befriend a black dragon (more on that later)) had to roll a saving throw for something. She (yes one of the new members is female) picked up a d20 and a d6 and we were all like 'hey, what are you doing? What's the d6 for? She said that in her old group rolled both and added the two together. Obviously, this will greatly help your save, but what the hell is that??? Has anyone ever heard of such a rule? Even as a house rule it seems silly to me.

Her old group was 2e (as is my group), but she really had some odd ideas about how to roll/play, etc. and it seems like she might have had the taint of 3e some point in her past.

Anyway, I just wanted to see if you guys have ever heard of saving throws that work like this. And, to bolster discussion, what other odd house rules have you encountered?

[Vargr1105]

it seems like she might have had the taint of 3e some point in her past.

I am feeling a WH40k vibe here, "Purge the Unclean!"

I have never heard of anyone rolling 1d20+1d6 for saving throws and its seems to me like behavior that bears the mark of the Beast...er, I mean Munchkin.

The only house rule I remember reading about using different dice for saving throws (and attack rolls and ability checks) is using 3d6 instead of 1d20. Supposedly the reason behind it had to do with that "bell-curve" thing that anal-retentive gamers can't seem to stop mentioning.
To me it just seemed like an excuse by a douchebag GM to make things (even) harder for his players.


But you got me curious, what other odd ideas about roll/play does your new female gamer have? And what symptoms have led you to believe that poor creature's soul is marred by the heresy of playing the Edition That Shall not Named?

[ToniXX]

But you got me curious, what other odd ideas about roll/play does your new female gamer have? And what symptoms have led you to believe that poor creature's soul is marred by the heresy of playing the Edition That Shall not Named?

LOL Vargr!

'Munchkin' and 'power gamer' are the words we used to describe her (after she left!).

Let's see, what else: As I said, she tried to befriend a black dragon. The poor thing was sick and she (being a druid), stated that she wanted to cast cure disease upon it! WHAT??? The DM reminded her that that spell range is touch. Then she said 'well, I want to change one of my languages'. (She'd picked them just a couple hours before, at the end of chargen). I had to chime in here, even though I wasn't the DM:

Me: Okay, you can now speak black dragon. What do you say?
Her: I mean you no harm, fair beast. Let me help you.
Me: Okay, the dragon says: 'thanks, but fuck you, I'm chaotic evil! RAWR!'

Everyone else had a laugh, and I apologized, (I'm usually not like that, but was seething by that time), and the DM said that she couldn't change her language. The dragon then attacked her, took her down to -1 HP, and flung her body away from the battle.

Earlier, we went to a temple in town. We were asking questions of the high priest who'd just given the sunset mass, and while my dwarf was (respectfully) speaking to him, she chimes in "I cast detect evil" Again, WHAT!?!?! The DM made her roll a save vs death, she freaked out thinking she was going to die, and failed the save. It turns out the save was just to see if the spell went off successfully. (Don't know why he chose death, maybe just to mess with her). Anyway, the high priest was so pissed off that he cast us out of his temple and we didn't get the info we were hoping for. We may not have either way, but WTF???

She was otherwise friendly, shared her food, etc, but was just a little off in her RPG methods.

[Argennian]

But you got me curious, what other odd ideas about roll/play does your new female gamer have? And what symptoms have led you to believe that poor creature's soul is marred by the heresy of playing the Edition That Shall not Named?

LOL Vargr!

'Munchkin' and 'power gamer' are the words we used to describe her (after she left!).

Let's see, what else: As I said, she tried to befriend a black dragon. The poor thing was sick and she (being a druid), stated that she wanted to cast cure disease upon it! WHAT??? The DM reminded her that that spell range is touch. Then she said 'well, I want to change one of my languages'. (She'd picked them just a couple hours before, at the end of chargen). I had to chime in here, even though I wasn't the DM:

Me: Okay, you can now speak black dragon. What do you say?
Her: I mean you no harm, fair beast. Let me help you.
Me: Okay, the dragon says: 'thanks, but fuck you, I'm chaotic evil! RAWR!'

Everyone else had a laugh, and I apologized, (I'm usually not like that, but was seething by that time), and the DM said that she couldn't change her language. The dragon then attacked her, took her down to -1 HP, and flung her body away from the battle.

Earlier, we went to a temple in town. We were asking questions of the high priest who'd just given the sunset mass, and while my dwarf was (respectfully) speaking to him, she chimes in "I cast detect evil" Again, WHAT!?!?! The DM made her roll a save vs death, she freaked out thinking she was going to die, and failed the save. It turns out the save was just to see if the spell went off successfully. (Don't know why he chose death, maybe just to mess with her). Anyway, the high priest was so pissed off that he cast us out of his temple and we didn't get the info we were hoping for. We may not have either way, but WTF???

She was otherwise friendly, shared her food, etc, but was just a little off in her RPG methods.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Yeah... got the sound of TETSNBN written all over it!


Funny thing, that house rule about rolling a d6 with a d20? I've seen that used by old school gamers as well. IIRC, think it was used in place of greater than +?? bonus on a d20? I seem to remember it being at a time that a PC in question had a unique magical or divine enhancement upon their person or some such? If you go by the bell curve, you're looking at 9-11 for the d20 and a 3-4 on the d6, for a average of 12-15? It makes me think of the rolling of multiple d6's for an ability check versus the d20 thing.


It is your duty to convert her to "old school"-ness, ToniXX!!

[ToniXX]

It is your duty to convert her to "old school"-ness, ToniXX!!

Yeah, that's our plan, but we're not even sure if she's coming back. She seemed to have fun but I wouldn't blame her if she doesn't return.

[max_vale]

I've never heard of a d6 + d20 used for anything....but using multiple d6s for ability checks is something I first saw used a couple of years ago and have incorporated into my games. I change the number of d6s used based on the difficulty of the task...i.e.; something really hard would use 5 or 6 d6s to try and equal or get under the appropriate Attribute number; with the caveat that all 6s is automatic failure and all 1s are an automatic success; regardless of attribute number. (So that someone with an 18 in an attribute doesn't just practically always/automatically succeed at 2d6, 3d6 or 4d6 rolls).

As for the manner of play....some of it sounds quite like a guy I used to game with who was just incredibly frustrating as a fellow party member. He was playing a Cleric who was LN in alignment; but he would do the most inexplicable things....for example, he once cast 'Detect Evil' while we were being attacked by a bunch of Giant Ants. (We had inadvertently wandering into their hive) WTF? Anybody ever heard of an Evil Insect? (Or a Good one, for that matter?)

Another time; we were being fired at by a bunch of bandit archers who were positioned on a roof of a nearby building. He was the second highest HP character (next to the lone Fighter) and the ONLY one in Plate Mail & Shield. What does he do....he RUNS AWAY....leaving my Thief; a Mage and the lightly armored; berserker like Fighter to deal with the threat. HE HAD FULL HP AND THE BEST AC AND SEVERAL SPELLS TO USE. WTF! If his character was CN or Evil or something; maybe I could understand his actions...but just leaving us in the lurch...what the hell, man?

I'd have to say; my two biggest pet peeves (other than of course, outright jackass people) in gaming are not playing your chosen Alignment (more on this in a moment) and Clerics who only use the same damn 3 spells over and over again. (CLW, Silence and Hold Person) These are the people who have whined about the Cleric for 30+ years and given the class such a bad reputation. Personally; I've always felt like Clerics are far and away one of the more versatile classes to play (particularly if you add spells from UA if playing 1st Edition; or in 2nd Edition with the spheres).

As for the alignment thing...I can get down with not using Alignments....I can get down with everybody playing CN (or just N in BECMI games); so that you don't have to worry about moral arguments......but if you're going to use Alignments...PLAY WHAT YOU F-ING CHOOSE! If you're character is a LG Paladin; he shouldn't be Slaughtering tied up prisoners you just threatened to get info out of.....if you're a LN Cleric; you don't do RANDOM, NONSENSICAL crap at key moments...Etc, Etc.

Sorry for my rant there....back to your regularly scheduled thread!

[ToniXX]

Good points, max_vale. I especially like what you said about alignments. Something we joked about after the new players left was that she was playing her character as chaotic-stupid. LOL!

What was the point of the cleric running away from the battle? What did he do after he ran? When I've played clerics (two on these boards, one of which hasn't started yet) is to try to be the front line fighter type, as I usually have great armor and HP (as you stated your fellow player had). That's something I like about clerics, as well as their ability to cast spells.

[Alethan]

I think it can be challenging to figure out how to play (and monitor) alignments if you use the full nine from the 1e books. Well, some of them, anyway. As a result, several games I've played in before use just Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic. Or they'll even replace Chaotic with "Selfish", because that's more akin to what they're trying to portray with their alignments - are you in it for the good of the land or are you in it for yourself? Act accordingly.

But no matter how it's broken down, I think Paladins and lawful clerics have a very thin line for determining what is acceptable behavior and what is not. I've been fortunate enough to play in groups with DMs who feel the same way and I've witnessed several Paladins become fighters in a heartbeat because of an action they did or didn't do that left them outside the boundaries of their alignment.

By way of example, in the story that Stonjuz relayed in the Eye of the Serpent OOC thread, if that had been a paladin in a group I was DMing, it would have very quickly become a party of four fighter/thieves and one fighter.

Conversely, playing a chaotic person is much easier, because they could play the part of a lawfully-aligned person if it suits their needs (gets them what they want) or they could act as selfish as they want.

Usually the only classes I really pay attention re: alignment are the Paladin, the lawful cleric, and the druid.

[ToniXX]

Good points, Alethan. I've found that the descriptions of alignments in ORSIC is really well done. I've read those more than a few times through, and it helps to remind me how certain alignments should be played.

** edit for stupid error and not reading before I post.

[Vargr1105]

My answer to the eternal dilemma of alignments is simple. The person who chooses alignment X for his character gets to define what it means, and the only onus is that henceforth that interpretation of that alignment must be played out coherently.

So it is perfectly feasible that a LN character will vamoose from a hard situation and leave the rest of the party hanging, LN need not mean you are brave and selfless. A player could have defined "Lawful" as "stick to the rules of society, abides by contracts and respects lawful authority" and "Neutral" as "is out for himself and self-preservation, will nor go out of the way to harm others for self-benefit but neither will risk life and limb for their sake unless there is some personal benefit to be gained"

Now if that LN character had signed a contract or given his oath that he would stick with the party come hell or high water, that's a different matter.

"Goodness" can also be quite elastic under this system, even for paladins. The player gets to decide exactly whom and what falls under his system of morality and ethics and where the line is drawn. So a LG character has no problem with using torture against an Orc if the PC decided those creatures are "on the outside" and there is nothing on the Law Books or his own personal code of conduct that forbids extracting information from Orcs under duress.

Same thing about being Evil. It does not mean you are a sadist, a psychopath, a turncoat or even that you will steal from the party. It can just mean you are selfish and in very extreme situations you are looking out for number one.

The only limit that should be imposed on alignment selection and definition (apart from class requirements) is that the player must be running a character that is functional as a party member, period.

[Argennian]

My answer to the eternal dilemma of alignments is simple. The person who chooses alignment X for his character gets to define what it means, and the only onus is that henceforth that interpretation of that alignment must be played out coherently.

So it is perfectly feasible that a LN character will vamoose from a hard situation and leave the rest of the party hanging, LN need not mean you are brave and selfless. A player could have defined "Lawful" as "stick to the rules of society, abides by contracts and respects lawful authority" and "Neutral" as "is out for himself and self-preservation, will nor go out of the way to harm others for self-benefit but neither will risk life and limb for their sake unless there is some personal benefit to be gained"

Now if that LN character had signed a contract or given his oath that he would stick with the party come hell or high water, that's a different matter.

"Goodness" can also be quite elastic under this system, even for paladins. The player gets to decide exactly whom and what falls under his system of morality and ethics and where the line is drawn. So a LG character has no problem with using torture against an Orc if the PC decided those creatures are "on the outside" and there is nothing on the Law Books or his own personal code of conduct that forbids extracting information from Orcs under duress.

Same thing about being Evil. It does not mean you are a sadist, a psychopath, a turncoat or even that you will steal from the party. It can just mean you are selfish and in very extreme situations you are looking out for number one.

Establishment and agreement upon this kind of thing between DM & players is absoluetly paramount to understanding the limits. Very well stated, man!

The only limit that should be imposed on alignment selection and definition (apart from class requirements) is that the player must be running a character that is functional as a party member, period.

THIS All day long this. This single statement should be universally applicable between any and all editions, or rpgs for that matter.

(Not to mention immediately stopping approximately 2/3 of all game group TPKs and "nerd rage" incidents that have real potential of becoming physical! )

[max_vale]

I absolutely agree that the LN character certainly doesn't have to be brave; but they are pretty much the antithesis of "chaotic" types. In the situation we found ourselves in; it was hardly a "hopeless" or even "automatically extremely hazardous".....we were ambushed by an equal number of opponents (4 vs. 4....and they all had leather armor whereas we had 2 with leather armor; 1 with Plate and Shield and 1 with nothing).

We had specifically given our word to the local village that we would do our best to take out the bandits that had been hurting thier trade. With all this mind....I find it completely against alignment for a 'law and order' type to inexplicably run away at the first sight of such opponents.

However; I can understand if perhaps his character had some kind of background reason or well-explained logic behind his actions; but over the course of numerous sessions; it basically became obvious that the character's player decided to just do whatever he felt like; whenever he felt like it....in other worlds; pretty much the definition of CN as written in the 1st and 2nd Edition books.

Beyond ALL OF THAT; his actions tended to annoy ALL of his fellow players....which in my mind; is really a cardinal sin....if nobody else in a group your playing with cares for your actions....you might want to either change your behaviour or find a new group; but that's just my two cents!

And I COMPLETELY agree with the whole "discuss Alignments; playing style; etc." with the whole group BEFORE starting a campaign.

[onlyme]

We had specifically given our word to the local village that we would do our best to take out the bandits that had been hurting thier trade. With all this mind....I find it completely against alignment for a 'law and order' type to inexplicably run away at the first sight of such opponents.

However; I can understand if perhaps his character had some kind of background reason or well-explained logic behind his actions;

I could see a player playing his lawful character like barney fife... Very lawful, but due to low wisdom or charisma, a coward. But, I absolutely agree that it needs to be explained as such to the DM. I prefer to keep as much of backgrounds hidden as possible to force myself pick up on clues and/or to give those clues correctly. It also adds to the wtf element that can make for some fun times.

But, the DM should always know enough about the affliction, etc to be able to judge accordingly.

[Stonjuz]

I know a dm who makes us call high or low, then the player and dm would each roll d100.

example....
DM : Your attempting to escape the fire burst, save vs. breath, call it, high or low.
me : High
DM & myself roll : his 47, mine....48
DM : you manage to get out of the way in time with no damge, except that the tail of your cloak is beginning to burn.
(if i had made it by much more, no significant damage to me or my gear)
Since I only made the roll by 1, he couldnt let me get off totally free.

example , yet failing...
DM : Your attempting to escape the fire burst, save vs. breath, call it, high or low.
me : low
DM & myself roll : his 47, mine....48
DM : you manage to get out of the way in time, mostly, except that your hair has burned off on the left side of your head. Take 1 point of damage.
(if i had failed by alot, the worse the outcome would be)

He used/uses this alot, and all of us,his players have come to accept it. It is strange, but he is fair and consistant.

[Vargr1105]

So the ST is an opposing 1d100 roll.

How does the level of the character affect his chances of succeeding?

[Stonjuz]

level doesnt effect at all, as far as i can remember. He has given us the choice of normal saving throws or his high/low method.....sometimes.
and we play 2.5, so he has given us the same choice for non weapon proficiencies as well...sometimes