Save vs. Doom/​Curse/​Harm/​Bane

So I'm still thinking about oldschool D&D saving throw mechanics.

I've been skeptical about the whole paradigm. I've read a lot of OSR folks' apologia on the concept, and some of their ideas worked for me, others didn't. But on the whole I do think I see some virtues there. Three, in fact.

First: Isolating the saving throw mechanic from external variables keeps the probabilities bounded. That is, since the modifiers that apply to the numbers are limited and difficulty doesn't scale with the source of the threat, you can theoretically prevent situations where a successful save is impossible or inevitable.

Second: In games where saving throws can be extremely high-stakes—PCs will live or die based on a single roll, regardless of their hit points—I think it might make things feel better to have a clear number in front of you that you must meet or beat with an unadjusted die roll in order to succeed. If only the DM knows the target number, then your character's inglorious death by poison might seem like DM fiat! It's not much better if the DM just tells you the target number, either, since it's still as high as the DM wants it to be. And I've got a vague feeling that even adding a modifier to your own roll introduces a degree of separation between die roll and outcome that's less than ideal.

Third: I love the way that relative saving throw difficulty and save category priority work together to make the harshest effects the easiest ones to avoid. That is, death effects typically have the lowest save targets. Things that take your character out of the action (like paralysis and petrification) are medium difficulty. Dragon breath—which just does hit point damage—is harder to avoid. Finally, spells that don't instantly kill or paralyze or transform you—spells that mostly inflict survivable hassles—are generally the most likely to take effect.

The "category priority" part comes in when resolving cases of conceptual overlap: If a threat falls into multiple save categories, it's (generally) classified as the easier-to-avoid one. Death spells are avoided by death saves, not spell saves. Petrifying breath weapons are avoided with petrification saves, not breath saves. I'm not sure how intentional this is, but it's kinda brilliant!

But none of these three benefits, I'll note, are dependent upon saving throw categories that specifically state the source of the threats they address. Instead, what's important to my perspective is that they can be connected to general degrees of threat! So I'm thinking: What if we lean into that, and focus more explicitly and specifically on the "degree of threat" thing?

Check out these save categories.

Doom. Things that would permanently remove a character from the game or from the player's control. The easiest threat to save against. You save vs. Doom to resist a deadly poison, avoid falling into lava, prevent a demon from possessing you, or evade a petrifying gaze. "Permanent" in this context is obviously "potentially permanent": Spells like raise dead, dispel magic, or remove curse might reverse one Doom or another, but for the purposes of the saving throw, dead is dead.

Curse. Things that would impose a permanent affliction or transformation on a character. The second easiest threat to save against. You save vs. Curse to pull your hand out of the trap before it gets scythed off, to avoid having to roll on a mutation table, or to resist an effect that would swap your Strength and Intelligence scores. Permanent polymorph effects might fall under this category, too: If a spell would turn you into a frog who still remembers who it used to be and who its friends are, then it's a Curse. If it turns you into a frog who only wants to find a nice pond and eat flies, it's a Doom.

Harm. Things that inflict hit point damage. The second most difficult threat to save against. You save vs. Harm to take half damage from a dragon's breath, or to completely evade a falling rock trap. There's an argument for making Harm the hardest save, but since you'll often be saving for half damage rather than to completely negate an effect, I figure it can be a little easier.

Bane. Things that cause temporary afflictions, loss of agency, and other ephemeral hassles. The most difficult threat to save against. You save vs. Bane to resist things like bane spells (appropriately enough), snare traps, soporific fumes, getting teleported to a random location, or being temporarily turned into a frog. Note that a lot of Banes (such as a ghoul's paralytic touch) might lead to some very permanent consequences, but once again, the saving throw is only about the immediate effect.

If something fits into multiple categories, then it counts as the easiest applicable one. If you're saving against a pit trap that will injure you (Harm) and move you to a new area (Bane), then you roll vs. Harm.

I think this gets us the benefits of the oldschool saving through paradigm—the bits I like about it, anyway—in a much clearer, more straightforward way.

One side effect of this system: If we're not categorizing saves by threat source, then class-specific save target progressions seem a little unnecessary. You could make Fighters better at saving vs. Harm or Wizards bad at saving vs. Doom or whatever, but I think that wouldn't really say much about those classes or the world.

Instead, maybe you'd give Wizards a bonus to saving throws against magical stuff regardless of actual save category, Rogues a bonus against traps, Fighters a bonus against monsters, etc. That could work. But at the moment I'm a little enamored of the bare die-vs.-number situation, and I'd like to try it without modifiers.

...Not that I'm likely to be trying any of this stuff out soon, admittedly!