/osrg/: OSR General - Undead Edition

If you want, you could go the 4E route for hybrids. Just make weird little half-classes for each of the standard ones that you can merge together, so that you can be a Fighter/Magic-user without needing a shitload of experience.

Then again, that didn't even work that well in 4E so maybe it's a bad idea.

>??? = ?. Not Bard. Bards are forbidden. Bards suck.
Agreed.

To me, Druid seems like more its own thing than Cleric / Specialist. Magic-User / Cleric is Shaman territory, and maybe their specialty is bridging the gap between magic and miracle, chaos and law.

>??? (S/M-U)
Some sort of hedge mage or trickster? Maybe an Illusionist with both magical and mundane tricks up his sleeves?

>Occultist or antiquarian.
An Occultist could easily be a Specialist / Cleric

>To me, Druid seems like more its own thing than Cleric / Specialist. Magic-User / Cleric is Shaman territory, and maybe their specialty is bridging the gap between magic and miracle, chaos and law.
Flavor-wise, perhaps, but the mechanics of the Druid have traditionally put it pretty firmly in the Cleric/M-U camp.

Mostly because of the psuedo-fireballs and animal summons and offensive spells in general, to be honest. I'm still not entirely sure why Eldritch Wizardry gave the Druid such affinity with fire. Is it just because of forest fires?

A Cleric/Specialist, mechanically speaking, would probably just be some class with a few healing/buffing spells and a few skills to choose from. Flavor-wise they'd be, I dunno, one of those knowledgeable medieval monks as opposed to the Cleric's crusader. (Remember, the Cleric is already pretty Fighter/M-U-ish.)

It's also interesting to consider from what angle you're approaching the problem. The Paladin isn't a Cleric with some fighty bits, after all - they're a Fighter with some clerical bits grafted on. Would a Cleric/Specialist best be expressed as a Specialist with some clerical abilities, or a Cleric with some skills?

Also, the obvious answer for Cleric/Specialist is to play up the whole Van Helsing thing they've got going. A hunter of the undead and supernatural, of all that's wrong and Chaotic.

The whole issue with the Cleric already being pretty Fighter-y became REALLY apparent in Pathfinder, where they've got something along the lines of five divine warriors, I think? And they're all fairly similar, flavor-wise, since they all build on the Cleric and the Cleric is fighty as hell. All tromping around in plate and smashing in faces with a mace.

Swede here, thx for the tip. Thou i would really like to have a hard copy of trundvang...

hey I was told to ask here, what do you guys think of basic fantasy RPG? would it be a good game for a group new to tabletop games? and if it is any of good could I have some advice for running the game as a GM?

and I forgot my pic

Kollade på pricerunner, tradera, ebay och blocket - inte ett enda resultat för trudvang. Gissar att du får lov att söka omkring på nått svensk rollspelsforum, fast fan om jag vet vad det finns för några.

I've used BFRPG to introduce new people to tabletop games before. Heck, I've given copies of the book out as gifts, the recipients found it to be far less intimidating than the three expensive books you had to get for D&D/Pathfinder.
As for advice, I'd recommend reading The Role-Playing Game Primer and Old-School Playbook that can be found in the OSR trove under GM Resources. The overall tone is a bit condescending but it should give a few ideas on how to run the game. Morgansfort is a good starter adventure that can help get your feet wet on running a game, though it's entirely possible to use old D&D adventure modules such as Keep on the Borderlands. Just keep in mind that BFRPG uses Ascending Armor Class (higher is better) and D&D from that era uses Descending Armor Class (lower is better), a rough conversion to BFRPG is simply to subtract the Descending Armor Class from 20 and use that result. Hopefully you guys will have fun with the game, wishing you the best of luck!

Let's talk saving throws:

How do you like the classic method of 5 saving throw categories? Do you think the categories have any lacking ground so to speak?

Do you think saving throws work better if unified into a single number, with class dependent bonuses?

Do you think abilities should modify the value for a saving throw in certain circumstances?

how do you decide between allowing a saving throw to avoid a trap, or let the trap make an attack roll to see if it hits, or just let the trap hit if triggered?

I kinda like DCCs: 3 saves based on Fortitude, Reflex and Willpower.

I think that the five saving throws work fine when the game is sufficiently limited in what it covers and you don't try to shoehorn more and more shit into it - the prime example there is vs. Wands to dodge shit in general and in one case vs. Turn to Stone to avoid dying in a rockslide, but there's more stuff too. vs. Breath Weapon for area effects, vs. Death Ray/Poison becoming vs. Death, shit like that.

Hell, even Dragon Breath becoming Breath Weapon says something.

It's obvious that there's "lacking ground", so to speak, and that people have generally found them too confining over the years - that's why you get more and more generic saves until 3E's Reflex/Fortiture/Willpower, and 5E tossing them entirely in favor of just defaulting to ability scores.

Still, though, I think that in a sufficiently confined environment - OD&D's LBBs, for instance - they probably work just fine. It's just growing pains from all the extra shit's that's been added over the years.

>Do you think saving throws work better if unified into a single number, with class dependent bonuses?
I think that loses a bit of granularity, but honestly it's not a bad idea. I think personally I'd rather go all the way and make the entire thing into a 5E-esque Proficiency Bonus used for both saves and attack rolls.

>Do you think abilities should modify the value for a saving throw in certain circumstances?
As much as I'd like to say "yeah, that makes sense", making random ability scores matter is a scourge upon the industry. Also, small fiddly bonuses.

>how do you decide between allowing a saving throw to avoid a trap, or let the trap make an attack roll to see if it hits, or just let the trap hit if triggered?
I like the OD&D thing where the trap auto-hits if triggered but only has a 2-in-6 chance of triggering in the first place. It's a great equalizer - the Thief isn't easier to hit than the Fighter, the low-level character isn't at a massive disadvantage, and it hits the back row.

>How do you like the classic method of 5 saving throw categories?
Both too many and too ambiguous.

>Do you think the categories have any lacking ground so to speak?
Physical danger and hardship, which is usually rolled as straight ability checks. Plus they do overlap.

>Do you think saving throws work better if unified into a single number, with class dependent bonuses?
A single, homogenous progession with class bonuses? Certainly.
A single stat? No.

>Do you think abilities should modify the value for a saving throw in certain circumstances?
No. You roll a save or you roll an ability.

>How do you decide between allowing a saving throw to avoid a trap, or let the trap make an attack roll to see if it hits, or just let the trap hit if triggered?
On a case by case basis.
Example: Qwert the fighter triggers a trap, which is the classic blade swininging pendulum-like from one wall. I tell the player that a trap was triggered and what will happen, and ask them what they do. Qwert has a shield, and the player decides that he'll use it to block or deflect the blade. I tell them to roll an attack with a hefty bonus, and they 'hit'.
Qwert catches the blade, which breaks the shield in half and dents his vambrace, sending him crashing against the opposite wall, battered but not seriously hurt. He loses his shield and takes 1d2 damage, which the player rolls.

The player reacted to the trap, giving them agency, the trap had impact, and it expended an item the player might have had just one of.
Let the players decide what they do and pick what to roll based on that.

>I like the OD&D thing where the trap auto-hits if triggered but only has a 2-in-6 chance of triggering in the first place. It's a great equalizer - the Thief isn't easier to hit than the Fighter, the low-level character isn't at a massive disadvantage, and it hits the back row.

Correct me if I'm wrong but B/X does a similar thing with traps right? A base 1 in 6 chance of the trap springing when the condition is met (walk over a pit trap, 1 in 6 chance to fall in). It's an interesting idea, but for some reason it feels weird that against things like breath weapons and wand projectiles one can take a reaction, yet you can't react if a pit opens under you.

>Correct me if I'm wrong but B/X does a similar thing with traps right?
Eh, probably. B/X is basically just a cleaned-up revision of OD&D in some respects.

>It's an interesting idea, but for some reason it feels weird that against things like breath weapons and wand projectiles one can take a reaction, yet you can't react if a pit opens under you.
You also can't react if someone shoots an arrow at you, or swings a sword. That's entirely handled on their end, with you just having a passive defense against it in the form of AC.

Them's the breaks with making everything a subsystem.

Honestly, I can't really say that I would be opposed to a 4E Defense system - that is to say, your saves are a fixed value like AC and the opponent rolls to try to hit that value.

Or just having the players roll everything in the first place, and just giving monsters fixed "attack" values that the players try to roll to block/dodge/whatever.

>Or just having the players roll everything in the first place, and just giving monsters fixed "attack" values that the players try to roll to block/dodge/whatever.

So this just gave me an idea:

Let the players roll everything.

Attacking a monster? Roll versus that monsters AC

Defending against an attack? Make the monsters HD determine the value you need to deflect in line with how HD determines what a monster needs to roll to hit a certain AC. You get a bonus to this defense roll from your armor (so leather would give you +1 bonus to your roll). I actually really like this idea: as both the attack and defense roll are now from a player perspective, it becomes narrativly easy to determine situational modifiers: ''Because the kobold is attacking you by jumping down from above, the awkward angles give you a -1 to defense''. These little things can now all be described from the players perspective.

Dealing with a trap or other non attack situation? Make a saving throw (or what ever alternative this discussion generates).

Took x Turns exploring? Roll for a wandering monster (the DM still has the chart).

etc. etc.

> Let the players roll everything.
Hmm.. I think I've seen it before somewhere.

Either way - doesn't support PvP.

Why not? Unlike in DW, you could do opposed rolls for PvP.

One thing you could try is the ACKS method of "racial classes"; rather than give elves and dwarves the same class list, make a few "elf classes" and "dwarf classes". For example elves might be either Spellswords (the classic B/X elf), Rangers (Legolas type), or Enchantresses (Galadriel type). This gives demi-humans their own racial set of classes.

The ACKS Player's Companion also has tons of classes roughly compatible with a B/X system and suggestions on how to build balanced versions yourself.

Har kollat men inte hittat något, har dock pdf på den men det är inte riktigt samma sak

Would Torchbearers be considered part of the OSR?

Definitely: back in the day, hecnhmen to bear torches or carry loot were very common to bring along into the dungeon.

You mean the RPG or "profession" ?

>Har kollat men inte hittat något, har dock pdf på den men det är inte riktigt samma sak
Svensk version?

RPG

Last thread people said it was "OSR-adjacent," which I think is the most accurate term.

Jepp, vill du ha den ?

>Jepp, vill du ha den ?
Vore trevligt att ha något annat att spela än Kult, så ja. Ska ringa runt och se om några av mina polare har ett exemplar att sälja till dig (av trudvang dvs). Tror att de redan har sålt sina "dublletter" dock...

Har du en mail adress som jag kan skicka den på ? Pdf:en ligger på 130 mb

> has a fabulous magic system overall, and excellent necromancy.
I don't really understand what you mean by that.

5th edition player's book has some sample spells and that's it.

Agreed, along with Dungeon World, for example. The spirit is the same in places with both games, and some mechanics are similar to old-school D&D ones (e.g. adventure turns and race-as-class for Torchbearer, or XP form treasure in DW), but overall the systems come from a different place while aiming for the same end result.

5th edition is kind of borked.
4th edition has all the rules in one place and the magic system I'm referring to in its entirety.

... and I wasted 10 more minutes.

It looks like a cross between WoD's Magic system and Green Ronin's True Sorcery.

Kan också fungera via Facebook eller Skype, vet dock inte hur stora filer de tillåter.

Does anyone have a set PDFs for extra Dungeon World classes? Like The Medic or The Ninja or The Pirate?

This trove has a fuck-ton of DW stuff:
mediafire.com/folder/wq2k0r1bqesqt/RPG_Trove#y2di7esbabm7s

It's my personal favorite. I use the supplements (I like the sorcerer) and some house rules to help modernize it. Such as hit dice for healing (DnD 5e) and attacks of opportunity for when enemies move away from you during combat. I also allow the cleric to learn 1 spell at 1st level so they aren't useless. In my next play session I'm also introducing a character that uses magic from the DCC rule set for comedic purposes.

If I didn't use BFRPG I'd use 5e.

Didn't they use THAC0? So wouldn't you subtract from 19?

Speaking of Torchbearer, does anyone have some of those Conflict Action Cards? Those would be useful.

>Didn't they use THAC0? So wouldn't you subtract from 19?
What? I don't understand this on multiple different levels. What does whether something used THAC0 or just attack tables have to do with conversion values? THAC0 is literally the AC 0 column on an attack table.

Also, why 19? Are you think of 21, maybe, for AD&D, where unarmored is AC 10 rather than 9? Unarmored AC in BFRPG is 11, so in Basic that's 20 - AC 9 = 11. In AD&D that's 21 - AC 10 = 11.

But there's a problem with this. The gap between leather and chain in AD&D is 1 point bigger than in Basic. So you can either get unarmed and leather right (by subtracting from 21), or you can get chainmail and platemail right (by subtracting from 20). Of course the Monster Manual for 1st edition AD&D was put out before Gygax decided to change unarmored from AC 9 to AC 10, so it uses the original formula (which Basic continues), so you're probably better off sticking with 20 - AC. And if you just don't let things go below AC 11, leather armor is the only thing that's a point off.

>Also, why 19?

Because it starts counting at 0 instead of 1.

>Because it starts counting at 0 instead of 1.
I'm not following you. What does?

Regardless, the key thing you're trying to do is to accurately translate your chance of success. So let's say a guy with a THAC0 of 15 is striking at a girl in chainmail, which has an AC of 5. 15 - 5 = 10, so he'd have to roll a 10 or greater to hit her, which he has a 55% chance of doing. To convert: 20 - AC 5 = 15, which somebody with an attack bonus of 5 (THAC0 15 is equivalent to an attack bonus of 5, as it [the THAC0] is 5 points better than the base of 20) has a 55% chance of hitting (needing to roll a 10 or over).

Rolled 1 (1d1)

Computers do, but the dice roller does not.

Unarmored AC for BFRPG characters is 11 if I recall correctly. So in Basic, an unarmored character has 9 AC, 20 - 9 would be 11.

I've found that adding your AC to the d20 roll and comparing it to the target number of THAC0 to be a far easier method. Striking at the woman in chainmail would be a 1d20 + 5 against a THAC0 of 15, so he'd still need to roll 10 or higher to hit but it makes the mental math slightly smoother.

Bump

Do you use premade settings for your OSR campaigns, or do you make your own?
If so, can you summarise it?
Does the setting have any mechanical effects?

I was talking about AC. But you guys were right, I went through Keep of the Borderlands monsters and the AC for them and BFRPG mostly match up if you subtract from 20.

I forgot to mention I like to give them EXP for every gold piece or gold piece equivalent (2 EP, 10SP, 100CP) they successfully take out of the dungeon. For example they would get 5 EXP for 1 piece of platinum. EXP is also shared so every character gets the same amount. If I didn't do this they'd have to kill over a hundred monsters just to get to level 2, and that could take dozens of hours of playing.

Question: Should I let the players know the monsters HP or AC? And can a paralyzed player be paralyzed again while paralyzed?

I've got my own that I first 'made' when I was DMing games in highschool, abandoned when I realized how dumb it was, and then picked it back up to rework when I got out of college.

>The old, traditional gods are dead. Four figures have risen from the mortal coil to a state of semi-godhood (enough to give clerics some power, but not enough to actively intervene around the world)

>At some point in the past, the largest civilizations splintered and shattered, leaving behind massive husks of cities now overwhelmed by nature and beasts of varying strength.

>Several virulent plagues swept the planet, cleansing it of much life before the world experienced a resurgence of wildlife and untamed foliage.

>Survivors settled in small, remote settlements, protected from the plagues by the Fonts of Purity.

>In the modern era, something deep in the planet has poisoned the wells, and adventurers are being sent out into the world for the first time in hundreds of years to find the source of the trouble, leaving safety to delve into megadungeons beneath the surface or into ancient cities to find a solution to the problem.

My experienced players enjoy dungeon crawls and RPing with the occasional settlement while new players have no problem getting into it because PC's aren't expected to know jack shit about the world they live in anyways.

Oh, I forgot to include the mechanical bits I've added.

Considering that the world's supposed to be big, strange and 'survival-oriented' I include or exclude some of the rules depending on what sort of feel I'm going for at the time. Typically, each region has different challenges that the players have to overcome. Megadungeons are punishing and slow enough that I rarely impose extra rules, if only because I like to streamline the process so that it doesn't become too tedious.

But, for example, when delving into the sandy crags of the Clawridges, I make them keep track of water consumption and occasionally they're forced off-course by sand rain, which causes them to roll 2d6 to decide which two hexes on the overworld map they're forced to pick between, the ferocity of the storm limiting their possible movement.

I find that one or two small rule changes based on the region adds a lot of flavor. Other than that, however, we use LotFP rules for the gameplay. If anyone here's never looked at it, do yourself a favor and at least check out the encumbrance system, it's worth stealing.

I've set up a hexcrawl over a continent and I am considering adding my own kind of underdark underneath it.

Should all of this underdark be a mega dungeons or its own hexcrawl map like the overworld?

ideas, suggestions?

When the players slip into the underdark, the world flips upside down with a strange night sky overhead, and everything is a perverse, mockingly mirrored version of the overworld. And everything is a little bit tougher to kill. If the party travels across the underworld and then attempts to resurface, they have a 50% chance of being 1 hex off from where they should be.

good idea. so it could be a sort of 'risky fast travel'

It could also be a place where the party could find the things that are lost in the overworld. More loot, more danger. Faster travel, at a cost. Disorienting, strange creatures, exotic and wonderful, shattered towers looming overhead filled with forgotten treasure.

I've done it before, and it's generally tempting enough that the players might actually consider it when they're feeling gutsy/broke/powerful/desperate.

I'd say why not, atleast give them the HD if they have encounterd the monster before. But don't tell them that the goblin only have 4 hp left of his 8 hp, says he's about half health.

It dosent really make a differance if you give them the hp or not, they will either look it up or count how much dmg they have done to a critter and then note down how much hp they have. That is what my group does, and i rather just tell them the HD than have them sitting the hole combat trying to guess the fucker HP by counting damage.

in that case, it seems like it shouldn't be a hex map like the over world but a series of short dungeons.

unless its just a much smaller hex map so passing one hex in the underworld is the same distance as passing 5 in the overworld.

either works depending on my mood, currently working on a setting inspired by this map I found relatively recently, with a lot of the setting details inspired by the old Wizards Presents books they published as a preview for 4th Edition as they hit a lot of my preferences(that and the game I'm probably going to use, Microlite 74 includes most all of the 4th Edition races in it's supplements, although there's a couple I'll have to homebrew), as well as some beats from the Dark Souls/Bloodborne franchises(primarily things like each area having at least one Iconic Boss enemy, and certain aspects to weapons like how Bloodborne does them, including firearms)

So the players are returning to Tower of the Stargazer today since they didn't check the whole place out the first time. You guys have any interesting ideas of what can have changed while they've been gone? Also, how would you make the brain leech more interesting rather than a straight up death?

>spoiler
have it lure them into traps.

That's a pretty neat idea, I'll use it. Thanks!

>I've found that adding your AC to the d20 roll and comparing it to the target number of THAC0 to be a far easier method.
Either way. It's all just different ways of solving the same math problem. The folks who make a big deal about THAC0 seem to miss the fact that's it's completely interchangeable with an attack bonus system, and that you're just doing shit in a different order.

>I was talking about AC. But you guys were right
I knew you were talking about AC; I just didn't know what "starting at" 0 or 1 meant. Unless you were somehow looking at the best allowable AC, but A) that has nothing to do with THAC0, B) it's undefined in any case, and C) even if there were some limit, what matters is how well armored somebody is, not how far they are from some arbitrarily set maximum.

To look at it another way, if armor gave you damage reduction, what you'd want to know is how much your target's armor reduced your damage by ("his platemail reduces the damage of your strike by 3"), not how much less your target's armor reduced damage than the maximum allowable amount ("his platemail reduces the damage of your strike by 7 less than the maximum amount allowed for damage reduction" doesn't, by itself, really tell you what you need to know).

I've got two. The urban fantasy set in a strange weird-fantasy universe and the traditional high fantasy minus the standard races.

Which would you rather hear about?

Speaking of armor class, I noticed recently when reading Vornheim that Zak S apparently plays with unarmored AC being 10 rather than 12 (this being ascending AC). How do people in /osrg/ play? I might change my system to 10 too just because battles often take way too long.

The system that my group patched together over the years essentially used Basic Fantasy RPG as a base. As long as you have an imagination and a willingness to adjust and customize the system, you will get endless replayability out of it.

This is very inspirational. Which book is tge source exactly?

I've never played LotFP, but I find it surprising that they actually made it harder to hit people (AC 12 rather than the AC 11 a direct conversion from Basic would give you) in a system where nobody but the fighter ever improves their attack bonus. That makes it ridiculously difficult to hit somebody in platemail who's using a shield (and god forbid it's a halfling, because that brings your chance of hitting down to a pathetic 5%). Maybe there's something I'm missing, but this seems like terrible game design. Besides, 10 is a very nice, round target number. And I hardly think it's abusive if the average character has a 40% chance to hit a guy in chainmail and a 30% chance to hit a guy in plate. If anything, those percentages are still a bit low. Any action that fails more times that it succeeds is at least a bit on the shitty side, and slightly bad luck could have you miss 4 times in a row, which is very frustrating.

He tried to model it after how hard it is to hit armored folks irl.
I just houserule it to 10

While we're at it, I think it's bad game design to give everybody but fighters a +1 bonus. Why not make it 0? Then a lot of people could just make naked, unmodified rolls. I don't think having 0 level characters be one point worse is worth the added hassle, and besides, you could always give them a -1.

>He tried to model it after how hard it is to hit armored folks irl.
That sounds like a really bad idea. First, how would you even determine that, as "hitting" somebody in D&D means getting in a good enough blow to do a significant amount of damage, and how would you ever test or measure that? Second, D&D has ramping hit points, which completely destroys any chance of a quantifiably realistic simulation (and dramatically moves the bar on how significant the damage has to be in order to qualify as a hit). I understand wanting to keep combat from being so implausible that it hurts your sense of immersion, but issues of game balance and fun should trump simulationism.

Are you the urban fantasy guy with the smokestack guns? If so, the other one.

If not, both.

>He tried to model it after how hard it is to hit armored folks irl.
...What?

How about something like this?

it's from an OSR blog, can't remember which one though

Maybe strip the turn/command undead out of it. As-is, it's a specialist wizard with one class feature each from the cleric and the bard.

Also, he thinks that IRL, you have a 50% to significantly wound an unarmored opponent in the course of 6 seconds?

>significantly wound
Are HP meat points in LotFP?

I need a source on this. Raggi sometimes has a weird design philosophy but this is next level.

>Are HP meat points in LotFP?
If they're not, then any comparison to real life becomes absolutely meaningless. "In real life, you have a 50% chance to inflict upon somebody 1 to 8 imaginary units of fatigue or disadvantage if you're using a sword. I know, because I researched it."

Don't look at me. I was just examining the "logic" of .

Well, you can start with this sort of logic.

See . Also, consider that we're not talking merely about fatigue for 0th and 1st level characters, where you'd be quite likely to see death, or at least incapacitation, within 18 seconds.

Oh, sorry about that. I misunderstood the post and thought you were the same user.

I was responding to my own post, so your confusion is understandable.

Ladda bara upp den på mega.nz eller nått, det är inte så svårt.

Yes I am the smokestack guy. I'll tell you about the generic fantasy one then.

>Setting's cosmology is basically that the world is hidden inside the closed fist of a god inside a speck inside a reflection inside a dream inside a sperm inside a woman inside a necklace inside an iron chest inside a random castle.
>This is done to hide the world from the great blue serpent (this serpent is also the sky). It's constricting our world and trying to find the end so it can swallow it whole, but it cannot because it remains hidden.
>The races are humans, goblins, tieflings and walrus men for a dash of gonzo bullshit.
>Tieflings are humans mixed with demons or any other spirit being
>Wizards sleep 8 hours a night not because they need to be well rested but because sleep is actually where the prepare their spells (magic comes from dreams, optical illusions, drugs, etc)
>Some Wizards may sleep for 12+ hours to pack on more spells, but they reset every time they go to sleep, so they may use drugs and other methods to stay awake longer and longer.
>The most powerful Wizards in the setting are probably in some century-long slumber preparing God-level spells.
>Super secret fighting moves and powers exist, meaning even fighters and thieves may learn special powers from secret societies if they prove themselves; not just Wizards have great power
>Hobbits exist in the setting but are the opposite of Liches (hobbits are essentially Wizards who have embraced life so strongly they are immortal living beings, where as Liches embrace death)

I'm not sure what else to really add, it's coming along slowly and surely though.

mega.nz/#fm/YEQQ3Tbb

Laddade upp den temporärt, får se om det går

drive.google.com/open?id=0B6THve6flgh1eWRBYllCVThabnM

La upp den på drive om det fungerar bättre

Perkele.

In what settings do you actually play now?

In my quest to remove superfluous numbers from my D&D game, I will be attempting the following saving throw system:
Roll under (Attribute) + (Level) +/- (modifiers)
Every attribute maps quite nicely to the oldschool 5. and the fort/ref/will system keys off 3 of the Attributes anyway.
STR = Paralyzation (break free)
CON = Poison/Fort (resist)
DEX = Breath/Reflex (dodge)
CHA = Will (charm, mind control effects)
WIS = Magic device (just 'cause)
INT = Spells (any spell not covered by the above)

So, to save against a wizard's Sleep spell (let's just assume it has a save for the purposes of the example), you'd need to roll under your CHA + Level on a d20, minus the wizard's level and level of the spell. Say you have 10 CHA and are lvl 1, and the wizard is level 1 and sleep is a level 1 spell. That's 10+1-1-1 = 9 or less on a d20.

Sound good? I'd like to know if my system is flawed in any major way.

I think that's from one of the Fighting Fantasy books - the ones that expanded FF into a full RPG.

d i s a s s o c i a t e d
m e c h a n i c s

Attribute + Level or Modifier + Level? Because if it's Attribute + Level that's going to change some things. You'll see a much, much wider variance in the saving throws, which will tend to make spells stronger (as you can choose the spell which targets an enemy's weakest saving throw). The fact that it's for all 6 attributes rather than just 3 different saves means that you have twice the options to target (which means that, on average, the scores you target will be lower: weakest of 6 rather than weakest of 3). This doesn't necessarily kill the system, but you have to recalibrate it. When calculating what your target numbers should be, you should look more at the weakest attributes that somebody has rather than the average ones, meaning that saving throws should be easier overall to compensate for a caster's ability to selectively target low stats. Of course, you won't always have the right spell to hit your opponent's weakest attribute, and you might not know exactly which attribute is his weakest anyway, so you should probably hedge things by a point or two from the weakest stat (maybe anchor things to the second weakest, or the average of the bottom three stats, or a score 2 points higher than the weakest stat, etc.). Of course, stats are going to vary from person to person and monster to monster, so these are all approximations anyway, but if you're going by straight 3d6, you might want to figure chances of success based upon a stat of somewhere around 8 or 9.

Realize also that this means that folks with high stats will be able to shrug off enemy effects much more often. So individual threats will tend to be more lopsided. The tough fighter may have comparatively little to fear from the poison of the giant snake while his frailer comrades are in dire danger. This isn't necessarily a bad thing and can actually make encounters more tactical, but you need to realize how things work and plan accordingly.