D&D 5E Adding Skills to Saves

[transtemporal]

It has to be noted that the final version of 5e has effectively replaced Strength, Intelligence and Charisma saving throws with ability checks. You already roll an Investigation check against many illusions for example. So @Rune is not completely off with his idea.

Ah ok, I haven't totally caught up with the latest version yet.

I don't mind maybe burning your reaction or bonus action for the round to get a boost to defenses. I can see narratively how you could justify acrobatics, athletics or insight as a reaction or a bonus action. Medicine might be a bit harder.

Just keep in mind that this would make monster powers less powerful.

In addition, you would have to think how this applies to named NPCs including named enemies. Can they use it?

 

[transtemporal]

The numbers would be no higher than any other proficient saving throw (until you factor in expertise, that is).

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant add your total skill modifier to a saving throw, which already incorporates proficiency. So a 1st level Fighter with 14 strength could make a strength save using athletics for a total of +8 to the roll (+2 str, +2 prof and +2 str +2 prof for the athletics skill).

Even still, that fighter would be getting +6 to strength saves where he used athletics wouldn't he?

 

[Rune]

Just keep in mind that this would make monster powers less powerful.

Eh. I've never had a problem challenging my players (like the time they fought the wraith with rogue levels under water--without magic to breath).

In addition, you would have to think how this applies to named NPCs including named enemies. Can they use it?

Well, yeah. It's hardly fair if I don't get to do it, too.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant add your total skill modifier to a saving throw, which already incorporates proficiency. So a 1st level Fighter with 14 strength could make a strength save using athletics for a total of +8 to the roll (+2 str, +2 prof and +2 str +2 prof for the athletics skill).

Even still, that fighter would be getting +6 to strength saves where he used athletics wouldn't he?

The fighter already has proficiency in Strength Saves, so no change there. If that fighter can use athletics to affect another save (say, Dexterity), then that save would be treated as proficient at the cost of a reaction.

 

[Umbran]

Why, nothing (in my opinion, at least; I have seen some complaints about the higher level gap between non-proficient saves and spell DCs). It's a flavor change, not a mechanics fix.

Ah, you see, when I think of "flavor change", I think of rewriting the description, but keeping the mechanics the same. This would notably change the mechanics, and thus doesn't qualify, for me.

So, again, I return to my statement - if it ain't broke, why fix it? How does this *improve* the game play?

 

[Essenti]

Ah, you see, when I think of "flavor change", I think of rewriting the description, but keeping the mechanics the same. This would notably change the mechanics, and thus doesn't qualify, for me.

So, again, I return to my statement - if it ain't broke, why fix it? How does this *improve* the game play?

It can improve the game by allowing a player to engage the narrative with a character defining skill in a creative way, burning their reaction for cinematic effect. This is a mechanical change, and I understand why many might not want to use it. The rules are definitely not and aren't meant to be absolutely perfect, using the "ain't broke" argument is superfluous while discussing altering rules to meet a personal play style. I am unsure why you choose to hammer on that button. It is generally more useful to identify ways that this rule change might become problematic for those who are considering using it.

The biggest hurdle is the idea of players spamming a proficient skill in the place of saves. Burning a reaction definitely helps, but they can do that every round. Although it isn't an automatic success, it still feels too powerful with the potential to be used every round. Characters have a lot of hit points and some other form of limitation for the "skill save" is probably necessary or many monster abilities will be rendered substantially less effective.

You could allow them to risk using a proficient skill on a save to engage the narrative but take maximum effect if they fail. That feels extremely cinematic to me. Useful when the player knows their character is already in dire straits, but probably too risky to spam.

 

[KarinsDad]

The numbers would be no higher than any other proficient saving throw (until you factor in expertise, that is).

Yes, but you are saying that the Ranger with the skill is just as good at saving as the Wizard with the class.

I don't think that a class proficiency feature should be equal or trumped by a skill. JMO.


I do see that in 4E, the weak NAD was an issue. But, the math here is bit different.

A PC with +1 at level 1 with Wis saves will also be +1 at level 20 (shy of magic items like Rings of Protection or spells).

And yes, the DCs are often in the 16 to 18 range at level 20 (higher for legendary creatures).

But what this house rule does is say that every PC is nearly as good (or better) at saving versus Wisdom as the classes that are designed to be so.


Note: saving throws for many things (except damage) are "save every turn". This means that there is often time for other PCs to cast spells and assist with the save, or for class abilities to help with the save, or whatever.


I just think that class abilities and spells and (heaven forbid on this forum) magic items will make up some of this slack without making each PC as good at the save as other PCs who are supposed to be good at the save.

 

[Ruzak]

I like this idea. It puts more emphasis on the in-game experience, and less on character generation. I am also of the "This is great, let's make it better!" philosophy in general.

 

[Rune]

Ah, you see, when I think of "flavor change", I think of rewriting the description, but keeping the mechanics the same. This would notably change the mechanics, and thus doesn't qualify, for me.

So, again, I return to my statement - if it ain't broke, why fix it? How does this *improve* the game play?

But mechanics evoke certain flavors. The type of re-fluffing that you are describing has its place in the DM toolbox, but is inadequate as a tool for actually altering playstyle.

To clarify my position, then:

The intent of this mechanical change is not to "fix" any perceived shortcoming in the rules, but to produce a different flavor of game through a shift in playstyle.

In other words, it's a rules module.

 

[Rune]

You could allow them to risk using a proficient skill on a save to engage the narrative but take maximum effect if they fail. That feels extremely cinematic to me. Useful when the player knows their character is already in dire straits, but probably too risky to spam.

I could live with this. I like the idea of having the player raise the stakes.

 

[Rune]

Yes, but you are saying that the Ranger with the skill is just as good at saving as the Wizard with the class.

I don't think that a class proficiency feature should be equal or trumped by a skill. JMO.


I do see that in 4E, the weak NAD was an issue. But, the math here is bit different.

A PC with +1 at level 1 with Wis saves will also be +1 at level 20 (shy of magic items like Rings of Protection or spells).

And yes, the DCs are often in the 16 to 18 range at level 20 (higher for legendary creatures).

But what this house rule does is say that every PC is nearly as good (or better) at saving versus Wisdom as the classes that are designed to be so.


Note: saving throws for many things (except damage) are "save every turn". This means that there is often time for other PCs to cast spells and assist with the save, or for class abilities to help with the save, or whatever.


I just think that class abilities and spells and (heaven forbid on this forum) magic items will make up some of this slack without making each PC as good at the save as other PCs who are supposed to be good at the save.

I think instituting Essenti's adjustment (described in the post above yours) would aleviate most of your concerns (or, at least, those presented here).