D&D 5E Adding Skills to Saves

[KarinsDad]

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

Burning a reaction is next to nothing as far as resource management when the up side is significantly increasing the chances of saving.


As for taking maximum effect idea, it typically only matters for damaging spells. And the math is a bit off:

At 5th level without house rule for 8D6 Fireball:

60% 28 plus 40% 14 = 22.4 average damage

At 5th level with house rule for 8D6 Fireball:

45% 48 plus 55% 14 = 29.3 average damage

On average, the PC will take more damage with the house rule. Sure, 3 times in 20, he'll take 14 less damage, but 9 times in 20, he'll take 20 more damage. Those are not good odds.

That's the problem with house rules. They often sound good on the surface without necessarily actually solving the problem or in some cases, creating new problems.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It occurs to me, there's a middle option we've overlooked, that might offer the flavor wanted without as much risk to mechanical balance.

There are already several "Add half your proficiency bonus" mechanics in the game. Why not use that here? It encourages the interaction with the environment and gives characters a bump to weak saves without stepping on the toes of class-given saves or practically eliminating the threat of certain monsters.

 

[Rune]

That's the problem with house rules. They often sound good on the surface without necessarily actually solving the problem or in some cases, creating new problems.

You keep saying I'm trying to solve a problem. I'm not. I think the math is fine with no change.

I want to do this for other reasons.

As for maximizing effects and creating high stakes, I'm pretty sure I can do that without relying on the mathematical effects. But even if I were to stick with mere damage, I'm okay with the odds not favoring the PC. It represents a desperate move, after all.

 

[Rune]

It occurs to me, there's a middle option we've overlooked, that might offer the flavor wanted without as much risk to mechanical balance.

There are already several "Add half your proficiency bonus" mechanics in the game. Why not use that here? It encourages the interaction with the environment and gives characters a bump to weak saves without stepping on the toes of class-given saves or practically eliminating the threat of certain monsters.

It could work.

 

[Bacon Bits]

My first question would be, "If the PCs can do it, can the monsters do it, too?"

If the answer is "No" then you're significantly adding to the defenses of the PCs against magical attacks and significantly increasing the value of Acrobatics and Perception/Insight proficiency and Constitution save proficiency. You can expect proficiency in those skills to be much more common, and for Resiliency to be used for Con saves more often as well.

If the answer is "Yes" then you're significantly punishing spellcasters by making opponents significantly more likely to resist their attacks. If someone trained in Performance can resist Dominate Person because he's got Hey Jude stuck in his head, that's a significant limitation. This is the equivalent of putting every opponent in full plate and expecting the Fighter not to complain about it.

The rule in general also strikes me as one more thing to adjudicate during play. I like that 5e is fast. Adding more rules that require stopping the game to see if every player can think of a reason their skill applies seems tiresome.

 

[Eirikrautha]

So, I'm thinking of allowing PCs to add proficiency to a save if a relevant skill might help them make the save.

Since it would be situational, it shouldn't step on the toes of actual saving throw proficiencies too much.

Additionally, it should help narrow (eleminate) the gap in later levels between non-proficient saves and DCs.

Discuss.

Maybe you might want to wait until your folks have played the new edition for a while before you try this? First off, with the new bounded accuracy, a plus +3 to a roll is a BIG DEAL. The save DCs don't get much higher faster, and they do so linearly. Saves with proficiency actually go up exponentially, because they include both a stat bonus and the proficiency bonus. While a first level character might be +2 and +2 (stat and proficiency), by mid levels they are going to be +4 or +5 stat on their prime attributes with a +3 or +4 as proficiency. Beginning DCs usually range from 13-15, giving the 1st level guy a 50% chance of saving. But a mid-level guy who is facing a DC 15-17 check will have a 60-70% chance under your system. Now you are extending that to EVERY save (because a character can optimize their reaction to always get a bonus using the best stat: "I use my Arcana to figure out exactly where the fireball is likely to hit... that should give me proficiency bonus to my Dex save!").

I just see this as a solution in search of a problem. The game is designed to take into account certain numerical ranges of bonuses. Tamper with them at your own risk...

 

[Rune]

My first question would be, "If the PCs can do it, can the monsters do it, too?"

If the answer is "No" then you're significantly adding to the defenses of the PCs against magical attacks and significantly increasing the value of Acrobatics and Perception/Insight proficiency and Constitution save proficiency. You can expect proficiency in those skills to be much more common, and for Resiliency to be used for Con saves more often as well.

If the answer is "Yes" then you're significantly punishing spellcasters by making opponents significantly more likely to resist their attacks. If someone trained in Performance can resist Dominate Person because he's got Hey Jude stuck in his head, that's a significant limitation. This is the equivalent of putting every opponent in full plate and expecting the Fighter not to complain about it.

The answer is no. But given the limitations described up thread, I just don't think it will be as prevalent as some of you think it will.

The rule in general also strikes me as one more thing to adjudicate during play. I like that 5e is fast. Adding more rules that require stopping the game to see if every player can think of a reason their skill applies seems tiresome.

Again, as I have already said, I have absolutely no interest I determining what skills should or should not apply. I only want to know what, specifically, the PC is doing to apply that skill.

 

[Rune]

Maybe you might want to wait until your folks have played the new edition for a while before you try this? First off, with the new bounded accuracy, a plus +3 to a roll is a BIG DEAL. The save DCs don't get much higher faster, and they do so linearly. Saves with proficiency actually go up exponentially, because they include both a stat bonus and the proficiency bonus. While a first level character might be +2 and +2 (stat and proficiency), by mid levels they are going to be +4 or +5 stat on their prime attributes with a +3 or +4 as proficiency. Beginning DCs usually range from 13-15, giving the 1st level guy a 50% chance of saving. But a mid-level guy who is facing a DC 15-17 check will have a 60-70% chance under your system. Now you are extending that to EVERY save (because a character can optimize their reaction to always get a bonus using the best stat: "I use my Arcana to figure out exactly where the fireball is likely to hit... that should give me proficiency bonus to my Dex save!").

I just see this as a solution in search of a problem. The game is designed to take into account certain numerical ranges of bonuses. Tamper with them at your own risk...

Once again. It is not a solution. There is no problem I am trying to fix. That said, it appears to me that the system will have no problem adjusting to more plentiful proficient saves. The maximum remains the same and, I assure you, no such bonus would go without a cost (or risk).

 

[Eirikrautha]

Once again. It is not a solution. There is no problem I am trying to fix. That said, it appears to me that the system will have no problem adjusting to more plentiful proficient saves. The maximum remains the same and, I assure you, no such bonus would go without a cost (or risk).

I'm curious about the following statement: "That said, it appears to me that the system will have no problem adjusting to more plentiful proficient saves." Please walk me through how you've determined that. I would hazard to guess that most of us haven't played enough games (especially at mid-to-high levels) to have seen a statistically significant number of saves to make that call, so the justification must be mathematically based. I'm curious to see those numbers.

Likewise, I don't understand how what you are suggesting is any different than asking a player how they intend to avoid the fireball, then rolling a regular save. If this is intended to provoke player interaction, that can be accomplished without mechanical concerns. It's your game; do with it as you will. But this seems like a random change without any certainty that it will promote any specific playstyle. All it's really asking a player to do is figure out how to pigeon-hole their best skill into whatever is happening (you never actually responded to my "Arcana" example above)...

 

[Essenti]

That's the problem with house rules. They often sound good on the surface without necessarily actually solving the problem or in some cases, creating new problems.

What is the point of choosing to school me on this? Considering the entire point of the thread is examining the potential problems of a house rule, your quoted text comes across as condescending, though I hope that was not your intention.

I thank you for the math example. It supports the purpose of the max damage suggestion, which was meant to limit the usefulness of a "skill as a save," so that it was less desirable than using your normal weak save--except during those few "go big or go home in a box" moments.

For instance, if you know that 28 damage fireball is going to take your character out, would you rather have a 60% failure chance for a weak save, or a 30-45% failure chance by using a skill as a save in a creative and narrative engaging way? Using a skill in the place of a save every round, with the max damage limitation, you fight a losing battle to the law of averages--a battle that will probably be over pretty quick, too.

The failure of my suggestion, that your math indirectly shows, is that max damage limits the "skill as a save" too much. The usefulness of the skill as a save is basically locked into that corner case I chose to design around, which I originally stated as "dire straits" moments. I would like to see it used more often, which is why I'm not satisfied with the max damage limitation.

I am trying to find a way to give a player some narrative control and creative freedom during combat; the ability to use skills in the place of saves is a possible avenue. The big hurdle is keeping it relatively limited in scope to prevent excessive spamming. I don't see this as fixing a broken aspect of the rules, it expands the rules to include another aspect of play. I think this is where the major disconnect occurs between people coming in to this thread determined to dissuade the discussion and those genuinely interested in exploring the potential of "skills as saves." We aren't fixing something broken, we are adding something previously overlooked.