D&D 5E Adding Skills to Saves

[Sadrik]

A failed saving throw adds tension to an encounter, and facilitates group dynamics as your allies try to heal you, disrupt the spellcaster, or shore up the party. A failed saving throw is a moment of dramatic tension.

With this rule, you will have less of those moments.

I think this is true with just the party dynamic and not a 5e only thing. When the math makes your save a need a '19' or '20' only at high level, you kind of roll your eyes and say ok, this is what high level is like. You then hope the other players around he table can step in and step up to save you and reverse the course of the encounter. I think where the math is off is when the reverse happens, when the PC sends his powerful effect at the boss and they need a '19' or '20' to succeed. By allowing some skills to double as saves you can perhaps shore up some of the "perceived" issues.

 

[Rune]

The reason people think that you are trying to fix the perceived issue is that your fix helps non-proficient PCs without helping proficient PCs.

If your real goal is to "encourage a cinematic style of play (through both descriptions and survivability)", then you should let both the Dex proficient PC add his Acrobatics proficiency to his save against the Fireball, just like you are suggesting to allow the Dex nonproficient PC do it.

This really looks, as per your additional comment in your first post "Additionally, it should help narrow (eleminate) the gap in later levels between non-proficient saves and DCs" like you are putting in a math fix under the guise of the players taking charge of the narrative.

Your claim that "It's a flavor change, not a mechanics fix" appears inaccurate. If it were a flavor fix, every PC could do it in the exact same situation, but as written, some cannot.

I'm not going to convince you to try this out. I get that. I'm not trying to.

I think it might look more like a flavor change to you if you were actually interested in the flavor that it is meant to evoke. Since you don't appear to be interested, I'm really not sure why you seem to care so much.

I am aware of the mechanical implications. You (and others) have made your position known clearly. Repeatedly. I (and others) have addressed them in various ways.

Perhaps you would care to analyze non-mathematical implications of requiring the player to risk causing a narrative complication to on a failed skill-proficient save?

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not going to convince you to try this out. I get that. I'm not trying to.

I think it might look more like a flavor change to you if you were actually interested in the flavor that it is meant to evoke. Since you don't appear to be interested, I'm really not sure why you seem to care so much.

I am aware of the mechanical implications. You (and others) have made your position known clearly. Repeatedly. I (and others) have addressed them in various ways.

Perhaps you would care to analyze non-mathematical implications of requiring the player to risk causing a narrative complication to on a failed skill-proficient save?

Since you totally ignored the point of my post there about this being for one type of PC (i.e. non-proficient) and not for others (i.e. proficient), it seems like you are being like a dog with a bone. It doesn't matter if the bone is old, that dog is not going to let go.

I'm trying to discern your intent here. Are you trying to fix the math (which you claim you are not, but this solution appears to go right into that wheelhouse)? Or are you trying to come up with a narrative solution to a bonus to a save (which your solution is not really trying to do equally for all PCs)?

If the latter, then let go of this bone of a math fix and go with a simpler solution.

For example, +2 to any save with a reaction if they give a good narrative way to try to avoid the spell (best because it does not mess with the math a lot and it handles prof vs. non-prof issue).

Or even (if you feel like being real generous), advantage to any save with a reaction if they give a good narrative way to try to avoid the spell (not quite as good since it steps on the toes of Inspiration, one player worked for Inspiration, but nearly everyone gets it for saves anyway).

KISS (and also equitable to all PCs).


But, you seem to be married to your solution as opposed to looking for better ways. Defending it instead of seeing its weaknesses and looking for better.

 

[Rune]

Since you totally ignored the point of my post there about this being for one type of PC (i.e. non-proficient) and not for others (i.e. proficient), it seems like you are being like a dog with a bone. It doesn't matter if the bone is old, that dog is not going to let go.

I think it's more a case of "you and I don't speak the same language. "

That must be it, because, as far as I can tell, not only have I not ignored your point, I've addressed it several times throughout this thread. In fact, in my estimation, the mechanic I specifically asked you about at the end of my last post addresses that point among others. Apparently you disagree, but since we apparently have a language barrier to overcome, I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth.

I'm trying to discern your intent here. Are you trying to fix the math (which you claim you are not, but this solution appears to go right into that wheelhouse)? Or are you trying to come up with a narrative solution to a bonus to a save (which your solution is not really trying to do equally for all PCs)?

Neither. I have been clear about my intent on the multiple occasions I have explained it.

At least, my words seem clear to me. But since you and I aren't speaking the same language, may I posit that my intent doesn't matter.

For example, +2 to any save with a reaction if they give a good narrative way to try to avoid the spell (best because it does not mess with the math a lot and it handles prof vs. non-prof issue).

Or even (if you feel like being real generous), advantage to any save with a reaction if they give a good narrative way to try to avoid the spell (not quite as good since it steps on the toes of Inspiration, one player worked for Inspiration, but nearly everyone gets it for saves anyway).

Again with the language barrier.

"Narrative complication/consequence" does not have anything to do with any of that stuff. It means something happens in the context of the story of the game.

Perhaps an example would suffice.

DM: "Make a Dex save to minimize the damage from the goblin shaman's fireball."

PC: "Crap. I'm not proficient. If I leap down that pit, can I add Athletics?"

DM: "Sure, at the cost of your Reaction, but if you fail, you'll take falling damage on top of the fireball damage. And the goblin that's down there will eat your puppy."

But, you seem to be married to your solution as opposed to looking for better ways. Defending it instead of seeing its weaknesses and looking for better.

Assuming that "something better" doesn't just mean "don't do it," lay it on us. As long as you have something constructive to add, I'm all ears.

 

[Essenti]

... narrative complication to on a failed skill-proficient save?

edited: You answered my question about narrative complications before I finished asking it. hehe.

Another idea for a mechanical complication for a failed skill-save could be introducing an extra condition tacked onto a failure effect. For instance, a PC tries kick over a table as a reaction (athletics as a save) to shield themselves from that nasty fireball. When the PC fails the skill check they are now a little crispy in addition to being prone or blinded for a round.

Another risk for skill-save failure is having disadvantage the next round.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But that tension will be replaced by a different kind of tension--the tension of deciding whether or not it would be worth it to raise the stakes with a potentially nasty narrative complication.

Not up my personal ally, but totally works.

I think this is true with just the party dynamic and not a 5e only thing. When the math makes your save a need a '19' or '20' only at high level, you kind of roll your eyes and say ok, this is what high level is like. You then hope the other players around he table can step in and step up to save you and reverse the course of the encounter. I think where the math is off is when the reverse happens, when the PC sends his powerful effect at the boss and they need a '19' or '20' to succeed. By allowing some skills to double as saves you can perhaps shore up some of the "perceived" issues.

I think even that is handled in 5e. "Legendary Resistance" is designed to short-cut that sort of action-negation without entirely invalidating the choice for "boss"-style solo encounters. But I would say it would be harder to use the proposed house rule as a DM, anyway - for one, you can always allow a use from a monster that you might not from a player, and for two, monsters might not have the same breadth of proficiencies that the PC's have.

I'd agree that the dynamic of "player fails a save, party rallies to defend them" is true in multiple e's, though I think 5e's intent that these effects be temporary adds to that dynamic (vs., say, 2e's intent that you either make the save or you are boned, deal with it, or 4e's general perspective that lock-down effects should not be able to be achieved).

 

[Rune]

Another idea for a mechanical complication for a failed skill-save could be introducing an extra condition tacked onto a failure effect. For instance, a PC tries kick over a table as a reaction (athletics as a save) to shield themselves from that nasty fireball. When the PC fails the skill check they are now a little crispy in addition to being prone or blinded for a round.

Another risk for skill-save failure is having disadvantage the next round.

Both of these are simple and good.

 

[Rune]

Not up my personal ally, but totally works.

Fair enough. In my opinion, anything that gets the game to handle narrative more like Dungeon World can't be bad.