D&D 5E Would having an AC Save (similar to DEX Save) be a good or terrible idea?

[kagayaku]

I think it is too complicated. I actually prefer it to be like 4e: the attacker always rolls no matter the type of attack.

Do you think the calculation is too complicated or determining which to use, or both, or something else? I've never played 4e but I'll be sure to look up the rules for it if that may help. Do saving throws exist at all in 4e and are only used for traps and the like, or do traps and the like make their own kind of attack roll? I kind of like how the players get to roll things themselves with saves but I'd be interested to find out how earlier editions handled it.

Interesting concept, but i haven't given to it much thought. I'm gonna hold the vote, until more people chime in and give me more basis to make a decision on

Haha. I'm still holding on the vote myself (which I feel is perhaps a bit cheeky given I started the poll, but I am asking to gather opinions after all xD). I'm thinking once I've gone through all the spells (shouldn't take too long, there aren't THAT many Dex save spells) and checked it's not clearly broken, I might just try it and see how the players find it. If I do I'll report back here for sure. xD

 

[Oofta]

Thanks for all the input everyone!



I think that's pretty much what the AC Save would do isn't it? It just means the players all roll instead of the GM rolling once for everyone, or chucking a bunch for once each. It's not exactly equivalent if it still lets players use their DEX Save Proficiency but otherwise I think it's the same?

Some of the spells like Cordon of Arrows don't really make sense as a reflex save - why would arrows flying at you from a spell be any different from arrows flying at you being shot from a bow? That's why I'd simply change the spell, not add a new save.

I wouldn't add the dexterity save proficiency because for most characters that's already going to be counted in as they are wearing lighter armor and benefiting from dex to AC anyway. I'd rather not double dip.

It's not a bad idea, and it certainly feels more like the person being hit by the spell is an active participant I'm just not sure it's worth making it a house rule. If I were to change the rules, I'd probably give people in heavy armor some kind of bonus to saves vs spells where it made sense that being covered in metal would protect them from some of the damage. But that gets finicky. I could see getting a bonus vs fireball but then what about lightning bolt? A penalty?

You can always try it and see if your group likes it.

 

[kagayaku]

Some of the spells like Cordon of Arrows don't really make sense as a reflex save - why would arrows flying at you from a spell be any different from arrows flying at you being shot from a bow? That's why I'd simply change the spell, not add a new save.

I wouldn't add the dexterity save proficiency because for most characters that's already going to be counted in as they are wearing lighter armor and benefiting from dex to AC anyway. I'd rather not double dip.

It's not a bad idea, and it certainly feels more like the person being hit by the spell is an active participant I'm just not sure it's worth making it a house rule. If I were to change the rules, I'd probably give people in heavy armor some kind of bonus to saves vs spells where it made sense that being covered in metal would protect them from some of the damage. But that gets finicky. I could see getting a bonus vs fireball but then what about lightning bolt? A penalty?

You can always try it and see if your group likes it.

Thanks, Oofta - that's a really well laid out argument. I think I am going to try it (once I've figured out which spells go in each list) but I see your point on the Dex Proficiency and will remove that part. I included it as many spells that are currently Dex Proficiency may become AC based, but AC bonus is higher than Proficiency anyway most of the time and as you say, Armour has its own proficiency which is applied automatically in AC.

If there aren't enough spells that I think should be AC based, then perhaps I'll consider a (probably ad-hoc) bonus of the kind you described instead, or if there are really very few I'll convert it to an Attack as you suggested with Cordon of Arrows. My next game isn't for two weeks, so there's a long wait to see how this goes xD

 

[Tony Vargas]

not AC saves. I can see that wasn't very clear though. I like the shield proficiency idea, that seems pretty easy and makes a lot of sense, not sure about the +2 instead of DEX mod though, as then a Dexterous character can't get any benefit from a shield.

I was still thinking some DEX saves (ie fireball not web), a shield proficient character not proficient in DEC saves could get proficiency & use the higher of the shield's +2 or his own DEX mod. I didn't mean to imply that choosing to use a good DEX mod sacrificed proficiency.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd look at changing the spells themselves rather than introducing an AC save. Using volley of arrows as an example, if it normally requires a Dexterity saving throw then instead change it to a ranged spell attack.

 

[Raith5]

Do you think the calculation is too complicated or determining which to use, or both, or something else? I've never played 4e but I'll be sure to look up the rules for it if that may help. Do saving throws exist at all in 4e and are only used for traps and the like, or do traps and the like make their own kind of attack roll? I kind of like how the players get to roll things themselves with saves but I'd be interested to find out how earlier editions handled it.

Yes traps made the attack. In 4e the attacking creature or trap always rolled whether it was a melee, ranged attack or spell. The rolled attack targeted either the AC, reflex, willpower or fortitude defences depending upon the type of attack. Saving throws only existed if you had been hit by an attack which had an ongoing effect which a save could end (and saves in 4e was a simple unmodified d20 roll, with 11 or above being a success).

I just like the idea that the attacker rolls the dice - that the randomness is in their hands rather than the defender. I am not sure that it matters where the randomness is in real terms, but I do prefer a unified system where all attacks are resolved in the same way rather than a mix of attack rolls and saves in 5e (for eg).

 

[Yunru]

I'm all for an AC save, as your argument for it makes sense.

Although it is the same as rolling an attack roll against each target excepting for edge cases such as Sharpshooter and the likes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Saving throws only existed if you had been hit by an attack which had an ongoing effect which a save could end (and saves in 4e was a simple unmodified d20 roll, with 11 or above being a success).

Essentially(npi), 'saves' were just a random-duration mechanic. Effects could have a one-turn duration (with minor variations as to beginning or end of turn and whose turn), a one-encounter/5-min duration, be 'sustained' (like Concentration, but requiring an action every round), or have a 'save ends' duration.

I just like the idea that the attacker rolls the dice - that the randomness is in their hands rather than the defender. I am not sure that it matters where the randomness is in real terms, but I do prefer a unified system where all attacks are resolved in the same way rather than a mix of attack rolls and saves in 5e (for eg).

It's just simpler & more consistent, sure.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

...It doesn't seem to make sense though that spells like Cordon of Arrows and Conjure Volley should ignore plate armour and shields. Conjure Volley says it is hundreds of pieces of normal ammunition being volleyed, I can't imagine how being dexterous would be more advantageous in that situation than being covered in plate or having a shield on your arm to put between yourself and the volley.

This is unplaytested (and I am new to GMing) but intuitively this doesn't seem complex, and provides a little more realism. All the GM has to do is make a reasonable call about what kind of save to use (though admittedly in some cases, such as Acid Splash and Burning Hands arguments could be made either way.)...

I'm generally in favor of DMs using whatever mechanics they want to model things in whatever way is appropriate. 5E can sometimes be myopically focused on just the three canonical types of rolls (attack/ability/save) and it's nice to see DMs thinking out of the box. If you were my DM and you said, "Conjure Volley is now an AC save", I'd be fine with it once I understood what an AC save was and how it works.

(If I were running it though I would probably make Dex save proficiency not apply to AC saves, because Dex is already factored into AC, and the things I imagine using an AC save for, like a hail of arrows, require a different defense mode than things I would require a Dex save for, like falling off a cliff or dodging a specific arrow. If Dex save proficiency should apply, then it shouldn't be an AC save at all. Basically, I just don't want the complication of cross-proficiency for saves and don't see what it buys you.)

Not every random roll has to be tied to an ability score in order to make sense.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you have a problem with a spell like Cordon of Arrows, just change it from a reflex save to an attack.

AC is already it's own kind of save ... it just reverses which side has to roll the D20.

This isn't quite true. There are abilities and spells (like Bless, Tides of Chaos, inspiration, etc.) which protect you against things that require saving throws but not against attacks. Yes, when those things don't apply, a save is mathematically equivalent to an attack. But I can see why a DM might be interested in creating e.g. booby traps against which both plate armor and Bless are useful. E.g. those unaimed dart-shooters that fire when you step on the trigger, in the treasure room at the beginning of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.