Six Saving Throws - One for Each Ability Score?

[Ahnehnois]

I think Fort Ref Will was a perfectly good combination, but I don't mind the six saves idea. Certainly, one of the really basic balance issues in D&D is balancing the six ability scores, and it would be nice to have a concrete mechanical effect for all of them.

And it's definitely a positive that the saving throw-the defender rolling-is back in action.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Six saves (SCDIWC) have zero mechanical advantages over three (F/R/W) and add needless fiddly BS to a system that already works

I disagree. Especially in 4e, where each of the three saves used the best of two different ability scores, this resulted in cookie-cutter class builds and people focusing on just three stats and dumping the rest. There was little reason to get both a good dex and int, for example. This way, every ability score is valuable and cannot be dumped without consequence. For that reason alone, I am on board with this idea.

 

[mkill]

Again my only fear is distribution. Six saves where there was three will cause the conditions for saves to be split up more, Because some conditions are rarer than other and some are more severe than others, the ability with the least and weakest condition will be more likely dumped. I hates dump stats.

Saves aren't the only game element. If, say, the Charisma save is underused, there are other ways to make Charisma useful.

I'm not so worried about dump stats - after all, if you really play with rolled ability scores, there should be a way to put an 8, or even a 6, into a stat without signing a death certificate.

I'm more worried about the opposite. If I play, say, a Fighter, there should be ways to make a 16 in Int, Wis or Cha useful. The Tactician (Int), the Veteran (Wis) and the Champion (Cha) should be as viable as the Fencer (Dex) and the Brute (Con).

 

[Minigiant]

You forgot possession/domination.

No. To me, that is mostly Charisma as it is a compulsion. Charisma is strength of personality and you have to force out the possession/domination.

Wisdom would let you realize you are being controlled but you'd need Charisma to wrestle control of your body.

If anything, Dominate spells would require Wisdom to build the willpower needed to notice the initial Domination. Then the target would have to roll Charisma to break the spell.

 

[Primal]

What I really want to avoid is the late-4E model where your stat choices don't matter, because you can find an excuse to use your highest one for everything. It sounded like they might be heading in that direction, where a wizard could make their saving through by saying "I'm smart enough to notice a flaw in the attack". And that I don't like.

Yeah, I fear that too; as I said on another thread, I can see my players trying that with every saving throw ("I was standing behind the rogue... and my wizard is so intelligent anyway that he should be able to predict that this villain would be casting a fireball next round... so how about that Int save?" or "My fighter grits his teeth against the spell, so that would make it a Con save, right?"). I'd rather see the three saves or 4E defenses being kept in the game, because otherwise I can expect a lot more arguments about "clever playing" at my table...

BTW, is it true that you won't get stat bumps by level anymore? That would be highly disappointing for me... I thought it was one of the best things 3E introduced to the game.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Six saves (SCDIWC) have zero mechanical advantages over three (F/R/W) and add needless fiddly BS to a system that already works

No no that is SIWDCC!

 

[Ichneumon]

I think some attacks will basically be confined to one ability which can save against them, and others will have more room for interpretation. If you swallow poison, nothing but Constitution is going to do you any good. But if a Bigby's hand is trying to grab you, then Strength or Dexterity can be useful. There definitely needs to be a rule to prevent players abusing the system by trying to convince the DM that their best stat works for "everything".

I'd like to see ripostes that allow a player to aim at a higher DC in order to achieve results above and beyond a mere save. For example, a wizard could choose to dive out of the way of a fireball (using Dex) or counter the spell using Int, potentially saving everyone.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I can't for the life of me see how Charisma would link to Fear and Charm saving throws. If anything, a high Charisma score could lead to the vanity of the character making them more susceptable to Charm, whilst fear is simply irrelevant. Charisma saving rolls should be basically about Reaction rolls from NPCs. eg. Tyrant King wants to execute the characters he has prisoner - roll a Charisma saving roll to talk him out of it.

I have no objections with doing a Castle and Crusades style 'Saving Throws' for skill rolls - where the base score is modified by Class decisions and (possibly) the Level of the character. However, the one thing 3E onwards got right was to de-finicketise the Saving Throw types into broader, more meaningful categories.

So, currently we have:

Constitution based Fortitude Saves
Dexterity based Reflex Saves
Wisdom based Will Saves.

All we need to do is add useful categories to the others:

Strength based Might rolls (for lifting heavy doors, bending bars, jumping large distances, etc)
Inteligence based Idea Saves (for when players haven't got a clue what to do next)
Charisma based Charm Saves (for dealing with tricky social encounters, and not screwing up the date because you forgot to change your pants).

Indeed, this could lead into a free-form skills system based on the Abilities in a manner not too disimilar to Unknown Armies.

 

[Li Shenron]

BTW, is it true that you won't get stat bumps by level anymore? That would be highly disappointing for me... I thought it was one of the best things 3E introduced to the game.

It is a piece of cake to just house-rule stat bumps back into the game if the group wants to.

But having no level-based bumps or making them at least rarer is not bad at all, because if they are the default, then the entire game will assume stat inflation by level.

 

[Primal]

It is a piece of cake to just house-rule stat bumps back into the game if the group wants to.

But having no level-based bumps or making them at least rarer is not bad at all, because if they are the default, then the entire game will assume stat inflation by level.

I'd be fine if bonuses from stat boost items did not stack with your inherent bonuses; that way you could choose whether you will have natural bumps or enhance your abilities with magical items. Or the DM might say that he wants to run a low-magic campaign in which magic items are rare.

I know I can houserule it back, but I'm a bit worried about their design philosophy if natural bumps are removed; IMO this would add reliance on magic items, instead of lessening the "Christmas Tree Effect".

One of the things I liked in 4E were inherent bonuses and boons; I think that would be the way to go, but it seems like they're going the other way round. However, modularity can provide us with both, so I guess I'll still remain hopeful...