D&D 5E We need more Int/Str/Cha saving throws

[Li Shenron]

Stormonu's list is nice, but in practice it might lead to severe MAD or characters who are completely average across the board.

Well, the thread kind of assumed that we were ok with all abilities being roughly equally worth in terms of ST (and in more general terms as well), but YMMV.

Personally I think MAD is another thing, related to active abilities such as class features: a good example is the 3e Paladin which normally needs good Str for melee, good Wis for spells and good Cha for several special abilities.

I really don't think that saving throws create a MAD effect because they are roughly equally important to ALL characters, since being passive means that you normally cannot choose if/when to roll a ST. This means everybody is on the same boat.

My point being, a Paladin needs those 3 stats high enough, or she's going to have to avoid using some of her defining abilities (due to them being little effective), and those abilities are which make her a different class from other PCs.

But everybody needs ST practically the same, except some very special character concept maybe. Hence to me it's a good thing that an average character with average stats should not have ALL ST very strong (which means he should have the either all average, or some very good but at the expense of others). IMXP a player who wants such a character is typically just a player who doesn't like his PC being hit, in which case he should just play the game with a more generous ability score generation method.

 

[billd91]

This is the biggest problem with trying to run creatures with the same rules as PCs. It doesn't matter that animals are not very intelligent. We have reason. They have instinct. Both work. Problem solved.

I really don't think this indicates a particular problem with running creatures with the same rules as PCs. This is pretty much just a problem with the meaning of the intelligence score and it has been a problem at least since the Psionic Blast vs Non-psionic creatures saving throw table in 1e. Back then, a character lucky(?) enough to have psionics and the psionic blast as an attack mode could lay waste a small herd of dinosaurs in one shot if they were all in the area of effect.

Perception (spot, listen, sense motive) skills had drifted toward Wisdom pretty solidly rather than Intelligence early. Even 2e's later developments like Players Option: Skills and Powers put intuition right under Wisdom. So I think using Intelligence as the main reactive perception stat isn't a likely design direction.

 

[billd91]

I'm kind of late to the party, but my recommendation would be to split attributes into proactive and reactive use. Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom would be reactive attributes, and therefore used for saving throws. Strength, Intelligence and Charisma would be proactive attributes, and would be used when you want to accomplish something. Now, having made this division, I would do something a touch controversial, and do away with d20 era saving throws altogether, and instead use TSR era attribute checks.

The whole unified model was a great experiment and all, but I think that it had some rather unfortunate side effects. One of those is that it made attributes simultaneously too important(by creating a standard linear scale for attribute bonuses) and not relevant enough(by eliminating the importance of the attribute score itself in gameplay). I'll spare you my rant about attribute bonuses since that's not particularly important for this discussion, but I think that the second part touches on this topic enough to be worth mentioning. Here's how I see it:

Currently, baseline saves are made by adding your attribute bonus to a d20(and then trying to get over a DC). This means that the most nimble elf in the world(assuming 20 max attribute) has a 25% greater chance to dodge a... whatever... than the average human peasant. That isn't much of a difference, and yet the bounded accuracy mantra dictates that we not put a constantly increasing bonus on top of those saves in order to keep numbers from expanding pointlessly. So how to fix that? Make a dexterity check. Instead of the DC being the static point modified by the attribute, make the attribute your standard, and have the DC be a modfier. Roll d20 and try to hit your attribute score or lower, modified by the DC. Now that elf has a 50% greater chance than the mud farmer, making his high dexterity matter more, but bounded accuracy is preserved overall.

I'll admit some temptation with this. But I do believe that the attribute modifier has some benefits to it. I think that having the most nimble elf, with the same degree of experience, having only a 25% greater chance to dodge the incoming attack is not necessarily a bad thing. It keeps the stats from being too much of a factor, which I think was an issue with 1e/2e's stat rolls. Same with that 20 Dex elf only failing if we define a 20 as auto-fail (or impose penalties). Success was too easy with a high stat. On the other hand, the whole system was bounded within 20 results and so was pretty easy to predict and you didn't end up with the number inflation and huge disparities (based on level training) in 3e/4e.
It's a tough issue, if there were an easy compromise between the two systems, that would probably be quite useful. I think that's kind of their target - using stat modifiers but systematically bounding the range.

So make dexterity constitution and wisdom checks when something needs a reaction from the character. On the other hand, when there is a situation that needs to be acted upon, go with your active attributes: strength, intelligence and charisma. Stuck in a web? Strength check. Need to talk your way past a guard? Charisma check. Need to tie a rope? Why are you making a check to see if your character tie a rope?!? Okay, fine. Intelligence check to see if you recall the best knot for the occasion. I hope you're happy.

Obviously there are a couple of grey areas, mostly when it comes to dexterity, which could be seen as an active attribute as well as a reactive one. Some corner cases could be made for most of the attributes being used one way instead of the other, but for the most part, I think that the way I outlined above would help to ensure that all attributes have importance(even if they will never have equal importance in any given playing style) and reward exceptional attributes without breaking bounded accuracy.

I also like the idea of 3 offensive/active stats and 3 defensive/passive stats. I think this was the direction 4e got close to but zigged away from but should have zagged toward. 4e gave the player choice of which 3 stats to use as their PC's defenses and then somewhat synergized with the class's powers, but there were too many uneven spots where some builds would depend on only 3 of the stats (rogue - artful dodger) while others were less efficient and needed 4 (rogue - brutal scoundrel) - the whole some builds being more MAD than others again.

 

[Sadrik]

I think the main issue is that Charisma and Wisdom represent the same thing. Dumping all parts into one or the other could be easily understood by most people. The only part that is hard to glue on is perception/awareness.

My biggest beef with perception/awareness being synonymous with wisdom is that it makes "wise" mean "perceptive", I generally think of these two things as different. The wise cleric is not the guy I think of as who is first to spots stuff. This may be just a matter of rebranding the cleric as a Charisma based caster. Which I have thought would make sense for many years.

So if:
Wisdom was awareness, insight and perception and perhaps innate type casters
Charisma was willpower, leadership, personality and divine type casters

The way this would affect saves would be this:
Wisdom saves would be perceiving stuff (Awareness save)
Intelligence saves would be figuring out suff (Logic save)
Charisma saves would be resisting mental stuff (willpower save)

Wisdom as a save would change the most here because everything that was a wisdom (willpower) save is now a charisma save. Intelligence would pull out a few of the effects (illusions, maze etc.). Then Wisdom would be something entirely new, it would probably be closest to a passive perception check in 4e, or sense motive and insight skill checks, (which were saves put into the skill system in the past). I can see lots of applications for this type of check though so it certainly would not be lack for usage.

 

[triqui]

Currently, baseline saves are made by adding your attribute bonus to a d20(and then trying to get over a DC). This means that the most nimble elf in the world(assuming 20 max attribute) has a 25% greater chance to dodge a... whatever... than the average human peasant. That isn't much of a difference,

Against a DC 15, a 20 DEX elf has 100% more chances to dodge than the peasant. He has double the chance to dodge, which isn't too shabby.

 

[Li Shenron]

There are about 16 spells requiring a Dex ST.
There are about 14 spells requiring a Wis ST (half of them at levels 1-2).
There are about 10 spells requiring a Con ST.
There are about 5 spells requiring a Cha ST.
There are 0 spells requiring a Str ST.
There are 0 spells requiring an Int ST.

Just checked the latest package and the situation is even worse, thanks to all spells with magic attacks being changed to ST:

There are about 27 spells requiring a Dex ST. (+11)
There are about 18 spells requiring a Wis ST. (+4)
There are about 22 spells requiring a Con ST. (+12)
There are about 5 spells requiring a Cha ST.
There are 0 spells requiring a Str ST.
There are 0 spells requiring an Int ST.

I am beginning to fear that another step back is going to be taken, dropping the original 5e idea in favor for returning to the old 3e Fort/Refl/Will ST. Boring....

This design team keeps changing stuff because they want to be creative, and cannot figure out how to be creative with saving throws?

How can it be so difficult to see that for example spells that impede movement can have a Str ST instead of a Con ST? That illusions can have an Int ST instead of Wis ST? That some energy spells (thunder) can have Con ST instead of Dex ST? That compulsions/commands can have Cha ST instead of Wis ST?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I totally agree... illusions should be saved against by int. Paralyzing or restraining by strength.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think it's important to spread the saving throws around evenly. Each stat is used in many different ways; saving throws are one way, but a stat can be plenty useful without ever once being used for a save. Moreover, looking only at spells skews the results. There are six monsters in the Bestiary that require Strength saving throws.

I do think D&DN, like editions before it, is going to have problems with some stats being more overall useful than others (yes, Mister RangedAttack-ArmorClass-MostCommonSavingThrow-InitiativeBonus-StealthSkill, I'm looking at you). But saving throws, in isolation, are not the issue.

Against a DC 15, a 20 DEX elf has 100% more chances to dodge than the peasant. He has double the chance to dodge, which isn't too shabby.

Actually, it's 83 and a third percent. </nitpick>

 

[Li Shenron]

I do think D&DN, like editions before it, is going to have problems with some stats being more overall useful than others (yes, Mister RangedAttack-ArmorClass-MostCommonSavingThrow-InitiativeBonus-StealthSkill, I'm looking at you). But saving throws, in isolation, are not the issue.

Yes, but they are part of it.

Take a look at Intelligence, there are even fewer reasons in 5e compared to 3e for a character to increase Intelligence since it doesn't affect skills as a whole, only Lore and a few more. Almost no reason for a non-Wizard, non-Rogue to be clever.

And the usual Charisma, we have Cha-based skills which are most usually taken by one PC, the already high-Cha guy, the others just watch.

The reason why I insist so much with ST, is that you cannot choose when you have to roll a saving throw. This makes them potentially useful for everyone, if all 6 scores are represented frequently enough... It's also the reason why nobody wants a low Con (HP+saves), and still quite few dare to have low Dex (AC+saves) but also Wis (perception+saves).

Instead, any active use of abilities (melee, archery, spellcasting, skills) can just be ignored and focus on something else. Charisma is useful for all social skills, but if you have low Cha who cares? You just don't play the social guy and play something else. But if there are dozens of spells in the game that your Cha can save against, then you always pay a price if you decide to keep that score low.

The game really isn't doing a good thing if you can treat Str, Int and Cha that way, but you cannot do the same with Wis, Dex and Con.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, but they are part of it.

Take a look at Intelligence, there are even fewer reasons in 5e compared to 3e for a character to increase Intelligence since it doesn't affect skills as a whole, only Lore and a few more. Almost no reason for a non-Wizard, non-Rogue to be clever.

And the usual Charisma, we have Cha-based skills which are most usually taken by one PC, the already high-Cha guy, the others just watch.

The reason why I insist so much with ST, is that you cannot choose when you have to roll a saving throw. This makes them potentially useful for everyone, if all 6 scores are represented frequently enough... It's also the reason why nobody wants a low Con (HP+saves), and still quite few dare to have low Dex (AC+saves) but also Wis (perception+saves).

Instead, any active use of abilities (melee, archery, spellcasting, skills) can just be ignored and focus on something else. Charisma is useful for all social skills, but if you have low Cha who cares? You just don't play the social guy and play something else. But if there are dozens of spells in the game that your Cha can save against, then you always pay a price if you decide to keep that score low.

The game really isn't doing a good thing if you can treat Str, Int and Cha that way, but you cannot do the same with Wis, Dex and Con.

Fair points, but in that case I'd say the Bestiary is what we should be looking at. PCs are much more likely to have to save against monster abilities than spells.

Moreover, the importance of a save should be taken into account. Let's say there are only four monsters in the Monster Manual that call for a Charisma save... but those monsters are the wight, wraith, spectre, and vampire, and a failed save means you get hit with an AD&D-style energy drain. (For those who didn't play AD&D: You lose a level instantly, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Hit points, spells, saves, the works. The only way to regain the lost level is a high-level cleric spell.) That would be a pretty strong inducement to invest in Charisma. It's not often that you have to make that saving throw, but which would you fear more: One failed save versus energy drain, or five failed saves versus minor-to-moderate AoE damage?