D&D 5E Just Get Rid of "Saving Throws"

[Markn]

Personally, I'd like to see a packet with the old school saves. You know Save vs spell, polymorph, etc. D&D has lost a bit of charm ever since those were removed from the game.

 

[Raith5]

I support static defences. I just want to see these attacks resolved as quickly as possible in a way that reflects the abilities of the target: so I think elegant game design beats out any sense of fidelity to the legacy of D&D.

 

[Jester David]

I support static defences. I just want to see these attacks resolved as quickly as possible in a way that reflects the abilities of the target: so I think elegant game design beats out any sense of fidelity to the legacy of D&D.

They're pretty comparable in elegance. Same number of dice, same amount of math, etc.
But there are a couple differences.

First, with static defenses there are 3-6 more numbers on the character sheet and in monster entries instead of one set of numbers doing double-duty. This wasn't noticeable in the switch from 3e to 4e as the numbers didn't change, but separate saves/ defenses don't exist in 5e.
So it's a tiny dash more elegant than anything before.

Second, when making area of effect attacks multiple numbers have to be communicated across the table. The same amount of dice are rolled and there's roughly the same amount of math, and the DM needs to communicate the same number of results. But with saves the player just says two numbers: damage and DC and the DM rolls and does the math.
With static defenses the player has to communicate the damage and then relay each and every attack clarifying which roll is for which monster. Small, but it can add up over time.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

(snip) ... it makes no sense for attackers to role for weapons but defenders to roll for magic ... (snip)

It makes quite a lot of sense to have defenders roll for magic. If the attacker rolls for disintegrate and succeeds them bam you're dead, and you feel utterly helpless. If you roll a save then at least you get to feel like you have a chance to avoid it. Sure, the math is the same and the effect is purely psychological, but it really does contribute to enjoyment of the game.

 

[Ryujin]

I like. Simple enough to say a magic item grants advantage to an ability check vs magic, though "Both the attacker and defender get to roll", not for me (too swingy)

Which, unfortunately, does absolutely nothing to change the current situation that the OP was looking to simplify. In fact it makes it easier to confuse what adds to what, because there's no simple term like "saving throw" to differentiate the bonuses.

I think that saving throws should stay.

 

[Li Shenron]

I wish they'd drop the term "saving throw" and just call them what they are - ability checks.

I would keep the term "saving throw" as a legacy to previous editions, so that whoever has played them in the past feels it's the same game of D&D, but it's a good thing IMO that saving throws are essentially just ability checks (so far, because I always have the dread feeling that the will revert to 3e saving throws at some playtest packet).

It would also mean we could get rid of the things that add bonuses to saves only, which requires extra bookkeeping and can be annoying to remember. I'd much prefer to not have to have separate bonuses from my ability modifiers just because I put on a ring of protection, for example. If something makes my character stronger or smarter, it should just make him stronger or smarter, not just in the narrow circumstances that call for a saving throw.

I don't think this is a good idea. There can be a "ring of strength" that makes you stronger and a "ring of climbing" that makes you better at climbing and a "ring of paralysis protection" that makes you more resistant vs paralysis spells.

It would be a very boring game if we had only broad magical effects in the game.

As for spells that allow saving throws, I think the best solution is to make them opposed checks. If it's not too complicated for someone to make an opposed roll for grappling and disarming, then why is it too complicated for spells like charm person? This is IMO the best way to please both the 4e attack vs. defenses crowd and the saving throw crowd. Both the attacker and defender get to roll. Everyone wins! I think it would also make spellcasters more fun to play. I like being able to roll when I cast a spell, rather than just sitting there while my DM tells me what happens.

This is a good idea instead, although we don't this to be a general rule to all spells. There can be spells based on opposite rolls, spells based on magic attack rolls, and spells based on saving throws.

 

[Necrofumbler]

I support static defences. I just want to see these attacks resolved as quickly as possible in a way that reflects the abilities of the target: so I think elegant game design beats out any sense of fidelity to the legacy of D&D.

Full agreement with me! 5e combat while faster than 3e/4e, is stil SLOW. Bakc in 1e any medium fight took 15 minutes to go through, not over an hour!

Many tricks can be used to speed things up, but a good "6E" DMG should propose several official rules variant to adress this.


- In my campaign we don't even roll for damage. Players aren't supposed to know how many HP monster hves nayway. And there is already enough randomness in the to hit roll itself! Given that our group finds vanilla 5e rules a bit too generous "little players held by hands" for easi fights, we upped the difficilty and the swinginess of battles.

We go with this: Base Weapon Damage (and only that) is always maxed (a few abilities dependent on damage rolls need a little tweaking, but that is all). Crits simple deal double damage. ALL the damage. Plus they inflict "severe wounds" (not lose an eye or a arm, more like CON Save vs Some disadvantage or penalty that can be cured but not super fast with only a couple cure wounds spells). Yup crits are very serious stuff with us. Also, downing to 0 HP, ALSO save vs Severe wounds too thus no more of the stupid whack-a-mole healing the downed fighter back to 1 HP so he can fight again. All other damage dice are half the max of the dice (and not the average).

Thus more damage per round = slightly faster fights. And I can put less monsters for the same challenge. And no more slow anti-mathy players rolling damage one frakking dice at a time then slowely adding them all up one by one. Which also means slightly faster fights. Or searching which damage dice to roll for the millionth time. All of which also means slightly faster fights.

Main benefit is that there is TONS less game table clutter! Which also means slightly faster fights.


- Side initiative, rolled only in round 1 and even then not always, with a bonus towards PCs vs monsters: PCs vs only minor enemies?(i.e. not "general or leader or elite" on enemy side) then the PCs win Init by default. An Ambush? The ambushing group always get to act first. DEX is a good enough uber stat without needing to boosting Initiative. A feayt ike Altern3ess would give the entire PARTY the bonus, but not a whooping +5! Prof Bonus should count here: higher levels means higher odds of acting first.


- Anti-Analysis-Paralysis and Anti-Min-Maxing variant DMG rules. In our group, a player's ENTIRE ROUND has to be fully predeclared. Not with "if he does that then else". Nope if you have two attacks, you specify if you strike the ogre twice or split the attacks on ogre + goblin. THEN you roll both together (with different colored dice). Same for movement: you can't WAIT if an enemy falls down to decide if you move away with the rest of your move, etc.

Maybe the rule is "if you don't roll all your attack dice all togethyer, you just lose the remaining attacks".

And/or everybody remains fully active until end of round (thus, mutually assured destruction beomes possible).

Yes, this "nerfs" the PCs more than the baddies. Yes, this limits options and tactical choices. But dang it speeds things up a LOT.

Also, there is a common real life precedent: real life battles had tons of situations where combattants suffering a deadly wound kept on fighting for some time, sometime even MINUTES. It is a VERY frequent thing. Adrenaline can do wonders you migghyt not even realize you're deadlly wounded you and jut still keep on fighting. Only in video games does dealing the last HP of damage means the enemy INSTANTLY falls down.

- Maybe return to the simplicity of options of 1E/2E. Currently a player's round is a complex bag of tokens, tht he can spend "one at a time, waiting to know the result, then send the next one." You havce 1 Acytion token, 1 bonus Action token, 1 Interaction with an Object token, 1 Reaction token, and typicallly 6 "move five feet" tokens. Thatr is a lot of flexiblity but it just ends up bogging the game down to a crawl. In 5e you either moved, or attacked, or charged, or shooted, or cast ONE spell (not: I cast with my action and cast somerthintg else with my bonus action too and get to also do something else for free with my concentraytion spell I cast earlier!"). All of those mutuallly exclusive. The number of PCs that could attack more than once was SEVERELY limited and the number of attacks too., It just wasn't as much of a dice rolling festival! The thing is that 5E's rounds ares like 2 or 3 rounds worth of 1e/2e. Plus they are more complex to solve, too (like splitting movement any number of ways you wish). But HPs are up through the roof. So yeah it figures that a 15 minutres 1E battle takes 1 hour in 5e.

- Return to less of "epic heroes demigods that can do anything and everything", and "more courageous mortals adventurers". At least, not until HIGH levels, that is.

 

[Zaukrie]

I understand we don't all agree....but I have zero issue with long fights. And I've been playing forever......but that is a topic for another thread.

I liked the elegance of 4e, and the consistency of the attacker always rolling. But, I totally get the psychology of the saving throw. But, that psychology is opposite for monsters rolling saves, so, man, we've created some sort of psychological reaction that isn't natural, but learned.

I'd be good with a return to 4e's system for magical attacks. I'd likely add some kind of defensive roll for characters with evasion or other things that are about adding more defense (since one chooses a character about defense, maybe that player should get to more actively manage defense). But, there, I just undid anything elegant.

I love elegance. But I love fun/fiction magic more. So, ya, I didn't add anything to a decision here I guess.....not that I expected to.

 

[jasper]

Personally, I'd like to see a packet with the old school saves. You know Save vs spell, polymorph, etc. D&D has lost a bit of charm ever since those were removed from the game.

Item saving throws. Well Conan you saved versus that fight ball but all your stuff except your sword, books, and dentures are gone.
curio cat help type this. No back spacing. he purrs.

 

[Ryujin]

Item saving throws. Well Conan you saved versus that fight ball but all your stuff except your sword, books, and dentures are gone.
curio cat help type this. No back spacing. he purrs.

Item saves are generally unnecessary, if the character makes his save. It doesn't make sense to penalize a player for his character having succeeded.