D&D 5E Saves in 5e: What I would change

[Jeff Carlsen]

Well, if we have to have "saving throws," let's go back to Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves, 3E-style. That would at least prevent any confusion about "Am I making a Dex check or a Dex save?" Ninety percent of saving throws are Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom anyway.

I definitely don't think that's necessary. The fact that a check is sometimes called a save, and sometimes an attack, depending on what its for isn't that confusing. Certainly not enough to add another layer of statistics to the game that do the same thing as ability scores, but with different names.

 

[Li Shenron]

I actually agree with this, but I think the language has so much tradition that it's difficult to make the shift.

Before they introduced proficiencies, we had the traditional language of "saving throws" even if they were exactly the same as checks.

I thought we could just stay there, but eventually a lot of people want saving throws to get better with level. The "ghouls incident" felt to me like a bit like a facade to bring back scaling saving throws.

Well, if we have to have "saving throws," let's go back to Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves, 3E-style. That would at least prevent any confusion about "Am I making a Dex check or a Dex save?" Ninety percent of saving throws are Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom anyway.

I really liked 5e expanding saving throws to 6. I wouldn't really want to see them merged back to 3. Au contraire, it's that 90% that I would like to see it lowered.

 

[Kinak]

I really liked 5e expanding saving throws to 6. I wouldn't really want to see them merged back to 3. Au contraire, it's that 90% that I would like to see it lowered.

Yeah, exactly this. Tying saves directly to the attributes is really elegant.

That said, the more saves we have, the better prepared spellcasters get. So we have to be careful their save DCs don't increase too much. Because, as it stands, most of a character's saves won't go up over the course of an adventuring career. And, short of throwing "proficiency at all saves" on every monster, the same applies for them.

That means we're comparing a scaling DC against a static bonus, which is just going to lead to all sorts of problems.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think the proficiency bonus should just scale from +1 to +3 or just give a flat +3. The +6 bonus is causing issues everywhere, saving throws included.

Can you elaborate on this? Issues everywhere is rather broad.

The proficiency bonus was already going to +6 (see previous Fighter) and higher in some cases (see previous d12 for skills). Casters were adding +5 to DCs, they add +6 now but start 2 lower for a net loss.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, exactly this. Tying saves directly to the attributes is really elegant.

"Elegance" is vastly overrated in game design. Ease of understanding and use are far more important.

As long as saves and checks were essentially the same thing, having "saving throw" in as a nod to tradition wasn't a problem. You could just say "Roll Dexterity" and that was that. Now, however, Wizards has replicated the situation in 4E where you have your straight ability modifier and you have your ability modifier plus a level-based mod, and sometimes you use one and sometimes you use the other, and explaining to casual players which to use when is a pain in the neck. In fact, it's worse now; 4E at least was fairly consistent that you always used the level mod when rolling a d20.

Certainly not enough to add another layer of statistics to the game that do the same thing as ability scores, but with different names.

Too late. Wizards already added another layer of statistics to the game. The only thing worse than another layer of statistics with different names, is another layer of statistics with the same names but different values.

If it's a different number, it should be given a different name.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

"Elegance" is vastly overrated in game design. Ease of understanding and use are far more important.

As long as saves and checks were essentially the same thing, having "saving throw" in as a nod to tradition wasn't a problem. You could just say "Roll Dexterity" and that was that. Now, however, Wizards has replicated the situation in 4E where you have your straight ability modifier and you have your ability modifier plus a level-based mod, and sometimes you use one and sometimes you use the other, and explaining to casual players which to use when is a pain in the neck. In fact, it's worse now; 4E at least was fairly consistent that you always used the level mod when rolling a d20.



Too late. Wizards already added another layer of statistics to the game. The only thing worse than another layer of statistics with different names, is another layer of statistics with the same names but different values.

If it's a different number, it should be given a different name.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. They're all dexterity checks. All that changes is whether what you're attempting to do is something you are proficient in. If so, add a bonus. As opposed to before, where not being proficient sometimes was a penalty, and sometimes meant nothing.

 

[Dausuul]

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. They're all dexterity checks.

Thank you for proving my point. You're wrong, you see; they aren't all Dexterity checks. A saving throw is not a check. Something that gives bonuses to Dexterity checks (e.g., the bard's Inspire Competence) won't help with Dexterity saves, nor vice versa.

If people on this board--who are generally quite well-informed and rules-savvy--are getting the two mixed up, casual players will be totally lost.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If people on this board--who are generally quite well-informed and rules-savvy--are getting the two mixed up, casual players will be totally lost.

Either that... or in fact it's such an easy concept to understand that people don't feel the need to bother worrying about what they write. People already know what they mean.

 

[Sadrik]

I would like to see the scaling happen through stat boosts only. Leveling up, magic items etc.
I would like to see the reactive save-like stuff in the skill system moved to saves too.
I would like to see stat check for skills and stat checks for a save be basically the same thing.
Then once that is established you can add in some scaling in as optional rules for those who do enjoy it. I don't like automatic scaling. It messes with world design. Only high level people can save against this, only high level characters can do this task. I think it should be difficult tasks that anyone can accomplish but they are difficult... or if you invest resources, then it becomes slightly easier. Investing in leveling up? Nah.

 

[Kinak]

So, if the main way the game is supposed to scale is HP/damage, it probably makes more sense to scale saves that way as well. They tried to do that with HP thresholds, without much success.

How about: Save or suck effects have a "strain" cost associated with them. When you fail a save on one of those effects, you can pay that many HP to reroll it... as many times as you want until you run out of HP.

I think the flavor works, with many a tale being told of heroes gritting their teeth and forcing through adversity. I also think it'd probably work well at the table, giving the stunned or paralyzed or what-have-you player an option other than just lumping it, making those effects less demoralizing.

"Elegance" is vastly overrated in game design. Ease of understanding and use are far more important.

As long as saves and checks were essentially the same thing, having "saving throw" in as a nod to tradition wasn't a problem. You could just say "Roll Dexterity" and that was that. Now, however, Wizards has replicated the situation in 4E where you have your straight ability modifier and you have your ability modifier plus a level-based mod, and sometimes you use one and sometimes you use the other, and explaining to casual players which to use when is a pain in the neck. In fact, it's worse now; 4E at least was fairly consistent that you always used the level mod when rolling a d20.

I think we're just using the word "elegance" differently.

The reasons you say that they should remove the proficiency bonus are the same reasons I'd say removing the proficiency bonus is elegant. So I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything of substance.

Cheers!
Kinak