D&D 5E Adding Skills to Saves

[Rune]

I'm curious about the following statement: "That said, it appears to me that the system will have no problem adjusting to more plentiful proficient saves." Please walk me through how you've determined that.

Because it appears to be easy to adjust the challenge of an encounter more or less on the fly in this edition.

I would hazard to guess that most of us haven't played enough games (especially at mid-to-high levels) to have seen a statistically significant number of saves to make that call, so the justification must be mathematically based. I'm curious to see those numbers.

Or, a third option; it could just be based on instinct and past experience.

Likewise, I don't understand how what you are suggesting is any different than asking a player how they intend to avoid the fireball, then rolling a regular save. If this is intended to provoke player interaction, that can be accomplished without mechanical concerns.

The intent is to provide incentive not to have to ask.

All it's really asking a player to do is figure out how to pigeon-hole their best skill into whatever is happening (you never actually responded to my "Arcana" example above)...

If you will kindly describe how your character is attempting to use his training in Arcana to help resist the assault, I would be happy to adjudicate the situation.

 

[Rune]

What is the point of choosing to school me on this? Considering the entire point of the thread is examining the potential problems of a house rule, your quoted text comes across as condescending, though I hope that was not your intention.

I thank you for the math example. It supports the purpose of the max damage suggestion, which was meant to limit the usefulness of a "skill as a save," so that it was less desirable than using your normal weak save--except during those few "go big or go home in a box" moments.

For instance, if you know that 28 damage fireball is going to take your character out, would you rather have a 60% failure chance for a weak save, or a 30-45% failure chance by using a skill as a save in a creative and narrative engaging way? Using a skill in the place of a save every round, with the max damage limitation, you fight a losing battle to the law of averages--a battle that will probably be over pretty quick, too.

The failure of my suggestion, that your math indirectly shows, is that max damage limits the "skill as a save" too much. The usefulness of the skill as a save is basically locked into that corner case I chose to design around, which I originally stated as "dire straits" moments. I would like to see it used more often, which is why I'm not satisfied with the max damage limitation.

I would be much more prone to having the PC risk a narrative complication, but I wouldn't take max damage off the table, either. In my experience, the risk of narrative complications simultaneously push the game forward while also keeping the player immersed. Which is the point, after all.

I am trying to find a way to give a player some narrative control and creative freedom during combat; the ability to use skills in the place of saves is a possible avenue. The big hurdle is keeping it relatively limited in scope to prevent excessive spamming.

I still think having the player choose to raise the stakes (by presenting a narrative consequence should such a save fail) is a fine way to do that.

I don't see this as fixing a broken aspect of the rules, it expands the rules to include another aspect of play. I think this is where the major disconnect occurs between people coming in to this thread determined to dissuade the discussion and those genuinely interested in exploring the potential of "skills as saves." We aren't fixing something broken, we are adding something previously overlooked.

Well said.

 

[KarinsDad]

What is the point of choosing to school me on this? Considering the entire point of the thread is examining the potential problems of a house rule, your quoted text comes across as condescending, though I hope that was not your intention.

I was responding to Rune, not you. So how exactly am I trying to school you? Thou dost protests too much methinks.

I thank you for the math example. It supports the purpose of the max damage suggestion, which was meant to limit the usefulness of a "skill as a save," so that it was less desirable than using your normal weak save--except during those few "go big or go home in a box" moments.

For instance, if you know that 28 damage fireball is going to take your character out, would you rather have a 60% failure chance for a weak save, or a 30-45% failure chance by using a skill as a save in a creative and narrative engaging way? Using a skill in the place of a save every round, with the max damage limitation, you fight a losing battle to the law of averages--a battle that will probably be over pretty quick, too.

If my 4th level Cleric has 16 hit points remaining out of a total of 27 and 14 will not knock me unconscious, but 28 will. Then it sounds on the surface like this might be reasonable. Until one realizes that 48 hit points will kill my PC. Then suddenly, the risk is not worth it. A player could get sideswiped by this addition to the houserule. And of course, there are many effects that do not have maximum effects. They either happen, or they do not.

Course, further discussion on this is a bit pointless. Some people are ok with original houserule here, others think that it hands class abilities to PCs that do not have the proper class and is not well thought out. Each side can play as they think at their table.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I'm liking the idea of spending your Reaction to increase your defense. I'll probably go with something like : add 1/2 your proficiency to a save or against one attack (before knowing the roll).

It adds a certain element of player agency to defense - which I like. Thanks for the idea!

 

[Sadrik]

So, I'm thinking of allowing PCs to add proficiency to a save if a relevant skill might help them make the save.

Since it would be situational, it shouldn't step on the toes of actual saving throw proficiencies too much.

Additionally, it should help narrow (eleminate) the gap in later levels between non-proficient saves and DCs.

Discuss.

I do this in my house rules. I think it is an excellent way to put two similar things together into one unifying whole.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356621-5e-basic-house-rules

 

[Sadrik]

You keep saying I'm trying to solve a problem. I'm not. I think the math is fine with no change.

There is a perceived math problem. It was highlighted in various threads right after the release of basic. I say perceived because I am sure that some think there is no issue. I feel there is. Hence I created the house rule to "fix" the saves at the upper end of the levels.

Logic is that most people think if you do not have a save you have an ok chance of making one without it. The reality is you have a poor chance of making a save targeting a low stat. Adding the proficiency will improve this to competency. So if someone wants to get the acrobatics skill to shore up their DEX save. It bothers me none. It will only move them to competency not to I am so awesome I never fail.

 

[Rune]

There is a perceived math problem. It was highlighted in various threads right after the release of basic. I say perceived because I am sure that some think there is no issue. I feel there is. Hence I created the house rule to "fix" the saves at the upper end of the levels.

Logic is that most people think if you do not have a save you have an ok chance of making one without it. The reality is you have a poor chance of making a save targeting a low stat. Adding the proficiency will improve this to competency. So if someone wants to get the acrobatics skill to shore up their DEX save. It bothers me none. It will only move them to competency not to I am so awesome I never fail.

I am aware of the perceived issue. I happen to fall on the "not a problem" side of the fence.

And yet, I also think allowing skills to shore up non-proficient saves would also not be a problem.

For pretty much the same reasons. It effects the way the game plays, but hardly in an unmanageable way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, I'm thinking of allowing PCs to add proficiency to a save if a relevant skill might help them make the save.

Since it would be situational, it shouldn't step on the toes of actual saving throw proficiencies too much.

Additionally, it should help narrow (eleminate) the gap in later levels between non-proficient saves and DCs.

Discuss.

So, the ultimate effect of this is going to be: people will fail fewer saving throws. Effects that offer saving throws like, say, dragon's fear, won't be as threatening, because weak characters can finangle some large bonus if their excuse is good enough for you to accept.

5e is designed so that failing a saving throw is acceptable and not really that big of a deal, so that a "weak" save or a save that you're prone to fail is OK. Between multiple saves and concentration mechanics and such, the chances of any save-able status lasting longer than a few rounds is vanishingly small. A failed saving throw adds tension to an encounter, and facilitates group dynamics as your allies try to heal you, disrupt the spellcaster, or shore up the party. A failed saving throw is a moment of dramatic tension.

With this rule, you will have less of those moments.

This might be fine, if you think that the chances for failing a save -- especially a "weak" save -- are too high right now. If you don't need those moments of crisis. If you're fine with making save-effects weaker overall. If it adds to your fun to have less of those moments, this sounds like a good way to run it. I like how it helps define your character as different to allow them to apply different skills. But the price you pay will be fewer moments of PC's going "Oh, no!" and playing on the defensive. It's up to you if that's a price you're willing to pay or not.

 

[KarinsDad]

I am aware of the perceived issue. I happen to fall on the "not a problem" side of the fence.

And yet, I also think allowing skills to shore up non-proficient saves would also not be a problem.

For pretty much the same reasons. It effects the way the game plays, but hardly in an unmanageable way.

The reason people think that you are trying to fix the perceived issue is that your fix helps non-proficient PCs without helping proficient PCs.

If your real goal is to "encourage a cinematic style of play (through both descriptions and survivability)", then you should let both the Dex proficient PC add his Acrobatics proficiency to his save against the Fireball, just like you are suggesting to allow the Dex nonproficient PC do it.

This really looks, as per your additional comment in your first post "Additionally, it should help narrow (eleminate) the gap in later levels between non-proficient saves and DCs" like you are putting in a math fix under the guise of the players taking charge of the narrative.

Your claim that "It's a flavor change, not a mechanics fix" appears inaccurate. If it were a flavor fix, every PC could do it in the exact same situation, but as written, some cannot.

 

[Rune]

So, the ultimate effect of this is going to be: people will fail fewer saving throws. Effects that offer saving throws like, say, dragon's fear, won't be as threatening, because weak characters can finangle some large bonus if their excuse is good enough for you to accept.

5e is designed so that failing a saving throw is acceptable and not really that big of a deal, so that a "weak" save or a save that you're prone to fail is OK. Between multiple saves and concentration mechanics and such, the chances of any save-able status lasting longer than a few rounds is vanishingly small. A failed saving throw adds tension to an encounter, and facilitates group dynamics as your allies try to heal you, disrupt the spellcaster, or shore up the party. A failed saving throw is a moment of dramatic tension.

With this rule, you will have less of those moments.

Yep.

This might be fine, if you think that the chances for failing a save -- especially a "weak" save -- are too high right now. If you don't need those moments of crisis. If you're fine with making save-effects weaker overall. If it adds to your fun to have less of those moments, this sounds like a good way to run it. I like how it helps define your character as different to allow them to apply different skills. But the price you pay will be fewer moments of PC's going "Oh, no!" and playing on the defensive. It's up to you if that's a price you're willing to pay or not.

But that tension will be replaced by a different kind of tension--the tension of deciding whether or not it would be worth it to raise the stakes with a potentially nasty narrative complication.