D&D 4E One thing I miss from 4e...the Saving Throws

[iserith]

Sure, roll vs a defense was good. But I like the saving throw bc it does go back to the player doing something when the action is with someone else.

They're not really doing anything but rolling a die they're told to roll though. There's a "forced fiction" or "presumption of character action" element here that I don't like.

And frankly, I kind of like the idea of asking for a response. "The sorcerer lobs a fireball, you see it streaking toward you, the explosion imminent. What do you do?" And then adjudicating a response on the saving throw.

It's a little dungeon-worldy. But that's not necessarily bad. I think I may try it out - maybe tied to reaction - so if you have a reaction this round, you can try to weight the outcome, but if not, you're stuck with the default.

That'd be interesting.

 

[Bawylie]

They're not really doing anything but rolling a die they're told to roll though. There's a "forced fiction" or "presumption of character action" element here that I don't like.



That'd be interesting.

Yes it's a presumption, but there's a long history of the saving throw and it's fairly anodyne. We presume the payer wants to avoid bad effects as a matter of default.

Originally, IIRC, the saves were more of a class based defense against particular forms of attack rather than attempts to mitigate individual actions launched against them. Tying it to reaction, though, also allows a decision based on merits. It risks something for a good reward.

 

[billd91]

Sure, roll vs a defense was good. But I like the saving throw bc it does go back to the player doing something when the action is with someone else.

And frankly, I kind of like the idea of asking for a response. "The sorcerer lobs a fireball, you see it streaking toward you, the explosion imminent. What do you do?" And then adjudicating a response on the saving throw.

I prefer the saving throw as well. I thought turning the saves into passive defensive values was a bad design decision in a couple of ways:

1) It debuted in Star Wars Saga Edition - and it meant you really couldn't apply a force die to your defenses, while in previous d20 editions you could. Using the Force for defense fits right in with the Jedi ethos, so losing that connection was bad for the feel of the game.

2) It also meant you could not use the 3.5 version of action points on your defense. Granted, 4e completely changed what action points did, but for those of us who liked adding 1d6 to their d20 rolls, the change to static defenses was an unfortunate design decision.

 

[iserith]

1) It debuted in Star Wars Saga Edition - and it meant you really couldn't apply a force die to your defenses, while in previous d20 editions you could. Using the Force for defense fits right in with the Jedi ethos, so losing that connection was bad for the feel of the game.

2) It also meant you could not use the 3.5 version of action points on your defense. Granted, 4e completely changed what action points did, but for those of us who liked adding 1d6 to their d20 rolls, the change to static defenses was an unfortunate design decision.

IIRC, there were a number of utility powers and items that could add bonuses to your defenses (sometimes flat bonus, sometimes dice), even as immediate actions. It's effectively the same thing.

 

[billd91]

IIRC, there were a number of utility powers and items that could add bonuses to your defenses (sometimes flat bonus, sometimes dice), even as immediate actions. It's effectively the same thing.

No it isn't. It's not a resource available equally to all PCs - just to the ones who have those utility powers.

 

[Herschel]

The six save system is a definite weakness of 5E, with the weird dichotomy between common saves and rare saves, but I definitely wouldn't say that 4E did it better. It doesn't make sense that a sickly person can build their immune system by lifting weights without actually overcoming the underlying illness, or that the sessile Mother Brain could dodge a fireball by being very smart. It was just a concession to make their math work.

A better system would be a three-save system which took into account both relevant stats - if your Fortitude save was equal to the sum of your Strength modifier and your Con modifier, and so on. That way, you could stand a decent chance of resisting charm whether you were wise or forceful, but the rare character who was both would be even better.

You're thinking too binary. Reflex, for example, is not just because you recognize late and can still be quick enough to react, but also if you're intelligent enough to recognize a hazard and anticipate it. Intelligence, in many ways, is "mental dexterity".

Same for Fortitude. Sure you may be physically healthy, but you also may be strong enough to take the hit in the first place. Con is probably the most nebulous attribute anyway. Look at it this way, if you resist the ___ in the first place, you don't have to work to alleviate the effects later.

As for your Will, that's also a two-pronged defense. You may be wise enough to understand the charm for what it is, or you may have the great presence of self to not be swayed by another's attempt to control your thought.

 

[iserith]

No it isn't. It's not a resource available equally to all PCs - just to the ones who have those utility powers.

Just about everyone could take those options in one form or another though if I recall, especially if they were skill powers or items.

 

[Herschel]

The problem with the 3 saves system is that it makes it much easier to have dump stats, since three of your stats can be low without penalty.
It rewards specialization.

Stat bonuses in a class system reward specialization.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You're thinking too binary. Reflex, for example, is not just because you recognize late and can still be quick enough to react, but also if you're intelligent enough to recognize a hazard and anticipate it. Intelligence, in many ways, is "mental dexterity".

Which is why I'm saying that both should contribute. Being smart enough to recognize something can help if you would otherwise be too slow to react, but it doesn't entirely negate your reaction speed as a relevant factor.

If you're Stephen Hawking, with Int 20 and Dex 1, then you shouldn't be better at dodging explosions than Vin Diesel with Int 14 and Dex 16.

(Especially since noticing something and recognizing it as a threat would typically fall under the perception aspect of Wisdom, and it was only shoe-horned into Int because they really needed to balance the math for their unarmored Wizard types.)

 

[Herschel]

Conversely, it doesn't matter how great your dexterity is if you're too dumb to recognize what's about to hit you. Your idea actually actually plays in to my version very well. If you're good at one, good, but to be great you'll need both.