D&D 5E Why do we need saving throws?

[dropbear8mybaby]

Aside from it being a sacred cow, is there any actual need for saving throws? Is there any function that they serve that can't be served by a simpler attack vs. defence roll? I know the system justification for them and I'm not advocating getting rid of them, merely wanting to hear why it is they should be kept or if the system could be perfectly fine without them.

 

[Morrus]

It gives the players an active thing they can do rather than passively get told the result of the GM's die roll. There's a subtle difference between making a roll to avoid something rather than someone else making a roll to hit you.

 

[Caliburn101]

Swings and roundabouts - if you made Saves like AC, then there would be just as many rolls - but they would all be active, not reactive (every ability or spell used to attack would be rolled for rather than the DM rolling for the monster's save) so there would be no more or less 'agency' in it for players if this was changed. It would also allow everything to crit... which would at least put a dent in the massive level of PC survivability over previous editions 5th has introduced.

For ongoing effects (like Hold Person) it would require attack rolls every round, and for criticals on no-damaging effects, the automatically applied duration could be increased by one round (such as not being able to regain HPs from a Chill Touch for 2 rounds, or for the aforementioned Hold Person, no attack roll is required for it to be maintained the round after).

You could have increased granularity with this - where ongoing effects that require a struggle primarily from the victim (such as being in a Web spell, the attack roll is just to hit initially, and a crit. means the target is WELL tangled up and rolls their STR check each round at disadvantage.

d20 Mongoose Conan uses active rolls against active rolls - roll spell attack, then roll for save. this is quite cool as well and really doesn't slow things down at the table.

I might experiment with this as a matter of fact...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

PC survivability dropped from 3e and 4e to 5e... you can also just double damage on spells if you fail your save with a natural 1.

 

[Aldarc]

It gives the players an active thing they can do rather than passively get told the result of the GM's die roll. There's a subtle difference between making a roll to avoid something rather than someone else making a roll to hit you.

This explanation works up to the point where you realize that you don't roll to see whether you are hit from an attack. So if that is the case, why not then make defense rolls against attacks from NPCs?

 

[Morrus]

This explanation works up to the point where you realize that you don't roll to see whether you are hit from an attack. So if that is the case, why not then make defense rolls against attacks from NPCs?

Because attacks happen too often and it would slow combat down, plus the GM would be making saves constantly and PCs wouldn't get to roll to attack unless you had a different rule for NPCs and PCs.

The way it is now, PCs get to roll for lots of things, because that's fun. Attacks, saves. Taking away attacks would be even less fun than taking away saves.

Sometimes things are done for expedience, sometimes they are done because they're more fun. Game design is as much art as it is science!

 

[Aldarc]

Because attacks happen too often and it would slow combat down, plus the GM would be making saves constantly and PCs wouldn't get to roll to attack unless you had a different rule for NPCs and PCs.

The way it is now, PCs get to roll for lots of things, because that's fun. Attacks, saves. Taking away attacks would be even less fun than taking away saves.

Sometimes things are done for expedience, sometimes they are done because they're more fun. Game design is as much art as it is science!

How? You roll defense. You pass or you don't. In the Cypher System, the player rolls everything, including attacks, defense, and "saves," but I don't see how that system would be any quicker if the GM rolled for NPC attacks but PCs didn't roll defense.

 

[Morrus]

How? You roll defense. You pass or you don't. In the Cypher System, the player rolls everything, including attacks, defense, and "saves," but I don't see how that system would be any quicker if the GM rolled for NPC attacks but PCs didn't roll defense.

Two rolls is slightly slower than one roll.

I'm not saying it's a calamitous difference, and plenty of games do use opposed rolls, so it clearly works OK, but D&D tends (not always) to go with one roll against a static number. That's also why it has featured things like Passive Perception, and why the MM gives average damage values for monster attacks. These all speed things up a tiny bit.

So the way it works, you roll to attack and you roll to save. You could switch the roll to attack to a save, but that just means the GM is constantly saving against PC attacks instead.

 

[Pickles III]

Because attacks happen too often and it would slow combat down, plus the GM would be making saves constantly and PCs wouldn't get to roll to attack unless you had a different rule for NPCs and PCs.

The way it is now, PCs get to roll for lots of things, because that's fun. Attacks, saves. Taking away attacks would be even less fun than taking away saves.

Sometimes things are done for expedience, sometimes they are done because they're more fun. Game design is as much art as it is science!

While I agree with the sentiment (& down voted Mystic talents as a consequence) this argument is specious while characters like my current bard exist who generates far more saving throws than he takes.

Two rolls is slightly slower than one roll.

I'm not saying it's a calamitous difference, and plenty of games do use opposed rolls, so it clearly works OK, but D&D tends (not always) to go with one roll against a static number. That's also why it has featured things like Passive Perception, and why the MM gives average damage values for monster attacks. These all speed things up a tiny bit.

So the way it works, you roll to attack and you roll to save. You could switch the roll to attack to a save, but that just means the GM is constantly saving against PC attacks instead.

This on the other hand I totally agree with & add that roll against a static number also reduces variance to a level that I am more happy with (though YMMV)


I am happy with systems where the player makes all the rolls & would be fine with a D&D variant that did that if the group wanted it.

 

[Aldarc]

Two rolls is slightly slower than one roll.

I'm not saying it's a calamitous difference, and plenty of games do use opposed rolls, so it clearly works OK, but D&D tends (not always) to go with one roll against a static number. That's also why it has featured things like Passive Perception, and why the MM gives average damage values for monster attacks. These all speed things up a tiny bit.

So the way it works, you roll to attack and you roll to save. You could switch the roll to attack to a save, but that just means the GM is constantly saving against PC attacks instead.

Huh? What are you talking about? There is only one roll. There is not an opposed defense roll. There is simply rolling for defense against a monster's static number. There is no difference in total number of rolls, simply in who rolls and when. And in the case of the Cypher System, it is always the player and never the GM.