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

[Croesus]

Well, obviously you don't need saving throws in an RPG. 4E got rid of them; the 4E saving throw is a duration tracking mechanic.

That said, they do have a function in 5E. Saving throws are designed to act as "gatekeepers" for crippling status effects. Therefore, they're hard for attackers to manipulate (it's much harder to weaken an enemy's saving throw than it is to strengthen your own attack roll), and creatures that need to be resistant to such effects get abilities like Magic Resistance or Legendary Resistance. Moreover, the illusion of control when you roll a saving throw helps players feel less put-upon when they get debuffed.

Agreed. As you note, there are significant differences in how the two mechanics are handled:
- Attacks can critically hit, doubling the effect. Saves don't.
- It's relatively easy to gain a high attack roll. Imposing minuses to saves if much harder (bane spell, a few other effects).
- It's relatively easy to gain advantage on attack rolls. Imposing disadvantage on saves is much harder.
- Related, many races/creatures have some form of advantage on saves or specific saves, e.g., vs. poison.
- A 1 on an attack automatically misses, a 20 auto hits. Saves don't have this rule.

By treating the two - attacks and saves - very differently, the rules can significantly tweak the impact of spells. Since I happen to think 5E has gotten the balance just about perfect, I would argue this is a good thing. The benefits of "everything is an attack roll" don't make up for what we would lose in differentiating the two mechanics.

 

[Phazonfish]

The Dexterity save triggered by, say, a fireball measures the character's agility which does imply he or she is doing something that require agility, such as dodging the worst of the flames. I'd prefer that decision be the player's, not the mechanics (or the DM's), even if the end result in most cases is the same.

I'm curious. What else do you see a character do in response to a fireball?

 

[ccs]

I'm not a fan of saving throws because they make an assumption about what the character is doing with no input from the player. I live with it as it is, but I'd be happier if this mechanic were modified or removed for something that had more player input as to how their characters try to avoid or resist the things that trigger saves.

How much more input do I need in order to determine if I'm lucky/quick/tough/etc enough to avoid some already occurring effect?

I mean BEFORE it comes to me making a save I may well do something that provides a modifier. But in the exact moment?
And I cam always describe the results of the save in more detail. But that doesn't change wether I was lucky enough in the 1st place.

 

[iserith]

I'm curious. What else do you see a character do in response to a fireball?

I don't think that's relevant to my larger point that the player should, in my view, be the one to decide that. Not the mechanic. Not the DM.

 

[iserith]

How much more input do I need in order to determine if I'm lucky/quick/tough/etc enough to avoid some already occurring effect?

As much input as any other action a character might take that doesn't involve a saving throw. The character is doing something (whatever that is). In my view, the player gets to say what that is. This is more consistent with the basic conversation of the game as I see it.

I mean BEFORE it comes to me making a save I may well do something that provides a modifier. But in the exact moment?
And I cam always describe the results of the save in more detail. But that doesn't change wether I was lucky enough in the 1st place.

The DM can narrate the results after the save. But what I see happening is the DM describing what the character does which is the domain of the player. Saving throws have that weird effect on the basic conversation of the game. It's not consistent in my view.

Ultimately, I live with it because changing the game would be more of a hassle, but I'd rather there be a mechanic that doesn't assume what the player chooses for his or her character.

 

[Phazonfish]

I don't think that's relevant to my larger point that the player should, in my view, be the one to decide that. Not the mechanic. Not the DM.

Sure, but it doesn't hurt to build a default option into it. The spell doesn't seem to preclude other reactions; you don't NEED to make a dex save, you could cast counterspell.

 

[Bawylie]

Side benefit to saving throws is that they encourage off-turn attention.

Players have to be present and paying attention to the combat, particularly when it isn't their turn, because they might need to roll a saving throw or reduce their HP, etc.

In a turn-based game, some players can become inattentive when it isn't their turn.


-Brad

 

[The Old Crow]

Well, obviously you don't need saving throws in an RPG. 4E got rid of them; the 4E saving throw is a duration tracking mechanic.

That said, they do have a function in 5E. Saving throws are designed to act as "gatekeepers" for crippling status effects. Therefore, they're hard for attackers to manipulate (it's much harder to weaken an enemy's saving throw than it is to strengthen your own attack roll), and creatures that need to be resistant to such effects get abilities like Magic Resistance or Legendary Resistance. Moreover, the illusion of control when you roll a saving throw helps players feel less put-upon when they get debuffed.

I agree. I have always seen saving throws as akin to hp, as something that stands between the character and bad effects (for hp it is the status of being dead), which in earlier editions improved as the character leveled much like hp. Because of that, I have a hard time thinking of or using saves like it was AC.

 

[Charles Rampant]

This seems a solution in search for a problem. What issue, precisely, is being resolved by removing saving throws? It seems like such a profitless thing to do to a system that already has the saving throws built in. I mean, sure, 4e had the defences, and I don't think that I heard bad things about them, so clearly they worked; but so what? That was 4e, a system built differently. You might as well ask, "Why don't we use THAC0?"

In 5e, you either roll attack vs AC, or roll saving throw against DC, which are mostly the same but are treated slightly different, and put the focus on the aggressor and the victim, respectively. Why change that to be solely about the aggressor, and why would that be superior to just leaving it the same, bearing in mind the effort required to rewrite whole chunks of the PHB as a consequence? It seems like the biggest waste of time to me.

 

[robus]

I don't find this to be a very compelling argument. Characters sometimes do things that might require split-second thinking which can require an ability check to resolve. The key part there in my view is that the players are the ones deciding what they are doing. As a save, this would look a lot more like Defy Danger from Dungeon World which I would prefer. "The flames explode outward from the tiny red sphere - what do you do?!" "I hit the deck to avoid the worst of the flames!" "Okay, let's see a Dex save..." versus "The flames explode outward from the tiny red sphere - make a Dex save." Here the DM (and the mechanic) just assumes what the character is doing. Now, I realize that plenty of DMs are just fine with describing what the characters are doing and many players are okay with their DMs doing that, but I'm not. That's overstepping the role of DM in my view.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. A rogue might dive out of the way of a fireball whereas a fighter might raise a shield to blunt the effect. Both might be different types of saves. I do like the idea of letting the players have a say in what they in response to these situations instead of just assuming, as you say.