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

[Dausuul]

How did 4E handle throwing a Fireball (or the equivalent) at four targets? Did the attacker make one attack roll and compare it against all four defenses, so one good roll would hit everyone and the Cleric would never avoid an explosion that hit the Rogue? Or did the attacker make four different attack rolls?

Four different rolls.

One of the benefits of the Saving Throw is that it distributes the rolling among multiple players, who only need to know their own bonus, instead of the attacker comparing against four different numbers that they don't know.

That is true, and it did get on my nerves a bit in 4E. Generally speaking, you only have one attacker at a time, but you may have multiple defenders. It's thus more efficient to distribute the dice-rolling among the defenders than it is to make the attacker do all of it.

 

[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

Ideally though, the game is interesting enough not to rely on this, but...


-Brad

 

[dave2008]

I'm not sure how that would interact with the rest of the game. Probably badly. I know all the PCs with shield would hate it!

Yes, I am aware it is not a simple house rule. I was pondering it more for a ground up re-build. I like the simplicity of action, bonus action, & reaction. However, in reality 5e allows multiple "saving throw actions" or "ability check actions." Right now those are free actions (check sometimes have a cost); however, in general I assume the character is actually doing something to achieve the check or save, so I feel it should have a cost. iI was interested in the idea of set number of actions that can be spent on different things. Something like, you get:

Action: a standard action used on your turn
Minor Action: an action that takes less time or effort than a standard action
Bonus Action: a minor action you spend on your turn
Reaction: a minor action you spend off-turn
Saving Throw: an action or minor action used to mitigate an attack or effect. Usually a reaction.
Check: an action or minor action used to adjudicate the outcomes of uncertain events.

A character gets one action and two minor actions per round.

Thus you could use a reaction, and a saving throw, but not two saving throws and/ or a bonus action in the same round. It might be possible to say an action = 2 minor actions and provide even more flexibility.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Thus you could use a reaction, and a saving throw, but not two saving throws and/ or a bonus action in the same round. It might be possible to say an action = 2 minor actions and provide even more flexibility.

In games that already limit your ability to defend yourself, such as GURPS and Dark Heresy, it quickly becomes apparent that focus-fire is even more of a thing than in games with unlimited defenses.

Plus, it may not be fun when the lich Disintegrates the rogue, and the rogue doesn't even have a chance to dodge since they've already dodged two other attacks that round. It would make beholders way scarier, though.

 

[Jester David]

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.

Because it's ridiculous to have a stationary object like a pit trap making an attack roll?

 

[dave2008]

In games that already limit your ability to defend yourself, such as GURPS and Dark Heresy, it quickly becomes apparent that focus-fire is even more of a thing than in games with unlimited defenses.

Plus, it may not be fun when the lich Disintegrates the rogue, and the rogue doesn't even have a chance to dodge since they've already dodged two other attacks that round. It would make beholders way scarier, though.

Yes, like I said it is more a ground-up rebuild idea than a drop-in house rule. I just don't like the feel of unlimited defenses.

 

[iserith]

Because it's ridiculous to have a stationary object like a pit trap making an attack roll?

That depends on how you think of "attack roll." If you think it means a thing must physically attack you, then yeah, it would be silly in some cases. If you think it means a mechanic that resolves whether a particular effect occurs, then it's not silly at all.

 

[Jester David]

That depends on how you think of "attack roll." If you think it means a thing must physically attack you, then yeah, it would be silly in some cases. If you think it means a mechanic that resolves whether a particular effect occurs, then it's not silly at all.

5e uses plain English. I this case, "attack" is an intransitive verb. It literally doesn't contain an object:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intransitive
You literally have to change the definition of the word to give it a new meaning unique to the game. So, yes, that's silly.

If you want to dump saving throws, that's fine. But at least change the verbage from "attack" as well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But at least change the verbage from "attack" as well.

A term that covers saving the PC from the detrimental affect? I think the term most people would immediately understand is "saving throw"

 

[Jester David]

A term that covers saving the PC from the detrimental affect? I think the term most people would immediately understand is "saving throw"

Well, the term has its own wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_throw
So while it was awkward 40 years ago, it's slightly more familiar now.