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

[iserith]

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.

"Attack roll" is English, obviously, but it sounds like a game term to me. And thus the game can define that term however it likes. Obviously, D&D 5e doesn't use attack rolls for traps, but I don't think it's unreasonable to use the attack roll mechanic to resolve whether a trap affects a target by hitting its target number, nor do I find it unreasonable to call it an "attack roll." To me, if there's anything silly about it, it's getting hung up on what it's called.

 

[billd91]

Well, obviously you don't need saving throws in an RPG. 4E got rid of them;...

Yes, same with Star Wars Saga Edition where they introduced the change as 4e's test bed. And, frankly, the change sucked compared to saving throws - more obviously in SWSE than in 4e. Shifting to a static defense took away the ability of a player to burn a Force point to boost his save and save his own ass (and same with burning a Hero point in 3e). Shifting to a static defense in 5e would trash the ability to burn inspiration and gain advantage on the save when the player feels he needs it.

 

[Jester David]

Obviously, D&D 5e doesn't use attack rolls for traps, but I don't think it's unreasonable to use the attack roll mechanic to resolve whether a trap affects a target by hitting its target number, nor do I find it unreasonable to call it an "attack roll." To me, if there's anything silly about it, it's getting hung up on what it's called.

That's nice for you. I do get hung up. When game terms are unintuitive it takes me out of the narrative and forces me into a seat at a gaming table. It's weird and awkward.

I'm happy with either a mix of avoidance (saving throws, dodge rolls, evades) and attack rolls. I'm equally happy with game systems that just have one side making all the rolls. (I also like the added benefit that you can crit on both attacks and defence.)

Just attacks is weird because it makes the inactive party (i.e. pits, zones of fire, beams of light, etc) into the active party.

I'd also argue the reverse. Would you want a system that is just saving throws? Characters have a set attack bonus and people roll to dodge everything? Monsters dodge your attack, you dodge theirs. It's just as simple as "everyone attacks" but without attacking holes in the ground...

 

[iserith]

I'd also argue the reverse. Would you want a system that is just saving throws? Characters have a set attack bonus and people roll to dodge everything? Monsters dodge your attack, you dodge theirs. It's just as simple as "everyone attacks" but without attacking holes in the ground...

I'd have no issue with this, provided the player has input as to what the character is doing to avoid the attack and this influences the adjudication. My issue is not with what you call a thing, but how much control a player has over what his or her character tries to do.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This would make a party of blast-mages unstoppable! Sure the enemies get to save against the first fireball...they're screwed against the next four...

Lan-"we both cast charm, and if you don't get him it's guaranteed I will"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

It does really. I am not aware of any rules that allow for a player to choose to fail a save either. (Please let me know if there are some.) A DM could make a ruling along those lines, of course.

Also, you talk about rolling giving a "sense" of agency. What I'm referring to, with regard to a player declaring his or her character's response to a spell or other effect that would call for a saving throw, and that declaration having an impact on the adjudication, is real agency, not just a sense of it.

By your own rationale a choice to voluntarily fail a save would be fine regardless of what the rules might say.

Fireball hits the party. Reactions:

Fighter: "I hunker down and hold up my shield!"
Thief: "I dive for the statue and take cover behind it!"
Wizard: "I hit the deck, put my arms over my head, and hope for the best!"
Cleric: "As a priest of Pyrate, Goddess of Fire, I stand and welcome Her blessing with open arms!"

That Cleric just voluntarily failed.

Lanefan

 

[Croesus]

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.

Do you also propose that AC be a reaction? For example, limiting how often you can use your Dex to modify your AC in a turn? Or should we have "unlimited" defenses against regular attacks, but limited against magical?

On the one hand, limiting defenses of all types would change gameplay, making hordes more dangerous, which may be what you want. But doing this would have so many ripple effects, it would essentially be a new system. Since I like the current system, and simply don't see a big issue with unlimited saves, I wouldn't use such a rebuild. YMMV.

 

[iserith]

By your own rationale a choice to voluntarily fail a save would be fine regardless of what the rules might say.

Yes, of course. But we're talking about the rules here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you also propose that AC be a reaction? For example, limiting how often you can use your Dex to modify your AC in a turn?

IIRC, there was an obscure rule that your DEX adj to AC only applied to one attack/round, and that your shield bonus only applied to attacks from front/flank and only to 1, 2, or 3 such attacks/round based on the size of the shield.

Because D&D was simpler back in the olden days. ;P

Or should we have "unlimited" defenses against regular attacks, but limited against magical?

Or the reverse - everyone/thing naturally resists magic, because it's unnatural, but you have to actually try to get your shield up in time or, that ax will hit you in the face, naturally.

 

[Croesus]

IIRC, there was an obscure rule that your DEX adj to AC only applied to one attack/round, and that your shield bonus only applied to attacks from front/flank and only to 1, 2, or 3 such attacks/round based on the size of the shield.

Because D&D was simpler back in the olden days. ;P

Yep, those were the days.

Nowadays, I much prefer simpler rules with fewer exceptions. Probably has something to do with being an old fart.