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

[Bawylie]

Action declaration & initiative 'RAW?' I'm not sure I even remember it, there were so many variations, back then.

...

But, AFAICR, none of that had anything to do with saves. You were only denied saves when there was no save, anyway (XX poison, Otto's Irresistible Dance, cursed magic items, etc) or the DM otherwise felt like it.

Like I said, there was a lot of variance.

But as I recall, you weren't denied a save, it just only came into play as a dead last resort because you were too slow or stupid to avoid what was coming.

Although I think sometimes circumstantially they happened too. Round a corner, there's a medusa, oh crap make a save. But commonly it came up in combat situations.



-Brad

 

[Tony Vargas]

But as I recall, you weren't denied a save, it just only came into play as a dead last resort because you were too slow or stupid to avoid what was coming.

If you've embarked upon an adventuring career, the "don't be stupid" ship has already sailed...

I think I see what you're saying, though: The origin of the saving throw may have been as a final chance when you were just hosed by the series of events. Whether because EGG thought having a spell cast at you meant you were just hosed, or whether he adapted the mechanic, it became a basic success-test for a wide range of attacks.

 

[Bawylie]

If you've embarked upon an adventuring career, the "don't be stupid" ship has already sailed...

I think I see what you're saying, though: The origin of the saving throw may have been as a final chance when you were just hosed by the series of events. Whether because EGG thought having a spell cast at you meant you were just hosed, or whether he adapted the mechanic, it became a basic success-test for a wide range of attacks.

I think that happened at some tables yeah. Saving throws attached to certain spells. And then in 3rd ed, Saving throws were how like every spell got resolved. And interruption took a bit of a backseat.

But saves weren't just attached to spells and then other stuff. Saves were traditionally your last throw at not getting whumped. And your own decisions were your 1st line of defense.

But look. I was a kid. And not a DM at the time. So filter all that as appropriate.


-Brad

 

[Tony Vargas]

But saves weren't just attached to spells and then other stuff. Saves were traditionally your last throw at not getting whumped. And your own decisions were your 1st line of defense. But look. I was a kid. And not a DM at the time. So filter all that as appropriate.

It sounds like the ethos of 'Gygaxian skilled play,' the idea that the player was supposed to learn/develop strategies and skills to overcome the challenges presented by the dungeon, rather than character growth & ability being limited to the character, itself. Once you figured out that trolls are hurt by fire, and to look out for Gelatinous Cubes and so forth, all your characters going forward would be alert for those dangers, because you, the player, have acquired to skill to play them that way.

You still hear echos of it today - "I would never TPK my party, well, unless they did something stupid..."


5e lends itself to that style more than 4e or 3.x did.

 

[Bawylie]

It sounds like the ethos of 'Gygaxian skilled play,' the idea that the player was supposed to learn/develop strategies and skills to overcome the challenges presented by the dungeon, rather than character growth & ability being limited to the character, itself. Once you figured out that trolls are hurt by fire, and to look out for Gelatinous Cubes and so forth, all your characters going forward would be alert for those dangers, because you, the player, have acquired to skill to play them that way.

You still hear echos of it today - "I would never TPK my party, well, unless they did something stupid..."


5e lends itself to that style more than 4e or 3.x did.

I think when we talk about style, we aren't always on the same page.

For instance, 5E has a basic conversation and a task resolution mechanic. 4E had a uniform chassis built of 3rd's uniform rules-as-physics system.

It's all weird, and poorly defined. I think the blurred lines come from how we talk about use of the rules, but I'm not convinced that's "style."

Rules 1st?
System 1st?
Rulings, then rules?
Actions, costs, consequences?

It's never been consistent. But what we used to do informs what we do now. So it's all a hodge podge. And style ends up meaning "I do this because that's how I learned it" instead of "I do this intentionally to produce this result" or "this manner of play is actually different from that manner of play" (and it never is).

Ugh. Never mind.

(In which Brad rants about the concept of style)


-Brad

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think when we talk about style, we aren't always on the same page.

... style ends up meaning "I do this because that's how I learned it" instead of "I do this intentionally to produce this result" or "this manner of play is actually different from that manner of play" (and it never is).

Ugh. Never mind.

(In which Brad rants about the concept of style)


-Brad

Yeah, OK, 'style' did become fraught in the course of the edition war.

But, Gygaxian skilled play was (and is, under various names, like CaW, arguably) a thing. From my perspective (I tend to focus on mechanics), the foible that matters to whether a game lends itself to that - approach play - over others is whether resolution is based mainly on the character's abilities, or mainly on the players. For player skill to matter, it has to impact or even determine, resolution. 5e has a place for that, in the core resolution mechanics, because calling for a roll is at the DM's option. That is, a skilled player can declare actions in ways that are more likely to get a narrated success rather than a failure or a check.

 

[Bawylie]

Yeah, OK, 'style' did become fraught in the course of the edition war.

But, Gygaxian skilled play was (and is, under various names, like CaW, arguably) a thing. From my perspective (I tend to focus on mechanics), the foible that matters to whether a game lends itself to that - approach play - over others is whether resolution is based mainly on the character's abilities, or mainly on the players. For player skill to matter, it has to impact or even determine, resolution. 5e has a place for that, in the core resolution mechanics, because calling for a roll is at the DM's option. That is, a skilled player can declare actions in ways that are more likely to get a narrated success rather than a failure or a check.

Alright.

But has that character vs player skill question fallen into their versus trap?

Like obviously these things are necessarily harmonious. The character doesn't exist and can't learn or male decisions. It's a UI for you. But you can't sword fight, romance dragons, or throw bolts of lightning. So the character does.

And player skill is every bit as important as character skill pretty much all the time.

Circling that back around to saves though. The question "what's the point of them, since I don't decide anything?" is pretty good. While most of the game involves some combination of decision and mechanical resolution, saving throws don't. And it might be interesting if they used your reaction.

Of course that would affect your approach to spell casting and enemy spell casters.

"That guy used his reaction already, charm him!"

"If we're not careful we're gonna get fireballed."

Hm. But then you'd also want some kind of caster-rolls dealy in place.

Rolls and decisions for everyone.


-Brad

 

[Tony Vargas]

But has that character vs player skill question fallen into their versus trap?

??

Like obviously these things are necessarily harmonious. The character doesn't exist and can't learn or make decisions. It's a UI for you. But you can't sword fight, romance dragons*, or throw bolts of lightning. So the character does.

There's a lot of things a PC might do better or worse than his player, as well as things the player can't do at all. The 18 CHA character can give a much better speech than the average nerd. The military veteran will have a firmer grasp of tactics. The thief know his way around the underworld, etc. The ranger & barbarian how to survive in the wild.

So, really, they're often at odds. Further, they're complicated by different levels of knowledge/ability/perceptions between the DM and player. A player may declare an action that he believes is a solid tactical move, the DM may decide it's 'stupid' and have it fail with dire consequences - one of them may have played a little Call of Duty, the other may not like to talk about his years in Seal Team 6 - and which one is which doesn't matter to the example.

And player skill is every bit as important as character skill pretty much all the time.

Player skill is fine, it's skill with the game, it's 'meta' - it shouldn't, IMHO, be substituting for the abilities of the character. If you're playing the Riddlemaster of Hed, you should be able to solve riddles, regardless of how good you are at solving the riddles your DM comes up with...

Circling that back around to saves though. The question "what's the point of them, since I don't decide anything?" is pretty good. While most of the game involves some combination of decision and mechanical resolution, saving throws don't.

Saves involve the same decision as attacks: Someone decides to use an offensive ability. Decision made. And there's a similar mechanical resolution: a d20 is rolled vs a DC, damage or other effects are applied.

And it might be interesting if they used your reaction.

Sure, it's not like there's any demand on your reaction from other abilities, certainly not to the extent that they fratricide eachother regularly...
...or like it would leave you defenseless against the Beholder's next 9 eye-beams or anything.

:|

Of course that would affect your approach to spell casting and enemy spell casters.

It would be a pretty substantial power-up, and a corresponding nerf to everything else that used a reaction.

"That guy used his reaction already, charm him!"

"If we're not careful we're gonna get fireballed."

A pair of cooperating casters would be a true horror.



















* for lack of dragons, if nothing else.

 

[Bawylie]

??

There's a lot of things a PC might do better or worse than his player, as well as things the player can't do at all. The 18 CHA character can give a much better speech than the average nerd. The military veteran will have a firmer grasp of tactics. The thief know his way around the underworld, etc. The ranger & barbarian how to survive in the wild.

So, really, they're often at odds. Further, they're complicated by different levels of knowledge/ability/perceptions between the DM and player. A player may declare an action that he believes is a solid tactical move, the DM may decide it's 'stupid' and have it fail with dire consequences - one of them may have played a little Call of Duty, the other may not like to talk about his years in Seal Team 6 - and which one is which doesn't matter to the example.

Player skill is fine, it's skill with the game, it's 'meta' - it shouldn't, IMHO, be substituting for the abilities of the character. If you're playing the Riddlemaster of Hed, you should be able to solve riddles, regardless of how good you are at solving the riddles your DM comes up with...

Saves involve the same decision as attacks: Someone decides to use an offensive ability. Decision made. And there's a similar mechanical resolution: a d20 is rolled vs a DC, damage or other effects are applied.

Sure, it's not like there's any demand on your reaction from other abilities, certainly not to the extent that they fratricide eachother regularly...
...or like it would leave you defenseless against the Beholder's next 9 eye-beams or anything.

:|

It would be a pretty substantial power-up, and a corresponding nerf to everything else that used a reaction.

A pair of cooperating casters would be a true horror.



















* for lack of dragons, if nothing else.

I don't see these are at odds.

Let's say my character has 18 charisma. And I, irl, have merely 26. Numerically, perhaps I am better at talking good than my character counterpart.

But here's how player and character skill work together: when presented with a scenario wherein persuasion or speechifying is an appropriate course of action to achieve some goal, I (as player) decide, "Ok, I'm gonna romance the dragon." Now I can say whatever I think my character might say in service of that romance. "You're so scaly and red, super hot, can I get dem digits?" Those words color, but do not determine, the ultimate outcome of my action. Only the ability check itself does.

So it goes down that I attempt to compliment the dragon with the intent of entering into some romantic entanglement with it. The DM determines whether or not this is possible (maybe the dragon is into inter-species dysmorphia, idk, its not my place to judge) and sets an appropriate DC. I succeed or fail based on my cha check.

Harmony. Player decides what to do and how to do it, the success of the action is determined by qualities the character possesses. And I fly off into the sunset with my new dragon lover.


-Brad

 

[Tony Vargas]

Harmony. Player decides what to do and how to do it, the success of the action is determined by qualities the character possesses. And I fly off into the sunset with my new dragon lover.

Gotta love a happy ending.