D&D (2024) 5e spell saves versus 4e spell attacks

[Yaarel]

I find "saving throws" versus spells less fun.

It should matter whether my Wizard character casts a spell well or not, just like it matters whether a Fighter character swings a sword well or not.

I want the same kind of agency. I want to roll a d20 attack for every spell. I want to get a "crit" and "Inspiration" if I happen to roll a natural 20. Why deny so many players out of this kind of fun?

Bring back the 4e non-armor defenses. My spells should attack against an ability of the creature directly.



In fact, "Passive Perception" is already a non-armor defense for Wisdom.

Every ability can have a Passive number that a spell attack roll needs to overcome.



Ironically, some players want agency when a monster casts a spell against them, thus crave having a chance to roll a d20 saving throw.

What if? A player character always rolls a saving throw versus a spell. But a monster NPC never does.

Then spellcaster players can have the d20 agency versus the Passive ability. And the player characters that are targeted by a spell can roll their d20 saving throw instead.



In any case, I want all my spells to roll d20s.

 

[aco175]

I let my players roll the save for the monsters so that they still get to roll dice each turn. I did like 4e in that all the powers were some sort of player attack.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There was an old UA about making players roll all dice, might want to look that up, at least the part about saving throws. Then you'd just have to decide if you want 6 NADs or go back to the 3 NADs of 3e and 4e.

Or you may want to treat the Ability Score + Prof as the NADs, so rolling Entangle with d20+Power+prof (aka casting stat) vs an Ogre would require to beat a Strength Defense of 21 or they'd be Restrained (save ends). If a creature enters the zone for the duration, you can use your reaction to make another spell attack roll against it etc.

It makes it easier to target the weakest defense of a monster...if you have the right spell, putting an extra layer of preparation for you spells. Ongoing effect would either stay as is ''saving throws using a precise stat'' or go back to 4e's flat d20.

It could be fun, IMO.

 

[billd91]

Nah, I'd rather have a PC be able to affect their defenses by spending things like Inspiration and other things to get advantage on their saves when they feel they need it than have a static defense.

 

[Gorck]

I find "saving throws" versus spells less fun.

It should matter whether my Wizard character casts a spell well or not, just like it matters whether a Fighter character swings a sword well or not.

I want the same kind of agency. I want to roll a d20 attack for every spell. I want to get a "crit" and "Inspiration" if I happen to roll a natural 20. Why deny so many players out of this kind of fun?

Bring back the 4e non-armor defenses. My spells should attack against an ability of the creature directly.

Interesting angle here. Making an attack roll is a pass/fail result. Forcing a target to make a saving throw, with the exception of "save or suck" spells, is basically the caster automatically succeeding with a question of "is it full damage (and possible a rider effect) or is it only half damage (with no rider effect)?" But I get where you're coming from. The most alluring draw of D&D for me is the prospect of rolling dice. I don't even use those online dice rollers, because it takes all the fun out it for me.

Ironically, some players want agency when a monster casts a spell against them, thus crave having a chance to roll a d20 saving throw.

You could houserule it where, if the target rolls a Natural 1 on the saving throw, the caster gets Inspiration (as if they'd rolled a Natural 20 on a Spell Attack).

 

[Undrave]

Bring back the 4e non-armor defenses. My spells should attack against an ability of the creature directly.

One of the biggest advantages of the 4e NAD system is that it made support classes WAY easier to write. If a class hands out a +2 to attack, it can help ANY other class, regardless of if they are martial or casters. You don’t have to write a whole paragraph explaining that it can give a bonus to attacks, but also a bonus to your Saving Throw DC and who gets to pick which is it (plus, bonus to saving throw DCs don’t make a lot of sense to me, fictionally speaking).

Another advantage is that it opens up non-AC targeting attacks for your martial guys. I think the 4e Rogue had an at-will that gave up the modifier bonus damage to the attack in exchange for targeting REF and the Fighter often had moves that attacked FORT.

NADs were a good step forward for the game but were discarded because “EW! 4e cooties!”

 

[Baron Opal II]

I find "saving throws" versus spells less fun.

It should matter whether my Wizard character casts a spell well or not, just like it matters whether a Fighter character swings a sword well or not.

I want the same kind of agency. I want to roll a d20 attack for every spell. I want to get a "crit" and "Inspiration" if I happen to roll a natural 20. Why deny so many players out of this kind of fun?

Because whenever I bring it up, my players respond with a decisive "No!"

Although I have to say, "agency" is a strange stance to be allowed to roll for failure. But, I can appreciate having more of a player-facing roll rather than just saving throws to mitigate spell effects.

 

[the Jester]

In any case, I want all my spells to roll d20s.

I understand where you're coming from, but as a DM, I like to roll dice too.

 

[Stalker0]

When a player is about to get stunned or petrified or XYZ, and I asked them if they would rather roll the dice or the dm…a good majority would want to roll. Even if the math is exactly the same, rolling puts your fate “in your hands”.

Players don’t want to give that up, which is why I think the 4e model ultimately failed.

 

[tetrasodium]

Touch attacks were a thing too.