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

[Willie the Duck]

Fundamentally, attack vs save is one of those legacy things I can't really defend. They changed it in 4e, and likely changed it back mostly in keeping with the recapture the feel of old D&D whenever possible. Fundamentally, for consistency and ease of design, it seems like it makes sense* for either defender or attacker to consistently be the person to roll.
*exception: having them be different allows you the opportunity to make an effect benefit only to-hits and not save-vs, if you actually want something to only benefit some things.

If the goal is a sense (not reality, but sense) of control, I get whey players might like to be the ones rolling (that said, I've played a lot of Symbaroum, which does this, and did not find that it changed the play experience significantly). It means the DM can't fudge rolls*. Tangentially, it also means that if the non-PCs have any limited use re-roll effects or the like, the DM has to declare them in front of the PCs, which might have actual tactical impact.
*which... I don't really recommend most of the time, but can recognize some situations where it might have merit (if someone's 7-year-old wants to play along with the adults, and you want to pull your punches but don't want to tell them that you're pulling your punches)

 

[shadowoflameth]

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.

I think it makes sense for some spells to have attack rolls. You could miss with a Ray of Frost or a Greenflame Blade, but a Fireball covers a wide area. Save mechanics give a different defense against those effects. If a spell has both it's because the effect is especially potent and if it has neither as with Magic Missile, that lends more value to the spell.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t think this is a change that’s on the table for 1D&D. But it’s pretty easy to house rule. Having the caster make a spell attack against a DC of 14 + the relevant ability mod (+ proficiency bonus if the target is proficient with saves with the targeted ability) has exactly the same odds as the target making a save with the same ability against the caster’s spell save DC. You can use this to convert spells that force saves into attacks against NADs, or to convert attack rolls into saves if you want to do a players always roll variant.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I also think that there is something assuaging about rolling a saving throw. It feels like something you can do to mitigate a bad effect that you otherwise have no control over.

Feels. It's all feels.

 

[GMMichael]

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.

The maths aren't exactly the same, if 5e follows 3.5e as closely as I think it does. Armor classes start with a base assumption of attackers doing damage 55% of the time, while saving throws assume a caster succeeds 40% of the time. That imbalance becomes evident when casters start rolling.

It boils down to the DM not getting to say that a spell kills a PC without the PC getting to roll something. Sadly, that's left over from a time when spells were deadly.

 

[Stalker0]

The maths aren't exactly the same, if 5e follows 3.5e as closely as I think it does.

well of course you would need to do some adjustments if you switched your system. The point was simply that, all success rates being equal, players would rather roll their saves rather than the enemy wizard making an attack against them.

 

[tetrasodium]

well of course you would need to do some adjustments if you switched your system. The point was simply that, all success rates being equal, players would rather roll their saves rather than the enemy wizard making an attack against them.

That's fine but when players roll saves that are probably going to be successful against spells that more often than not probably won't matter much there are two changes that compound in a problematic way on that roll.

 

[FireLance]

The proposal is: PCs make attack rolls when they cast their spells. PCs make saving throws when spells are cast against them. The Jester got the right idea.

Players get to feel that the success or failure of the spells they cast are in their hands. Area spells can still do damage on a "miss". It is just terminology. Players also get to feel that whether or not they resist an effect is in their hands. However, the DM gets to roll less dice.

The real implication is how it interacts with the Inspiration rules. Spellcasters with area attacks will now have more chances to gain Inspiration. Spellcasters can also spend Inspiration to make it more likely that their spells will have a greater effect against key opponents. If you don't want this (poor martials. Again), you will need another house rule.

 

[Vael]

If OneDnD does go through with no crits for spells, then I'd almost rather go the other way, as a spellcaster I want to make all my spells target saving throws.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I like the system as is. I would just like to see it used a bit better, with fewer unnecessarily save based spells, as while they have their place they're generally less fun. The saving throw system should be used for when the spell either A) is an area of effect, B) still does something if they save, C) has an ongoing effect the target can escape from, of D) really plays to some particular ability score as defense.

There are a few spells, Sacred Flame comes to mind, where I really don't see any reason they should be save based (really that probably applies to most single target dex-save spells). And when a spell might just as well be attack roll based they should default to being attack roll based.