D&D 5E How Complex is D&D Next?

[Li Shenron]

Is it a separate beast? It's just an ability check, and you get to use your proficiency bonus if you are trained in saves of that ability. Which is how all other checks work. The name needs to be there in the same way "arcane check" needs to have that name, to know if you are proficient.

No, it really is a separate beast. If you look at "How To Play" (it's on the second page), you'll see that saving throws are broken out into their own section with no reference to the check rules. If you have something that gives you proficiency on Dexterity checks, it doesn't apply to Dexterity saves.

Neither of you is wrong, really. In a way, checks and saves are similar enough, and become the same thing (a check with ability modifier) for someone non-proficient.

I guess they wanted saving throws to be their own thing because they wanted different characters and monsters to have stronger defense against different effects, beyond the basic ability modifier, but they might have decided that a bonus to all checks with one ability was too much.

Of course, there is also legacy with previous editions to keep in mind. IIRC 4e threw saving throws out of the picture and replaced them with spells attack rolls (or whatever) and that caused serious disappointment from enough people to make them reconsider.

 

[the Jester]

IIRC 4e threw saving throws out of the picture and replaced them with spells attack rolls (or whatever) and that caused serious disappointment from enough people to make them reconsider.

Sort of. The classic "Fort, Ref, Will" were turned into defenses, but saving throws existed too- as a duration mechanism for effects.

A creature might hit you with an effect that left you slowed (save ends). That meant that, at the end of your turn, you roll a d20 to end the effect. It ends on a 10+. Simple and elegant, but not the classic version of saving throws. I really like it, other than the amount of tracking it ends up requiring.

 

[Dausuul]

Is there something that gives you proficiency in all Dexterity checks?

Not in this packet (that I can find), but we've seen such things in previous packets. And there are other cases where the distinction would come up. For example, the rogue's Reliable Talent feature says, "When you make an ability check and add your proficiency bonus to that check, treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10."

By the rules, this feature does not apply to saving throws, and I think it's safe to say that's intentional. It's supposed to ensure your effectiveness as a skill monkey, not make you immune to fireballs*. But that depends on "saving throw" not falling into the category of "ability check." If a save is a type of check, then Reliable Talent works on saves and needs to be rewritten.

I understand it's on a different page...but I am not sure that makes it actually a different thing.

It's different because they don't say "A saving throw is an ability check." Instead they write out all the rules again, from scratch: Roll a d20, add your ability modifier, proficiency if applicable, compare to DC. It's not a check, in the same way that an attack roll with a greatsword is not a Strength check, even though the mechanics are identical.

Worth noting, this is almost entirely an issue with the name. We don't refer to an attack with a greatsword as a "Strength attack," and so I'm not too worried about players distinguishing between "attack roll" and "Strength check." Likewise, if we used the same mechanics as now but applied the 3E saving throw names, I wouldn't be concerned. It's not hard to keep "Dexterity check" and "Reflex save" straight. (Of course, we'd need new names for the other three saves. Might, Cunning, Spirit?)

But "Dexterity check" and "Dexterity save" are going to cause endless confusion. I already spend too much time straightening out the casual players at my table on rules minutiae; I don't need any more.

[SIZE=-2]*Assuming your Dexterity is maxed out. An 11th-level rogue with Dexterity 20 has +5 (Dex) +4 (proficiency) = +9 on Dexterity saves, so would never roll less than 19. A 20th-level wizard with Intelligence 20 and an implement has a spell save DC of 8 + 5 (Int) + 6 (proficiency) = 19. Since the rogue also has Uncanny Dodge, the result is total immunity to damage from any spell that deals half damage on a Dex save.[/SIZE]

 

[Iosue]

It's not that something gives you a bonus to all ability checks but not saves, but rather that there are a number of things that effect saves, but not checks. For example, Barbarian's Furious Resilience, Bard's Countercharm, Bard's Words of Warning, Fighter's Indomitable, Monk's Uncanny Dodge, Monk's Shelter of the Flowing River, Paladin's Aura of Protection, Ranger's Terrain Superiority, and Rogue's Slippery Mind. That's just looking through the Class features. I'm sure there are some spells that do the same.

 

[Mistwell]

Not in this packet (that I can find), but we've seen such things in previous packets. And there are other cases where the distinction would come up. For example, the rogue's Reliable Talent feature says, "When you make an ability check and add your proficiency bonus to that check, treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10."

By the rules, this feature does not apply to saving throws, and I think it's safe to say that's intentional.

Why? I'm not sure it would matter, and I think it would be fine.

It's supposed to ensure your effectiveness as a skill monkey, not make you immune to fireballs*.

It's not "immune to fireballs". And before I continue to explain the difference, which you almost certainly already know, can we start this conversation agreeing to no strawmanning and hyperbole like that?

A Dexterity save vs. a fireball attack is an attempt to REDUCE the damage from DODGING. None of that, in any edition of D&D, implies immunity to a fireball. Now if they have another ability that reduced it further to zero, that's an issue with the other ability (which I think is also a dodging ability, not an immunity). The rogue is already equally skilled at similar dodging. For example, if they make a balance check to dodge falling rocks while climbing, it's not asking if they are immune to falling rocks, it's asking if they effectively dodged them.

But that depends on "saving throw" not falling into the category of "ability check." If a save is a type of check, then Reliable Talent works on saves and needs to be rewritten.

Naw, I think it would be fine for it to apply to saves. They're proficient in Dexterity checks (that's all), so giving them Reliable Talent with Dexterity Saves doesn't seem to change the game much anyway.

It's different because they don't say "A saving throw is an ability check."

Do they say a tool use is an ability check? More importantly, this isn't a rules interpretation argument I am making, it's a "how should they do this in the final rules" argument. And I am arguing they should simply fold saves into checks, because they're already essentially checks.

But "Dexterity check" and "Dexterity save" are going to cause endless confusion. I already spend too much time straightening out the casual players at my table on rules minutiae; I don't need any more.

It won't cause any confusion if they simply change the language to all be a Dexterity Check, or Save if you are proficient in that Save. It's the same language as any other check then.

 

[Dausuul]

It's not "immune to fireballs". And before I continue to explain the difference, which you almost certainly already know, can we start this conversation agreeing to no strawmanning and hyperbole like that?

It's neither a strawman nor hyperbole. If saves are considered checks, then an 11th-level rogue with 20 Dexterity (or a 15th-level rogue with 18 Dexterity, or a 19th-level rogue with 16 Dexterity) is immune to fireballs, unless somehow prevented from making Dex saves. That results from the combination of Uncanny Dodge (which used to be Evasion in previous editions) with Reliable Talent. Neither ability would do this on its own, but together they grant total immunity to damage from spells that inflict half damage on a Dex save.

A Dexterity save vs. a fireball attack is an attempt to REDUCE the damage from DODGING. None of that, in any edition of D&D, implies immunity to a fireball. Now if they have another ability that reduced it further to zero, that's an issue with the other ability (which I think is also a dodging ability, not an immunity). The rogue is already equally skilled at similar dodging. For example, if they make a balance check to dodge falling rocks while climbing, it's not asking if they are immune to falling rocks, it's asking if they effectively dodged them.

Dress it up however you wish. If a save counts as a check, then an 11th-level rogue will never take damage from fireball, or cone of cold, or lightning bolt, or meteor swarm. I'm pretty sure this was not the designers' intent, which is why I feel confident in saying that under the current rules, a saving throw is not considered a check.

Do they say a tool use is an ability check?

Yes. Any time tool use calls for you to roll a d20 and add an ability modifier, it's described as a check. See the healer's kit, poisoner's kit, climber's kit, et cetera.

More importantly, this isn't a rules interpretation argument I am making, it's a "how should they do this in the final rules" argument. And I am arguing they should simply fold saves into checks, because they're already essentially checks.

Then we are in agreement. I would much prefer this approach (and modify Reliable Talent so it doesn't combo off with Uncanny Dodge).