D&D 5E Just Get Rid of "Saving Throws"

[Falling Icicle]

I wish they'd drop the term "saving throw" and just call them what they are - ability checks. It would also mean we could get rid of the things that add bonuses to saves only, which requires extra bookkeeping and can be annoying to remember. I'd much prefer to not have to have separate bonuses from my ability modifiers just because I put on a ring of protection, for example. If something makes my character stronger or smarter, it should just make him stronger or smarter, not just in the narrow circumstances that call for a saving throw.

As for spells that allow saving throws, I think the best solution is to make them opposed checks. If it's not too complicated for someone to make an opposed roll for grappling and disarming, then why is it too complicated for spells like charm person? This is IMO the best way to please both the 4e attack vs. defenses crowd and the saving throw crowd. Both the attacker and defender get to roll. Everyone wins! I think it would also make spellcasters more fun to play. I like being able to roll when I cast a spell, rather than just sitting there while my DM tells me what happens.

 

[the Jester]

If we get rid of the term "saving throw", then we can't easily have abilities, spells and items that give you a bonus to saves but no bonus to other checks. For that reason alone, I think we should keep the term.

 

[Warbringer]

I like. Simple enough to say a magic item grants advantage to an ability check vs magic, though "Both the attacker and defender get to roll", not for me (too swingy)

 

[Jester David]

If we get rid of the term "saving throw", then we can't easily have abilities, spells and items that give you a bonus to saves but no bonus to other checks. For that reason alone, I think we should keep the term.

This.

As for spells that allow saving throws, I think the best solution is to make them opposed checks. If it's not too complicated for someone to make an opposed roll for grappling and disarming, then why is it too complicated for spells like charm person? This is IMO the best way to please both the 4e attack vs. defenses crowd and the saving throw crowd. Both the attacker and defender get to roll. Everyone wins! I think it would also make spellcasters more fun to play. I like being able to roll when I cast a spell, rather than just sitting there while my DM tells me what happens.

This doubles the number of rolls for casting every spell.

It's such a huge change just to pander to the fraction of the 4e crowd that's really into static defences.

 

[Rune]

I'd go one step further and take one step back. Characters would make relevant ability checks in saving throw situations and they can add a relevant skill die, as well! As for spells that have DCs, this would actually help balance out the saving throw DC/magic attack disparity that we currently have at higher levels.

No need for opposed rolls--that's just an extra roll for no reason.

If you really want your magic items to distinguish between ability checks used as saves and all ability checks, each item granting a bonus can specify that it only applies to triggered ability checks.

 

[Matthias]

I would rather see characters have a "defense" score, against which a caster or other attacking effect has to roll for successfully affecting a target.

Instead of Fort save, you have a Constitution Defense: 10 + target's total Con Defense bonus + Con modifier.

There would be six Defense scores, one for each ability. Each class grants a progressive bonus to each Defense score.

I feel that no matter the situation, the instigator should have a die roll to make. The target/defender/reactor may have a roll to make also, but not necessarily.

 

[Zaukrie]

I vastly prefer 4e defenses. Vastly. I do not think it will be that simple though.

 

[bogmad]

I would rather see characters have a "defense" score, against which a caster or other attacking effect has to roll for successfully affecting a target.

Instead of Fort save, you have a Constitution Defense: 10 + target's total Con Defense bonus + Con modifier.

There would be six Defense scores, one for each ability. Each class grants a progressive bonus to each Defense score.

If we're going to have "defense scores" I'd rather just have it be versus the ability score itself. No reason it couldn't work within a bounded accuracy system. It's simpler, and hey it actually makes having an odd numbered ability score somewhat useful!

 

[drothgery]

This doubles the number of rolls for casting every spell.

Which is why opposed roles are bad, even if saving throws over static defenses is silly (and on the list of 4e-isms certain to reappear in 6e); it makes no sense for attackers to role for weapons but defenders to roll for magic (and throwing the oddball spell that's an attack roll just makes things confusing).

 

[Jester David]

Which is why opposed roles are bad, even if saving throws over static defenses is silly (and on the list of 4e-isms certain to reappear in 6e); it makes no sense for attackers to role for weapons but defenders to roll for magic (and throwing the oddball spell that's an attack roll just makes things confusing).

"Bad" is such a needless judgement. Static defences versus rolls is a matter of preference.

And we're not talking about magic versus mundane. It's active party versus passive party. If the wizard is aiming with a ray or wand they're active. They're aiming and positioning their shot. If they're lobbing a fireball then they're not active beyond roughly aiming at a square. The active party is the victims who are dodging away.
It's the difference between firing a gun and lobbing a grenade.

If a troop of archers fires a volley of arrows at a target that's also an AoE. They're not aiming. The active party is the defender cowering under a shield or diving to the side. If a barrel of oil explodes it's not attacking, people are dodging. If a pit trap opens under somoene's feet, they're sidestepping to avoid it. And if a fighter throws a Molotov cocktail they're aiming in a rough area and the target is the one avoiding the fire.

The above also demonstrates is the problem with 4e's defences: no avoidance mechanic. So we get things like attacking pit traps and using saving throws - a duration tracker in that edition - to avoid forced movement off cliffs.