D&D 5E Multiple saves needs to go

[Stalker0]

Believe it or not, this is what 4e actually did, in a few different ways. You had the "poison/disease track," which would have effects that scaled up(/down) depending on how many saves you failed(/succeeded). You also had several powers and monster actions which would only trigger their full, devastating effects if you failed three saves in a row or the like, with each failed save making the problem progressively worse.

E.g. a medusa's Petrifying Gaze: it's an at-will attack, standard action, attacking all creatures within 25 feet, which causes the target to be slowed (save ends); on the first failed save, the target is instead immobilized (save ends); on the third failed save, the target is petrified (no save.) Blinded targets are immune. This is important for three reasons: one, it heightens tension, especially because this is an at-will so it can be used repeatedly; two, it allows the players to do something about it, because they can do things to try to boost their saving throw results; and three, it has a clear means of attempting to avoid it, by accepting blindness, but this specific monster is a medusa archer, and has a melee attack (her snake hair) which reduces Fortitude, making the petrifying gaze more likely to land, so you have to weigh the pros and cons of various approaches to the problem.

Something important to note about 4e for those who never played it. A saving throw in 4e is NOT a saving throw like in any other edition. Its a straight d20 roll, 10+ passes.... aka a near coin flip. While PCs and monsters can have bonuses to these saving throws, most creatures don't.

The "5e like saving throw" in 4e is actually an attack roll. A wizard made a "spell attack" against a creature's "constitution defense". On a hit, the effect went off.

This is one of my pet peeves in 4e, using familiar dnd terminology in a completely different way, so different they don't even mean the same things anymore. They should have just given it a different name, like "Escalation check" or something.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Something important to note about 4e for those who never played it. A saving throw in 4e is NOT a saving throw like in any other edition. Its a straight d20 roll, 10+ passes.... aka a near coin flip. While PCs and monsters can have bonuses to these saving throws, most creatures don't.

The "5e like saving throw" in 4e is actually an attack roll. A wizard made a "spell attack" against a creature's "constitution defense". On a hit, the effect went off.

This is correct. I should have specified, my apologies.

 

[Draegn]

I dislike the three saving throws given regardless of what players do. Saving throws should be rewarded for planning and roleplay. If your players know (GM clues and hints) they are facing a medusa and one just rushes in without a thought, then that player gets the SoS/SoD. If another player plans before and wears a blind fold, has a stone to flesh potion to drink and so forth then that player should get additional saving throws to represent their planning.

 

[Stormonu]

FWIW, here's how we do things with our MOD/ house-rules:

If a spell requires concentration and allows repeated saves (e.g. hold person) each round, choose one or the other:

1. You choose concentration. Saves are not repeated (or auto failed).
2. You choose NOT to concentrate or lose concentration. Saves now repeat.

So, with hold person, the cleric could cast it and choose NOT to concentrate, but then the target gets to save each round to shrug off the effect. If the cleric chooses to concentrate, then the target (after failing the initial save, which is always allowed!) would NOT get to make saves unless the cleric drops concentration.

For something like flesh to stone, if you concentrate, the target WILL become stone after three rounds. However, if you lose concentration, the target begins making saves normally, but with each concentrated round being an auto failure...

Hmmm. This is interesting. I've been bothered by the change to the likes of hold person, being a bit too easy to get out of.

How do you handle monster abilities, especially things like ghoul's paralysis and a medusa's ability? Can they choose to concentrate on the effect somehow?

Does your variant require any sort of action to concentrate? If not, I'm contemplating maybe a bonus action if I try this.

 

[James Gasik]

Something important to note about 4e for those who never played it. A saving throw in 4e is NOT a saving throw like in any other edition. Its a straight d20 roll, 10+ passes.... aka a near coin flip. While PCs and monsters can have bonuses to these saving throws, most creatures don't.

The "5e like saving throw" in 4e is actually an attack roll. A wizard made a "spell attack" against a creature's "constitution defense". On a hit, the effect went off.

This is one of my pet peeves in 4e, using familiar dnd terminology in a completely different way, so different they don't even mean the same things anymore. They should have just given it a different name, like "Escalation check" or something.

That having been said, replacing saving throws with defenses felt better to me. I know it's basically the same thing, but it was more intuitive to explain since now just about everything was "roll d20, add bonuses, match target number".

 

[Maxperson]

Disagree. Save or suck or save or die were not fun to deal with on either side of the screen and multi-saves are one of the better ways to keep concepts like turning to stone in the game.

If it almost never actually happens, it's not really in the game. It's just words on a paper.

 

[Maxperson]

FWIW, here's how we do things with our MOD/ house-rules:

If a spell requires concentration and allows repeated saves (e.g. hold person) each round, choose one or the other:

1. You choose concentration. Saves are not repeated (or auto failed).
2. You choose NOT to concentrate or lose concentration. Saves now repeat.

So, with hold person, the cleric could cast it and choose NOT to concentrate, but then the target gets to save each round to shrug off the effect. If the cleric chooses to concentrate, then the target (after failing the initial save, which is always allowed!) would NOT get to make saves unless the cleric drops concentration.

For something like flesh to stone, if you concentrate, the target WILL become stone after three rounds. However, if you lose concentration, the target begins making saves normally, but with each concentrated round being an auto failure...

That's a really good idea.

 

[Stalker0]

That having been said, replacing saving throws with defenses felt better to me. I know it's basically the same thing, but it was more intuitive to explain since now just about everything was "roll d20, add bonuses, match target number".

Its a situation where the theory and the experience don't match.

From a design theory standpoint, the defense model is superior. Its more consistent, working just like attack rolls do. Its also more efficient in play, as DMs can create little notes with their players defenses, and so instead of having to ask the player to make a save, the player fumbles to find their dice, rolls it, looks up their number, etc etc....the DM can just roll, check the card, and announce the result. Its also faster to roll several attack rolls versus different PCs, vs having to call on multiple PCs to roll. Defenses are superior in terms of a resolution mechanic.

However, if you polled most players when they were taking a nasty spell effect, and asked them if they would rather roll or the DM....I believe the majority would want to roll. Even though mechanically its identical, rolling the dice gives the player a feeling of control and power. That illusion ultimately adds greatly to the user experience, and so I think that's one of the reasons they shifted back to saves in 5e.

 

[Stalker0]

FWIW, here's how we do things with our MOD/ house-rules:

If a spell requires concentration and allows repeated saves (e.g. hold person) each round, choose one or the other:

1. You choose concentration. Saves are not repeated (or auto failed).
2. You choose NOT to concentrate or lose concentration. Saves now repeat.

So, with hold person, the cleric could cast it and choose NOT to concentrate, but then the target gets to save each round to shrug off the effect. If the cleric chooses to concentrate, then the target (after failing the initial save, which is always allowed!) would NOT get to make saves unless the cleric drops concentration.

For something like flesh to stone, if you concentrate, the target WILL become stone after three rounds. However, if you lose concentration, the target begins making saves normally, but with each concentrated round being an auto failure...

This is a cool little idea. I do hate spells that have both a save every round AND concentration, to me thats one of the purposes of concentration. Player A gets hit with nasty spell, the rest of the party tries to disrupt the spell.

 

[teitan]

You use multiple saves?

I haven’t run 5e in a while. I’ve been running Starfinder and DCC for the last two years and I honestly forgot that 5e use ability scores for saves but both types are equally valid in my book but the 3 saves seems more natural to me. Like a strength save couldn’t just be a con save that is just a fort save yeah? Either way it’s some granularity in some areas that is lacking in a three save system or, shudder, single save.