D&D 4E One thing I miss from 4e...the Saving Throws

[Bawylie]

But the thing is why not have saves against physical/melee attacks then? Why are magical effects dealt with in a separate system? The thing I liked about 4e attacks against defences is that the agent that decides to act always rolls the dice.

The 4e system is elegant idea and the idea of turning saves into ability checks is theoretically a great idea but I have not found it practical or elegant idea (not to mention spells like sleep that bypass the save system entirely). I enjoy 5e but it seems to me that the idea of saving was brought in 100% for legacy/history marketing reasons rather than reasons of elegance.

You mean like, "The Orc attacks you. Make a melee defense save vs DC 15?" Something like that?

I don't know.

Fwiw, tradition is a good reason to keep doing something, IMO. It's not the only consideration, but generally, we did things a certain way for a reason. And often it was a good one.

4e's defense system was cool. I liked playing with it. 5e has put DM adjudication ahead of processes, though, and in that way of doing things, the ability check, saving throw, and attack roll end up as useful methods for resolving player decisions. They're open to more uses, I feel.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My current party has three out of five characters packing a Wisdom of 9. We'll see how that plays out as far as saves go...

 

[Raith5]

You mean like, "The Orc attacks you. Make a melee defense save vs DC 15?" Something like that?

I don't know.

Fwiw, tradition is a good reason to keep doing something, IMO. It's not the only consideration, but generally, we did things a certain way for a reason. And often it was a good one.

4e's defense system was cool. I liked playing with it. 5e has put DM adjudication ahead of processes, though, and in that way of doing things, the ability check, saving throw, and attack roll end up as useful methods for resolving player decisions. They're open to more uses, I feel.

Sorry, my question was somewhat rhetorical. I just meant that I dont understand why D&D has a different systems for melee attacks and spells/spell like effects. I think 4e is the logical extension of just choosing one system and making it apply universally. It was certainly elegant and simple but it railed against the traditions of D&D. I didnt mind as I am not a tradition guy and I appreciated 4e - but I can certainly see that saving throws were a core part of going back to the basics of D&D in the 5e approach.

 

[billd91]

Sorry, my question was somewhat rhetorical. I just meant that I dont understand why D&D has a different systems for melee attacks and spells/spell like effects. I think 4e is the logical extension of just choosing one system and making it apply universally.

The reason D&D had two systems was because the saving throw really wasn't a routine defense like AC. It literally was a roll to save your ass when certain death was on the line. So it was in the hands of the player, not the attacker. And, as far as I'm concerned, it's best staying there.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think that's excellent if the other two have halfway decent wisdom saves. It hopefully means that those 2 players will save against some terrible effect and save the day.

One of the 9 Wis characters is proficiency in Wis saves, and the other is a rogue, so she will eventually become so. The other one is probably going to take Resilient at some point, because having strong will is a part of the character concept (high Cha is currently representing the strong will aspect). Those with decent Wis aren't proficient in it (though one of them is in the same boat as the other--sees the character as strong-willed, and is planning on taking Resilient).

So all in all, this party is going to be a bit low on the Wisdom department. But they're a group of young adventurers throwing themselves into dangerous situations will little encouragement needed... Maybe all adventurers should have their Wisdom capped at 12. I like it though. The game is more interesting if each character has a weakness, and the party itself also has a weakness.

Back on subject, what I've discovered is that a lot of players seem to want 2 good saves, and are willing to give up the third. Hence, Resilient is an extremely popular feat.

 

[Herschel]

The reason D&D had two systems was because the saving throw really wasn't a routine defense like AC. It literally was a roll to save your ass when certain death was on the line. So it was in the hands of the player, not the attacker. And, as far as I'm concerned, it's best staying there.

So an axe coming at the back of your neck from a suddenly flanking or sneak attacking opponent isn't a situation where you need to save your ass when certain death is on the line?

 

[Magil]

From a game flow standpoint, it works better to use saving throws against multi-target spells (or breath weapons). Instead of one person making four sequential rolls and comparing them to four different defense numbers, you would have four people each making one roll and comparing to the same save DC.

The reason D&D had two systems was because the saving throw really wasn't a routine defense like AC. It literally was a roll to save your ass when certain death was on the line. So it was in the hands of the player, not the attacker. And, as far as I'm concerned, it's best staying there.

That would make some sense, but neither of those are exactly how 5E handles saving throws. Consider the humble Sacred Flame, for example, or any number of rather simple or minor effects that are tied to saving throws and affect one creature at a time.

There is also a somewhat clumsy mechanical distinction--you have disadvantage on ranged attack rolls when a hostile creature is within 5 feet, but there is no hindrance to using various ranged spells/abilities that call for a saving throw in the same situation.

 

[mellored]

From a game flow standpoint, it works better to use saving throws against multi-target spells (or breath weapons). Instead of one person making four sequential rolls and comparing them to four different defense numbers, you would have four people each making one roll and comparing to the same save DC.

True, in part.
But if you used a fireball against a group of kobolds, the DM would still be making 4 sequential rolls.
It does shorten the time from a dragon breath attack.


Though my personal opinion is that the players should always roll. You still get the reduced complexity, the better flow of allowing multiple dice at the same time, it keeps players more involved when it's not their turn, and reduces the pressure on the DM who has enough to juggle.

 

[Horwath]

The six save system is a definite weakness of 5E, with the weird dichotomy between common saves and rare saves, but I definitely wouldn't say that 4E did it better. It doesn't make sense that a sickly person can build their immune system by lifting weights without actually overcoming the underlying illness, or that the sessile Mother Brain could dodge a fireball by being very smart. It was just a concession to make their math work.

A better system would be a three-save system which took into account both relevant stats - if your Fortitude save was equal to the sum of your Strength modifier and your Con modifier, and so on. That way, you could stand a decent chance of resisting charm whether you were wise or forceful, but the rare character who was both would be even better.

I completely agree on that.

We should go back to 3 saves;

FORT,REF,WILL

Fort; str bonus + con bonus,
Ref; dex bonus + int bonus,
Will; wis bonus + cha bonus,

Raise all saves DC's by 1 to compensate for double ability to that save.

Make all str and con saves into fort saves,
All dex saves into reflex,
and all int, wis and cha saves into will saves,

give all classes one save proficiency. If they have con prof they get fort save, dex gives them ref save and wis gives them will saves.

 

[Morlock]

I don't think we should expect a balanced RPG to "make sense." Real life is not balanced, and all "attributes" are not of equal utility.