D&D 5E Removing save-each-turn mechanic

[Skyscraper]

I'm still toying with spellcasting houserules - per a few other threads I posted here, the feedback of which having been, honestly, quite simply great.

As part of a few houserules that I'm considering (you can see my variant spellcasting thread if you want details), I was initially thinking about increasing the spellpower of spells that allow a save when the spell is cast plus a save at the end of each turn, to instead allow only a save when the spell is cast plus a single save at the end of the target's first turn (item #6 in that other thread).

I'm now considering another alternate rule instead: to allow a single save when the spell is cast, period, in the old-school style. But to bump up all those spells of one level. So Hold Person would become a third level spell.

I'm continuing to think about the the save-each-round mechanic and wish to engage this community in this thought process, for those that wish to discuss this.

The save-each-round rule of course makes plenty of sense and I won't argue that a player might find a battle boring if his PC is paralysed for the entirey battle. I played a lot of AD&D, 3.5 D&D, 4E D&D, a bit of 5E, and a lot of DDM (D&D miniatures tabletop strategy that uses the save-each-round mechanic) - plus other systems including retroclones and the like. So I'm familiar with both styles of play, i.e. save-each-round and save-or-suck.

What I like about save-or-suck, is that spellcasting really matters. I understand that this can be seen as relatively downgrading non-caster PCs, but I don't see it that way at all - I like the challenge . I understand that many players don't like that playstyle, and I respect that. Like, totally.

Concerning the of course valid point of players finding it boring to stand around while their PC is paralysed, I'll mention that (1) NPC casters and monsters that can paralyse are not necessarily frequent in my low-ish magic homebrew setting; and (2) players should consider having Lesser Restauration, Dispel Magic or the like prepared to counter this eventuality. It's likely that most PCs will not remain paralysed if players indeed opt to have counterspells prepared (in the large sense of "counterspell").

What are the thoughts of this community about the rule of allowing a single save when the spell is cast, old-school style; and to bump up all those spells of one level? In particular, do you find that those spells would be relatively balanced compared to other spells of their new level?

For reference, @Wolf118 digged up a non-exhaustive, but useful, list of spells that use the save-each-round mechanic, in this post in another thread I started on a similar topic. Here is the list he came up with, with level indicated and with the "c" meaning that concentration is also required. Thanks again wolf118!

Saving throw at the end of each turn
Blinding Smite – 3c
Blindness/Deafness – 3
Compulsion – 4c
Confusion – 4c
Crown of Madness – 2c
Ensnaring Strike – 1c
Entangle – 1c
Evard’s Black Tentacles – 4c
Eyebite – 6c
Hold Monster – 5c
Hold Person – 2c
Power Word Stun – 8
Ray of Enfeeblement – 2c
Searing Smite – 1c
Slow – 3c
Sunburst – 8
Tasha’s Hideous Laughter – 1c
Wrathful Smite – 1c

One Saving Throw for duration
Banishing Smite – 5c
Banishment – 4c
Branding Smite – 2c
Charm Person – 1
Color Spray – 1
Enlarge/Reduce – 2c
Enthrall – 2
Hex – 1c
Holy Aura – 8c
Imprisonment – 9
Planar Binding – 5
Ray of Sickness – 1

Edited to bold the question I most want answered

 

[Fimbria]

Obvious question: when a PC gets paralyzed on the first round of combat, what will the player do for the rest of your gaming session?

 

[jrowland]

I'll start by saying I have no opinion on your proposal. My thoughts go elsewhere, so what follows is elsewhere.

Part of the "save every round" mechanic is Player engagement. Rolling dice is "more fun" (I know, that debatable) than skipping a turn. So my mind goes immediately to "what are you trying to accomplish?" I *think* I read your post as you are trying to capture a more gritty feel, where magic is rare and powerful, and shrugging off a spell after one round doesn't lend to that.

So...How about a simple "solution" of upping the DC for those types of spells (ie non-damaging spells - so leave fireball alone) by 5 or 10 but keep the round-by-round save, effectively keeping it up most of a combat (so near enough for the duration of the spell). In this way you could keep the spell level, and ou could dial it in easier to achieve the riht feel. Still saving too frequently? Up the DCs by 15. Too infrequently? Lower them. Want Diminishing returns? Start at +10 DC and lower by 2 every save attempt. etc etc

One save for duration is not enough of a dial for playtesting. I suggest you do what I suggest and if it ends up that +10 DC/Save every round is the prefect feel but it efectively lasts all combat, feel free to go to One save for duration


my 2cp, ymmv, imo, etc etc

 

[Sacrosanct]

Obvious question: when a PC gets paralyzed on the first round of combat, what will the player do for the rest of your gaming session?

? A combat encounter =/= the gaming session. Outside of that, I'd imagine the same thing players have been doing for decades in games with those types of rules.

 

[seebs]

Well, the thing players used to do with them was hate them and find them really unpleasant, so I guess that's about what I'd expect them to do, yes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, the thing players used to do with them was hate them and find them really unpleasant, so I guess that's about what I'd expect them to do, yes.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of people who still enjoy TSR era D&D, and prefer the higher lethality of those types of systems, and the extra planning you would need to do, rather than just zerg into combat expecting all battles to be winnable without bothering to do any risk assessments.

For example, in these types of spells, you would need to prepare yourself with dispel magic spells or reversal scrolls. In 5e, there really isn't a bother for those since you keep getting chance after chance to break out of it yourself

 

[Pssthpok]

I think you could get away with most of what you want by bumping the DC for repeated saving throws by +5, making it harder to shrug off of you fail the initial save but not screwing a PC for 10 rounds if they roll low once.

 

[mellored]

How about shaking people out of it? That gives everyone a universal "counterspell".

i.e.
Hold person: Make a Wis save or be paralyzed. Another creature may use their action to break the paralysis.


Personally i would prefer status effects be a bit more nuanced rather then all or nothing. Like the disease tracks of 4e, or 5e's flesh to stone.
i.e.
Hold Person:
Save by 10 or more: No effect.
Save: You can use either an action or bonus action, not both.
Fail: You cannot use your action, only your bonus action, and your speed is halved.
Fail by 10 or more: You are paralyzed.

 

[jodyjohnson]

There are groups and scenarios where I would consider dropping the "Save every round" or Concentration mechanic from a spell. It would be largely contingent on the group being willing to break from 'D&D genre' conventions and be willing to abide by more Fictional/Narrative genre conventions.

The spells with both Concentration and "Save every round" tend to be those in the 'D&D genre' that are used to kill stuff faster while mitigating risk. Instead of killing stuff in a straightforward way (stab, stabbity, stab until dead) players treat them as efficient means to an end such as disabling a creature to make attacks more efficient or as an efficient defense against a creature they are in kind intending to kill.

However, if your players intention or desired scenario as a DM is to use them as your options for not killing, or to use them in a manner consistent with fantastic fiction and drama then the limitations are counter to your goal.

The 'D&D genre' is strong with many players. There is always a strong pull back to using such spells as a means of making fights easier because of the meta of hit points. Within the game, we understand that very few creatures can be slain with a single stab.

Ultimately they become game play mechanics rather than the narrative and dramatic elements that inspired them.

 

[mellored]

There are groups and scenarios where I would consider dropping the "Save every round" or Concentration mechanic from a spell. It would be largely contingent on the group being willing to break from 'D&D genre' conventions and be willing to abide by more Fictional/Narrative genre conventions.

The spells with both Concentration and "Save every round" tend to be those in the 'D&D genre' that are used to kill stuff faster while mitigating risk. Instead of killing stuff in a straightforward way (stab, stabbity, stab until dead) players treat them as efficient means to an end such as disabling a creature to make attacks more efficient or as an efficient defense against a creature they are in kind intending to kill.

However, if your players intention or desired scenario as a DM is to use them as your options for not killing, or to use them in a manner consistent with fantastic fiction and drama then the limitations are counter to your goal.

Several spells are suitable for not killing.

Like sleep or hypnotic pattern. Which break if the creature is damaged.