D&D (2024) Return to the 3 saves for 1D&D?

Since Strength represents much more than just how hard you punch things, this is a very silly response, and amounts to a misrepresentation of what Strength means in the game.

Of course it was a silly response. But also meant seriously. If you combine strength and con, just combine them completely. I don't know if that fits tge fiction of wizards though... I'd probably put concentration checks on a different stat than strength/con
 

log in or register to remove this ad

because going 20 levels never improving 4 out of 6 saves is dumb and a BAD idea when casters DCs go up

Only partially correct. If saving throws would be consequently implemented as a duration mechanic, then it should work that way.

The way I see it, is that we need two kinds of saving throws: initial saving throws to resist and end of turn saving throws to end effects.

I'd add one extra proficiency bonus (no proficiency - > proficiency, proficiency - > expertise) on the initial saving throw and probably change DC to 9+ instead of 8+

So your chance to resist a spell actually goes up against an even level caster on your profocient saves, but if it sticks on you, you wil have the same duration.
 


leozg

DM
The problem with 5e saves is that you'll have bad saves, at least 2. And when saves are your defense against spells, look at the problem in combat: casters have options, it is easy to pick 3 cantrips that require one save each and the chances you'll have one that is almost certain hit is high. Compare it to a simple attack that always aims AC, and everyone is trying to have high AC, this is unbalanced.
Bad saves always existed, but in 5e they not only increased their quantity but also gave spellcasters spells they can use at-will just like a fighter swinging his sword, and doing the same damage + some special effects!
3e had no at-will spells so the benefit for aiming a lower defense was balanced by the fact that you had to bur a spell slot.
4e also had bad "saves" (called defenses), but at least they gave the martials options to aim Fort/Refl/Will somehow. Not the best solution, but way more balanced.
IMO, more than how many saves the game should have, they should be balanced.
 

ECMO3

Hero
The problem with 5e saves is that you'll have bad saves, at least 2. And when saves are your defense against spells, look at the problem in combat: casters have options, it is easy to pick 3 cantrips that require one save each and the chances you'll have one that is almost certain hit is high.

I think this is a bad idea. That is a lot of your cantrips you are investing in and save cantrips do not land as well as attack cantrips generally. Add to that the intelligence-based cantrips are pretty weak overall in terms of damage.

If you do this you need to "fish" for the low save and that is not easy when you take the dice into play. You throw down Toll the Dead and he rolls a 3 .... well does he have a bad wisdom or was that just a really low roll?

I also don't think all classes even have cantrips with 3 different saves. Druids for example only have constitution and dexterity options I think.

This is before you consider uses. Clerics for example can get Wisdom, Constitution and Dex saves but the con save cantrip (word of radience) requires you to get within 5 feet of the enemy.

Compare it to a simple attack that always aims AC, and everyone is trying to have high AC, this is unbalanced.

No because the target number for a hit is usually lower than the target for a cantrip. For example at 1st level average AC for foes you are facing should be 13, which means you need an 8 to hit (assuming 16 in prome stat) which means you hit 65% of the time. Your spell DC is 13 whick means your save cantrips only hit 60% if your enemy has a 0 on the save and chances are good they have higher than 0.
 

Pauln6

Hero
The problem with 5e saves is that you'll have bad saves, at least 2. And when saves are your defense against spells, look at the problem in combat: casters have options, it is easy to pick 3 cantrips that require one save each and the chances you'll have one that is almost certain hit is high. Compare it to a simple attack that always aims AC, and everyone is trying to have high AC, this is unbalanced.
Bad saves always existed, but in 5e they not only increased their quantity but also gave spellcasters spells they can use at-will just like a fighter swinging his sword, and doing the same damage + some special effects!
3e had no at-will spells so the benefit for aiming a lower defense was balanced by the fact that you had to bur a spell slot.
4e also had bad "saves" (called defenses), but at least they gave the martials options to aim Fort/Refl/Will somehow. Not the best solution, but way more balanced.
IMO, more than how many saves the game should have, they should be balanced.
My experience is that players don't operate like this and cantrips feel very lacklustre compared to weapon effects, except for Eldritch Blast, which is a bit overpowered.
 



payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
no it isn't you are talking about uping a stat every 4 levels and I am talking about the prof bonus
Ok, I apologize. I do think you should rock PF2 in addition to D&D. Simply because that design milk shake that you want from WotC is being served right now by Paizo.
 

Staffan

Legend
Personally, I want to go back to having special saves for the same magic but out of a wand.
Psst.
Wanna know a secret?

Here's the saving throw table from AD&D 2e:
1666741086268.png

Take a look at the Rod/Staff/Wand column. Then at the Spell column.
Rod/Staff/Wand is in all cases 1 point lower than the Spell save. The only reason it exists (instead of wands just giving saves at +1) is save priority (the farther left a save category is in the table the higher priority it is, which is why the footnotes has polymorph wand as an exception to Petrification & Polymorph saves.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top