D&D General Saves as Target Numbers

[Eubani]

Did anyone else like in 4e where instead of being saves Ref, Fort and Will were used like AC as target numbers for attacks and abilities so many spell the caster rolled an attack rather than the target saving? Would anyone like to see this return in the future? I liked it myself, it made more spells and abilities feel like an attack and it was easier design space.

 

[aco175]

I do something like this in my games. I tell the player the save + of the monster and have him roll the save. I like the old way better where you try 'to-hit' instead of trying to roll low and fail the save, but at least the player is rolling dice instead of the DM doing it all. I seen before where it is easy enough to convert, but then I would need to change all the books and rules.

 

[Oofta]

I understood the logic and didn't hate it but I prefer the mix of attack and defend, it changes the engagement of the players in a subtle way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it was brilliant. You can reproduce it in 5e without changing the probabilities by making ability defenses = 14 + ability mod (+ proficiency bonus if you would be proficient in saves with that ability). Then any effect that would cause you to make a save with that ability is just an attack against that ability’s defense.

 

[OptionalRule]

Saves are a bit of a hold over. It does seem odd now as there are some cases where you roll during and action, some cases where they roll for your action. It's so ingrained though, I'm not sure people think about it anymore. The system could be normalized to the point of players making all rolls (attack or defense roll depending on the action).

 

[Eubani]

In a theoretical 6e would it be a worthwhile change?

 

[Charlaquin]

In a theoretical 6e would it be a worthwhile change?

I think it would be, but I don’t think it will happen. I expect 6e to very much be a cleaned-up 5e.

 

[OptionalRule]

In a theoretical 6e would it be a worthwhile change?

To me it's an oddity but I don't see any particular value of it for 6e. If there's some broad move to more consistency for rolls or something then sure, but as a stand alone item, it's not my priority for a 6e.

 

[Composer99]

If a pit trap opens up beneath your character's feet, and someone needs to roll a die to see if they fall in. Should that be the player rolling a saving throw, or the DM rolling an attack against Reflex/Dexterity? In that case, in-world the saving throw makes the most sense (to my mind) - the trap isn't acting with intent.

On the other hand, if your character casts charm person on someone, maybe you should be rolling against their Will/Wisdom defence.

Things can get gummed up, in terms of translating what is happening in the game into mechanics, with things like fireball or a dragon's breath weapon, because attack rolls vs a (mostly) Dexterity-based defence is already a thing (attacks vs AC). But is that really the best mechanical representation of what is going on? There's a certain expectation of specificity to an attack roll, to my mind, that most area effects lack. When you launch a fireball into a room, you're not targeting anyone in particular - you're filling the room with magical flames, and it's on everyone in it to take the brunt of it or somehow avoid doing so. That again speaks to a saving throw.

So I think the most accurate way of representing such effects in the game is to have both non-AC defences and saving throws. But that certainly does not, to my mind, seem to fid the design aesthetic of 5e, and would probably be too fiddly and annoying in other games. Best to use one or the other - personally, I think saving throws works better overall for that purpose than attacks vs non-AC defences.

 

[TwoSix]

I like it. I prefer methods that are either "attacker rolls all the dice" or "the player rolls all the dice". I'm not a big fan of breaking up the resolution system between "attacks and some spells" and "a different group of spells".