D&D 5E Saves in 5e: What I would change

[jodyjohnson]

1. Maybe it was a house rule all these years but: '1' always fails, '20' always succeeds on saves.
Reason: That's how we always played.

2. Any ability save you're not proficient in you get 1/2 your proficiency bonus rounded down (+0 to +3).
Reason: Less bonus from multi-classing, less disparity between good saves and bad saves.

3. Monsters get proficiencies on saves based on type (maybe raid the 3.x monster types to decide). Especially for 'elite' and 'solo' grade creatures.

I like the Proficiency base system to keep BA somewhat in check while still offering some Save progression.

 

[Iosue]

It occurred to me today that what I'll likely do is apply the proficiency bonus to all saves. This will create something akin to TSR saves: they all continue to improve together, without the big gaps between good saves and bad saves and caster bonuses you see in 3e.

 

[Kinak]

If I were changing things, it would be to remove proficiency from the caster side of the equation. Possibly subclasses could add them back to certain schools or types of saves ("You're an enchanter, you add proficiency to your Wisdom save difficulty").

Frankly, casters are never going to be comparing their spells against their enemies' proficiencies (unless an enemy has proficiency to all spell saves or the like). They'll be targeting the lowest scores and, if the world works in a consistent manner, will choose correctly the vast majority of the time.

That said, I'd also accept some spells having a higher level version that lets you apply your proficiency bonus to spells. But having it as the default means combats increasingly favor "save or suck" effects at higher levels, which just isn't something I want in the game.

1. Maybe it was a house rule all these years but: '1' always fails, '20' always succeeds on saves.
Reason: That's how we always played.

I believe this is RAW in 3rd Edition.

I've never been a big fan, myself. If someone is only failing on a 1, I feel that's my fault as a GM. I shouldn't have even wasted the table time having them roll.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Iosue]

Saaaay, I kinda like how this can be easily modded to emulate different editions.

TSR-era - Proficiency bonus to all saves, no implement proficiency for casters. Higher level characters are more resistant to magic. Indomitable provides fighters with their historically best saves.

3e - RAW. Proficiency only in saves provided by race and class, and casters get implement proficiency, allowing them to target weak saves.

4e - Proficiency in all saves and casters get implement proficiency. The math scales evenly, keeping higher level characters on level playing field, while providing improvement against lower level foes. Ability modifiers provide variation.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I agree that it is a quick way to emulate differences depending on which Saves, DCs, attacks, defenses, etc. you apply the Profiency bonus to.

Once I memorize the progression it should be easy to do on the fly.
1 (apprentice tier):+1; 3 (adventurer tier): +2, +1 per 4 levels after that (7,11,15,19).

 

[Dausuul]

I would eliminate saving throws as a concept distinct from ability checks. Merge the two. If you're hit by a fireball, you make a Dexterity check for half damage. If you've got something giving you a bonus on Dexterity checks, it applies here as well.

The playtest has accumulated too many fiddly variants on "roll stat X." You have Dexterity checks, Dexterity saves, Dexterity-based skills, Dexterity-based attack rolls... it's confusing for the casual player and it offers very little real benefit. Trim it down.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I would eliminate saving throws as a concept distinct from ability checks. Merge the two. If you're hit by a fireball, you make a Dexterity check for half damage. If you've got something giving you a bonus on Dexterity checks, it applies here as well.

The playtest has accumulated too many fiddly variants on "roll stat X." You have Dexterity checks, Dexterity saves, Dexterity-based skills, Dexterity-based attack rolls... it's confusing for the casual player and it offers very little real benefit. Trim it down.

I actually agree with this, but I think the language has so much tradition that it's difficult to make the shift. Perhaps if the language were, "Make a Dexterity check to save," but that's also a bit forced.

 

[Dausuul]

I actually agree with this, but I think the language has so much tradition that it's difficult to make the shift. Perhaps if the language were, "Make a Dexterity check to save," but that's also a bit forced.

Well, if we have to have "saving throws," let's go back to Fortitude/Reflex/Will saves, 3E-style. That would at least prevent any confusion about "Am I making a Dex check or a Dex save?" Ninety percent of saving throws are Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom anyway.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The playtest has accumulated too many fiddly variants on "roll stat X." You have Dexterity checks, Dexterity saves, Dexterity-based skills, Dexterity-based attack rolls... it's confusing for the casual player and it offers very little real benefit. Trim it down.

Just wait until we incorporate the term "level."

 

[variant]

I think the proficiency bonus should just scale from +1 to +3 or just give a flat +3. The +6 bonus is causing issues everywhere, saving throws included.