D&D 5E Saving Throws as Reactions (+)

[DND_Reborn]

Note: Please respect I've labeled this a (+) thread. Personally, I have no problem if you do not like this concept and wish to voice your opinion why you don't like it--but beyond that I ask that you honor the intent of the "+" and either offer constructive criticism or bow out of the discussion. Thank you very much.

In thinking about D&D being more simulation than it is, one thing that has bothered me in the narrative often is saving throws. As I see it, saves are made in response to something happening to your PC (or a creature the DM controls, etc.). As such, I wondered if the use of Reactions when making saving throws would make more sense (in a "simulationist" sense, that is).

For example, a creature uses a feature that allows them to try to knock your PC prone so you need to make a Strength saving throw to avoid the affect. You are trying to keep your balance, move with the force of the shove, etc. to stay on your feet-- you might even be grabbing the creature, using them to keep you standing.

To my mind, that sort of response is a "reaction" and making the save use your reaction for the round makes sense-- it is a expenditure of energy in response to a trigger (in the case above, being shoved).

Now, this might also allow certain riders and changes to other features which would make sense IMO. Take evasion for example. How does this mitigate damage, from say, a fireball or breath weapon to 0 when you are still in the area of effect? I mean, are you "evading" or dancing around the flames as they come at you?

For me, it would make more sense (especially in the narrative) if you could use your reaction when you make such a DEX save with evasion to allow you to move out of the area of effect, up to your speed. If you make the save and can move out of the AoE, it would make sense why you can take no damage. If you can move out of the AoE and fail the save, it makes sense why you would only take half damage.

Perhaps you are making a CON save to avoid poison, so you spend your reaction in the process, and the narrative is (depending on the scene of course!) grapping the poisoned area and applying enough pressure to stop the spread of the poison, or sucking it out of the wound and spitting it out?

Making a CHA save might spend your reaction laughing off the effect as your inherent confidence and bravado sustain you against the effect?

Now, I know a lot of features require or are better when you can use your reaction to do something else, but if that action economy is used up -- what is left to make your save with? Imagine the fireball scenario. Earlier in the round an enemy fled, provoking an OA which you used your reaction to make the attack. You're focused on your foe fleeing, so failed to brace/tense yourself when suddenly the fireball erupts all around you.

I don't know. I sort of like the concept, but I am not sure of the proper execution or if too much of the game would otherwise suffer if making a saving throw cost you your reaction...

 

[Leatherhead]

While I do consider using a reaction for any saving throw is too much (you don't have to use a reaction for your AC, after all) A recent UA did introduce a mechanic that would be appropriate to this thread: Allowing people to spend a HD to boost their saving throw as a reaction. This has an interesting side effect of making the warrior classes potentially more resistant to things.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Allowing people to spend a HD to boost their saving throw as a reaction.

I like that idea, or perhaps some variant thereof, like granting advantage on the save so it isn't HD-size dependent...

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I don't think this can work when save or suck effects exist. Say, you have a wizard and a bard fighting a group of enemies, wizard casts hypnotic pattern, they use their reactions to save, then bard casts the same spell, now they're out of reactions and auto-fail, winning the encounter.

Or, say, a Monk uses Stunning Strike, enemy uses reaction to save, then they use Stunning Strike again, which also auto-fails. You'd need to rework a lot of features and spells for this to work out.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah, I know making something like this work is a very long shot!

Maybe an option so you can use your reaction in some manner to affect the save, like the aforementioned spending HD to gain a boost via your reaction?

I like the idea, for example, of a made Dex save allowing you to use your reaction to move out of an AoE or something.

 

[dave2008]

Note: Please respect I've labeled this a (+) thread. Personally, I have no problem if you do not like this concept and wish to voice your opinion why you don't like it--but beyond that I ask that you honor the intent of the "+" and either offer constructive criticism or bow out of the discussion. Thank you very much.

In thinking about D&D being more simulation than it is, one thing that has bothered me in the narrative often is saving throws. As I see it, saves are made in response to something happening to your PC (or a creature the DM controls, etc.). As such, I wondered if the use of Reactions when making saving throws would make more sense (in a "simulationist" sense, that is).

For example, a creature uses a feature that allows them to try to knock your PC prone so you need to make a Strength saving throw to avoid the affect. You are trying to keep your balance, move with the force of the shove, etc. to stay on your feet-- you might even be grabbing the creature, using them to keep you standing.

To my mind, that sort of response is a "reaction" and making the save use your reaction for the round makes sense-- it is a expenditure of energy in response to a trigger (in the case above, being shoved).

I like this idea and I have pondered it myself before. It will obviously make life more difficult for the PCs.

For me, it would make more sense (especially in the narrative) if you could use your reaction when you make such a DEX save with evasion to allow you to move out of the area of effect, up to your speed. If you make the save and can move out of the AoE, it would make sense why you can take no damage. If you can move out of the AoE and fail the save, it makes sense why you would only take half damage.

Yep, I have thought of doing this too. I have gone so far as to suggest you have to have movement available to do it. So if you've already had your turn, used all of your movement, and then must save against a dragon's breath, well...you have no movement available so you can't evade the attack completely. In that case, auto half damage is the best you get.

Perhaps you are making a CON save to avoid poison, so you spend your reaction in the process, and the narrative is (depending on the scene of course!) grapping the poisoned area and applying enough pressure to stop the spread of the poison, or sucking it out of the wound and spitting it out?

Making a CHA save might spend your reaction laughing off the effect as your inherent confidence and bravado sustain you against the effect?

Now, I know a lot of features require or are better when you can use your reaction to do something else, but if that action economy is used up -- what is left to make your save with? Imagine the fireball scenario. Earlier in the round an enemy fled, provoking an OA which you used your reaction to make the attack. You're focused on your foe fleeing, so failed to brace/tense yourself when suddenly the fireball erupts all around you.

I don't know. I sort of like the concept, but I am not sure of the proper execution or if too much of the game would otherwise suffer if making a saving throw cost you your reaction...

I think it is worth a try. I have thought about these things, but never implemented them. I might also allow a player to spend a bonus action, depending on the fiction.

 

[Deset Gled]

The West End Games D6 system had a mechanic that sounds similar to what you're describing. In that system, you could take multiple reactions by taking progressive penalties (-1d6 per action taken). Check out the Multiple Actions and Reactions section on this page: D6 Combat Rules

The difference is that in the D6 system there's a baseline difficulty check. The attacker/caster/whatever always has to roll above a certain number affect the target; a Reaction is only used to increase the difficulty, and the target doesn't have to make a Reaction if they don't want to. In D&D casting the roles (and rolls) are often reversed; the caster makes no check, and the target always has to roll to make the save.

 

[Krachek]

It is a game changer. So if you need a renew in your game have a try!
being outnumbered and not having enough reaction is the new danger element in the game.
it can add some tactical choice.

 

[Asisreo]

Note: Please respect I've labeled this a (+) thread. Personally, I have no problem if you do not like this concept and wish to voice your opinion why you don't like it--but beyond that I ask that you honor the intent of the "+" and either offer constructive criticism or bow out of the discussion. Thank you very much.

In thinking about D&D being more simulation than it is, one thing that has bothered me in the narrative often is saving throws. As I see it, saves are made in response to something happening to your PC (or a creature the DM controls, etc.). As such, I wondered if the use of Reactions when making saving throws would make more sense (in a "simulationist" sense, that is).

For example, a creature uses a feature that allows them to try to knock your PC prone so you need to make a Strength saving throw to avoid the affect. You are trying to keep your balance, move with the force of the shove, etc. to stay on your feet-- you might even be grabbing the creature, using them to keep you standing.

To my mind, that sort of response is a "reaction" and making the save use your reaction for the round makes sense-- it is a expenditure of energy in response to a trigger (in the case above, being shoved).

Now, this might also allow certain riders and changes to other features which would make sense IMO. Take evasion for example. How does this mitigate damage, from say, a fireball or breath weapon to 0 when you are still in the area of effect? I mean, are you "evading" or dancing around the flames as they come at you?

For me, it would make more sense (especially in the narrative) if you could use your reaction when you make such a DEX save with evasion to allow you to move out of the area of effect, up to your speed. If you make the save and can move out of the AoE, it would make sense why you can take no damage. If you can move out of the AoE and fail the save, it makes sense why you would only take half damage.

Perhaps you are making a CON save to avoid poison, so you spend your reaction in the process, and the narrative is (depending on the scene of course!) grapping the poisoned area and applying enough pressure to stop the spread of the poison, or sucking it out of the wound and spitting it out?

Making a CHA save might spend your reaction laughing off the effect as your inherent confidence and bravado sustain you against the effect?

Now, I know a lot of features require or are better when you can use your reaction to do something else, but if that action economy is used up -- what is left to make your save with? Imagine the fireball scenario. Earlier in the round an enemy fled, provoking an OA which you used your reaction to make the attack. You're focused on your foe fleeing, so failed to brace/tense yourself when suddenly the fireball erupts all around you.

I don't know. I sort of like the concept, but I am not sure of the proper execution or if too much of the game would otherwise suffer if making a saving throw cost you your reaction...

Personally not a fan of making the game harder just for the sake of making it interesting by nerfing player-facing mechanics. It can seem like the DM just wants to make the game harder.

However, I do like the concept itself. If I considered a lateral change in balancing, I'd say that giving an extra saving throw proficiency would be nice. A good pattern could be giving casters another "weak" save and martial's a "strong" save. So a Wizard would have INT, WIS, CHA as save proficiencies, a fighter would have STR, DEX, CON, and a rogue might have DEX, INT, WIS, and they get CON at level 15.

Edit: This is in addition to the saving throw reaction suggestion.

 

[Quickleaf]

Don't know if you played 4th edition, but one of the reasons combat was painfully slow in that edition was the proliferation of Reaction abilities. Everyone and their henchman's hamster had reactions. 5th edition drastically cut back on the number of Reaction abilities.

Regardless of whatever else your proposed house rule would do, it would increase combat handling time. Because now every time a saving throw is made, the DM and/or a player needs to mentally track "that guy has used its reaction." While for small numbers of foes and lower levels, the time increase would probably be negligible, I could see this being a significant cause for grind with more foes and higher levels.

For me, whatever nuance would be gained in verisimilitude / simulation would not be worth the negative impact on gameplay. EDIT: But if I were to implement this, I'd prioritize looking for ways to decrease handling time. For example, maybe I cluster this group of gnolls to take the same action, and even if they don't all need to roll a saving throw, I can mentally check off the "saving throw made" box for all the gnolls (and thus I would not have any of the gnolls use reactions this round).

EDIT EDIT: One potential implication of this house rule would be favoring whichever side has greater numbers capable of forcing saving throws. For example, if a party encounters a cabal of cult fanatics who spam hold person, and a PC uses their reaction to save against the first hold person... does that mean they would automatically fail their save (no more reactions) if subsequently targeted by another hold person or a dominate person cast by a cultist?