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

[Steampunkette]

I really -really- like the idea of using a Reaction to make a saving throw. It could leave people in terrible positions when they don't have their reaction to dodge a fireball, for example. But.

With the action economy being what it is, and the fact that saving throws currently favor the victim, and saving throws being fairly common as a mechanic... It might be a bit much.

For something like specific saves, say Dexterity and Strength, it makes sense to have your reaction consume a saving throw. But intelligence, constitution? Much less sensible.

What could be neat is making it so Dexterity and Strength saves require use of your Reaction, while all other spells and effects automatically "Take Hold" until the start of your turn, which is when you make Con/Int/Wis/Cha saves (And then give normal 'end of your turn' saves per the individual spell).

Would open up a lot of tactical play for the players' side. Waste an enemy's Dex Save against a Burning Hands, then hit them with a Meteor Swarm, for example.

 

[Mistwell]

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...

Hmm.

Yes, what you're saying makes sense. If my mind is under sudden assault with an attempt to control my thoughts, I am not also dodging a fireball and resisting physical poison in that moment.

But these are heroes. So I don't think it's weird to say a hero can resist mind control while dodging something simultaneously.

Maybe I'd give them as many saves per round as their proficiency bonus? Then again, I kinda think proficiency bonus reactions per round could also make sense.

Huh. Now I've talked myself back into your premise of using reactions, but altered reactions per round.

I'm comfortable with that.

 

[Charlaquin]

When something occurs that would normally trigger a saving throw, describe what the character perceives - the click of the trap’s pressure plate, the somatic and verbal components of the enemy mage’s spell, or the flesh around the wound from the poisoned weapon starting to redden and swell or whatever. Ask the player to describe what they do in response. Then resolve that like you would any other action. It might succeed or fail automatically, or require a roll, depending on if what they describe could prevent the effect and/or fail to do so. It may also result in something other than just avoiding the effect - for instance, if the player recognizes the components of a fireball spell about to be cast, they might try to dive out of the way, which might require a dexterity saving throw to resolve, and might also allow them to spend a reaction to move outside the blast radius on a success. For example.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

This is similar to my first instinct on reading the OP- that if one uses their single Reaction per round on a save, it gives a bonus to that save (perhaps equal to Prof bonus?). Any saves made without spending a Reaction are at the normal baseline save value.

 

[Blue]

Realism
This does work. The reasoning behind the save would also apply to getting DEX to AC, as well as using a shield (source: using one in real life), so that would also have to be included. Not including AC while including saves sets up a divide that is less realistic and would fail this category. It does fit well the idea that multiple attacker will overwhelm even the strongest fighter, so a group of goblins will be able to take down a mid level fighter - as is realistic.

Balance
Different classes have different amounts of usage of reaction, so it would change the balance between those. Classes that use their reaction more would need a buff to stay balanced.

This also greatly changes the nature of encounters with multiple area of effect spells, or focus fire (since AC would need to be included to pass the first section). Spells should be reconsidered as to what level they are. Monsters with saves vs. area effects (breath weapon, spells, etc.) or multiple attacks should have their CR raised. Extra Attack feature should be postponed.

Gaming
Some RPGs, like Riddle of Steel, do a good job in realistically showing combat in all it's deadliness. D&D generally though is focused toward heroics as the primary goal. This will provide a different feel than standard D&D, and may work best when combined with other grittier options (Gritty Rest, etc.) as well to have a unified tone. Gritty Rest in particular is recommended to cut down on prolific spellcasting where two spells in a round, especially with the second as action denial, become "I win" buttons. (Though the Warlock will need to be reevaluated as where it is on the power curve if the number of short rests per long rest increases dramatically.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Thanks to everyone for your feedback. I am more inclined to allow rider-effects to saves if the PC uses their reaction, but also nerfing some features a bit to require the use of your reaction (I'm looking at you, Evasion... ).

IME very rarely will anyone need to make more than one save in a round, but it certainly can and does happen occasionally.

I don't know, I'll have to give this more thought.

 

[pnewman]

What if there were no saves as such? You could chose to give up your reaction to resist [1] an effect or you could chose to auto-fail. If you had no reaction you could give up your next turns move and move out of the way now, and if you had already done that you could chose to give up your next turns action (improvising an action to protect yourself).

This would give an more cinematic effect - you don't "Save" vs the explosion (fireball), you duck under it (reaction) or you dive for cover behind a table (using up your next move but also moving you to a safer spot) or you could grab an object and use it to block the danger (using your next action up).

This brings up the issue of what to do with Saving Throw Proficiency though. Maybe if you are Proficient in the "Save" you take no damage on a success (like a L7+ Rogue and Dex Saves now, give L7+ Rogues something else cool instead, maybe once a turn they can save as a Free Action?) and if you are not Proficient you still take half damage. If you are not Proficient and it is a "save or suck" spell it still takes effect, but only until the start of your next turn if you didn't resist.

[1] Maybe you really are "Resisting" it, as whatever you just did actually gives you Resistance to that type of damage (for that attack only). If you were already Resistant to that type of damage then you would give yourself "Immunity" instead.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

I was basically going to say the same, but you said it better.

 

[Ancalagon]

What if there were no saves as such? You could chose to give up your reaction to resist [1] an effect or you could chose to auto-fail. If you had no reaction you could give up your next turns move and move out of the way now, and if you had already done that you could chose to give up your next turns action (improvising an action to protect yourself).

This would give an more cinematic effect - you don't "Save" vs the explosion (fireball), you duck under it (reaction) or you dive for cover behind a table (using up your next move but also moving you to a safer spot) or you could grab an object and use it to block the danger (using your next action up).

This brings up the issue of what to do with Saving Throw Proficiency though. Maybe if you are Proficient in the "Save" you take no damage on a success (like a L7+ Rogue and Dex Saves now, give L7+ Rogues something else cool instead, maybe once a turn they can save as a Free Action?) and if you are not Proficient you still take half damage. If you are not Proficient and it is a "save or suck" spell it still takes effect, but only until the start of your next turn if you didn't resist.

[1] Maybe you really are "Resisting" it, as whatever you just did actually gives you Resistance to that type of damage (for that attack only). If you were already Resistant to that type of damage then you would give yourself "Immunity" instead.

I wouldn't quite do it like that myself, but I think you're really onto something there.

How I would do it is have this "sacrifice an action to save your butt" as an option for a failed save. I think this version of the idea needs more reflection though, there could be consequences I haven't considered.

 

[Oofta]

I wouldn't want all saves to use a reaction, I could see using a reaction on a save to do something cool potentially with a risk. Need to make a dex save vs fireball? Use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your save as you try to move behind cover or out of area of effect (whichever is closer). However if you fail you take damage and fall prone. I honestly don't know how you'd use your reaction for things like poison though, it's not something you actively do, it's just something that happens without conscious thought.

Saving throws will always be a bit weird. If I describe saving against that fireball for example, it's doing that Batman thing where he ducks down and covers himself with his cape of plot armor.