D&D 5E Saving Throws vs. Defenses, An Easier Way

[Falling Icicle]

One of the things I liked about 4e was that instead of rolling saving throws, Fortitude, Reflex and Will were defenses that worked like AC. This made everything in the game consistent and made it possible for magic spells to work just like physical attacks. In Next, they're going to be using every ability score for saving throws, and I like that, but I think it would be better if they were a "defense" score instead of being rolled. However, having a "Strength Defense" or "Intelligence Defense" would be... odd, not to mention confusing. But then an idea occurred to me, why not just have the ability score itself serve as the "defense"? For example, in order to hit someone with a fireball, you must roll a spell attack and "hit" their Dexterity score. If a target has a Dexterity score of 15, that would be the DC of hitting that creature with a fireball. Using the ability score as the defense is very simple, easy to understand, and also gives a benefit to having odd-numbered ability scores.

It may seem a bit unfair to spellcasters, because targets are effectively getting a +1 to their "defense" for each point of ability score above 10, instead of every 2 points (which gives you a +1 modifier). But after thinking about it, I don't think it would be unfair to spellcasters at all. Casters are also getting a bonus to their magic attacks of +2 or more, and their primary spellcasting ability is very likely to be their highest ability score. A wizard with a 20 Int and a +2 magic attack bonus is rolling +7 to "hit" with his spells. An opponent would have to have a 17 in his ability score just to be on an even footing! And nobody's going to have such a high score in every ability. Most creatures will have lower ability scores that a wizard can target with various spells. There could also, of course, be magical implements that add to spell attacks the same way magic weapons add to weapon attacks.

Thoughts?

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I haven't followed the packets since the 1st one, but while I like the intuivness of your proposition, I wonder if the math will be flat enough to support it, since your defense will barely rise as you gain levels...

ar

 

[Unwise]

That is certainly quicker and easier and is actually what I was expecting to see in the test packet. What I am unsure of though is whether it is more fun. Do players enjoy rolling their defenses? I suspect that mine would. Is having the combat more luck based more fun? Is being able to dodge a higher level dragons breath weapon, but then miss a kobald with a mind control spell more fun than a more predictable set of events? I think that might depend upon the group a bit.

 

[billd91]

After playing campaigns of Star Wars Saga Edition and 4e, I'm very much in the camp that the defenses should be rolled saving throws. Star Wars, in particular, drove it home for me the most. In Star Wars, characters can use Force points to gain an additional d6 to d20 rolls they make. These can be for attacks, skill checks, ability checks... but not for defense because the defense is static. It's great that PCs can use the Force a little bit to guide their actions, but it seems a terrible shame and even a bit out of character with the setting to not be allowed to use it to bolster their defenses. That convinced me that static defenses, with that style of Force point, are the wrong fit for Star Wars.

I feel pretty much the same way with respect to D&D and the action points system that appeared in Unearthed Arcana and Eberron. It's a nice system enabling a player to get that little oomph if they see their die roll is a bit lower than they would like. I hope D&D Next includes something like it as an option because I think it's a really successful mechanic. And it doesn't work with any elegance with static defenses, though it works like gangbusters for rolled saving throws.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I'm a 4e fan, but I won't miss static defenses. Collapsing floors shouldn't make attack rolls against a PC's Reflex defense; the PC should roll a saving throw to see if she leaps to safety.

I could get behind Players Roll All the Dice. But when a player casts a spell on several monsters, I find it faster for the DM to roll the d20s and match up the dice to each monster on his scratchpad. When an NPC casts a spell on the PCs, it's faster for the PCs each to roll their own save.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think both are needed in order to accurately represent the defenses of a character. Depending on the situation, either one could be appropriate. This is what I do for my 4e games, sometimes I have people roll saves to represent them reacting to sudden danger, sometimes I attack static defenses to show the attacker has taken measure of their enemy and feels they can make a good shot.

 

[Li Shenron]

The general idea would probably work.

However, saving throws are still needed. May not be a big deal for a caster to roll an attack against a target's Constitution score, but it is a big deal for my tastes to have "cold" or "starvation" or "poison" roll an attack against you.

And rolling saving throws is for me always much more exciting than watch the evil wizard petrify or disintegrate me, without being able to "resist". It's just psychology because whether I roll or the DM rolls, it still means I get a chance to save. But psychology matters It just feels more like you are playing the game when your PC saves because you rolled the dice, or instead it dies because "I rolled my saves badly tonight" rather than "the DM rolled lucky against me tonight". A subtle difference perhaps, but to me it matters.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I remember this very idea being mentioned in an early Legends and Lore. I think it even made it in an early private playtest.

 

[Greenfield]

One argument I kept hearing in favor of the 4e "defenses" instead of Saving Throws was that it would speed play. Several players I know swore that it did.

I never really saw that, except when those player DMed and flogged everyone to hurry up.

I guess I'm a bit of a grognard on this point: I never understood why it's faster for someone who throws a Fireball to roll five separate attack rolls vs five people to roll their Saves. The defending players have no problem determining which roll applies to which target, a problem the "attack roll" approach has when all are rolled at once. And if the attacks are rolled separately, well that's the opposite of faster, isn't it? I mean, whether it's one target or twenty, all the Saves are rolled more or less together.

So if I get a vote I'll vote for Saving Throws.

 

[Warbringer]

We've been doing players roll all dice for, it seems like forever, at least 2003... So anything the monster does is a static target.... Seems to have been really smooth .... For mass targets, if undifferentiated , it's the players choice of one roll or all ... If differeniated different color dice to match monster tokens .... Just as fast the dm rolling