D&D 5E Saving Throws

[bogmad]

But in D&D Next, putting all of the target creatures attacks under disadvantage for the next round may be enough (or even ideal) as it shakes off the magical effect.
.

I actually like this solution. Very simple to implement, and rarely is someone going to choose a spell just to cause disadvantage, but it does provide a useful effect. You'll always go in with the hope that a spell succeeds, but without primarily banking on 1/2 damage or something.

It doesn't break immersion for me if a guy spends a round struggling to resist a polymorph spell. It actually makes more sense then a guy getting hit with a powerful spell and shrugging it off in less than a second. Reserve "Your pitiful spell is useless against me!" for situations where immunity comes into play.

 

[DreamChaser]

I like the idea of (some) save-or-die-style spells being deferred, not lost, in the case of a successfully save. If the caster chooses to "concentrate" on the spell as the next rounds action, they can force another save--perhaps with changed circumstances. It must be the same target but the player then gets the choice of sacrificing an action to keep the resource (spell slot) or sacrificing the resource to keep an action.

 

[howandwhy99]

1. This would make it much easier to fix the far too big variance within Ability Scores for characters Saving. Now Saves are a pre-set DC by Ability Score and Ability Score Bonuses can be modified for a shallower curve.

2. It doesn't obviously do so, but could fix the issue of high and low class level characters adventuring together in regards to Saves. Now a bounded DC can be put in for higher level characters. Class levels would lower DCs as one advanced. Of course that's the old way. The new way is Ability Scores increase as Character level increases so higher level characters have better saves. Of course this has an effect on facing high Ability Score monsters. They'd all be high level challenges pretty much with lower A.S.'s being their weaknesses. This is still quite unclear for me, but I would prefer a much broader scope of potential strengths and weaknesses.

3. The best part is, we could potentially bring back the magic system by grouping all Effects under a preset collection by Ability Score. And Saving Throw requirements would still vary slightly from the normal effect on a standard human PC, 3-18.
EDIT: This way does have one advantage over the old pre-d20 method in that Saving throws here can be deduced based upon descriptions of the creatures and their behavior. Ability Scores are already one big things Players are sussing out. One drawback might be: Effects won't be grouped within similar progression arcs anymore.

4. Modifiers to Saving Throws, how many Saves are required (like two for poison), and so on should still be possible under the rules. Some Effects are weaker. Some are stronger. Multiple chances to saves allow early levels PCs and first time encounters of Effects not result in all or nothing rolls.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well, I'm of the opinion that it's not the power/level of the caster that should affect the save DC, it's the spell slot level the spell was cast at.

If you're a 20th level caster and you cast Sleep using a 1st level slot... you're basically saying "I'm not putting any time, thought, or energy into this spell." Thus, the DC should be the same as a 1st level caster casting it (IE simpler to resist).

I feel this way on both sides... on scaling spell damage and scaling spell DCs. If you want more damage dice for your Fireball... you should have to use a higher spell slot. If you want a higher DC for your saving throws... you should have to use a higher spell slot.

And what does a high-level wizard do with all of his 1st level spell slots that he won't be using for attacks and defenses? He should now be using them for all of his utility spells that he used to cast in ritual form. So he no longer needs to spend 10 minutes to Comprehend Languages or Detect Magic like he used to as a youngster (in order to save his spell slots)... he can now cast it with a single action since he's not going to use the slot in combat for anything else.

That's my opinion at any rate.

I agree with reasoning. In fact, I would go further and suggest the logic of a flat math system implies flat DCs that care about neither spell level nor caster level. If you want more "damage" use a higher spell slot. Increasing the DC of the spell is strongly analogous to assuming that a Fighter of level X has a +Y (only we are giving this bonus for free while the Fighter must cough up lucre to achieve non-mediocrity).

Personally I am okay with a spell level dependence, as that adds a wrinkle of strategy -- a spell caster would want to hoard a higher level spell. Strong spell level and caster level dependence are the main sources of quadratic spell caster power. Having both will virtually guarantee that scaling will fail at higher levels.