D&D 5E Saving Throws

[Blackwarder]

I don't like it, personally, because that means a character facing a dragon leading a bunch of kobolds throwing vats of fire has the same chance of dodging the dragon's breath and the kobolds' thrown bombs.

But the dragon fire breath will make 6d6 fire damage/half on save while the vats of fire (that should be an attack roll unless it's an area attack but still) would only do 1d6 fire damage/ none on save.

A kobold pit trap will be a shallow one and only do 1d6 falling damage while a dwarven pit trap will be a deep one with scything blades and spikes at the bottom for 10d6 damage.

Warder

 

[Klaus]

Okay. So two wizards cast a spell at the 10th-level Fighter. One is a 3rd-level novie. The other is a 20th-level archmage. The Fighter will have the same chance of averting both spells?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Okay. So two wizards cast a spell at the 10th-level Fighter. One is a 3rd-level novie. The other is a 20th-level archmage. The Fighter will have the same chance of averting both spells?

A spell is a spell. If they're both casting hold person, then both spells should be he same.

The bigger issue to me is, if the 20th-level mage casts hold person on a 1st-level fighter and a 10th-level fighter, the low level character should have no chance against it, and the higher level character should have a pretty good chance.

 

[Blackwarder]

Okay. So two wizards cast a spell at the 10th-level Fighter. One is a 3rd-level novie. The other is a 20th-level archmage. The Fighter will have the same chance of averting both spells?

Depends on the spell really and on the wizard class mechanic, if the wizard keep his magical modifier by level than it will effect the spell DC... And why should dodging a fireball by a 20th level be any different than dodging a fireball by a 5th level? It's exactly the same effect, maybe we need to think about adding back spell scaling by level in some kind...

Warder

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Love this idea. If you're going to do saving throws, better do them pre-3E style.

 

[Gundark]

I don't see why this issue couldn't be fixed with a 4e approach. Static saves (10 + Stat) and the creature rolls against that?

Also [MENTION=16689]fal[/MENTION]licicle you may be right. Maybe the solution is to fix the Ghoul.

 

[Klaus]

It's exactly the same effect, maybe we need to think about adding back spell scaling by level in some kind..

And then we're back to adding stuff to the game that got removed for a reason?

If we're going back, can we go back to 4e's static defenses, where the attacker makes the roll?

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't see why this issue couldn't be fixed with a 4e approach. Static saves (10 + Stat) and the creature rolls against that?

Whether it's actor rolls or defender rolls doesn't really have anything to do with it. In 3e and 4e, attacks improved at the same rate as defenses. In the current playtest, only attacks improve (your idea is just an actor-rolls version of this). With Mike's proposed system, only defenses improve.

(feel free to respond to my post from the other thread in this thread)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't see why your ability to save against effects should get better as you gain levels. What is it about skill and experience that helps you resist poison?

DCs shouldn't scale, and neither should saves.

 

[keterys]

As long as a single failed save can wreck a PC or Named important enemy, there's probably no really good solution since you're in the unenviable spot of needing monsters to consistently fail saves (so PC spells work) and PCs to consistently make saves (so they don't just get one-shotted by every medusa, beholder, or death knight that crosses their path).