D&D (2024) Should Saving Throw DCs just be Ability Scores?

[Minigiant]

You'd have to do extensive rewrites to make this work.

Not really

1. DCs are Ability Scores
2. PCs get one bonus Saving throw Proficiency of their choice
3. Legendary monsters get 1 bonus Legendary Resistance per day

Done.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not really

1. DCs are Ability Scores
2. PCs get one bonus Saving throw Proficiency of their choice
3. Legendary monsters get 1 bonus Legendary Resistance per day

Done.

But the specific statement in the thread was that there wouldn't be proficiency. This is replacing proficiency:

What if your Saving Throw DCs were just your associated Ability Score instead of 8 + Proficiency mod+ Ability Mod?

Hence: major rewrites.

 

[Horwath]

Not really

1. DCs are Ability Scores
2. PCs get one bonus Saving throw Proficiency of their choice
3. Legendary monsters get 1 bonus Legendary Resistance per day

Done.

add half prof bonus to non proficient saves.

 

[Minigiant]

But the specific statement in the thread was that there wouldn't be proficiency. This is replacing proficiency:


Hence: major rewrites.

No I meant

A 5th level wizard's intelligence is 16.

Instead of his spell dC being 8+3+3 or DC 14.

It's just his Intelligence of DC 16.

 

[aiouh]

I tried it at my last game. The warriors liked the high chance improvised actions (2024 got away from Attack Roll then Saving throw and does just one or another. So I went with that). And the casters loved the high failure of monsters. And it made a caster monster feel very scary as two members of the party failed their save by just so.

You have found a very fun houserule for your group and I am glad that you guys are having fun. But that doesn't mean it is going to be the same for everyone or that is in the spirit of the design. Obviously players like being more powerful.

We are not telling you that you are having fun the wrong way, but if you ask a question like "should Save Throw DCs just be ability scores", then a lot of people are expecting a "fix" which it isn't. This is a houserule which changes game numbers to be higher.

 

[Horwath]

Could just eliminate attributes all together, give proficiency bonus x2 for class saves/skills/rolls and standard proficiency for other rolls. That gives you +2-6 for non-proficient and +4-12 for proficient.

I would keep abilities for ability checks and general description of a character.

 

[Bae'zel]

I think I'd rather have a game that's consistently "roll under" or "roll over", but not a mixture of both.

I like how Dragonbane is essentially d100 down to a d20 (I think?). I find that elegantly simple. I'd actually like to hack Mythras to be d20 based some day.

For D&D though, I'm so used to roll over a DC that I can't imagine mixing it up. The scale of 1 to 20 (or higher) works in my brain so well that sometimes I don't even HAVE a preset DC in mind when I ask a player to roll a check or save, I just gauge how much they succeeded or failed based on how high or low they roll, the consequences, the context and their character's abilities. It works for me, helps me "go with the flow".

So in other words, I'll stick with roll over for D&D, but I'd love a d20 roll under system as a simpler version of d100 games (maybe I really should check out Dragonbane).

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That would make sense...

If the 5e saving throw system wasn't already kinda messed up and requiring adjustment or playing favorite at base.

PC and NPC saving throw bonuses for nonproficient saves are already WAY TOO LOW.

You already want to adjust saving throws. PC s only get proficiency in one good saving through and one week saving throw leaving for options right for targeting. And monsters rarely even get any saving throw bonus. So in reality you kind of need to adjust the same and throw system to if you claim that these Score DCs are too high as it is.

If you say Scores are too high for DCs, you are likely acknowledging the base DCs are too high already.

I've taken to giving half proficiency on saves. It's not perfect, but it's something.

If I ever did my 5E Fantasy Heartbreaker, there's so much I would steal from PF2E, but the Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary level of proficiency bonus of +2/4/6/8 is at the top.

It allows a more granular level of skill, and makes it so the fighter who's been dodging fireballs for 10 levels actually gets better at dodging fireballs.

 

[Minigiant]

I think I'd rather have a game that's consistently "roll under" or "roll over", but not a mixture of both.

I like how Dragonbane is essentially d100 down to a d20 (I think?). I find that elegantly simple. I'd actually like to hack Mythras to be d20 based some day.

For D&D though, I'm so used to roll over a DC that I can't imagine mixing it up. The scale of 1 to 20 (or higher) works in my brain so well that sometimes I don't even HAVE a preset DC in mind when I ask a player to roll a check or save, I just gauge how much they succeeded or failed based on how high or low they roll, the consequences, the context and their character's abilities. It works for me, helps me "go with the flow".

So in other words, I'll stick with roll over for D&D, but I'd love a d20 roll under system as a simpler version of d100 games (maybe I really should check out Dragonbane).

I'm not suggesting roll under.

I am suggesting DCa being Scores instead of formula.

 

[abirdcall]

The first step is to select a variety of monsters according to CR and type and then compare how they function with the different rules.

Until we do that it is difficult to judge just how it will end up playing out.