Six Saving Throws - One for Each Ability Score?

[Li Shenron]

I haven't seen any sort of variant of this idea in action, but on paper I don't like it.

For one thing, it seems to lend itself to ability score bloat - now you absolutely need to inflate ALL of your ability scores, because those are your saving throws!

Come on... don't be a p**** (see your avatar)

Where is the fun if you're good at everything, have a weapon for everything, and fortified against everything? If you really want such game, why not just asking the DM for more points in a point-buy system?

 

[Ichneumon]

It's roughly analogous to the old division of saving throws (Paralyzation/Poison/Death, etc), except that the target numbers are the ability scores. I'll be interested to see how it pans out.

Here's my first stab at what the abilities will represent.

Strength: Paralyzation, petrification, force attacks.
Dexterity: Breath weapons, wand attacks.
Constitution: Poison, disease, death attacks.
Intelligence: Illusions, direct mind attacks (e.g. psi blasts)
Wisdom: 'Distraction' attacks, confusion
Charisma: Charm/dominate attacks, fear

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Color me cautiously optimistic.

1) making all stats matter is A Good Thing.

2) they'll have to make it DAMN clear in ther rules what kinds of effects are to be used vs what kind of saves, if for no other reason than to keep subsequent game/adventure writers from royally screwing things up.

3) This should also mean a broader array of effects- at least for the casters- so that a properly designed character of any level should be able to attack the defense he chooses at any level. IOW, there shouldn't be a void of Cha-defense targeting spells at 2nd level, or only one single Con-targeting attack at 1st.

 

[Li Shenron]

Dexterity: Breath weapons, wand attacks.

I would prefer if the ability is assigned to effects rather than means of delivery, but everything else looks pretty reasonable.

 

[Hassassin]

3) This should also mean a broader array of effects- at least for the casters- so that a properly designed character of any level should be able to attack the defense he chooses at any level. IOW, there shouldn't be a void of Cha-defense targeting spells at 2nd level, or only one single Con-targeting attack at 1st.

I disagree. This is a good opportunity to limit which defenses different characters can attack, so that they are good against different types of enemies.

For example, I would argue for martial characters attacking only the physical abilities + fear ability (Cha?) with intimidate. Wizards could attack all mental abilities and constitution. Clerics maybe physical + whatever saves vs. compulsions. Etc.

Of course many attacks don't give a save, so there's always something that works.

 

[fuindordm]

I like the concept. There are some potential pitfalls, so hopefully they'll be wise enough to avoid these. The first is if they aren't implemented equally. If you rarely have to make a Cha save and don't Cha in you class you have a dump stat. Dump stats are bad design.

I think it's normal for characters to have a dump stat. I think 3E hit a sweet spot where all stats are useful for all characters, making the choice of dump stat at least a little painful. A fighter might dump Cha with impunity, but they would hesitate to dump Wis.

So if they use all six stats for saving throws, in roughly equal proportions, I worry that they will dilute the unique advantages of the stats in character development. It doesn't make Cha a more interesting choice if every stat protects against about 1/6 of effects.

What I really want to avoid is the late-4E model where your stat choices don't matter, because you can find an excuse to use your highest one for everything. It sounded like they might be heading in that direction, where a wizard could make their saving through by saying "I'm smart enough to notice a flaw in the attack". And that I don't like.

 

[Remathilis]

I dunno. Certainly not a dealbreaker, but I loved the simple elegance of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.

 

[Remathilis]

What I really want to avoid is the late-4E model where your stat choices don't matter, because you can find an excuse to use your highest one for everything. It sounded like they might be heading in that direction, where a wizard could make their saving through by saying "I'm smart enough to notice a flaw in the attack". And that I don't like.

Agreed, though I'd rather see it in the hands of a DM to make such a judgement call on a case by case basis, rather than "I took the Canny Observation feat, so I now use Int for all Reflex and Grapple checks!"

 

[LurkAway]

It sounded like they might be heading in that direction, where a wizard could make their saving through by saying "I'm smart enough to notice a flaw in the attack". And that I don't like.

Yep, same here. I think I'd be happy to allow my DMs to excercise discretion over whether a non-orthodox ability score should be used for a saving throw, assuming the DM is less biased and assuming some players who are looking "to win" frankly aren't going to be objective about it. However, this leads to the "Mother May I" debate.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Frankly, this is one new 5th edition idea I'm not onboard with. I like saving throws, but I think the 3rd Edition model of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will got it spot on.