D&D 5E Skills and Saving Throws

[UngeheuerLich]

Why not?

I always wondered why you don´t do an athletics save, if you try to avoid a trap door.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I for one would love it (as I mentioned in another thread) if WotC actually built both the combat rules *and* skill rules together as one package where bonuses and modifiers for both sides all work and are balanced together. So that you *could* use skills to impact combat, just like you could use combat to impact skills.

We already have Weapon Bonus and Spell bonus modifiers starting at +2 or +3, which mirrors the Skill Training bonus of +3... just make the skills advance in the same way the attack bonuses do so that both systems remain sympatico.

 

[howandwhy99]

Saving Throws exist because there were no skills when they were created. Some Abilities could influence Saving Throw rolls, but for the most part they were separate descriptors.

I don't see any particular reason Skill Bonuses couldn't be used on a save now however. The only hang up I foresee is the popularity of their use for a very small subset of skills. Imagine if Fort/Ref/Wis were always modified by Concentration, Balance, and Spellcraft.

IOW, too few skills over applicable and those few apply in too many cases.

 

[Viking Bastard]

The flaw in your logic is that actions initiated by a character are ability checks, not skill checks. And saves are now ability saves. While the difference between the two is a matter of action or reaction, they are otherwise the same thing. I say skills apply.

That's not a flaw; that's sementics. I called them Skill Checks to differentiate them from Saves. Both are Ability Checks, as are Attack Rolls-- each is a different type of Ability Check. Skills don't impact Attack Rolls (even though some may want them to), so I see no reason why they should impact Saves, especially since Saves already get their own bonuses.

Y'know, mechanically speaking.

I understand how you're thinking about it, but IMHO it is a little dangerous to rely on the model (i.e. the artifact difference between a check and a saving throw) and the reality represented by such model. Because sometimes the model fall short...

Yeah. Of course it will. This is D&D and it does not and never has had a proper universal mechanic. It has always compartmentalized resolution, even if you always roll a d20+Mods. Until D&D takes that step towards mechanical unification, I think compartment-hopping should be kept to a minimum.

For example, you cite "disbelief". I think that's an example of ambiguity of the model: how exactly do you "initiate" disbelieving? Is there really a difference between "active disbelieving" and "reactive disbelieving"? In the model yes, in reality not really.

Out-of-character (around the table) the difference may be real in the sense that maybe the DM asks you to roll so you can say that the player did not initiate, while another time the DM tells you nothing and the player asks "can I make a check to see if this is an illusion?". That means that whether it's a check or saving throw may depend on the DM even accidentally remembering or forgetting to call for a roll... In-character the two are the same thing.

I did say PC instead of player on purpose. A roll doesn't need to be iniated by the player, it needs to be iniated by the character. I just cited "disbelief" because it had been brought up. Sense Motive is always a Skill Check, independent of who called for it (player or DM).

I can't really think of an example of "disbelief" as a Save in D&D terms, although I'm sure others can.

Another problem, take a Listen check when there is a noise that can be heard (opposed to when choosing to listen to a door "in case there is something to hear" which is definitely "active"): this is a "passive" check or "reactive" check, it's definitely the DM who calls out for a check here since the players could have no idea. Should it still be a skill check then, or should it be a saving throw because it's reactive?

To me, passive checks assume a certain active awareness. They're not reactive in the manner that Saves are. They're mechanics meant to streamline endless dice rolling.

If the character was asleep (or in other ways not "passively" listening), I'd call for a Save.

 

[Li Shenron]

The flaw in your logic is that actions initiated by a character are ability checks, not skill checks. And saves are now ability saves. While the difference between the two is a matter of action or reaction, they are otherwise the same thing. I say skills apply.

Uhm, I don't think [MENTION=509]Viking Bastard[/MENTION]'s logic is flawed. I just think he might have some different assumptions compared to mine on how the game as a whole "should" work.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

That's not a flaw; that's sementics. I called them Skill Checks to differentiate them from Saves. Both are Ability Checks, as are Attack Rolls-- each is a different type of Ability Check. Skills don't impact Attack Rolls (even though some may want them to), so I see no reason why they should impact Saves, especially since Saves already get their own bonuses.

Y'know, mechanically speaking.

[...]

Yeah. Of course it will. This is D&D and it does not and never has had a proper universal mechanic. It has always compartmentalized resolution, even if you always roll a d20+Mods. Until D&D takes that step towards mechanical unification, I think compartment-hopping should be kept to a minimum.

D&D has been steadily unifying its mechanics with each edition. Third Edition moved everything to the d20 + Ability Mod + Modifiers system. Fourth further unified the representation of training with d20 + Ability Mod + Half Level + Training/Proficiency Bonus + Mods.

D&D Next currently represents bonuses from training in only two ways: Skills and Attack Bonuses. Both work in pretty much the same way, by applying to an action where it makes sense, regardless of ability score involved. Personally, I think the final step should be taken that makes melee, ranged, and magical attacks into skills.

Which, in a way, comes full circle. Much of what became the skill system started as Non-weapon proficiencies.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think that skills should not be used for saves, for mechanical balance reasons - but that the way this should be accomplished is by removing or refining those skills that are overly defensive/reactive.

For example, "escape artist" needs to go, because otherwise it renders a rogue with training essentially ungrappleable. "Balance" and "tumble" should go back into acrobatics, and it should be made clear that you can't cartwheel away from a fireball.

Dodging magic bolts and wriggling free of a wrestler's armlock are certainly "skills" in the loose sense, but so is swordfighting. Skills should interact with combat in specific and controlled ways, or else they risk taking over.