We went from 5 saving throws to...64!

[Emirikol]

What redundancy? Saving throws do represent something. The mechanic is actually the same for them d20+bonus. I'm not seeing your point.

This is theoretical. Wouldn't skills represent a better mechanic than having a seperate mechanic for saves? Turn two mechanics to one. Like when they took 5 saves to 3.

FOr example, why doesn't a person with a high tumble have a better reflex save, or a person with a high knowledge arcana not get a better save for magic, or a person with a high survival have a better fortitude save?

Perhaps this is a 4E question for those of you looking to the future.

jh

 

[Crothian]

This is theoretical. Wouldn't skills represent a better mechanic than having a seperate mechanic for saves? Turn two mechanics to one. Like when they took 5 saves to 3.

FOr example, why doesn't a person with a high tumble have a better reflex save, or a person with a high knowledge arcana not get a better save for magic, or a person with a high survival have a better fortitude save?

Tumble is not reflexive, just like knowledge doesn't make a will stronger or knowing how to survive in the wilderness does not help fend off diseases. I really think you are making a big leap trying to connect these.

 

[Cergorach]

If the saving throws were folded into skills, everyone would max them out anyway because not doing that would be suicidal. There would only be two gradations class skills and non class skills. Not to mention the fact that skills can have all sorts of bonuses that saving throws don't have. Those skills would either have to be exceptions to the general rules of skills or the actions that require saving throws would have to be radically altered. In short, there are still three saving throws because it is simpler for the player and simpler for the dm/designer.

Players know that the saving throws don't work the same way as skills (lot less abilities/feats/spells stack sith saving throws).
DMs and Designers don't have to worry to much about players that don't take the saving skills and thus are vulnerable to all sorts of nasty stuff or the abnormal stuff such as taking 10/20 with saving throws.

Use the right tool for the right job and all that...

ps. imo dodge points would regenerate a lot quicker then hit points, making them both distinct options/rules. Sure you could keep folding rules into rules according to your pov, but then you would end up with rock-paper-scissors deciding every situation.

 

[Crothian]

As a house rule I could see the possibility of synergy bonuses to some saves, but I would not replace saves with skills.

 

[Numion]

OK, nobody's seeing the redundancy of having both a skill and a saving throw mechanic? Saving throws really represent "nothing." Why the seperate mechanic? Why not just make them part of skills?

Why are attack bonuses a different system from skills?

Sometimes simple distinctions make the game work better, even though you could do without.

I think that keeping skills and saves apart is justified, considering the difference in play. Saving throws might be similar to skills in some ways, saving throws are usually pretty important, so a special system for them is ok.

 

[mmadsen]

Wouldn't skills represent a better mechanic than having a seperate mechanic for saves?

Certainly the three saves could be implemented as skills. The save progressions would then be +0/level, +0.5/level, and +1/level, which would require some adjustments, but it should work.

FOr example, why doesn't a person with a high tumble have a better reflex save, or a person with a high knowledge arcana not get a better save for magic, or a person with a high survival have a better fortitude save?

Are you trying to say that Ref should not be its own skill but just another use of Tumble?

 

[Vigilance]

This is theoretical. Wouldn't skills represent a better mechanic than having a seperate mechanic for saves?

No.

Let's rattle off a few reasons: It would require the number of skill points granted to every class to be re-evaluated.

Saves are more valuable than skills, thus leading to a reworking of many skills to try and put them on par (which would you want? Fortitude or Balance? Hmmm, that is a tough one... no wait, it's not).

It's just a bad idea that would require a lot of work retooling many areas of the current system that work fine, for little to no benefit.

And when you get done with that madness, someone will say "hey, if skills and saves work the same, why not attack rolls"?

And then the whole process starts over again.

A lot of work for something that isn't broken.

 

[mmadsen]

Why are attack bonuses a different system from skills?

Indeed, why are they?

 

[Glyfair]

This is theoretical. Wouldn't skills represent a better mechanic than having a seperate mechanic for saves? Turn two mechanics to one. Like when they took 5 saves to 3.

No. Skills are something that everyone doesn't advance. By their nature saving throws are things every character has and advance as the character advances automatically.

I could see a better argument for tying BAB into the skill mechanic.

I see no real similarity between saving throws and skills except in very specific instances (balance sometimes overlaps with reflex saves).

 

[Aus_Snow]

There's no reason that a d20 system composed of skills and feats, and little else, couldn't work, and work well.

But why saves in particular, is what I'm wondering.


Given what saves represent, why do they automatically advance? Why don't certain skills? Why does BAB? Why do HPs? Why does spellcasting? Why do ability scores?