D&D 5E (2014) What are the pitfalls of eliminating saving throws in 5e?

[squibbles]

I think the biggest issue is that this is only considering the question from the PC side of things.

Monster ability scores run the full gamut from 1 to 30. Essentially, this would either trivialize "saving throws", such that a 1 Int giant centipede always fails when targeted with the synaptic static spell, or a 29 Con ancient red dragon almost can't fail when targeted with stunning strike (sure they would otherwise use legendary resistance, but at least that's one less use of that ability). It somewhat subverts bounded accuracy in the game, by shifting the target numbers higher/lower than the game would normally allow.

[...] Saying that a monk should focus on using their Ki in other ways for a given combat is arguably fine. However, if it's actually that the monk may as well forget they have Stunning Strike after a certain tier, that's not okay in my book. My gut says we're more looking at the latter case with this house rule, though I admit that I haven't tried graphing the correlation and could be mistaken.

Yeah, there's a rock paper scissors element to this house rule. If you have the right spell or feature for the right enemy, then the effect goes through easily--but if not, too bad. It has a kinda witcher-y element to it, where identifying enemy weaknesses is important. That probably necessitates thinking about the way encounters happen, so that PCs have the opportunity to figure out what they should be doing. It also creates meta-game knowledge issues, advantaging players who know the MM.

For those PCs that don't have a lot of flexibility in what they target--it might be fine. If the balance of easy to hit targets and hard to hit targets is reasonable, it might just mean that gameplay is very feast or famine. I don't have a sense of how much fun it would actually be to play with this kind of setup--it might make being a monk just... miserable. Features that target constitution and strength suffer a lot more than others--since monsters usually have good scores--maybe the simple solution would be to have monks' stunning strike and other similarly restricted classes' features target something else.

Reading the title I got bait again, seriously making magic taking effect all the time,
sadly, it’s only a mechanic twist.

ha! I'd be interested in a system like that too but, man, the amount of work that'd have to go into changing all the affected spells would be immense.

I’d add the pitfall that inspiration could no longer be used for defense if saves become a static defense.

Yeah, good observation. I'm not sure I'm bothered by inspiration being exclusively proactive/offensive. I always liked the players claim inspiration house rule better than standard 5e rule, and I don't think changing saves would affect it much.

So, let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re ok with the effects this rule has on accuracy math. What about the other potential issues?

[...]

I would say anything that would normally add a bonus to your saves with a certain ability instead applies a penalty to attacks that target that ability. So, for example, a paladin’s Protective Aura would change to “attacks targeting the abilities of allies within 10 feet of you have a penalty equal to your Charisma modifier.

I suppose you could apply the same approach to save proficiencies. “Attacks targeting your (proficient score) have a penalty equal to your proficiency bonus. But I dunno, for some reason that doesn’t feel as good to me.

That'd be totally functional, but both fixes feel a bit counterintuitive--apply a penalty to the caster's roll, but only apply the penalty when targets are within a radius unrelated to the position of the caster. Not that I have a better idea, but I feel like it's accounting for these kind of features that would most undermine the parsimony of the no saving throws change.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, there's a rock paper scissors element to this house rule. If you have the right spell or feature for the right enemy, then the effect goes through easily--but if not, too bad. It has a kinda witcher-y element to it, where identifying enemy weaknesses is important. That probably necessitates thinking about the way encounters happen, so that PCs have the opportunity to figure out what they should be doing. It also creates meta-game knowledge issues, advantaging players who know the MM.

For those PCs that don't have a lot of flexibility in what they target--it might be fine. If the balance of easy to hit targets and hard to hit targets is reasonable, it might just mean that gameplay is very feast or famine. I don't have a sense of how much fun it would actually be to play with this kind of setup--it might make being a monk just... miserable. Features that target constitution and strength suffer a lot more than others--since monsters usually have good scores--maybe the simple solution would be to have monks' stunning strike and other similarly restricted classes' features target something else.

Stunning Strike is also an interesting case because with how it currently works you first have to hit the target’s AC with your attack, and then they make a save. With NADs (whether 14+Mod or straight ability score), you’d basically be making two attacks, which feels kinda weird. Maybe Stunning Strike and similar abilities that force a save after a successful attack roll now force a check? Or maybe you combine the rolls - if the attack beats AC, it hits, and if the attack would also beat the relevant NAD, it does the on-hit effect?

That'd be totally functional, but both fixes feel a bit counterintuitive--apply a penalty to the caster's roll, but only apply the penalty when targets are within a radius unrelated to the position of the caster. Not that I have a better idea, but I feel like it's accounting for these kind of features that would most undermine the parsimony of the no saving throws change.

Doesn’t seem any weirder than cover to me. Though, I guess cover technically adds to the target’s AC rather than penalizing the attacker’s roll.

 

[Redwizard007]

As a modification to 5e, not a fan, although I did play in a game online with a similar rule (exclusively for spells) and it was an interesting change. As a core mechanic of a new system, maybe 6e, hell yes.

 

[loverdrive]

Using 14 + Mod (+Prof if you have it) as non-AC defenses would have no bugs whatsoever. The math is exactly the same. Using ability scores as non-AC defenses would change the math though, and that would definitely have side-effects, which some DMs may consider bugs or features.

Well, it's not only numbers. 5E is a complex game with a lot of moving parts. How would fighter's Indomitable work? Would Lore bard be able to use Cutting Words against a fireball? What about nat. 1s and 20s? There are probably more things that would need to be addressed, these are just from the top of my head.

It is certainly doable, but I don't see any reason to go through all that hassle for... for what?

 

[clearstream]

Good point! You should probably also add “impose disadvantage on an attack targeting one of your abilities” as a way to use Inspiration.

The mechanical vocabulary may become ambiguous. For example, cutting words is separated from unsettling words through saving throw being separated from attack. If it is all attacks, there might be a change in how designers think of these things. Dwarf poison resistance is one example I can think of: it becomes disadvantage to the 'attack' poison is making at the dwarf. I wonder how that shift in framing plays out in the long term?

What do you all see as a the pitfalls of making this change? Is the math functional? Is there a more elegant, better balanced, or otherwise more advantageous way to eliminate saving throws? Have any of you tried something like this?

And if you're attitude is "if it ain't broke don't fix it," well... fair enough, feel welcome to come and tell me off about it.

Earthdawn uses an all-attacks approach, with characters having physical, mystic and social defense levels that must be overcome by attacks (armor in ED reduces the damage.)

 

[GMMichael]

Well, it's not only numbers. 5E is a complex game with a lot of moving parts. How would fighter's Indomitable work? Would Lore bard be able to use Cutting Words against a fireball? What about nat. 1s and 20s? There are probably more things that would need to be addressed, these are just from the top of my head.

It is certainly doable, but I don't see any reason to go through all that hassle for... for what?

This. It's almost as if they include complexity to prevent tinkering. Hmmm...

For what? is a good question too. The OP mentions house-rule, which is a little more rigid than a DM ruling, but not much. A ruling would allow rounding off the edge cases, and the DM would end up doing more rolling with NPCs needing to roll for their save-inducing attacks. If it's for a revision of 5th ed, removing saves requires rewriting... um... a lot.

The biggest change to me is that it removes the PC-oh-naughty word moment. As in, "you're about to get blown up by a fireball!" "Oh naughty word I'd better save (myself)!" This way, saving throws exist for a specific reason: to keep PCs engaged when defending isn't routine (assuming that armor class is supposed to be a routine defense).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’d add the pitfall that inspiration could no longer be used for defense if saves become a static defense.

Also bless.

 

[Li Shenron]

For me the main pitfall is its uselessness.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, it's not only numbers. 5E is a complex game with a lot of moving parts. How would fighter's Indomitable work?

Like it does now, only with the attacker rolling. When you get hit by an attack targeting one of your ability defenses, you can make the attacker re-roll and use the second result.

Would Lore bard be able to use Cutting Words against a fireball?

Of course not.

What about nat. 1s and 20s?

They don’t do anything on saving throws, so they don’t do anything on attacks against ability defenses.

There are probably more things that would need to be addressed, these are just from the top of my head.

Not really, just treat attacks against ability defenses exactly like saving throws, with the other party doing the rolling.

It is certainly doable, but I don't see any reason to go through all that hassle for... for what?

Unifying the core action resolution mechanic. Or, alternatively, switching to a players always roll system.

 

[Charlaquin]

The mechanical vocabulary may become ambiguous. For example, cutting words is separated from unsettling words through saving throw being separated from attack. If it is all attacks, there might be a change in how designers think of these things. Dwarf poison resistance is one example I can think of: it becomes disadvantage to the 'attack' poison is making at the dwarf. I wonder how that shift in framing plays out in the long term?

Like I said to Lovedrive, you can just treat attacks that target ability defenses the same way you treat saving throws. They’re a different category of thing than attacks against AC, and are affected only by things that affect saving throws.