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

[Charlaquin]

Speaking in terms of the party, that is true.

Speaking in terms of the party monk, however, it is not. Most monks can't throw lightning bolts or cause effects with saves that target Dex.

Typically, games are played with each player controlling a single PC (or maybe two), rather than an entire party. I believe it's worthwhile to consider how this could impact each individual, in addition to the group as a whole.

I mean, the monk would be better off attacking the dragon’s AC, and spending their Ki on Flurry of Blows and/or Patient Defense, if they don’t have the ability to target its Dex.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I mean, the monk would be better off attacking the dragon’s AC, and spending their Ki on Flurry of Blows and/or Patient Defense, if they don’t have the ability to target its Dex.

It's just one example though. One which illustrates a potential issue with the correlative scaling between Con and CR for monks.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's just one example though. One which illustrates a potential issue with the correlative scaling between Con and CR for monks.

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.

I think it would just affect the way you’d have to design encounters. I don’t know how many high CR monsters have low Con, but even assuming there are very few, you can still challenge high level parties with large groups of lower CR enemies, of which there should be plenty with low Con. You won’t always be able to count on any given NAD-targeting spell or ability being able to be used effectively, but at every tier of play there should be times when it will be extremely effective.

 

[billd91]

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

• save proficiencies don't fit--do they still exist, how are they handled?

Honestly, I think just leave them out and remove proficiency bonus from spell attacks.

• issues with existing items and class features--things that modify saving throws would all need to be changed

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.

• strange implications--do traps make an attack roll? that seems odd (I would probably treat some sorts of traps and hazards as ability checks on making this change--i.e. "make a dexterity (acrobatics) check to avoid the collapsing floor", not "collapsing floor rolls a 14 to hit you.")

Some traps already do make attack rolls - arrow traps, for example, make an attack roll targeting your AC. But, for traps that normally require a save, I would absolutely have them call for a check instead.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

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

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think it would just affect the way you’d have to design encounters. I don’t know how many high CR monsters have low Con, but even assuming there are very few, you can still challenge high level parties with large groups of lower CR enemies, of which there should be plenty with low Con. You won’t always be able to count on any given NAD-targeting spell or ability being able to be used effectively, but at every tier of play there should be times when it will be extremely effective.

Sure, that's an option.

But if you need to change your encounter and adventure design to accommodate it, then that's certainly a relevant consideration that ought to be taken into account before implementing this house rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, that's an option.

But if you need to change your encounter and adventure design to accommodate it, then that's certainly a relevant consideration that ought to be taken into account before implementing this house rule.

Oh, absolutely!

 

[loverdrive]

If I was designing a game from the ground-up, I definitely would get rid of either attack rolls or saving throws, but doing it with existing 5E design seems like asking for bugs.

 

[Charlaquin]

If I was designing a game from the ground-up, I definitely would get rid of either attack rolls or saving throws, but doing it with existing 5E design seems like asking for bugs.

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.