Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What are the pitfalls of eliminating saving throws in 5e?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8462630" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I agree with your assessment of the pros and cons (apart from maybe the miscasting thing as a pro, but hey, if it floats your boat!)</p><p></p><p>Let’s crunch some numbers on how this would affect the math, shall we? Converting ability saves to Non-AC-Defenses (NADs) is actually pretty easy. A NAD of 14 + Mod (+Prof if you would be proficient in the save) is mathematically identical to the 5e standard of save DCs being 8+ Mod (+Prof if relevant), just with the opposite party rolling. Comparing those target numbers to the target numbers for their equivalent ability-score-as-NAD, we get…</p><p></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Ability Score</td><td>“True” NAD</td><td>Delta</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>13</td><td>+5</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>13</td><td>+4</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>14</td><td>+4</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>14</td><td>+3</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>15</td><td>+3</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>15</td><td>+2</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>+2</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>16</td><td>+1</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>+1</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>17</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>18</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>18</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>19</td><td>-1</td></tr></table><p></p><p></p><p>As we can see, compared to “true” NADs, using ability-scores-as-NADs gives casters an advantage when targeting scores lower than 17, and a disadvantage when targeting scores higher than 18. The delta gets wider the further you get from 17/18.</p><p></p><p>I think the most noticeable result of such a rule would be that targeting an opponent’s weak stats becomes much more important! The lower an ability score is, the higher your functional bonus to hit it, so PCs would be heavily discouraged from dumping stats, and heavily encouraged to have spells targeting every stat (and to correctly guess what stat to target). It would also give casters a big buff against trash mobs, but bit of a nerf against big boss monsters. Of course, by the time you’re fighting monsters with multiple of stats over 18, there’s a good chance you’ll have some magic items buffing your spell attack bonus, so this might actually work out to be all-upside for PC casters. Though, you could compensate a bit by giving monsters lots of NAD proficiencies. Or, alternatively, by removing proficiency bonus from spell attacks.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8462630, member: 6779196"] I agree with your assessment of the pros and cons (apart from maybe the miscasting thing as a pro, but hey, if it floats your boat!) Let’s crunch some numbers on how this would affect the math, shall we? Converting ability saves to Non-AC-Defenses (NADs) is actually pretty easy. A NAD of 14 + Mod (+Prof if you would be proficient in the save) is mathematically identical to the 5e standard of save DCs being 8+ Mod (+Prof if relevant), just with the opposite party rolling. Comparing those target numbers to the target numbers for their equivalent ability-score-as-NAD, we get… [TABLE] [TR] [TD]Ability Score[/TD] [TD]“True” NAD[/TD] [TD]Delta[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]8[/TD] [TD]13[/TD] [TD]+5[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]9[/TD] [TD]13[/TD] [TD]+4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]10[/TD] [TD]14[/TD] [TD]+4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]11[/TD] [TD]14[/TD] [TD]+3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]12[/TD] [TD]15[/TD] [TD]+3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]13[/TD] [TD]15[/TD] [TD]+2[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]14[/TD] [TD]16[/TD] [TD]+2[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]15[/TD] [TD]16[/TD] [TD]+1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]16[/TD] [TD]17[/TD] [TD]+1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]17[/TD] [TD]17[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]18[/TD] [TD]18[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]19[/TD] [TD]18[/TD] [TD]-1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]20[/TD] [TD]19[/TD] [TD]-1[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] As we can see, compared to “true” NADs, using ability-scores-as-NADs gives casters an advantage when targeting scores lower than 17, and a disadvantage when targeting scores higher than 18. The delta gets wider the further you get from 17/18. I think the most noticeable result of such a rule would be that targeting an opponent’s weak stats becomes much more important! The lower an ability score is, the higher your functional bonus to hit it, so PCs would be heavily discouraged from dumping stats, and heavily encouraged to have spells targeting every stat (and to correctly guess what stat to target). It would also give casters a big buff against trash mobs, but bit of a nerf against big boss monsters. Of course, by the time you’re fighting monsters with multiple of stats over 18, there’s a good chance you’ll have some magic items buffing your spell attack bonus, so this might actually work out to be all-upside for PC casters. Though, you could compensate a bit by giving monsters lots of NAD proficiencies. Or, alternatively, by removing proficiency bonus from spell attacks. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What are the pitfalls of eliminating saving throws in 5e?
Top