D&D 5E Why do we need saving throws?

[Morrus]

Huh? What are you talking about? There is only one roll. There is not an opposed defense roll. There is simply rolling for defense against a monster's static number. There is no difference in total number of rolls, simply in who rolls and when. And in the case of the Cypher System, it is always the player and never the GM.

Well, OK. :shrug:

 

[iserith]

I'm not a fan of saving throws because they make an assumption about what the character is doing with no input from the player. I live with it as it is, but I'd be happier if this mechanic were modified or removed for something that had more player input as to how their characters try to avoid or resist the things that trigger saves.

 

[CydKnight]

I'm not a fan of saving throws because they make an assumption about what the character is doing with no input from the player. I live with it as it is, but I'd be happier if this mechanic were modified or removed for something that had more player input as to how their characters try to avoid or resist the things that trigger saves.

They already do have some say in it with the way they arranged their ability scores. Beyond that, it's not like you have time to actually think about what you are going to do while it happens in a split second.

A Dexterity check, to me, is a good example of how input does not apply. You are simply reacting (as in real life not the 5E "Reaction") within a microsecond to some outside action upon you. There is no thought or input regarding the outcome. There is simply you got out of the way in a microsecond or you didn't. As such I think a dice roll with ability modifiers is the best way to reconcile that even if you don't like the way that dice mechanic is currently written for 5E. Afterward the player can certainly give input with respect to the description of how the outcome of the dice roll plays out.

Another example is a Constitution check for being poisoned. The poison is already administered. Now we need to know if your body can reject it or shrug off some of the effects. Again there is no input. It's your bodies reaction (again not the 5E "reaction), to the poison already coursing through the body. Input from the player comes afterwards to find out what the character would like to do, if anything, about being poisoned.

 

[alienux]

Aside from it being a sacred cow, is there any actual need for saving throws? Is there any function that they serve that can't be served by a simpler attack vs. defence roll? I know the system justification for them and I'm not advocating getting rid of them, merely wanting to hear why it is they should be kept or if the system could be perfectly fine without them.

You are walking on ice and try to avoid slipping and falling prone. Or you are walking over a covered pit and try to jump out of the way as you realize you've stepped on it.

Where is there an attack vs. defense in those situations? Those are reactions to an environment, and saving throws make perfect sense for them.

 

[iserith]

They already do have some say in it with the way they arranged their ability scores. Beyond that, it's not like you have time to actually think about what you are going to do while it happens in a split second.

A Dexterity check, to me, is a good example of how input does not apply. You are simply reacting (as in real life not the 5E "Reaction") within a microsecond to some outside action upon you. There is no thought or input regarding the outcome. There is simply you got out of the way in a microsecond or you didn't. As such I think a dice roll with ability modifiers is the best way to reconcile that even if you don't like the way that dice mechanic is currently written for 5E. Afterward the player can certainly give input with respect to the description of how the outcome of the dice roll plays out.

Another example is a Constitution check for being poisoned. The poison is already administered. Now we need to know if your body can reject it or shrug off some of the effects. Again there is no input. It's your bodies reaction (again not the 5E "reaction), to the poison already coursing through the body. Input from the player comes afterwards to find out what the character would like to do, if anything, about being poisoned.

I don't find this to be a very compelling argument. Characters sometimes do things that might require split-second thinking which can require an ability check to resolve. The key part there in my view is that the players are the ones deciding what they are doing. As a save, this would look a lot more like Defy Danger from Dungeon World which I would prefer. "The flames explode outward from the tiny red sphere - what do you do?!" "I hit the deck to avoid the worst of the flames!" "Okay, let's see a Dex save..." versus "The flames explode outward from the tiny red sphere - make a Dex save." Here the DM (and the mechanic) just assumes what the character is doing. Now, I realize that plenty of DMs are just fine with describing what the characters are doing and many players are okay with their DMs doing that, but I'm not. That's overstepping the role of DM in my view.

In many cases, the mechanic used to resolve the uncertainty would be the same, but at least the method I propose would be more in line with the basic conversation of the game wherein the DM describes what's happening, the player describes what he or she wants to do, and the DM narrates the results. Saving throws as written assume what the player wants to do and that's not my preference.

If there is to be no input from the player outside of ability score choice at character build or advancement, then it may as well just be a defense as in D&D 4e in my view.

 

[CydKnight]

I don't find this to be a very compelling argument. Characters sometimes do things that might require split-second thinking which can require an ability check to resolve. The key part there in my view is that the players are the ones deciding what they are doing. As a save, this would look a lot more like Defy Danger from Dungeon World which I would prefer. "The flames explode outward from the tiny red sphere - what do you do?!" "I hit the deck to avoid the worst of the flames!" "Okay, let's see a Dex save..." versus "The flames explode outward from the tiny red sphere - make a Dex save." Here the DM (and the mechanic) just assumes what the character is doing.

In many cases, the mechanic used to resolve the uncertainty would be the same, but at least the method I propose would be more in line with the basic conversation of the game wherein the DM describes what's happening, the player describes what he or she wants to do, and the DM narrates the results. Saving throws as written assume what the player wants to do and that's not my preference.

If there is to be no input from the player outside of ability score choice at character build or advancement, then it may as well just be a defense as in D&D 4e in my view.

OK, then. I wasn't really arguing so much as giving my own alternative view on the subject.

I will only say that I do not see it as "saving throws as written assume what the player wants to do". I see them as players don't have any choice whatsoever in what's happening but it's happening anyway and this is how we find out the result.

 

[iserith]

You are walking on ice and try to avoid slipping and falling prone. Or you are walking over a covered pit and try to jump out of the way as you realize you've stepped on it.

Where is there an attack vs. defense in those situations? Those are reactions to an environment, and saving throws make perfect sense for them.

In the previous edition of the game, the PCs would be expected to deal with those situations either by taking an appropriate action and making an ability check to resolve the uncertainty or, in the case of traps, it makes an attack roll against your defense. Traps had stat blocks.

 

[Dausuul]

Aside from it being a sacred cow, is there any actual need for saving throws? Is there any function that they serve that can't be served by a simpler attack vs. defence roll? I know the system justification for them and I'm not advocating getting rid of them, merely wanting to hear why it is they should be kept or if the system could be perfectly fine without them.

Well, obviously you don't need saving throws in an RPG. 4E got rid of them; the 4E saving throw is a duration tracking mechanic.

That said, they do have a function in 5E. Saving throws are designed to act as "gatekeepers" for crippling status effects. Therefore, they're hard for attackers to manipulate (it's much harder to weaken an enemy's saving throw than it is to strengthen your own attack roll), and creatures that need to be resistant to such effects get abilities like Magic Resistance or Legendary Resistance. Moreover, the illusion of control when you roll a saving throw helps players feel less put-upon when they get debuffed.

 

[iserith]

OK, then. I wasn't really arguing so much as giving my own alternative view on the subject.

I will only say that I do not see it as "saving throws as written assume what the player wants to do". I see them as players don't have any choice whatsoever in what's happening but it's happening anyway and this is how we find out the result.

The Dexterity save triggered by, say, a fireball measures the character's agility which does imply he or she is doing something that require agility, such as dodging the worst of the flames. I'd prefer that decision be the player's, not the mechanics (or the DM's), even if the end result in most cases is the same.

 

[wedgeski]

You are simply reacting (as in real life not the 5E "Reaction") within a microsecond to some outside action upon you.

This is exactly how I adjudicate when a saving throw is required vs. an ability check. Saving throws are autonomic, reflexive, and free. I don't really care about the player agency part of it (and neither does anyone I've DM'd, to my knowledge). All that being said, if a player really did not want to make a saving throw, for whatever reason, I would allow it.