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

[Phazonfish]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. A rogue might dive out of the way of a fireball whereas a fighter might raise a shield to blunt the effect. Both might be different types of saves. I do like the idea of letting the players have a say in what they in response to these situations instead of just assuming, as you say.

Personally I think raising a shield in response would still be a dex save. I'm not opposed to the idea of letting the character use a different save if they can justify it; I like the idea of charisma saves vs. mind control.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Side benefit to saving throws is that they encourage off-turn attention.

And the game otherwise lacks a lot of off-turn action. Of course, getting hit and taking damage also happens off turn, much as one might want to ignore it...

This seems a solution in search for a problem. What issue, precisely, is being resolved by removing saving throws?

Consolidating attacks into a single mechanic is a clear system simplification. It has ripple effects, too. Not only is there one resolution procedure to learn instead of two, everything that interacts with offense becomes simpler. An effect that makes you better at dodging doesn't need to give attackers disadvantage to hit your AC and give you advantage to DEX saves, it can simply give attackers disadvantage to hit your AC or 'REF defense' or 'Touch AC' or whatever you call it.

I can't tell you how many times players have made an attack roll with Sacred Flame, or had to be prompted to make an attack roll with a spell that required one.

"Why don't we use THAC0?"

Because it was complicated and unintuitive, and would serve no purpose in a game where everyone would, in essence, have the same THAC0, and would shatter bounded accuracy like a crystal vase dropped from the back of an elephant - and stepped on by said elephant?

Why change that to be solely about the aggressor, and why would that be superior to just leaving it the same

Consistency & simplicity.

bearing in mind the effort required to rewrite whole chunks of the PHB as a consequence?

That's the rub, though, isn't it? In theory, it's simpler. In practice, it's too late to realize that gain.

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?

No & No. They're an artifact of the early game. Mathematically, you could invert all saves to be attack rolls (or vice versa), with no change in how often the target is affected. It'd be a significant simplification of the game, both in terms of new players learning it/simplifying play and in the sense of simplifying the writing of rules for anything that interacts with attacks/saves, like Adv/Dis.

A related, interesting, variant, BTW, is 'player always rolls.' When attacking in any sense, a PCs make the attack roll, when being attacked, they make a defense roll (like a save). The DM never has to roll for his monsters. Of course, you could also invert that, and have the DM always roll, behind the screen, thus heightening tension and keeping DCs and monster capabilities uncertain.

 

[robus]

Personally I think raising a shield in response would still be a dex save. I'm not opposed to the idea of letting the character use a different save if they can justify it; I like the idea of charisma saves vs. mind control.

Yeah - perhaps not the most clear of examples, but the idea that the player can make choices on how they respond is an interesting one. If for nothing else than to potentially offer them advantage on their save because of the reaction they describe.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Whether you roll an attack versus a static defense, or roll a defense against a static attack, the result is essentially the same. Neither more complex than the other, and either would work just fine.

But, the person who is rolling the die does have a greater sense of agency. So, the current setup gives the players the greatest sense of agency over their characters. They're the ones who get to do most of the rolling on their turn or when they describe an action.

- Player attacks: player rolls.
- Player stumbles into a trap: player rolls.
- Player walks into the area of an active spell: player rolls.
- Player casts a spell: target rolls.

Casting a spell is the odd one, and is the case where rolling to attack in 4E was more satisfying than saving throws. But, since the choice of spell is interesting, and the impact great, I think the player still gets a lot of agency. Also, as a DM with plenty of dice, it's easier to roll saves for multiple creatures at once than to have the player roll multiple attacks.

Still, in a home game, if you wanted to house rule that spells are handled with an attack roll, it wouldn't be hard to do. Subtract 10 from your spell DC to determine your attack bonus. Replace the saving throw with 10 + saving throw bonus.

Also, on the topic of a saving throw dictating a player's actions. It doesn't really. The player can always choose to fail the save.

 

[dave2008]

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.

What if you had to spend a reaction to make a saving throw? You could then qualify it with a description that fir the save type if you want.

I like the idea that you have to spend a limited resource to make a save, but I see the issues with it too.

 

[iserith]

Also, on the topic of a saving throw dictating a player's actions. It doesn't really. The player can always choose to fail the save.

It does really. I am not aware of any rules that allow for a player to choose to fail a save either. (Please let me know if there are some.) A DM could make a ruling along those lines, of course.

Also, you talk about rolling giving a "sense" of agency. What I'm referring to, with regard to a player declaring his or her character's response to a spell or other effect that would call for a saving throw, and that declaration having an impact on the adjudication, is real agency, not just a sense of it.

Again, not a deal breaker for me for D&D 5e. Just something I think would be more consistent with the basic conversation of the game.

 

[iserith]

What if you had to spend a reaction to make a saving throw? You could then qualify it with a description that fir the save type if you want.

I like the idea that you have to spend a limited resource to make a save, but I see the issues with it too.

I'm not sure how that would interact with the rest of the game. Probably badly. I know all the PCs with shield would hate it!

 

[Xeviat]

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.

Ability check. Ability checks could be for when you "try" to do something. Defenses would be for when someone or something does something to you. There are still some oddities, but AC already assumes that I'm trying to dodge with my Dex; why should Dex save or defense be any different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

I'm curious. What else do you see a character do in response to a fireball?

Brace yourself and stand your ground: maybe a Dex save, maybe a Con save.

Drop to the ground.

Hide behind your shield.

Hide behind an object.

Stand your ground and try to look tough so the dragon thinks you're impervious to fire.

Most are likely still Dex saves, but the results are different. The results are where the agency lays in something like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

How did 4E handle throwing a Fireball (or the equivalent) at four targets? Did the attacker make one attack roll and compare it against all four defenses, so one good roll would hit everyone and the Cleric would never avoid an explosion that hit the Rogue? Or did the attacker make four different attack rolls?

One of the benefits of the Saving Throw is that it distributes the rolling among multiple players, who only need to know their own bonus, instead of the attacker comparing against four different numbers that they don't know.