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

[Tony Vargas]

If you roll against each target separately, you have potentially slowed combat down quite a bit just to more fairly determine the outcome of the effect.

The slow-down is only in the case of a group of PCs being attacked by an AE. When a PC makes an AE, the time it takes the DM to fairly roll all the saves out in the open, vs the PC rolling to hit, is about the same.

2. Class and game mechanics that interact with saving throws would need to be adjusted

That's the real issue. It'd be simpler to consolidate all attacks to one mechanic - when the game was designed. As an after-market mod, it's complicated to implement, because the game has already been complicated by coping as best it can with the redundant/inverted resolution sub-systems. Untangling that could be more trouble than the benefit is worth.

3. It generally is more fun for players if they are the ones rolling dice, when possible.

'When possible' is 'always:' PC looks for a hiden enemy, player rolls perception. PC hides from an enemy searching for him, player rolls stealth. PC attacks an enemy, player rolls to hit. Enemy attack the PC, player rolls to dodge/parry. PC casts at an enemy, player rolls to overcome resistance. Enemy casts at PC, player rolls a save.

Now the name itself is bizarre.

Why call it a throw instead of a saving roll?

Someone even older can correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression it was a wargaming term that pre-dated D&D, possibly it was in Chainmail, possibly Chainmail adopted it from general usage in that hobby. :shrug:

Don't they have to do that anyway?

Attacks require looking at numbers and damage tracking.

Yes. But there's a time-efficiency in letting every player roll their save all at once, they roll, you tell them the DC and effects of failed vs successful save. It's quicker. Of course, you have to trust them. Thing is, when it's going the other way, there's no such efficiency. Either the player of the wizard rolls to hit all the orcs in his fireball, or you roll all their saves. (Or you realize they're dead anyway due to half damage and don't bother to do either.) By the same token, if you have a volley of arrows launched at the PCs, you have to roll every one of 'em.

The efficiency argument isn't an argument for saves, but it is one for players-always-roll. FWIW. (I swear, BTW, I'm not shilling that variant, it's just that people keep talking up advantages it presents).

 

[clearstream]

By your own rationale a choice to voluntarily fail a save would be fine regardless of what the rules might say.

Fireball hits the party. Reactions:

Fighter: "I hunker down and hold up my shield!"
Thief: "I dive for the statue and take cover behind it!"
Wizard: "I hit the deck, put my arms over my head, and hope for the best!"
Cleric: "As a priest of Pyrate, Goddess of Fire, I stand and welcome Her blessing with open arms!"

That Cleric just voluntarily failed.

Lanefan

@iserith your earlier post made me think about a difference between agency over fluff and agency over crunch. RAW states "You don’t normally decide to make a saving throw; you are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm." Let's say my DM treats Fireballs as a "normal" situation, so I am forced to make a save. This is really different from agency over attack because it doesn't matter what I say my character will do: the crunch will be the same. I can describe my character diving for cover or I can describe my character standing and taking it on the chin, and then based upon my roll I will still take full or half damage. Maybe when I dived for cover I took full. And when I stood and took it I took half?! In terms of the conversation of the game, we hit a dissonance.

Conversely, when a character makes an attack they have agency in crunch. They can choose to attack or not attack. They can choose who or what they attack and what they use. So in terms of the conversation of the game this is always meaningful. If I tell my DM that I stand there doing nothing, then that actually matters: a huge contrast with saving throws! Thus I feel like a DM would first have to decide which situations are not "normal" in their game (i.e. become situations in which characters can choose not to save through action or inaction) and then the game conversation works with that. If the DM says that saving against a Fireball isn't "normal" then it matters if I choose to take it or choose to dive for cover. Otherwise I think it doesn't.

 

[dave2008]

This would make a party of blast-mages unstoppable! Sure the enemies get to save against the first fireball...they're screwed against the next four...

Unless of course they are facing a group of pit fiends, then the tables are turned Yes, it would change the game quite a bit.

 

[clearstream]

The efficiency argument isn't an argument for saves, but it is one for players-always-roll. FWIW. (I swear, BTW, I'm not shilling that variant, it's just that people keep talking up advantages it presents).

Indeed, I don't really buy the efficiency argument. For me there are a couple of points in favour of saves. One is player fiat. Normally their characters can make or not make an attack (and therefore an attack roll), but they must make a save (and therefore a saving throw). The other is contrast.

I've played systems where everything is treated the same way (a threshold to overcome) and I enjoy more the variety that is created through using a different mechanic. For me, saving throws capture a feeling of being beyond individual control. Perhaps down to fate, or the gods to decide. For me, the more generic a game's mechanics, the more that a spell feels like an arrow. I'm sure some like their spells that way, but for me it feels less magical. Really, I wish there was a third major mechanical departure, for social skills.

 

[dave2008]

Do you also propose that AC be a reaction? For example, limiting how often you can use your Dex to modify your AC in a turn? Or should we have "unlimited" defenses against regular attacks, but limited against magical?

I've only briefly considered it. Of course I've only briefly considered this whole proposal. I would probably combine this approach with armor as DR and replace AC with Reflex. Reflex would have a general free defense component and then an option to use a Reaction based Parry or Dodge to increase your Reflex on a particular attack. Perhaps saving throws could be treated the same way. You have a general free saving throw that can be increased by using a Reaction. That seems to be a nice middle ground now that I think about it.

On the one hand, limiting defenses of all types would change gameplay, making hordes more dangerous, which may be what you want. But doing this would have so many ripple effects, it would essentially be a new system. Since I like the current system, and simply don't see a big issue with unlimited saves, I wouldn't use such a rebuild. YMMV.

Yes, many ripple effects, thus a "re-build." I like the current system too, just curious if I would like something else more. I can't determine whether or not I woulds use such a system until I see it fully implemented. Right now it is just an interesting thought experiment to me.

 

[clearstream]

No worries. I'm considering dropping them from my homebrew system so wanted to get some perspective on the issue. It seems like it's much as I suspected, that they exist more for aesthetics than anything else. I couldn't think of a good reason to keep them but I find there's often things I don't or can't think of just by myself so hearing other people's opinions always helps me think through these issues with a greater level of insight.

I feel like it is odd to dismiss something as "aesthetics". It's all made up: it's aesthetics right down the line! The mechanical difference marks a difference between actions you can take or withhold from, and actions you are forced to take. For example, you may attack or not attack, but you are forced to save against a fireball. In treating AC as a static threshold and ST as a dynamic one, it creates more volatility in the outcomes of the latter over the former. In terms of outcomes, I think it is expected that many more attack rolls will be made than saving throws, but that the consequences of the latter may be more dire. A spiky mechanic is thus contrasted against a steadier one.

 

[iserith]

@iserith your earlier post made me think about a difference between agency over fluff and agency over crunch. RAW states "You don’t normally decide to make a saving throw; you are forced to make one because your character or monster is at risk of harm." Let's say my DM treats Fireballs as a "normal" situation, so I am forced to make a save. This is really different from agency over attack because it doesn't matter what I say my character will do: the crunch will be the same. I can describe my character diving for cover or I can describe my character standing and taking it on the chin, and then based upon my roll I will still take full or half damage. Maybe when I dived for cover I took full. And when I stood and took it I took half?! In terms of the conversation of the game, we hit a dissonance.

Right.

Conversely, when a character makes an attack they have agency in crunch. They can choose to attack or not attack. They can choose who or what they attack and what they use. So in terms of the conversation of the game this is always meaningful. If I tell my DM that I stand there doing nothing, then that actually matters: a huge contrast with saving throws! Thus I feel like a DM would first have to decide which situations are not "normal" in their game (i.e. become situations in which characters can choose not to save through action or inaction) and then the game conversation works with that. If the DM says that saving against a Fireball isn't "normal" then it matters if I choose to take it or choose to dive for cover. Otherwise I think it doesn't.

Being able to choose not to save would bring it more in line with the basic conversation of the game but, in a practical sense, it's unlikely a player will ever choose not to save. Being able to choose how you react and that having some impact on the mechanic that is employed to resolve the situation would be better in my view. But I can live with what we have now.
[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] had some interesting thoughts on Twitter about how saves worked back in the day, something about how they interacted with the way actions were declared and initiative was determined. Based on what he said, saves were more in line with the basic conversation of the game back then. Now, not so much. Maybe he'll share those thoughts here. (I played the old editions, but I forget how they work.)

 

[billd91]

Being able to choose not to save would bring it more in line with the basic conversation of the game but, in a practical sense, it's unlikely a player will ever choose not to save. Being able to choose how you react and that having some impact on the mechanic that is employed to resolve the situation would be better in my view. But I can live with what we have now.

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] had some interesting thoughts on Twitter about how saves worked back in the day, something about how they interacted with the way actions were declared and initiative was determined. Based on what he said, saves were more in line with the basic conversation of the game back then. Now, not so much. Maybe he'll share those thoughts here. (I played the old editions, but I forget how they work.)

The way the saves worked in 1e/2e wasn't based on a particular expectation of how the PC managed to avoid or reduce the danger. The save vs breath weapons might have succeeded because one PC managed to find some cover, one managed to jump out of the way, one turtled up behind a shield, one received a minor bit of divine protection... the method didn't matter. The roll either failed or succeeded and maybe you narrated something that kind of made sense at the time. The problem with the 1e/2e system was it was a bit of a chaotic mess as spells might require one of 4 choices of saves based on how the spell worked or how it was delivered. A trap might require a save vs any one of the 5 saves. Sometimes magic armor might apply, sometimes a stat bonus might. Some classes advanced at different rates, some getting really good saves, some never getting far above abysmal. There was a lot of fairly opaque inconsistency.

 

[Bawylie]

The way the saves worked in 1e/2e wasn't based on a particular expectation of how the PC managed to avoid or reduce the danger. The save vs breath weapons might have succeeded because one PC managed to find some cover, one managed to jump out of the way, one turtled up behind a shield, one received a minor bit of divine protection... the method didn't matter. The roll either failed or succeeded and maybe you narrated something that kind of made sense at the time. The problem with the 1e/2e system was it was a bit of a chaotic mess as spells might require one of 4 choices of saves based on how the spell worked or how it was delivered. A trap might require a save vs any one of the 5 saves. Sometimes magic armor might apply, sometimes a stat bonus might. Some classes advanced at different rates, some getting really good saves, some never getting far above abysmal. There was a lot of fairly opaque inconsistency.

I played 2nd edition from the ages of 8 to about 16 or 17. Neighbor's game. They were older kids but our moms made them let me play.

Now, 2nd edition was never the same game between tables. The experience was largely based on your DM and their decisions what rules, subsystems, and tables applied. That tended to vary.

One of the things our group did in combat was a declarative phase prior to rolling initiative. Our DM would say what it looked like the bad guys were doing (readying a breath weapon, casting a spell, aiming a ranged weapon, closing into melee, etc) and we would then declare our plans in response. Taking cover from breath weapons, trying to disrupt or counter a spell, firing back or closing in on ranged enemies, readying to receive a charge, that kind of deal. Then we'd all roll initiative and apply various speed bonuses or penalties and resolve the actions accordingly.

Now, if you beat the dragon who was readying its breath weapon, and you declared you were taking cover from it, you got out of it. But if it beat you, or you decided to ignore it in favor of some other action, THEN you'd save vs breath weapon.

I recall we'd have Dwarven fighters on our front lines because they had good saves, and you could shoot over them. All that sort of thing made a difference.

Our fights were maybe two or three long as h*ck rounds, but the general idea of it was that the saving throw was the last ditch mechanic that applied if you were too slow or ignored the impending hazards. Like "You've been poisoned, now what?" as opposed to "they're trying to poison you, let's see if it works."

So your agency came in as you perceived threats and decided how best to neutralize them. And it got interesting. I remember one time we were fighting something that was going to lightning bolt us (in a hallway) for the second time. And we had a pretty big argument about how to react. Some of us wanted to get out of the way, some argued we could kill him before he got the spell off. I don't remember how it turned out. But I remember the argument.

Anyway, that's how we rolled with saving throws and the issue of agency, I guess. Though we didn't call it that. I think we made fun of people who would take gambles. "So you're gonna stand there while the orc charges you? Better start rolling a new character." And then like that charging orc would get shot down or not and we'd all yell or continue mocking.




-Brad

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel like it is odd to dismiss something as "aesthetics".

It's a meaningful distinction from function. Saves serve no distinct function from attack rolls, you can use saves for attacks or attacks for save and get the exact same result, mathematically. (Though, the game (or design philosophy or perceptions) can be slanted to create mechanical differences - you can only attack AC, but you can force one of six saves; you have disadvantage to make a ranged attack in melee, but saves you force at range while in melee are not at advantage, you can inflict half damage on a successful save, but not on a miss; you can crit an attack on a 20, but not crit-fail a save on a '1,' so damage inflicted by attacks can't be so high that a crit would break the encounter, etc, etc).

But their is an aesthetic difference, even if you discount arbitrary mechanical complexities, in particular, because the attack/save distinction has been familiar for decades.

For example, you may attack or not attack, but you are forced to save against a fireball.

That's not a distinction between the mechanics, but between who's acting. You can cast a spell or not cast a spell, but when you're attacked, you're attacked.

In treating AC as a static threshold and ST as a dynamic one, it creates more volatility in the outcomes of the latter over the former.

Nope, they are mathematically identical. Both are d20 rolls vs a threshold. A uniform distribution of 20 possible results, n of them succes, 20-n failure.

In terms of outcomes, I think it is expected that many more attack rolls will be made than saving throws

In aggregate? Unlikely. There are multi-attackers, but there are also AEs that force saves. It could easily go either way.

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] had some interesting thoughts on Twitter about how saves worked back in the day, something about how they interacted with the way actions were declared and initiative was determined.

Action declaration & initiative 'RAW?' I'm not sure I even remember it, there were so many variations, back then. IIRC, formal action declaration was done by the 'caller' according to the rules or at least a sample of play or two, especially between combats. I don't recall anyone actually doing that. Initiative was d6, with one roll on the player's side vs the DM rolling for the monsters. Or it was individual. And the DEX 'reaction' adjustment applied. Or maybe it didn't. And how isn't clear. And your weapon speed and/or the casting time of your spell could matter... or not.
But, AFAICR, none of that had anything to do with saves. You were only denied saves when there was no save, anyway (XX poison, Otto's Irresistible Dance, cursed magic items, etc) or the DM otherwise felt like it.