Choose your own save

[Weirdbob95]

Hello!

I had an interesting idea a day or so ago: What if you could choose which save to use when defending yourself from a spell?

This solves a couple problems with D&D 5:

Melees don't get enough nice things. Partially better! High level barbarians could stop fireballs with their chest and cut meteor swarms in two.
A 20th level Wizard with 20 Int has DC 19 on his spells, but a 20th level Fighter might have +0 Will save. If you get to choose which save to use, you can always save with proficiency and with a high stat, like how casters' DC always has proficiency and a high stat, correcting that imbalance.

Limitations:

If the save doesn't make any sense, you can't do it. Good luck stopping a fireball by persuading it (charisma save doesn't work).
If the save is silly or not very effective but could still work, you have disadvantage. A barbarian stopping fireballs with his chest might work, but not very well (constitution save). The feat Resilient (in the PHB from what I've heard) removes this disadvantage, but you still can't make nonsensical saves.
What makes sense and what doesn't is up to the DM. Personally, I'll go by a combination of realism and the Rule of Cool.

So, what do you guys think? Any balance or flavor concerns? Like or hate the idea?

[da_chicken]

I think that means everybody is always proficient with saves and has a good ability score in their saves. That means saves are virtually an unmodified d20 vs DC 8, which is a tremendous blow to the effectiveness of spellcasters since everybody saves 65% of the time so spells that grant saves are drastically less useful compared to spells that use attack rolls. It also means they never get to feel like they get better at casting the spells that they have since everybody is always good at resisting their spells.

[Weirdbob95]

I think that means everybody is always proficient with saves and has a good ability score in their saves. That means saves are virtually an unmodified d20 vs DC 8, which is a tremendous blow to the effectiveness of spellcasters since everybody saves 65% of the time so spells that grant saves are drastically less useful compared to spells that use attack rolls. It also means they never get to feel like they get better at casting the spells that they have since everybody is always good at resisting their spells.

Only the PCs would use this mechanic, monsters save as normal. Then, unless you have a PvP campaign, this hardly ever comes up. Also, since not all saves make sense (strength vs dominate person? no!), you might be stuck with a secondary stat and disadvantage on many saves.

[Totema]

Funny, that's how I thought saves in 5e worked at first. :smalltongue: Unfortunately I think it tips the scales too much in the PCs' favor.

[Chaosvii7]

I've been thinking about this, and I might change the save proficiency system so that every class has one primary saving throw and two secondary ones. The Primary one gets full proficiency to it, and the two secondary stats get half of that bonus. As a rule of thumb, one secondary save would have to be a physical stat, and the other one would have to be mental, as a balancing factor so that people aren't entirely vulnerable to all mental effects or all physical effects.

For example, a Barbarian would primarily have proficiency with Strength saves and be secondarily proficient with Wisdom and Constitution saves. Even though I never liked the fact that raging barbarians in 3.5 somehow got better a will saves, it does make sense that a wild and unpredictable mind would be the hardest one to tame with most effects that a wisdom save would use.

[Inevitability]

Someone already came up with this, I believe. Was it SpawnOfMorbo?

[HorridElemental]

Someone already came up with this, I believe. Was it SpawnOfMorbo?

He is the one that got me to join giantitp.

I played in a one shot of his, it worked pretty well. He gave each effect a Resist and a Dodge save and let us choose which one. It allowed us to be more immersed in the game :).

I noticed that the Bullete gives you the option of Strength or Dexterity save against its jump ability so transitioning that system into spells really isn't that far out of line.

Do note we weren't always told which save would be resisting and which would be dodging until we made our choice. Fireball was an easy choice of mental abilities (Int, Wis, and Cha) was a bit harder to figure out.

Lots of fun.

[obryn]

I think that means everybody is always proficient with saves and has a good ability score in their saves. That means saves are virtually an unmodified d20 vs DC 8, which is a tremendous blow to the effectiveness of spellcasters since everybody saves 65% of the time so spells that grant saves are drastically less useful compared to spells that use attack rolls. It also means they never get to feel like they get better at casting the spells that they have since everybody is always good at resisting their spells.
Yeah, this swings too far in one direction.

I don't think "proficient at all saves" is all that crazy, but that's because your stats will still have up to a 6-point modifier gap independent of your proficiency bonus.

[Atmosfear]

1. Always add your proficiency bonus to saves
2. Only add the ability bonus if you're proficient in that save

/math solved

[eastmabl]

Hello!

I had an interesting idea a day or so ago: What if you could choose which save to use when defending yourself from a spell?

This solves a couple problems with D&D 5:

Melees don't get enough nice things. Partially better! High level barbarians could stop fireballs with their chest and cut meteor swarms in two.
A 20th level Wizard with 20 Int has DC 19 on his spells, but a 20th level Fighter might have +0 Will save. If you get to choose which save to use, you can always save with proficiency and with a high stat, like how casters' DC always has proficiency and a high stat, correcting that imbalance.

Limitations:

If the save doesn't make any sense, you can't do it. Good luck stopping a fireball by persuading it (charisma save doesn't work).
If the save is silly or not very effective but could still work, you have disadvantage. A barbarian stopping fireballs with his chest might work, but not very well (constitution save). The feat Resilient (in the PHB from what I've heard) removes this disadvantage, but you still can't make nonsensical saves.
What makes sense and what doesn't is up to the DM. Personally, I'll go by a combination of realism and the Rule of Cool.

So, what do you guys think? Any balance or flavor concerns? Like or hate the idea?

This sounds a lot like the Defy Danger move in Dungeon World. Your RP action dictates how you avoid danger, not the incoming attack itself. (Basically, if you can adequately explain how you're using your strength the slice the fireball in twain, you get to add your Strength bonus onto your Defy Danger roll). As I DM in 5e, I find myself trying to use the concept to limited effect.

For example, "As you step down the tunnel, you feel the gravel slide and you're losing your footing. What do you do to slow your fall?" If the player says, "I grab reach out to grab anything to hold onto," I'd give a Strength saving throw. However, if the player tries to keep his footing to slow his descent, that sounds more like a Dexterity saving throw.

[Quellian-dyrae]

This made me think, what if casters had to take their own Proficiencies in different spell saves? Maybe each caster can choose two. It's still Bad News when your save proficiencies are different than your enemy's spell proficiencies, but it makes it harder for the enemy to just outright choose for you to use your lowest defense, while still keeping all defenses useful because any given opponent might be good at targeting your weakness. Also helps make different casters a bit more distinct (a necromancer with, say, Con and Cha Spell Proficiencies can't throw a Fireball just as well as an evoker with Dex Spell Proficiency).

[HorridElemental]

This made me think, what if casters had to take their own Proficiencies in different spell saves? Maybe each caster can choose two. It's still Bad News when your save proficiencies are different than your enemy's spell proficiencies, but it makes it harder for the enemy to just outright choose for you to use your lowest defense, while still keeping all defenses useful because any given opponent might be good at targeting your weakness. Also helps make different casters a bit more distinct (a necromancer with, say, Con and Cha Spell Proficiencies can't throw a Fireball just as well as an evoker with Dex Spell Proficiency).

I like this.

The problem is that there really isn't enough spells to make it worth not choosing Dex, Wis, and or Con. Choosing Str, Int, or Cha seems to be a waste until we get a lot more spells and such that target those saves.

[Atmosfear]

I like this.

The problem is that there really isn't enough spells to make it worth not choosing Dex, Wis, and or Con. Choosing Str, Int, or Cha seems to be a waste until we get a lot more spells and such that target those saves.

Do players typically run into a lot of PHB spells being cast against them?

We need to see what monster powers are attacking before passing judgment.

[HorridElemental]

Do players typically run into a lot of PHB spells being cast against them?

We need to see what monster powers are attacking before passing judgment.

Monsters have been known to have them.

[Stubbazubba]

Yeah, I'm with obryn and da_chicken on this one: I have issues with how your low saves continually get more vulnerable as time goes on, but letting you use your high save on everything eliminates an important tactical consideration. It basically destroys the purpose of having different saves altogether.

I suppose there's something to be said here about PC and NPC asymmetry; it is absolutely crucial to the tactical experience of the game that enemies have strong defenses and weak defenses, because you want the players to be able to figure out and then exploit them. It is less obvious that player characters need to have weak defenses for enemies to exploit. If they didn't, it would prevent the DM from inadvertently using his metagame knowledge about PC defenses to the monsters' advantage, and it would simplify PC design. However, it would also make battles tactically less interesting for the DM, increase PC/NPC asymmetry which strains some players' willing suspension of disbelief, and further eliminates an aspect of character-building - the balancing of defenses - that some players find stimulating.

On the whole, I don't think much would be gained by essentially collapsing all saves into one high score by allowing PCs to choose any save. Now, choosing between two saves might be doable, since there are six. However, as has been noted, so far the spells cluster around 3 saves, so it would likely be redundant at this point.