A ruler is giving a speech to the people from the balcony of his palace. Something about his body language, the fact that he’s intentionally using hypnotic body language, little tics in his speech patterns, they tell you he is lying. You have just made a Wis save.
The ruler lays out a detailed plot he says the men on the gallows attempted against him. You listen to his story, but you know several of the events in it are extremely statistically unlikely. You go to the archives and research. The events he described could not have happened. You have made an Int save.
The argument the man makes is very convincing. You’ve never been a master of deduction. But you know the ruler represents everything vile and venal. He is nothing like you. You stand for good and right and he stands for evil. You know him to be an evil man. It’s unlikely he would have done something uncharacteristically good. You made your Cha save.
A pleasantly sweet smell fills the air. Your mind grows tired and foggy. What was it the man said? It sounded nice. You shrug it off. Some kind of mind control gas. You have passed your Con save.
The crowd has been whipped into a frenzy by the ruler’s fiery rhetoric. They charge the gallows, not waiting for the trial to conclude. You, the guard, hold back the throng with your bare hands, afraid to use lethal force because it would only enrage the mob and mean your certain death. You passed a Str check.
The crowd reaches the gallows. You tuck your legs and get your bound hands in front of you. You reach for the rope just as the rioters pull the lever and catch yourself before your neck snaps. You have made a Dex save.
The ruler lays out a detailed plot he says the men on the gallows attempted against him. You listen to his story, but you know several of the events in it are extremely statistically unlikely. You go to the archives and research. The events he described could not have happened. You have made an Int save.
This is more of an Int check. You don't make saving throws just to point out flaws in someone's argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I would not, as a DM, call for some of these rolls to be saving throws. According to the rules, "A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. 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." As a DM, I don't call for a saving throw to "find things out" or "succeed at doing something" but rather, to avoid being affected by something negative. In the above examples, the character is not generally attempting to resist anything nor at any sort of risk of harm or negative action. The character is trying to attempt to do something proactively. This suggests an ability check, with or without appropriate skill proficiencies.
Ruler giving a speech, you want to detect from body language if he is lying - that suggests a Wisdom (Insight) check. Gaining clues from body language, etc., is an example in the rules for Insight
You go to the archives to do research - that suggests an Intelligence (investigation) check. It's one of the examples (poring through scrolls looking for clues).
The guard holding back the crowd is, as said in the OP, a Strength check, not a saving throw.
With the DEX and CON examples I would call for saves. The rest, I would call for a check and not a saving throw. There is a difference -- saving throws don't allow proficiency as a general rule, and some characters get bonuses to saves but not ability checks and vice versa (eg. some PCs get advantage to saves vs. charm or sleep). It's important to do the correct thing (check vs. save) or else you could end up with incorrect results based on the bonuses/penalties each character has.
I would not, as a DM, call for some of these rolls to be saving throws. According to the rules, "A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. 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." As a DM, I don't call for a saving throw to "find things out" or "succeed at doing something" but rather, to avoid being affected by something negative. In the above examples, the character is not generally attempting to resist anything nor at any sort of risk of harm or negative action. The character is trying to attempt to do something proactively. This suggests an ability check, with or without appropriate skill proficiencies.
Ruler giving a speech, you want to detect from body language if he is lying - that suggests a Wisdom (Insight) check. Gaining clues from body language, etc., is an example in the rules for Insight
You go to the archives to do research - that suggests an Intelligence (investigation) check. It's one of the examples (poring through scrolls looking for clues).
The guard holding back the crowd is, as said in the OP, a Strength check, not a saving throw.
With the DEX and CON examples I would call for saves. The rest, I would call for a check and not a saving throw. There is a difference -- saving throws don't allow proficiency as a general rule, and some characters get bonuses to saves but not ability checks and vice versa (eg. some PCs get advantage to saves vs. charm or sleep). It's important to do the correct thing (check vs. save) or else you could end up with incorrect results based on the bonuses/penalties each character has.
Depends.. if the speech is trying to influence, then it could arguably be considered a save to resist being influenced. Even if the DM actually formally wrote out the full text of the speech (even though IRL such speeches can go on for an hour or more, longer than most players would easily sit through), then that would be DM skill vs Player rather than NPC vs PC.
I typically avoid that kind of thing with social interactions. If a player calls for an Insight check to determine if someone is lying it’s not a clear result either: even with a successful check the character is at best convinced, but they can’t be 100% certain, and a failed check doesn’t mean the PC believes he’s not being lied to - just that that appears to be the case. Short of magic - if you’re charmed, you’re charmed - I don’t think it’s a good idea to lock in a PC’s opinions or thoughts based on a save or check. And that’s the thing with saves: they determine whether you avoid a negative effect or not. A failed save with regards to a social interaction should result in that negative effect being applied, and I’d rather not impose that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The ruler lays out a detailed plot he says the men on the gallows attempted against him. You listen to his story, but you know several of the events in it are extremely statistically unlikely. You go to the archives and research. The events he described could not have happened. You have made an Int save.
This is more of an Int check. You don't make saving throws just to point out flaws in someone's argument.
I was thinking this too, particularly to the extent it involves going to the archives, which is an active step. That said, the classic example is spotting a flaw in an illusion, which is not that different from 'elements of the story make no logical sense.'
Yeah, really the save, if any, is the part where you recognize the suspicious elements of the argument. You have not only the knowledge, but the presence of mind to be skeptical of all the facts. Checking the archives is something you do later, after you've succeeded on the check to avoid being immediately persuaded.
I would not, as a DM, call for some of these rolls to be saving throws. According to the rules, "A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. 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." As a DM, I don't call for a saving throw to "find things out" or "succeed at doing something" but rather, to avoid being affected by something negative. In the above examples, the character is not generally attempting to resist anything nor at any sort of risk of harm or negative action. The character is trying to attempt to do something proactively. This suggests an ability check, with or without appropriate skill proficiencies.
Ruler giving a speech, you want to detect from body language if he is lying - that suggests a Wisdom (Insight) check. Gaining clues from body language, etc., is an example in the rules for Insight
You go to the archives to do research - that suggests an Intelligence (investigation) check. It's one of the examples (poring through scrolls looking for clues).
The guard holding back the crowd is, as said in the OP, a Strength check, not a saving throw.
With the DEX and CON examples I would call for saves. The rest, I would call for a check and not a saving throw. There is a difference -- saving throws don't allow proficiency as a general rule, and some characters get bonuses to saves but not ability checks and vice versa (eg. some PCs get advantage to saves vs. charm or sleep). It's important to do the correct thing (check vs. save) or else you could end up with incorrect results based on the bonuses/penalties each character has.
Depends.. if the speech is trying to influence, then it could arguably be considered a save to resist being influenced. Even if the DM actually formally wrote out the full text of the speech (even though IRL such speeches can go on for an hour or more, longer than most players would easily sit through), then that would be DM skill vs Player rather than NPC vs PC.
Right. I don't actually make my players make mental saves or checks very often. Theoretically, I could have the ruler make a Persuasion check vs. the players' Insight, and if they fail say they are convinced and have to do what the ruler says. But that takes away player agency. If the players are skeptical, they should act accordingly.
I might make such saves or checks for an NPC, though.
Mental saves for PCs are more common for spell effects. I just wanted to give some way of imagining what is going on in the character's head when they make the save. Wis saves are a matter of intuition or willpower. Int saves are a matter of knowledge or reason. Cha saves are a matter of self-confidence.
Also, the ruler's "hypnotic body language" might actually be the somatic components of a spell. RAW, a spell would usually have only one save. But I would probably allow a Wis-based Insight or Perception check to notice a spell is being cast, in addition to a save possibly based on another stat, such as Int which is common for illusion spells.
I would not, as a DM, call for some of these rolls to be saving throws. According to the rules, "A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. 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." As a DM, I don't call for a saving throw to "find things out" or "succeed at doing something" but rather, to avoid being affected by something negative. In the above examples, the character is not generally attempting to resist anything nor at any sort of risk of harm or negative action. The character is trying to attempt to do something proactively. This suggests an ability check, with or without appropriate skill proficiencies.
Ruler giving a speech, you want to detect from body language if he is lying - that suggests a Wisdom (Insight) check. Gaining clues from body language, etc., is an example in the rules for Insight
You go to the archives to do research - that suggests an Intelligence (investigation) check. It's one of the examples (poring through scrolls looking for clues).
The guard holding back the crowd is, as said in the OP, a Strength check, not a saving throw.
With the DEX and CON examples I would call for saves. The rest, I would call for a check and not a saving throw. There is a difference -- saving throws don't allow proficiency as a general rule, and some characters get bonuses to saves but not ability checks and vice versa (eg. some PCs get advantage to saves vs. charm or sleep). It's important to do the correct thing (check vs. save) or else you could end up with incorrect results based on the bonuses/penalties each character has.
Precisely. Many DM's conflate saves and ability checks. The Wisdom save the OP suggested should be at best an Insight Ability check.
I would not, as a DM, call for some of these rolls to be saving throws. According to the rules, "A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. 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." As a DM, I don't call for a saving throw to "find things out" or "succeed at doing something" but rather, to avoid being affected by something negative. In the above examples, the character is not generally attempting to resist anything nor at any sort of risk of harm or negative action. The character is trying to attempt to do something proactively. This suggests an ability check, with or without appropriate skill proficiencies.
Ruler giving a speech, you want to detect from body language if he is lying - that suggests a Wisdom (Insight) check. Gaining clues from body language, etc., is an example in the rules for Insight
You go to the archives to do research - that suggests an Intelligence (investigation) check. It's one of the examples (poring through scrolls looking for clues).
The guard holding back the crowd is, as said in the OP, a Strength check, not a saving throw.
With the DEX and CON examples I would call for saves. The rest, I would call for a check and not a saving throw. There is a difference -- saving throws don't allow proficiency as a general rule, and some characters get bonuses to saves but not ability checks and vice versa (eg. some PCs get advantage to saves vs. charm or sleep). It's important to do the correct thing (check vs. save) or else you could end up with incorrect results based on the bonuses/penalties each character has.
Precisely. Many DM's conflate saves and ability checks. The Wisdom save the OP suggested should be at best an Insight Ability check.
Right but not a Wisdom save. So why, in the first example, did you suggest that telling someone is lying = making a Wisdom save? Such a ruling is, at the very least, highly unusual and not a general example of how Wisdom saves are done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Right but not a Wisdom save. So why, in the first example, did you suggest that telling someone is lying = making a Wisdom save? Such a ruling is, at the very least, highly unusual and not a general example of how Wisdom saves are done.
Exactly. The only way a Wisdom save would come into play is if the king was actually casting some spell that explicitly calls for a Wisdom Save (Mass Suggestion comes to mind, but that is very poor example, as the spell is not designed for long speeches).
Right but not a Wisdom save. So why, in the first example, did you suggest that telling someone is lying = making a Wisdom save? Such a ruling is, at the very least, highly unusual and not a general example of how Wisdom saves are done.
Exactly. The only way a Wisdom save would come into play is if the king was actually casting some spell that explicitly calls for a Wisdom Save (Mass Suggestion comes to mind, but that is very poor example, as the spell is not designed for long speeches).
Or a Feature/Trait that calls for a Wis Save. They do exist, and if it’s a BBE, anything could be on the table if your DM is anything like me and likely to Homebrew features for their villains/monsters.
But yes, in general it would take a specific action that calls for a save. Otherwise, as it was described, it sounds more like a Wisdom (Insight) check.
Right but not a Wisdom save. So why, in the first example, did you suggest that telling someone is lying = making a Wisdom save? Such a ruling is, at the very least, highly unusual and not a general example of how Wisdom saves are done.
Exactly. The only way a Wisdom save would come into play is if the king was actually casting some spell that explicitly calls for a Wisdom Save (Mass Suggestion comes to mind, but that is very poor example, as the spell is not designed for long speeches).
Or a Feature/Trait that calls for a Wis Save. They do exist, and if it’s a BBE, anything could be on the table if your DM is anything like me and likely to Homebrew features for their villains/monsters.
But yes, in general it would take a specific action that calls for a save. Otherwise, as it was described, it sounds more like a Wisdom (Insight) check.
Generally speaking, you make a check to attempt something. You make a save to prevent or avoid something.
This, and the gray area in between would be where you use your passive skill modifier. You aren't necessarily making a conscious check or making a save against something imminently dangerous, such as passive insight giving you a measure of protection from duplicitous NPCs.
Generally speaking, you make a check to attempt something. You make a save to prevent or avoid something.
This, and the gray area in between would be where you use your passive skill modifier. You aren't necessarily making a conscious check or making a save against something imminently dangerous, such as passive insight giving you a measure of protection from duplicitous NPCs.
Kind of. Passive checks aren't only for when the character is attempting something "passively." They can also be used to represent repeated attempts of the same check over time. At the DM's option, they can also be used as a version of the 3e "take 10" mechanism. So they can be quite "active" in the sense of the character being conscious of making an attempt at something.
I would not, as a DM, call for some of these rolls to be saving throws. According to the rules, "A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. 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." As a DM, I don't call for a saving throw to "find things out" or "succeed at doing something" but rather, to avoid being affected by something negative. In the above examples, the character is not generally attempting to resist anything nor at any sort of risk of harm or negative action. The character is trying to attempt to do something proactively. This suggests an ability check, with or without appropriate skill proficiencies.
Ruler giving a speech, you want to detect from body language if he is lying - that suggests a Wisdom (Insight) check. Gaining clues from body language, etc., is an example in the rules for Insight
You go to the archives to do research - that suggests an Intelligence (investigation) check. It's one of the examples (poring through scrolls looking for clues).
The guard holding back the crowd is, as said in the OP, a Strength check, not a saving throw.
With the DEX and CON examples I would call for saves. The rest, I would call for a check and not a saving throw. There is a difference -- saving throws don't allow proficiency as a general rule, and some characters get bonuses to saves but not ability checks and vice versa (eg. some PCs get advantage to saves vs. charm or sleep). It's important to do the correct thing (check vs. save) or else you could end up with incorrect results based on the bonuses/penalties each character has.
Precisely. Many DM's conflate saves and ability checks. The Wisdom save the OP suggested should be at best an Insight Ability check.
Or maybe passive insight.
How would this play out though? If some or all pass, ok, they realize something fishy is going on. But what happens if everyone fails? Does this mean those PCs are not allowed to be suspicious? That’d arguably be incredibly powerful, possibly even gamebreakingly so, and it’d feel like a massive railroad mechanic by taking away player choice. But if they are still allowed to be suspicious, they just don’t necessarily realize there’s shenanigans afoot, why even have a roll (save or check, doesn’t matter)?
To me this is starting to look a lot like a situation where the DM should just make up their mind about whether they want some or all PCs to understand what’s going on or not. That’d largely be what passive Insight to oppose the deception would effectively be anyway, in practice. Assuming we’re not going with the broken “you’re not allowed to disbelieve period” option, is it important to leave it up to chance who is suspicious? And is that even in sync with how the game usually works, given that monster stat blocks usually have fixed DCs for this kind of thing rather than put up a roll?
I can certainly see why you might say the PCs should have a chance to succeed (and, on the flip side, to fail) mechanically so it’s not just up to the players deciding how their characters feel about what’s going on, but I’d personally be inclined not to make this overly complicated (especially since for consistency’s sake you’d have to do this every time somebody decides to lie to the party).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A Saving Throw is an instinctive resistance to something affecting you. You don't get to decide whether or not to defend - your body reflexively dodges or tenses up or whatever is appropriate to defend against the attack.
Saving Throws don't directly result from anything the player has their character do. They happen in response to events in the game that affect the character. In other words, players don't get to ask to make Saving Throws.
In short: Saving Throws are reactive; Ability Checks are active.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A ruler is giving a speech to the people from the balcony of his palace. Something about his body language, the fact that he’s intentionally using hypnotic body language, little tics in his speech patterns, they tell you he is lying. You have just made a Wis save.
The ruler lays out a detailed plot he says the men on the gallows attempted against him. You listen to his story, but you know several of the events in it are extremely statistically unlikely. You go to the archives and research. The events he described could not have happened. You have made an Int save.
The argument the man makes is very convincing. You’ve never been a master of deduction. But you know the ruler represents everything vile and venal. He is nothing like you. You stand for good and right and he stands for evil. You know him to be an evil man. It’s unlikely he would have done something uncharacteristically good. You made your Cha save.
A pleasantly sweet smell fills the air. Your mind grows tired and foggy. What was it the man said? It sounded nice. You shrug it off. Some kind of mind control gas. You have passed your Con save.
The crowd has been whipped into a frenzy by the ruler’s fiery rhetoric. They charge the gallows, not waiting for the trial to conclude. You, the guard, hold back the throng with your bare hands, afraid to use lethal force because it would only enrage the mob and mean your certain death. You passed a Str check.
The crowd reaches the gallows. You tuck your legs and get your bound hands in front of you. You reach for the rope just as the rioters pull the lever and catch yourself before your neck snaps. You have made a Dex save.
This explains it well, new players should read it.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
This is more of an Int check. You don't make saving throws just to point out flaws in someone's argument.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I would not, as a DM, call for some of these rolls to be saving throws. According to the rules, "A saving throw — also called a save — represents an attempt to resist a spell, a trap, a poison, a disease, or a similar threat. 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." As a DM, I don't call for a saving throw to "find things out" or "succeed at doing something" but rather, to avoid being affected by something negative. In the above examples, the character is not generally attempting to resist anything nor at any sort of risk of harm or negative action. The character is trying to attempt to do something proactively. This suggests an ability check, with or without appropriate skill proficiencies.
With the DEX and CON examples I would call for saves. The rest, I would call for a check and not a saving throw. There is a difference -- saving throws don't allow proficiency as a general rule, and some characters get bonuses to saves but not ability checks and vice versa (eg. some PCs get advantage to saves vs. charm or sleep). It's important to do the correct thing (check vs. save) or else you could end up with incorrect results based on the bonuses/penalties each character has.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Generally speaking, you make a check to attempt something. You make a save to prevent or avoid something.
I typically avoid that kind of thing with social interactions. If a player calls for an Insight check to determine if someone is lying it’s not a clear result either: even with a successful check the character is at best convinced, but they can’t be 100% certain, and a failed check doesn’t mean the PC believes he’s not being lied to - just that that appears to be the case. Short of magic - if you’re charmed, you’re charmed - I don’t think it’s a good idea to lock in a PC’s opinions or thoughts based on a save or check. And that’s the thing with saves: they determine whether you avoid a negative effect or not. A failed save with regards to a social interaction should result in that negative effect being applied, and I’d rather not impose that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah, really the save, if any, is the part where you recognize the suspicious elements of the argument. You have not only the knowledge, but the presence of mind to be skeptical of all the facts. Checking the archives is something you do later, after you've succeeded on the check to avoid being immediately persuaded.
Right. I don't actually make my players make mental saves or checks very often. Theoretically, I could have the ruler make a Persuasion check vs. the players' Insight, and if they fail say they are convinced and have to do what the ruler says. But that takes away player agency. If the players are skeptical, they should act accordingly.
I might make such saves or checks for an NPC, though.
Mental saves for PCs are more common for spell effects. I just wanted to give some way of imagining what is going on in the character's head when they make the save. Wis saves are a matter of intuition or willpower. Int saves are a matter of knowledge or reason. Cha saves are a matter of self-confidence.
Also, the ruler's "hypnotic body language" might actually be the somatic components of a spell. RAW, a spell would usually have only one save. But I would probably allow a Wis-based Insight or Perception check to notice a spell is being cast, in addition to a save possibly based on another stat, such as Int which is common for illusion spells.
Precisely. Many DM's conflate saves and ability checks. The Wisdom save the OP suggested should be at best an Insight Ability check.
Or maybe passive insight.
Right but not a Wisdom save. So why, in the first example, did you suggest that telling someone is lying = making a Wisdom save? Such a ruling is, at the very least, highly unusual and not a general example of how Wisdom saves are done.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Exactly. The only way a Wisdom save would come into play is if the king was actually casting some spell that explicitly calls for a Wisdom Save (Mass Suggestion comes to mind, but that is very poor example, as the spell is not designed for long speeches).
Or a Feature/Trait that calls for a Wis Save. They do exist, and if it’s a BBE, anything could be on the table if your DM is anything like me and likely to Homebrew features for their villains/monsters.
But yes, in general it would take a specific action that calls for a save. Otherwise, as it was described, it sounds more like a Wisdom (Insight) check.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes.
This, and the gray area in between would be where you use your passive skill modifier. You aren't necessarily making a conscious check or making a save against something imminently dangerous, such as passive insight giving you a measure of protection from duplicitous NPCs.
Kind of. Passive checks aren't only for when the character is attempting something "passively." They can also be used to represent repeated attempts of the same check over time. At the DM's option, they can also be used as a version of the 3e "take 10" mechanism. So they can be quite "active" in the sense of the character being conscious of making an attempt at something.
How would this play out though? If some or all pass, ok, they realize something fishy is going on. But what happens if everyone fails? Does this mean those PCs are not allowed to be suspicious? That’d arguably be incredibly powerful, possibly even gamebreakingly so, and it’d feel like a massive railroad mechanic by taking away player choice. But if they are still allowed to be suspicious, they just don’t necessarily realize there’s shenanigans afoot, why even have a roll (save or check, doesn’t matter)?
To me this is starting to look a lot like a situation where the DM should just make up their mind about whether they want some or all PCs to understand what’s going on or not. That’d largely be what passive Insight to oppose the deception would effectively be anyway, in practice. Assuming we’re not going with the broken “you’re not allowed to disbelieve period” option, is it important to leave it up to chance who is suspicious? And is that even in sync with how the game usually works, given that monster stat blocks usually have fixed DCs for this kind of thing rather than put up a roll?
I can certainly see why you might say the PCs should have a chance to succeed (and, on the flip side, to fail) mechanically so it’s not just up to the players deciding how their characters feel about what’s going on, but I’d personally be inclined not to make this overly complicated (especially since for consistency’s sake you’d have to do this every time somebody decides to lie to the party).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Some creative license was taken to fit this into a cohesive narrative. Make of it what you will, but try not to take it too literally.
I disagree with the post.
A Saving Throw is an instinctive resistance to something affecting you. You don't get to decide whether or not to defend - your body reflexively dodges or tenses up or whatever is appropriate to defend against the attack.
Saving Throws don't directly result from anything the player has their character do. They happen in response to events in the game that affect the character. In other words, players don't get to ask to make Saving Throws.
In short: Saving Throws are reactive; Ability Checks are active.