Heya, me as the DM rolling saves for monsters and NPCs is way less fun for players than rolling attacks, so I was thinking of switching it up and letting players treat save spells as attacks vs 8 + the save.
So for example, currently my lvl 1 cha 16 bard casts vicious mockery and the target saves vs DC 13.
I'm thinking of changing this to the PC rolling cha + proficiency (+5) vs 8 + the targets will save.
I'm hoping this will make the player feel more engaged. The numbers seem the same. Can anyone see a problem with this, apart from some extra paperwork for me as DM?
But Lyxen is correct that you need to dramatically adjust the numbers to avoid changing the math. Making each “defense” 14+the monster’s save bonus should work in all cases.
One key thing to keep in mind is that if you change saving throws to be attacks or attack-like, your players may anticipate that things that interact with attack rolls will likewise interact with these rolls, one obvious example being critical hits/misses. Being able to score a critical hit on fireball for example makes it vastly more powerful.
If you want more player engagement on saving throws, may I suggest having one of the players roll for the monster? Not necessarily the player prompting the save, but another at the table. Handing off monster management such as tracking damage done or resources expended can be a good way to help players feel more engaged.
There will be many unintended downstream consequences from changing saves. The biggest thing is that you're opening all of those things up to critical hits, but also keep in mind that the vast majority of (damaging) spells/abilities using saving throws are written to still do partial damage even on a successful save. If you convert to attack rolls, you'll end up with things that do double damage on a critical hit, half damage on a "miss", and a true miss only on a critical failure.
[edit] It's actually worse than that... rolling a 1 only means the roll itself is a miss, but anything that would normally do half-damage on save (a "miss") would still do half-damage even on a natural 1. You'd get critical damage, normal damage, or half-damage. Don't do that.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Why not just let the PCs roll the Saves for your monsters then? Saves time and calculations and needless mechanical issues where players argue for crits.
If you want to be precise, you need to consider the save ability of the defendant against the spell.
Let's assume your bard's spell DC is 13, the defendant's Wis modifier is +1, that means the defendant saves on 12 or more on the roll. Saving means not being affected, aka a 'miss' for the spell. Reversing the fail state into a roll over, but keeping the same chance, it would be an 10 or more 'to hit'.
Mathematically, you need to Spell DC (13) - Save Modifier (1) - 22 (= -10) and take the result as a positive (= 10). Your bard will have to roll an unmodified 10+ on the roll to succeed.
The appeal to have a player roll for their effects is great, but I will refrain from doing that math every time a save is called for...
On a side note, I believe that monsters that attack with a lot of save abilities are great for engaging players, as they have agency when they get attacked.
If you want to be precise, you need to consider the save ability of the defendant against the spell.
Let's assume your bard's spell DC is 13, the defendant's Wis modifier is +1, that means the defendant saves on 12 or more on the roll. Saving means not being affected, aka a 'miss' for the spell. Reversing the fail state into a roll over, but keeping the same chance, it would be an 10 or more 'to hit'.
Mathematically, you need to Spell DC (13) - Save Modifier (1) - 22 (= -10) and take the result as a positive (= 10). Your bard will have to roll an unmodified 10+ on the roll to succeed.
The appeal to have a player roll for their effects is great, but I will refrain from doing that math every time a save is called for...
You don’t need to do the math every time. As Lyxen pointed out, just making the monster’s “defense” 14+its save bonus achieves the correct outcome.
If you want to be precise, you need to consider the save ability of the defendant against the spell.
Let's assume your bard's spell DC is 13, the defendant's Wis modifier is +1, that means the defendant saves on 12 or more on the roll. Saving means not being affected, aka a 'miss' for the spell. Reversing the fail state into a roll over, but keeping the same chance, it would be an 10 or more 'to hit'.
Mathematically, you need to Spell DC (13) - Save Modifier (1) - 22 (= -10) and take the result as a positive (= 10). Your bard will have to roll an unmodified 10+ on the roll to succeed.
The appeal to have a player roll for their effects is great, but I will refrain from doing that math every time a save is called for...
You don’t need to do the math every time. As Lyxen pointed out, just making the monster’s “defense” 14+its save bonus achieves the correct outcome.
I don't think that math works out.
If you have a spell DC of 14 and +2 as 'defense', the defender's roll has to be 12+ (not 11+), which is 55%. The corresponding to-hit number is 10+ (55%), not 11+.
I only dabble in math, so I don't know if there is a more elegant formula, but I believe using the spell attack bonus introduces too many moving parts that don't necessarily calculate into save DC and you should just ask for an unmodified roll. Unless, of course, if you really wanted to use the spell attack bonus, you can add it to the to-hit number (in this case the 10+5=15), but I find that redundant.
If you want to be precise, you need to consider the save ability of the defendant against the spell.
Let's assume your bard's spell DC is 13, the defendant's Wis modifier is +1, that means the defendant saves on 12 or more on the roll. Saving means not being affected, aka a 'miss' for the spell. Reversing the fail state into a roll over, but keeping the same chance, it would be an 10 or more 'to hit'.
Mathematically, you need to Spell DC (13) - Save Modifier (1) - 22 (= -10) and take the result as a positive (= 10). Your bard will have to roll an unmodified 10+ on the roll to succeed.
The appeal to have a player roll for their effects is great, but I will refrain from doing that math every time a save is called for...
You don’t need to do the math every time. As Lyxen pointed out, just making the monster’s “defense” 14+its save bonus achieves the correct outcome.
I don't think that math works out.
If you have a spell DC of 14 and +2 as 'defense', the defender's roll has to be 12+ (not 11+), which is 55%. The corresponding to-hit number is 10+ (55%), not 11+.
That's exactly right. If your spell save DC is 14, and the target has a save bonus of +2, they need to roll a 12 for the spell to "miss," which is a 55% hit-chance. What that means is that, when we flip this into an "attack" roll, the attacker should hit on a 10+, which they will if the "defense" is 16, which you'll note is 14+the save bonus we assumed to be 2.
The other thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that saving throw spells don't use the advantage/disadvantage mechanic like attack rolls do. They are great to use when you have disadvantage to "negate" the penalty.
The other thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that saving throw spells don't use the advantage/disadvantage mechanic like attack rolls do. They are great to use when you have disadvantage to "negate" the penalty.
Some features and conditions give advantage or disadvantage to saves, so those can still be applied.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Heya, me as the DM rolling saves for monsters and NPCs is way less fun for players than rolling attacks, so I was thinking of switching it up and letting players treat save spells as attacks vs 8 + the save.
So for example, currently my lvl 1 cha 16 bard casts vicious mockery and the target saves vs DC 13.
I'm thinking of changing this to the PC rolling cha + proficiency (+5) vs 8 + the targets will save.
I'm hoping this will make the player feel more engaged. The numbers seem the same. Can anyone see a problem with this, apart from some extra paperwork for me as DM?
I think it’s a fine idea. It’s what 4e did.
But Lyxen is correct that you need to dramatically adjust the numbers to avoid changing the math. Making each “defense” 14+the monster’s save bonus should work in all cases.
Just remember with AOEs you still have to roll for each target.
One key thing to keep in mind is that if you change saving throws to be attacks or attack-like, your players may anticipate that things that interact with attack rolls will likewise interact with these rolls, one obvious example being critical hits/misses. Being able to score a critical hit on fireball for example makes it vastly more powerful.
If you want more player engagement on saving throws, may I suggest having one of the players roll for the monster? Not necessarily the player prompting the save, but another at the table. Handing off monster management such as tracking damage done or resources expended can be a good way to help players feel more engaged.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
There will be many unintended downstream consequences from changing saves. The biggest thing is that you're opening all of those things up to critical hits, but also keep in mind that the vast majority of (damaging) spells/abilities using saving throws are written to still do partial damage even on a successful save. If you convert to attack rolls, you'll end up with things that do double damage on a critical hit, half damage on a "miss",
and a true miss only on a critical failure.[edit] It's actually worse than that... rolling a 1 only means the roll itself is a miss, but anything that would normally do half-damage on save (a "miss") would still do half-damage even on a natural 1. You'd get critical damage, normal damage, or half-damage. Don't do that.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Why not just let the PCs roll the Saves for your monsters then? Saves time and calculations and needless mechanical issues where players argue for crits.
If you want to be precise, you need to consider the save ability of the defendant against the spell.
Let's assume your bard's spell DC is 13, the defendant's Wis modifier is +1, that means the defendant saves on 12 or more on the roll. Saving means not being affected, aka a 'miss' for the spell. Reversing the fail state into a roll over, but keeping the same chance, it would be an 10 or more 'to hit'.
Mathematically, you need to Spell DC (13) - Save Modifier (1) - 22 (= -10) and take the result as a positive (= 10). Your bard will have to roll an unmodified 10+ on the roll to succeed.
The appeal to have a player roll for their effects is great, but I will refrain from doing that math every time a save is called for...
On a side note, I believe that monsters that attack with a lot of save abilities are great for engaging players, as they have agency when they get attacked.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
You don’t need to do the math every time. As Lyxen pointed out, just making the monster’s “defense” 14+its save bonus achieves the correct outcome.
Awesome. Thanks for the feedback everyone!
I don't think that math works out.
If you have a spell DC of 14 and +2 as 'defense', the defender's roll has to be 12+ (not 11+), which is 55%. The corresponding to-hit number is 10+ (55%), not 11+.
I only dabble in math, so I don't know if there is a more elegant formula, but I believe using the spell attack bonus introduces too many moving parts that don't necessarily calculate into save DC and you should just ask for an unmodified roll. Unless, of course, if you really wanted to use the spell attack bonus, you can add it to the to-hit number (in this case the 10+5=15), but I find that redundant.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
That's exactly right. If your spell save DC is 14, and the target has a save bonus of +2, they need to roll a 12 for the spell to "miss," which is a 55% hit-chance. What that means is that, when we flip this into an "attack" roll, the attacker should hit on a 10+, which they will if the "defense" is 16, which you'll note is 14+the save bonus we assumed to be 2.
The other thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that saving throw spells don't use the advantage/disadvantage mechanic like attack rolls do. They are great to use when you have disadvantage to "negate" the penalty.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Some features and conditions give advantage or disadvantage to saves, so those can still be applied.