I love most things about 5e, but I was really disappointed to see that the saving throws are still not distributed very well (at least in the spells). Therefore, I am bringing back a houserule that I implemented to great success during the playtest. This house rule makes the six Ability Saves make more distinct.
If you read through "Using Each Ability" (Basic Rules, Chap 7, pg 59), you'll see definitions for each of the six ability scores. By directly following these definitions, we can easily extrapolate which kinds of effects belong under which ability score. The following are my new definitions for saving throws.
(Note: If a spell is listed in bold, it means the saving throw for the spell changed to reflect my new definitions.)
Ramzour's Six Ability Save System
Strength: to resist any effect that forcefully moves, restrains, or paralyzes you.
- Spells: Hold Person; Imprisonment; Levitate (against an unwilling creature); Thunderwave; Web
- Monsters with effects that cause physical paralysis (Carrion Crawler, Ghoul, etc.)
- Note: Strong creatures are hard to physically control! You don't cast Hold Person on an Ogre because it's probably too strong to be held by your magic. The invisible magical restraints of the spell are easily overcome by the Ogre's brute strength. If, however, you want to take advantage of an Ogre's weaknesses, then you should target their poor mental saves by casting Illusion, Fear, or Charm spells!!!!!!!
- Potential Issue: Failing your STR save vs Hold Person gives you the Paralyzed Condition, which means you automatically fail STR and DEX saving throws. Now, the Hold Person spell also says that you can attempt a new saving throw at the end of each of your turns. This has the unfortunate side effect that means you can never re-save to end the spell early because you would automatically fail your Strength Save. This problem doesn't exist in the RAW because the spell calls for a WIS save, not my proposed STR save. How do we solve this? Solution: The most simple solution is to say that you can attempt to make a new STR save to end the spell effect early, but this STR save does not automatically fail from your Paralyzed Condition. This is a perfect example of Specific Beats General. I know it seems like a clunky fix, but that's what happens when you try to modify an existing system. You might want to use this same "fix" when an effect would give you the Stunned Condition as well.
Dexterity: to avoid area effects; to dodge projectiles or rays; to maintain your balance.
- avoiding ball bearings, caltrops, hunting trap
- Remain on mount when an effect forces the mount to move against its will
- Spells: Blade Barrier; Burning Hands; Chain Lightning; Delayed Blast Fireball; Disintegrate; Earthquake (maintain balance and avoid holes); Faerie Fire; Fireball; Firestorm; Flame Strike; Flaming Sphere; Guardian of Faith; Light; Lightning Bolt; Meteor Swarm; Sacred Flame; Wall of Stone
Constitution: to resist effects that target your Health or Body; to resist Cold effects; to maintain your Concentration.
- Poison, Disease, Necrotic or Radiant damage, Energy Drain
- Forced March
- Resist starvation or thirst
- Recuperate during Downtime
- Maintain your Concentration on a spell when you take damage
- Spells: Cone of Cold; Finger of Death; Harm; Holy Aura; Ice Storm; Spirit Guardian; Sunburst;
Intelligence: to see through illusions; to avoid being tricked or confused.
- Spells: Power Word Stun; all Illusion spells now require making an Intelligence Saving Throw instead of making an Intelligence (Investigation) check to disbelieve.
Wisdom: to resist Fear effects; to resist Psychic damage;
- Turn Undead
- Spells: Dream; Sanctuary; Fear
Charisma: to resist Charms, Enchantments, and Compulsions. Also to stay connected to your Plane.
- Spells: Charm Person, Command, Dominate Monster, Dominate Person, Mass Suggestion; Otto's Irresistible Dance; Suggestion;
Implications of these changes to saving throws:
- The saving throws are now more spread out over the six ability scores
- Effects that call for a saving throw now better follow the definitions of each ability score
- Wisdom isn't the generic catch-all for "mental things"
- Strength and Constitution are finally differentiated
- There are no "bad saving throws" anymore!!!! Each type of Saving Throw has a unique niche in the game mechanics.
- CHARISMA IS NO LONGER A LEGITIMATE DUMP SCORE!!! EVEN FOR COMBAT!!!! VICTORY!!!!
- Clerics are good at resisting Fear and Charm effects (but not necessarily Illusions)
- Fighters are actually good at resisting Stuns, Restraints, Paralysis, Poison, Energy Drain, Cold, and other endurance targetting effects. This makes a Fighter HARD to CC with physical effects...just like it should be!
- Rogues are good at dodging things and hard to be tricked by illusions! Makes perfect sense to me.
- Wizards are good at resisting tricks, Illusions, and Fear (but not necessarily charms)
Hope you like my changes!
Looks good to me!
Very similar to what I've done, although I didn't map things out the same way. I did the same thing you did with Strength saves. Because illusions fool the senses, I have Wisdom (as perception/insight) more associated with discerning illusions (though Int can still play a role in this) and recognizing deception (Charm Person and Suggestion). I have Charisma (as force of will) resisting fear; I don't really see Wisdom doing that. Other than that, along the same lines.
The way the classes work out in your break-down does make sense though. I may have to reconsider my own work in this light.
Yeah, this should have been like this... Oh well, at least we can still hope as for the PHB for other spells, right?
Pretty much what I assumed they would have been, and how I will houserule it personally.
You do come up with some very useful houserules, Ramzour. This is something I'll probably adapt myself for my games.
I almost wish we didn't disagree on so much, so often.
I really like this. 
This is much closer to what I was hoping to see, and I will likely use your work as a guideline in determining saves in my game. Thanks Ramzour.
I will be using this. Quick question though: would hold person count as forceful paralysis? It isn't an evocation spell or transmutation spell. It doesn't summon energy that binds a person or turn the air around them into something solid. It is an enchantment spell (like Charm). As such, shouldn't it be resisted by Charisma in your schematic?
When they first talked about 6 saves in the playtest i wonderd for a while if they should use saves more like they curently did adn do.
For example if a creature wants to ush you out ofthe way.
it is a oposed strength check in the curent rules.
But I could imagine a system where the defending side of that oposed roll would use a strength save instead of just a strengt check i prevent being pushed.
+1 - Excellent work, Ramzour. Thanks for taking the time to share!
For me the main problem with the save system is the all or nothing aspect of it. You see this with CC and SoD effects and it causes a lot of problems on both the PC and NPC side.
I'd rather the save system left alone or be made simpler, rather than more complicated, unless being made more complicated adresses the all-or-nothing problem.
For simpler you could break it into 2 saves, mental and physical, using the median value of the 3 mental and 3 physical stats. Leave it to DM option or specific effect to target a specific attribute.
With your system there can be a lot of overlap for instance. Is an illusion of a dragon in the distance a fear effect or an illusion? Is a paralyzing poison a poison or a paralyze effect? Is a spell that summons ropes a dodge or a restrain? How is your mind being pummeled by psychic damage different than it being forcibly changed with charm and compulsion? How are neurons being shoved around for compulsion different than a raw fear effect that also directly shoves neurons around?
3E picked REF, CON and WILL to break things down for dodging, withstanding and... stuff in your head. Maybe picking a single stat to represent them wasn't the best, but overall the system did okay to represent the various things that could be inflicted on a PC.
This is a good idea, and they should have done it.
I'll take the lazy DM way out, however...Just re-institute a fort/ref/will system like 4e. Then, I don't have to think too much about spells, more PHB spells, splat book spells, and all the non-PC wierd monster abilities we'll be seeing in the MM(s).
Now if I can mitigate all the encounter/daily caster damage on a miss easily, I'll be happy.
Rays are inconsistent in the Basic D&D spell list. Disintegrate is a dex save but Ray of Frost is a ranged spell attack. Disintegrate should be a ranged spell attack and a Consitution save if it hits.
Hold Person seems more like a mental paralysis than something restricting your movements physically.
I agree with the connection between Wisdom and psychic damage. I feel like Wisdom should be used when the psyche/soul is attacked too. With that in mind I would make a case for most things causing radiant damage to use Wisdom, since it "overloads the spirit with power". For example, spells such as Guardian of Faith and Sacred Flame.
Seems a bit inconsistent that spells that cause cold damage only would target Constitution. Why not lightning also? If the damage done by one area of effect spell that does straight energy damage (fire, lightning) can be lessened by dodging out of the way, why couldn't it help with another (cold).
I don't know if any spell that has some influence over someone's actions should be Charisma. Maybe just spells that force someone to perform an action, like Command and Dominate spells. Charm/Suggestion spells seem a better fit with Wisdom, since they do allow you to make your own decisions, even if they are directed in some way.
Otherwise all the OP's suggestions make sense to me.
darius wrote:
If we're having a saving throw system instead of defenses, i'd rather just go with a combo of 3e and 4e:
3 Saves: Reflex (Dex or Int), Fortitude (Con or Str), Willpower (Wis or Cha)
Simpler, less people with a +0 save for their whole career and super easy to adapt to all existing spells and attacks.
To me, your system is clearly superior to the system in the starter set. Thanks for that, Ramzour.
Thanks everyone for your support! I really want to play 5e as close to RAW as possible but the saving throws are one aspect that really feel like a let down to me. I guess the nice thing is that the system is fairly easy to house rule. Once you understand the defintions for the different saves, it's pretty simple to modify the RAW saves to these new ones.
Like I said in my OP, I tried this method out during the playtest and it worked fantastically. Here's hoping the devs are listening....
souldoubt wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
seti wrote:
Very nice - sets out what i was planning to do in a very clear way. However, I was toying with the notion that influencing behaviour using charms should be wisdom because it's subtle and you have to notice the influence, while riding roughshod over someone's will like domination or suggestion should be charIsma but I think your system is pretty good as is.
darius wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
I love how modifying 5e is this simple, straightforward, transparent and clean.
Also, it would be nice if someone could explain why saving throws are not like this already. There must be some kind of a concept behind the way it is in the RAW.
pauln6 wrote:
Siphersh wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour, you always come through with something awesome to add.
FFSAA wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
I quite like it, it reminds me a bit of 2nd eds battery of saving throws each character had, expect there aren't any horrifying ones like "save vs death."
tehsquirrely wrote:
I was wondering if i could get some feedback on a defensive houserule a friend and I came up with. We had both agreed that armor should reduce damage, not let you dodge attacks. The arguement was that characters with unarmored defense were superior to characters with heavy armor until they could save 5000 gold for plate armor. We decided to try and change this by implementing what we dub the AC modifier. Basically you calculate your AC mod the same way you do your other stat mods (score - 10)/2 and the add a bonus of 0-3 based on your armor (0 for unarmored, 1 for light armor, 2 for medium armor, and 3 for heavy armor). Basically you use your AC mod in the same way as the Heavy Armor Master feat, and reduce any bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage by your AC mod (feel free to disallow use of the heavy armor master feat when implementing these rules). For instance a monk with 20 AC via unarmored defense would get an AC mod of 5 [{(20-10)/2}+0], and a fighter with 18 AC and heavy armor would have an AC mod of 7 [{(18-10)/2}+3]. We felt that this was a good representation of the way actual armor works, by blocking damage instead of letting you dodge attacks.
It should be noted that when we use these rules we also use the rule that attacks that normally target AC target DEX instead. (We believe that the ability to dodge a dodgable attack should be based on your Reflex/Agility, and that since characters with heavier armor are less likely to be high in this stat it was a fair trade off for reducing more damage than lower AC characters)
Feedback would be greatly appreciated, and I hope that some of you guys find these rules at least good enough to try.
Nice suggestion Ramzour. It truck me as realy odd that a spell like Maze didn't use Int Saves instead of Int Checks!
While I really like the conceptual idea of using al the ability saves, one problem I see is that it makes it even easier for an enemy spellcaster to target your weakest save.
I kind of liked the idea seen in trying to resist Grappling or Shoving : it allows you to use either Str (Athletics) or Dex(Acrobatics). What do you think of using the skill proficiencies directly instead of the save proficiencies?
So the upshot would be someting like this:
Effects that physically manipulate you: Str(Athletics) or Dex(acrobatics)
Dodgeable effects : Dex(Acrobatics)
Poisons, disease, cold, fatigue, death : Con (Fortitude) i.e. Con Save becomes a skill. Could also be called endurance
Maze spell : Int(Investigate). Kind of unique in this respect.
Illusions: Int(Investigate) or Wis(Perception)
Charms and Confusion: Wis(Insight) to tell you that said charm is maybe not in your best interest
Compulsions and Fear: Wis(Insight) or Cha(Intimidate) - show that influence trying to take over your brain that you are scarier than it!
These could even be combined. So Cone of Cold, for example, could allow you to make a Acrobatics or a Fortitude save.
The one downside here is that it might take some time to figure out what the relevant bonuses are, especially for monsters.
I like it and want to subscribe to your newsletter.
Also, I will be moving my bookmarks to reflect this new preference.
The4gotNdeath wrote:
Lagueppe wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Great stuff. Thanks.
A more sensible, or at least better distributed division of saves. I'm wondering if they forgot what they were doing when they were penning the current versions of the spells - particularly all of the "Check to End" ones. It also strikes me that having spells that allow repeated saves could just as easily be written to require a different save to end the effect. Such as Web: Dex Save to Avoid, Strength Save (not Check) to Break Free. Saves being part of text rather than general spell block makes this quite easy.
Ramzour wrote:
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
Crap.CRAAAAAP.
There's a problem here.
I like this houserule better than what is written in the manual.
CRAAAAAAP. I'm going to have a loyalist aneurism.
ivstin wrote:
ivstin wrote:
I'd mechanize it:
Fort=STR+CON
REF=DEX+INT
WILL=WIS+CHA
Then just bump the DC's by 5?
Since players/monsters get to use their best score for attacking, generally speaking, then why not set up effects to allow targets to choose how they're going to resist them? It might not be too difficult to go through effects and decide what score is for avoiding the effect and which is for forcing through it. For physical things, Dex would be for avoiding, and Strength would often be for resisting (like a grab; you can either try to avoid the grab or you can simply overpower the grab). It might be difficult to set it up, but it could allow for a dynamic and active defense system (which I've often thought would be great in D&D, to get players to pay attention when it's not their turn).
But Ramzour, your 6 categories are great. I'd allow some bleed over (since Hold Person is Enchantment, I'd allow it to be a Cha save), but I'd try to avoid it as much as possible.
cranebump wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
What Ramzour describes is pretty much how it is done in castles and crusades. I like it.
Cennedi wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour, this is great work. I only wish this was how the saves worked in the rules as written.
I have one nitpick, however. It's always bothered me that Concentration is tied to the Constitution ability score. To me, concentration is a mental thing, especially since traditional Vancian spellcasting was so much about having the mental faculties to hold the complexities of a spell in your mind. Since Wisdom isn't the one-stop mental defense in your system, I feel like concentration makes the most sense being a wisdom thing now.
The neat thing is that 5th edition makes it easy for both of us to be right about where concentration is placed at our respective tables.
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
Aavarius wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
I used the playtest version of these rules, and will continue to use them as I transition into the full rules.
Goober4473 wrote:
I put together a spreadsheet for your system Ramzour. It is fairly rough, but maybe someone can do something more impressive with it. I provided a couple of spreadsheets (excel,numbers), a CSV and a PDF. I listed all the Basic spells with User (Wiz/Cleric), Level, School, and Save. Feel free to update and make changes if I made any mistakes. Here's the link Ramzour's Save System. Enjoy!
mboss77 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Hey ramzour, any changes in this with the release of phb? Other spells that need changing?
I ask because I'm writing the campaign document I'm handling my players, and I'll add sentence long descriptions for each spell, including saves if any. And of course I'll use your fix for that.
Di_Bastet wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Goober4473 wrote:
Well, if you won't update this anytime soon then I have a lot of work to do. But thank you for your system anyway 
Di_Bastet wrote:
Brilliant. Bookmarked.
Wow, I'm really greatful that someone necro'd this thread because I missed the original. This is brilliant and I wish it were easier to actually implement. Much hugs if someone goes through the PHB and makes a list of updates.
Viper3220 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
I do agree that saves should be equally distributed among the 6 attributes, but wouldn't this weaken some spells themselves.
Monsters are innately strong. Making the Hold spell a Strength save would most likely cause them to save, thus negating the benefits of having the spell.
I just never understood how you use Dex to dodge a fireball, without moving.
IMO: If you succed on a Dex saving throw, you get to move 1' per save (so rolling a 15 let's you move 15'). Letting you actually get out of the way.
And it gives more tactical consieration to where you attack. A kobold sitting at the edge of a blast is much more likely to avoid it then one sitting in the middle.
RCanine wrote:
mellored wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
ScuroNotte wrote:
mellored wrote:
RCanine wrote:
I just wanted to let you know that my group has been using this system for a few adventures now, and it's just been so great. Six Saves blows the default system out of the water. Thanks!
We moved Hold spells into the Transmutation school, though, because like everyone was saying on the first page Str saves just don't make enough sense for an enchantment spell.
I increasingly think this should be stickied.
Igfig2 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
@Ramzour this is one of my all-time favorite posts on the forums. It's already archived via the wayback machine, but I'd love to have your permission to repost it elsewhere once these forums go the way of the mastodon.
RCanine wrote: