Forget Maneuvers for a sec, it's Saving throws we need to worry about.

I don't know how many offensive complusions would have to appear to invoke Charisma saving throws. Or sudden assualts against your intellect to force a Int save. Then what is left for Wisdom?

The "3 saves" or "Poison/Death/Spell/Wand..." versions were clear and easy to call out for.

But unless Next plan for DMs to constantly drop spellcasters with specific spells, I don't see where some of these saving throws are coming from. Outside of a DM using "gotcha" Charisma saves for umm... the 18th hypnotizing aboleth.

So if ANYTHING needs codifying right now, it's saving throws.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Things I would use an Intelligence saving throw for (in addition to magical attacks): To avoid damaging a complex machine while tinkering with it; to spot a logical flaw in a trickster's patter (while listening, not discussing - that would be opposed Cha/Int contest); to notice someone offering a spiked drink.

Things I would use a Charisma saving throw for (in addition to magical attacks): For a war-leader to rally troops whose morale has been undermined by subterfuge; to avoid being distracted by theatrics (eg a fake medical emergency); to resist the psychotropic effects of strong 'upper' drugs.

Thoughts?

Z.
don't know, Zero. Most of your int saves would be simple checks for me (mechanically they are the same for now, but we don't know if this might change), the first one could be modified with a skill (tinkering/engineering), the spiked drink could even be intuition or sense motive (wis)

Rallying troops would be a cha check (modified by leadership), distraction can be both wis and cha (yep, I would call for a save, too) and the psychotropic effects can even linger on to constitution territory (it is poison, after all, unless it is a magical drug)

However, I'd make the rule that a player might choose which attribute to use if there would be more than one appropriate ability. Otherwise we'd only have DM fiat.

But yes, mental stats are hard to distinguish, both in saves and (skill) checks. Plus they have the problem that they tend to be more rule zero'ed than the physical stats when you do good roleplaing. Well, except the nasty perception check of doom.
Int = saves against mental state or smarts
Wis = saves against things in which being stubborn would help or perception
Cha = saves against personality (or your good looks might be distracting )

Or is that not what is being asked?
@Zerozobb Most of those look like very rare checks and contests.

Saving throws are now mostly off your turn reactions.

Strength:
Mundane- Grapples, Push/Pull,Trip
Magical- Hand spells

Dexterity:
Mundane- Collapses, Explosions
Magical- Breath weapons, Blasty spells

Constitution:
Mundane-Poison, Disease, Exhaustion, Intoxication
Magical-Petrification, Death attacks, Transmutation/Polymorph

Intelligence:
Mundane- Disarm, Recalling previous dangers
Magical-Illusions,Maze,Predictions

Wisdom:
Mundane- Feint, Mental Stun
Magical-Confusion, Sanity, Minor charms, Minor Fears (fear auras)

Charisma:
Mundane- Intimidation,Avoid rage/calm/relaxation
Magical- Major charms and compulsion, Fascination, Major Fears (spells)

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Intelligence is for when being clever will overcome the hazard.  What would you expect an absent-minded wizard (high Int, low Wis and Cha) to be good at?  Solving puzzles.
Wisdom is for when being perceptive or sane will overcome the hazard.  What would you expect a simple monk (high Wis, low Int and Cha) to be good at?  Piercing illusions and staying calm.
Charisma is for when being self-assured will overcome the hazard.  What would you expect a crazed cult leader (high Cha, low Int and Wis) to be good at?  Resisting the control of others.
@TheCosmickid

Like someone else said, solving puzzles is a Int check or Int based contest. The only thing that would invoke reactionary puzzle solving is the maze spell. So unless there are maze slamming wizards out there, Int saving throws would be ignored and non-knowledge characters and non-wizard will dump it.

And call your own saves has its own problem. You'll get wizards going "I use logic to realize the ghost is an illusion" "I use logic to realize the wizard is controlling me." "I use logic and math and physics to predict and dodge the fireball" "I use logic and a mantra I read about in a book about the Zuziupoo monks during my days at school to break the hold spell. Zuzu. Zuzu. Zuzu."

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

2e saving throws for the win.

I'm sick of 10th level fighters being wrecked by 6th level wizards casting Deeper Slumber just like I'm sick of 12 level clerics with ACs in the 40's being grappled. As a matter of fact, those two things irritate me the same way a 20th level wizard getting a +0 on his climb skill check even though he has lived outside for 15 years irritates me.

Can't higher level characters just succeed in their own defense more? 
I really felt like they shoehorned all six stats in to saving thows with no good reason.  These feel like ability checks that are being called "saving throws" to be part of the "shared language" of the game.  I would much rather see the return of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves.

I love D&D more than I could ever love a human child.

IMO Fort/Ref/Will is the best system. Let PC's use Str/Con for Fort, Dex/Int for Ref, and Cha/Wis for Will like in 4e.
I just don't see the difficulty in choosing which ability score to use. I like the versatility in the D&DNext method.

@Black_Knight:
You've solved your own dilemma; now just determine which of the two matching abilities best fits each situation (or which favors the character involved).

@Orzel:
Don't let players "call their own saves"; allow them to suggest which ability they think should be used, then have them describe how their characters go about it and decide which ability they are actually using. Heck, you may even agree with the player.
Intelligence is for when being clever will overcome the hazard.  What would you expect an absent-minded wizard (high Int, low Wis and Cha) to be good at?  Solving puzzles.
Wisdom is for when being perceptive or sane will overcome the hazard.  What would you expect a simple monk (high Wis, low Int and Cha) to be good at?  Piercing illusions and staying calm.
Charisma is for when being self-assured will overcome the hazard.  What would you expect a crazed cult leader (high Cha, low Int and Wis) to be good at?  Resisting the control of others.

This pretty much, except "staying calm" should be with with charisma. Understanding and perceiving how *BEEP*ed you are is not a good way of staying calm, being stupid confident is what helps that.

"There never was much hope, just a fool's hope."

@lawrencehoy

What I meant is a player could easily twist any saving throw into a Int save. It'll either be broken or turn in into a game halting discussion/argument.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Look at castles and crusades. They give clear and easy rules on the character sheet for hich score to use for what save.
@lawrencehoy What I meant is a player could easily twist any saving throw into a Int save. It'll either be broken or turn in into a game halting discussion/argument.



Or con, or dex.


"I'm tough and resist it" 


"I'm agile and dodge it" 
@TheCosmickid Like someone else said, solving puzzles is a Int check or Int based contest. The only thing that would invoke reactionary puzzle solving is the maze spell. So unless there are maze slamming wizards out there, Int saving throws would be ignored and non-knowledge characters and non-wizard will dump it.

The only traditional effect that invokes Intelligence as a save is the maze spell.  There can be a lot more.  Anything where overcoming the obstacle requires figuring out the correct action to avoid it, rather than dodging it or shrugging it off somehow.  Many mechanism-based traps might do this. "Pull the right wire before you blow up."  That sort of thing.

Also, as Intelligence is usually the score to represent "raw brainpower", it may be used to resist the straightforward "crush your mind" type of psychic attack.  The mind flayers' mind blast, for instance, strikes me as a likely candidate for becoming an Int save, seeing as how much flayers traditionally love attacking Int anyway.  But this is speculative.

And call your own saves has its own problem.

I'm not sure if this is still a response to me, but I certainly never suggested players calling their own saves.

This pretty much, except "staying calm" should be with with charisma. Understanding and perceiving how *BEEP*ed you are is not a good way of staying calm, being stupid confident is what helps that.


But you see crazed cult leaders losing emotional control all the time.  You don't see ascetic monks doing that.  A big Charisma roughly translates to a big ego, which helps a lot to bull-heading your way through an attempt at mind control but is no asset (and may be a liability) when you're being taunted, flattered, confused, or otherwise emotionally manipulated.  To resist that, you need the detachment and perspicuity of Wisdom.

EDIT:  Put it this way.  If you save with a big defiant "NO!", it's Charisma.  Otherwise, it's something else.
@TheCosmickid Like someone else said, solving puzzles is a Int check or Int based contest. The only thing that would invoke reactionary puzzle solving is the maze spell. So unless there are maze slamming wizards out there, Int saving throws would be ignored and non-knowledge characters and non-wizard will dump it. And call your own saves has its own problem. You'll get wizards going "I use logic to realize the ghost is an illusion" "I use logic to realize the wizard is controlling me." "I use logic and math and physics to predict and dodge the fireball" "I use logic and a mantra I read about in a book about the Zuziupoo monks during my days at school to break the hold spell. Zuzu. Zuzu. Zuzu."



That isn't as big of a problem as you say it is.  Put them at disadvantage for using a delayed reaction to process the information.  Then for the fireball, make them roll 3 times at disadvantage for logic, math, and physics respectively. And make them roll twice at disadvantage for the logic and mantra.  And require that they pass all rolls.

Charisma is your force of personality, your mental strength, and your presence.  In reality, IMO, it should be uses for many of the things a Will check is currently used for.  Need a check to see if you're charmed or mind controlled?  Your perception has nothing to do with that, its a pure clash of wills.  Who has the stronger personality, you to resist or them to dominate?
I could see some themes introducing the ability to reapply better saves in some cases. Like a Disipline theme that allows Will saves to replace Con and Charisma in some cases. etc.
I could see some themes introducing the ability to reapply better saves in some cases. Like a Disipline theme that allows Will saves to replace Con and Charisma in some cases. etc.


As has been said elsewhere, it's a problematic approach in general to use the substitute score mechanic because it tends to make dump stats less meaningful.  However, you use the words "in some cases".  If designed carefully, this could work.
The last three stats are "mental" mirrors of the first three (physical) stats.  It's just not obvious because the order is different.

STR = CHA
DEX = INT
CON = WIS

As has been said elsewhere, it's a problematic approach in general to use the substitute score mechanic because it tends to make dump stats less meaningful.

Dumpstats are already essentially meaningless.
@Zerozobb Most of those look like very rare checks and contests. Saving throws are now mostly off your turn reactions. Strength: Mundane- Grapples, Push/Pull,Trip Magical- Hand spells Dexterity: Mundane- Collapses, Explosions Magical- Breath weapons, Blasty spells Constitution: Mundane-Poison, Disease, Exhaustion, Intoxication Magical-Petrification, Death attacks, Transmutation/Polymorph Intelligence: Mundane- Disarm, Recalling previous dangers Magical-Illusions,Maze,Predictions Wisdom: Mundane- Feint, Mental Stun Magical-Confusion, Sanity, Minor charms, Minor Fears (fear auras) Charisma: Mundane- Intimidation,Avoid rage/calm/relaxation Magical- Major charms and compulsion, Fascination, Major Fears (spells)



I like the current set up.
I think for mental saves, it can be done if the rules are clear on exactly what the source is.

Charisma is mental strength, so you can use it for any contest of will.  Charisma saves for domination, or spells which charm or otherwise alter your frame of mine.  These were historically "will saves" and wisdom based, but I could see them being a pretty good candidate for charisma.  I'd say most mental attack spells should target charisma, to shore it up a bit from being a dump stat.

Wisdom is perception, so that covers all the illusion spells, where you aren't being controlled, just misled.  That keeps it pretty well defined, and since elves get advantage to notice something, they can retain their historically excellent way to see through illusion.

This way the rule of thumb is "if the spell affects your mind directly, charisma, if it has to be percieved, then wisdom."

That leaves intelligence for anything that isn't control and isn't illusion you can see through, like a maze spell.  That's used less than a bunch of other classes, but given how much INT is "the" go to for knowledge and information, I don't mind the idea of it being the least used check.
...But you see crazed cult leaders losing emotional control all the time.  You don't see ascetic monks doing that.  A big Charisma roughly translates to a big ego, which helps a lot to bull-heading your way through an attempt at mind control but is no asset (and may be a liability) when you're being taunted, flattered, confused, or otherwise emotionally manipulated.  To resist that, you need the detachment and perspicuity of Wisdom.

EDIT:  Put it this way.  If you save with a big defiant "NO!", it's Charisma.  Otherwise, it's something else.

Charisma does not roughly translating to ego in D&D. Having a sense of purpose and being self assured can mean you don't take things personally and rise above the petty miffs of a big ego. Paladin's have high Cha, are they egotistical and will flip out on people?

I actually think ascetic monks also have Cha along with Wisdom. Self assurance is based on Cha, and monks aren't second guessing their life choices despite the fact they think deeply about everything. And I think the cult leader flips out for plot reasons or for being crazy, not anything to do with their ability scores.

Taunting is supposed to cause reckless anger and flattery is supposed to make you feel better about yourself and/or like the person. Fighting those off can be done two ways. Either you don't let the emotions get to you because you know what they're up to, or you emotionally react to it but don't act on those emotions. Seeing through the motives of these two actions is insight, so yea that takes Wisdom. If you took the bait and react to them emotionally, it would take self confidence and force of personality to stick to your guns and not let your feelings get to you, that would be Cha by D&D's definition of the two words.

Although you can feel confused, confusion it self is caused by not understanding information. You THOUGHT your friend was the enemy so you hit him. The room is spinning around you and you have no idea what's going on, so you stand there like, "DURRR?" I've been drunk and confused, that is all about your mind not understanding things, not emotions. 
This is one of the really good innovations of 4e (well, star wars saga, really), and it should stay.

Just make saving the three saving throws tied to two stats each, and go.


But no, atributes have to be the whole basis of the system in any way we can make them!

Such absurd nonsense.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Honestly I'd be happy if they just made it so you only have two saves, mental and physical. Use your highest attribute from the relevant category. It'd be simple and easy, and no need to worry about keeping 7 different defenses up.
This is one of the really good innovations of 4e (well, star wars saga, really), and it should stay.

Just make saving the three saving throws tied to two stats each, and go.


But no, atributes have to be the whole basis of the system in any way we can make them!

Such absurd nonsense.


agreed! If I had the choice, I'd let the defenses stay (or use two stats for the saving throw)
This topic demonstrates why clear codifying is needed. Everyone has different interpretations of the ability scores. Some DMs would call for specific saves and others would run with the description of the player's action. Some players would run with what works best (in their minds) why others who try to get to use their best modifiers in every saves. Some campaigns will call for many Int saves while another could go 10 levels without a singe Cha save. Some actions would ne saving throws in one game while other games have them as checks.

I am still looking for an example of an Intelligence save outside of the maze spell.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Charisma does not roughly translating to ego in D&D. Having a sense of purpose and being self assured can mean you don't take things personally and rise above the petty miffs of a big ego. Paladin's have high Cha, are they egotistical and will flip out on people?


Remember that paladins traditionally have a high Wisdom too.  A paladin with a low Wisdom I see as likely being a miles gloriosus character.  There's nothing preventing him from being good.  But he lacks the serenity of his wiser brothers, and so, yes, if his buttons are pushed, he can occasionally flip out on people.  A Gawain rather than a Galahad.

I actually think ascetic monks also have Cha along with Wisdom. Self assurance is based on Cha, and monks aren't second guessing their life choices despite the fact they think deeply about everything.


I have to disagree with you here.  If you encounter a monk in literature, it's practically guaranteed that he will have some sort of crisis of identity or faith.  If he doesn't, sure, that means his Charisma is higher.  But since all we're using the monk for is an example of an iconic high-Wis low-Cha character, that just means we have to go find another example.
Taunting is supposed to cause reckless anger and flattery is supposed to make you feel better about yourself and/or like the person. Fighting those off can be done two ways. Either you don't let the emotions get to you because you know what they're up to, or you emotionally react to it but don't act on those emotions. Seeing through the motives of these two actions is insight, so yea that takes Wisdom. If you took the bait and react to them emotionally, it would take self confidence and force of personality to stick to your guns and not let your feelings get to you, that would be Cha by D&D's definition of the two words.


In order not to let your feelings get to you, you have to take a mental step back and say, "Whoa, I'm getting angry, but that would be bad for me right now, so I'd better not do that."  That's self-insight.  That's Wisdom.  If you don't have that, it doesn't matter how forceful your personality is, because you don't notice that you need to resist, so you don't even try.

The typical cocky hothead character has a high Cha and low Wis.  I do not believe this is a controversial statement.  He doesn't have the insight to know when he should try to stay calm, so all his self-confidence and force of personality just go wherever his emotions take them.

If I had the choice, I'd let the defenses stay (or use two stats for the saving throw)

Why?

I am still looking for an example of an Intelligence save outside of the maze spell.

"Pull the right wire before you blow up."  Again, lots of potential trap applications.

This is one of the really good innovations of 4e (well, star wars saga, really), and it should stay.

Just make saving the three saving throws tied to two stats each, and go.



But no, atributes have to be the whole basis of the system in any way we can make them!


Such absurd nonsense.


I prefer it going strait to the ability score. With the 4e way, you were kind of stuck favoring one attribute in each area to get good defenses. With it going strait to the score, you need everything.

To me, that removes the idea of picking your ability scores based on what saves you need. They're all saves, so it helps wherever you put it. Now your list of motives for picking ability scores is freed up a little, bringing character concept higher on said list. It also pretty much makes it so you will have a weakness, which makes the character feel more "human," which I like.


Remember that paladins traditionally have a high Wisdom too.  A paladin with a low Wisdom I see as likely being a miles gloriosus character.  There's nothing preventing him from being good.  But he lacks the serenity of his wiser brothers, and so, yes, if his buttons are pushed, he can occasionally flip out on people.  A Gawain rather than a Galahad.

Ok, paladin was a bad example. (I forgot how MAD they were in 3.5 and know nothing of the 4e one.) But I think that "Cha does not roughly equal ego" still stands. 

I have to disagree with you here.  If you encounter a monk in literature, it's practically guaranteed that he will have some sort of crisis of identity or faith.  If he doesn't, sure, that means his Charisma is higher.  But since all we're using the monk for is an example of an iconic high-Wis low-Cha character, that just means we have to go find another example.

Ah, I was thinking real world monks that are strong in their faith. I don't care about how things went down in literature at all.

In order not to let your feelings get to you, you have to take a mental step back and say, "Whoa, I'm getting angry, but that would be bad for me right now, so I'd better not do that."  That's self-insight.  That's Wisdom.  If you don't have that, it doesn't matter how forceful your personality is, because you don't notice that you need to resist, so you don't even try...

Knowing you need to control yourself may be dependent on self insight / Wis, but actually doing it takes Cha. People who fail to quit smoking didn't do it because they all the sudden thought it wasn't bad for them anymore, they did it because they gave into the urges. They understand the ramifications just as well as everyone else while they're lighting up another one. Fighting that urge takes willpower, and Cha is way closer to that than Wis in the D&DN packet.

Arguably it would take both, but the thing is knowing you need to chill lies in the player, not the character. If taunt was a combat ability, I would make it a Cha save for players to resist. Because the knowledge of "I need to not let it get to me" is obvious to PCs. So although I agree that it takes Wis to know you need to fight it, that part is already covered. Which leaves the willpower part of it, which is Cha.

"The typical cocky hothead character has a high Cha and low Wis. I do not believe this is a controversial statement." The fact that people did things like that in the past? Yea whatever. The implication that cocky + hothead, AKA personality traits, would be dictated by my ability scores and not how I want to play my character? Yea, that's a controversial statement. I don't care how other peeps do it, if I want my character to be level headed and Wis is a dump stat, I'm still going to have a level headed character.
Does anyone else think Int saves are a nonstarter? As long as nasty, high-threat dire beasts have Int 2, putting ANY useful effect on a Int save makes wizards even more of encounter-Endersthan they were before.
Check out my blog--now REACTIVATED with DnDnext feedback!

This is one of the really good innovations of 4e (well, star wars saga, really), and it should stay.

Just make saving the three saving throws tied to two stats each, and go.



But no, atributes have to be the whole basis of the system in any way we can make them!


Such absurd nonsense.


I prefer it going strait to the ability score. With the 4e way, you were kind of stuck favoring one attribute in each area to get good defenses. With it going strait to the score, you need everything.

To me, that removes the idea of picking your ability scores based on what saves you need. They're all saves, so it helps wherever you put it. Now your list of motives for picking ability scores is freed up a little, bringing character concept higher on said list. It also pretty much makes it so you will have a weakness, which makes the character feel more "human," which I like.





lol IMO, it does the opposite of freeing anything up. It forces generalized characters, and I'm sorry, but that's niether "cool", nor realistic. People are not as complex as they think they are. Most people should have average scores in all but one or two stats, with those being noticably higher, and maybe one noticably lower. Average as in 8-12, which is exactly what happens in 4e, and most games that have a fairly simple defenses system.


Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
lol IMO, it does the opposite of freeing anything up. It forces generalized characters, and I'm sorry, but that's niether "cool", nor realistic. People are not as complex as they think they are. Most people should have average scores in all but one or two stats, with those being noticably higher, and maybe one noticably lower. Average as in 8-12, which is exactly what happens in 4e, and most games that have a fairly simple defenses system.

I never said realistic, I said "human." As in you have a flaw to your character as opposed to being neigh perfect and balanced individual. (I also didn't say it's "cool" but you know what, it is.)

"I'm strong and can push this thing."
"I'm healthy and can shake off that poison."
"Your fear is no match for my self esteem!" (?)
"PUPPIES!" *runs up and hugs rust monster covered by an illusion*

I can see why it would make some people feel locked in who want to be perfect. It's unavoidable that you will have a lesser save. Therefor, you should go ahead and take the stats you want without worrying about saves. To me, that is more liberating then redesigning my Dex/Int character because I'm janking myself by using two scores with the same save.

The only way it forces generalized characters is if you want to be perfect and try to have good stats all around. In that situation, you're doing it wrong.
This topic demonstrates why clear codifying is needed. Everyone has different interpretations of the ability scores. Some DMs would call for specific saves and others would run with the description of the player's action. Some players would run with what works best (in their minds) why others who try to get to use their best modifiers in every saves. Some campaigns will call for many Int saves while another could go 10 levels without a singe Cha save. Some actions would ne saving throws in one game while other games have them as checks.

I am still looking for an example of an Intelligence save outside of the maze spell.

The problem is even if you have in the game a paragraph or two on each stat you can NEVER really nail them down to the level that everyone will agree in any given situation what the best logic is for which stat is best for which save against what thing.

This is very parallel to the alignment arguments of yore. NO amount of pages of explanation about what the devs think the different alignments mean even slowed the arguments down.

Overall this is why I think that it would be better to go with something like the 3 defenses of 4e. It settled all these debates pretty effectively.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Does anyone else think Int saves are a nonstarter? As long as nasty, high-threat dire beasts have Int 2, putting ANY useful effect on a Int save makes wizards even more of encounter-Endersthan they were before.

Yeah, this can be a pretty big problem.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I never took issue with Rod, Staf, or Wand...

I do like the new spread of saving throws - the 3e+ three of Fort, Ref, Will sort of fell flat with me, they were way to board.  Again the saving throw 'classes' in 1e/2e still make more sense to me than this new fangled stuff. 
I feel like part of the problem here is due to what I see as a misapprehension of the whole 'dump stat' thing.

What actually was the issue with dump stats? There could be 2 issues. One could be that a specific stat was just not that worthwhile. CHA for instance was the perpetual dumpstat in AD&D. It was nice to have, but basically you could live without it, and even if you had henchmen and such you just paid them better or whatever and it wasn't an issue. The second version of this would be for given classes that there were always specific dump stats, so "all fighters are dumb" because basically you couldn't come up with much that INT did for you if your main shtick was beating things with a big iron stick. Both of those can be seen as issues, to some extent. They aren't inherent to D&D though. I can't see any particular reason why there have to be any specific dump stats. Sure, many, maybe even most, characters will have a stat they 'dump', but so what? As long as the system lets you basically use pretty much any stat to do SOMETHING interesting that is class related and as good as the stuff you could do with some other stat, then its fine. The high CON fighter wears his enemy down. The high DEX fighter is quick and accurate. The high INT fighter is a master tactician or knows tons of fancy techniques. The high WIS fighter has great resolve and inner fortitude and/or is highly perceptive. The high CHA fighter beats his enemy by force of personality (making him accept defeat, overawing him, etc). I assume all these fighters have a good primary STR, but that's not even an entirely needed constraint here.

Careful mechanical design is needed, but there's not really a need to make all stats defenses. In fact as a secondary argument I doubt that will have any impact on dump stats. First, some stats will rarely ever come up as defenses, so the fighter will still dump INT in the sure knowledge that it won't hurt him much. Secondly if every stat is relevant to defense fairly often then there's not a lot of point in bothering with all of them. It is probably a better overall defense to just dump one or two of them since you're going to either be marginal on all defenses or poor on 1 or 2 and good on the rest. Might as well have SOME defenses that work vs none that really cut it when the tough check is needed.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
This topic demonstrates why clear codifying is needed. Everyone has different interpretations of the ability scores. Some DMs would call for specific saves and others would run with the description of the player's action. Some players would run with what works best (in their minds) why others who try to get to use their best modifiers in every saves. Some campaigns will call for many Int saves while another could go 10 levels without a singe Cha save. Some actions would ne saving throws in one game while other games have them as checks. I am still looking for an example of an Intelligence save outside of the maze spell.

The problem is even if you have in the game a paragraph or two on each stat you can NEVER really nail them down to the level that everyone will agree in any given situation what the best logic is for which stat is best for which save against what thing.

This is very parallel to the alignment arguments of yore. NO amount of pages of explanation about what the devs think the different alignments mean even slowed the arguments down.

Overall this is why I think that it would be better to go with something like the 3 defenses of 4e. It settled all these debates pretty effectively.




That's why I don't want paragraphs. I want hard coding.

Fear spells is a X save. Stun spells are a Y save.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

IMO Fort/Ref/Will is the best system. Let PC's use Str/Con for Fort, Dex/Int for Ref, and Cha/Wis for Will like in 4e.

Please, please, please, NEVER bring back the Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves. The new way is the best. The numbers are already there, and can be used in a variety of ways. We do not need to overcomplicate the game by creating new STATS, such as the FORT, REF, and WILL.


I enjoy the free form game play the DnD Next system provides, it is easy, flexible; did I say easy? It is simple, frees up the brain for imagination. I never want to see the game made into an overcomplicated board game again. Please do not overanalyze and overcomplicate the system.

-Scott

My quick two-cents:

The saves are fine and intuitive.  If you like fort/ref/will, use them as Con/Dex/Wis or Str/Con,Dex/Int,Wis/Cha, problem solved. If you like the "Poison/Death/Spell/Wand..." well, assign a stat to each presto!  Really saves just use your stats like everything else, except in other editions they offer secondary scaling which is more of a bother to keep track of than anything imo.
My quick two-cents:

The saves are fine and intuitive.  If you like fort/ref/will, use them as Con/Dex/Wis or Str/Con,Dex/Int,Wis/Cha, problem solved. If you like the "Poison/Death/Spell/Wand..." well, assign a stat to each presto!  Really saves just use your stats like everything else, except in other editions they offer secondary scaling which is more of a bother to keep track of than anything imo.

I agree totally! Adding three more categories is redundant! Redundancy is bad! Many things can be accomplished using logic and ability scores. The game should be efficient and simple for easy conversion, development, and play.


-Scott
Sign In to post comments