D&D 5E Letting a class choose saving throws

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Sounds like you're already changing the game away from vanilla. So you could offer the option, no feats EXCEPT Resilience...

Slippery slope and all that. Give one guy Resilience and the next'll be saying that he need GWM to role play his character properly.

 

[Satyrn]

Slippery slope and all that. Give one guy Resilience and the next'll be saying that he need GWM to role play his character properly.

It's not even that. This is about designing a class that gets to choose its 2 saves. Resilience simply doesn't fit the bill.

 

[Quickleaf]

Now, before everyone starts goong crazy, no, you can't just choose Wis and Con, you still have to keep one strong save and one weak save.
That being said, I was thinking about a new class that would be very customizable, working off the Warlock chassis, the specifics of which haven't well formed in my mind completely. Anyway, one point would be to have each archetype determine what your casting stat is, so, since customization is one of the central points I wanted in the class, what if players could choose their saving throws to better fit a specific build to the class?
The idea is, you choose your archetype at 1st level; one of your save proficiencies must be your casting stat, and then you choose the other. Obviously, you may only have one saving throw amongst Dex, Con and Wis, and must choose the other from Str, Int and Cha. So, if you choose the archetype that gives Wis as a cast stat, you have to choose a weak save, if you cast with Cha or Int, you get to choose a strong save.
What do you guys think?

Well, it really depends on two factors.

First, do we expect the trend of saving throw frequency to continue in future adventures/monster products (i.e. where DEX/CON/WIS are more common, and STR/INT/CHA are less common)?

Second, do you feel it's appropriate for all character classes to equally have the option of more well-rounded saving throws? For example, in AD&D that would have more closely aligned with a feature of the fighter class.

If your answer to (1) is yes, and your answer to (2) is yes, then go for it!

 

[Satyrn]

I'm also gonna say go for it. I just can't see this being a problem.

My forest gnome battlemaster will still have a better save portfolio than nearly any character built with this hypothetical class. With proficiency in Strength and Con, a high Dex and advantage on Int, Wis and Cha saves, my character is The Boss at saving throws.

 

[discosoc]

Any time you let a player choose from a list of options -- especially those that are purely mechanical -- you're just going to encourage them to pick the one that's mechanically best. That's not very interesting, from an RP perspective.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sounds like you're already changing the game away from vanilla. So you could offer the option, no feats EXCEPT Resilience...

Uhoh, you've triggered a debate on if feats are assumed or considered optional by RAW!!!

Better run for the hills everyone!

**
But more seriously, I don't get the point of @WayOfTheFourElementss comment. Why bring up playing without feats in a threat that is essentially about homebrew, if you're bringing in your home-made "optional material" it seems rather petty to draw a distinction between RAW "optional material".

Any time you let a player choose from a list of options -- especially those that are purely mechanical -- you're just going to encourage them to pick the one that's mechanically best. That's not very interesting, from an RP perspective.

Oh boy look out, we can't role play and roll play at the same time. I guess we better throw this whole "role playing game" thing out the window!


Seriously? Why can't we as a community move past this sort of garbage? Like somehow being mechanically optimal is dichotomous to role-playing. My character isn't interesting because his mechanical elements match, or even because they don't match! My character is interesting because of the the way I fluff those elements. Being REALLY GOOD at one thing is neither more nor less interesting than being sorta good at a lot of things or kinda good at one thing or REALLY bad at everything. "Best" is also pretty subjective depending on what you want to accomplish. An archer is obviously not going to pick the best feat for a caster. A caster is not going to pick the best feat for a heavy-armor sword & board guy.


I mean, yeah I took the Charlatan background for my female elf rogue, it's mechanically optimal for all the sneaky, deceptive rogue stuff I wanna do, but it also perfectly fits her background as she pretends to be the "secret mistress" of recently dead wealthy people in order to steal their money. Forging documents and tricking local courts into giving her money, disgracing the names of nobles the party is having a problem with and so forth.


That's the kind of stuff that makes an interesting character.

 

[FrogReaver]

Any time you let a player choose from a list of options -- especially those that are purely mechanical -- you're just going to encourage them to pick the one that's mechanically best. That's not very interesting, from an RP perspective.

Yep.

My favorite 5e feats are

Actor, Keen Mind, Lucky, Observant, Ritual Caster, Sentinel, Skulker.

I mean they are mechanical in some sense. But in general they aren't about increasing your sheet numbers. They generally make it easier to do things you already could or give the option of doing something when you normally couldn't.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

But more seriously, I don't get the point of @WayOfTheFourElementss comment. Why bring up playing without feats in a threat that is essentially about homebrew, if you're bringing in your home-made "optional material" it seems rather petty to draw a distinction between RAW "optional material".

Personally, I prefer homebrew/house rules to feats and multi-classing. Making use of feats and multiclassing implies that they are open to all players. I like to keep the game simple and combat as quick as possible, and feats add more complex, crunchy bits that slow it down (do I GWM or not? Did that dude just trigger my PAM). Yes, I know spells also slow down the game, but personally, I feel magic adds more to the flavor of the world that PAM does, and is, therefore, a sacrifice I am willing to make.

On the flip side, I'm fine homebrewing just about anything that can't already be represented by the rules. Want to play a warrior-mage? Sure, I'll homebrew a class for it. Want to be a cleric of a Hephaestus with the Creation domain?