D&D 5E Failing saves is...ok?

I like the saves disparity because it keeps PCs from being scot free of all effects at high level. Being afraid of a bad save roll is one of the more delicious fears in D&D. Players need to be kicked out of safety nets more often, IMHO.

Soooo... where's the problem? You save too often? Or you save not often enough because you have dump stats that were necessary? 5e is a bit too easy on saves. Bless, Resistance and Inspiration makes it quite easy to make that save. And if you don't, well, revive is there for something isn't it?

lowkey13 said:

While I agree with what you wrote in terms of some of the history (which I have omitted), I think you are eliding the second part of the design equation- the importance of the saving throws.

Click to expand...

I suppose we could go into that. As I said, in the classic game, even as effects became more fearsome, saves became easier. At 1st level, Charm Person was hard to save against. At 7th, Polymorph Other was still pretty hard to save against. At 12th, Stone To Flesh was getting relatively easy to save against. 'Save or Die' didn't kick in until 4th or 5th level spells, at the earliest, IIRC (Phantasmal Killer was a 4th level Save-or-Die but the save was non-standard).
Bottom line, you got better at saving (much better, in a Monty Haul campaign, you could often save on a 2 thanks to plentiful magic-item bonuses, for instance), but the consequences of the failed save got worse - much worse.

In 3.0, save DCs scaled faster than save bonuses and spells still increased in the brutality of their effects at higher level, so the game became the infamous rocket tag.

In 4e, saves in the earlier-edition sense were consolidated into the attack roll mechanic, but at least one save was likely to fall behind the curve at higher level. Consequences in the form of conditions still got more severe as you leveled, but we're talking prone or maybe dazed at low level and stunned or something exotic and exception-based at high level. And, durations were much shorter, often "save" (a completely different, non-scaling 55/45 chance) ends or requiring actions to sustain. So consequences were much reduced across the board.

In 5e, saves are back to getting significantly harder as you level and durations longer than in 4e (instead of actions to sustain you merely refrain from casting another concentration spell; instead of 'fixed 10 DC saves ending,' repeated saves vs the original DC are required, etc). Consequences aren't back to the TSR/3e level - no save-or-die, but are more serious than they were in 4e, and 'save for 1/2' can be on a fairly huge amount of damage.

For a WotC-era save dynamic (saves get worse, net, as you level) to be workable in a gamist sense, the effect of a failed save would have to become /less/ severe at higher level. For instance, if damage didn't scale, at all, on spells, even with slots, but saves did. It really wouldn't make a huge amount of sense for petrification or instant death to be available at low level, but not high, though.

So I think it'd make more sense to change the save dynamic.

It's even worse than that. In 5E, it's okay to take damage. If some giant hits you with an axe, it's no big deal at all, because you can spend hit dice while the warlock is recovering spells.

In fact, if you don't take damage, you're wasting resources. Your hit dice regenerate overnight, whether or not you've used them, and they have no purpose other than to heal damage that you personally take. If you can get through an encounter slightly faster by not worrying about what hits you, then you're wasting time if you don't.

*Deleted by user*

How much of a problem this is, is of course, dependent on how often you're asked to make saving throws. Some of the old school adventures in Tales of the Yawning Portal seem to have you make saving throws constantly, with some terrible results for failure.

("See you in five thousand years!")

I don't have much in the way of data on this, just a few really bad scenarios- which I don't know how common or uncommon they were. A character being destroyed by a critical hit which brought them to less than half hit points, with the rider of "make a constitution save or have your permanent hit point total reduced by the damage dealt; if this would reduce your hit points to 0, you die". Not one, but TWO bad experiences with banshees. A few creatures that give you the poisoned condition, along with "while you are poisoned you must save against some even nastier condition".

Poisoned, by the way, I consider vicious because the disadvantage it imposes makes everything else you have to deal with much more dangerous.

Anyways, thanks for the replies, so far, it seems like this is less of an issue than I thought, based on my experiences so far.

James Gasik said:

5e is designed in such a way that most characters are going to have not only bad saves, but usually at least one 'critical' save that they will lack proficiency in. I've seen this described thusly; "you are not expected to make all your saves, and that's okay". It's true that there don't seem to be (m)any 'save or die' effects in the game.

But is it really ok?

There's still a lot of terrifying effects out there that can totally get your character killed, all because you got a low roll on a d20. Reducing maximum hit points, the poisoned condition, paralysis, instantly being reduced to 0 hit points- and of course, spells that can temporarily banish you from existence, or disintegrate you outright.

I've heard DM's claim that it makes monsters challenging again, when they have a reasonable expectation of their powers working- but on the other hand, if you're at full hit points and have made no tactical blunders, is it fun to be unable to do anything because you rolled a 3 on a d20?

...So how do you feel about saving throws? Sacred cow that needs to be ground into hamburger? Implemented poorly? Just needs a tweak here and there to succeed? Or is everything working fine, nothing to see here?

Click to expand...

If you haven't made any strategic or tactical blunders, you shouldn't be making any important saving throws in the​ first place. (I here discount negligible saves that you wouldn't care about even if you failed, like half damage against a weak attack when you have plenty of HP margin and healing available.) You want to survive a medusa attack? Don't look at her except in a mirror. Fighting beholders and don't want to face a death ray? Use Darkness or Fog Cloud to prevent it from seeing you. Sirens ahead? Plug your ears with wax like Odysseus's crew, or cast Silence. Fighting a dragon and don't want to worry about a breath weapon? Do it from wyvern back and stay out of range. (And be ready to counter the dragon's counterplay.) Meteor Swarm got you down? Don't save--Counterspell!

Your first line of defense is to avoid being subjected to bad effects. (In 5E most bad effects have pathetically short range and small AoE, so simply not being in range is often sufficient defense by itself for 3/4 of the party.) Saving throws are a fallback option, not something to rely on.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

lowkey13 said:

So, here's where I need to push back a little bit.

You are focusing on the spells. But 1e had a lot more than just spells.

Click to expand...

Sure. That's how most PCs forced saves. Poison for PCs, the other big source of saves, was pretty heavily restricted/discouraged.

But they might well face a lot of other saves. In general, though, the consequences scaled with level, there, too. At low level you might face Giant Centipedes - which forced a poison save. With a bonus. That, at the DM's option, didn't kill, just made you sick. Not in a really consistent manner, of course.

It's a very different conception. Even assuming "high level" play, the difference between a 1/10 chance of dying as opposed to a 1/3 chance of sucking is

Click to expand...

The line between sucking and dying isn't necessarily that stark. A high level 1e PC could fail his save vs poison (darn those natural '1's), but a prompt Neutralize Poison could still save him automatically. A high-level 5e PC could fail his save (on a natural 17), be paralyzed, keep failing it, and take multiple critical hits each round & die pretty quickly, or fail a different save and take 75 or 140 damage just like that. Not 'instant' death, no. But pretty darn serious.

Overall, though, I'd say 5e rapid hp scaling, and basing some formerly SoD effects on hps, instead, does even out the consequences of failed saves, and would justify a saving throw 'treadmill,' where save bonuses across the board and save DCs scaled at about the same rate. But that's not what 5e does - most classes get proficiency on only two saves and can afford to max out only one stat, while save DCs in general advance as if they had proficiency and a maxed-out caster stat. You tread water on your best save and fall behind on the other 5. Given that, the effects of a failed save should get less severe at higher level. That'd both not make much sense, and be harder to implement than simply bringing saves up to snuff.

*True story- I never had a saving throw v. polymorph in 1e that I can remember. *shrug*

Click to expand...

Not only have I had to make a save vs polymorph, I've forced plenty of 'em (a magic-user of mine got ahold of a wand of polymorphing and when nuts, even worked on a Purple Worm once), and my favorite Druid character blithely returned to his normal form after failing one, because he counted as a 'shapechanger' back then (obscure rule).

Good times.

*Deleted by user*

It is no fun being asked to make an impossible save.

No fun means bad design.

So, yes, failing saves is a failing of the system.

If the game said no saves could ever be lower than your proficiency bonus, the worst of it would have been averted.

Being asked to roll, say, a 17 or 19 is a hard ask, but at least it isn't outright impossible.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app