D&D 5E Failing saves is...ok?

CapnZapp · Aug 18, 2017

James Gasik said:
Well you can't take Resilient multiple times, so that's not even an option.

(PHB page 165: "You can take each eat only once, unless the feat's description says otherwise.")

I guess I should have been clearer:

To those suggesting "you could always allow players to take Resilient more than once" I say:

"Since 5e uses six saves and not just Fortitude/Reflex/Will, you would have to take it three times to sufficiently cover your bases, and that's outrageously expensive just to avoid having to make impossible saves, especially since that situation could and should have been avoided by the rules in the first place".

Thanks

Sunseeker · Aug 18, 2017

Ilbranteloth said:
So you're really talking about adventure and game design more than whether a saving throw or failed skill check is the problem.

Without the larger context, neither of us could analyze if any single failed saving throw is the problem. So when threads show up talking about failing saves, I just typically assume they're talking about failing saves on the whole as opposed to a singular instance of "was this failed save fair?"

But some people like the idea that there's a nearly impossible dungeon, and that they might be the ones to complete it (and might not). The gorgon is a cool example. It's super difficult, and the evidence of its deadliness is all around you. There must be some reason why the PCs are there, and risking their lives, and if they are lucky, at least one of them will survive to help the others. Of course, in our campaign it would also encourage planning ahead, perhaps purchasing or having manufactured some potions of protection against petrification, and a few scrolls of spells to reverse it, etc. I don't see any real need to change the nature of the gorgon's petrification, although your solution could make for an interesting encounter and I don't want to imply that it doesn't.

I think am important point to note here at least about my own DMing is that I drastically cut down on commonly available magic. Players typically cannot go into a town and just start picking up magic items. As someone who plays video games a lot, I find the whole "buying scrolls and drinking potions like cola" to be rather video gamey.

As for "nearly impossible", I think that can be accomplished with sufficiently high checks and sufficiently increased dangers upon failure, without having to resort to brick walls. The players WANT to fight the Bad Guy, they don't want to fight the Bad Guy and his army of Minions. Failure might mean their Difficult Task has become Nearly Impossible, as opposed to "Sorry, you don't get to fight this room at all."

I try to avoid "boss fights" and "world is destroyed" in my campaign as a whole. Doesn't mean the first doesn't exist, but it's not a common encounter for the PCs. At least not in the way the BBEG approach has evolved.

No, I would say boss fights are not common in my games either, but that's why I think being able to engage them (even if you risk loss) is so important. The whole arc has built up to this Final Confrontation, don't deny the players that over a couple brick walls.

It also has to do with expectations. My starter adventures for first time players in my campaign have a variety of challenge levels, up to a 100% chance of TPK if they don't heed the warnings and push too far. If they don't heed my session 0 warnings that I, as the DM, won't be protecting them from significant danger and near sure death situations should they choose to pursue them, they understand it early on. The world is not designed as a "fun" place for adventurers. That dragon that's 1,500 years old? Yeah, it's still alive for a reason. And while like Smaug, there's a chance that it will fall, and perhaps even to these PCs, it won't be easy. And as often as not, they will either run away (or some of them anyway), or die. That's the risk of taking on a dragon in my world. Of course, higher level characters have a better chance of survival, but mid-level characters have succeeded where high level have failed. Being smart and prepared is much more important than raw power.

If the group understands that, and we're on the same page, then success is that much sweeter.

As I've said in other threads, with 5E I typically run deadly++ encounters. Creating risk is fairly easy in D&D and I don't have a problem with failure. I have a problem with dead ends. I don't see the point. Am I going to fold up the game after the TPK? Am I going to stop playing D&D forever after we lose? Probably not. I'm sure my players are going to want to make new characters and try again. I'm sure we're going to have another session. So, why not skip all the hassle of new characters? DMing only to pack it up when players run into a wall seems not just a little rude to me, so why go there?

FormerlyHemlock · Aug 18, 2017

Baldurs_Underdark said:
I DM a game where the players have grown very attached to their characters, so TPK is no option for me. As a result, the really deadly tricks that monsters have just don't get used. I keep an eye on the player's HP, and tone down the attacks when TPK becomes a real threat. Personally, I would rather make it more challenging, but it appears that the group prefers to have it this way.

TPK may not be an option, but 5E makes nonlethal damage very easy to inflict (at least in melee), and even kills can be easily revived. You could easily do something like:

Play the game at normal difficulty, pulling no punches, but if the party is ever TPK'ed, they wake up shortly thereafter, back in civilization somewhere and somehow Raised from the Dead (including all penalties) and bereft of all magic items... and it turns out they've just been framed for a horrendous crime, like regicide.

Try to have an entertaining explanation ready for if the players ever figure out what's going on, but still, that's not really the point. The point is to keep the integrity of the game as a game intact by allowing failure. Without the possibility of failure, there can be no truly awesome successes. Some of the best stories will come from when you think the PCs are about to get TPK'ed, and then due to brilliant plans or awesome die rolls, they don't.

Tony Vargas · Aug 18, 2017

Another angle to look at this from is BA. 5e BA likes to assume that a character can likely get by without much investment in a given check. The guy who never gets proficiency in a skill that uses the 8 from his standard array that he never used any ASIs on is -1, but a lot of checks that might still be useful to the party aren't going to be that high-DC 10s & 13s & 15s and the like - even if the party is facing a higher DC that he can't touch, he can use the Help action.

In combat, when it comes to attacking, all your attacks are likely to key of your best - maybe, your second-best - attribute, and gain proficiency. You cantrip and spell attacks will use your caster stat every time, and you'll generally manage to pick up a weapon you're proficient in, and, if you use weapons at all, will have invested in some STR or DEX (just one or the other).

Similarly, AC is not likely to be too horrid, almost everyone gets some armor proficiency and/or makes some investment in DEX (which can also double as your attacks stat with weapons), or can cast mage armor or whatever.

Monsters will tend to have comparable attacks and decent ACs, too.

DCs you impose are, like attacks, generally based on your best stat and always include proficiency, ranging from 13 to 19 over 20 levels. The DCs you're likely to face also are around that range, some might be even lower at the low end.

All pretty consistent. Then you get to save bonuses. Instead of having one AC that everyone keeps up fairly easily as a matter of course with armor & such adding to it, you need to cover 6 saves, one based on each stat, with just stat bonus & proficiency - and you only get proficiency on two of them.

So you end up, some of the time, facing DCs based on max-stat-plus-proficiency, with a bonus based on dump-stat-plus-nada. There's no "I'm helping" option like there is when you're all making out of combat checks, there's no bowing out until the next time your good save comes up. You get hit with something that forces the save, there's not a lot of alternatives.

FormerlyHemlock · Aug 18, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
Another angle to look at this from is BA. 5e BA likes to assume that a character can likely get by without much investment in a given check... Instead of having one AC that everyone keeps up fairly easily as a matter of course with armor & such adding to it, you need to cover 6 saves, one based on each stat, with just stat bonus & proficiency - and you only get proficiency on two of them.

In fact, one of the foundational principles of BA is that the DM need not assume any increase in the PC's bonuses. It's supposed to be okay to keep using Ball Bearings (DC 10 Dex save to avoid going prone) in 20th level adventures, and have them still be relevant and interesting. That's exactly what we see in 5E: you can use low DCs (Magma Mephits, ball bearings, caltrops) against high-level characters, and unless the high-level PCs happen to be either proficient in Dex saves or willing to use things like Bardic Inspiration/Aura of Devotion/Luck dice/etc. against them, the high-level PCs will sometimes slip on the ball bearings or be disadvantaged by the Magma Mephits' Heat Metal. Therefore, ball bearings/caltrops/mephits do not go obsolete.

That's what bounded accuracy is all about. It's working as designed.

If a given DM chooses to assume that PC bonuses will steadily increase, and just throws waves of ever-higher-CR monsters with ever-higher-save-DCs at the party, not only are you playing a monochromatic game with only type of threat (solos and small groups of monsters) but you're also violating the bounded accuracy assumption: you're assuming something you know to be false, that PC bonuses always increase over time. If you don't like the game that results, stop it! Play 5E the way it was designed to work. Use bounded accuracy in your adventure designs.

Tony Vargas · Aug 18, 2017

Hemlock said:
In fact, one of the foundational principles of BA is that the DM need not assume any increase in the PC's bonuses.

So DC 19 saves are off the table, then?

That is how BA shakes out (by design) with regard to non-combat and many other checks, and it's nice as far as it goes, as PCs can't help but 'neglect' some checks - there just aren't enough high stats and skill/tool proficiencies to go around. The DCs the party faces reflect that. High DC tasks are going to be tackled by the PCs with good-stat/proficiency, if not Expertise, those with lower checks will stand back or make Help checks.
Lower DCs everyone can tackle - and the good PCs can often still fail on a crap roll.

That is not how it works with attacks, though. PC attacks /do/ scale very consistently with level. So do the saves PCs force and the save DCs they likely face. Unlike skill checks, they can't have only the 18 CON, fort-proficiency character make all the poison saves while others 'help.' But, like skill checks, when a low-DC save (typically 13 is as low as it goes) is called for, the good stat, proficient PCs can still fail it.

It's supposed to be okay to keep using Ball Bearings (DC 10 Dex save to avoid going prone) in 20th level adventures, and have them still be relevant and interesting.

There's really no danger of making low DCs fall off the radar for everyone. The more ambitious 'fixes' mentioned here might give the worst-save PCs a +2, 3 or maybe +5 at 20th level - they'd still have to worry about even DC 10 nuisance saves.

FormerlyHemlock · Aug 18, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
So DC 19 saves are off the table, then?

Off the table in what sense? BA says you should view a DC 19 save as one that PCs will almost certainly fail. That doesn't mean you can't have a DC 19 save to avoid some horrible fate; but you shouldn't assume that everyone (or much of anyone) will succeed on that DC 19 save, and it shouldn't grind the adventure to a halt if everyone fails. It's supposed to be a bonus when the PCs have awesome saves, not part of the expected baseline.

If there's some hypothetical class that gives double HP but saving throw proficiency in nothing, you should be able to run your adventure with that class and have some parties still succeed and have a fun time playing.

That is not how it works with attacks, though. PC attacks /do/ scale very consistently with level. So do the saves PCs force and the save DCs they likely face.

Some of them do, some of them don't. The system doesn't assume they will, and a DM writing an adventure with bounded accuracy in mind won't either. You could wind up with an entire party of minionmancers whose main attacks are all by proxy, and no better than +3 or +4 to hit. You may have noticed that MM monsters like dragons are still quite killable with a +3 or +4 to-hit, especially if you have sufficient quantities of minions. Or you could wind up with a party of roleplayers who like to play strong lore bards, charismatic enchanters, and intelligent war priests.

And the saves they "likely" face are entirely a function of whether or not the DM is respecting bounded accuracy. That's my point here. If 15th level PCs never make a DC 10 save, only DC 19+ saves, that's entirely on whoever created their adventures. 5E is written so that you can write fun and challenging adventures for 15th level PCs (using large numbers of) CR 0-5 monsters and it will work just fine; if you're choosing to always employ only CR 17+ monsters, you're not using bounded accuracy, and your experience will be skewed.

Unlike skill checks, they can't have only the 18 CON, fort-proficiency character make all the poison saves while others 'help.'

You can't necessarily do that with skill checks either. If only the Str 18, high-Athletics guy can climb the cliff when slavers are chasing them, everyone else is going to get captured (or have to fight off the slavers without the high-Str guy). Therefore you shouldn't use ultra-slippery cliffs just because it's a 15th level party; you should choose a reasonable, naturalistic DC based on what the cliff is really like (say, two consecutive DC 10 checks to climb the 30' cliff; each failure results in 2d6 falling damage and a need to start over). That's just one example: it could just as easily be Stealth checks to sneak past the golems guarding the forbidden temple entrance, or Constitution checks to stay afloat for hours in freezing water when your ship sinks, or Deception checks to bluff your way into the enemy's headquarters.

If you happen to construct your adventures such that skill checks are always bypassed by a single roll, that is again on you the adventure-designer, not on Bounded Accuracy.

But, like skill checks, when a low-DC save (typically 13 is as low as it goes) is called for, the good stat, proficient PCs can still fail it. There's really no danger of making low DCs fall off the radar for everyone. The more ambitious 'fixes' mentioned here might give the worst-save PCs a +2, 3 or maybe +5 at 20th level - they'd still have to worry about even DC 10 nuisance saves.

Under Bounded Accuracy, a bonus is actually a bonus. Some guys are just so good that they will never slip on ball bearings; other guys get really good at killing dragons, but have just as much trouble with ball bearings as ever.

You can give everyone +5 to all their saves and it won't "break" bounded accuracy, because bounded accuracy is a DM-side (and/or designer-side) activity about avoiding certain assumptions. If those assumptions happen to be true anyway, the PCs will have an easier time of it than otherwise. So I'm not arguing against giving PCs whatever bonuses you want to--you can, and I don't care. But I am arguing that if you're actually employing bounded accuracy in your adventure design, you don't have the problem in the first place that makes you want to boost everyone's saves in every attribute. You're not expecting every PC to be equally good at resisting every threat, and you're not using a "DC treadmill" that makes PCs fall behind if they don't boost every stat equally to match your treadmill's expectations. Higher-level PCs are more specialized than lower-level PCs, really strong in some niches and perhaps weak in others, and that's okay.

Ilbranteloth · Aug 18, 2017

shidaku said:
I think am important point to note here at least about my own DMing is that I drastically cut down on commonly available magic. Players typically cannot go into a town and just start picking up magic items. As someone who plays video games a lot, I find the whole "buying scrolls and drinking potions like cola" to be rather video gamey.

Oh, they aren't commonly available in mine either, quite the opposite. But they can be found, and that process often is an adventure in and of itself.

But there can also be mundane options - herbal concoctions that provide advantage on petrification saving throws, for example. The specifics will vary depending on the game, but my point is that a well prepared group has a better chance to survive. Being an old AD&D guy, mid-to-high level adventures in our campaign often come with a group of hirelings and supplies, much like medieval knight, or an expedition to Mount Everest.

Tony Vargas · Aug 18, 2017

Hemlock said:
Off the table in what sense?

In the sense that it overwhelms the d20. It's a DC that everyone might have to try to match that some PCs can make fairly easily that others just have to hope for a natural 20.

Some of them do, some of them don't. The system doesn't assume they will, and a DM writing an adventure with bounded accuracy in mind won't either.

Players tend not to use attacks they aren't proficient in or that key off their bad attributes. Though if DMs are dutifully assuming that 8 STR PCs at high level will be attacking with a mace, and should have a shot at hitting the enemy, that might explain all those '5e is too easy' complaints.

And the saves they "likely" face are entirely a function of whether or not the DM is respecting bounded accuracy. That's my point here. If 15th level PCs never make a DC 10 save, only DC 19+ saves, that's entirely on whoever created their adventures.

There's no need to worry about the PCs never facing that DC 10 save. It's when the whole party gets slammed with the high-DC save that the cracks show.

5E is written so that you can write fun and challenging adventures for 15th level PCs (using large numbers of) CR 0-5 monsters and it will work just fine

Nod. And the problem with saves doesn't manifest in that scenario, at all.

If the whole high level party gets attacked by a barrage of arrows from a horde of orcs, there'll be some that barely get hit because they have very high AC, and some that'll get hit more often because their AC isn't that good. None of them will get pincushioned because of their 9 AC.

If the whole party gets slammed with a high-level AE spell, some will have a good chance of saving (maybe of a 6 or 8), some a poorer chance, and one of 'em may very well have the equivalent of that 9 AC - an 8 in the stat and no proficiency.

You can't necessarily do that with skill checks either.

You generally can, and when the whole party needs to make some skill check, the DC's usually a bit lower.

If only the Str 18, high-Athletics guy can climb the cliff when slavers are chasing them

He can lower a rope, and everyone else has an easier DC.

Therefore you shouldn't use ultra-slippery cliffs just because it's a 15th level party; you should choose a reasonable, naturalistic DC based on what the cliff is really like

Check out the MM. Are there a lot of CR 20 critters throwing down DC 10 saves? Or CR 11s, for that matter. No.

If you are a high level character, you're going to face attacks with a high bonus, and you're going to face saves with a high DC. Not every time, and you can try to avoid them as hard as you like, but when the former happens, you can quite easily have a decent AC, while when the latter happens, covering all your saving-throw bases is impractical.

You can give everyone +5 to all their saves and it won't "break" bounded accuracy, because bounded accuracy is a DM-side (and/or designer-side) activity about avoiding certain assumptions.

If everyone had proficiency, reduced proficiency, or at least fractional proficiency on saves across the board, it'd actually /restore/ BA, because the high end of DCs doesn't become untouchable. Still awfully hard, but not untouchable - and the low end would not fall off the cliff, either.

You're not expecting every PC to be equally good at resisting every threat

No, but the expectation is that they generally get better at standing up to threats. Everyone gets more hps, everyone's AC tends to go up, everyone's attack bonuses go up...

Higher-level PCs are more specialized than lower-level PCs, really strong in some niches and perhaps weak in others, and that's okay.

Actually, it's kinda nonsensical. You spend your whole (probably short) life adventuring, and never get better at most adventuring tasks? Just the ones you were 'proficient' in when you started?

Sunseeker · Aug 18, 2017

Ilbranteloth said:
Oh, they aren't commonly available in mine either, quite the opposite. But they can be found, and that process often is an adventure in and of itself.

But there can also be mundane options - herbal concoctions that provide advantage on petrification saving throws, for example. The specifics will vary depending on the game, but my point is that a well prepared group has a better chance to survive. Being an old AD&D guy, mid-to-high level adventures in our campaign often come with a group of hirelings and supplies, much like medieval knight, or an expedition to Mount Everest.

I don't usually give my players minions. I have at least 2 regular players who are too good at abusing them. But still, "preparation" certainly comes into play and it affects your potential outcome. But brick walls are still not a risk even without preparation, the barriers you will run into are just thicker and taller, but still shy of impossible. Players may need to retreat and regroup (a sound tactic in many games), but with patience and hard work they'll get past things.

That's still, in my mind, failing forward. Failure opens alternate, harder, more complex routes, as opposed to success leading you through the more direct ones.