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

[TwoSix]

There's 'starting to work against' and there's falling off the cliff. No Expertise feats? Fine, you're hitting on a 12 or 14 at Epic instead of an 11 at Heroic. You'll notice, but you're still perfectly viable, either along-side those who have the feats, or if no PC gets 'em. And, that's trying to hit effing Exarchs and god-killing abominations left over from the Dawn War. Not vs a lich casually tossing one of his lower-level spells at you, not vs the same thing that Frightened you at first level.

Well, it didn't really fall off a cliff. The monster DCs went from 10 to 19 over the course of 15 levels or so. You can see it coming.

The options to do so aren't great and come with considerable opportunity cost. Feats are supposed to be 'big,' remember, if you're blowing a feat on making a save better, it should be good, not go from hopeless to merely bad.

Spending your 12th level feat to grab resilient gives you a +4 bump, +5 at the next level. Seems decent enough to me. If you want to make the argument that Resilient should give you 2 saves proficient instead of a +1 Stat bump, I'd have no problem agreeing with that.

Under BA you should be able to do just that, especially to a party that could tackle that kind of CR.

I swear I remember asking this same question back in 2014 when this topic was raised here, but what, ideally, should the boundary be on BA? Failure rates should never be higher than 80%? 75%? I kind of feel like if 17,18, and 19 were supposed to be auto-successes in a BA system, they would have spelled that out.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It is very important that characters suck at some saves and be great at others.

The primary goal of any RPG is to provide interesting choices to make. The GM presents a circumstance, and the players respond based on the information given and their own abilities. In D&D, where combat is a constant part of the game, spells and effects that cause a saving throw provide interesting circumstances. Variety in saving throw bonuses provides context for decisions. Without both of these things, there's little reason to do anything but dive into every fight and mash the attack button.

Now, it's equally important that the GM telegraph monster abilities. Otherwise the players lack the information they need to make interesting decisions. The only reason to withhold that information is to use it as a reward for smart decision making elsewhere in the game. For example, choosing to spare a minion might reveal some useful information about the villain's spell selection.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Snakes. Why did it have to be *snakes*?"

Heh.

Courage isn't not being afraid, it's not being overcome by the fear. Failing a save vs the Frightened condition, is being overcome...

Failing the save against the dragon's breath weapon is hardly the end of the conflict. It's just 45 HP of damage.

Anything that's hp-denominated is not so bad, the way hps baloon for everyone in 5e...
...unless it's so much damage a failed save is instant death, of course.

And 5e did make a lot more effects use hps, which does make it seem more reasonable to have save go from bad to hopeless as you level... but, while attacks pretymuch always do damage, AC doesn't have the same issue as saves. You can wear armor, if youre a class that doesnt have decent armor or another feature and your ACs too low, you can take steps to improve it, without having to cover 5 other ACs, as well.

But you do need 6 saves, and there are still save effects that bypass hps.

Spending your 12th level feat to grab resilient gives you a +4 bump, +5 at the next level. Seems decent enough to me. If you want to make the argument that Resilient should give you 2 saves proficient instead of a +1 Stat bump, I'd have no problem agreeing with that.

Even if it did give you both a second important save and a second obscure one, you'd still have two non-proficient saves.

But, sure, half your feats is better than all of em.

I swear I remember asking this same question back in 2014 when this topic was raised here, but what, ideally, should the boundary be on BA? Failure rates should never be higher than 80%? 75%? I kind of feel like if 17,18, and 19 were supposed to be auto-successes in a BA system, they would have spelled that out.

I'm sure there's no solid line, but failing in a 19s gotta be on the wrong side of it.

It wouldn't take much to pull back from the precipice, 1/2 prof, prof-2. It'd still be falling behind on the majority of saves.

But, I suppose that might lead to monsters getting better saves...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Heh.

Courage isn't not being afraid, it's not being overcome by the fear. Failing a save vs the Frightened condition, is being overcome...

No, running away is being overcome, and that's left entirely up to the player's roleplaying. The Frightened condition is just the condition of being afraid. If you stand your ground and keep shooting arrows at the dragon despite your trembling fingers (Frightened disadvantage), that's courage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, running away is being overcome, and that's left entirely up to the player's roleplaying. The Frightened condition is just the condition of being afraid. If you stand your ground and keep shooting arrows at the dragon despite your trembling fingers (Frightened disadvantage), that's courage.

Disadvantage on those attacks is being overcome. Not being able to close to melee and fight is being overcome.

And, D&D models that with a save, and 5e makes it's archetypal heroes bad at that save.

At least in AD&D they got significantly better as they leveled. Even in 4e, you could tread water.
In 5e, you fall behind. Not just marginally, but to the point of breaking BA.

It's one thing 1e got right that every subsequent edition has borked.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Disadvantage on those attacks is being overcome. Not being able to close to melee and fight is being overcome.

Proof by repeated assertion, eh?

Running away is being overcome. Disadvantage on attacks is just nerves.

In other words, yeah-huh to your nu-uh.

P.S. Back to Indiana Jones... notice how he wasn't able to approach the snakes until he'd nerved himself up a bit. He may have failed his first few saves against being Frightened, but he wasn't overcome--he kept trying until he was able to crawl in that hole. That's courage.

P.P.S. "Say, 'Grab the rope!'"

 

[TwoSix]

I'm sure there's no solid line, but failing in a 19s gotta be on the wrong side of it.

It wouldn't take much to pull back from the precipice, 1/2 prof, prof-2. It'd still be falling behind on the majority of saves.

But, I suppose that might lead to monsters getting better saves...

I think the simplest answer that doesn't require math is simply to make 18+ autosuccess and 3- autofail on every d20 roll. 15-85% success chance on every roll seems appropriate for bounded accuracy.

That fails if your goal is to make characters more like 1e and actually get better at saves over time, but that would require a more significant rewrite to the system. Every save starts with proficiency, and "proficiency" actually gives expertise, maybe?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the simplest answer that doesn't require math is simply to make 18+ autosuccess and 3- autofail on every d20 roll. 15-85% success chance on every roll seems appropriate for bounded accuracy.

That backstops the obvious failures at the high end of always-scalilng DCs and non-scaling saves. Strikes me as a bandaid.

That fails if your goal is to make characters more like 1e and actually get better at saves over time, but that would require a more significant rewrite to the system. Every save starts with proficiency, and "proficiency" actually gives expertise, maybe?

That'd be awesome, but it'd be very much against the evolution of D&D. Every edition, even when there are pretensions of balancing classes, has made things easier on casters than the ones before. Better saves relative to the best-possible scaling of DCs is unlikely. More likely we'll see the base for DCs raised from 8 to 10.

Running away is being overcome. Disadvantage on attacks is just nerves.

If you were displaying courage, you would be in control enough to approach the object of your fear, and to fight at full capacity - indeed, fear, controlled, can purportedly give you an edge.

Clearly, given the things they face, adventurers may feel fear quite often, but succumbing to it is represented by involuntary effects, like the Frightened condition, that very often call for saves that archetypically brave character classes suck at by design. That is a flaw that 1e at least addressed at high level.

P.S. Back to Indiana Jones... notice how he wasn't able to approach the snakes until he'd nerved himself up a bit. He may have failed his first few saves against being Frightened, but he wasn't overcome--he kept trying until he was able to crawl in that hole. That's courage.

Eventually making the save, sure. But with save DCs - or, rather, the lack of save bonuses enough to cover the 6 saves - breaking bounded accuracy, even repeated saves from advantage, indomitable and passing time may not be enough.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Clearly, given the things they face, adventurers may feel fear quite often, but succumbing to it is represented by involuntary effects, like the Frightened condition, that very often call for saves that archetypically brave character classes suck at by design.

The Fear spell makes you run away if you fail the save. You can't make a saving throw to end being Frightened until the source of your fear is out of sight. That's what being overcome by fear looks like.

Being Frightened isn't being overcome by fear. It is no shame to be scared. Courage is acting despite your fears. If you keep shooting at the dragon despite your trembling fingers, you're displaying courage. When Waldo Butters saved Harry Dresden from the necromancer at the Fields Museum, the fact that he was scared stiff doesn't matter. He might have had disadvantage on all his checks, in 5E terms, but what matters is that even when he retreated from the knife, he retreated to put himself directly between the necromancer and the tied-up Harry. Frightened condition or not, he displayed bravery.

5E fear works exactly the same way. Except for the Fear spell, every source of fear I can think of is deliberately built to allow you to retain agency, i.e. show courage if you want to.

For example, drop a Darkness spell on yourself to counteract the disadvantage, and keep shooting.

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

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Fear spell makes you run away if you fail the save.

Another example, yes, and one where repeated saves aren't an option.

In 3e, the Fear spell at least didn't use the caster's highest possible DC at very high level unless he used his precious highest-level slot to Heighten it, in 5e, once you've maxxed your save DC, it applies to every spell you cast, right down to cantrips.

Being Frightened isn't being overcome by fear.

The Frightened condition is. It imposes penalties and restricts your actions.

If you keep shooting at the dragon despite your trembling fingers, you're displaying courage.

Ranged-attacker loophole acknowledged, as far as it goes, which is not very far because you're not overcoming the fear-induced disadvantage. But, if you're unable to approach the dragon and fight it even though your only weapon is a sword, you're not 'acting in spite of your fears,' you're overcome by them. Narrowing the example to a ranged attacker doesn't change that.