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

[FormerlyHemlock]

The Frightened condition is.

Yeah-huh.

It imposes penalties and restricts your actions.

Everything in D&D restricts your actions. Dungeon walls don't "overcome" you by restricting where you can go. Being overcome means you lose agency.

In 5E, being Frightened does not deprive you of agency. You can e.g. cast Darkness on yourself to eliminate the disadvantage and keep right on shooting. You retain agency instead of being overcome. You can choose to roleplay someone who is overcome by fear and flees, but you don't have to.

Ranged-attacker loophole acknowledged, as far as it goes, which is not very far because you're not overcoming the fear-induced disadvantage.

It's not a loophole, it's a major feature of the Frightened condition. A melee combatant who is frightened can remain in melee.

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.

If you're already in melee with the dragon, you can keep fighting it. If you're not in melee with the dragon, you can pull out a bow and start shooting it; or start casting spells like Hold Monster or Chain Lightning to kill it; or cast Heroism or Calm Emotions to allow yourself (and/or others) to approach; or position yourself between the dragon and the squishies, so that it has to go through you to get to them.

The Frightened condition doesn't do nearly as much as you seem to think it does. In 5E, it really has very little effect on anyone except a pure melee combatant, and we all know that melee is weak in 5E anyway so that's more of a comment on melee specialization than on the Frightened condition. If anything, you're being "overcome" by your own short-sightedness in bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Crucially, the Fightened condition does not turn you into a coward. (The Fear spell does, but the Frightened condition does not.) Despite your clammy hands and knocking knees, you can still kill that dragon or grapple that mummy lord. That wouldn't be true of fear effects in some other games.

 

[James Gasik]

Sure, but killing the dragon or grappling the mummy lord with disadvantage could very likely turn a possible task into an improbable one. Anyways, let's look at your examples of what you can do if you're frightened.

1) Switch to a bow: if you use a melee weapon, you could drop it and then use your free interact with an object action to equip the bow. Without even getting into your Dexterity relative to your Strength, your damage is reduced from 6-6.5 plus bonuses to 4.5. That's not huge by itself, but it has an impact (arguably it's equivalent to reducing your Strength by 4 points). Then there's the disadvantage on your attacks, which further reduces your effectiveness (I believe the math treats this as something like -4.5 to hit).

2) Casting Spells: if you can cast spells, wouldn't you be doing that anyways? Yes, a spellcaster almost might not care about being frightened. I guess a Cleric might be annoyed at possibly not being able to Cure Wounds if they'd have to move closer to the source of their fear to do so, and be forced to use Healing Word, for a loss of about 2 points of healing per spell level (2.5 average on a d4 to 4.5 average on a d8).

3) Defend the Back Line: this is a dragon we're talking about. It not only has reach and flight, but a breath weapon. If it wants to damage the back line, it probably can.

Frightened may not be the worst thing that can happen to you, but it can be very bad, based on the situation. Let's say you're trying to cross a bridge to reach an important objective, when a dragon flies up and frightens you. Due to it's position, you would have to move closer to it to cross the bridge, now you might not be able to.

Of course, this is all dependent on how your DM runs his game. You could close your eyes so you can't see the dragon and not be frightened at all! So close your eyes, run forward blindly, then open them again before your turn ends, blind, no I can see just fine!

 

[CapnZapp]

Gotta agree with Hemlock on this one. In a way, it reminds me of the arguments for/against the "expertise" feats in 4e. In both cases, I don't think there's anything wrong with the math starting to work against the PCs at higher levels. At the levels where the auto-fails become an issue, they could/should be proactive enough to consider covering their weaknesses, whether through acquisitions of magic items, spells, class levels, or followers. The only caveat I would apply if that the DM must be lenient enough to allow the PCs to be proactive enough to acquire those resources if the players are willing to expend time/treasure on them. If not, then the DMs bear some responsibility to not through an elder brain with a DC 19 Int save mind blast at his group of players with no Int above 10, i.e. the bog standard 5e party.

It isn't the DM's fault if and when player characters cannot make a save even when they roll a 20.

I feel you're approaching the discussion from a too charitable angle.

This isn't about 5e being utterly poopy and unplayable because of the wonky high-level saves.

This is about how the designers could have taken any of a number of simple straightforward steps to counter the issue.

Yet they didn't. That's where the discussion starts.

This isn't about whether you can make do with the rules as-is. It isn't about trying to find justification for an unfortunate situation. It is about recognizing and acknowledging that, yes, this really could and should have been prevented, and, yes, the devs really dropped the ball on this one.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Why not? An epic foe wouldn't be epic if players can easily shrug off its' effects. Plan on avoiding the save or have benefits that give you the ability to make those saves. D&D should have unwinnable (without an edge) situations, IMHO.

No, you don't get to diminish my argument by saying "if players can easily shrug them off"

Stop denying the issue.

Stop your dishonest attempts at characterizing my position.

Nobody suggests we make it easy. Just not unfun - just not impossible.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

If an ancient red dragon breathes fire on you for 91 points of damage, you can:

(1) make the DC 24 Dex save to reduce it to 45 points of damage;
(2) cast Absorb Elements as a reaction to reduce it to 45 points of damage;
(3) use Evasion to reduce it to 45 points of damage (or 0 points of damage if you ALSO make the Dex save);
(4) be a Raging Barbearian to reduce it to 45 points of damage;
(5) have the Tough feat for +40 HP to offset the failed save;
(6) have +20-45 extra HP from Aid V-IX (depending) to partially offset the failed save;
(7) have +20-25 temp HP from Inspiring Leader to partially offset the failed save;
(8) have +27 extra effective HP via a Contingency ("when I go below 50 HP, False Life V") to partially offset the failed save;
(9) have +25 temp HP via Armor of Agathys to partially offset the failed save;
(10) have a Death Ward spell up to offset the action economy of the dragon's breath (i.e. it will take the dragon one extra action to bring you to zero HP);

And of course you can also have blockers/decoys (Giant Owls from Conjure Animals), can stay out of range with Phantom Steed, can attack the dragon from long range with Sharpshooter, can Shapechange into a dragon yourself (e.g. adult red shadow dragon) and go toe-to-toe with it, can whistle up a swarm of Planar Bound Air Elementals to fight alongside you, can pin it in place with Otto's Irresistible Dance, can trap it in a Maze and then put a Prismatic Wall in the space in which it will reappear, etc., etc.

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

Nobody has tried to trivialize the issue to just be about 45 damage. Except you.

This is about the natural and obvious observation that a game that asks you to roll a 21 on a d20 is not a well-designed game.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

And nobody has argued otherwise.

Why do you attempt to diminish the just complaint that there's a fundamental difference between a hard save and an outright impossible one?


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Sure, but that they have failed before is a poor excuse for failing now.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[OB1]

No, you don't get to diminish my argument by saying "if players can easily shrug them off"

Stop denying the issue.

Stop your dishonest attempts at characterizing my position.

Nobody suggests we make it easy. Just not unfun - just not impossible.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

And nobody has argued otherwise.

Why do you attempt to diminish the just complaint that there's a fundamental difference between a hard save and an outright impossible one?


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I'm not sure there is a fundamental difference between a hard save and an outright impossible one. If you succeed on a save 1 time in 20 or even once in 3 attempts, you better have a plan for how to deal with failing those saves just as if it was impossible because they are going to be affecting you a lot. To Hemlock's BA argument, what your saving throw proficiency really gives you is the ability to routinely reject effects from much lower CR creatures, making you more effective at fighting them.

And likely, that impossible save won't be impossible for everyone in your adventuring party, meaning that there is meaningful choice in PC creation and leveling, which to me is the fun of 5e.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not sure there is a fundamental difference between a hard save and an outright impossible one. If you succeed on a save 1 time in 20 or even once in 3 attempts, you better have a plan for how to deal with failing those saves just as if it was impossible because they are going to be affecting you a lot. To Hemlock's BA argument, what your saving throw proficiency really gives you is the ability to routinely reject effects from much lower CR creatures, making you more effective at fighting them.

And likely, that impossible save won't be impossible for everyone in your adventuring party, meaning that there is meaningful choice in PC creation and leveling, which to me is the fun of 5e.

Well...I think the fundamental difference would be how often you fail that save - some of the time, most of the time, or every time.

I think that at higher levels (in any edition) you need to plan on failing saves, and have remedies or countermeasures available. In the party, if not personally.

But those remedies and countermeasures are another resource - and the more saves you fail, the faster you will burn through them.

 

[OB1]

Well...I think the fundamental difference would be how often you fail that save - some of the time, most of the time, or every time.

I think that at higher levels (in any edition) you need to plan on failing saves, and have remedies or countermeasures available. In the party, if not personally.

But those remedies and countermeasures are another resource - and the more saves you fail, the faster you will burn through them.

Well, yes, but the point is, if I'm off to fight a Lich at level 20, the fact that I have a +11 to my best save doesn't mean I should go into the fight assuming I will make that DC20 spell save, because I will fail half the time. Those are terrible odds. It doesn't matter that I will succeed half the time. It only matters if I will save this particular time. Banking your strategy on a 50/50 chance is desperation move. So you should plan to fail (same as if the save were impossible) and plan your strategy around that. For those lucky enough to succeed, great! That means that you have and advantage going forward as you don't have to deal with those adverse effects.