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

[Sunseeker]

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.

Of course there is. What sort of statement is that? It's like saying you don't see the difference between a million and infinity because they're big numbers.

A hard save, one you may fail 19/20 times is different because success is mathematically possible, if incredibly rare. An impossible save is a save which isn't actually a save. It's an artificial roadblock. Like asking someone to say, hit a DC 50. Assuming that crits are not automatic successes, I'm fairly certain that a DC 50 is a mathematical impossibility in 5E (someone feel free to enlighten me). Asking for an impossible roll is basically the DM saying "no matter what you roll, you fail".

We've all been there. We've all had a DM at one point or another say, with a sarcastic chortle "Yeah sure you can attempt to save, but it's a DC Infinity!" We probably didn't play with this DM much longer, but we can skip the semantic debate and go straight to understanding that yes, there's a difference between a hard, but mathematically possible save, and an mathematically impossible one as what they really are.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>
Assuming that crits are not automatic successes, I'm fairly certain that a DC 50 is a mathematical impossibility in 5E (someone feel free to enlighten me).
<snip>

High-level Lore Bard (+6 proficiency) with Expertise in the ability, a 20 stat, under the effect of Bless, and expending a use of Peerless Skill can hit DC 53 without other benefits: 1d20 + 1d12 + 1d4 + 12 + 5 = a range from 20 to 53.

Aiming for DC 75 makes it more immediately impossible.

 

[Sunseeker]

High-level Lore Bard (+6 proficiency) with Expertise in the ability, a 20 stat, under the effect of Bless, and expending a use of Peerless Skill can hit DC 53 without other benefits: 1d20 + 1d12 + 1d4 + 12 + 5 = a range from 20 to 53.

Aiming for DC 75 makes it more immediately impossible.

Well, leave it to Bards to once again be the class that runs DCs through the roof.

 

[OB1]

Of course there is. What sort of statement is that? It's like saying you don't see the difference between a million and infinity because they're big numbers.

A hard save, one you may fail 19/20 times is different because success is mathematically possible, if incredibly rare. An impossible save is a save which isn't actually a save. It's an artificial roadblock. Like asking someone to say, hit a DC 50. Assuming that crits are not automatic successes, I'm fairly certain that a DC 50 is a mathematical impossibility in 5E (someone feel free to enlighten me). Asking for an impossible roll is basically the DM saying "no matter what you roll, you fail".

We've all been there. We've all had a DM at one point or another say, with a sarcastic chortle "Yeah sure you can attempt to save, but it's a DC Infinity!" We probably didn't play with this DM much longer, but we can skip the semantic debate and go straight to understanding that yes, there's a difference between a hard, but mathematically possible save, and an mathematically impossible one as what they really are.

Allow me to clarify, there should be no fundamental difference in your strategy based upon whether a save is impossible or just hard. In both cases you should assume failure and have a plan to work around it.

I recently nearly TPK'd a 14th level party with 5 ghosts as 2 of the three PCs missed a DC 13 Cha save and became possessed. One PC who missed had a +7 in the Cha saving throw, while the one who made it had a +1. And the fact that this is anecdotal is exactly the point. Even a 25% chance to fail a particular save means you could be failing a save you are proficient in multiple times a day, if not in a single fight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

I suppose evoking the feel of 3e would be a reason to break BA with save DCs, but it's not a reason that seems to have been sufficient anywhere else...

 

[Sunseeker]

Allow me to clarify, there should be no fundamental difference in your strategy based upon whether a save is impossible or just hard. In both cases you should assume failure and have a plan to work around it.

I recently nearly TPK'd a 14th level party with 5 ghosts as 2 of the three PCs missed a DC 13 Cha save and became possessed. One PC who missed had a +7 in the Cha saving throw, while the one who made it had a +1. And the fact that this is anecdotal is exactly the point. Even a 25% chance to fail a particular save means you could be failing a save you are proficient in multiple times a day, if not in a single fight.

Sure, but I wouldn't exactly call that a difficult save. Bad stuff happens. By default most characters have a 60% chance to succeed using average scores. With good scores they're looking at a 75% chance to succeed. Sure that's a 1/4 chance of failure but reasonably speaking that's not bad. I typically take the approach that for non-mundane things, the higher the chance of success, the more catastrophic the failure should be. If you've got a 1/20 chance of failure (literally, the only way to fail is to roll a 1 and it's not considered an auto-fail), then that 1 represents an incredible downturn of events.

And I think that's approrpiate for your example situation. Their chance of success was incredibly high, so the result of their failure was catastrophic.

But I question how much strategy one can develop without knowing the sort of odds they're facing. I try to avoid outright telling players the DC, but having an NPC tell them the The Count is a dangerous man and not to be trifled with may not convey the message of "This is a DC 51, don't mess with this guy yet!".

Certainly the players may always pick the wrong strategy, making a hard but possible task totally impossible; but the task itsself wasn't impossible. And I suppose that's my problem which I mentioned a while back. Impossible tasks shouldn't exist. (To use Nagol's math: such as a DC 75) There may be tasks that are out of your reach, tasks that you lack the appropriate solution/strategy for, tasks that you don't understand how to solve; and that's fine.

Everyone should plan for failure, that's not to say everyone will, but failure shouldn't be the only possible outcome. Otherwise why even allow your players to roll? You (not you you) have already decided they have no agency in the situation, so why play up the farce?

 

[OB1]

Sure, but I wouldn't exactly call that a difficult save. Bad stuff happens. By default most characters have a 60% chance to succeed using average scores. With good scores they're looking at a 75% chance to succeed. Sure that's a 1/4 chance of failure but reasonably speaking that's not bad. I typically take the approach that for non-mundane things, the higher the chance of success, the more catastrophic the failure should be. If you've got a 1/20 chance of failure (literally, the only way to fail is to roll a 1 and it's not considered an auto-fail), then that 1 represents an incredible downturn of events.

And I think that's approrpiate for your example situation. Their chance of success was incredibly high, so the result of their failure was catastrophic.

But I question how much strategy one can develop without knowing the sort of odds they're facing. I try to avoid outright telling players the DC, but having an NPC tell them the The Count is a dangerous man and not to be trifled with may not convey the message of "This is a DC 51, don't mess with this guy yet!".

Certainly the players may always pick the wrong strategy, making a hard but possible task totally impossible; but the task itsself wasn't impossible. And I suppose that's my problem which I mentioned a while back. Impossible tasks shouldn't exist. (To use Nagol's math: such as a DC 75) There may be tasks that are out of your reach, tasks that you lack the appropriate solution/strategy for, tasks that you don't understand how to solve; and that's fine.

Everyone should plan for failure, that's not to say everyone will, but failure shouldn't be the only possible outcome. Otherwise why even allow your players to roll? You (not you you) have already decided they have no agency in the situation, so why play up the farce?

Reasonably speaking a 1 in 4 chance of failure is absolutely horrific if the consequence of failure are death. Thankfully, 5e works under the assumption that saving throws will be failed, and it's up to the party as a whole to overcome challenges.

As for agency, the players had agency in deciding on their class, their ability score array, how to use their ABIs and whether or not to fight or flee. Not knowing the nature of the enemy you face is a good reason to flee from it. If you choose to be a hero to stand and fight, you should be ready for the consequences. I see no agency issue with players running into a save they can't make, it doesn't make the task as a whole impossible, just a part of it.

 

[Sunseeker]

Reasonably speaking a 1 in 4 chance of failure is absolutely horrific if the consequence of failure are death. Thankfully, 5e works under the assumption that saving throws will be failed, and it's up to the party as a whole to overcome challenges.

As for agency, the players had agency in deciding on their class, their ability score array, how to use their ABIs and whether or not to fight or flee. Not knowing the nature of the enemy you face is a good reason to flee from it. If you choose to be a hero to stand and fight, you should be ready for the consequences. I see no agency issue with players running into a save they can't make, it doesn't make the task as a whole impossible, just a part of it.

Uh, yeah of course you don't, because we are apparently still not talking about the same things.

If Bob, the level 1 Rogue decides to take on an Ancient Red Dragon, there's a good chance he's going to fail a lot of saves. That's not to say he won't pass a couple, because even those saves are still within his realm of possibility. I'm not talking about players engaging in things that are beyond their current abilities, but not beyond their potential (should they live long enough or prepare correctly). I'm talking about a DC of "Impossible". A DC which no check will ever be considered a success. A DC that is essentially the DM saying "you will fail this, no matter how hard you try, no matter how well you prepare, no matter how good you roll, the outcome is always failure."

What's the point of that in a game? It's not even a challenge because a challenge implies that with skill, preparation and practice, you can succeed; that victory is possible. DC: Impossible does not have that. It serves no purpose except antagonistic gameplay and other table-damaging effects.

 

[Nagol]

Uh, yeah of course you don't, because we are apparently still not talking about the same things.

If Bob, the level 1 Rogue decides to take on an Ancient Red Dragon, there's a good chance he's going to fail a lot of saves. That's not to say he won't pass a couple, because even those saves are still within his realm of possibility. I'm not talking about players engaging in things that are beyond their current abilities, but not beyond their potential (should they live long enough or prepare correctly). I'm talking about a DC of "Impossible". A DC which no check will ever be considered a success. A DC that is essentially the DM saying "you will fail this, no matter how hard you try, no matter how well you prepare, no matter how good you roll, the outcome is always failure."

What's the point of that in a game? It's not even a challenge because a challenge implies that with skill, preparation and practice, you can succeed; that victory is possible. DC: Impossible does not have that. It serves no purpose except antagonistic gameplay and other table-damaging effects.

It can still offer value, depending on how it is presented. What it can say is "This approach is doomed to failure. Find another." Anyone who meets the gaze of the death demigod will die, but he could be defeated by a foe that can't meet his gaze. Any normal person can't possibly climb this wall, but a truly talented and skilled person with the right equipment can make it to the top and surprise/bypass the defenders.

 

[OB1]

What's the point of that in a game? It's not even a challenge because a challenge implies that with skill, preparation and practice, you can succeed; that victory is possible. DC: Impossible does not have that. It serves no purpose except antagonistic gameplay and other table-damaging effects.

Maybe we are talking past each other. I'm not talking about a save DC that is impossible for everyone, I'm talking about one that is impossible for some characters. It is possible depending on the choices you made for your character. It will likely be possible for some PCs and not others. How is that antagonistic?

As for an actual DC of Impossible, how is it any better giving someone a 5% chance of success? You are still going to fail 95% of the time and have no control over that success or failure. It may not be actually impossible, but the results are almost certainly going to be the same, and will be if you face the check more than a couple of times. That's my point about the way saving throws are designed. Even the best bonus's lead to failure 25% of the time, which could easily be a few times a combat, depending on the opponents. Mitigating the effects of failed saves is the best way to express agency, not avoiding failed saves completely.