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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

The "impossible" (or auto-succeed) saving throws is less clear. It's in there, but it's not integral to the system; it is so unexamined that many table are unaware that it is a rule, and it doesn't impact the gameplay. Is that a deliberate design decision? Maybe. Is it a bug, or a feature? Doesn't really matter, IMO. More importantly, it doesn't really shed light on the issue of the overall design of the saving throw system, an issue on which it is, at best, orthogonal.

That's fair. As you said, the difference between failing 19 out of 20 times, and 20 out of 20 times, might be theoretically frustrating to some, but has minimal impact on the actual play at the table. Especially since even the lowest save versus the highest DC can be brought into "makeable" territory with a simple bless spell or by standing next to a friendly pala....dude who spends too much time shining his armor.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[CapnZapp]

I do kind of feel that this topic is running into "it's not a bug, it's a FEATURE" territory. My personal thought is that if the designers didn't want rolls vs a DC to ever enter into 0% or 100% territory, they would have spelled that out explicitly. The fact that they use auto-success on a 20 and auto-fail on a 1 elsewhere in the rules, but not for saves, tells me that auto-fail and auto-success chances on saves are almost certainly intentional.

I'm not so sure.

I'm not saying they didn't see it, they just didn't have the time or the will to fix it.

And it worked - few gamers noticed it during the crucial first time where the success or failure of the new edition was established.

Remember WotC deliberately skimped on number of employees this time around. What would certainly have been addressed for 3e was simply left fallow now.

Ultimately this issue wasn't deemed critical to the initial success and so it was ignored.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not so sure.

I'm not saying they didn't see it, they just didn't have the time or the will to fix it.

And it worked - few gamers noticed it during the crucial first time where the success or failure of the new edition was established.

Remember WotC deliberately skimped on number of employees this time around. What would certainly have been addressed for 3e was simply left fallow now.

Ultimately this issue wasn't deemed critical to the initial success and so it was ignored.

Well, I know I've posted in threads from 2014 about the topic; even at that point, some people thought it was a serious design flaw, some didn't. I feel saves didn't become a community issue because it's a both a high-level only issue and a conceptual one. It bothers people on the theory (all saves should be makeable) rather than impacting actual table play. Even at 15th level, I've never once run into it, or if I did, I didn't notice. I know when I roll my save with only a +0, I shouldn't anticipate making it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Carrion Crawler (Challenge 2): The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 1 minute. Until this poison ends the target is paralyzed.

This effect is shared by several monsters. Basically it's Hold Person, except you make the saves at disadvantage. Yep, fun and interesting. Next!

There is no disadvantage. You misunderstand the rules on poisoning. It penalizes your attack rolls and ability checks, not saving throws. What you should say here is "basically it's Hold Person, except that dwarves make the save at advantage and mid-level monks are immune." It's worse than Hold Person, not better; and all it does is cause damage, not death. Mild by (A)D&D standards; will almost never cause you to roll up a new character.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

There is no disadvantage. You misunderstand the rules on poisoning. It penalizes your attack rolls and ability checks, not saving throws. What you should say here is "basically it's Hold Person, except that dwarves make the save at advantage and mid-level monks are immune." It's worse than Hold Person, not better; and all it does is cause damage, not death. Mild by (A)D&D standards; will almost never cause you to roll up a new character.

Yeah the Carrion Crawler is pretty lame in 5e. And even worse they knocked it back from 8 paralyzing attacks to one. I've got a great CC miniature yet he's been nerfed. ;(

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, I think that there may be a continuing misconception going on. Of the listed examples (through E!), you have six that you have called out as egregious.

Three of them involve charm. Which, again, isn't the worst thing in the world, even from your bad examples (and, TBH, is not typically a major combat issue so much as something used to advance the storyline). And as you note, the effects of the other three, while terrible, are pretty de minimis compared to what they used to be. The terrible banshee no longer kills you. Petrification is no longer is permanent (and doesn't require system shock rolls, which also can kill you). And so on.

To be fair, he also overlooked the worst saving throw failure scenario in the MM: a failed Int save vs. an Intellect Devourer, which permanently stuns your PC unless/until he gets access to Greater Restoration at 9th level (or higher) and can also lead to getting your body stolen. A failed Int save against an Illithid's Mind Blast attack stuns you and can likewise lead to getting your body stolen by any Intellect Devourer in the vicinity.

A failed Int save vs. Feeblemind is also pretty long-term crippling without Greater Restoration, although at the level you probably face it, you're likely to have some way to counter it as long as the guy who can cast Greater Restoration isn't the same as the guy who just got Feebleminded. (Also, Dispel Magic might work, though 5E is often pretty ambiguous about what Dispel Magic can and cannot do.)

The point is: just because James picked bad examples doesn't mean there aren't good examples. There are a handful of 5E saves that it's genuinely disastrous to fail.

But there aren't very many of them.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Like an intellect devourer. BRAINS!!!!!

I was about to say, "And 17th level monks!" but then I noticed that Quivering Palm only reduces you to 0 HP instead of killing you. I mean, what's the point?

So I guess that means it's just Intellect Devourers, Medusas, Basilisks, Beholders, and Ghosts after all. Three Con saves (effectively at advantage because of multiple failures needed) vs. Petrification, an Int save vs. brain devouring, and a Cha save vs. possession.