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

[FormerlyHemlock]

But the most likely case is that DCs outpace saves, and the rules really should be designed to work in common scenarios rather than extreme ones. In the most likely case, DCs all eventually progress to 20, and saves remain split between -1 and +11. Everything else is situational.

A situation which is as under the players' control as that -1 to +11 range you cite. In practice the effective range is more like "-3 to virtual or actual immunity."

That means the rules are already giving plenty of scope for player choices to matter and for adventures to be interesting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But 1E is a poster child for the point I'm making: if you have to make a saving throw, you're already in deep trouble.

You find yourself making a save for half-damage vs a wand of fireballs at 14th level, you weren't exactly in deep trouble.

But, yes, 1e was a poster child for avoiding system-based resolution as much as possible (when it even existed), and 5e captures that feel nicely (and with much less trouble) with it's core DM determines success/failure/check paradigm.

If you play 5E with an AD&D mentality towards saves and try to avoid making them, your PCs will survive just fine.

Probably. Though they might die for never taking the risk of tasting those potions they found, lest they be poison.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A situation which is as under the players' control as that -1 to +11 range you cite. In practice the effective range is more like "-3 to virtual or actual immunity."

That means the rules are already giving plenty of scope for player choices to matter and for adventures to be interesting.

If the cleric spends an action and a spell slot and their concentration to get Bless into effect, then that's an exceptional situation which should never be assumed. The baseline expectation needs to be nothing weird going on, for the same reason that the baseline expectation for magical items is none. If you have +1d4 from Bless, then that should be an actual bonus, just like the +1 from a magic sword.

If you place the burden of exceptional countermeasures onto the players, then it's no longer a meaningful choice, because it's just expected.

 

[Gadget]

I can't know the mind of the OP, but for the most part the consequences for failed saves are not as dire as earlier editions. Barring 'Gotcha' dungeon design (which was more prevalent in old school design and may be present in more retro type adventures) in which unique traps/circumstances/monsters were put in place with specific saves and harsh consequences, 5e is not that scary compared to AD&D. It is true that raw save scaling is not that robust in 5e, but it is also true that ways to mitigate poor saves in the party proliferate as the party levels, mostly through spells, abilities and items. I'm not sure how I feel about waiting until mid-levels for the wizard's Hold Person to reliably kick in, though.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You find yourself making a save for half-damage vs a wand of fireballs at 14th level, you weren't exactly in deep trouble.

Uh, you might be. How good are all of your magic items at resisting magical fire?

Probably. Though they might die for never taking the risk of tasting those potions they found, lest they be poison.

Nah, because the party's spoony bard* will have tasted them anyway.

* Hypothetically, still 2nd level because he's a replacement for a dragonborn shadow monk who died at level 5 from tasting another potion**.

** But his hypothetical player is having a blast anyway because living on the edge is what he does. Especially when strange potions make you grow infinite beards.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Uh, you might be. How good are all of your magic items at resisting magical fire?

Second obscure 1e rule that's come up today.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I like that as my character levels up it has some weaknesses. My Barbarian should live in fear of Intellect Devourers and Mind Flayers.

I mean, if I had wanted to I could have made sure he had the Lucky Feat and 14s in every stat, and always save a luck point for a low save roll.

 

[James Gasik]

It's true that most effects allow for saves every turn or take more than one round to enact (the basilisk's gaze, for example). While there are still some devastating effects out there, these have become rarer. That having been said, being able to save against Hold Person every round still puts your fate in the hands of...well, fate, and you can be killed before you ever get that second save.

And of course, something I've seen play out, is that multiple saves and advantage on saves does nothing to help if a save is impossible in the first place.

This isn't a complaint thread, I didn't fail some saving throw and lose a character, in fact, my recent 5e experience is as a DM, not a player. In which I saw many saving throws forced, and made, since I haven't run for anything outside of Tier 2, and most save DC's range from 10-13. There were a few DC 15's, usually for odd saves like Charisma, and one DC 20 Constitution save against poison in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan- fortunately that one only came up due to a incautious player, and they knew how to deal with it at any rate.

However, if you have to make enough saving throws, you're going to fail one, even if you're good at it. Fighting giant rats in Sunless Citadel, I saw every one of my party's front liners succumb to disease, which prevented them from using their Hit Dice to heal.

The Chuul is a particularly nasty critter, where if you fail the save against it's tentacles, you're poisoned and paralyzed. Sure you get a save against the paralysis each turn, and try to break it's grapple if you do, but thanks to the poisoned condition, all these rolls are made at disadvantage. That's a Challenge 4.

It's hard to bring party composition or magic items into this discussion because those elements are not standard in the game. Not every party will have a Paladin or a Cleric- not every Paladin will have a great Charisma (I've met a few who basically told me "I'm here for the Smites"), not every Cleric will prepare key spells.

Not every player is going to have a Cloak of Protection, either. I don't know how these elements can be assumed by anyone, let alone the developers.

So just looking at the majority of characters, who will have at best 3 proficient saves due to Resilient, and most likely won't have all stats at 20, it seems that there is no assumption at all about saves. Some people will be able to obviate the need for saving throws, or make all the important ones, due to various factors like rolled stats, spell buffs, class abilities, or racial traits.

Some will not. Several posts in this thread indicate that this is working as intended, and it's perfectly fine- and in truth, it could be, since this is a magical game where even death is something that can be challenged.

For me though, I've played and mastered various games called Dungeons and Dragons for some time, and telling a player "it wasn't your fault, it was just bad luck- well, actually, it was your fault for not being a Paladin, lol" isn't something I enjoy.

But if I'm in the minority, that's okay, everyone is allowed to play and enjoy the game in the way they feel best. I was curious if this was a perceived problem, and I got my answers, so thank you all, even the guy who said "5e has super easy saves that have no real penalty for failing, thanks to whiny players" (I LOL'd, and got some strange looks from my roommates, thanks for that!).

 

[Xeviat]

It doesn't take skill to pass a save. It's luck. It's not like an attack or a single hit, which averages out over time. I've seen a condition (poisoned in one case, fear in another) functionally take characters out of a fight. He player can't "try harder" to succeed. They can't "get good" to avoid those effects.

At its root, I think D&D is better for stories where the heroes are more disposable, while many of us have grown to enjoy the epic progression of heroes as the leads of their story.

I've talked here about possibly having a more active saving throw system. Where 0HP is what takes you out of a fight, and where failing a save has choices and doesn't feel entirely like luck. But, it hasn't gotten any traction. It's not D&D.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sunseeker]

They're part of the risk. While I like the concept of fail forward and SSSorD, I really don't shy away from the fact that sometimes the bad guys are pretty darn powerful and that they have no qualms about wanting to kill you. Usually though I will rely on damage to kill players. I agree that being ready, able and willing to fight is important and taking all that away with a single die roll is not just lame, it's boring. And bored players are players who want to do something other than play. I want to keep people engaged. Taking a player out of the game early on, for a long or permanent duration is IMO, not good sport.

I don't think all saves should be good saves though. I don't think classes should balance out the naturally bad saves with good scores. I think those gaps provide niche protection and encourage party-based-play instead of soloing. Some good classes and builds can already cover their butts to the point they are very independent of the party.

I would probably just encourage DMs who don't like SoD mechanics to replace them with SSSoD mechanics or damage.