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

[The Crimson Binome]

In my games, I took away save proficiency and gave prof bonus to all saves, then made the saving throw DC formula 10+stat+prof. I haven't noticed the lack of "good saves" since those often overlapped with a character's high stats anyway.

It's really unfortunate that they learned the wrong lessons from 4E, because this was one thing that it got almost perfect. Using different progression rates is guaranteed to run into problems eventually, while static bonuses and a constant progression rate keeps the math working indefinitely.

One of the worst parts of Pathfinder is how poorly the math scales. By the time you get to high levels, the only question that matters is how many bonuses you have that scale with level.

 

[Savage Wombat]

In 6e there will be no failed rolls, just less successful ones.

So you're saying a "failed" saving throw should always advance the story in some fashion?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So you're saying a "failed" saving throw should always advance the story in some fashion?

I don't know, when the players are discussing the game after a session and the story is being loosely created from events that happened it does impact that as they laugh or lament at the outcome. But any story is a result of the game mechanics dictating an outcome. So I think my answer is no-ish, though all game events affect said story and sometimes end it. But I don't DM under the assumption that the PC has a story they are destined to tell and saving throws must conform to that. No plot immunity or such ideas. A lot of PC's stories are along the lines of "bored of farming, going into a dank temple looking for glory and riches, later died being drained by random stirge...should have stayed for harvest".

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ilbranteloth]

How do you deal with the monster side of it? Do you redo their saves from scratch, or do you have a simple method you can use on the fly?

That's not really tough, since it's really just an ability check with proficiency. Although I'm still not sure why the MM doesn't just list monster's proficiency bonus, you can figure it out from their to-hit bonus by subtracting their ability modifier.

 

[Sunseeker]

So you're saying a "failed" saving throw should always advance the story in some fashion?

I would make the argument that most of the time this should be the case.

Brick walls aren't fun. Hitting your head against them is even less fun, especially if you found that part of the campaign really engaging. Worse so if you were very close to the end. If I can't give a rational reason for why a failed check should result in essentially a "game over", then I reevaluate if that check is really necessary or how failure could instead advance the game.

Sure, sometimes you're in the final boss fight, and he hits you with a death ray and you die. Thems the breaks. But sometimes you're trying to pick the lock to get in the door to fight the final boss, and you fail. There's no other entrances. The badguy completes his spell. The world is destroyed. Because you couldn't pick a lock? REALLY? There's no reason for that. There's plenty of good options for failure to still allow you to move forward. Maybe each failure means the boss gets more minions to fend you off. Maybe it means you lose a round off the final countdown for each failure. Maybe it means the boss gets larger bonuses to fight you.

But if the lead-up was to fight the boss...why deny that? Have consequences sure, but outright denials is no fun for anyone.

Lets apply this to a SoD effect: a gorgon's gaze. Make it affect a different body part each round. (Frankly I find this more terrifying). You fail the initial DM rolls 1d4, 1: left arm, 2: right arm, 3: left leg, 4: right leg,(torso is always 2nd to last, then head and then death. Break it down over more body parts if you want a longer duration. Each new round the player makes a save to break the effect. Add various effects to each paralyzed body part, reduced attacks, increased spellcasting time The effect is still permanent (until appropriately undone via the right spells) on all body parts it affects. When the full body is paralyzed, instead of death, make it like a soul trap: the victim's soul is trapped in the statue, they can "see" and "hear" but can't speak (telepathic and magical communication still works).

Now you've got a gorgon who plays hit and run from the shadows. Catching players by surprise one at a time then darting off while they slowly petrify. You've also turned "you die" into "you're trapped in stone forever as a lawn decoration, helpless to warn newcomers".

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Eh. Adopt the Call of Cthulhu mentality: You cannot win. Your character is going to die. Perhaps it will be awesome. Or not. Let's play and find out.

Sure, it's a bit morbid but it does encourage heroism and glory. It's not what you do but how you do it!

Of course, I find this works better with homebrew/flexible adventures as every moment, be it lucky glory or mundane death, can be reflected in the world around the players. Or not - sometimes the rogue dies in the middle of the dungeon and we never find the body. Such is the adventuring life.

 

[Xeviat]

That's actually ingenious, Xeviat. Saves scale, your good saves are now the ones you "purchased" by having certain stats be high, and your bad saves are now the ones you should be bad at. You flattened the curve and also adjusted save DC's at the same time. So a Wizard can eventually have a save DC of 21 base (10+6+5). A character with a 20 Con at that same level has a save bonus of +11. Needs a 10. But if he has a Dex of 10, then it's +6 and he needs a 15. So it becomes more about targeting weak saves.

Thanks. I figure a potential 6 point difference is better than a potential 12 point difference.

The only two issues I can see, and I'd like to know if you have a solution for, is classes who don't get to easily choose which save they target...and what you replaced bonus save proficiency with (such as the Monk and the Rogue).

Oh and with this system, do you find advantage, Bless, and bonuses like the Paladin's aura to be a bit stronger than normal? Now that 'impossible' saves are off the table, these resources are less vital, which is good- but are they possibly too effective?

Which classes have primary save DCs that only really target one thing? Dex saves are common, but those mostly are save for half damage and evasion isn't as common as it was. I can think of several classes with secondary save DCs (Monks) that wouldn't get to take advantage of weak saves as easily, but saving throws relative to DCs have actually gone down at the top end, so that should be fine.

That affects the save bonus effects too. Better on weak saves, strong saves have been needed.

I'm not sure what to do about the extra save prof classes. Maybe I'll give out advantage? The Abjurer gets advantage on all saves vs magic, and that isn't breaking anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

How do you deal with the monster side of it? Do you redo their saves from scratch, or do you have a simple method you can use on the fly?

I give monsters prof in all saves. Since I'm using Roll 20, it's easy enough to change these on the fly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

In 6e there will be no failed rolls, just less successful ones.

I wouldn't mind that, especially if it was "players Roll all the dice".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk