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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

6e can stay away from my DM dice then.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

The DMG lists proficiency bonuses by CR, no need to reverse-engineer it from the MM.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The DMG lists proficiency bonuses by CR, no need to reverse-engineer it from the MM.

I missed that. Thanks!

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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".

So you're really talking about adventure and game design more than whether a saving throw or failed skill check is the problem.

But some people like the idea that there's a nearly impossible dungeon, and that they might be the ones to complete it (and might not). The gorgon is a cool example. It's super difficult, and the evidence of its deadliness is all around you. There must be some reason why the PCs are there, and risking their lives, and if they are lucky, at least one of them will survive to help the others. Of course, in our campaign it would also encourage planning ahead, perhaps purchasing or having manufactured some potions of protection against petrification, and a few scrolls of spells to reverse it, etc. I don't see any real need to change the nature of the gorgon's petrification, although your solution could make for an interesting encounter and I don't want to imply that it doesn't.

I try to avoid "boss fights" and "world is destroyed" in my campaign as a whole. Doesn't mean the first doesn't exist, but it's not a common encounter for the PCs. At least not in the way the BBEG approach has evolved.

It also has to do with expectations. My starter adventures for first time players in my campaign have a variety of challenge levels, up to a 100% chance of TPK if they don't heed the warnings and push too far. If they don't heed my session 0 warnings that I, as the DM, won't be protecting them from significant danger and near sure death situations should they choose to pursue them, they understand it early on. The world is not designed as a "fun" place for adventurers. That dragon that's 1,500 years old? Yeah, it's still alive for a reason. And while like Smaug, there's a chance that it will fall, and perhaps even to these PCs, it won't be easy. And as often as not, they will either run away (or some of them anyway), or die. That's the risk of taking on a dragon in my world. Of course, higher level characters have a better chance of survival, but mid-level characters have succeeded where high level have failed. Being smart and prepared is much more important than raw power.

If the group understands that, and we're on the same page, then success is that much sweeter.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I DM a game where the players have grown very attached to their characters, so TPK is no option for me. As a result, the really deadly tricks that monsters have just don't get used. I keep an eye on the player's HP, and tone down the attacks when TPK becomes a real threat. Personally, I would rather make it more challenging, but it appears that the group prefers to have it this way.

Of course, I haven't told the players about this. They still think a giant dragon is going to breathe fire onto them around every corner. They expressed their concerns with the really challenging fights, clearly stating that they'd be disappointed if they have to make a new character, and I just nodded and said "uh huh" while rolling a D20 and a D8 behind my DM screen (rolls which meant nothing but made them more nervous).

Actually, the latter is a top-tip for any DM. Occasionally roll some dice, and say "interesting...". Makes every player nervous.
* hides behind his DM screen *

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I DM a game where the players have grown very attached to their characters, so TPK is no option for me.

Oh man.. don't tell me you let them *name* them?! Never let the players give them names. It's so much harder to kill them later...

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Oh man.. don't tell me you let them *name* them?! Never let the players give them names. It's so much harder to kill them later...

It's worse. They even came up with nicknames for each other.

 

[CapnZapp]

The DMG lists proficiency bonuses by CR, no need to reverse-engineer it from the MM.

I missed that. Thanks!

Unless I misremember, it's the exact same progression as for player character levels.

That is, if a level 5 PC has a +3 proficiency bonus, a CR 5 monster has a +3 proficiency bonus.

And when you're level 20, you have a +6. And CR 20 monsters have +6.

So it's very easy to wing it.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

The complaint boils down to the fact that being asked to make impossible rolls feels very unheroic. It doesn't feel like D&D when your level 20 megahero is asked to make a DC 22 save with a +1 bonus.

Being asked to make hard saves is another matter entirely. There at least you have a shot. This isn't about complaining you have weak saves. Of course you should have weaknesses!

But game design that leads to +0 bonuses when epic foes routinely ask you to make saves with DC 21+ is just sloppy. Especially when you have six saves, so shoring them all up becomes exceedingly expensive.

They could have fixed this in so many ways, but they didn't. That's a real black mark for an otherwise generally excellent edition

Suggested solutions, just to show you when I say this could easily have been avoided, I do mean easily:

A) Bounded Accuracy. No save DC is ever higher than 20. Epic foes instead start imposing disadvantage on you.

B) Minimum Saves. Your save bonus is either the normal number, or your proficiency bonus, whichever is highest.
Not prof + ability, just prof. At low levels your weak saves would be no lower than +2. At high levels your weak saves would be no lower than +6. This allows epic foes to throw save DCs in the 21-25 range at you in a fair and balanced way.

C) Less expensive ways to shore up your weak saves: at character levels 10, 20 (and 30) you gain a free saving throw proficiency.

Either solution works both in games with and without feats. (The expectation to take Resilient multiple times is wholly unreasonable - I'm certainly not devoting half my feat allocation just to patch what should never have been there in the first place).

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[James Gasik]

Well you can't take Resilient multiple times, so that's not even an option.

(PHB page 165: "You can take each eat only once, unless the feat's description says otherwise.")