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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Check out the MM. Are there a lot of CR 20 critters throwing down DC 10 saves? Or CR 11s, for that matter. No.

Bounded Accuracy says you should not assume anyone will pass a saving throw initiated by a CR 20 creature. If they do, great, but you shouldn't assume so.

Bounded Accuracy says you don't need to use CR 20 creatures. If you want a saving throw everyone will probably pass, build a 20th level challenge out of lower-CR creatures. How does that 20th level party feel about a Hard encounter consisting of a young white dragon and 80 magma mephits?

That's Bounded Accuracy for you.

If you are a high level character, you're going to face attacks with a high bonus, and you're going to face saves with a high DC. Not every time, and you can try to avoid them as hard as you like, but when the former happens, you can quite easily have a decent AC, while when the latter happens, covering all your saving-throw bases is impractical.

For those who play without feats or multiclassing, those are equivalently difficult tasks. A 20th level bard (AC 12-15ish) is going to get hit 95% of the time by an adult red dragon with its +14 to hit; he's going to fail his DC 19 (Wisdom) saving throw against the dragon's frightful presence 90%ish percent of the time too. He can mitigate his AC problems or his problems with fear by staying out of range; he can further mitigate his AC problems by hiding or with Spell Mastery of spells like Shield; he can mitigate his problems with fear by pre-casting Heroism or by hanging close to the Paladin or simply by innoculating himself with a prior encounter plus some nice cool-down time afterward.

There's always feats and multiclassing on top of that, but the fact that AC is easier to boost via multiclassing than saves are is the fault of the multiclassing rules, not the saving throw rules. Probably only powergamers really witness that asymmetry--I know that when I first started playing 5E, it did not occur to me to solve my Enchanter's fragility in melee by simply multiclassing a single level of Life Cleric.

Actually, it's kinda nonsensical. You spend your whole (probably short) life adventuring, and never get better at most adventuring tasks? Just the ones you were 'proficient' in when you started?

Just the ones you practice. If your wizard is really trying to become better at dodging dragon fire, it will manifest itself as +2 Dex or Resilient (Dex) at some point. If instead he is focusing all his attention on the arts of the mind (+2 Int, Observant), who can be surprised that he didn't get better at dodging dragon fire? At least he still got better at surviving dragon fire, thanks to his increased HP.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Bounded Accuracy says you should not assume anyone will pass a saving throw initiated by a CR 20 creature. If they do, great, but you shouldn't assume so.

You shouldn't be assuming failure, either, by the same token. As it stands now, that's entirely likely.

If you want a saving throw everyone will probably pass

... you'll have to tweak BA a little, because it tilts things more towards uncertainty. Or, at least, it does for things other than saving throws. For saves, 'everyone will probably pass' can be off the table if anyone has a low stat & no proficiency in that save. At high level, that can be true even if the better saves in the party have no chance of passing the save. That's the d20 getting overwhelmed, which BA is supposed to avoid.

He can mitigate his AC problems or his problems with fear by staying out of range; he can further mitigate his AC problems by hiding or with Spell Mastery of spells like Shield; he can mitigate his problems with fear by pre-casting Heroism or by hanging close to the Paladin or simply by innoculating himself with a prior encounter plus some nice cool-down time afterward.

Thing is, mitigating your AC issues is something you certainly know you'll need to do, and have resources to do, and having done so, you're in fair shape while you can keep it up, because you don't have 5 other ACs. Saves, OTOH, you do have 5 others.

Just the ones you practice.

Realistically, sure. A system like BRP/RQ does just that. You use a skill more, you get better at it. You even get a learning curve. But a class/level system has issues with that kind of granularity, and when it /tries/ to be granular, as with 3e skill ranks or 5e proficiency, those issues can stand out.

If your wizard is really trying to become better at dodging dragon fire, it will manifest itself as +2 Dex or Resilient (Dex) at some point.

Case in point: you don't get that many feats. And, while you might want to bag some Vtude by taking a feat in something you've been doing a lot of the last 4 levels, there's also the consideration of the opportunity cost of not using that feat for something that synergizes better with your class abilities, even a class ability you might be getting in the next few levels....

Saves are like hps. No matter how little time you spend training yourself to be invincible in combat, your hps go up. It's a basic defense in the system. 5e has reduced the number of saves that completely bypass hps, but not eliminated them. Bad saves can still be bad, but they should get less worse as you level...

 

[CapnZapp]

In fact, one of the foundational principles of BA is that the DM need not assume any increase in the PC's bonuses. It's supposed to be okay to keep using Ball Bearings (DC 10 Dex save to avoid going prone) in 20th level adventures, and have them still be relevant and interesting. That's exactly what we see in 5E: you can use low DCs (Magma Mephits, ball bearings, caltrops) against high-level characters, and unless the high-level PCs happen to be either proficient in Dex saves or willing to use things like Bardic Inspiration/Aura of Devotion/Luck dice/etc. against them, the high-level PCs will sometimes slip on the ball bearings or be disadvantaged by the Magma Mephits' Heat Metal. Therefore, ball bearings/caltrops/mephits do not go obsolete.

That's what bounded accuracy is all about. It's working as designed.

If a given DM chooses to assume that PC bonuses will steadily increase, and just throws waves of ever-higher-CR monsters with ever-higher-save-DCs at the party, not only are you playing a monochromatic game with only type of threat (solos and small groups of monsters) but you're also violating the bounded accuracy assumption: you're assuming something you know to be false, that PC bonuses always increase over time. If you don't like the game that results, stop it! Play 5E the way it was designed to work. Use bounded accuracy in your adventure designs.

Nothing you say excuse save bonuses that can't make a save even when you roll 20.

You try to make this a choice between keeping things exactly as they are, and abandoning bounded accuracy entirely. I smell a strawman.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Off the table in what sense? BA says you should view a DC 19 save as one that PCs will almost certainly fail. That doesn't mean you can't have a DC 19 save to avoid some horrible fate; but you shouldn't assume that everyone (or much of anyone) will succeed on that DC 19 save, and it shouldn't grind the adventure to a halt if everyone fails. It's supposed to be a bonus when the PCs have awesome saves, not part of the expected baseline.

If there's some hypothetical class that gives double HP but saving throw proficiency in nothing, you should be able to run your adventure with that class and have some parties still succeed and have a fun time playing.



Some of them do, some of them don't. The system doesn't assume they will, and a DM writing an adventure with bounded accuracy in mind won't either. You could wind up with an entire party of minionmancers whose main attacks are all by proxy, and no better than +3 or +4 to hit. You may have noticed that MM monsters like dragons are still quite killable with a +3 or +4 to-hit, especially if you have sufficient quantities of minions. Or you could wind up with a party of roleplayers who like to play strong lore bards, charismatic enchanters, and intelligent war priests.

And the saves they "likely" face are entirely a function of whether or not the DM is respecting bounded accuracy. That's my point here. If 15th level PCs never make a DC 10 save, only DC 19+ saves, that's entirely on whoever created their adventures. 5E is written so that you can write fun and challenging adventures for 15th level PCs (using large numbers of) CR 0-5 monsters and it will work just fine; if you're choosing to always employ only CR 17+ monsters, you're not using bounded accuracy, and your experience will be skewed.



You can't necessarily do that with skill checks either. If only the Str 18, high-Athletics guy can climb the cliff when slavers are chasing them, everyone else is going to get captured (or have to fight off the slavers without the high-Str guy). Therefore you shouldn't use ultra-slippery cliffs just because it's a 15th level party; you should choose a reasonable, naturalistic DC based on what the cliff is really like (say, two consecutive DC 10 checks to climb the 30' cliff; each failure results in 2d6 falling damage and a need to start over). That's just one example: it could just as easily be Stealth checks to sneak past the golems guarding the forbidden temple entrance, or Constitution checks to stay afloat for hours in freezing water when your ship sinks, or Deception checks to bluff your way into the enemy's headquarters.

If you happen to construct your adventures such that skill checks are always bypassed by a single roll, that is again on you the adventure-designer, not on Bounded Accuracy.



Under Bounded Accuracy, a bonus is actually a bonus. Some guys are just so good that they will never slip on ball bearings; other guys get really good at killing dragons, but have just as much trouble with ball bearings as ever.

You can give everyone +5 to all their saves and it won't "break" bounded accuracy, because bounded accuracy is a DM-side (and/or designer-side) activity about avoiding certain assumptions. If those assumptions happen to be true anyway, the PCs will have an easier time of it than otherwise. So I'm not arguing against giving PCs whatever bonuses you want to--you can, and I don't care. But I am arguing that if you're actually employing bounded accuracy in your adventure design, you don't have the problem in the first place that makes you want to boost everyone's saves in every attribute. You're not expecting every PC to be equally good at resisting every threat, and you're not using a "DC treadmill" that makes PCs fall behind if they don't boost every stat equally to match your treadmill's expectations. Higher-level PCs are more specialized than lower-level PCs, really strong in some niches and perhaps weak in others, and that's okay.

Nothing is okay when epic foes ask you to make DC 21 to DC 25 saves, when your save bonus is +0. Impossible rolls are not okay.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[TwoSix]

Gotta agree with Hemlock on this one. In a way, it reminds me of the arguments for/against the "expertise" feats in 4e. In both cases, I don't think there's anything wrong with the math starting to work against the PCs at higher levels. At the levels where the auto-fails become an issue, they could/should be proactive enough to consider covering their weaknesses, whether through acquisitions of magic items, spells, class levels, or followers. The only caveat I would apply if that the DM must be lenient enough to allow the PCs to be proactive enough to acquire those resources if the players are willing to expend time/treasure on them. If not, then the DMs bear some responsibility to not through an elder brain with a DC 19 Int save mind blast at his group of players with no Int above 10, i.e. the bog standard 5e party.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I don't usually give my players minions. I have at least 2 regular players who are too good at abusing them. But still, "preparation" certainly comes into play and it affects your potential outcome. But brick walls are still not a risk even without preparation, the barriers you will run into are just thicker and taller, but still shy of impossible. Players may need to retreat and regroup (a sound tactic in many games), but with patience and hard work they'll get past things.

That's still, in my mind, failing forward. Failure opens alternate, harder, more complex routes, as opposed to success leading you through the more direct ones.

Agreed. Not sure I'd invoke the "fail forward" term. Too loaded.

Also, there are lots of things that the PCs come across in my campaigns that are impossible. For now, anyway. Something they may need to gain a few levels and return to, etc. So I agree, no brick walls, but there isn't always an available method to scale it either.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Nothing is okay when epic foes ask you to make DC 21 to DC 25 saves, when your save bonus is +0. Impossible rolls are not okay.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Why not? An epic foe wouldn't be epic if players can easily shrug off its' effects. Plan on avoiding the save or have benefits that give you the ability to make those saves. D&D should have unwinnable (without an edge) situations, IMHO.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Gotta agree with Hemlock on this one. In a way, it reminds me of the arguments for/against the "expertise" feats in 4e. In both cases, I don't think there's anything wrong with the math starting to work against the PCs at higher levels.

There's 'starting to work against' and there's falling off the cliff. No Expertise feats? Fine, you're hitting on a 12 or 14 at Epic instead of an 11 at Heroic. You'll notice, but you're still perfectly viable, either along-side those who have the feats, or if no PC gets 'em. And, that's trying to hit effing Exarchs and god-killing abominations left over from the Dawn War. Not vs a lich casually tossing one of his lower-level spells at you, not vs the same thing that Frightened you at first level.

At the levels where the auto-fails become an issue, they could/should be proactive enough to consider covering their weaknesses, whether through acquisitions of magic items, spells, class levels, or followers.

The options to do so aren't great and come with considerable opportunity cost. Feats are supposed to be 'big,' remember, if you're blowing a feat on making a save better, it should be good, not go from hopeless to merely bad.

The only caveat I would apply if that the DM must be lenient enough to allow the PCs to be proactive enough to acquire those resources if the players are willing to expend time/treasure on them.

Ironically, I'd rather not be.

If not, then the DMs bear some responsibility to not through an elder brain with a DC 19 Int save mind blast at his group of players with no Int above 10, i.e. the bog standard 5e party.

Under BA you should be able to do just that, especially to a party that could tackle that kind of CR.

Why not? An epic foe wouldn't be epic if players can easily shrug off its' effects.

There's a lot of room on the d20 between 'only on a natural 20' and 'easily.'

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why not? An epic foe wouldn't be epic if players can easily shrug off its' effects. Plan on avoiding the save or have benefits that give you the ability to make those saves. D&D should have unwinnable (without an edge) situations, IMHO.

If an ancient red dragon breathes fire on you for 91 points of damage, you can:

(1) make the DC 24 Dex save to reduce it to 45 points of damage;
(2) cast Absorb Elements as a reaction to reduce it to 45 points of damage;
(3) use Evasion to reduce it to 45 points of damage (or 0 points of damage if you ALSO make the Dex save);
(4) be a Raging Barbearian to reduce it to 45 points of damage;
(5) have the Tough feat for +40 HP to offset the failed save;
(6) have +20-45 extra HP from Aid V-IX (depending) to partially offset the failed save;
(7) have +20-25 temp HP from Inspiring Leader to partially offset the failed save;
(8) have +27 extra effective HP via a Contingency ("when I go below 50 HP, False Life V") to partially offset the failed save;
(9) have +25 temp HP via Armor of Agathys to partially offset the failed save;
(10) have a Death Ward spell up to offset the action economy of the dragon's breath (i.e. it will take the dragon one extra action to bring you to zero HP);

And of course you can also have blockers/decoys (Giant Owls from Conjure Animals), can stay out of range with Phantom Steed, can attack the dragon from long range with Sharpshooter, can Shapechange into a dragon yourself (e.g. adult red shadow dragon) and go toe-to-toe with it, can whistle up a swarm of Planar Bound Air Elementals to fight alongside you, can pin it in place with Otto's Irresistible Dance, can trap it in a Maze and then put a Prismatic Wall in the space in which it will reappear, etc., etc.

Failing the save against the dragon's breath weapon is hardly the end of the conflict. It's just 45 HP of damage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There's 'starting to work against' and there's falling off the cliff. No Expertise feats? Fine, you're hitting on a 12 or 14 at Epic instead of an 11 at Heroic. You'll notice, but you're still perfectly viable, either along-side those who have the feats, or if no PC gets 'em. And, that's trying to hit effing Exarchs and god-killing abominations left over from the Dawn War. Not vs a lich casually tossing one of his lower-level spells at you, not vs the same thing that Frightened you at first level.

"Snakes. Why did it have to be *snakes*?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClwIj3x24Q4