Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Failing saves is...ok?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 7200362" data-attributes="member: 6787650"><p>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 <em>succeed</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>If there's some hypothetical class that gives double HP but saving throw proficiency in <em>nothing</em>, you should be able to run your adventure with that class and have some parties still succeed and have a fun time playing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Under Bounded Accuracy, a bonus is actually a bonus. Some guys are just so good that they will <em>never</em> slip on ball bearings; other guys get really good at killing dragons, but have just as much trouble with ball bearings as ever.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>have</em> 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 7200362, member: 6787650"] 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 [I]succeed[/I] 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 [I]nothing[/I], 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 [I]never[/I] 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 [I]have[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Failing saves is...ok?
Top