D&D 5E Non-Proficient Saves

[KarinsDad]

There has been some discussion on higher level saves, but not consolidated.

I was thinking about how this might be an issue. I was looking at the monster DCs and they tend to be in the range of DC 9 to DC 21 (level and such depending) in the monster section of DMG Basic Rules. The vast majority of them are in the range of DC 10 to DC 15, but then again, the vast majority of CRs are <= 6.

For the non-proficient saves, that range is -1 to +2 for the vast majority of PCs (+2 being a bit more rare, but it does occur frequently for Con or Dex).

So, I was thinking that if half of the proficiency bonus was added to the non-proficient saves, that range would be more reasonable.

Level 1: +0 to +3

Level 9: +1 to +4

Level 17: +2 to +5

Compared to the proficient saves (generally):

Level 1: +3 to +4

Level 9: +5 to +6

Level 17: +7 to +8


Still not earthshaking, but at least high DC saves can be made once in a while and even the one DC 9 save in the monster section of DMG Basic Rules can still be failed.


Thoughts? Suggestions?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I find it vastly preferable to the current system, which itself seems almost comical in its lack of balance. It also means that proficiency is still worth something, which is nice.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe a good Idea, maybe not.

Looking at the debuff spells, they all allow a saving throw ech turn. Which means, those spells use saving throws mainly for the duration of the effect.
So high level casters need high DCs to have their spells stick for a while.
Maybe I would allow half proficiency bonus against the first save aginst a spell if we notice a problem in play with save or suck spells.

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe a good Idea, maybe not.

Looking at the debuff spells, they all allow a saving throw ech turn. Which means, those spells use saving throws mainly for the duration of the effect.
So high level casters need high DCs to have their spells stick for a while.
Maybe I would allow half proficiency bonus against the first save aginst a spell if we notice a problem in play with save or suck spells.

Except that this is only for PC defense.

Monsters do not appear to use any type of proficiency system (AFAICT). So it will only affect PC defense, not PC offense.


Btw, the main stat saves at those levels are +5/+9/+11. Even proficient saves are a bit behind the eight ball when compared to main state proficient saves. But non-proficient saves are almost non-existent.


At level 17, a typical set of saves is:

+11: Main Stat Saves
+8: Proficient Stat Saves
+1: Non-proficient Saves

Typically a 10 difference on a D20 is all kinds of outside the bounded accuracy box. I don't think that adding +3 to make this +4 is game breaking.

At level 17 with a DC 19 frightening presence save from an Adult Red Dragon (CR 17), 4 PCs out of 6 might have +1, one has +8, and the last has +11.

The odds of saving right away are NP (house rule of +3 in parenthesis) / Prof / Prof MS:

15% (30%) / 50% / 65%

The odds of failing on the first round and saving on the second round are:

12.75% (21%) / 25% / 22.75%

The odds of failing on the first two rounds and saving on the third round are:

10.84% (14.7%) / 12.5% / 7.96%

The odds of saving on round four or later are:

61.41% (34.3%) / 12.5% / 4.29%

Sure, an Adult Red Dragon should be scary, but these are heroes. Having about half of the party having Disadvantage for about three rounds seems pretty harsh. Even proficient PCs can have a 1 in 8 chance of being taken out for 3+ rounds. Non-proficient players are going to sit there, rarely make the save, and be a lot less effective.

A fairly typical way these odds (without houserule) would play out is: 2 people save round 1. 1 person saves round 2. 1 person saves round 3. 1 person saves round 4. The last person could be a while (since his odds are 15% each round).

With the houserule, 2 to 3 people save round 1. 1 to 2 people save round 2. 1 person saves round 3 or round 4. The last person could be a while (since his odds are 30% each round).

When players realize that they need an 18 on the die roll to save, it's discouraging. Needing a 15, not so much.


And, there are higher DCs in the game. I've seen 22 as the highest so far, but who knows how high it gets.


Btw, I am open to other suggestions. This one seems clean and gets the saves back into the bounded accuracy curve without going nuts with it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Except that this is only for PC defense.

Monsters do not appear to use any type of proficiency system (AFAICT). So it will only affect PC defense, not PC offense.


Btw, the main stat saves at those levels are +5/+9/+11. Even proficient saves are a bit behind the eight ball when compared to main state proficient saves. But non-proficient saves are almost non-existent.


At level 17, a typical set of saves is:

+11: Main Stat Saves
+8: Proficient Stat Saves
+1: Non-proficient Saves

Typically a 10 difference on a D20 is all kinds of outside the bounded accuracy box. I don't think that adding +3 to make this +4 is game breaking.

At level 17 with a DC 19 frightening presence save from an Adult Red Dragon (CR 17), 4 PCs out of 6 might have +1, one has +8, and the last has +11.

The odds of saving right away are NP (house rule of +3 in parenthesis) / Prof / Prof MS:

15% (30%) / 50% / 65%

The odds of failing on the first round and saving on the second round are:

12.75% (21%) / 25% / 22.75%

The odds of failing on the first two rounds and saving on the third round are:

10.84% (14.7%) / 12.5% / 7.96%

The odds of saving on round four or later are:

61.41% (34.3%) / 12.5% / 4.29%

Sure, an Adult Red Dragon should be scary, but these are heroes. Having about half of the party having Disadvantage for about three rounds seems pretty harsh. Even proficient PCs can have a 1 in 8 chance of being taken out for 3+ rounds. Non-proficient players are going to sit there, rarely make the save, and be a lot less effective.

A fairly typical way these odds (without houserule) would play out is: 2 people save round 1. 1 person saves round 2. 1 person saves round 3. 1 person saves round 4. The last person could be a while (since his odds are 15% each round).

With the houserule, 2 to 3 people save round 1. 1 to 2 people save round 2. 1 person saves round 3 or round 4. The last person could be a while (since his odds are 30% each round).

When players realize that they need an 18 on the die roll to save, it's discouraging. Needing a 15, not so much.


And, there are higher DCs in the game. I've seen 22 as the highest so far, but who knows how high it gets.


Btw, I am open to other suggestions. This one seems clean and gets the saves back into the bounded accuracy curve without going nuts with it.

I don´t really disagree. Thaat difference looks quite harsh.
But at this level I expect some magic spells and items in effect. I don´t know which class abilities and feats work in the PCs favour.

I already thought about giving 1/2 proficiency bonus for non proficient saves and 3/2 proficient bonus for proficient saves. Or proficiency bonus for all and double proficiency bonus for proficient characters and raise base save DC to 10+prof+stat.

But before knowing how it actually plays out I am hesitant to change anything. I could imagine it works as intended.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don´t really disagree. Thaat difference looks quite harsh.
But at this level I expect some magic spells and items in effect. I don´t know which class abilities and feats work in the PCs favour.

I already thought about giving 1/2 proficiency bonus for non proficient saves and 3/2 proficient bonus for proficient saves. Or proficiency bonus for all and double proficiency bonus for proficient characters and raise base save DC to 10+prof+stat.

But before knowing how it actually plays out I am hesitant to change anything. I could imagine it works as intended.

Yeah. You players sit out while the rogue takes over this encounter.

The problem with the 1/2 and 3/2 solution that you are thinking about is that you will make it the exact same difference than it currently is (instead of +6, +9, instead of +0, +3).

+11: Main Stat Saves
+8: Proficient Stat Saves
+1: Non-proficient Saves

becomes

+14: Main Stat Saves
+11: Proficient Stat Saves
+4: Non-proficient Saves

The difference is still 10. Hence, the reason I think 4, 8, 11 is better. 4 is fairly far from 8 and really far from 11. But the difference is 7 instead of 10. Still substantial, but a third of a D20 instead of a half.

 

[BryonD]

The approach to saves by default is one of the great changes in 5E, IMO.

I very much like the fact that the scary abilities and effects are expected to work as the normal course of things. When you (read: in character) see a red dragon the primary thought should be "oh crap, that breath is bad news". The bulky fighter and scrawny wizard should both expect to get hurt by it and plan their tactics accordingly. But escape via making a saving throw should be something these characters consider a high risk alternative (and making the save represents a highly fortunate turn of events).

All that said, it is certainly a notable change in framework. There are things in RAW I think suck and will be changed. (happily) That is another of the great changes in 5E is the *expectation* of customization.

I'd like the record to reflect ( ) that there is a lot of potential for coolness and exciting story with low success saves in the mix. It just requires a bit more tactics on the players part.

But, I respect that none of this invalidates anything else in this thread.
Make it what YOU want!!! 5E is all about that.

 

[Connorsrpg]

See, I actually see this disparity as a strength of the system. People/Creatures and Heaven forbid, PCs SHOULD have weaknesses. It would be hard for every creature/encounter to always target this, but now and then it should come up. A weak-willed PC SHOULD fear an Enchanter in my mind...well their mind actually.

With the bounded accuracy, I am happy for this.

PCs attacking an ogre SHOULD think, "Okay, ogres are none too smart and not that agile". And therefore, have more success with powers that play to an ogre's 'real' weaknesses. I hated the idea that such stats were determined by level in 4E. A stupid lumbering ogre with no armor is still hard to hit and has a decent Will b/c, um, it is a certain level. A disparity of 1-2 (or even three) doesn't really stand out as a weakness in a single fight.

I like the differences being larger. You are not always going to face attacks vs your weak scores, but you should really fear those that do.

So, I guess, I am saying, I wouldn't go with the 1/2 proficiency, but as others have stated, I like that 5E is shaping as being very easy to customise, so if you like go for it.

 

[trentonjoe]

I don't think a change is needed either.

Now, I play almost exclusively low to mid level games and haven't played 5E past 6th level but in my experience the saves work well.

There are so many opportunities to get a advantage or a bonus on the first save and then a second save that or auto end of the condition that very few saves are actually made at +1 or less.

 

[Jack the Lad]

I don't think a change is needed either.

Now, I play almost exclusively low to mid level games and haven't played 5E past 6th level but in my experience the saves work well.

These two things are related.

You've played 30% of the game. The 30% of the game in which save scaling is least problematic.

There are 14 levels you haven't played, and the OP specifically talks about higher level saves as the issue.