D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[machineelf]

The bolded part is not confirmed. Several spells they've spoiled (Command and Charm Person) have the ability to add targets by casting it as a higher level spell. If Hold Person has this, then a 9th Level spell slot could hit a 7 person party. Still not seeing an issue myself, but I wanted to clarify the point.

I think that's a good point, but even if they do allow hold person to hit the entire group at higher levels, some in the group might have proficiency saving throws against the spell, and so some (and not all, for this very reason) might resist. That would make for a fun fight against a powerful wizard, actually.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I've also noticed in playtesting that there's a lot of conditional bonuses that the players can leverage. As the DM, I think that a certain save will be hard to hit, but the players often pull out something that I'd forgotten about, and end up getting a few extra points. DC 19 might be hard for the fighter to hit... as long as he's not blessed by the cleric, standing next to the paladin, wearing that ring he found ten sessions ago, etc.

 

[fjw70]

I think you should try it before you go and make changes like that. You're likely going to break the game. For example, if everyone is proficient in every saving throw, you're going to render a whole lot of spells mostly useless because everyone resists them a high percentage of the time. In my experience the way they did saving throws works fine. Each class is good at certain saving throws, but aren't good at the rest. It's designed that way for a reason.

I will try it as is first, but I am not a fan of large saves differences by class.

 

[evileeyore]

Time to start another thread about what people think will be in the DMG...

 

[Obryn]

That's not a problem, that's what's supposed to happen. When you have a group, everyone is different and has different strengths and weaknesses. It facilitates group dynamics.

To me, what's supposed to happen is that you're supposed to get better at not getting one-shotted by magic. What's not supposed to happen is that the gap between your best saves and your worst saves expands.

Given how proficiency bonuses advance, you're effectively getting worse at saving vs. things you're not proficient in, while staying at-level with the stuff you are proficient in.

 

[machineelf]

To me, what's supposed to happen is that you're supposed to get better at not getting one-shotted by magic. What's not supposed to happen is that the gap between your best saves and your worst saves expands.

Given how proficiency bonuses advance, you're effectively getting worse at saving vs. things you're not proficient in, while staying at-level with the stuff you are proficient in.

It's not that you're getting worse; it's that the magic casters are getting better and more powerful. A little 2nd level caster is going to have his spells resisted a lot, because he's a beginning wizard or whatnot. But a 20th level wizard is not going to have his spells resisted very much, except by a very wise cleric who can resist wisdom-based spells, or a very strong fighter who can resist constitution based spells, etc.

Also, fighters are going to be hitting harder as well, and will pose a challenge to squishy wizards and other casters.

 

[Obryn]

It's not that you're getting worse, it's that the magic casters are getting better and more powerful.

Mathematically, is there really a difference?

Look, I'm done belaboring this point. Simply put, this is the area of my greatest concern. The expanding gap between Good and Bad saves, combined with the expanding gap between good and bad stats, on top of the increasing spell DCs of casters, is what threw 3e out of whack. I fear the same mistake was made here.

Likewise, I forsee Evocation being pretty useless again due to 5e sticking with 3e's hp inflation without sufficiently expanding spell damage. Once you can prep a save-or-suck vs. each save, I think that will be about the end of it.

It will be awesome if I am wrong about these things, and if there's something in the rules which patches up this gap. Or maybe this is as intended, and it drops the design a few notches in my book.

 

[Xodis]

Dont forget also there is probably the ability to add extra proficiencies to saving throws and skills throughout game play. The fighter might start out with only a couple good saves, but getting tired of being stopped by Hold Person, might pick up the new version of Iron Will to help fight off all those dang Wizards and their spells. Maybe he is tired of always getting set on fire with a Fireball and grabs Lightning Reflexes instead.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think it compares well to attacks vs. AC. High level characters keep getting more effective at launching attacks, but AC tends to plateau before then. Unless you are fighting a real AC beast, you will start hitting more often as the game goes on.

So both your spells and your attacks get harder to resist. In either case, there are ways to have better defenses, but they rely on ability scores, class, spells, or items.

Sounds like the same thing to me. The design intention appears to be that attacks outpace defenses (unless you are built towards that defense).

 

[machineelf]

Mathematically, is there really a difference?

Well, the conceptualization is important, and makes the difference. Let's say we are boxing, and I am decent at dodging your jabs because of my dexterity. But let's say you train really hard and get much better at connecting with jabs, and I am no longer dodging them as much. Is it correct to say I got worse at dodging, or that you got better at jabbing? The mathematical difference in the gap between my dodging and your jabbing is the same under either conceptualization, but there is only one conceptualization that is correct. My ability to dodge stayed the same, but your ability to connect got better with training.