D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[ChrisCarlson]

Becoming a gibbering mess for 50 hours?

Really? Is that what the rules say happens when you fail a madness check? Are you sure?

Have you even read the material you so staunchly are defending?

Read up on DMG madness and the OOTA appendix on the Demon Lords and then tell me with a straight face you don't agree that in theory, the game would have been better off with some work done on keeping the disparity between weak saves and high DCs in check.

We've been using the madness rules for months in our current OotA campaign, actually. Working as intended, AFAICT. I've had zero problems with it. I've failed two madness saves so far. Heck, my friend's dwarf fighter PC had a complete mental breakdown and now believes himself to be another player's human dex paladin PC. Took his name. Change his behavior. Uses similar gear now (switched to studded leather and uses a shortsword). Even shaved off his beard! The whole ball o' wax.

So while you are asking if I've even read the material, how about if I ask if you've bothered played the material you are so staunchly attacking?

Because your white-room, theory-craft hand-wringing does not appear to coincide with my at-the-table, practical experience. <shrug> I guess YMMV, one supposes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Coming close to = failing.

Granted. ;P

It isn't necessarily the disparity between weak saves and high DCs that is the problem, though - impassable DCs for a character's low-priority saving throws would be fine to have in the game if the consequences of failing a save weren't overly punitive.

Maybe if 'low-priority save' were more under the player's control. As it stands, a basic concept will likely dictate which primary and secondary stats you need, which the system encourages you to dump, and which saves are going to advance. The concept -> stat mapping isn't bad, for the most part (innate magic mapping to CHA is a bit iffy, perhaps), but the concept -> proficient save can be pretty far off, and only two out of 6 saves advancing is abysmal. 'Courageous' and 'Warrior' just can't go in the same sentence - unless 'divine' or something is in there. 'Indomitable' isn't. Maybe if the Fighter had call for INT the way it sometimes did in 3.x or WIS as it did in 4e, it wouldn't be so bad. More proficient saves and more flexibility with them, as a matter of course, rather than opt-in and burning those ASIs, would also be a plus.

But, IMHO, nothing is entirely acceptable short of all saves advancing with level to some extent - preferably in a way that doesn't fall behind prof/DC progression, even if it starts decidedly low. Being 'bad' at a save is OK, getting progressively worse relative to the challenges you face isn't.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

...getting progressively worse relative to the challenges you face...

Bounded accuracy changes the treadmill you are used to into a new thing that makes your statement generally less severe than you imply.

I.e., "progressively worse" means something different now than it did in 3.x/4e.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...which the system encourages you to dump...

I don't find that to be true.

...getting progressively worse relative to the challenges you face isn't.

That's assuming more about the way a game is played than I'd like, and commits to what I believe to be a significant error of only looking at chance of save failure, rather than also the effects of save failure - because taking full damage more often isn't as significant a thing unless full damage continues to be the same percentage of hit points (taking black dragons as a quick example: a CR 2 wyrmling has a DC 11 save to half 22 damage, an easy to pass save for all/most an at-level character's hit points - a CR 14 adult has a DC 18 save to half 54 damage, which is a tougher save to pass for a smaller relative portion of an at-level character's hit points).

And while some conditions of failing a save remain as significant at any level, higher level parties usually gain more numerous ways to mitigate those conditions, just like larger hit point pools reduce the impact of damage-related saves.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't find that to be true.

You don't find it true that different classes (as opposed to an actual character as a whole) have different needs for different stats, including no need whatsovever?

That's assuming more about the way a game is played than I'd like

You wouldn't want to assume that character face more difficult challenges as they become more capable? OK. We can disagree about that. My expectation is that characters get better as they level, and face increasingly difficult challenges (and also a greater range of challenges, as the number of potential & random encounters 'beneath them' grows, and the number they must avoid or die shrinks), rather than just always pasting the same kinds of enemies and increasingly 'phoning it in.'

and commits to what I believe to be a significant error of only looking at chance of save failure, rather than also the effects of save failure

The effects of save failure don't decrease because your level (and the CR of the enemies you face) has increased.

And while some conditions of failing a save remain as significant at any level, higher level parties usually gain more numerous ways to mitigate those conditions, just like larger hit point pools reduce the impact of damage-related saves.

Which does help in a gamist sense, if you have the right mix of contributions in the party. Whether it works in a narrative or character-defining sense is a lot more questionable.

You'd think, just on natural language, if your character is high-level and 'Indomitable,' he wouldn't need to be getting snapped out of fear and mind-control too much.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You don't find it true that different classes have different needs for different stats, including no need whatsovever?

I don't find it true that the system encourages dumping any stat in particular.

You wouldn't want to assume that character face more difficult challenges as they become more capable?

I wouldn't want to assume that "more difficult challenges" always means higher save DCs.

The effects of save failure don't decrease because your level (and the CR of the enemies you face) has increased.

I just showed you math to the contrary with specific example.

You'd think, just on natural language, if your character is high-level and 'Indomitable,' he wouldn't need to be getting snapped out of fear and mind-control too much, no matter how readily available the resources to do so might to his fellows.

That's just the thing; my high-level and Indomitable character experience is that they pass saves when invoking the Indomitable feature - and on the hasn't happened at my table yet occurrence that ends up not being the case, the character has a whole party of friends that can help out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't find it true that the system encourages dumping any stat in particular.

It varies with class, so, no, the system as a whole does not encourage, say, dumping INT, because the system includes the Wizard, who needs INT. Each class does have prime and secondary stats, and irrelevant - 'dump' - stats, though, and class does map pretty strongly to concept.

I wouldn't want to assume that "more difficult challenges" always means higher save DCs.

Higher CR does seem to mean that. I suppose you could make a case that some 'more difficult' challenges are simply a matter of more, lower-level ones all at once. You could throw more exp worth of Kobolds at a party than a legendary monster of their level is worth, for instance, and the kobolds wouldn't be forcing a higher DC. That's true. Irrelevant, but true.

I just showed you math to the contrary with specific example.

Hps are a major source of scaling in 5e, so as you go up in levels, you become more resistant to anything that uses them. That is what you gave an example of. Not the issue at hand. Saves are frequently used for non-hp-referent binary effects. Either you're Frightented or you're not, for instance, whether you're pitting your low-level -1 vs a Wyrmling's DC 14, or your high-level +0 vs a Wyrm's 18 DC (or, for CapnZap's sake, let's say 21 DC).

That's just the thing; my high-level and Indomitable character experience is that they pass saves when invoking the Indomitable feature.

Mathematically, that's to be expected - with STR or CON saves. DEX at the outside if specialized in range or finesse. Against the kind of effects that the word Indomitable implies resistance to, WIS/CHA saves, typically, that seems less plausible.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...and irrelevant - 'dump' - stats

I don't agree that the system creates the idea of 'dump' stats. I believe it is a held-over concept from prior editions that is no longer nearly as applicable.

Irrelevant, but true.

It's not irrelevant to the discussion I thought we were having.

That is what you gave an example of. Not the issue at hand.

Pretending that failed saves vs. damaging effects and failed saves vs. non-damage effects are not both part of the issue of saves being or not being too unlikely to be succeeded at higher levels is ridiculous.

Saves are frequently used for non-hp-referent binary effects. Either you're Frightented or you're not, for instance, whether you're pitting your low-level -1 vs a Wyrmling's DC 14, or your high-level +0 vs a Wyrm's 18 DC (or, for CapnZap's sake, let's say 21 DC).

That is true. Which is why I mentioned the game including more numerous ways to overcome such effects to higher-level characters.

Such as the various save bonuses, condition immunities, and spells that come into play (especially in the case of the frightened condition).

Against the kind of effects that the word Indomitable implies resistance to, WIS/CHA saves, typically, that seems less plausible.

I'm sure it seems "less plausible" that my last session playing as my champion fighter that I made 14 attack rolls during the session and scored 4 critical hits - but that's completely normal for dice.

When it comes to indomitable thing, I think the plausibility issue you see is one of expecting different odds on the saves than were actually the case at the table - because having 2 shots at rolling a 13 or better on a d20 and getting it isn't actually that implausible.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't agree that the system creates the idea of 'dump' stats. I believe it is a held-over concept from prior editions that is no longer nearly as applicable.

I do find that the emphasis on Bounded Accuracy, untrained checks, and the six-saving-throw model discourages dumping any given stat, in general. I don't agree that it discourages it enough given all the other incentives in the game. Particularly as regards class, and the correlation between class design and concept.

Pretending that failed saves vs. damaging effects and failed saves vs. non-damage effects are not both part of the issue of saves being or not being too unlikely to be succeeded at higher levels is ridiculous.

Damaging effects - save or no - are already taken care of by hp advancement.

I'm sure it seems "less plausible" that my last session playing as my champion fighter that I made 14 attack rolls during the session and scored 4 critical hits - but that's completely normal for dice.

It's not that plausible that anyone could stand playing a Champion fighter through 14 levels. ;P

When it comes to indomitable thing, I think the plausibility issue you see is one of expecting different odds on the saves than were actually the case at the table - because having 2 shots at rolling a 13 or better on a d20 and getting it isn't actually that implausible.

13 or better isn't going to hit a DC of 19 with a +/-1. If 'bad' saves were remotely in that kind of range (+5 or so vs 'good saves' up to +11 or more), there'd be no issue.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

13 or better isn't going to hit a DC of 19 with a +/-1.

Good thing there is nothing in the game that forces a player to only have +/-1 for their "bad" save(s), and nothing in the game that forces a DM to use creatures with DCs of 19+ on their abilities.

Or, to phrase that differently: You're talking about a choice - not inherent truth of the game.