D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[AaronOfBarbaria]

In either event, pretending that the player can do something effective to address this weakness is just that...pretending.

That is both rude, and dismissive of other people's completely valid playstyles and choices.

Tony's post that you quoted makes two significant assumptions that are not inherently true: that the standard array is being used, and that the player is going to aim for a 20 in a particular score.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So even trying one's best, half your saves would be at only +1.

I suspect one could do better.

In a game that includes feats, choosing such an array for saves is so unlikely as to be absurd and impossible to talk about seriously, only in terms of "Hey, anything's possible." ("Yay, no I have a 5% chance of success instead of 0%...)

But in that case you could use feats to get proficiency in more saves. If your priority is avoiding terrible saves, you'd presumably do that.

In either event, pretending that the player can do something effective to address this weakness is just that...pretending.

In 5e the ball is really in the DMs court when it comes to fixing any perceived systemic problems. In this case that fix could be a fairly straightforward house rule.

Tony's post that you quoted makes two significant assumptions that are not inherently true: that the standard array is being used, and that the player is going to aim for a 20 in a particular score.

And that feats aren't in use, which is a less likely assumption, IMHO, than the first two. And, feats present the most powerful player-side way to address the issue, by letting you trade stat points and/or offense/specialization/flexibility offered by other build-desirable feats for proficiency in more saves.

Assuming the array is just a convenience, as it ignores the variability of other chargen systems (but I'll happily acknowledge that I've personally found 5e to work /better/ with random generation, because you likely get an array-superior character or few who can help carry the party at the lowest levels, even if you do risk possibly getting an array-inferior character).

OTOH, I also assumed aiming for a 20, but starting with a race that gave you a bonus in your primary stat. Obviously, not everyone does both. It'd be slightly worse if you aimed for a 20, but didn't have that racial bonus, for instance - you'd be stuck with at least one +0. A MAD build that needed a second stat at 16+ would also have a bigger problem supporting it's weakest saves.

Giving up on your primary at 18 isn't completely unreasonable, 16 at the outside. That could give an ending CYA array of:

16, 14, 14, 14, 14, 12.

Still only one save at only +1, three at +2 (saves: +9, +8, +2, +2, +2, +1). 'Impossible' saves are still on the table, though they still don't strike me as necessarily at all common (the DM can choose simply to never put a DC higher than 21 on the table, even at 20th level). Quite hard saves (requiring a natural 16 or better) wouldn't seem unusual, though - nor even avoidable without making them very easy for some other characters (+11 being entirely doable at that level).

But, at no point is there a danger of the DM placing a save that is impossible for one character, yet automatic for another, the maximum gap being about 12. A clear example of BA & Adv/Dis working as intended, even in the corner case.

 

[matskralc]

You mean other than befriend a bard, paladin, cleric.....

Right. Level 20 characters have ways to deal with poor saving throws other than just ability scores. It's not the game's problem that some players don't/won't use them.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Still only one save at only +1...

Well, we know, based on your numerous posts making such things abundantly clear, you will be dumping INT. So that sole +1 is going to be your Intelligence save. How many "impossible" Intelligence saves do you image your PC will need to make during his career?

 

[Eric V]

That is both rude, and dismissive of other people's completely valid playstyles and choices.

Tony's post that you quoted makes two significant assumptions that are not inherently true: that the standard array is being used, and that the player is going to aim for a 20 in a particular score.

Sorry you feel that way.

What does it matter if a standard array is used or not? If so, fine. If not...the numbers the player gets for his ability scores aren't anything he decides upon. They are just the numbers he rolled. Look at what I wrote " pretending that the player can do something effective to address this weakness is just that...pretending" and now realize that there's nothing the player can do about his scores...he can only assign them. At least using the array method there's something the player can do in how he allots the points.

As for your second objection? Fine. Can you demonstrate how the player can do something to prevent the issue the OP brought up?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What does it matter if a standard array is used or not? If so, fine. If not...the numbers the player gets for his ability scores aren't anything he decides upon. They are just the numbers he rolled. Look at what I wrote " pretending that the player can do something effective to address this weakness is just that...pretending" and now realize that there's nothing the player can do about his scores...he can only assign them. At least using the array method there's something the player can do in how he allots the points.

It is not consistent to say that rolled scores are "just what was rolled" and that the standard array is something the player "decides upon."

Both rolled stats and the array are equally just a set of numbers that the player gets to assign. And just like the player can talk with their DM about what the exact scores in an array to be used are, the player can talk with their DM about how to roll any rolled scores. There is also the matter of point buy.

At no point, whether rolling, using an array, or using point buy, is the player not able to do something about what scores they will have available and how they can assign those scores to their character.

As for your second objection? Fine. Can you demonstrate how the player can do something to prevent the issue the OP brought up?

The issue the OP brought up (some characters auto-succeeding while others auto-fail) has been repeatedly addressed by the posts already in the thread, many of which pointed out that there is not a circumstance built into the game where that specific issue is actually true without combining a significant number of statistical outliers and choices made to create it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can you demonstrate how the player can do something to prevent the issue the OP brought up?

Hm. The OP actually brought up a somewhat different concern:

At high levels you have the 3e problem of some characters auto-saving and others auto-failing.
Does the flat math just prevent this from being an issue?

Answer: yes. Simply by playing 5e (or anything that's not 3e), the player avoids this problem.

OTOH, when the thread was Necro'd, the question was slightly different:

Does the game really ask your level 20 character with a -1 modifier to make a Charisma Save with DC 23, or, say, an Intelligence Save with DC 26. Remember, that was the original concern back when this thread started in 2014.

Instead of impossible for one character, and automatic for another, the concern is just with the first part. Yes, impossible save DCs are, well, possible in 5e. No, the player can't, strictly speaking, completely eliminate that possibility. For one thing, the DM can set DCs as high as he wants (heck, he can narrate failure without a roll or create an effect that gives no save). For another, you can't just boost all your stats up all that high.

The player /can/, OTOH, play a 14th level Monk. Or a 20 CHA Paladin. Or both. So the corner cases are covered.


The point that most saves don't advance for most characters (not even in absolute terms, in relative terms they can all too easily get worse) still stands, though, and stands in stark contrast to D&D's traditions.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

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

What's so bad about Champions?

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.

DCs of 19 are not common except for save-for-half-damage (mitigated by high hp at high levels) or save-or-knocked-prone (usually STR saves that are most likely to hit the melee types with high STR and likely proficiency).

I mean, there are a few like that, but they are the exception even in the CR 16-20 range. I count 5 such monsters out of the 18 in the MM.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

So even trying one's best, half your saves would be at only +1.

In a game without feats, there is no choice, so one could shoot for this (for whatever it's worth...)

More realistically, in a game without feats, one would raise the most class-relevant score to 20 (probably 2 ASIs) and split the other 3 between CON, DEX, and/or WIS depending on what class you are and what other benefits you have (eg gnomes' advantage on magic INT/WIS/CHA saves, magic items like ring of evasion or amulet of health).

For example, a character might start with 16/14/13/12/10/10 or 16/16/13/12/10/8 (after racial bonuses).

The first two ASIs would probably boost the main score to 20, then split between CON/WIS for high hp/melee classes or DEX/WIS for low hp/ranged classes.

In a game that includes feats, choosing such an array for saves is so unlikely as to be absurd and impossible to talk about seriously

Sure, but in a game with feats, you can take Resilient for the most important/common save you're bad in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's so bad about Champions?

It was a joke. I find them quite deadly - deadly-dull. ;P

Seriously, though (somewhat seriously) they are the choice-poor, stereotypical 'simple for beginners' class.

DCs of 19 are not common except for save-for-half-damage (mitigated by high hp at high levels) or save-or-knocked-prone (usually STR saves that are most likely to hit the melee types with high STR and likely proficiency).

Each dragon that has a DC 19+ save-for-1/2 breath weapon also has a same-DC fear effect, for example. Then there's NPC and monster casters at those levels.

More realistically, in a game without feats, one would raise the most class-relevant score to 20 (probably 2 ASIs) and split the other 3 between CON, DEX, and/or WIS

3 ASI's split among 3 stats is a +1 mod in each stat. Hardly that significant. Of course, your class-relevant score could be DEX or WIS, and you likely /are/ proficient in one of those saves.

Sure, but in a game with feats, you can take Resilient for the most important/common save you're bad in.

Yep. But it's not like it's expected for everyone to do so, repeatedly, as a matter of course.

I think part of it comes down to what level means. 5e seems to mostly be built around the idea that (except for hit points and basic combat), leveling means you get better at what you're good at, only. Past editions have made more concessions to the idea that you also get better at ancillary things, especially adventuring-related ones. It's not as big a criticism of 5e as this thread might make it out to be: a simple house rule or two (some have been briefly discussed, above), can shift the focus towards levels making you a better adventurer across the board, not just in terms of specialties and hit points. 5e's meant to be modded that way. Maybe a DMG module along those lines would've been nice.