D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Nagol]

Because in 5e NPCs are built along the lines of PCs.

There is no way in Basic, at least that I've noticed, that lets a fighter get WIS or CHA save proficiency, which is the mechanical realisation of "strong will" in Next.

But in TSR editions, fighters at high levels had the best saves in the game (except for clerics vs poison/death).

The structure of fighter saves in 5e in no way resembles TSR editions. The only previous edition that it resembles is 3E.

[MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] and I aren't expressing concerns because we're unfamiliar with TSR editions. We're expressing concern at departure from the TSR model in favour of (what we see as) the flawed 3E model for saving throw scaling.

Spell casting DCs will typically start at 13 +/- 1 (8 + 2 for proficiency +2-4 for 14-18 modifier). A non-proficient save with an average stat (-1 to +1) requires a roll of 13 +/- 2 for success (30 - 50% chance of success). A proficient character is likely to have 40 - 70% chance of success. Proficiency, gives +10% chance of success and there is a somewhat better chance of having a better modifier because the way proficiencies are assigned (though not always -- Wizards may still have an average Wisdom).

At 17th level, DCs look like they will typically be 19 ( 8 + 6 proficiency + 5 modifier). So a non-proficient save with an average stat will require a 19 +/- 1 for success. ( 5 - 15% chance of success). A proficient character gains +30% and may have a higher modifier further increasing success chances, but that still leaves the proficient character with less than a 50% chance of success. Even if we assume a character will only be required to make saves versus a stat of 20, the non-proficient character has a 35% chance of success and the proficient character has a 65% chance of success.

It does look pretty flawed at first glance. Magic slowly takes over the game as character levels rise as opposed to pre-3e and even how 3e played out at my table.

Content designers need to adjust their expectation to characters will fail their saves especially at higher level which paradoxically means higher level magic needs to be less frightening.

 

[Skanderbeg]

Yes, you make NPC spellcasters like PC spellcasters and they cast real spells. At least as of the most recent rules.

What material presents the possibility of building NPCs at all? Has anyone at WoTC said they were going to build NPCs like PCs? The NPC Spellcasters in the last play test packet did not actually follow all of the rules of PC Spellcasters as far as I can tell, just like all of the bestiary actually (good luck determining a pattern to their attack bonuses). In addition the NPC spell casters came with a predetermined spells. The only pattern I see to determine a DC to resist any monster in the bestiary as of the last play test packet was 10 + one keyed attribute bonus. For instance the DC of the Lich's spells is 15 (10 + intelligence bonus). Actually the limited samples I have from the starter set (nothic, ooze, ogre) do not follow the proficiency bonus pattern if using their hit dice as a substitute for level. The ogre should have a to hit bonus of +7 if he was built like a PC for example, and the Nothic should have slightly higher to hit modifier also.

I have read some of this thread but not all of it. Is the save differentials based on PvP concerns?

 

[Manbearcat]

Color me extremely puzzled. Two (I thought major) intentions of the design framework of 5e were:

1) all your Ability Scores as your Saving Throws

and

2) an engine predicated upon bounded math which keeps numbers (DCs and to hit DC modifiers) from proliferating wildly as the game progresses

Instead, we have

a) all spell saves (at least in the Basic rules) either Dex, Con, or Wisdom (with 2 - 3 outliers - such as Maze requiring in Intelligence check and Earthquake requiring 2 separate checks)

and

b) a gap in non-proficient saves that increases from a base of 2 (+2 vs + 0) at level 1 to 6 (+6 vs + 0) at level 20.

So Fort (Con only), Ref (Dex only), Will (Wis) and a base + 2 differential that scales to + 6 at level 20. How is this not the 3.x save system (meaning 1 and 2 above are null) all over again? Am I missing something here?

 

[Skanderbeg]

To me the question of save disparity hinges on two things:
1. Are NPCs being built like PCs.
2. What is the spread of saves the PCs will have to face from the 5th ed bestiary?

Based on the current information I have available and doing some extrapolating from the play test (subject to the normal caveats), NPCs will not be built along the same formula as PCs. Most relevant to this thread is how will the saves NPCs force on PCs be formulated? Further will the spread of save DCs and what attribute will be used for those saves be more varied in the MM than in the spell list provided?

If NPCs are built along the same formula as PCs, by which their hit dice determines proficiency bonuses and saves that they force include that proficiency bonus, then the discrepancy between PC class saves is notable.

If the NPCs are using different rules than PCs and they continue the pattern from the Playtest bestiary then I will predict that the save discrepancy will not matter because save DCs overall will be comparatively low.

Someone with access to the Starter Set could give a better idea of whether or not NPCs are being built like PCs. I do not currently have access to it.

However neither of these cases matter if your group engages in PvP.

 

[Nagol]

Color me extremely puzzled. Two (I thought major) intentions of the design framework of 5e were:

1) all your Ability Scores as your Saving Throws

and

2) an engine predicated upon bounded math which keeps numbers (DCs and to hit DC modifiers) from proliferating wildly as the game progresses

Instead, we have

a) all spell saves (at least in the Basic rules) either Dex, Con, or Wisdom (with 2 - 3 outliers - such as Maze requiring in Intelligence check and Earthquake requiring 2 separate checks)

and

b) a gap in non-proficient saves that increases from a base of 2 (+2 vs + 0) at level 1 to 6 (+6 vs + 0) at level 20.

So Fort (Con only), Ref (Dex only), Will (Wis) and a base + 2 differential that scales to + 6 at level 20. How is this not the 3.x save system (meaning 1 and 2 above are null) all over again? Am I missing something here?

The rules presented seem oddly incoherent. The six saves are mentioned and areas where some could be used (illusions, I'm, looking at you) are instead adjudicated with skill checks instead.

The end result is a save system that resembles some of the worst aspects of 3e combined with ineffectual add-ons. It is sort-of what I would expect to see in a fantasy heart-breaker RPG.

If this were still a beta release, the mish-mash would be excusable as an area that still needs clean up. Now it may be this is really the final beta release and further change over the next few months will present a tighter system, but it isn't being billed as such.

 

[Obryn]

Oh. I must have missed those rules in the playtest. My apologies, then.

Can someone help me find these NPC rules in the playtest? I need to read up.

It was my reading of the various L&L articles. You're right, we have no NPC creation guidelines yet, which would somewhat but not entirely allay my concerns.

I know, however, that the MiBG priest had saving throws calculated like a PC, and there is a lich in the monster manual with DC 19 saves, as appropriate for its stats and level.

Basically, I've seen evidence that monster creation will use monster rules, whereas NPC creation may use simplified PC rules.

 

[Sadrik]

So Fort (Con only), Ref (Dex only), Will (Wis) and a base + 2 differential that scales to + 6 at level 20. How is this not the 3.x save system (meaning 1 and 2 above are null) all over again? Am I missing something here?

It is the exact 3e save system on the defenders side. For the spellcasters side it is a little different

For 3e:
Poor save scaled d20 + stat +0 to +6
Good save scaled d20 + stat +2 to +12

DCs
Spells were 10 + stat + spell level
Abilities were 10 + stat + 1/2HD

So looking at just the spell level vs the scaling
a 9th level spell vs +6 or +12 the spell was in the middle (+9). In other words for a poor save -3 + stat difference + 10 is the natural d20 roll needed to succeed.

Looking at 5e
Poor save scaled d20 + stat +0
Good save scaled d20 + stat +2 to +6

DCs
Spells are 10 + stat +0 to +4

So looking at just the spell level vs the scaling at 17th level bonus is +0 or +6 the spell is (+4). In other words for a poor save -4 + stat difference +10 is the natural d20 roll needed to succeed.

It is more exacerbated in 5e, granted the stat differences will not be as dramatic.

 

[Nagol]

It is the exact 3e save system on the defenders side. For the spellcasters side it is a little different

For 3e:
Poor save scaled d20 + stat +0 to +6
Good save scaled d20 + stat +2 to +12

DCs
Spells were 10 + stat + spell level
Abilities were 10 + stat + 1/2HD

So looking at just the spell level vs the scaling
a 9th level spell vs +6 or +12 the spell was in the middle (+9). In other words for a poor save -3 + stat difference + 10 is the natural d20 roll needed to succeed.

Looking at 5e
Poor save scaled d20 + stat +0
Good save scaled d20 + stat +2 to +6

DCs
Spells are 10 + stat +0 to +4

So looking at just the spell level vs the scaling at 17th level bonus is +0 or +6 the spell is (+4). In other words for a poor save -4 + stat difference +10 is the natural d20 roll needed to succeed.

It is more exacerbated in 5e, granted the stat differences will not be as dramatic.

Where it gets worse is there are more holes for the PCs to try to plug if the game does live up to the promise of using all six stats as saving throws. Four poor saving throw stats instead of two.

 

[Manbearcat]

The rules presented seem oddly incoherent. The six saves are mentioned and areas where some could be used (illusions, I'm, looking at you) are instead adjudicated with skill checks instead.

The end result is a save system that resembles some of the worst aspects of 3e combined with ineffectual add-ons. It is sort-of what I would expect to see in a fantasy heart-breaker RPG.

If this were still a beta release, the mish-mash would be excusable as an area that still needs clean up. Now it may be this is really the final beta release and further change over the next few months will present a tighter system, but it isn't being billed as such.

It is the exact 3e save system on the defenders side. For the spellcasters side it is a little different

<snip explanatory information>

It is more exacerbated in 5e, granted the stat differences will not be as dramatic.

Yeah. That is what I'm seeing. I would have thought that this would have been an extraordinarily easy mark to hit after they outlined those, very specific, design tenets. (1) Spread the "target must succeed on a < > saving throw" around such that there is relative parity between each ability score ST and (2) relax front-loaded ST proficiency + gradually intersperse non-primary ST proficiency as each class progresses. Mission accomplished.

Most unfortunate.

 

[Obryn]

If this were still a beta release, the mish-mash would be excusable as an area that still needs clean up. Now it may be this is really the final beta release and further change over the next few months will present a tighter system, but it isn't being billed as such.

I think it's a simple unintended side-effect of 5e's design evolution. Once they settled on the Proficiency Bonus as a universal "stuff you're good at" measure, the die was pretty much cast.