D&D 5E Saving Throws

[GX.Sigma]

The character wouldn't be shrugging off 1st-level spells, he'd be shrugging off most effects that require saves. Remember how high-level 1e and 2e characters ended up needing a natural 1 to fail a save?

1e and 2e characters also ended up with THAC0 1 or 0. Hence flatter math in D&DN.

 

[JonWake]

I think I like that. Potent effects can just impose disadvantage on some saves. Weak effects give advantage. A fire-based mage might always have Advantage on saves against Fire based damage. Set the save DC to, say, 15 at 1st level, dropping by 1 every 3 levels or so... doable.
I'm going to try this out, see how it works for my group.

 

[Kraydak]

The first news in a long time that makes me optimistic about Next. Having played 1e, I know why the changes to saves happened in 3e. It is annoying for wizards to cast spells and have enemies save all the time. Having played 3e, I know that the changes were a horrible mistake: for purposes of game balance, I-win buttons, if they exist, need to fail most of the time. I've been wondering how Wizards was going to get out of the hole it had dug, because they were looking at needed to find an extra +15 to saves at level 20, but going back to Target-dependent-only saves does provide a neat way out.

We may actually be able to say something useful about caster/non-caster balance next packet!

 

[keterys]

Honestly, instead of it being based on target and scaling by level I think I'd rather just have everyone save on a 10+, regardless of level. You get stat points as you level, and very occasionally a small bonus, and that keeps the range closer to 50/50 with a small uptick as you get higher level.

It's definitely tricky to find a balance that is okay with "I make one save against the medusa that surprised me" and "I make 3 saves against the 3 different beholder eye rays this round." or "I make 36 saves against the 3 attacks from each of the 12 ghouls"

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The problem I have with the mechanic Mearls asked about is that it's a different mechanic than the rest of the system, and I'm very much not okay with diverging from the universal mechanic.

The core mechanic doesn't have to be d20 + modifiers versus DC based on difficulty of the task, but it absolutely must be unified across all subsystems.

This is the reason I'm not comfortable having an attack bonus, but no other static bonus to represent training. It's why I didn't like the skill die. Each of these is a fine mechanic by itself, but not within the same game.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Honestly, instead of it being based on target and scaling by level I think I'd rather just have everyone save on a 10+, regardless of level. You get stat points as you level, and very occasionally a small bonus, and that keeps the range closer to 50/50 with a small uptick as you get higher level.

Yeah, that sounds good to me.

I don't really see the need for save DCs to scale, since the effects already scale. Why do higher level threats need to hurt a lot more and be harder to avoid/resist?

 

[Li Shenron]

Honestly, instead of it being based on target and scaling by level I think I'd rather just have everyone save on a 10+, regardless of level.

Well in that case it's not "based on target" much anymore, so fine for me. But also in that case, I'd have monsters have sometimes harder to resist effects, so it wouldn't be always 10, sometimes more.

IOW, that brings us back to where we were. I don't in fact understand why changing it at all in the first place... what exactly is the benefit of their proposed change?

 

[Blackwarder]

The problem I have with the mechanic Mearls asked about is that it's a different mechanic than the rest of the system, and I'm very much not okay with diverging from the universal mechanic.

The core mechanic doesn't have to be d20 + modifiers versus DC based on difficulty of the task, but it absolutely must be unified across all subsystems.

This is the reason I'm not comfortable having an attack bonus, but no other static bonus to represent training. It's why I didn't like the skill die. Each of these is a fine mechanic by itself, but not within the same game.

Why? Why does having a universal mechanic is such a great idea? I think that adhering to the creed that universal mechanics is the holy grail is wrong, it force you to jump through loops to achieve your desired affects.

IMO, the universal mechanic of DnDNext should be "roll a die, any die" and every rule should use this in its own way.

Trying to force everything to use the same mechanic is the same as trying to build a tank that can also fly, carry a rifle squad and cross oceans on its own...

Warder

 

[Li Shenron]

Why? Why does having a universal mechanic is such a great idea?

Because it enlarges the game audience, obviously. The more rules are necessary to play the game, the less people play, because those who want more rules can easily add, but those who want less can't easily take away. It's the whole point why the designers have decided to publish a "lite" version of the game, but still stuff like saving throws are going to be needed in that Basic game.

 

[Klaus]

Why? Why does having a universal mechanic is such a great idea?

Because I remember the shift from 2e to 3e, where "one roll to rule them all" was received as the greatest improvement in D&D ever, with people saying "finally, an end to all those fiddly subsystems that you had to look up every time you tried something different!". No more THAC0, no more "rolling low is better" for ability checks/proficiencies, no more rolling d6 for surprise, d10 for initiative, d100 for system shock, etc, etc.