D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Obryn]

After many pages, I think Obryn found the core of the discussion, and why there's so much disagreement here.

Two reasonable people who want to pretend to be elves can answer these questions differently. Different answers have cascading effects on the system for elf-pretending.

Thaumaturge.

That's only half the issue.

The other half is, "why aren't characters getting any better on their 'bad' saves?"

I think it's dandy for wizards' spells to get harder to resist. It's the other side of the coin that's inadequate here - the fellow who's trying not to be dominated.

 

[Stalker0]

The issue, is rather, with save or suck. Dominate and Hold are the two stand outs, although Otto's also deserves an honourable mention.

Ottos I don't think is as bad because technically you can still attack, even with disadvantage. So a dancing fighter can pull a bow and try to disrupt the caster.

That I have less issue with, as you are still actively trying to overcome the effects. Dominate and Hold would require someone else to intervene to do the same.

 

[Thaumaturge]

That's only half the issue.

The other half is, "why aren't characters getting any better on their 'bad' saves?"

Well, I'd say, to keep the question consistent with the others, the next question is "should characters get better on their 'bad' saves?". Which is another thing reasonable elf-pretenders can disagree on.

Just to add another piece to the discussion, I saw this exchange on twitter:

@mikemearls seems like a lot of people are upset that there are now 6 saves but really only 3 are used. Plans to address this in the PHB?

@pokereleran the saves are a DM tool as much as anything. That said, we handed out skill proficiencies knowing there is a disparity.

I'm guessing Mearls said "skill" when he meant "save".

Thaumaturge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The issue, is rather, with save or suck. Dominate and Hold are the two stand outs, although Otto's also deserves an honourable mention.

And many of those can be counter-acted just as swiftly (if not more so) than damage.

Second, why should the fighter be "literally as weak to it as the game will allow"? It is that narrative for the fighter that I, at least, am critical of. I don't think it's consistent with the tradition of the game, I don't think it fits with the genre literature, and I don't think it adds anything to the game.

It's opt in. Your fighter doesn't HAVE to be. You get plenty of chances to change that narrative, from character creation through to every ability bump you get (especially after maxing your STR -- which is hardly vital, here in Bounded Accuracy land).

But if what you want is that thick dullard with the 8 WIS, you can do that. And you should be able to do that. If the character you want to play is a reckless, oblivious, thickheaded fighter (or rogue or wizard or possibly even cleric) that should be fine, too. And it is, since, as I pointed out, failing a save isn't the end of the world (typically, it's a speedbump).

 

[BryonD]

Second, why should the fighter be "literally as weak to it as the game will allow"? It is that narrative for the fighter that I, at least, am critical of. I don't think it's consistent with the tradition of the game, I don't think it fits with the genre literature, and I don't think it adds anything to the game.

So every time someone thinks something doesn't add to the game it should be removed? (or just you)

Because, again, I've been gaming for a long time with a wide range of players and, collectively, we strongly disagree with you.
There is no need for you to like it in the least.
But this persistent entitled attitude that you need to have a matter of taste proven to you to the extent it convinces you before something is acceptable is not constructive.

If you really hate it that much. Don't play it. A whole lot of people proved that example with 4E. It can be done.

On the other hand, I think looking at Basic V0.1 as the definitive version of 5E is unwise. I expect you will be able to constrain the game as much as you desire. So just wait for it.

If I was limited to 0.1 exactly it would a total deal breaker. But I'm really looking forward to the ability to build on this.

 

[The Hitcher]

Is it really inconsistent with genre literature for the heroic warrior to fall victim to the wizard's magic, before then breaking free (often with the help of an ally) and slaying them? The fact is that drama *requires* failure before success in order for that success to mean anything. So called "save or suck" spells are by their nature a more distinctive and dramatic setback for a character to suffer than losing a chunk of hit points. And D&D has always required teamwork in order to overcome setbacks and achieve success.

Here's an idea: why don't we all go off and play a campaign from 1st to 20th level, ending in a battle with a grand evil wizard? Then we can come back and discuss this from the perspective of actual play experience, rather than speculating obsessively.

See you in a year.

 

[Obryn]

Is it really inconsistent with genre literature for the heroic warrior to fall victim to the wizard's magic, before then breaking free (often with the help of an ally) and slaying them? The fact is that drama *requires* failure before success in order for that success to mean anything. So called "save or suck" spells are by their nature a more distinctive and dramatic setback for a character to suffer than losing a chunk of hit points. And D&D has always required teamwork in order to overcome setbacks and achieve success.

Where you're losing me is, when does the wizard get that heroic struggle and failure.

I think you're dramatically misconstruing the argument here, that the folks who are saying "Hey, maybe this isn't so good?" just fear failure.

 

[Bluenose]

Is it really inconsistent with genre literature for the heroic warrior to fall victim to the wizard's magic, before then breaking free (often with the help of an ally) and slaying them?

If the genre of D&D is D&D, then yes, it is inconsistent with how it should work, because all versions of D&D prior to 3e made the high level Fighter very good at resisting magic. If the genre is not D&D, well then we need to identify what it is and start using the relevant tropes from that - and that's going to mean a lot of changes.

 

[Branduil]

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a feat that let you add, say, half your proficiency bonus to a save of your choice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is it really inconsistent with genre literature for the heroic warrior to fall victim to the wizard's magic, before then breaking free (often with the help of an ally) and slaying them? The fact is that drama *requires* failure before success in order for that success to mean anything. So called "save or suck" spells are by their nature a more distinctive and dramatic setback for a character to suffer than losing a chunk of hit points. And D&D has always required teamwork in order to overcome setbacks and achieve success.

Can you give use some examples from fiction of this happening, in combat? I can't think of any, off-hand. All the examples I can think of which are similar are either:

1) Warrior's force of will/cunning defeats the wizard in a sort of mental duel (not possible in D&D, would be cool if it was).

2) Warrior or other is not actually trapped by a spell, but is prevented from acting by fear or injury, and overcomes it - often in seeing a companion harmed (again not possible in D&D, would be cool if it was - I'd love to see a Fighter ability, for example, to auto-save on a CC spell if a companion was injured - it'd need to be auto, though, due to the maths involved).

Here's an idea: why don't we all go off and play a campaign from 1st to 20th level, ending in a battle with a grand evil wizard? Then we can come back and discuss this from the perspective of actual play experience, rather than speculating obsessively.

See you in a year.

This argument is disingenuous and facile, a remarkable combination.

Firstly, the saves aren't likely to be a big problem from 1-10 - they'll be at a fairly normal spread there. So that's not producing useful data. Hence a "1-20" campaign does not produce useful data. 11-20 is where the data will become more useful. It will be most useful in the 15-20 range.

Now, another facile argument usually follows, that being that "no-one plays those levels". Not only is this not true, of course, but if they aren't intended to be played, that should be specified in the design, and I'm quite certain the opposite is intended with 5E.

Finally, as we've already seen the results of a similar spread, in 5E, and understand the math, it's not particularly reaching to suggest we basically understand the situation.

The main complicating factor is a known known, not an unknown. That being that many of the nasty CC spells (but not the damage ones) can be broken by damage causing the caster to fail a Conc check. That's a big factor in reducing the problem, and needs to be taken into account by arguments in any direction.

So to analyze this we need to look at damage outputs from PCs and monsters at the levels where it is expected to be an issue. We also need to look at defences. If a caster can continually avoid being hit, he can avoid having his Conc broken. Neither of these factors requires a 1-20 campaign or a year of play. They do kind of require more details on the monsters we'll see from 11-20, though. So it's more like "wait for the MM". It's reasonable to assert that there is likely to be something of an issue with PC-style NPC casters, though, at this stage.