D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Sadras]

I pick the system that best matches my desired experience at the table. To do that, you have to grok the systems available.

Yeah, just to clarify, I'm not knocking yours or @Manbearcat's approach at all and it does seem that you play a lot more varied RPGs than I do. I'm just stunned this level of preparation exists beforehand. My time sink happens during prepping adventures/sessions, never at detailed class analysis unless I have to, due to drawing up classed opponents for a combat encounter.

I usually envy the DMs that have the ability to run an adventure/session on the fly, but I never imagined there were DMs that took prepping a step further than my style by "combing" each classes DPR before play. It's good, but the older I get the less 'work load' I personally desire from the hobby.
Call me lazy!

 

[Nagol]

I do similar to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]. Math and design are important. They drive the play experience and stories that emerge at the table, so can't be ignored.

Now there are some other elements to 5e spellcasting that only look emergent during play - like concentration and flex casting. I don't think those can be mathed out so cleanly, so I'll need to rely on trusted opinions or see them in play.

Honestly, getting the math right is one of a designer's biggest jobs.

The spell system will defy strict mathematical analysis. There are reasonably inferred consequences to concentration.

Concentration will limit the number of modifiers floating around in a combat so that part is good from a clean understanding.

It will also probably dis-incent the spell casters from taking buffs to help other characters. I consider that a poor consequence.

Concentration will also tend to incent direct damage and other effects that aren't so flimsy so casters are less likely to be 4e style controllers and more likely to be blasters.

The rest of the system is harder to discuss without more information like assumed levels of activity per day, etc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't do it before choosing to play a certain class. But I certainly do it before GMing a system so that my own expectations of play output coincide tightly with what the game engine actually produces (and hopefully transparently promises to produce).

That is even before considering whether or not I like what it produces and how it does so.

This!

I don't think I've ever done a DPR analysis of a class I was intending to play (though I have planned out progression before and so on, but that's not the same sort of thing), because it's rarely a major driver in deciding to play a class (usually the theme/style will be - so long as it's at least pretty solid, mechanically). But when I'm DMing I want to know this stuff, because I don't like weird mechanical surprises, and I like to know what the system is going to make "a good idea", mechanically (because in long-term play, that info will inevitably become clear to the players).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I missed the last 10 pages or so, so this might have already been brought up.

One thing that really limits the effects of save or suck spells is that a lot (most?) of them now require concentration. And this isn't your Next concentration, this is your 5e concentration, where damage has a really good chance of ruining it. In fact, as characters progress in level, they become more and more likely to fail their concentration checks due to DCs outpacing modifier.

So while it becomes progressively harder to resist save or suck spells as the levels get higher, it also becomes progressively easier to recover from it.

All in all, it seems like the system has become more dynamic and rewards careful planning, but the overall effects appear similar. There are just a whole lot less outright "whiffs" and a whole lot more "then take that!"

Buffs and debuffs seem much less effective in 5e. I find myself having a hard time choosing which to prepare. Since you can only have one, not even one of each, and their effects aren't really more expansive than in prior editions, I feel pretty limited.

That difficulty, combined with the pumped damage on direct damage attacks actually makes spells like fireball into highly appealing and effective options again (which, according to early articles, was part of the intent).

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I do like restoring the value of the classic spells I grew up with, rather than sticking them off into the 'unoptimized newb' category of options. I also love a style of play where things usually have a high chance working, and it is more about an intelligent chess style of choices than about always crossing your fingers and hoping you roll well and they roll poorly.

On the other hand, I think the final incarnation of the concentration rules is so overly punitive that it seems like it's just not worth the effort. Now using buffs and debuffs effectively is going to require really knowing and gaming the system, or it is going to be the new 'unoptimized newb' option. "Hey that spell looks really cool!" "Don't bother. You'll never be able to use it effectively anyway. Just prep fireballs and ice storms if you want to be effective." Even a bit of experience isn't going to keep buffs and debuffs on par with direct attacks.

So, hopefully I'm mistaken, and a bit of experience increases the usefulness of buffs and debuffs so that they become a competitive (but not superior) option to direct blasting. That's probably the ideal scenario. For a new player, blasting is your simplest and best option. The spells look effective, and they are. For an experienced player, you can be as effective with buffs and debuffs, but you aren't more effective. You are just effective differently, so its a matter of how you want to play your character.

 

[Essenti]

If weak saving throws improve by Proficiency Bonus minus 2, the math stays nicely flat, and only requires that you pump a weak save by +2 (or 3-4 ability points) to stay current by level 20, and thus maintain the same success ratio. If you pump a weak save to max 20 at level 20, you only end up with 55% save, which seems fairly reasonable to me.

On the other hand, as a DM, you can just ensure that the PCs don't encounter char-op'd casters, and the weak saves would be much less of an issue.

 

[TwoSix]

So, hopefully I'm mistaken, and a bit of experience increases the usefulness of buffs and debuffs so that they become a competitive (but not superior) option to direct blasting. That's probably the ideal scenario. For a new player, blasting is your simplest and best option. The spells look effective, and they are. For an experienced player, you can be as effective with buffs and debuffs, but you aren't more effective. You are just effective differently, so its a matter of how you want to play your character.

But isn't the best option to do both? Pick the most effective buff/debuff for the situation, maintain that, stay out of the line of fire and start blasting! The 5e spell system supports that by allowing you to blast with most of your spell slots but only having to prepare a relative few.

Additonally, I wouldn't be surprised to see bards get some class features that support two buff spells at once, or a bard song + spell buff simultaneously.

 

[Nagol]

One thing that really limits the effects of save or suck spells is that a lot (most?) of them now require concentration. And this isn't your Next concentration, this is your 5e concentration, where damage has a really good chance of ruining it. In fact, as characters progress in level, they become more and more likely to fail their concentration checks due to DCs outpacing modifier.

So while it becomes progressively harder to resist save or suck spells as the levels get higher, it also becomes progressively easier to recover from it.

All in all, it seems like the system has become more dynamic and rewards careful planning, but the overall effects appear similar. There are just a whole lot less outright "whiffs" and a whole lot more "then take that!"

It becomes somewhat easier to recover from it so long as you have a bunch of very violent friends near by willing to help out. Splitting the party and solo adventures become very problematic at higher levels.

As for the rest...

The spell system will defy strict mathematical analysis. There are reasonably inferred consequences to concentration.

Concentration will limit the number of modifiers floating around in a combat so that part is good from a clean understanding.

It will also probably dis-incent the spell casters from taking buffs to help other characters. I consider that a poor consequence.

Buffs and debuffs seem much less effective in 5e. I find myself having a hard time choosing which to prepare. Since you can only have one, not even one of each, and their effects aren't really more expansive than in prior editions, I feel pretty limited.

Concentration will also tend to incent direct damage and other effects that aren't so flimsy so casters are less likely to be 4e style controllers and more likely to be blasters.

That difficulty, combined with the pumped damage on direct damage attacks actually makes spells like fireball into highly appealing and effective options again (which, according to early articles, was part of the intent).

It is nice to get confirmation

 

[Manbearcat]

You definitely do a lot of homework on the system beforehand instead of discovery through play.

I suspect that is true for most folks who have GMed a lot of different games and enjoy D&D but aren't entirely wedded to it. I can't speak for @Obryn , @Ruin Explorer , and @Nagol , but when it comes to evaluating a system, I'm looking for very specific features which will tell me what the system is trying to do and how well it does it. Amongst those things I'm looking for is how robust the mathematical framework is that underwrites the in-play outcomes when PC build components meet the resolution mechanics. That is the real zoomed-out, top-down view of it. Bottom line is that there are a lot of cogs in that machinery that have to play nice with one another if they're going to produce outcomes that I (the GM) can reliably predict (within a reasonable margin of error) when I'm building challenges for my players. Whats more, I want the genre tropes that I expect to manifest from those conflicts to come alive as a result of my players advocating for their PCs as hard as they can, me pushing back with adversity to the same degree, and the system supporting us both in the (genre-coherent) resolution of those conflicts (rather than working against us). If the system says dynamic, swashbuckling awesome (!) on the tin, that better naturally come out in play (without me shoehorning it).

Relevant to the above is "what does the math say about genre archetypes/conceits that the game promotes?" Let us say the math is tuned the way the designers have intended and we run 100 various combats (with all manner of variables involved so we get a good cross-section). If the Concentration mechanics + the Fighter's suite of abilities (eg Indomitable) + the saving throw system (eg a crap to average Will save at best) spits out a Fighter that is made chump (scared, foolish, or mental fortitude just plain easily subordinated) by NPC spellcasters/beguilers/fearing guys at a 50/50 clip, that promotes specific genre expectations. If the 50 % of the time that the Fighter survives the attack vs Will yields that the Wizard routinely escapes or turns the tables due to some uber-spellcasting contingency, that pushes genre expectations further down a specific path. Alternatively, if the Fighter can routinely survive that first SoS vs Will salvo (maybe 80 % of the time) and that pretty much always means that a can is going to be opened on the Wizard, that supports an entirely different genre expectation.

Beyond that, the homework I do is mostly about "does this system coherently produce the types of thematic conflict we're interested in engaging with, the relevant genre conceits we expect to naturally emerge as a product of play, and is it robust to the pace of play I push the action towards?"

 

[Cybit]

From someone currently engaged in high level shenanigans...

1) the Indomitable nerf makes my players a little sad, alas.
2) Magic Items definitely help with some of these issues; but it depends if your DM uses magic items (I imagine at 20th level players should have magic items in most games)
3) Casters are going to DESPISE concentration; the save issue you bring up for fighters also smacks many casters in the face; that DC 10 Con save gets annoying the fourth or fifth time you have to make it in a row because of AoE damage, or repeated attacks.
4) Save or Suck spells are surprisingly weaker in play than in theory; that "one save per round" bit is very brutal, very quickly. Dominate Person, for instance, is an 5th level spell that requires the CASTER to use their own actions in order to command their target precisely. Also, should you use it to fight someone, they get a save for each time they take damage. Not each round. Each time. Otto's, for instance, requires the caster be within 30 feet to cast it.

Also, heaven help someone play an elf or some other race that gets benefits to charm.

So far, we haven't had too many issues at high level play. The rocket tag aspect definitely has diminished. Think we're going up to 18th; so I'll let folks know how it goes as we get higher.

 

[Quartz]

I've likely missed it, but while we've talked about the weakness of high-level fighters to high-level wizards, what about the reverse? Because if high-level wizards are weak to high-level fighters, then there's a balance there.

Take a fighter with the duellist or GWF styles: at 20th level, he can attack 5 times (assuming d8+2+5 or d10+5) if he uses Action Surge. That's about 60 HP damage assuming all attacks hit. A 20th level wizard has an average of 74 HP without Con bonus. That's a credible threat. Even with a +2 Con bonus, the wizard is still going down on the second round.

It's not quite save or suck, but very near.