D&D 5E Any reason not to let PCs add Proficiency to all Saves?

[Mouseferatu]

Almost every spell that does something other than cause a single quantity of damage allows not just one save, but multiple. Save every round to end.

As things already stand, it's trivially easy for anyone proficient in a save to make that save most of the time. The only time these spells/effects are ever worth using is when you can target a non-proficient save, and even then you're only likely to get a few rounds out of it.

When it comes to damaging spells/effects, 5E allows for the bounded accuracy of attack modifiers and AC by making damage and hit points the traits that advance dramatically as you level. Granting everyone good saves dramatically knocks down the damage potential of a great many high-level monsters. You have literally, by the rules, made them lower CR monsters.

Could all the above be mitigated with additional house rules? Sure. But taken on their own? Well, as always, play how you want, but you're tipping combat, almost across the board, in favor of the PCs, and not by a trivial degree. That strikes me as quite un-1E, honestly.

 

[S'mon]

Could all the above be mitigated with additional house rules? Sure. But taken on their own? Well, as always, play how you want, but you're tipping combat, almost across the board, in favor of the PCs, and not by a trivial degree. That strikes me as quite un-1E, honestly.

Well, you never saw my 1e campaign - we used Unearthed Arcana...

Edit: Raise Dead won't generally be available either, so again a low PC death rate is desirable.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm running 5e online on Dragonsfoot chat with all the dials turned as far over to 1e as possible. That's why I'm not using feats or skills (technically: PCs know all class skills) or the 3e-style multiclassing, and why PCs get better at all their saves. Also the PC groups are likely to be small, 2-3 PCs per session, and often all-martial types.

A couple failed saves could easily be a TPK - and I don't do fudging etc, and it's a status-quo sandbox game, so I want to give them a fighting chance with a reasonable degree of mechanical protection.

Edit: Also, house rule that hit points can go negative, so a downed PC can't be bounced back up by a bit of healing 4e style.

I understand that, but 1e wasn't big on fighter versatility either. So I guess I just don't understand the problem, you're replicating your favored edition with a different edition (instead of actually playing your favored edition, something that confuses me to begin with) and then lamenting its limitations (of which 1e's are well known) while refusing to use the available solutions, and considering house rules in their place. The feats are there to give them the option of having exactly what you want: a fighting chance with a reasonable degree of mechanical protection.

 

[SteveC]

I really like a slight modification for this idea: give everyone the bonus that increases as you level but not the basic +2, so characters with a proficiency at a save are better at it.

I suggest this because otherwise you'll consistently get worse at any saves you're not proficient with as you level, which hearkens back to the 3X days with the slow save progressions getting worse over time.

To me it's counter intuitive that you actually get worse at something as you level up. By this I mean you get worse at making saves that are an appropriate challenge for your level. Obviously a 10 DC save is the same difficulty over time, but lets be honest: as you level up, the baseline for saves goes up.

 

[Gadget]

I agree with Mouseferatu, the comparison to 1e is not apt. Sure, high level fighters in 1e saved against almost anything (and had magic items to handle other situations), but if a 1e spell did land (particularly a higher level spell) you were really screwed. There was no save every round and such, and with 5e's reduced emphasis on SOD and SOS type spells, I don't think the comparison really holds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really like a slight modification for this idea: give everyone the bonus that increases as you level but not the basic +2, so characters with a proficiency at a save are better at it.

Like good & bad saves in 3e, only not as bad? It's better than nothing.

Nothing is really pretty bad, BTW. A non-proficient save can languish at 0 or even -1 forever. At 1st level, when no one has a 20 and PC save DCs are likely 13, monsters forcing saves might only have a 10 or 12 - it's not so bad, it's tough to roll a 13 or so to save, but not hopeless. But save DCs steadily climb, getting as as high as 19. Having even a +4 over 20 levels to partially offset that would be a small help.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The comparison with 3.x is dangerous:

in 3.x, a fireball was twice as powerful at level 10 than it was at level 5. So if even if you made your save at level 10, you still were damaged as much as you were at a level 5 failed save.
Your bad saves in 3.x really fell behind. Which in fireball´s case was really ok, as it did quite low damage compared to 2nd edition (even if it worked exactly the same... hp effectively were much higher in 3.x than in ADnD). Falling behind in will saves was killing you instantly however... You got better in saving against low level spells, but you really fell behind against the highest spells.
now it is different: spells don´t scale with level, you get a save against disabling effects usually every round, or even more often.
The few save or suck spells rather need to be fixed than the saving throw system changed.

The only thing I would like to be reviewed: Not only should the same spell effect not stack, but also the same non spell magical effect, like ghoul paralysis. This way, you only have to make a single save, even if you were hit by multiple ghouls. (This would also fix the multiple paladin aura stacking issue)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The comparison with 3.x is dangerous:

Seem pretty comparable to me. Though, really, /all/ I compared was the +0-3 bad save progression in 3.5, to the suggested +0-4 bonus (prof-2) in 5e.

Mostly I just talked about how bad it was not to have proficiency in a save, at all... and it's really pretty bad. At high level, a completely-neglected save is a virtual auto-fail. Proficiency wouldn't make it 50/50, you'd still probably need to roll a 13 or 14, but at least that's not /worse/ than what you needed to save vs a same-level threat at low level.

in 3.x, a fireball was twice as powerful at level 10 than it was at level 5. So if even if you made your save at level 10, you still were damaged as much as you were at a level 5 failed save.

That's 5d vs 10d, yes. OTOH, the 5e fireball does 8d at both levels - and, the 5e save DC goes up as you level, even if you're using the same slot.

Your bad saves in 3.x really fell behind....You got better in saving against low level spells, but you really fell behind against the highest spells.
now it is different: spells don´t scale with level, you get a save against disabling effects usually every round, or even more often.

Actually, spell DCs /do/ scale with level, so a bad save in 5e is just as bad against low-level spells from high-level casters as high level spells, which hurts worse than it did in 3.5...

The multiple saves thing started with 3.5 Hold Person. Not that 3.5 wasn't loaded with full-on SoDs, nor that they're entirely absent from 5e.

The only thing I would like to be reviewed: Not only should the same spell effect not stack, but also the same non spell magical effect, like ghoul paralysis. This way, you only have to make a single save, even if you were hit by multiple ghouls. (This would also fix the multiple paladin aura stacking issue)

That's a very easy change for a DM to make - and it can be couched as being to 'make bookkeeping easier.'

 

[Tormyr]

Seem pretty comparable to me. Though, really, /all/ I compared was the +0-3 bad save progression in 3.5, to the suggested +0-4 bonus (prof-2) in 5e.

Mostly I just talked about how bad it was not to have proficiency in a save, at all... and it's really pretty bad. At high level, a completely-neglected save is a virtual auto-fail. Proficiency wouldn't make it 50/50, you'd still probably need to roll a 13 or 14, but at least that's not /worse/ than what you needed to save vs a same-level threat at low level.


That's 5d vs 10d, yes. OTOH, the 5e fireball does 8d at both levels - and, the 5e save DC goes up as you level, even if you're using the same slot.

Actually, spell DCs /do/ scale with level, so a bad save in 5e is just as bad against low-level spells from high-level casters as high level spells, which hurts worse than it did in 3.5...

The multiple saves thing started with 3.5 Hold Person. Not that 3.5 wasn't loaded with full-on SoDs, nor that they're entirely absent from 5e.

That's a very easy change for a DM to make - and it can be couched as being to 'make bookkeeping easier.'

Some of what you have pointed out makes me think that there is a second system of steadily increasing saves for non proficient characters. Hit points. Much like the save vs. sleep spell is more hit points. The advantage that higher level characters have on their non-proficient saves that keeps going up each level is hit points. So while the fireball gets harder to dodge, the fighter (or even the wizard) can weather the effects more readily.

This does not help with spells that don't do damage, but most of those are ongoing and keep offering additional chances to save vs. spell.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some of what you have pointed out makes me think that there is a second system of steadily increasing saves for non proficient characters. Hit points. Much like the save vs. sleep spell is more hit points.

There certainly is. Compared, say, to 1e, where you stopped getting HD at name level, or to 4e where you didn't get CON bonus added to your hps every level.

Compared to 3.5, though, hp progression is very similar, with a HD + Con mod every level.