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

[I'm A Banana]

If caster save DC is 8+Prof+stat bonus then target non-Prof saves will get harder and harder at higher levels, much like 3e. I'm not a fan of this. Is there any reason not to give Proficiency in saves across the
board?

One of the more subtle effects is that it'll weaken half-casters and third-casters, favoring only full-casters. One of the things that 5e does is make low ability scores viable, and low saving throws is one of the ways it does that - someone who dabbles in magic can target a low save and still have a solid chance at success. If everyone gets a big save boost, it's no longer a smart choice to dabble in offensive casting that requires saving throws (so, most enchantments, a lot of evocations, etc.). You either specialize (so you can overcome their resistance) or you just don't bother.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One of the more subtle effects is that it'll weaken half-casters and third-casters, favoring only full-casters.

Unless the same change is made to monsters & NPCs, it has no effect on PC casters, at all.

And all casters get their full proficiency bonus to their save DCs, regardless of class level, 'caster level' (not really a thing in 5e, but I'm too used to 3.5 not to mention it), or spell level. In 3.5, not being a full caster meant having lower save DCs because you cast lower level spells, in 5e that's not an issue.

One of the things that 5e does is make low ability scores viable, and low saving throws is one of the ways it does that - someone who dabbles in magic can target a low save and still have a solid chance at success.

Doesn't seem like it's a terribly important aspect of making lower stats viable. For one thing, there are /many/ useful spells that don't give saves, anyway. For another, 5e has a stat cap and fairly generous stat increases, so if you are intent on casting spells that need a caster stat for DCs or attack rolls, you're probably going to invest in that stat, whether some of your targets might have proficient saves or not.

Finally, giving proficiency in all saves would go a long way towards making lower stats viable for /everyone/, not just half-casters. Even if the fear were better-founded, it'd be well worth it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

One of the more subtle effects is that it'll weaken half-casters and third-casters, favoring only full-casters. One of the things that 5e does is make low ability scores viable, and low saving throws is one of the ways it does that - someone who dabbles in magic can target a low save and still have a solid chance at success. If everyone gets a big save boost, it's no longer a smart choice to dabble in offensive casting that requires saving throws (so, most enchantments, a lot of evocations, etc.). You either specialize (so you can overcome their resistance) or you just don't bother.

Nitpick: 1/3 casters overcome by imposing disadvantage on saves against their spells: Eldritch Strike for fighters, that Mage Hand thing for arcane tricksters. I.e. they are already built to not rely on Int overly much.

Plus, S'mon isn't planning on modifying monsters' saves anyway. I don't love the house rule but I don't think it would weaken third casters significantly, and getting full prof in everything would probably help them more than it hurt. I just think it's bland.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Unless the same change is made to monsters & NPCs, it has no effect on PC casters, at all.

Right, this is presuming that monsters and NPC's get their proficiency bonus to all saves. If it's just PC's getting this bonus, this won't apply really (since NPC's have rather arbitrary ability scores anyway).

And all casters get their full proficiency bonus to their save DCs, regardless of class level, 'caster level' (not really a thing in 5e, but I'm too used to 3.5 not to mention it), or spell level. In 3.5, not being a full caster meant having lower save DCs because you cast lower level spells, in 5e that's not an issue.

That's not really what I'm pointing out here. Usually in 5e, having an INT of 14 and casting a spell with INT that requires a save isn't necessarily a bad choice. Someone proficient in the saves will probably succeed, but someone with an average INT who isn't proficient won't necessarily. So it is still useful for someone with, say, their Strength as their highest score but with a "respectable" Int to cast a an INT-based spell requiring a save. Or you can be a dwarf wizard and be fine. Or whatever. Even at high levels, that one enchantment you can cast can be pretty effective.

This change (applied to the PC spellcaster's targets) means that this is a worse choice - unless you have a high ability score bonus, it's not often worth your time to do anything with the ability score, since the resistances are so high. You're better off not bothering with that INT 14 spell save if every warrior, wolf, and wight has their proficiency bonus to it, since it's not likely to work. This means that, presuming strategic players, spellcasters will be dedicated spellcasters, and those who are not dedicated spellcasters will mostly not cast any spells. And with nonstrategic players, those who cast save spells without having a high spellcasting ability modifier will waste a lot of turns.

Doesn't seem like it's a terribly important aspect of making lower stats viable. For one thing, there are /many/ useful spells that don't give saves, anyway. For another, 5e has a stat cap and fairly generous stat increases, so if you are intent on casting spells that need a caster stat for DCs or attack rolls, you're probably going to invest in that stat, whether some of your targets might have proficient saves or not.

Well, that's what I'm saying - standard 5e, you don't need to invest in that stat if you don't want to. Dabble in spellcasting with a 14 INT and your spells don't become magically useless as you gain levels. With this rule, that's less viable.

Might not be a major concern with S'mon's idea of not allowing feats or multiclassing, anyway, though.

Finally, giving proficiency in all saves would go a long way towards making lower stats viable for /everyone/, not just half-casters. Even if the fear were better-founded, it'd be well worth it.

Actually, I think this labors under the preconception that proficiency bonus to saving throws is required to be "viable." That's something of a hold-over from the pre-4e days when spells could frickin' end you on a single failed roll. It's not as big of a deal to fail a save in 5e. Viable characters might still get affected most of the time when their weak saves are targeted.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, I think this labors under the preconception that proficiency bonus to saving throws is required to be "viable."

If you have a low stat at low level, lack of proficiency to saves makes only a small difference - even if you were proficient, you're going to fail quite a bit. At high level, they do, indeed, make the low stat a more profound liability. A typical low-level DC is 13. Proficiency makes the difference between a -1 and a +1 for a character with an 8 stat. Save on a 12 vs save on a 14. At highest levels the save gets as high as 19. A natural 20 would be required for that 8-stat character. With proficiency, he's still worse off than he was vs a same-level threat at first, now he needs a 14 instead of a 12. Worse, but not a lot worse. Without proficiency, he'd have to boost his stat quite a bit to have any chance of making saves, making the low stat 'less viable,' indeed.

You an call those numbers a preconception if you want, I'd say they're just a reality.

I mean, consider a multiple-save effect like Hold Person. If you need a natural 20 (and, if the NPC caster's DC is 19, it's 19 for all his spells, even the trivial little low-level ones), you're not just failing 'most of the time' - even advantage barely helps you at all. You'd be lucky to break out of a Hold Person in 10 rounds.

 

[S'mon]

If you have a low stat at low level, lack of proficiency to saves makes only a small difference - even if you were proficient, you're going to fail quite a bit. At high level, they do, indeed, make the low stat a more profound liability. A typical low-level DC is 13. Proficiency makes the difference between a -1 and a +1 for a character with an 8 stat. Save on a 12 vs save on a 14. At highest levels the save gets as high as 19. A natural 20 would be required for that 8-stat character. With proficiency, he's still worse off than he was vs a same-level threat at first, now he needs a 14 instead of a 12. Worse, but not a lot worse. Without proficiency, he'd have to boost his stat quite a bit to have any chance of making saves, making the low stat 'less viable,' indeed.

You an call those numbers a preconception if you want, I'd say they're just a reality.

I mean, consider a multiple-save effect like Hold Person. If you need a natural 20 (and, if the NPC caster's DC is 19, it's 19 for all his spells, even the trivial little low-level ones), you're not just failing 'most of the time' - even advantage barely helps you at all. You'd be lucky to break out of a Hold Person in 10 rounds.

Yes, that's my thinking. At 17th+ level even a Prof +6 'mere' stat 14 caster imposes a DC 16 save DC, with the non-prof 17th stat 10 character needing a 16 to save. Vs a more typical Prof +6 stat 20 he needs a 19+, and many foes will be monsters with stats over 20, so even stuff like 'hold person' is deadly, never mind 'meteor swarm'!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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...

You are mixing what I said:

spell DCs do scale with levels, but no other effects of the spells.
While in 3e, a fireball scaled by increasing its damage potential, in 5e it scales by increasing its "to hit".
If it did both it was overpowered, if it did neither, it was underpowered.

Both scale, but differently.

5 damage dice or 8 damage dice does not matter. In 3.x at level 10, a failed save is as bad as a successful save was at level 5. (Not counting your increased hp maximum)
In 5e, at level 10 the spell is a little bit harder to resist for someone not proficient. The caster actually gets better in what he does best: affecting someone with spells. The suggested +0 to +4 to saves will cancel caster progression. If the designer wanted that scaling, the DC would have been 10+proficiency bonus and good saves would have gained a +2 bonus to saves. But that would make DC vs save bonus a treadmill which was to be avoided in this edition.

Are some spells problematic, because of the single save mechanic? Yes!
Are some spells unfair against certain kinds of monsters? Also yes! (Int save vs animals)
Is it a problem with te saving throw system? No! Those spells need a different save mechanic. Maybe a hp treshold or something like that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

spell DCs do scale with levels, but no other effects of the spells.
While in 3e, a fireball scaled by increasing its damage potential, in 5e it scales by increasing its "to hit".

In 5e it scales with slot, and you get more & higher slots as you level. That reduces the 'Quadratic Wizard' problem of 3.5 (and earlier), when you scaled with level and got more slots as you leveled.

There's no need to 'make up' the lack of damage scaling by picking on poor saves, because there is no lack of damage scaling: the caster keeps getting higher and higher level slots.

In 5e, at level 10 the spell is a little bit harder to resist for someone not proficient.

Which is an issue, because it's fallen from a top-level spell to a mid-level spell. It is supposed to be getting, relatively, less effective not more.

The suggested +0 to +4 to saves will cancel caster progression.

No, it will just keep the progression from snowballing. As the caster levels he gets more and more powerful spells, if all his spells also became harder for same-level characters to resist, he'd be flirting with the 'Quadratic Wizard' issue, again.

If the designer wanted that scaling...

The designer comes right out and says he wants us to use the rules as a starting point. When answering the question 'is there a reason not to give everyone save proficiency,' the objection 'well, if they were meant to the designer would've given them that,' isn't relevant. This edition is open to house rules and variants.

I'm seeing mainly positives with this one. It means PCs aren't forced to spend ASI's on stats that are contrary to character concept, just to avoid becoming overly vulnerable when they have to save with that stat. It means high level PCs, at least, get to feel a little bit more heroic after 20 levels of death-defying adventures. It makes it a little less likely that one PC will sit out the whole level 20 capstone climactic battle because he needs a natural 19 to come out from under some low-level effect a flunky dropped on him.

The only downside is it removes one of various arbitrary mechanical distinctions used to differentiate classes this time around. It's not a big one, but the +2 for good saves, +4 more to all saves over 20 levels (prof-4 for non-prof saves), idea takes care of that.

Are some spells unfair against certain kinds of monsters?

Don't care, really. Monsters don't need to have classes or be statted out like PCs, and DMs are certainly free to change 'em or make up their own. They can have appallingly bad saves in one or more areas if the DM wants - or not.

 

[BryonD]

I mean, consider a multiple-save effect like Hold Person. If you need a natural 20 (and, if the NPC caster's DC is 19, it's 19 for all his spells, even the trivial little low-level ones), you're not just failing 'most of the time' - even advantage barely helps you at all. You'd be lucky to break out of a Hold Person in 10 rounds.

Hurray!!! Magic can be scary and something to be avoided rather than overcome!!!

Hurray!! Hurray!!

(Just my opinion, I respect other opinions on this)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hurray!!! Magic can be scary and something to be avoided rather than overcome!!!

The DM has a lot of latitude in how he sets up monsters and NPCs, so if he wants to, he can make meaningful challenges the PCs face just exactly as scary as he wants, yes.

However, the variant under discussion would keep low-level, common-place (in the context of the adventuring party) PC-available magic from /staying/ that scary even at the highest levels. Bounded accuracy aims for low-level stuff staying a little bit of a threat even as it's supplanted by higher-level threats, not getting more and more threatening as you level up. 5e's lose design may not always hit what it aims at to each DM's satisfaction, so it's open to fine-tuning.