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

[UngeheuerLich]

So we just disagree. Keeping up with the spellcaster´s progression in bad saves sounds problematic to me.

I would be willing to increase all DC´s by 1 and give half proficiency bonus to bad saves. Good saves are most often in good stats for a class anyway. So it at least is a tradeoff of some kind, not just a caster nerf.

 

[S'mon]

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

Hurray!! Hurray!!

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

I don't much mind if the Archmage is so scary to the Fighter-20 PC that he'd rather not face him (it's not very in-genre IMO, but oh well). I do mind if the 3rd level caster is so scary to the Fighter-20 PC that he'd rather not face him. As written the 3rd level caster using Hold Person is as effective vs the F-20 as he is vs an F-3.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Sure, but easily getting there is a good thing

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.

I don't think 5E by RAW hits anything "always" or "to each DM's satisfaction".
One of the things I greatly appreciate about the system is the openness to customization.

 

[BryonD]

I don't much mind if the Archmage is so scary to the Fighter-20 PC that he'd rather not face him (it's not very in-genre IMO, but oh well). I do mind if the 3rd level caster is so scary to the Fighter-20 PC that he'd rather not face him. As written the 3rd level caster using Hold Person is as effective vs the F-20 as he is vs an F-3.

And I like that.

But this is cool. I'm not arguing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think 5E by RAW hits anything "always" or "to each DM's satisfaction".
One of the things I greatly appreciate about the system is the openness to customization.

Exactly. If we can't have good rules, we can at last have permission to fix them like we did in the olden days - which, really, can be a fascinating exercise.

And, it's nice being able to have threads like this without too many RAW-evangelists bombing it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So we just disagree. Keeping up with the spellcaster´s progression in bad saves sounds problematic to me.

So it at least is a tradeoff of some kind, not just a caster nerf.

Well, it would only be a caster nerf if it applied to monsters & NPCs, as well as to all the classes - or if PvP were a significant part of the campaign, of course.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't much mind if the Archmage is so scary to the Fighter-20 PC that he'd rather not face him (it's not very in-genre IMO, but oh well). I do mind if the 3rd level caster is so scary to the Fighter-20 PC that he'd rather not face him. As written the 3rd level caster using Hold Person is as effective vs the F-20 as he is vs an F-3.

No he isn't. Indomitable, remember? Choose a different example.

 

[clearstream]

The thing to do if you want to try a rules variant is template it onto a magical item with a finite duration and give that to the players. If it works out you can pull it into the core mechanics. For example, give the characters some lucky charms in their treasure. The lucky charms either last a month or count for half-a-dozen saving throws. In use, they add your proficiency to your saves. Playtesting beats theorycrafting, most of the time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, it would only be a caster nerf if it applied to monsters & NPCs, as well as to all the classes - or if PvP were a significant part of the campaign, of course.

Ah, only for PCs, not for NPCs built with the same rules. Yes, you can do it that way. But Still it seems too much. NPCs are weak enough in this edition. Maybe if you build encounters with more than one enemy wizard/cleric. But usually, at least in my campaigns, more than one enemy spellcaster is rare. Usually it is one spellcaster + fighting types. And I guess this is true for most campaigns. So it seems ok, that a high level enemy spellcaster will get through with his spells usually.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ah, only for PCs, not for NPCs built with the same rules. Yes, you can do it that way.

Well, if one were to create an 'important' NPC fully statted out like a PC, sure, it should benefit from all-good-saves - it'll probably need 'em if it's going to stand up to a party full of casters long enough to take an action.