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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Maybe. But he hopefully has some allies and is not surprised by the PCs. A little +1 here or there won´t make a difference if PC´s gain surprise and can concentrate fire on the enemy.
I would go with better stats overall for the npc. Should fulfil the same purpose.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe. But he hopefully has some allies and is not surprised by the PCs. A little +1 here or there won´t make a difference if PC´s gain surprise and can concentrate fire on the enemy.

If it won't make a difference - even in the corner case of applying the variant to an important NPC that the DM chooses not to just stat, arbitrarily, with whatever saves seem reasonable - there's no reason not to go ahead with.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If it won't make a difference - even in the corner case of applying the variant to an important NPC that the DM chooses not to just stat, arbitrarily, with whatever saves seem reasonable - there's no reason not to go ahead with.

If you use less negations, it becomes easier to read... I seriously lost you there...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Giving all PC classes proficiency in all saves won't make the game any worse.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

It's OK for high level character to have a liability. With access to things like Indomitable and Restoration and Freedom of Movement ant whatnot, high-level characters have access to a menagerie of effects that can undo a failed save.

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.

The perception is that the saving throw is the only thing that matters here, and that's not accurate. Analyzing DC's in a vacuum gives you a distorted view of how the game plays at the table. For instance:

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.

Hold Person is a concentration spell. What the hell is the rest of your party doing, twiddling their thumbs while you're incapacitated? Or are they cool with you "tanking" the Concentration slot for that so that the spellcaster can't concentrate on other shenanigans?

Yes, if your 8 WIS warlock happens to get a high-level Hold dropped on them, they won't be able to rescue themselves unless they get very lucky. That's OK. No one delves these dungeons alone. Part of what that does is adding a team dynamic to play - you have to rely on your party members when you get taken out.

Giving all PC classes proficiency in all saves won't make the game any worse.

Yeah, probably not. But what's it gonna add, I wonder? More successful saves, fewer moments of tension, less effective enemy spellcasters....it'll make the game significantly easier for the PC's.

Because 5e is a game whose play experience can be so dramatically different from what the ability looks like on paper, I'm suspicious when a change is proposed whose goal is to fix a thing that seems broken. If the intent here is "I want PC's to be more powerful," I'd say, yeah, this does that perfectly. If the intent here is "I think weak saves at high levels are a design flaw," I'd say fix it only when and if it becomes a problem in play, and don't sweat it before then.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's OK for high level character to have a liability.

Saving on a 14 is still a liability when your life depends on the results - and/or other characters are saving on an 8.

With access to things like Indomitable and Restoration and Freedom of Movement ant whatnot, high-level characters have access to a menagerie of effects that can undo a failed save.

Indomitable and other sources of advantage do very little if you need a very high roll. Need a 20, advantage is /almost/ as good as a +1.

And, yes, high level characters might have all sorts of spells they can call on to ameliorate a failed save - or not, depending on party composition. Can't assume magic items in 5e, either.

Analyzing DC's in a vacuum gives you a distorted view of how the game plays at the table.

I think I've played at enough tables in the last 35 years not to be tripped up by that too badly.

But, yes, the lucky to save in 10 rounds example is very hypothetical. Normally, you get held, you most likely get beaten down (because, yes, the caster could lose concentration). You'd have to be /very/ lucky to have 10 rounds in which to be lucky to save. Again, that dynamic isn't going to be horribly skewed by having proficiency.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah, probably not. But what's it gonna add, I wonder? More successful saves, fewer moments of tension, less effective enemy spellcasters....it'll make the game significantly easier for the PC's.

If properly played, it will do precisely what it did in previous editions: create an arms race. As players acquire more power the DM will be forced to create more powerful foes in order to give the players suitable challenges, which in turn will cause the players to desire more power, which will in turn require more powerful foes.

The point of Bounded Accuracy, limited saving proficiencies and so forth is to, perhaps not outrightly prevent the arms race, but to bring it down to a much more reasonable pace. Foes remain a challenge because players have weaknesses, foes can strike at where players are weak, just as players can strike at where foes are weak.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Saving on a 14 is still a liability when your life depends on the results - and/or other characters are saving on an 8.

Your life doesn't usually depend on a single result, especially at high levels (what, no one's learning raise dead?) And if you're a DM, you can avoid those effects by changing those particular monsters that do have that effect, which is a much easier and more controlled change.

Indomitable and other sources of advantage do very little if you need a very high roll. Need a 20, advantage is /almost/ as good as a +1.

And, yes, high level characters might have all sorts of spells they can call on to ameliorate a failed save - or not, depending on party composition. Can't assume magic items in 5e, either.

Right, but your evidence for the necessity of this was hold person, which can be ended by doing what you're going to do anyway - hit the thing. If your Hold status even deprives you of ONE action, your enemy is well-defended, or your party is sucking it up. I'm open to other suggestions.

I think I've played at enough tables in the last 35 years not to be tripped up by that too badly.

A lot of preconceptions can build up over 35 years that don't necessarily pertain to 5e, because 5e doesn't do things quite like D&D has for 35 years, and one of the things 5e does that D&D has not done before 5e is specifically that getting hit with a magical effect on a weak save is No Big Deal, even if you succumb to it. This was kind of true in 4e (thanks to save ends and EONT effects), and was very NOT TRUE from 1974-2008.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Your life doesn't usually depend on a single result.

All sorts of things you care about could depend on a single result. Your life, an allies life, whether you drop the McGuffin in the volcano it was forged or meekly hand it to the BBEG who just dominated you.

Right, but your evidence for the necessity of this was hold person,

Evidence? Just an illustrative example of how a bad save can snowball. And, not necessity. The question wasn't "Is it absolutely necessary to save 5e from itself by giving everyone save proficiency?"

A lot of preconceptions can build up over 35 years that don't necessarily pertain to 5e, because 5e doesn't do things quite like D&D has for 35 years

It really, really does. Especially the 25 years prior to the last 15, if that makes any sense. ;P

Yeah, since 3.5, D&D had been increasingly going the direction of not utterly ending a character on a single failed save, and 5e didn't back off that as much as it did some other recent trends. That doesn't mean a low level character having a +1 instead of a -1 to his worst save is going to break the game, or even register in the very loose balance of 5e. Nor will a +5 vs a -1 devastate playability at high level - even assuming high level gets played any more often in 5e than it did in classic D&D.

specifically that getting hit with a magical effect on a weak save is No Big Deal, even if you succumb to it.

In classic D&D, a very high level character would pass saves very easily, often on anything but a natural 1, so saves being vs horrific things still didn't intimidate them that much. In 5e, failing a save is not always so gruesome a fate - but failing because you rolled 11 is still very different from saving because you rolled 1 - it doesn't need to be failing because your rolled a 17 to make up for toning down the consequences.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Apologies if I've lost the plot or missed your point here, but:

Saving on a 14 is still a liability when your life depends on the results - and/or other characters are saving on an 8.

Mitigate your weaknesses by one or more of:

1.) Casting Bless
2.) Taking the Lucky feat
3.) Taking Resilient (whatever you're most afraid of)
4.) Bardic Inspiration
5.) Paladin aura
6.) Bard stealing Circle of Power from the paladin list and casting it in combat
7.) Holding the range open/dispersed formation
8.) Diviner Portent
9.) Wild Mage Twist Fate/Tides of Chaos
10.) Grabbing a comrade and running away until the effect wears off
11.) Using stealth/illusions to avoid fights

It's possible that you would agree with all of this, and you were just pointing out that saving on a 14 is a liability. Yeah, it is. If you could remove it for free, you would. But 5E is built so that lacking proficiency in one or more saves isn't a death sentence. It's just a weakness, and everybody has weaknesses. Even monsters.

In classic D&D, a very high level character would pass saves very easily, often on anything but a natural 1, so saves being vs horrific things still didn't intimidate them that much. In 5e, failing a save is not always so gruesome a fate - but failing because you rolled 11 is still very different from saving because you rolled 1 - it doesn't need to be failing because your rolled a 17 to make up for toning down the consequences.

I dunno. I find the idea of facing AD&D Disintegration (or Magic Jar/Polymorph/etc.) terrifying even if I'm a 20th level fighter with a +5 Ring of Protection, in a way that I don't find 5E Disintegration terrifying even if I have a DX of 10. The latter is just damage, the former is Death writ large. Single points of failure are very difficult to mitigate. 5E magic is not nearly as scary as AD&D magic because it mostly just eats away at HP.

And because high-level characters are less rare and precious in 5E given the new XP table, but that's another story, never mind...