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

[Tony Vargas]

you were just pointing out that saving on a 14 is a liability. Yeah, it is.

Good. 14, in context, was an example of a natural roll needed /with/ proficiency. Still a liability.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

None of those things depend on a single roll.

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?"

Okay, but it wasn't a very good example because in practice, it doesn't snowball, thanks to making a saving throw not being the exclusive determiner of success or failure.

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

Not in spell mechanics. 5e's dominate spells, for instance, are TREMENDOUSLY more easy to counteract than 2e's or 1e's or OD&D's (while remaining evocative of what those spells could do):

2e Domination: As a 5th-level spell, make one save at -2 (adjusted for Wisdom) or be dominated forever. Get a new save with a bonus if "forced to take an action against your nature." A "typical 2e fighter" of ~10th level (when the casters get this ability) needs a 13 or better to make that initial save. Basically: if you fail this save, you are an NPC's puppet forever.

5e Domination: As a 5th-level concentration spell against humanoids, make a Wis save or be charmed (with advantage if combat is going on). Caster can give you general directions that you can interpret, or can spend their action to take precise control. If you take damage, you make a new save. The "worst case scenario" circa 10th level is a Wis save at -1 vs. a DC 16 (17+ succeeds). If this was going up against a champion fighter, they'd have indomitable.

Our low-WIS Fighter is probably going to get hit in 5e (even with Indomitable), barring some significant luck. But the effects once hit are remarkably different, and 5e-domination is much, much easier to get out of, and even limits the caster while they're doing it.

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.

I mean, a +6 bonus is significant. Folks will make most of their saves, even the ones they "suck at". The only question is if you're cool with that. It doesn't appeal to me much, since I like a game where things like not giving the McGuffin to Greg the Wis 8 Wonder-Warrior is a choice with significant meaning and finding out that the BBEG can dominate people is important intel and the vagaries of chance might hose you on an adventure. I like that a LOT MORE than a game where the PC's basically steamroll through stuff because they're free to ignore their dumpstat.

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.

Failing because you rolled an 11 or even a 16 -- when you deliberately chose to play a character with this weakness -- is something I'd expect. You should fail a lot when someone hits you where you're weak. That's part of what makes interesting choices and consequences. You rely on the rest of the party to help you out in the areas where you're not as strong. That's also what I'd expect from a game that features teamwork.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, a +6 bonus is significant. Folks will make most of their saves, even the ones they "suck at". The only question is if you're cool with that. It doesn't appeal to me much, since I like a game where things like not giving the McGuffin to Greg the Wis 8 Wonder-Warrior is a choice with significant meaning and finding out that the BBEG can dominate people is important intel and the vagaries of chance might hose you on an adventure. I like that a LOT MORE than a game where the PC's basically steamroll through stuff because they're free to ignore their dumpstat.

Sure, it's significant. But characters will still ail their worst saves more often than not.

The thing is, save DCs go off maxed stats or the assumption thereof, plus proficiency. The +6 from proficiency is significant, and it's /always/ on the save DC side. The +5 of a maxed stat is significant, and it's always on the save DC side. Having one or the other of those not always applying to every save is fine. Having both not apply to most saves is a lot less fine. Because where +6 is significant, +11 is overwhelming.

The party will not be rolling over things because they have a +5 or 6 (or +3 or +4, given the less generous proposed variant) to their worst saves at 20th level. They may roll over things because the encounter guidelines fail you, or the right spell gets cast at just the right time, or a lot of other things, but not just because of the DM decides on using a variant like this one.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I want solo play to be viable, as it was pre-3e.

 

[pemerton]

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.

What does the level of the Hold spell have to do with it? (Or are you meaning - cast by a high level NPC?)

 

[S'mon]

What does the level of the Hold spell have to do with it? (Or are you meaning - cast by a high level NPC?)

IMC, which is lowish magic Conanesque swords & sorcery, I would like a battle between say an 18th level Barbarian PC and six 3rd level evil priests not to be a kerbstomp victory for the evil priests.
Currently 5e does a great job of emulating Thulsa Doom's Domination & execution of Conan's mother at the start of CtB movie, but a bad job of emulating the final scene where Conan resists the Domination and executes Thulsa Doom in turn.

This discussion has been interesting and given me some things to look out for. I'm happy now that
all-good-saves won't break the game, and many thanks to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] for helpful contributions,
although I don't think all-good-saves is necessary if you are running a traditional 3e/4e-style setup
with a 4/5 PC group running through multiple 'built' encounters designed to challenge but not kill the
PCs. That's not how I ran pre-3e and it's not how I'd generally want to use 5e either, I like it that 5e seems robust enough to allow for a much more Status Quo/Environment based campaign design (also the 5e encounter-building and monster-building rules seem rather weak & messy to me, at least compared to 4e).

I see now one thing to bear in mind if I run 5e at the Meetup rather than via Dragonsfoot is that players coming from 3e/PF are going to be looking for more of a 3e approach to rules, and some degree of continuing caster supremacy, and may be disgruntled if they don't get it, so with 5e playstyle will be very important to emphasise.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I want solo play to be viable, as it was pre-3e.

...I might quibble with the extent to which that was viable pre-3e, but yeah, this would be great to make solo play more viable. You might also want to consider alternate healing rules for that goal, especially non-HP stuff, and I'd note that multiclassing and feats both help that goal as well (it'd be easier for a single character to take a dip for something their class often lacks).

Another thing you might consider is allowing higher starting ability scores. If no one has a "dump stat," (like, lowest ability score is a 10 or a 12), the weaknesses will be less of a vulnerability.

 

[S'mon]

...I might quibble with the extent to which that was viable pre-3e

Well I played a vast amount of solo 1e AD&D. It was certainly viable with level 3+ PCs. I'm running a solo Mentzer BECM game for my son currently and it works great, but I started his M-U at 4th level. The main issue I recall was that in true soloing the lone PC is extremely vulnerable to one failed save; ghoul paralysis is probably the worst, followed by Clerics with command & hold person. Good AC is very useful & good saves are
important, though my son tends to use the 'legions of hirelings' approach to success, which in pre-3e is entirely expected.

 

[S'mon]

Another thing you might consider is allowing higher starting ability scores. If no one has a "dump stat," (like, lowest ability score is a 10 or a 12), the weaknesses will be less of a vulnerability.

I'm using default array 15 14 13 12 10 8, but there are a couple variant human races (Amazons
& Altanians) who get +2 to some stats (still +6 total, but distributed differently), as do various demi-humans, so players could choose to start without a penalty.

 

[Sunseeker]

I want solo play to be viable, as it was pre-3e.

Solo play is viable. And I'm not saying it's kinda viable or it's sorta viable, or it's only viable if you're a very delicate DM, I'm saying it's viable, right now, using the existing CR math.