D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My players have been using feats/ability score increases to shore-up their weaker saves, or enact other means of mitigating failure of saving throws (spells like remove curse, calm emotions, freedom of movement, heal, and greater restoration)

So there hasn't been much in the way of feeling like saves that were called for were insurmountable.

 

[matskralc]

Given the amount of offensive power and support utilities you have at high level, it's usually fine to have a weak save.

Sure, you fail against hold person, but the bardic inspiration or paladin's aura let's you over come it.
Or you counter spells it before it lands.
Or the shadow monk teleports over to the enemy and stuns him, or the barbarian hit's him really hard, and making him lose concentration.
Or the cleric brings you back to life afterwards.

Without the weakness, the game might be too easy.

Yes to all of this. There are so many ways for the party to mitigate weak saves (or the effects of failing them) at high levels that it's not really been a problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I committed to running AL Encounters and introductory games, so I've yet to run anything over 4th, and quite a lot of 1st. I've little interest in playing - 2nd level cleric, once; 5th level wizard, once. So recuse myself from the larger question, painfully obvious though the problem appears.

Won't stop me from kibitzing...

Without the weakness, the game might be too easy.

They could have just not gone to so much trouble to make it too easy in the first place.

Weak saves stay around ±0.

I will say that I find it odd that 5e went so all-in for classic feel in so many areas, but stayed with 3.x on this issue. In all other editions prior to 5e, saves (Non-AC defenses in 4e/Essentials) all advanced as you leveled, in all classic editions (everything prior to 3.0) they all advanced 'net,' becoming genuinely easier to make in absolute terms as you leveled up.

 

[Krachek]

Dont Forget that monster use the same system.
A Balor has +3 to wisdom saving throw, to face DC 19 and higher.
If you ignore the magic resistance, it is pretty weak for a CR 19 monster.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I hope not to derail the thread from the request for example examples (my high level play has been limited and not recent, so I can't recall examples)...but, I do want to make on comment.

I really, REALLY, like the sort of rock-paper-scissors / trump-card aspect of the game that these sorts of save discrepancies bring to it. It isn't unique to saves either. You have spells like forcecage that PCs are more likely to use than monsters, etc. You get a variety of situations where someone makes a choice and the successful consequences are almost (or even actually) guaranteed, and this is true for PCs and NPCs/Monsters alike. The thing is though, in 5e D&D this generally only comes into play at high level when you have a variety of ways of dealing with it (probably the most important simply being that your character is part of a group, rather than a lone hero--this should also be true for the opponents, since 5e doesn't handle solos well).

I think it's a gaming style thing. While the exact rules (insurmountable save DCs, etc) may not have been the same in prior editions, it definitely felt like there were similar auto-win/auto-lose elements in prior editions. To me, it feels a lot like the way the rarity and laissez-faire attitude towards magic item balance makes them seem more wondrous again in this edition compared to more recent editions. The question isn't whether this is a problem or is bad design--it is simply whether it is something you want to feature in your games. For me the answer is a resounding YES.

 

[Devilbass]

I haven't done a ton of high-level play, it's mostly been restricted to one-shots. But so far I've enjoyed the way saves scale. As Mello said earlier, there are so many other ways to avoid or recover from the effects of bad saving throws that it isn't necessarily a huge deal. The reason I like the scaling has less to do with that, though. I have found that due to low saves, I can throw a couple low level casters into a group of enemies, and they can have a serious impact on the toughness of the encounter. A single CR 2 Cult Fanatic among a group of Glabrezus or Hezrous can really change the threat of that encounter. So what if the save DC on its Hold Person is only 11? If the fanatic survives a couple rounds, odds are one of the PCs is gonna be held. Throw in two fanatics and things could get really interesting. That CR 3 Yuan-Ti Malison may not pose much of threat to your level 17 fighter... until he uses his DC 13 Suggestion. Your level 15 party is going up against an Adult Black Dragon? Might be dangerous to ignore the Lizardfolk tribe fighting along side it, even that CR 2 Shaman.

In my mind, PCs having some bad saves is just as important to bounded accuracy as low-scaling AC. In order for low-CR enemies to remain relevant, they have to be able to affect PCs by more than just surpassing their AC. Mixed groups of CRs can be very interesting and effective as a result.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I don't mind the way saves scale. If you've got a low save at high level, well, it's because your character has been focused on doing other things, while his opponents have been focused on making their spells better. The only way to mechanically get better at something is for

Now, you can do what 4e did and add your level or half your level to everything, but that doesn't actually change the math for equal level creatures. You'll still suck at what you suck at. It just makes lower level creatures not a threat and higher level creatures overwhelming. Which is to say, it means the DM needs a significantly larger monster portfolio to keep things challenging and interesting. Maybe you like that in the game, but it certainly does mean that you need a lot more material.

The only thing I don't like about 5e saves is the fact that there's six of them. Any time the DM calls for Str, Int, or Cha saves, I tend to get the feeling of, "Well, this is a attack." Overall, I prefer just having three saves.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Question - read the playtest docs but not played.

Saving Throws or whatever they're called now: To resist, say, petrification you make a CON check modified by your proficiency bonus. Correct?

If so - the wizard with the 10 Con is never going to get better at resisting petrification, 1st level or 20th, unless he's sinking level points into CON. At high levels you have the 3e problem of some characters auto-saving and others auto-failing.

Am I missing a modifier? Does the flat math just prevent this from being an issue? Is there a way for players to shore up these weaknesses in-system?

I'm thinking "magic item of proficiency" is going to be popular in this edition, myself.

Yes. The wizard gets better at not making (Con) saves vs. petrification in the first place, as he gets access to more divination magic and spells like Fly and Expeditious Retreat that keep him from getting into petrification range of nasty Medusas/Gorgons/etc, conjuration spells to make demons and spirits take the risks on his behalf, and Contingency spells which help failed saves not to turn into disaster. If you make a saving throw it means something bad just happened to you, and you're using a last-ditch effort to get out of it. But your first line of defense against that kind of thing is good play so you don't have to make saving throws in the first place, and wizards are good at that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Dont Forget that monster use the same system.
A Balor has +3 to wisdom saving throw, to face DC 19 and higher.
If you ignore the magic resistance, it is pretty weak for a CR 19 monster.

The Balor's Wisdom save is actually +9. You're overlooking part of the Balor stat block. There's a line below the main stat line for Balors which reveals that it's proficient in four saving throws:

Balor
Huge Fiend (demon), Chaotic Evil
Str 26 (+8), Dex 15 (+2), Con 22 (+6), Int 20 (+5), Wis 16 (+3), Cha 22 (+6)
Saving Throws: Str +14, Con +12, Wis +9, Cha +12

So its weakest saves are Dex (+2) and Int (+5). It's also magic resistant, so it gets advantage on saves against spells and magical effects.

 

[ForceUser]

If so - the wizard with the 10 Con is never going to get better at resisting petrification, 1st level or 20th, unless he's sinking level points into CON. At high levels you have the 3e problem of some characters auto-saving and others auto-failing.

Am I missing a modifier? Does the flat math just prevent this from being an issue? Is there a way for players to shore up these weaknesses in-system?

I'm thinking "magic item of proficiency" is going to be popular in this edition, myself.

One way for a high-level wizard to shore up a weakness is, as you say, with a custom magic item. Another is for the wizard to take the spell foresight, which gives him Advantage on all D20 rolls for 24 hours.