D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[CapnZapp]

At this point I guess I have to spell out the concern I was solicitating replies for:

Is is bad design to make a player roll a (d20) die when you can't reach the DC specified, and can only succeed at all because the rules say "a 20 is always a success"

Contrast with a hypothetical game where the difference between a good save and a bad one is never more than, say, ten or twelve steps. Where the best character succeeds on 5+ and the worst character needs a 16+

This game could conceivably be said to be objectively better, since it doesn't ask the players for rolls that are all but impossible to make or miss.

I think 5e would have been a better game if it's designers had ensured the difference in save bonus could not exceed ten or twelve steps, and that no DC would be easier than 5+ (even for best-in-class characters) and none more difficult than 16+ (even for worst-in-class characters)

 

[CapnZapp]

And trust me, I get bounded accuracy. I get that the spellcasters get better at spellcasting as they gain levels but a Fighter isn't spending time on his Wisdom saves. I'm saying I don't like having six saves to try to keep up with. No matter what the PCs do, they can never be good against magic. Maybe that's a style of play that you like and that's fine, but it's still a significant departure from previous editions (4e excepted, thanks to treadmill math).

Well, in 3rd edition the way you boosted your saves by multiclassing (dipping into several prestige classes) was definitely not a feature. It was a horrible horrible crippling bug.

While I won't defend the decision to go with six saves, I will say that the way the game makes EVERY character have at least one bad save that matters, is a good thing.

A very very good thing.

If you want to call fixing a major error in previous editions "a significant departure" I can't stop you. But it does make it sound much more desirable than it actually is to have characters that basically can't be affected by spells. Especially since it wasn't very hard to combine that with very good defenses everywhere else too.

I mean, if you were to view defenses as four main statistics, such as Ref, Fort, Will and AC, and actually made sure one stayed low no matter what you did, then I would be much more warm to the idea of a character "good against magic".

But to me, that's a theoretical exercise. I don't believe the game can or should be set up in such a way that you can get high bonuses on all three (or six) saves, only your AC stays low. As just one quick example: how do you justify that the saves can't stay high just because I put on plate mail, or find a way to cast a "magic armor" kind of spell on myself.

Because what we should never have is a way to have all high saves, and then an easily circumvented restriction on AC.

Put otherwise: If you can get medium AC or better, better make sure you can't get all high saves.

And since the game can't and shan't forbid you from improving your AC, it's best if it actually makes "all high" saves outright impossible.

Which brings us back to 5th Edition

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Is is bad design to make a player roll a (d20) die when you can't reach the DC specified, and can only succeed at all because the rules say "a 20 is always a success"

I'm not sure if you are aware that a natural 20 is not an automatic success on a saving throw in D&D 5th edition (and neither is a natural 1 on a saving throw an automatic failure).

I think 5e would have been a better game if it's designers had ensured the difference in save bonus could not exceed ten or twelve steps

They've ensured that players can keep the difference in save bonus within 10 or 12 steps if they wish to - it's as easy as not letting your "bad saves" ever be less than -1, and accepting a "good enough" 16 for the ability scores tied to your good saves, rather than following the not necessarily most beneficial anymore old-edition idea of cranking your important score(s) as high as possible while ignoring all the others, which keeps you in the 10 step range. 12 steps is even easier, as that allows for lower rolled scores or point buy then max out style.

...and that no DC would be easier than 5+ (even for best-in-class characters) and none more difficult than 16+ (even for worst-in-class characters)

This is not something I particularly agree would add enough to the game to be worth the required changes - which could be as simple as 2e-inspired rules stating a natural 1-4 is always a failure regardless of what is otherwise needed to be rolled, and a hard cap on save DC (which would look entirely out of place without a similar hard cap on at least one of AC or attack bonus), or could be as complicated as actually reducing the available effects which can be added to one side or the other of the equation (such as magic items which exist and alter save bonus or save DC, spells that provide saving throw bonuses, class features, and so forth) to make sure that the established cap didn't have the same effect as the AC cap in 2e - where eventually every character or monster that wasn't designed to be frail on purpose was sitting at, or very near, the cap.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, in 3rd edition the way you boosted your saves by multiclassing (dipping into several prestige classes) was definitely not a feature. It was a horrible horrible crippling bug.

It wasn't pretty, no. It wasn't hard to fix, either: just total your levels in 'good' classes for a save and figure the bonus, then totally your levels in 'bad' classes for the same save, and add that tiny bonus, if any. The 3.x community wasn't terrible accepting of painfully obvious, simple bonuses that risked fixing actual problems though.

While I won't defend the decision to go with six saves, I will say that the way the game makes EVERY character have at least one bad save that matters, is a good thing.

Can't agree. I prefer the old-school model where high level characters got better at saving, across the board. You keep a character going that long, it deserves to have a good shot at sticking around and standing up to binary effects, magical or otherwise.

But it does make it sound much more desirable than it actually is to have characters that basically can't be affected by spells.

It's not like it's an issue unless your agenda is winning PvP duels as a caster.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure if you are aware that a natural 20 is not an automatic success on a saving throw in D&D 5th edition (and neither is a natural 1 on a saving throw an automatic failure).

Thanks, even better. Now the game design asks you to roll checks you cant make at all.

 

[CapnZapp]

They've ensured that players can keep the difference in save bonus within 10 or 12 steps if they wish to - it's as easy as not letting your "bad saves" ever be less than -1, and accepting a "good enough" 16 for the ability scores tied to your good saves, rather than following the not necessarily most beneficial anymore old-edition idea of cranking your important score(s) as high as possible while ignoring all the others, which keeps you in the 10 step range. 12 steps is even easier, as that allows for lower rolled scores or point buy then max out style.

They haven't ensured anything.

Are you completely incapable of seeing or admitting *any* weaknesses in this edition?!

Don't blame design on the players. Having a 8 ability score is not some kind of player mistake.

 

[CapnZapp]

Can't agree. I prefer the old-school model where high level characters got better at saving, across the board. You keep a character going that long, it deserves to have a good shot at sticking around and standing up to binary effects, magical or otherwise.

I can agree to a point. Against low level effects I see your point. A DC 11 first-level effect having a 60% success rate against a 20th level character? Perhaps not...

Against high level casters, not so much.

Unless what you're suggesting is that everyone including monsters has a good shot at ignoring even high level spells. (But I don't think you do, because that would make spells with saves useless.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Unless what you're suggesting is that everyone including monsters has a good shot at ignoring even high level spells. (But I don't think you do, because that would make spells with saves useless.)

I don't feel a need for monsters and PCs to have comparable statistics across the board, at least not all monsters. But PCs should get relatively better at avoiding all-or-nothing effects as they level, even vs same-level threats. The same goes for a certain class of monster - 'bosses' or 'Legendary Monsters' or 'important NPCs' or whatever you want to call enemies that should be above save-based rocket tag - but not all monsters just because they're higher level.

And, yes, I would happily err on the side of high-level all-or-nothing spells tending to do nothing unless used against inferior opponents. Casters could always choose other spells.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Thanks, even better. Now the game design asks you to roll checks you cant make at all.

Actually, nothing in the rules says you should pick up a die for a roll you can't succeed at - there is no uncertainty to resolve via die roll, the DM should just be narrating the result

Are you completely incapable of seeing or admitting *any* weaknesses in this edition?!

Are you completely incapable of seeing or admitting *any* ability on the part of the people playing this edition?

I can, and have, admitted weaknesses of this edition where they exist - I just don't think that something which you express as having an issue with, and is not at all an issue at my table, while we both use the same rules text is an issue inherent to the text.

Don't blame design on the players. Having a 8 ability score is not some kind of player mistake.

I'm not blaming the design on players. Nor am I saying having an 8 ability score is some kind of mistake.

I'm saying that having an 8 ability score doesn't actually mean that you won't be within the 10 or 12 steps you brought up, since -1 to +9 (a 16 score and +6 proficiency bonus) is 10 steps, and even a -1 to a +11 is 12 steps.

I'm also saying that a player has a choice: take an 8 in something and never raise it and have difficulty passing saving throws with that ability; or make saving throws a higher priority and not do that.

If you end up with high level PCs that are made up of super high "good" traits (maxed out ability score and maybe also other options to boost related capabilities) and markedly low "bad" traits (an 8 score with zero effort to mitigate its effects), and I end up with high level PCs that are made of a more even spread between their "good" and "bad" (consider a 14 or 16 ability score "good enough", and shore up weaknesses rather than accentuate already present strengths) - the cause for that difference is the people, not the game design.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

But PCs should get relatively better at avoiding all-or-nothing effects as they level, even vs same-level threats.

It worked this way in older editions, but I think that was largely important because so many failed saves were instant death (or dragon breath = instant-death-level damage) in older editions. So higher-level characters were more likely to survive.


That doesn't apply in 5E. A failed save is less disastrous (even than 3/3.5 given that Finger of Death doesn't instakill and more stuff allows round-by-round saves), so IMO it's OK for saves to be harder to make.