D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[ChrisCarlson]

Yeah, if they put in DC 23 saves expecting that characters who don't have proficiency in that save have a chance of making it, that's a problem (you'd need a score of 16 to have even a 5% chance without proficiency).

Except that the devs have specifically discussed in the past that this is a feature not a bug.

An important factor to consider, is the effects of a failed save (whether possible to succeed or not). Save-or-die is gone. Failing a save that is annoying or temporarily detrimental, for a few rounds during a short battle, isn't the end of the world. What saves are/do and how much of an impact they have on the game and moving forward upon success/failure, is at least as intrinsic to the debate as the odds/percentages/difficulties.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The thing that is inciting my negative reaction is that even after five editions, the game still hasn't fixed something as profoundly basic as impossible DCs.

Bounded Accuracy comes really close to 'fixing' that. Really, in leaving the DM the option of narrating success/failure or calling for a roll, it hedges it's bets, allowing for impossible or routine tasks even while presenting a system where impossibility might be 'unrealisticallly' uncommon, and failure a nagging possibility far longer than it 'realistically' should be. (And, yeah, 'realistic' belongs in scare quotes.)

Thing is, there's nothing wrong with an impossible DC - it just numerically quantifies a task that can't be done. Chances are, someone can phinagle a bonus high enough to attempt it, anyway.

Or, to be honest, that incites a slightly dismayed reaction. As in "Sigh, why couldn't they have fixed this... now I have to tell my players to make a DC 23 Charisma check or DC 26 Intelligence check (or whatever) even when I'm perfectly aware that's an auto-fail for some player characters, not only now but for ever and ever".

You don't call for the check, you just narrate the failure.


Now, I will grant that it's a problem with saves, specifically, because saves are one area where 'no chance' (at least for PCs) isn't desirable, and no advancement is problematic. Even then, it's a modern-editions problem, since the classic game did have saves advancing across the board.

 

[TwoSix]

Would you be bothered by abilities that simply had no saving throw?

If the answer is "no", then how is it worse to have a saving throw only for some PCs? I.e., "If you have proficiency in X, and/or your ability score X is higher than Z, then you have a saving throw. Otherwise there is no saving throw."

I think that's my favorite interpretation. Some high-level abilities are almost impossible to avoid or resist, unless you're an extremely powerful hero with a focus on resisting that sort of attack. And even then, it's at best a tossup.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Except that the devs have specifically discussed in the past that this is a feature not a bug.

An important factor to consider, is the effects of a failed save (whether possible to succeed or not). Save-or-die is gone. Failing a save that is annoying or temporarily detrimental, for a few rounds during a short battle, isn't the end of the world. What saves are/do and how much of an impact they have on the game and moving forward upon success/failure, is at least as intrinsic to the debate as the odds/percentages/difficulties.

Sure, that's why I wrote that it's a problem if they were "expecting that characters who don't have proficiency in that save have a chance of making it".

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Sure, that's why I wrote that it's a problem if they were "expecting that characters who don't have proficiency in that save have a chance of making it".

Sure, which is why I started off by clarifying that your "if" is not in fact an "if " at all. The devs have made that clear. Unless your point was that, in an alternate reality, where D&D was written with different underlying values and expectations, there might could be a problem...

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Although I have no intention of introducing this to my games, we haven't had to introduce house rules as of yet, I have thought about giving classes primary, secondary, and tertiary saves. As an example, A wizard has as their primary saves Int & Wis as normal. For secondary they may have Con & Cha which adds half their proficiency bonus, and teriary would be Str and Dex which recieve no proficiency bonus, as normal. I would probably also change Resilient so that it allows a character to upgrade a secondary to a primary and a tertiary to a secondary.

As I've said, I'm not planning on introducing this at the moment, currently just an idea kicking around in my head.

Don't know if this helps you in your kicking that idea around, but...

As presented in your post, were I one of your players, I would never take the resilient feat unless I got lucky and you decided that any class which happens to lean toward the mighty warrior archetype had Wisdom as secondary save at worst, and any class which casts spells also happen to have Constitution as secondary save at worst (basically, if I can't get full proficiency to my character's Wisdom or Constitution saves with the feat, then it is not worth the cost).

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Sure, which is why I started off by clarifying that your "if" is not in fact an "if " at all. The devs have made that clear. Unless your point was that, in an alternate reality, where D&D was written with different underlying values and expectations, there might could be a problem...

Actually, I meant that while the possibility of "impossible" saves existing isn't in itself a problem, I don't know whether the specific use of them in OOTA was appropriate, since I don't have that book.

 

[CapnZapp]

Except that the devs have specifically discussed in the past that this is a feature not a bug.

An important factor to consider, is the effects of a failed save (whether possible to succeed or not). Save-or-die is gone. Failing a save that is annoying or temporarily detrimental, for a few rounds during a short battle, isn't the end of the world. What saves are/do and how much of an impact they have on the game and moving forward upon success/failure, is at least as intrinsic to the debate as the odds/percentages/difficulties.

Becoming a gibbering mess for 50 hours?

Have you even read the material you so staunchly are defending?

Read up on DMG madness and the OOTA appendix on the Demon Lords and then tell me with a straight face you don't agree that in theory, the game would have been better off with some work done on keeping the disparity between weak saves and high DCs in check.

 

[CapnZapp]

Bounded Accuracy comes really close to 'fixing' that. Really, in leaving the DM the option of narrating success/failure or calling for a roll, it hedges it's bets, allowing for impossible or routine tasks even while presenting a system where impossibility might be 'unrealisticallly' uncommon, and failure a nagging possibility far longer than it 'realistically' should be. (And, yeah, 'realistic' belongs in scare quotes.)

Thing is, there's nothing wrong with an impossible DC - it just numerically quantifies a task that can't be done. Chances are, someone can phinagle a bonus high enough to attempt it, anyway.

You don't call for the check, you just narrate the failure.


Now, I will grant that it's a problem with saves, specifically, because saves are one area where 'no chance' (at least for PCs) isn't desirable, and no advancement is problematic. Even then, it's a modern-editions problem, since the classic game did have saves advancing across the board.

Coming close to = failing.

But since nothing can persuade you, let's all agree the rules are perfect in every single regard. There are not a single case where the rules fall short.

Except, of course, when the designers change things themselves, in errata.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Read up on DMG madness and the OOTA appendix on the Demon Lords and then tell me with a straight face you don't agree that in theory, the game would have been better off with some work done on keeping the disparity between weak saves and high DCs in check.

It isn't necessarily the disparity between weak saves and high DCs that is the problem, though - impassable DCs for a character's low-priority saving throws would be fine to have in the game if the consequences of failing a save weren't overly punitive (which is another discussion all together, and involves a hefty amount of determining if overly-punitive effects are part of "the point" where a concept like "you experienced something so terrible that you actually lost your mind as a result" is concerned).