D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Eric V]

It is not consistent to say that rolled scores are "just what was rolled" and that the standard array is something the player "decides upon."

Both rolled stats and the array are equally just a set of numbers that the player gets to assign.

The array is customizable in that 3 15s are available if I am willing to have 3 9s. All sorts of combinations in between. Once I 1) determine the numbers, I then 2) assign them to the different abilities. The player has some level of influence in 1) and then has agency in 2).

In the system wherein stats are rolled, there is no 1, just 2. The player has more effect.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The array is customizable in that 3 15s are available if I am willing to have 3 9s. All sorts of combinations in between. Once I 1) determine the numbers, I then 2) assign them to the different abilities. The player has some level of influence in 1) and then has agency in 2).

In the system wherein stats are rolled, there is no 1, just 2. The player has more effect.

In a system wherein stats are rolled, there is 1 - it is in determining, along with the DM and other players, what parameters for rolling will be. The player has influence in 1, just as when using point buy.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

It was a joke. I find them quite deadly - deadly-dull. ;P

Seriously, though (somewhat seriously) they are the choice-poor, stereotypical 'simple for beginners' class.

Yeah, I can see that. OTOH a lot of 5E classes really do have a lot of stuff to juggle. Playing a Paladin, I kept forgetting that Channel Divinity even existed.

Each dragon that has a DC 19+ save-for-1/2 breath weapon also has a same-DC fear effect, for example.

Only the gold dragon. The others have a lower fear DC, usually 2 or 3 points lower; more for the white dragon.

I just printed out the monsters-by-CR chart and wrote down all the DCs for CR 15+ monsters since we were discussing it on this thread.

Then there's NPC and monster casters at those levels.

The monster spellcasters do get high DCs ... at very high levels.

--

The spellcaster vampire (CR 15) is only DC 15. Mummy lord (CR 15 or 16 in lair) is DC 17. The planetar (CR 16) is a scary DC 20, but it's not as likely a foe for most PCs as the other two.

The death knight and androsphinx are both CR 17, DC 18.

The pit fiend (CR 20) is DC 21.

The lich (CR 21 or 22 in lair) is DC 20. The solar (CR 21) is a terrifying DC 25... but again, a less likely foe.

The empyrean (CR 23) is DC 23.

--

If there's a problem here, it's giving overly high DCs to the good creatures. The others seem pretty reasonable, with only the pit fiend borderline (CR 21+ creatures are supposed to be crazy hard).

3 ASI's split among 3 stats is a +1 mod in each stat. Hardly that significant. Of course, your class-relevant score could be DEX or WIS, and you likely /are/ proficient in one of those saves.

Yeah, I was taking that into account. Also, it's not so much the ASI by itself but the combined effects of ASIs and other benefits (racial advantage on certain saves, class features granting proficiency/advantage on certain saves, magic items like ring of evasion, ring of protection, or amulet of health, spells like bless...)

I think part of it comes down to what level means. 5e seems to mostly be built around the idea that (except for hit points and basic combat), leveling means you get better at what you're good at, only. Past editions have made more concessions to the idea that you also get better at ancillary things, especially adventuring-related ones

Yeah, I agree that it is a change. I just think it's a change that works pretty well with 5E's other changes. I certainly see why others would dislike it, but I don't think it's an objectively wrong change - and it doesn't bother me personally.

 

[CapnZapp]

But in that case you could use feats to get proficiency in more saves. If your priority is avoiding terrible saves, you'd presumably do that.

In 5e the ball is really in the DMs court when it comes to fixing any perceived systemic problems. In this case that fix could be a fairly straightforward house rule.

(A general reply, not specifically directed at you)

What's with the constant focus on us gamers and our DMs?

The point of bringing back this thread was to point out THE DESIGNERS as the main culprit.

"If my priority is to avoid terrible..." How about the game never giving me this hopeless task in the first place?

"In the DMs court..." What about the designers' court? Why does this fall on the DM?

Why this incessant drive to shift away all blame on those truly responsible?

I will never understand the lengths some will go to in order to avoid having to face the realization their game isn't perfect and could have been (even) better than it already is!

Why not simply forego such discussions with silence if you're so bothered about it; why try to maintain the illusion every game rule is working perfectly if only the DM worked harder and the players played better even when it's clear as day that's not the case?

 

[CapnZapp]

Right. Level 20 characters have ways to deal with poor saving throws other than just ability scores. It's not the game's problem that some players don't/won't use them.

Thank you for providing an excellent illustration of this drive to blame the gamers, and have the design go free!

Have it occurred to you that it just might not be bad players if a game rule doesn't work right...?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Thank you for providing an excellent illustration of this drive to blame the gamers, and have the design go free!

Yeah. Just like I get so furious at the game designers of Chutes & Ladders because they don't let me climb up the slides. I mean, seriously? I used to do that in real life as a kid all the time! So why the heck can't I in the game? It's an outrage. The designers and rules of that game are an abject failure! We should riot!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I was taking that into account. Also, it's not so much the ASI by itself but the combined effects of ASIs and other benefits (racial advantage on certain saves, class features granting proficiency/advantage on certain saves, magic items like ring of evasion, ring of protection, or amulet of health, spells like bless...)

That all gets pretty individual and situational. Items aren't assumed, party composition can vary, etc.

Yeah, I agree that it is a change. I just think it's a change that works pretty well with 5E's other changes.

If feel it clashes with the Bounded Accuracy concept, itself, and with the decision to up less-combat-oriented classes HD size (and give everyone HD = level, for that matter), among other things. :shrug: Design aesthetics.

(A general reply, not specifically directed at you)

What's with the constant focus on us gamers and our DMs?

We're the ones who mod/run/play the game.

The point of bringing back this thread was to point out THE DESIGNERS as the main culprit.

The blame game might be fun, but the ball isn't really in their court on this issue anymore. 'Their,' well, it's prettymuch Mr. Mearls at this point.

"In the DMs court..." What about the designers' court? Why does this fall on the DM?

As soon as the PH & DMG went to the printers that was it for designing basic systems (and alternate modules for them), like saving throws. As soon as they hit the shelf, the ball was ours to play.

I will never understand the lengths some will go to in order to avoid having to face the realization their game isn't perfect and could have been (even) better than it already is!

I think we not only face that, but embrace it, every time we change it, or even make a ruling that's not perfectly in line with the 'RAW.'

Have it occurred to you that it just might not be bad players if a game rule doesn't work right...?

There have been many games published that 'work right,' most of them are out of print within a few years.

Why? Bad players, of course. ;P

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What's with the constant focus on us gamers and our DMs?

If a rule works for group A but not for group B; the rule isn't the variable that is resulting in the rule not working - so people wanting to find what the variable is start analyzing what varies between group A and group B, because it is one or more of those variations - which the rule is not one - that is the culprit.

That you don't like a rule doesn't mean that rule isn't doing exactly what it is meant to do and working exactly as intended, and liked by, other people.

So what's with your constant focus on trying to get people to agree that anything you don't like is flawed game design?

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

(A general reply, not specifically directed at you)

What's with the constant focus on us gamers and our DMs?

The point of bringing back this thread was to point out THE DESIGNERS as the main culprit.

"If my priority is to avoid terrible..." How about the game never giving me this hopeless task in the first place?

"In the DMs court..." What about the designers' court? Why does this fall on the DM?

Well, it's only the designers' fault if the current system is unambiguously/objectively bad.

If it's good for some groups/playstyles and bad for others (which I think is more the case) then it becomes a matter for those who don't like it to tweak it more to their liking.

Out of the Abyss might have genuine design problems with the demon lords' save DCs, I don't know since I don't have that book. But if there is a problem, it's with the DCs assigned in that adventure rather than the core mechanics - the ones in the MM generally work pretty well with the 5E save scaling.

I will never understand the lengths some will go to in order to avoid having to face the realization their game isn't perfect and could have been (even) better than it already is!

Oh, I know 5E isn't perfect. No possible edition could be published that would be perfect for everyone. 5E is the closest of all so far to my 'ideal', but there's still several things I'm dissatisfied with.

But the way saving throws and bounded accuracy are handled isn't one of them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, it's only the designers' fault if the current system is unambiguously/objectively bad.

We certainly can't accuse 5e of being unambiguous - it is intentionally written in something closer to natural language.

If it's good for some groups/playstyles and bad for others (which I think is more the case) then it becomes a matter for those who don't like it to tweak it more to their liking.

But if there is a problem, it's with the DCs assigned in that adventure rather than the core mechanics - the ones in the MM generally work pretty well with the 5E save scaling.

They work if the intent is that most characters are 'bad' at most saves and become more vulnerable to same-level attackers as they level up. I don't care for that intention, myself, I prefer something more like classic D&D, where higher level characters get better at making saves, net of their enemies also getting more deadly. I don't see a good/simple way to do that under Bounded Accuracy (there's not that much wiggle-room in 5 ASIs and +4 prof over 20 levels), but saves advancing enough to about keep pace is an easy enough tweak and can be applied in a simple way that customizes other corners of the game with similar issues, as well. One instance of a neat fix.

Oh, I know 5E isn't perfect. No possible edition could be published that would be perfect for everyone.

Perfect is never on the table, better always is. 5e isn't strictly speaking better than it's recent predecessors, but it is much more open to being /made better/ for a given DM's specific purposes.