D&D 5E Are 5e Saving Throws Boring?

[Sacrosanct]

All of those changes were done for good reasons. Most people dislike save or die. That doesn't make the game any less dangerous or saving throws any less meaningful. Threat level is always up to the DM.

I'm not making a judgement on whether or not people like it, or if those removals were a good or bad thing, or if people had more or less fun (that's all subjective). I was giving my opinion on why I think they were a good thing (because it made players plan better).

However, dying on a failed save vs. a minor inconvenience is literally making the game more dangerous to the PC. If your PC has a greater chance of worse damage in one edition compared to another edition for the same event, that's the definition of being more dangerous.

 

[Oofta]

If I want to kill PCs, as a DM in 5E I can always do that. I don't care if it takes not giving them an option to rest for 20 encounters or throwing a mob of Tarrasques, the DM controls the threat level.

What's changed is that in old editions, I had much less control over that threat level. One bad save and what I thought was a moderate encounter turns into a dead PC.

I prefer the 5E alternative, it gives me as a DM more control.

 

[Ashrym]

When the monster list includes but not limited to:
ghouls
ghasts
ghosts
specters
wraiths
whites
vampires
basilisks
beholders
medusa
cockatrice
green slimes
black puddings
rot grubs
rust monsters
poisonous (sic) snakes
spiders
psuedodragons
carrion crawlers
catoblepas
Any poison trap
etc
etc

are all significantly more dangerous in AD&D than 5e, it's disingenuous to argue that the difference in deadliness between editions isn't mechanics, but GM preference. I know you know better. It absolutely is mechanics, not just with the monsters like v like themselves, with with 5e mechanics that allow you overcome conditions with a save attempt every turn.

The only way your argument remotely holds water is if the typical D&D game never encounters any creature or trap that is poisoned, never encounters any undead, and never encounters any other creature in that above list or creature that has magic resistance or weapon immunity that their 5e counterpart does not.

My point being, is that any adventurer worth their salt will plan ahead with the knowledge available to them, and put focus on the higher risk areas. In AD&D, that meant you planned for all of the above or you didn't last long. In 5e, since those risks are all extremely less than they were in AD&D, players don't spend nearly the effort planning for them. And IME, is a reason why every battle begins to feel the same for a lot of people, because they approach every battle very similar---bags of HP and and how much DPR you can do regardless of any special ability because the risk of suffering a bad save is much less than it was in AD&D.

If you're arguing that 5e mechanically is not less deadly than AD&D because it's all up to DM preference, then I'm sure most would laugh at such a statement. Everything being equal, the mechanics of AD&D were more lethal than 5e. It would be like me arguing that 4e was the most deadly edition because one DM made every player only have 1 HP and put them in a meat grinder, while the AD&D DM gave all the players max HP and monty haul magic items, and never had them face anything dangerous. Needless to say, that would be a very flawed analysis to make.

In 1e all character saving throws improved as they level. In 5e most players are lucky if half their saving throws improve as they level.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, maybe that is what the OP is looking for. That makes the game more tense!

There's a fine balancing act between "this is so lethal that I'm on the edge of my seat," and "this is so lethal that I don't even care anymore." If we're aiming for a similar balance to certain older editions, then we'd want to counter the increased potency of the save effect against a lower chance of failing that save.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If I want to kill PCs, as a DM in 5E I can always do that. I don't care if it takes not giving them an option to rest for 20 encounters or throwing a mob of Tarrasques, the DM controls the threat level.

What's changed is that in old editions, I had much less control over that threat level. One bad save and what I thought was a moderate encounter turns into a dead PC.

I prefer the 5E alternative, it gives me as a DM more control.

That's not how a typical game is played though. Of course the DM has total control. In every edition it's been that way. But doing certain things will probably result in your players not playing with you any longer...

Players have an expectation that the game will be played as it was designed. Encounter guidelines (if applicable), how published adventures are set up, etc. The only way to accurately compare is to look at how the game is actually designed like vs like. It's disingenuous to say "Well, I can make 5e just as deadly by doing X Y or Z" because that's not how it's designed and wouldn't be a fair comparison, and not how people play the game.

In 5e, I have the expectation that failing a save for all of those monsters and traps I listed above (not even considering spells) is going to not be nearly as bad for my PC as if I failed the same save in AD&D. That's objectively true because we can look at what the effects were for failing in AD&D and directly compare them to the same failed save in 5e. In 5e, I also know that I can keep attempting saving throws until I pass for many conditions that were 1 try and dead in AD&D.

So it's objectively true that the risk for failing a save in 5e is less than 1e. And because of that, players planned differently. Again, this has nothing to do with which was better, or more liked, or any other subjective metric. It's about how since the risk is much less, players approach the scenarios with less planning, relying on default strategies that work for almost all encounters. If you know you have 2 tries to avoid a basilisk attack, and even if you fail the options to go back to normal are easier to obtain than in 1e where you have one try, and if you fail it takes rarer magic to go back to normal, you're gonna approach the planning differently in that encounter.

And in my experience (I know this part is also subjective) one of the benefits of that is that it made encounters feel more unique and different if you planned differently for each one rather than just focus on DPR

 

[Sacrosanct]

In 1e all character saving throws improved as they level. In 5e most players are lucky if half their saving throws improve as they level.

There are a lot of options to increase saving throws in 5e that don't exist in 1e (like a paladin's aura). Also, in 5e, your saves start out much higher with better chances. Lower level 1e PCs might need a 15-17 roll on the die to pass a saving throw. A 5e PC only needs to roll a 12 or so (by typical DCs lower level PCs face) even if they don't have proficiency in that area, and if they do, the roll is even much less.

But that's beside the point. The point is that the penalties for failing a save is much worse in AD&D than in 5e.

 

[Ashrym]

There are a lot of options to increase saving throws in 5e that don't exist in 1e (like a paladin's aura). Also, in 5e, your saves start out much higher with better chances. Lower level 1e PCs might need a 15-17 roll on the die to pass a saving throw. A 5e PC only needs to roll a 12 or so even if they don't have proficiency in that area, and if they do, the roll is even much less.

But that's beside the point. The point is that the penalties for failing a save is much worse in AD&D than in 5e.

That creates required class syndrome.

1e also didn't use a system for scaling up DC's. DC's use proficiency to increase DC's. The over-all effect is low level was much more susceptible to effects in 1e but the save or die didn't exist until after saves improved. 5e the lower level characters can make saves more effectively but at higher level when those nastier effects appear the lack of save proficiency can be brutal.

Right now I can get paralyzed relatively easy by a ghoul on a high level rogue with my +2 bonus against DC 10; the repeat saves help but repeat attacks also easily overwhelm that. That's nothing to a fighter but it's still meaningfully dangerous.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That creates required class syndrome.

not really. That was just one example. Several spells also increase saving throws. Many of them low level spells most classes can get

1e also didn't use a system for scaling up DC's. DC's use proficiency to increase DC's. The over-all effect is low level was much more susceptible to effects in 1e but the save or die didn't exist until after saves improved.

This is not true at all. Low level PCs (even level 1) routinely encountered poisonous traps and venomous creatures like centipedes and spiders that all resulted in your PC death if you failed the save. Also green slimes, rot grubs, and carrion crawlers were also a common threat, and they wrecked you with haste. Rust monsters churned through you armor and weapons way faster than 5e. Ghouls took you out (unless you were an elf) and were faced at low levels.

And 1e did have a scaling system of sorts in the form of saving throw bonuses or penalties. Many creatures gave one or the other depending on it's hit dice. However, in almost all cases, failure was death (or some form of it). PCs faces such perils from level 1 all the way up to name level and higher. Saying it didn't exist until the saves improved is just flat out wrong.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Let me give an example.

In AD&D, if you faced a creature that "their touch will turn flesh to stone (save vs stone or be petrified.)", you would do what you could to avoid that at all costs.

In 5e, that same creature is:
"dc 11 constitution saving throw against being magically petrified On a failed save, the creature begins to turn to stone and is restrained. It must repeat the saving throw at the end of its next turn. On a success, the effect ends. On a failure, the creature is petrified for 24 hours"

Your planning on the encounter will be much different. Worst case scenario, you're only petrified for 24 hours, and that's after 2 failed saves at an easy DC. Worst case with AD&D, if you fail once you're toast. Permanently.

 

[Oofta]

That's not how a typical game is played though. Of course the DM has total control. In every edition it's been that way. But doing certain things will probably result in your players not playing with you any longer...

Players have an expectation that the game will be played as it was designed. Encounter guidelines (if applicable), how published adventures are set up, etc. The only way to accurately compare is to look at how the game is actually designed like vs like. It's disingenuous to say "Well, I can make 5e just as deadly by doing X Y or Z" because that's not how it's designed and wouldn't be a fair comparison, and not how people play the game.

In 5e, I have the expectation that failing a save for all of those monsters and traps I listed above (not even considering spells) is going to not be nearly as bad for my PC as if I failed the same save in AD&D. That's objectively true because we can look at what the effects were for failing in AD&D and directly compare them to the same failed save in 5e. In 5e, I also know that I can keep attempting saving throws until I pass for many conditions that were 1 try and dead in AD&D.

So it's objectively true that the risk for failing a save in 5e is less than 1e. And because of that, players planned differently. Again, this has nothing to do with which was better, or more liked, or any other subjective metric. It's about how since the risk is much less, players approach the scenarios with less planning, relying on default strategies that work for almost all encounters. If you know you have 2 tries to avoid a basilisk attack, and even if you fail the options to go back to normal are easier to obtain than in 1e where you have one try, and if you fail it takes rarer magic to go back to normal, you're gonna approach the planning differently in that encounter.

And in my experience (I know this part is also subjective) one of the benefits of that is that it made encounters feel more unique and different if you planned differently for each one rather than just focus on DPR

About the only thing I agree with here is that 1E saving throws were more deadly. A game in 5E is as deadly as the DM wants it to be. Blaming the encounter guidelines which are used to give a general idea of difficulty is meaningless; there is no way possible for them to be accurate for every group given the nature of the game. As far as how "most games" are run, you are no more of an authority on that topic than anyone else.

What I can say is that if a group that I'm DMing for is reckless and goes into a dangerous area unprepared it will not go well for them.

You like save or die. Most people, based on feedback and play testing, do not.