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

[5ekyu]

I argued against your statement that I was using how often monsters appear in the books as the reason why 1e was more lethal. Because that's not what I was arguing. I already explained it's how often they appear in the game, not in the manual. Those are two different things.

So when I listed a whole bunch of monsters that appear frequently, that doesn't change my point. The ghoul shows up once in the MM. So does an intellect devourer. But which of those shows up more often than the other in actual games?

That list I provided was meant to show you how your entire argument falls apart because those are monsters that appear in the game all the time. As I said, the only way your argument works if none of those monsters or traps or scenarios are ever encountered. Which I shouldn't have to point out is extremely implausible in a typical campaign of D&D.




And I think we're done here then. If your argument is that the mechanics (getting multiple saves, less penalties for failing saves) and monster design (much less danger from special attacks) doesn't impact how lethal a typical game is, and insisting that no edition is typically played with more lethality than any other because it always comes down to the DM, and insist on ignoring how typical games are played, then I find that such a disingenuous position that I don't think it's possible to have an honest conversation.

People tend to play games as a whole based on the rules of the game. I could play 1e with giving every PC max HP regen after ever battle because that's my choice as a DM, but that doesn't mean 1e is typically played with PCs getting max HP back after every encounter. You're a smart person, you know this. So I don't know why you insist on arguing. Either way, I'm done.

"As I said, the only way your argument works if none of those monsters or traps or scenarios are ever encountered."

Since as i understand it,neither of us has used "all" or "only" in descriotions of encounters or risks - you used ""most" i thnk quite a bit - then the claim that either point "only works if none..." are used seems at odds with what we have said.

My point has been from thr beginning that the GM can choose the risk and difficulty and threat seen in their actual gameplay not that either must be chosen.

As for... "typical game"... I made no comment making assumptions about typical games. You have tedned to refer vaguely about "5e games" etc... But my point has bern consistently that a 5e game will have its threat set by the gm or table etc regrdless of that being low or high or mixed and matched.

If you have a beef with your perceptio of how other groups run their games, "typical" games etc, thats a different topic and not one system would affect.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not all low level saves were instant death from that list of monsters. You also instantly died from taking enough damage quite regularly regardless of the saves because hit points were also lower.

You could instantly die from any poisonous creature, even at level 1. Even from the lowly centipede. You are simply wrong. You really should familiarize yourself with the AD&D monster manual and DMG before continuing to show you don't know what you're talking about. And I'm not talking about damage. That's irrelevant. The point is that failing a save at every level was worse in AD&D than 5e. I don't know how you can argue against that. It's literally in black and white. Save or die largely doesn't exist in 5e. It does and was common in AD&D. End of story.

I'm not wrong. Adjusting the bonus or penalty to the saving throw was a case by case arbitrary adjustment made to change the effectiveness of those individual monsters because there was not scaling system built in.

When you have a bonus or penalty to saves that correlates with the HD of the monster, that is literally level scaling.

Dying from one failure isn't the point. The question is whether dying from one failure changes the behaviors you described compared to the current mechanics. Being sidelined for 24 hours impacts the rest of the fight just as much as instant stone. Losing the fight turned into a wipe anyway.

Having your PC petrified for 24 hours, after failing two save attempts, is not the same as instantly and forever being turned to stone after one fail. Not even close.

I don't agree that the behaviors have changed. Do you have something beyond personal experience to back that up?

It's common sense that people adjust their behaviors based on risk. We have numerous examples of this in real life all the time. From a sports player with an injured leg who decides to sit the rest of the game if there is a high risk of them breaking a leg, to deciding to stop for gas instead of going on empty if there is no gas station down the road after this one, to being willing to eat all of that cake and not eating the rat poison because the cake will make you feel a bit sick for a day while the poison will kill you, to deciding not to jump out of a plane without a parachute, to everything else that has risk associated with it. If you disagree with that, it's up to you to prove how RPGs are different.

 

[Oofta]

Nobody on this forum knows how "most games" are run. As far as how deadly the game is, that's been up to the DM in every edition I've ever been involved in.

In older games if I didn't want to kill off PCs because of a bad roll I had to avoid certain monsters, house rule or make raise dead easier.

In 5E if I want a deadly encounter I just throw more monsters or set up the environment to favor the bad guys.

The level of threat has always been set at a point agreed upon by me an my players. 5E just makes that easier.

 

[Sacrosanct]

"As I said, the only way your argument works if none of those monsters or traps or scenarios are ever encountered."

Since as i understand it,neither of us has used "all" or "only" in descriotions of encounters or risks - you used ""most" i thnk quite a bit - then the claim that either point "only works if none..." are used seems at odds with what we have said.

My point has been from thr beginning that the GM can choose the risk and difficulty and threat seen in their actual gameplay not that either must be chosen.

As for...

I said we were done for the reasons I gave. Stop quoting me. I'm asking you twice now.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Alternatively, as a DM, what I want is irrelevant. I am obligated to present the world in a fair and impartial manner. Any speculations regarding threat level are equally irrelevant, since out-of-game observations cannot impact the in-game reality.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Alternatively, as a DM, what I want is irrelevant. I am obligated to present the world in a fair and impartial manner. Any speculations regarding threat level are equally irrelevant, since out-of-game observations cannot impact the in-game reality.

Also, players have an expectation on how a game is being run based on the rules. I, and any player, can join an AL game and have a good idea of what to expect based on the rules of the game. And I would have a totally different expectation on a 1e game than I would a 5e game based on how those rules of each edition are written. That's not some outrageous claim I'm making here, and yes, we do have an idea of how the typical game is run because not only do we have many examples to look at, but we have an assumption that a typical table plays with the typical rules framework. Minor adjustments and houserules exist, but we can in fact make an assessment on a how a typical game works. Otherwise things like AL couldn't exist.

 

[5ekyu]

I said we were done for the reasons I gave. Stop quoting me. I'm asking you twice now.

I am fine if you choose to not respond to my comments on this public forum.

But i am not obliged to not respond to this comversation evenyour comments because you dont like them.

I did edit out the name link in case being notified of the quote is distressing.

 

[5ekyu]

Nobody on this forum knows how "most games" are run. As far as how deadly the game is, that's been up to the DM in every edition I've ever been involved in.

In older games if I didn't want to kill off PCs because of a bad roll I had to avoid certain monsters, house rule or make raise dead easier.

In 5E if I want a deadly encounter I just throw more monsters or set up the environment to favor the bad guys.

The level of threat has always been set at a point agreed upon by me an my players. 5E just makes that easier.

"The level of threat has always been set at a point agreed upon by me an my players. 5E just makes that easier."

Yup. Even if that agreement is more deferred as in "play a module" or AL or "ssndbox" or whatever kind of personal labelling we adopt.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I am fine if you choose to not respond to my comments on this public forum.

But i am not obliged to not respond to this comversation evenyour comments because you dont like them.

Yes, in fact you are, as per @Umbran

 

[Oofta]

The only edition I've ever had a total TPK was in 3.5 (a party of all mages was not a good idea). But I've had plenty of near-TPK scenarios and killed off a PC or two in every edition, including 5E. I run a very sand-boxy game, but I still control what monsters populate the regions the PCs could possibly encounter.

But other than that? The current version of the game is easier to fine tune but it's never been any less deadly in my experience. Does that match up to the experiences the majority of other people have? I have no clue and I don't know how anyone else could know with any degree of certainty.