D&D 5E Multiple saves needs to go

[Rabulias]

If a spell requires concentration and allows repeated saves (e.g. hold person) each round, choose one or the other:

1. You choose concentration. Saves are not repeated (or auto failed).
2. You choose NOT to concentrate or lose concentration. Saves now repeat.

So, with hold person, the cleric could cast it and choose NOT to concentrate, but then the target gets to save each round to shrug off the effect. If the cleric chooses to concentrate, then the target (after failing the initial save, which is always allowed!) would NOT get to make saves unless the cleric drops concentration.

For something like flesh to stone, if you concentrate, the target WILL become stone after three rounds. However, if you lose concentration, the target begins making saves normally, but with each concentrated round being an auto failure...

So breaking a caster's concentration in this case does not automatically remove the spell? You just give your ally a chance to save each round? If a target fails their saving throw, can concentration be re-established the next round?

 

[DND_Reborn]

So breaking a caster's concentration in this case does not automatically remove the spell? You just give your ally a chance to save each round? If a target fails their saving throw, can concentration be re-established the next round?

No, "breaking" a caster's concentration ends the spell IF the caster was concentrating. If the caster never choose to concentrate, the spell runs its course.

If the caster chooses to drop concentration, they cannot re-establish it.

In essence, by choosing to concentrate, you are denying further saves--making the spell more powerful--but at the risk that if you are damaged and have that concentration "broken", the spell ends.

If you choose NOT to concentrate, the magic runs its course, but saves are allowed each round, making the spell "weaker" by comparison, but less risky.

 

[Lanefan]

No, "breaking" a caster's concentration ends the spell IF the caster was concentrating. If the caster never choose to concentrate, the spell runs its course.

If the caster chooses to drop concentration, they cannot re-establish it.

Your wording upthread made this unclear; I was about to ask the same question as did @Rabulias . Thanks for clarifying.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Your wording upthread made this unclear; I was about to ask the same question as did @Rabulias . Thanks for clarifying.

No problem, sorry for any confusion.

 

[Jer]

I agree with @Vaalingrade that save-or-suck isn't much fun - for the players or frankly for my own monsters when they get hit by it. It's worse for the players because they only have one character and I have many, but it's still not great.

On the other hand, multiple saves is also kind of a boring way to solve the problem. It works, but it's not exciting. It would be fun if each failed save was meaningful and caused more complications for the PC as they kept failing - as actual complications that might lead to interesting play and not just a death spiral that makes it harder for them to save the more they fail saves. So like a character hit by a turn to stone effect on their first failed save might have disadvantage on their attack rolls and physical ability checks (not saves), on their second failed save they become restrained, on their third one they might become blinded and deafened and the fourth one finally become petrified. Not every save-or-suck effect might have that kind of track, but something that happens with each failed save that isn't just putting you one step closer to doom would be nice.

 

[payn]

I'd like something where save or suck aint so bad; as long as you aint bloodied.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I gotta say, I understand why save or suck/die is no fun for players, but for all the talk about how wizards are awesome and fighters suck, in my experience with 5e the monsters make an awful lot of their saving throws, but they get hit by an awful lot of swords and arrows. Especially arrows.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Absolutely not. There's a very good reason things moved to this model, and why 5e kept this despite it being mostly a 4e-ism (IIRC you saw some stuff do this in very late 3.5e, and in PF as well.)

I'd like something where save or suck aint so bad; as long as you aint bloodied.

This, on the other hand, could make things interesting....except that in-combat healing sucks and cannot meaningfully address the issue, so it just turns the game into rocket tag of "who can get the other side to bloodied the fastest?" The answer will almost always be the PCs in mass fights, and almost always the BBEG in solo fights with a creature that has Legendary Actions. As a result, control-focused casters will dominate in non-"boss" fights, while front-line fighters will suffer rather badly in solo fights (because they'll be the ones most likely to get hit with the "Nastier Specials," as 13A puts it.)

If 5e actually had worthwhile in-combat healing, making it easy to avoid dangerous effects while above bloodied and difficult to do so below bloodied would be a tactically-rich decision environment. With 5e as it currently exists, this would be hardly distinguishable from returning to the "one save, you're dead/debilitated" model.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with @Vaalingrade that save-or-suck isn't much fun - for the players or frankly for my own monsters when they get hit by it. It's worse for the players because they only have one character and I have many, but it's still not great.

On the other hand, multiple saves is also kind of a boring way to solve the problem. It works, but it's not exciting. It would be fun if each failed save was meaningful and caused more complications for the PC as they kept failing - as actual complications that might lead to interesting play and not just a death spiral that makes it harder for them to save the more they fail saves. So like a character hit by a turn to stone effect on their first failed save might have disadvantage on their attack rolls and physical ability checks (not saves), on their second failed save they become restrained, on their third one they might become blinded and deafened and the fourth one finally become petrified. Not every save-or-suck effect might have that kind of track, but something that happens with each failed save that isn't just putting you one step closer to doom would be nice.

Believe it or not, this is what 4e actually did, in a few different ways. You had the "poison/disease track," which would have effects that scaled up(/down) depending on how many saves you failed(/succeeded). You also had several powers and monster actions which would only trigger their full, devastating effects if you failed three saves in a row or the like, with each failed save making the problem progressively worse.

E.g. a medusa's Petrifying Gaze: it's an at-will attack, standard action, attacking all creatures within 25 feet, which causes the target to be slowed (save ends); on the first failed save, the target is instead immobilized (save ends); on the third failed save, the target is petrified (no save.) Blinded targets are immune. This is important for three reasons: one, it heightens tension, especially because this is an at-will so it can be used repeatedly; two, it allows the players to do something about it, because they can do things to try to boost their saving throw results; and three, it has a clear means of attempting to avoid it, by accepting blindness, but this specific monster is a medusa archer, and has a melee attack (her snake hair) which reduces Fortitude, making the petrifying gaze more likely to land, so you have to weigh the pros and cons of various approaches to the problem.

 

[Stalker0]

So the trick is how you think of the spell.

Flesh to Stone isn't really a petrification spell. Petrify is like rolling near max damage on a fireball, sure it could happen, but that's not what your expecting when you cast it.

Flesh to Stone is basically a "save or be restrained for the rest of the fight". At absolute best, the enemy will be restrained for 3 of their turns, which in the vast majority of 5e combats is the entire fight. And if they fail a few more saves, it lasts even longer. So for the right monster its a decent effect (though not for 6th level, at that level it should be affecting multiple creatures).

Now that said, I think its a clunky mechanic to perform that purpose for this spell, its a lot of save rolling for what amounts to little effect in actual practice (also the auto petrify clause is very weird because its cannot happen, once the target has gone 6 rounds it will have either made or failed 3 saves....so there is no scenario where the spell lasts for the full 10 rounds) I think a cleaner mechanic to use would be this.


Flesh to Stone
On a failed save, the target is restrained for the duration. If concentration is maintained for the entire duration, the target makes a constitution saving throw, and on a failure becomes petrified.