D&D 5E Any reason not to let PCs add Proficiency to all Saves?

[S'mon]

Fluff wise, it doesn't make sense. A fighter is more proficient at con saves than a wizard because a fighter has lead a physically demanding life that has inured him to tough conditions, whereas the Wizard likely hasn't. On the other hand, the Wizard has experience in buckling down and enforcing mental self-discipline in the face of exhaustion and confusion, while the fighter hasn't had as much experience having to do that.

That doesn't really fit with the swords & sorcery genre that this campaign is running in - REH wizards tend to be physically fit, while Conan type warriors have plenty of mental discipline - the variation in stat mods between -1 (8) and +5 (20) seems quite enough to me. Anyway Proficiency is mostly adventuring experience, not pre-game training.

 

[S'mon]

The irony with saves being the way they are is that in fiction, it's usually the other way around (at least for manly fighting men).

The evil sorcerer tries to bind the mind of Our Hero? His purity of purpose allows him to overcome the foul mindbending, and to cave the sorcerer's skull in with his axe. But a treacherous lady slipping some poison into his drink? That's going to lay him low.

Yup. In fact in swords & sorcery the wizards go mad from the unspeakable horrors they've witnessed - if anything they should have a lower WIS save than the sturdy-minded barbarian who answers alien horror with cold steel.

 

[BryonD]

The irony with saves being the way they are is that in fiction, it's usually the other way around (at least for manly fighting men).

The evil sorcerer tries to bind the mind of Our Hero? His purity of purpose allows him to overcome the foul mindbending, and to cave the sorcerer's skull in with his axe. But a treacherous lady slipping some poison into his drink? That's going to lay him low.

Personally, I think the way they work is fair for game purposes (fighters need good Con saves on account of getting stabbed by venomous things all the time and stuff like that), but it is a bit strange.

Yeah, I've fiddled with this a good bit from time to time.

The purity thing can be captured in the mechanics of a paladin, but I completely agree on poison. Poison is tricky because sometimes being tough vs. sickly makes sense for shrugging it off, and other times it really doesn;t at all.

I think of Medusa as well. If you look at Medusa, you turn to stone, shouldn't it be a Will (WIS) save to control yourself and not do that? What does Fort or CON have to do with that.

There are issues and mixing up the saves used can be a good way to enhance the feel.
I think somewhere in the mix the 5E stuff actually encourages this type of thinking.

 

[BryonD]

Yup. In fact in swords & sorcery the wizards go mad from the unspeakable horrors they've witnessed - if anything they should have a lower WIS save than the sturdy-minded barbarian who answers alien horror with cold steel.

This one I don't agree with. For any given exposure the wizard is far more accustomed to dealing with it. It is just that he has been exposed so many times that he has failed more than a few saves along the way.
(just my opinion on it)

 

[Mercule]

I wouldn't do it. It probably isn't game-breaking, but it does impact a variety of other things, as has already been pointed out.

If you really have an issue with the DC for spell saves, then just change that. Make it a base 6, 7, 9, or 10, rather than mucking with the defenders. Changing save DCs will have a (relatively) predictable effect on things.

Personally, I wouldn't even do that, without a lot of thought. Fighters hit more easily at higher levels -- while getting more attacks and doing more damage. Why shouldn't wizards have the same advantage? That's all part of being higher level. There are more ways to counter negative effects, also, Also, keep in mind that hit points are the big balancing factor in 5E. That big pool of "meat-shieldiness" is why the fighter is probably still going to gut the mage, at the end of the day.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

If caster save DC is 8+Prof+stat bonus then target non-Prof saves will get harder and harder at higher levels, much like 3e. I'm not a fan of this. Is there any reason not to give Proficiency in saves across the
board?

Providing no magic items, warriors get better at hitting a caster's AC as both gain levels. Providing no magic items, casters get better at making warriors fail their weak saves as both gain levels. Both can also use resources (feat choices and magic items) to change this, but things are fair as they stand: each class in the game is strong in one of the three most common saving throws and also a secondary one. The game is better, in my opinion, when every class has its weak spots.

 

[Li Shenron]

If caster save DC is 8+Prof+stat bonus then target non-Prof saves will get harder and harder at higher levels, much like 3e. I'm not a fan of this. Is there any reason not to give Proficiency in saves across the
board?

Character (class) differentiation. That's the main reason behind different proficiencies. You can see this either as "glass half full" or "glass half empty", depending on which side you watch it from.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I wouldn't do it because so many magical effects that are very limited resource based would fail far too often to be worth using. No one would fear powerful wizards because their magic is so easy to ignore.

The PCs would get discouraged from bothering to play casters because NPCs and monsters would have the same advantage in the name of giving monsters an even break. No way would this apply only to PCs. Targeting weaknesses is part of tactical play. If there are no weaknesses all options become the same and that gets boring.

 

[S'mon]

Providing no magic items, warriors get better at hitting a caster's AC as both gain levels. Providing no magic items, casters get better at making warriors fail their weak saves as both gain levels. Both can also use resources (feat choices and magic items) to change this, but things are fair as they stand: each class in the game is strong in one of the three most common saving throws and also a secondary one. The game is better, in my opinion, when every class has its weak spots.

If wizards could only do 1 sort of spell this would have merit, but wizards get more spells, different sorts of spells, and more powerful spells. In 1e this was balanced by everyone, especially warriors, getting better at making their saves. In 3e/PF there is no balancing factor and it seems to be an issue with 5e also.

I was mostly concerned in this thread with stuff like classes who got more good saves as levelling benefits, not worries about reduced caster supremacy - I'm sticking with RAW for monsters & NPCs so this house rule doesn't affect the caster PCs unless they're fighting other PCs (or NPCs built as PCs, who will be rare).

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

In 1e this was balanced by everyone, especially warriors, getting better at making their saves. In 3e/PF there is no balancing factor and it seems to be an issue with 5e also.

I've played almost no 1E, so excuse me if my comment (based in my experience with OD&D and 2E) is inaccurate, but while characters in old editions improve their saving throws as they gain levels, they start with very bad saves in almost all categories (a 1st level warrior in 2E saves vs. spells in a result of 17 or higher in a d20) and end up with very good chances of saving against almost anything (a 17th+ level warrior will save against death magic with a 3). To each its own, but I cannot see how 5E's flattened curve is not an improvement over this model.