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

[Cernor]

Bear in mind that although a 10-dex fighter has no chance of saving against an ancient red dragon's breath attack (because a 20 on a save is just a 20), the same ancient red dragon only misses on a 1 for targets up to 19 AC with its attacks. 19 AC is a lot, even at higher levels, and the targets against whom the dragon is (effectively) guaranteed a hit also tend to be the ones who would be dropped in 1-2 turns by the dragon's attacks.

Giving PCs (but not monsters) proficiency in all saves would drag the game towards fighter dominance unless you also provided a similar way to scale up AC... In which case you're beginning to drift away from bounded accuracy. Personally I think (from actual play experience) that it's fine as is, because the power of a caster's nova is balanced by the consistency of the fighter over the course of a day.

 

[jodyjohnson]

"Broken" seems to be defined as "leading to a result or resolution one doesn't like" in this thread. If you don't like the result of the default rule then it seems that at your table it is "broken".

For some the house rule would be broken for the same reason - it leads to resolutions or results in play that they don't like.

WotC usually defines 'broken' as not working as intended. For example, during the playtest, the Rake subclass (melee swashbuckler/duelist) had an ability that required that it not be adjacent to the target to get advantage by RAW. Players were taking the Lunge feat just to be able to sneak attack opponents by RAW when the RAI was that only the Rake be adjacent to the target. That was 'broken' and was changed in a later packet.

Beyond that the expectation is that groups tailor the rules to match what they intend to have happen at their table.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If/when I do a 5e campaign in a more typical high magic setting where caster dominance is a thing - Greyhawk say, or maybe FR - I'll reconsider. It does seem odd to me that Fighters never get better at dodging Fireballs, but maybe hit point gain is enough to offset that high level characters almost never make 2/3 of their saves although low level ones often do! This approach worked very badly in 3e/3.5e IME (I give my Pathfinder campaign characters & monsters a bonus to all saves equal to half hd/level) but maybe the spells have changed enough in 5e that it's not the same. If anyone has run or played a 5e campaign to 13th level or so and can speak from experience, that would be cool.

Fighters get better at dodging via class abilities like Indomitable and extra Feats (Lucky, Resilient, ASIs). You might want to choose a different example, like the Barbarian.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

It would reduce the mechanical differentiation among the classes and obviate some existing feats, class features, or any rules that might reference 'non-proficient saves.'

I assume 'across the board' would include monsters.

Oh, and it's not really quite like 3e - on the one hand, because 3e casters only got their highest DCs from their highest level spells, and on the other, because 5e casters don't yet have a lot of ways to optimize save DCs.

Giving PCs (but not monsters) proficiency in all saves would drag the game towards fighter dominance ...

It would have to drag it an awfully long way...

 

[redrick]

Leveling the playing field on saves is fine if that's what you want to do! It's your game.

Here's what I'll say from my experience running a 5e game that is, admittedly, only at 6th level. Effects that require saving throws from proficient characters are generally ineffective. If one of my casters (as a GM) casts Hold Person on the cleric, that cleric is probably going to save against the effect. If a wizard casts a fireball, the rogue will probably dodge. In the same way, if a melee monster attacks our sword and board fighter, that monster will probably miss. The monsters need to find ways to get around the almost impregnable strengths of certain characters to capitalize on the weaknesses of other characters.

In this regard, if you use the save DCs for level-appropriate monsters, per the DMG, I think you will find saveable effects to be less effective because the effects are supposed to be effective against the weakest link in your party. Will the rogue still be better at dex saves than the fighter? Sure. The rogue probably has a higher dex, giving an extra 10-20% on saves, above and beyond proficiency. But, by the same token, monsters with saveable effects will become less threatening, because the characters they would be targeting will be getting an extra 10%-30% over what they were designed to face. (And remember, many 5e effects allow saves every round, so save bonuses compound over time.)

One unintended consequence could be that you need to throw higher DC opponents at your characters, to challenge the party as a whole, effectively decreasing the saving potential of traditionally proficient characters. A sort of save inflation.

That being said, my experience might differ by the time we get to 13th level.

 

[S'mon]

Fighters get better at dodging via class abilities like Indomitable and extra Feats (Lucky, Resilient, ASIs). You might want to choose a different example, like the Barbarian.

Not planning on using the Feat or Multiclass options in this campaign.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Not planning on using the Feat or Multiclass options in this campaign.

Okay. That doesn't change the basic point, which is that the fighter already has better saves than anyone else but the monk due to extra ASIs and Indomitable.

 

[Uller]

In our last game the party fought a small horde of ghouls. The fighter, paladin and elf monk took the lead because they quickly realized that Con saves were crucial (and elves are immune). Giving everyone proficiency bonus makes this sort of decision making less important.

 

[Sunseeker]

Not planning on using the Feat or Multiclass options in this campaign.

Then expect certain classes with naturally less class-built versatility to end up being less versatile.

Again, I'm not entirely sure why this is a problem. There is a fix for exactly the problem you are encountering (fighters being bad at dodging fireballs), yet you are unwilling to use it. I suppose as they say: you can take a horse to water...

 

[S'mon]

Then expect certain classes with naturally less class-built versatility to end up being less versatile.

Again, I'm not entirely sure why this is a problem. There is a fix for exactly the problem you are encountering (fighters being bad at dodging fireballs), yet you are unwilling to use it. I suppose as they say: you can take a horse to water...

I'm running 5e online on Dragonsfoot chat with all the dials turned as far over to 1e as possible. That's why I'm not using feats or skills (technically: PCs know all class skills) or the 3e-style multiclassing, and why PCs get better at all their saves. Also the PC groups are likely to be small, 2-3 PCs per session, and often all-martial types.

A couple failed saves could easily be a TPK - and I don't do fudging etc, and it's a status-quo sandbox game, so I want to give them a fighting chance with a reasonable degree of mechanical protection.

Edit: Also, house rule that hit points can go negative, so a downed PC can't be bounced back up by a bit of healing 4e style.