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

[Tony Vargas]

I actually do think 1e was deadlier, but that was due to the dead at 0hp and lack of hit points a lot more than status effects. The death's door rule made my day the first time I saw it.

I never saw a DM not use it, and I saw a lot get it 'wrong' in minor variations that helped make it that much less deadly. Also, seemed like there was usually some way to boost 1st level hps, max HD at first level seemed very common, for instance.

 

[Ashrym]

Death's door rules were AD&D. It's been a while and I had to go look. I was remembering it from BECMI.

Although thinking back I remember have 17 hp as a 7th level wizard and a DM told me a kobold broke my leg after it hit me for 3 hp damage because "he plays a more realistic game" and somehow attacks and hit points weren't very abstract. I didn't take it well but it turned out he was fun to play with so I got over it quickly enough.

That anecdote came to mind with the hit points because it's a clear memory and 17 hp being average then would be pretty low in 5e.

 

[Li Shenron]

There's a lot of good food for thoughts in this thread...

IIRC, the OP's idea is that saving throws can be boring if they don't have enough dramatic consequences for failure.

The focus on the discussion is then maybe shifted towards mechanics but clearly it's also about the narrative.

Personally, I don't think it really made a difference when they replaced saving throws rolled by the target with spell checks rolled by the caster. It might feel better for a player to roll the dice for the spells she cast instead of having the DM roll for the target, but what about when the target is the PC? Does the player now feel better that instead of being told "roll a saving throw" the DM simply announces "you're paralyzed/petrified/dead, I just rolled it behind the screen"? Instead, if the players really always want to roll, then a variant rule that works differently in the two cases would be better (that is, use saving throws when the PC is the target, use spell checks when the PC is the caster).

Anyway, IMHO saving throws were defensive in nature since the early days of D&D exactly because from a narrative point of view it's more about how the target defends herself from the effect, than how the effect is delivered.

Let me try to elaborate...

With a weapon attack, there is some (small) room for narrating the attack action. I suppose in most cases players just say "I shoot an arrow/swing my sword". But if they want, they can slightly flourish their description e.g. "I lounge and stab my sword to the orc's chest" rather than "I swing widely at the orc" or even "I bang the orc's head". The default core game of D&D never had called shot, so it doesn't really matter to aim at the head or something else, but at least you can describe it if you want. The target can also describe how eventually manages not to get hit, even if AC is static and not rolled: you can describe it either as dodging the blow, the armor absorbing it, the shield intercepting it, the target's weapon deflecting it... I guess every gaming group has their preference on whether describing every attack or not (or maybe only the important ones), but my remark here is that there is room for description on either side. Note that there are games where the defender also rolls, but from a mathematical point of you one roll is enough.

With a spell attack IMHO the narrative room is a lot more on the target. Say that a spellcaster is casting a Fireball, how much room for narrative do you have on the caster's side beyond "I hurl the Fireball"? On the other hand, there is more room for description on how the target saves: "I hide behind by shield", "I crouch down", "I dodge the flames", "I just shrug it off, I don't care if it burns!". In theory spells should be complicated, but I can't really think of a way to vary the narrative of the casting itself. I can flourish the description of the gestures or even come up with verbal components, but these are not exactly what make the spell succeed or fail... it's what the target does!

That said, of course what happens after the casting can be boring depending also on the mechanics... but here things get complicated. Some gaming groups will be bored by having too frequent characters deaths/sucks, and other gaming groups will be bored by having too rare characters deaths/sucks! Very hard to find a setup that works for everyone... it even depends on how many encounters per day, and how often your monsters cast spells at all.

One small (old) tip that comes to my mind is... don't tell the players what they're rolling a save for Drop some fancy description such as "you suddenly feel an unearthly shiver through your spine, as if your life essence is drained away... make a Con save!". Not knowing in advance can make it scary, "please let it not be Finger of Death..." and when they fail they'll be relieved if it's only a minor effect.

 

[5ekyu]

There's a lot of good food for thoughts in this thread...

IIRC, the OP's idea is that saving throws can be boring if they don't have enough dramatic consequences for failure.

The focus on the discussion is then maybe shifted towards mechanics but clearly it's also about the narrative.

Personally, I don't think it really made a difference when they replaced saving throws rolled by the target with spell checks rolled by the caster. It might feel better for a player to roll the dice for the spells she cast instead of having the DM roll for the target, but what about when the target is the PC? Does the player now feel better that instead of being told "roll a saving throw" the DM simply announces "you're paralyzed/petrified/dead, I just rolled it behind the screen"? Instead, if the players really always want to roll, then a variant rule that works differently in the two cases would be better (that is, use saving throws when the PC is the target, use spell checks when the PC is the caster).

Anyway, IMHO saving throws were defensive in nature since the early days of D&D exactly because from a narrative point of view it's more about how the target defends herself from the effect, than how the effect is delivered.

Let me try to elaborate...

With a weapon attack, there is some (small) room for narrating the attack action. I suppose in most cases players just say "I shoot an arrow/swing my sword". But if they want, they can slightly flourish their description e.g. "I lounge and stab my sword to the orc's chest" rather than "I swing widely at the orc" or even "I bang the orc's head". The default core game of D&D never had called shot, so it doesn't really matter to aim at the head or something else, but at least you can describe it if you want. The target can also describe how eventually manages not to get hit, even if AC is static and not rolled: you can describe it either as dodging the blow, the armor absorbing it, the shield intercepting it, the target's weapon deflecting it... I guess every gaming group has their preference on whether describing every attack or not (or maybe only the important ones), but my remark here is that there is room for description on either side. Note that there are games where the defender also rolls, but from a mathematical point of you one roll is enough.

With a spell attack IMHO the narrative room is a lot more on the target. Say that a spellcaster is casting a Fireball, how much room for narrative do you have on the caster's side beyond "I hurl the Fireball"? On the other hand, there is more room for description on how the target saves: "I hide behind by shield", "I crouch down", "I dodge the flames", "I just shrug it off, I don't care if it burns!". In theory spells should be complicated, but I can't really think of a way to vary the narrative of the casting itself. I can flourish the description of the gestures or even come up with verbal components, but these are not exactly what make the spell succeed or fail... it's what the target does!

That said, of course what happens after the casting can be boring depending also on the mechanics... but here things get complicated. Some gaming groups will be bored by having too frequent characters deaths/sucks, and other gaming groups will be bored by having too rare characters deaths/sucks! Very hard to find a setup that works for everyone... it even depends on how many encounters per day, and how often your monsters cast spells at all.

One small (old) tip that comes to my mind is... don't tell the players what they're rolling a save for Drop some fancy description such as "you suddenly feel an unearthly shiver through your spine, as if your life essence is drained away... make a Con save!". Not knowing in advance can make it scary, "please let it not be Finger of Death..." and when they fail they'll be relieved if it's only a minor effect.

"Instead, if the players really always want to roll, then a variant rule that works differently in the two cases would be better (that is, use saving throws when the PC is the target, use spell checks when the PC is the caster)."

My games use Players Always Roll (PAR) so I as GM never roll dice. Its always in the players hands when uncertainty is resolved. Game after game, its been a hit.

 

[shadowoflameth]

That sounds like a perfect example of what I would consider boring saves and encounter overall.

Where is the tension and excitement if nothing matters?

True, but remember that it isn't intended that Saves are the determining factor every time. How good damage rolls are, how well the character's luck on an attack roll is also should have an effect. In this example the party's uck was such that even though they failed every save, between them, they were able to keep up an effective offense. I also played a game where the party was spanking a drow vampire. The villain was almost dead (as opposed to undead) and then got a crit on the rogue with blood drain. The drow got then did it again and healed some more. The rogue is now almost unconscious and the monster has healed almost all the way back. In contrast, he used dominate during the battle but everyone made their saves and it was totally ineffective.