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

[Tony Vargas]

The risks seen in actual gameplay in 5e are set by the GM and choices withinthat campaign, not 5e system itself.

While this is true in every edition, the mechanics presented by the system can have an effect on how deadly or risky it seems. Save-or-die effects were well-known to players back in the day, as were player-side counters to them. Very low-"level" (not that there was CR back then) monsters, often included in low-level modules, forced poison saves with death a consequence (though some noted that the DM might choose not to go through with that), and a 2nd level spell to stave off that effect was right in the PH.

Put together with a lot of other things in 1e presentation, that could create an aura of danger, and a player-side 'style' of paranoia - to the extent of partially inspiring the game of the same name - which could end up pretty far from the usual tropes of 'heroic' fantasy. While 5e can break plenty deadly at first level, there's nothing about the presentation & mechanics that encourage outright paranoia, a DM would have to work at achieving that same feel with wildly overpowered encounters (relative to the guidelines), very high-damage dangers, arbitrarily narrating not only failure but fatality, and the like. It's not that such is impossible nor even difficult under 5e, but players might not be so inclined to accept it, when the game, itself, isn't priming them to expect it, and the demonstrations they may have seen of play don't generally tend that way.

 

[Oofta]

While this is true in every edition, the mechanics presented by the system can have an effect on how deadly or risky it seems. Save-or-die effects were well-known to players back in the day, as were player-side counters to them. Very low-"level" (not that there was CR back then) monsters, often included in low-level modules, forced poison saves with death a consequence (though some noted that the DM might choose not to go through with that), and a 2nd level spell to stave off that effect was right in the PH.

Put together with a lot of other things in 1e presentation, that could create an aura of danger, and a player-side 'style' of paranoia - to the extent of partially inspiring the game of the same name - which could end up pretty far from the usual tropes of 'heroic' fantasy. While 5e can break plenty deadly at first level, there's nothing about the presentation & mechanics that encourage outright paranoia, a DM would have to work at achieving that same feel with wildly overpowered encounters (relative to the guidelines), very high-damage dangers, arbitrarily narrating not only failure but fatality, and the like. It's not that such is impossible nor even difficult under 5e, but players might not be so inclined to accept it, when the game, itself, isn't priming them to expect it, and the demonstrations they may have seen of play don't generally tend that way.

My players are plenty paranoid thank you very much. The fact that it is not the base assumption IMHO is a good thing. It's easy to add that layer of fear, it's a lot tougher to remove it if it's the base assumption.

 

[Ashrym]

and a 2nd level spell to stave off that effect was right in the PH.

Gaze reflection was even 1st-level spell.

 

[5ekyu]

"Yes, in fact you are, as per @Umbran "

In that post you link it explicitly states this - "We expect you to quietly use the Ignore feature first, and ask for this only when that's insufficient. "

So far, as i do not see any indication that i have been ignored by this user, who keeps q

 

[5ekyu]

"Yes, in fact you are, as per @Umbran "

In that post you link it explicitly states this - "We expect you to quietly use the Ignore feature first, and ask for this only when that's insufficient. "

So far, as i do not see any indication that i have been ignored by this user, who keeps quoting me, it seems that so far this has not met the expectations listed in that post.

 

[Umbran]

Mod note:
@Sacrosanct and @5ekyu

Both of you should probably remember that the conflict here can be ended by booting one or the other, or both of you, out of the thread, and that doing so is very easy - just a click away.

Please comport yourselves as if continuing in the discussion is contingent on you not being a pain in the neck.

 

[5ekyu]

Mod note:
@Sacrosanct and @5ekyu

Both of you should probably remember that the conflict here can be ended by booting one or the other, or both of you, out of the thread, and that doing so is very easy - just a click away.

Please comport yourselves as if continuing in the discussion is contingent on you not being a pain in the neck.

Thank you. Can you please tell me what I have done in this thread that I must stop doing if I want to not be booted? What transgressions have I done in your eyes to warrant this call out?

Thanks.

 

[ad_hoc]

This might be a tangent, but I have found 5e to be very deadly by following the encounter guidelines.

I find players really start to struggle after 4 or 5 encounters. If there is a "boss" encounter at the end of that then they're really in trouble.

5e is dangerous over the course of the adventuring day, not usually in any single battle or for any single saving throw. Those failed saving throws really do add up if you have an appropriately challenging game.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Agree. 1e made hp far more vital to survival since dropping to zero was dead. Tho again, the vast majority of 1e and later 2e had so many house rules to plug this and that my recollects of those from 30+ years ago does not conjure any given singular "feel." Each table was its own island of patches and add-on and all that jazz.