D&D 5E Failing saves is...ok?

[James Gasik]

5e is designed in such a way that most characters are going to have not only bad saves, but usually at least one 'critical' save that they will lack proficiency in. I've seen this described thusly; "you are not expected to make all your saves, and that's okay". It's true that there don't seem to be (m)any 'save or die' effects in the game.

But is it really ok?

There's still a lot of terrifying effects out there that can totally get your character killed, all because you got a low roll on a d20. Reducing maximum hit points, the poisoned condition, paralysis, instantly being reduced to 0 hit points- and of course, spells that can temporarily banish you from existence, or disintegrate you outright.

I've heard DM's claim that it makes monsters challenging again, when they have a reasonable expectation of their powers working- but on the other hand, if you're at full hit points and have made no tactical blunders, is it fun to be unable to do anything because you rolled a 3 on a d20?

This speaks to the heart of the game, as saving throws in one form or another are simply a part of D&D. And I'm not suggesting the game would be better if you never fail saving throws. But with limited ways to actually prevent the nightmare scenario, which WILL come up for most characters, as you're probably not going to have good Dex, Con, and Wis saves (not to mention the occasional Int or Cha save of doom- Str seems ok to fail most of the time, at least). You can only take Resilient once, and only a few classes get extra saving throw proficiencies (or get massive boosts to non-proficient saves, like the Paladin).

It's true that a well-built party can mitigate this issue immensely- Bless, Resistance, Paladin auras, Bard inspiration, and the like. But I also keep hearing that 5e isn't meant to require optimization on that level (plus, it's been my experience that party op is rarely used beyond "hey who's playing the healer?").

It's also true that the wonky way saves are calculated (starting at 8+bonuses as opposed to 10+ like AC) does make failing critical saves less likely at low levels, but at higher levels of play, that won't save you. I've actually faced a creature with a save DC of 20 in Storm King's Thunder, something a character with an 9 or less in an ability score can't save against (as even a natural 20 will not save you in 5e). That's...possibly an indictment against dumping ability scores in this addition, but it's still kind of insane to see happen in actual play, and not some theory-op exercise.

Again, at this point, it comes down to magic to save the day- no need to worry about failing a save against dragonfear after eating your daily required Heroes' Feast, but again, I find myself remembering a lot of people going on about how optimization shouldn't be necessary in 5e...

So how do you feel about saving throws? Sacred cow that needs to be ground into hamburger? Implemented poorly? Just needs a tweak here and there to succeed? Or is everything working fine, nothing to see here?

 

[jaelis]

The game doesn't especially rely on effects that can get you "killed" on a failed save, they are just one tool of many. If your group doesn't like that kind of risk, then as a DM you can avoid using them. And if your group gets bored if there isn't some risk of death, then you can use them a lot. I don't see a compelling need to change that dynamic.

As for more minor effects like getting frightened or poisoned, that doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[TwoSix]

It's only a nightmare scenario if you view character death as something to be avoided at all costs. I don't (generally) seek it out, but if it happens, it happens. That just means I get to play a new character next time!

 

[jasper]

Nothing to see here.

 

[LordEntrails]

Yes it's ok.

If the game was designed that you always made your saves, then why bother to have the mechanic at all?

To me, it's the similar argument as to if you should allow characters to die. Of course you should, no risk, no reward.

 

[Caliban]

Individual characters aren't expected to have an answer for everything (not that this stops us from trying). That's why you are part of a team. You are expected to fail saves, and it is expected to be able to either restore you themselves, or finish the fight without you and drag you to a cleric or whatever is needed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've heard DM's claim that it makes monsters challenging again, when they have a reasonable expectation of their powers working

IDK about 'again,' I guess it's all about context. In 1e, at high level, you could count on making saves, it became a 'Murphy's Rule' comic, even - high-level PCs quaffing poison and commenting on the taste...

- but on the other hand, if you're at full hit points and have made no tactical blunders, is it fun to be unable to do anything because you rolled a 3 on a d20?

Yeah, it kinda is, actually, especially if you can resume having fun the next round if you roll a 4+. OTOH, if rolling a 17 still doesn't get you out of it, you're getting into some serious un-fun territory.

I'm not suggesting the game would be better if you never fail saving throws.

The PCs always making saves would work better than them never making saves. We are modeling protagonists from heroic fantasy, here.

Again, at this point, it comes down to magic to save the day- no need to worry about failing a save against dragonfear after eating your daily required Heroes' Feast, but again, I find myself remembering a lot of people going on about how optimization shouldn't be necessary in 5e...

Depending entirely on casters' resources to deal with every problem isn't optimization, it's just D&D. Getting your save bonus up to +16 somehow, on your own, without having casters concentrating on you, that'd be optimization.

So how do you feel about saving throws? Sacred cow that needs to be ground into hamburger? Implemented poorly? Or is everything working fine, nothing to see here?

The Sacred Cow in question was killed by 3.0, actually. In the TSR era, saves improved steadily across the board as you leveled, both from the saving throw matrix (which, like the combat matrix, scaled fastest for fighters), and from accumulating items that granted saving throw bonuses. The result was that even as spells got more fearsome in their effects, they became less and less likely to actually work, because there was no 'DC' to scale on the caster/monster side. A few high level spells gave save penalties, but they generally didn't keep up. A few others - highly valued - gave no saves.

3.0 radically changed that. Instead of classes starting out somewhat better at some saves than others, but all their saves getting better, classes got 'good' saves, which started at +2 and scaled with level, including any bonuses to stats or saving throws you might get along the way, and 'bad' saves that started at 0 and scaled /very/ slowly. Conversely, save DCs scaled with spell slot and the caster's prime stat, which would, of course, be optimized to the nth degree, the result was that you got net worse at making saves as you leveled, yet spells still became more fearsome at higher level.

4e 'fixed' that situation by consolidating the save mechanic into the attack mechanic. Instead of 3 saves, two of which languished dramatically, leaving you helpless before the all-powerful 3.x Tier 1 casters, you got 3 non-AC defenses, at least one of which slowly fell behind as you leveled (they scaled the same with level (and expected items) as AC, but so did the attacks that targeted, AND you needed to keep three stats maxxed to keep all your saves up, and you could only max two, leaving you increasingly vulnerable to the mildly over-powered high-Tier-3 casters (that's what passes for 'balanced' in D&D history).

5e 'fixed' /that/ situation by returning to a separate save mechanic, and to six saves instead of three (two of many ways in which 5e increased needless complexity in order to make the game feel simpler - no, that's actually what it did, that's not a dig, it's intentionally ironic, sure, but not a dig, that's actually how it works when designing D&D for D&Ders). It made saves BA-compliant, by basing both the DC and the saving throw on Proficiency & a stat. Well, to be clear, every save DC adds proficiency and is based on a primary stat, likely to hit 20, or scales with level as if it were being calculated that way, in the case of monsters &c, while most classes get proficiency with only two save bonuses, and each save uses a different stat, so only one save (if you're proficient) is likely to keep pace (tread water) against DCs. Most of your saves will fall behind, and several will likely never improve at all even over 20 levels.

Just needs a tweak here and there to succeed?

There are some tweaks that could help. Re-instituting scaling for 'bad' saves wouldn't help much, but it'd help. For instance, non-proficient saves could scale at half proficiency (+1 to +3) or proficiency-2 (0 to +4). 'Expertise' in a save might be made available. The fighter's Indomitable ability could be improved. A 'Magic Resistance' feat could grant proficiency on all saves vs magical effects. Etc...
Save DCs could be based on slot level instead of character level, or they could be fixed, based on the effect rather than the caster, so that saves actually do improve, rather than (at best) tread water.
For actual, rather than perceived (traditional) simplicity/consistency, saves could be folded back into the attack mechanic.

 

[Krachek]

I like the way magic take effects more often in 5ed.
Have been frustrating in past edition, when most spells or powers were often below 50% success rate.
It make the 5ed dynamic that spell and weapon attack hit more often.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*