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

[FormerlyHemlock]

5e's meant to evoke past editions, and past edition have approached attacks in a few very different ways. 5e does a fine job, with regards to saves, of evoking the classic game at low level and 3e at it's least broken. But, while it makes PCs amazingly resilient in terms of hps relative to 1e, it also makes them much more vulnerable to failed saves.

That's wildly overstated. In AD&D 1E, a 20th level fighter who went up against a 3rd level priest with Hold Person had a 25% chance of winding up dead: he had a 75% chance to save, and a 25% chance to be paralyzed for three rounds, during which he could be instantly slain. In 5E, his odds of winding up dead are approximately 0%: he has a 60-80%ish chance to save (even higher if you count Indomitable) and a 20-40%ish chance to be paralyzed for a round or three, during which time the priest can do not-quite-double-damage at advantage to his massive stack of HP.

I can't speak for 3E or 4E, but 5E is far more forgiving of failed saves than AD&D was. In 5E, failed saves aren't catastrophes, merely speed bumps.

 

[Nagol]

Do you mean Bless or Guidance? Bless doesn't help ability checks, and Expertise doesn't help saving throws or attack rolls, so they never both apply to the same roll.

D'oh! I meant Guidance.

 

[Nagol]

That's wildly overstated. In AD&D 1E, a 20th level fighter who went up against a 3rd level priest with Hold Person had a 25% chance of winding up dead: he had a 75% chance to save, and a 25% chance to be paralyzed for three rounds, during which he could be instantly slain. In 5E, his odds of winding up dead are approximately 0%: he has a 60-80%ish chance to save (even higher if you count Indomitable) and a 20-40%ish chance to be paralyzed for a round or three, during which time the priest can do not-quite-double-damage at advantage to his massive stack of HP.

I can't speak for 3E or 4E, but 5E is far more forgiving of failed saves than AD&D was. In 5E, failed saves aren't catastrophes, merely speed bumps.

Heck, in my experience, in 1e he'd have a 5% chance of the spell affecting him -- at best -- and that's after the -2 penalty to save for targeting a single person.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's wildly overstated.

Not really, no. Your saves improved as you leveled, they improved at a different rate for everyone, and fastest for the fighter. There were no scaling save DCs, so everyone got better, and the fighter more so.

I can't speak for 3E or 4E, but 5E is far more forgiving of failed saves than AD&D was.

3e was as unforgiving of failed saves as ever, SoD was still very much a thing, and save DCs could be optimized to untouchable levels, and not just at very high level. 4e consolidated all attacks, including those that used saves in other editions, into attack rolls, vs AC or one of 3 non-AC defense (that corresponded neatly to 3e saves). Like AC, non-AC defenses and attacks vs them scaled with level, though one or two would often fall behind because of the way ASI's worked in that edition. So you actually had attack rolls rather than saving throws, 'saves' in 4e were a straight 55/45 roll that was more of a duration mechanic than anything else. 4e did not have SoD mechanics, hits didn't kill you, an durations, including 'save ends' tended to be quite short. (But 4e was also 'exception based design' so there were occassional exceptions to prove those rules - the bodak reduces your hps to 0 with a hit, and the beholder's death ray would kill you if you stayed under it long enough, for instance.)

In 5E, failed saves aren't catastrophes, merely speed bumps.

You can still end up paralyzed or dominated or the like. That's more wall than bump.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Still discussing this claim:

5e's meant to evoke past editions, and past edition have approached attacks in a few very different ways. 5e does a fine job, with regards to saves, of evoking the classic game at low level and 3e at it's least broken. But, while it makes PCs amazingly resilient in terms of hps relative to 1e, it also makes them much more vulnerable to failed saves.

That's wildly overstated. *snip*

Not really, no. Your saves improved as you leveled, they improved at a different rate for everyone, and fastest for the fighter. There were no scaling save DCs, so everyone got better, and the fighter more so.

I already gave a counterexample for this but you snipped it. A 20th level fighter maxed out at a 75% chance to survive a fight with a 3rd level priest. (Save vs. spells: 6 or better on a d20 = 75% chance of success.) If Conan infiltrates the Temple of the Low-Level Cultists, his only real chance to come out alive is to minimize the number of 3rd level cultist priests who get to cast spells at him. He has to sneak past them or take a hostage or intimidate them into surrendering, but he can't afford to just power through their spells and assume he'll be fine, or he'll probably be dead before he's done with his third cultist.

In 5E, in contrast, simply powering through would be a viable strategy. A 5E 20th level fighter could handle a dozen 3rd level cultists in succession, no sweat. Occasionally he'll get paralyzed for a round or two, and take an unnecessary fifteen or twenty points of damage, but he basically just shrugs that off and goes right back to murdering cultists.

You keep focusing on the numbers, Tony, and missing the forest for the trees. Regardless of the rate at which saving throws improved back then versus now, 5E is far more forgiving of failed saving throws than AD&D was. Just ask Conan.

You can still end up paralyzed or dominated or the like. That's more wall than bump.

AD&D: failed save vs. domination = you're dominated for days, weeks or months depending on your intelligence (2-4 weeks was typical), or until you are forced to take an "action against [your] nature."
5E: failed save vs. domination = you're dominated for the next six seconds or until you take damage again.

AD&D: failed save vs. paralyzation = you're paralyzed for probably the rest of the fight, and (in 1E) during that time you can be insta-killed by anyone who bothers to do so.
5E: failed save vs. paralyzation = you're paralyzed for six seconds, and during that time attackers have advantage to attack you, and if they are within 5' they get auto-crits. You don't get to do anything this round.

5E's penalties are speed bumps in comparison.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I already gave a counterexample for this but you snipped it.

It's not a counter example. At 1st level, that fighter'd've needed a 17 or something to save vs spells. At 14th or 16th or something, he'd max out as 6. That's a lot of very real improvement,

But, unlike 5e, the classic game /did/ assume magic items, and protection items that granted save bonuses were not unusual at all. So the high-level (any double-digit level, really) fighter probably would be making many saves on a 2.

(The level of the attacker didn't matter, it could be a 20th level wizard casting Stone to Flesh and the saves would've been the same.)

In 5e, saves scale with the level of the attacker, and only a minority of save bonuses do, so you net get worse as you level up. A first level fighter making a save vs a low-level caster's Hold Person might need to roll a 14. The same fighter making a save vs a highl-level caster's Hold Person, might need a natural 20. Take him up to 20th level, himself, nothing changes. Mostly, though, you don't save vs low level enemies at 20th or vs 20th level enemies at first. It can happen, and it would be devastating to be mobbed by by low-level critters that paralyze you on a 13 or worse natural roll when you're 20th level, but you're still not likely to see that happen.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's not a counter example. At 1st level, that fighter'd've needed a 17 or something to save vs spells. At 14th or 16th or something, he'd max out as 6. That's a lot of very real improvement,

How is that relevant to supporting your claim that 5E makes the fighter "much more vulnerable to failed saves"?

But, unlike 5e, the classic game /did/ assume magic items, and protection items that granted save bonuses were not unusual at all. So the high-level (any double-digit level, really) fighter probably would be making many saves on a 2.

Eh, maybe. I was young munchkin enough back then that I don't want to draw any inferences from the way I ran the game (which involved high stats and intrinsic abilities but not many magic items, since those magic items would just roasted off you anyway by the first failed save vs. Fireball), but even if Conan only dies 5% of the time against that 3rd level priest, 5E's 0% chance of death is still not making 5E Conan "much more vulnerable" than 1E Conan. Quite the contrary.

(The level of the attacker didn't matter, it could be a 20th level wizard casting Stone to Flesh and the saves would've been the same.)

In 5e, saves scale with the level of the attacker, and only a minority of save bonuses do, so you net get worse as you level up. A first level fighter making a save vs a low-level caster's Hold Person might need to roll a 14. The same fighter making a save vs a highl-level caster's Hold Person, might need a natural 20. Take him up to 20th level, himself, nothing changes. Mostly, though, you don't save vs low level enemies at 20th or vs 20th level enemies at first. It can happen, and it would be devastating to be mobbed by by low-level critters that paralyze you on a 13 or worse natural roll when you're 20th level, but you're still not likely to see that happen.

Again, if you choose to abandon bounded accuracy and use only high-level foes against a high-level party, that's on you as the adventure designer. That isn't 5E's fault. The guy who invented the term "bounded accuracy" said so.

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained....

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don't have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level.

The DM's monster roster expands, never contracts. Although low-level characters probably don't stack up well against higher-level monsters, thanks to the high hit points and high damage numbers of those monsters, as the characters gain levels, the lower-level monsters continue to be useful to the DM, just in greater numbers. While we might fight only four goblins at a time at 1st level, we might take on twelve of them at 5th level without breaking a sweat. Since the monsters don't lose the ability to hit the player characters—instead they take out a smaller percentage chunk of the characters' hit points—the DM can continue to increase the number of monsters instead of needing to design or find whole new monsters. Thus, the repertoire of monsters available for DMs to use in an adventure only increases over time, as new monsters become acceptable challenges and old monsters simply need to have their quantity increased.

Even if you do choose to use only high-level foes, you're still not "much more vulnerable to failed saves" because the 5E consequences aren't all that bad. Again, in 1E, a failed save vs. Charm Person could mean you were permanently enslaved/subverted/whatever. (That's how Bigby originated--as an NPC Charmed by Mordenkainen.) In 5E, it means you can't directly attack the guy who charmed you. In 1E, a failed save vs. Hold Person took you out of the rest of the whole encounter and possibly led to insta-death; in 5E it prevents you from acting and makes you take double damage, maybe, next round. In 1E, a failed save vs. Polymorph Other forced a system shock roll which had a pretty decent shot at insta-killing you (20-30% would be typical, plus another 20-30% chance at death when the Polymorph ends, if ever), and you stayed in that other form (e.g. frog's body) long-term, and had a chance of losing your own mind and personality eventually; in 5E you are transformed for a maximum of one hour, have no chance of insta-death, and in fact even get extra HP while polymorphed that don't count against your real HP.

It's generally true that PCs playing with a DM who doesn't respect bounded accuracy will have a higher probability of failing saves in 5E, but they are not "much more vulnerable to a failed save" than they were in 1E. Quite the contrary.

If you want to prove your claim you need to stop talking about numbers in a vacuum and start talking about actual consequences to which 5E PCs are vulnerable on a failed save.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How is that relevant to supporting your claim that 5E makes the fighter "much more vulnerable to failed saves"?

Much more likely to fail saves at high level, pretty clearly. (Maybe I should have said 'failing' rather than 'failed' to be sufficiently precise?) I mean, you have saving on a 6, /before/ obligatory magic items (quite possibly failing only on a natural '1'), back in the day, vs needing a natural 20 in 5e, today. Seems like a difference.

Eh, maybe. I was young munchkin enough back then that I don't want to draw any inferences from the way I ran the game

Just infer from the tables in the DMG & MM. Magic items'd come up, it was a given, an expectation, and protective items were hardly uncommon. Many a 1st-level dungeon would have a +1 ring of protection to go with the healing potions, +1 dagger, &c.

Again, if you choose to abandon bounded accuracy and use only high-level foes against a high-level party

The system abandoned bounded accuracy when it left 'bad' saves non-scaling while having all save DCs scale with level & best stat. Could you keep facing low-DC saves at high level? Sure, but to bring those low-level/low-DC critters up to an easy encounter budget, you'll be facing more of 'em. And you've not gotten any better at making them, so failing at least one is that much more likely.

Even if you do choose to use only high-level foes, you're still not "much more vulnerable to failed saves" because the 5E consequences aren't all that bad. Again, in 1E, a failed save vs. Charm Person could mean you were permanently enslaved/subverted/whatever.

Really, the line between permanent and long enough to be killed isn't all that significant. Spells like Hold are 'balanced' in 5e with repeated saves (something that started in 3.5), but repeating a save you need to roll crazy high on is not much of a limiting factor.

If you want to prove your claim you need to stop talking about numbers in a vacuum and start talking about actual consequences to which 5E PCs are vulnerable on a failed save.

I've acknowledge that SoDs are mostly off the table in 5e, but I'm afraid that just doesn't make up for it. If failed saves were like successful hits, and just resulted in damage vs your hps, it would start to make sense for saves to suck as badly as they do. Almost. It's still easier to get a decent AC in 5e than to cover all 6 saves...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Just infer from the tables in the DMG & MM. Magic items'd come up, it was a given, an expectation, and protective items were hardly uncommon. Many a 1st-level dungeon would have a +1 ring of protection to go with the healing potions, +1 dagger, &c.

Yes, but they got melted off you pretty quick too. Even a Cloak of Protection +3 wouldn't last all that long before it was gone.

You've said that this rule was obscure and unused in your circles, so apparently the way I ran the game was unusual by your standards. I thought it was totally normal though.

Really, the line between permanent and long enough to be killed isn't all that significant. Spells like Hold are 'balanced' in 5e with repeated saves (something that started in 3.5), but repeating a save you need to roll crazy high on is not much of a limiting factor.

Probabilities compound, and most 5E saves don't have DCs that are that high anyway. The ones that do tend not to have very severe effects, or the effects can be circumvented (sometimes easily). Can you give an example of a 5E monster that can't reasonably be used against PCs without proficiency in all the right saving throws?

I honestly can't.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I've seen this described thusly; "you are not expected to make all your saves, and that's okay".

It would be really boring if you succeeded in everything you do. Failure is interesting and dramatic and entertaining.