D&D 5E Multiple saves needs to go

[Horwath]

I am all for multiple saves.


Latest example;

Last year we did a 3.5e campaign, started at 3rd level.

Friends barbarian gets hit with Cause fear(1st level spell), DM rolls 4 on d4 for number of rounds he has to flee from cause of fear.

4 rounds he must use run, 160ft per round, then he runs 4 rounds back to the fight.

fight is over just as he should have started his 9th round.

what a blast he had of a fun in those two hours....

 

[Lanefan]

I am all for multiple saves.


Latest example;

Last year we did a 3.5e campaign, started at 3rd level.

Friends barbarian gets hit with Cause fear(1st level spell), DM rolls 4 on d4 for number of rounds he has to flee from cause of fear.

4 rounds he must use run, 160ft per round, then he runs 4 rounds back to the fight.

Your DM was being nice. With me, if you flee in fear - unless you go over a cliff or into some other hazard, which is very possible as you run straight away from the fear source regardless of terrain or environment - if you've run into unfamiliar territory you're lost once the fear wears off, as you have no idea how you got there. You (all too well!) remember what scared you and then nothing after that until the fear goes away.

Yeah, fear in my game is nasty.

fight is over just as he should have started his 9th round.

what a blast he had of a fun in those two hours....

For him it wasn't two hours though; even in 1e that would have only been 8 minutes, and in 5e it's less than a minute.

For you as player, though...

 

[Horwath]

Your DM was being nice. With me, if you flee in fear - unless you go over a cliff or into some other hazard, which is very possible as you run straight away from the fear source regardless of terrain or environment - if you've run into unfamiliar territory you're lost once the fear wears off, as you have no idea how you got there. You (all too well!) remember what scared you and then nothing after that until the fear goes away.

Yeah, fear in my game is nasty.

For him it wasn't two hours though; even in 1e that would have only been 8 minutes, and in 5e it's less than a minute.

For you as player, though...

he ran back on the road we entered the village few moments ago.


We usually mostly use "soft-CC" on PCs and "hard-CC" on NPCs.
Fun factor is better that way.

 

[Lanefan]

he ran back on the road we entered the village few moments ago.

Ah. Got it.

The last time I had any major fear effects rear up was when running S1 Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth and had some PCs fleeing into unexplored parts of the caverns. One or two headaches for them but in general they got hella lucky in that nobody ran into anything really dangerous; but it did take some time to get everyone rounded up.

 

[Tonguez]

Which is why I prefer skill based spell casting - the caster should be rolling to hit, not autohit and require the victim to save or suck

 

[Horwath]

Which is why I prefer skill based spell casting - the caster should be rolling to hit, not autohit and require the victim to save or suck

that is more or less the same, it just moves "active" roll from defender to attacker.
It's not about who rolls, but what are the effects and if there are saves/attacks for every round of effect.

 

[James Gasik]

Its a situation where the theory and the experience don't match.

From a design theory standpoint, the defense model is superior. Its more consistent, working just like attack rolls do. Its also more efficient in play, as DMs can create little notes with their players defenses, and so instead of having to ask the player to make a save, the player fumbles to find their dice, rolls it, looks up their number, etc etc....the DM can just roll, check the card, and announce the result. Its also faster to roll several attack rolls versus different PCs, vs having to call on multiple PCs to roll. Defenses are superior in terms of a resolution mechanic.

However, if you polled most players when they were taking a nasty spell effect, and asked them if they would rather roll or the DM....I believe the majority would want to roll. Even though mechanically its identical, rolling the dice gives the player a feeling of control and power. That illusion ultimately adds greatly to the user experience, and so I think that's one of the reasons they shifted back to saves in 5e.

Unless you're the spellcaster, of course. Then you're the one rolling and getting that feeling of control and power...

 

[delericho]

I like the multiple saves. That said, I'd prefer an escalating step up/down towards the full effect - so maybe the first failure leaves you restrained, the second paralysed, and the third petrified, and successes move you back up the track but the spell doesn't end until you're completely clear.

Flesh to stone is a partial example of this (first failure leaves you restrained, but then additional success/failure have no effect until 3 of one time are rolled). That's okay - but I suspect that not all petrification effects work consistently.

 

[Staffan]

E.g. a medusa's Petrifying Gaze: it's an at-will attack, standard action, attacking all creatures within 25 feet, which causes the target to be slowed (save ends); on the first failed save, the target is instead immobilized (save ends); on the third failed save, the target is petrified (no save.) Blinded targets are immune. This is important for three reasons: one, it heightens tension, especially because this is an at-will so it can be used repeatedly; two, it allows the players to do something about it, because they can do things to try to boost their saving throw results;

As I recall, Leader-type classes often had at-will attacks that allowed an ally either a bonus on an upcoming save or to make an out-of-sequence save to remove an effect (and these bonus saves would never progress an ability). But it means that instead of the cleric using the attack that gives an ally an attack bonus, they use the attack that gives an ally an extra save.

 

[Yaarel]

Save or suck or save or die were not fun to deal with on either side of the screen

True

and multi-saves are one of the better ways to keep concepts like turning to stone in the game.

For petrification, ongoing saves seems fine.

There can be a visible struggle about whether petrification is taking hold or not.

First save: failed − incapacitated, starting to turn to stone.
Second save: successful − condition removed, living flesh replaces areas where stone was forming.

But three failed saves would be permanent.