D&D 5E Non-Proficient Saves

[Giltonio_Santos]

Because of the way save DCs are set, a tactic that relies on a single save is still likely to beat a whole group. Proficiency doesn't mean you're going to succeed, after all; it just means you have about an even chance to succeed, compared to the non-proficient who basically have no chance to succeed. It's still entirely possible to have a Mind Flayer just kill a party outright, because the one character with a reasonable chance to resist happened to roll poorly.

I've not seen the final version of the Mind Flayer, but I can't see that happening very often in an encounter built with the mind blast rules as written in the playtest. If the save DC remains as written there (Intelligence saving throw, DC 14), the starter set party would mostly manage to pull it. The two fighters and the cleric would start with 35% chance of acting in the first round, the worst of the bunch. By level 5, the wizard has a respectable 70% of doing it, and the rogue is on 55%. If the monster stuns everybody, it must still hit with its grapple before extracting - two additional rounds to kill one character. In all fairness, what's the real chance of a mind flayer wiping a party of stunned adventurers before they stand on a fair fight against it? I don't think even a string of bad rolls would be enough to make that happen.

 

[Stalker0]

The math has me concerned about high level saves...but a simple math model is not perfect.

So I will play it as is, but I'll keep in eye on this one. If I think it's a problem, I believe the house rule mentioned in the op is a solid idea

 

[KarinsDad]

Jersey fight!

Bring it!

Point being, raising up lower saves is nice, but it's not going to stop situations where most of the party is neutralized. It will just lower the incidence (and the overall duration, for save every round effects). Is that enough for you to feel that your intent is being met?

Of course it will not stop situations where most of the party is neutralized. It will typically lower the duration of rounds, especially if the monsters can do those effects multiple times per encounter.

Doesn't that mean that save bonuses and save DCs are largely irrelevant, then? If the concern is across the board, than shouldn't the effects themselves be the target of the house rules?

Nope. Fix the root problem (4 out of 6 super weak saves), do not fix 100 monster abilities.

So you're saying incapacitation of less than half of PCs for less than half of the encounter is OK, but more than half of the PCs for more than half the encounter is bad.

Nope. Not saying that. I do not care if all 5 PCs are incapacitated in round one in a given encounter. I care if most of PCs cannot make their saves for the rest of the rounds. Even with an easy encounter, that is at minimum the equivalent of a surprise round and could easily be more than that and result in a TPK.

I don't have to draw a line in the sand as to how many PCs are incapacitated. I just have to have each player (note: player, not PC) be able to have some minor chance of getting back into the game. The game is played for the player's fun, not to match some game designer's idea of how bad is too bad. To me, the odds of saving should almost always be 25% or higher since 4 of the 6 saves are weak. That's the number I more or less draw into the sand.

Could be. I want to look through the Monster Manual and see the prevalence of multi-target incapacitate-type powers before I judge what house rules I deem appropriate. I have no issue with the party getting screwed over by lesser effects. My personal game desires have no problem with near auto-hit effects for higher level monsters, as long as they aren't insta-wipes.

Fair point. Look at undead for single foe incapacitation. Hard for the 2 fighter type PCs with great con saves in the group to save the other 3 PCs when the undead are eating those other held/paralyzed PCs.

Multi-target effects, we'll see. I suspect that they will exist.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

That kind of makes sense. The saving throws that can really bone the party are the ones with the broadest distribution of the needed save proficiency (and/or other resistances).

Now, one could argue that the melee classes shouldn't have this vulnerability to mind affecting abilities, but that's an issue with class design, not the overall save system.

What's interesting is that as late as the leaked alpha playtest, fighters had much better class abilities to defeat these kinds of saves. Makes you wonder what playtest in revealed about high-level fighters that we're not seeing in our theorycrafting.

 

[KarinsDad]

Path of the Berserker- 6th level can't be charmed or frightened
Bardic Inspiration Dice
Bard's Counter Charm
Nature's Ward- Circle Druid, Can't be charmed or frightend by elementals or fey
Indomitable- 9th fighter, saving throw reroll
Stillness of Mind- MOnk 7-ends the effect of frightened or charmed
Purity of Body- MOnk 10- immune to poison and disease
Diamond Soul- MOnk 14- proficiency on all saving throws- can also reroll if use ki point
Divine HEalth- Paladin 3- Immune to disease
Aura of Protection-- Paladin 6- bonus to allies saving throw
Aura of Courage- Paladin 10- you and close allies can't be frightened
Cleansing TOuch- Paladin 14- end the effects of one spell on you or another
Aura of Devotion- Paladin 7- you and close allies can't be charmed
HOly nimbus- Paladin 20- advantage on saving throws on spells cast by undead
Slippery Mind- Rogue 15- gain proficiency in wisdom saving throw
Bend Luck- Sorcerer 6 (wild mage)- 1d4 to saving for an ally
Beguiling DEfense- Warlock 10 (Arch fey)- immune to charm
Dark One's own luck- Warlock 6 (fiend)- +d10 to one save

Dwarves have advantage against saves against poison
Elves and half elveshave advantage against being charmed and can't be put to sleep
Halfling's have lucky (reroll 1's) and have advantage against being frightened.
Gnomes have advantage on saving throws vs magic (INT, WIS and CHR only)


That's 22. Do you want me to go through the spells?

Thank you for doing this. I was aware of many of these.

But, I have to say, the list has so many holes (lots of other effects missing, or issues if a given class is missing, or the PC has to be capable in order to use the ability) that one could drive a truck through it.

For example, no Paladin or Monk, list down to 13. Also, few of these are like the Paladin auras where they can affect other PCs quickly or easily. By this, I mean that ability to buff others AFTER an effect has occurred is the same problem as the party healers healing a PC after the PC has fallen. Let's take a group of 2 PCs. One PC is incapacitated. Next round, the other PC gives that PC a bonus save. Well, the save is +1 vs. DC 18. The bonus save is all nice and well, but chances are, he'll miss the bonus save too. So, PC 1 gave up his action in order for PC 2 to miss yet another save. It becomes a death spiral.


By the way, advantage increases average dice roll by a little over 5 in mid-range scenarios (i.e. middle 50% of dice being needed). It only increases average dice roll by a little over 3 in extreme range scenarios (i.e. you need to roll 18 or higher on the die). Advantage is awesome in the middle range, not as awesome at the extremes. Just saying.


I definitely get what you are saying. And I know that spells can and will make a difference. But in order to get to level 15 where the Rogue gets the Wisdom proficiency, the party has to survive levels 1 to 14.

You have also illustrated that having a Paladin in the group is very helpful in regard to this.


But, my point is not that there are not ways to work around the issue. My point is that if those workarounds do not exist or are not available (e.g. casters are taken out), then TPKs might be a lot more frequent than people might expect. I hope I'm wrong. I suspect I'm not.

Giving someone advantage on a save when they have +1 vs. DC 18 ups their chance from 20% to 36% (hence my advantage ~=+3 comment above). Ok, but not exactly stellar. I suspect that some of the class / race capabilities that you have posted above will be a lot less effective in theory than in practice, especially at real high levels. At mid-levels with DC 13, yeah, those abilities will help a lot.

Time will tell.

PS. I am really concerned about this when one adds surprise into the mix. Having the monsters lay down an entire round of effects can take out more than 60% of a team. It might incapacitate most or all of the team for one or more rounds.

 

[Agamon]

PS. I am really concerned about this when one adds surprise into the mix. Having the monsters lay down an entire round of effects can take out more than 60% of a team. It might incapacitate most or all of the team for one or more rounds.

Surprise is completely under the DMs control. If you want the possibility for surprise by the monsters on the party, there can be. If not, there wont be.

There's a difference between the RBDM, who surprises you with a band of ogres, and the DBDM, who surprises you with a pack of ghouls.

 

[KarinsDad]

Surprise is completely under the DMs control. If you want the possibility for surprise by the monsters on the party, there can be. If not, there wont be.

There's a difference between the RBDM, who surprises you with a band of ogres, and the DBDM, who surprises you with a pack of ghouls.

While this is true, it is easy for a DM to make a mistake. We'll seen a few cases of that mentioned on the boards here with both LMoP and HotDQ.

Surprise can be game changing quickly.

See here

The example here illustrates how one side winning total init is a game changer, changing a medium encounter to a deadly one. Surprise is similar (not exactly the same, but the example illustrates the point) since surprise is the equivalent of winning total init in round one where opponents cannot act, then normal init after that. If one or two PCs go down in the surprise round, action economy gets skewed real quick.

 

[Agamon]

While this is true, it is easy for a DM to make a mistake.

So if the DM makes the mistake, he should learn from it. Either that or hand the reigns off to someone else. "Whoops, I went and ambushed you again with a pretty tough encounter. Sorry, didn't mean it." Doesn't really make much sense, does it?

 

[KarinsDad]

So if the DM makes the mistake, he should learn from it. Either that or hand the reigns off to someone else. "Whoops, I went and ambushed you again with a pretty tough encounter. Sorry, didn't mean it." Doesn't really make much sense, does it?

If it were just surprise, no big deal. An easy encounter became medium or a medium became hard.

But, it's surprise plus non-proficient saves.

At higher levels, this could mean that an easy encounter became hard or a medium encounter became deadly. A tough encounter???

The DM learning that his medium encounter just TPKed the party because 4 out of 6 saves are weak is a bit late.

As for "learn from it", I'll bet you that 50% or more of the D&D DMs have been DMing for well over a decade and 75% or more have been DMing for over 5 years (conservatively). Most DMs are experienced. Nearly all of them have run multiple ambush situations in the past.

So are you saying "So what? All of those DMs gotta learn that the new system is killer for surprise. Buck up or hand the reigns off to someone else."?

A bit harsh?

 

[jrowland]

I'll take the [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] theorem:

5E might look weird on paper, but plays very different.

You might be surprised at how well it works without tweaking