D&D 5E Saves At Higher Level?

[CydKnight]

I am not sure how one example, that could simply be explained away by player choices and dice rolls, means there is a glaring ongoing issue here. The players chose to have mediocre Charisma scores or otherwise have something that could counter such an effect especially after it was cast the first time. Sooner or later a party is going to run into an encounter that doesn't go the way it is drawn out on paper and I think that is a good thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I removed save proficiency. Characters already have high and low stats. I simply give proficiency bonus to all saves. To npcs and monsters too.

That's straightforward. If you wanted to preserve a distinction between good and bad saves, you could do half proficiency, or Prof-2, instead. With the latter, they all increase at the same rate, good saves are just always 2 better than otherwise.

 

[Henry]

Saves don't bother me in 5e, it means that even abilities of low-CR monsters remain viable vs. higher level PCs.

Skills, on the other hand, could use a slight boost. No matter the level, I just don't feel "highly trained", even as a person with a +5 stat and high level and i'll fail a DC 20 check half the time?

 

[discosoc]

Although saves don't scale too favorably at higher levels (off-saves anyway), I don't think there's a balancing issue. Players can choose to boost stats or take the Resilience feat if they feel like a particular save is going to be problematic. Fighters usually do this anyway to avoid issues with WIS saves, and it's a good practice for other classes that want to shore up weak points. The real problem is that players aren't usually interested an ABI or feat that doesn't somehow contribute to their primary function; that's a problem with the player, however, and not the game itself.

Most of the worst save-or-suck type effects are usually spells anyway, and if your Sorc, Warlock, or Wizard thought it was a good idea not to pack a Counterspell then it's on them when an enemy mage ruins everyone's day. Of course, Counterspell isn't as fun as Fireball, so a surprisingly high number of players won't actually take it -- or worse, they'll take it but still choose not to use it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Although saves don't scale too favorably at higher levels (off-saves anyway), I don't think there's a balancing issue. Players can choose to boost stats or take the Resilience feat if they feel like a particular save is going to be problematic. Fighters usually do this anyway to avoid issues with WIS saves, and it's a good practice for other classes that want to shore up weak points. The real problem is that players aren't usually interested an ABI or feat that doesn't somehow contribute to their primary function; that's a problem with the player, however, and not the game itself.

Most of the worst save-or-suck type effects are usually spells anyway, and if your Sorc, Warlock, or Wizard thought it was a good idea not to pack a Counterspell then it's on them when an enemy mage ruins everyone's day. Of course, Counterspell isn't as fun as Fireball, so a surprisingly high number of players won't actually take it -- or worse, they'll take it but still choose not to use it.

My players often take the resilient feat. Its almost a split between con and wis saves though the 3 bad saves can't really justify a 1 off "unique" feat (you can only take it once). Dex saves mostly= damage and there are other ways to offset that.

Sorcerers, Fighters and Barbs seem to have the best saves, wizards the worst followed by Rogues.