• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Saving Throws and non-proficiency

FrogReaver

Explorer
Ive just never known a game where balance rests in the hands of the players.
Where did I suggest that? You are good at inventing strawmen. It's twice now you've accused me of a position I've never taken.
No, that's a false analogy.

You preferring not to use a game mechanic (even an optional one) is fine. Demanding other players do so as well due to your own preferences, probably isnt. Demanding to be given 20's in all your stats isnt even the same ball park. There is a difference there, surely you can see it?
I can't. So why don't you spell out the difference?

I thought you said, you personally dont like feats as a player.

Any reason another player cant take feats?
They are banned in the campaign we are in.

That's not 'mechanics' man, nor is it 'DM fiat'. Its down to many Monsters wanting to deal with the Great Weapon Master action surging 6 foot tall superiority dice spamming dood in Full plate trying to carve his face in with a Greatsword thats on fire.
Did you forget I said "if the monster wanted to". Obviously your monsters don't ever want to go after the casters - though I don't think you have a great justification for it. By the way, you do recall that the question was, If they did want to go after the casters what would be stopping them?

Generally a meatshield, a cleric, a spellcaster, a trap guy/ skill monkey and a 5th wheel or backup.
Generally we play whatever we want and to heck with filling roles for the sake of filling roles. We do tend to like to not be the same class though.

It's literally the first thing every new player has asked me when they join for like 35 years of playing this game. 'What's in the party?' They want to know so they can create something to mesh with the party.
I ask the same question. Usually it's so I don't create something to similar to someone else.

Standing in the doorway or hallway a of a dungeon while the Wizard stands 40' back is the best way.
I don't believe that such a significant portion of your encounters have doorways for the fighters to block that this is even worth considering. And what's 40ft got to do with it? Why wouldn't said monster dash to the wizard if it wanted to attack him? Interestingly enough that dash it also puts the GWF out of range of attacking him next turn.

But barbarians using reckless attack and posing a tempting target. Cavaliers by using their own protection abilities. The Protection fighting style. Tripping attack or menacing attack or pushing attack with a Battlemaster to keep the monster at bay. Booming blade on an Eldritch knight. Spirit guardians on an Ancestor Barbarian. Wolf totem making you a tempting target. Compelled duel for a Paladin, Crown oath for a Crown Paladin. Grabbing the creature on your turn. Knocking it prone on your turn. Not wanting to risk a free attack of opportinity from a raging greatsword monster that just clobbered it for 40 damamge.
You are really reaching with most of this here.

And just being a big angry scary dude.
That's the real method. Which is 99% DM Fiat. The DM doesn't have the monster want to run past the big scary dude.

Again, I love how you're opposed to feats, when you identify that feats (namely Sentinel) is one other way to lock down a monster, which is something you seem to desire in your games.
I don't desire feats but I'm an optimizer and I know the feats very well. I don't believe you should need a feat to offer enemies some meaningful resistance to moving past you. I believe gating something so basic behind a feat is a detriment to the game.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
What 20th-level Wizard is going to have an 8 CON when for most Wizards CON is either 2nd or 3rd in importance?
Isnt the baseline exsmple for the vulnerability used here sn 8 wisdom fighter? Wasnt the "the same" mocking compared to thst?

If we are gonna compare the heinous vulnerability of a 20 fighter with 8 wis in a festless game with no buffs vs saves to the hp protection of w izard, why isn't the same determination of how gimped the wizard would be ok ?
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

Explorer
Isnt the baseline exsmple for the vulnerability used here sn 8 wisdom fighter? Wasnt the "the same" mocking compared to thst?

If we are gonna compare the heinous vulnerability of a 20 fighter with 8 wis in a festless game with no buffs vs saves to the hp protection of w izard, why isn't the same determination of how gimped the wizard would be ok ?
Because no wizard maintains an 8 con, fighters in featless games can maintain an 8 wisdom
 

5ekyu

Explorer
That wizards and paladins and clerics and bards can protect the fighters from save or suck spells isn't a good argument that fighters should have the abysmal saves they do.
Uhhh actually, since all classes have unfavored saves this isn't really just fighters but the reason for the bard, paladin, etc ability to cover saves for others bring relevant is to point out how this is a team combo game, not fantasy cage match.

If all classes were much better at their off saves snd you add in the existing bonuses you choose to leave out to frame your position, save spells would be off-balanced by a great deal ***outside of the 20th level, 8 stat, non-favored save, no feat no buff white room you imagine folks play in so much the game needs to be balanced around**
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
So let's just assume for the sake of argument the wizard has 16 con and the fighter 16 wisdom.

The fighter still needs a 16+ to save. That's still ridiculously high especially for the investment he's put in.

The wizard practically doubles his hp. The most the +3 wisdom bonus gives me is a 25% chance to succeed on a wisdom saving throw.
 

FrogReaver

Explorer
Uhhh actually, since all classes have unfavored saves this isn't really just fighters but the reason for the bard, paladin, etc ability to cover saves for others bring relevant is to point out how this is a team combo game, not fantasy cage match.
Of course, which is why the proposal is to increase everyone's saves not just the fighters. Saves in high level games are too low compared to the normal DC.

If all classes were much better at their off saves snd you add in the existing bonuses you choose to leave out to frame your position, save spells would be off-balanced by a great deal
So much better? I'm suggesting the 8 wisdom fighter should have about a 20% chance of success as opposed to a 10% chance. If he got proficiency and maxed wisdom that would put him at 80%

...Which you are right is still too high if anything can then stack on top of that.

On the bright side - we have learned something important about 5e. the real issue with saves and why they couldn't be placed where they should have been is due to bounded accuracy and having the total bonus range cover nearly the whole d20. They had to start you off abysmal to keep you out of auto save range.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
So let's just assume for the sake of argument the wizard has 16 con and the fighter 16 wisdom.

The fighter still needs a 16+ to save. That's still ridiculously high especially for the investment he's put in.

The wizard practically doubles his hp. The most the +3 wisdom bonus gives me is a 25% chance to succeed on a wisdom saving throw.
Said fighter has indom multiple times so that's several failed save with rerolls - which puts his passing at like close to 50%.

Wizard doubling his HP gets him what, an extra round?
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
Of course, which is why the proposal is to increase everyone's saves not just the fighters. Saves in high level games are too low compared to the normal DC.
Good point.

I hate to sound like one of those old guys who bases how everything should be on how it was "back in my day" but, in the definitive (to me) version of the game, 1e AD&D, there were 5 saves, but everyone's saves got better in all categories as they leveled. Each save was a little better or worse for each class from the beginning, and they advanced at different rates - the fighter's started off worst, but progressed the fastest - but they all improved.

And save bonus items weren't all that rare.

...Which you are right is still too high if anything can then stack on top of that.
On the bright side - we have learned something important about 5e. the real issue with saves and why they couldn't be placed where they should have been is due to bounded accuracy and having the total bonus range cover nearly the whole d20. They had to start you off abysmal to keep you out of auto save range.
...BA was a pretty constraining design paradigm. It also hurts the zero to hero, aesthetic, a bit...

...but I'm not sure. It seems like proficiency /scaling/ to all saves wouldn't've in any way risked auto-saving becoming common, or even a thing.

(Expertise in saves would be a different matter, but saves are kept distinct from other checks, for the most part.)
 
Last edited:

dnd4vr

Explorer
FYI, there were only five saves in 1e AD&D, not six. And while everyones' saves improved in that edition, the Fighter class improved insanely by far compared to the others, having the best overall saves in the end.

saves.png

We don't see this at all in 5E. And every version of D&D has always been a team-oriented game, so I see that as being immaterial to any argument about saves, etc.
 

Advertisement

Top