D&D 5E Saving throws in 5e

[GMforPowergamers]

So in the heat metal thread I got to looking at saves... and so I want to make this a spin off. Why do we get worse and worse at resisting effects as we level?

here is from that what I said:
in 2e (when I started) PHB Ch9 The Saving Throw each class got BETTER at resisting spells but in 5e most classes get worse.

lets take a caster with a 15 in there prime stat... so 8+2+2 for a save so DC 12 (not super good but not super bad)
a character has 6 saves useing the defualt array +2/+1 that gives them lets say 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, and 8 again not perfect but not bad... that next lets put a 16 in a prof save stat and 1 16 in a non prof save stat... but put the 13 in the other prop save stat.. that makes our saves +5 +3 +3 +1 +0 -1

lets advance those two characters to 11th level... and say the one making the saves is a rogue or fighter so 3 stat ups... making it 20 16 14 13 10 8 with prof of +4 and I will give +1 magic to all saves... so +10, +7, +4, +2 +1 +0

over all my saves improved by 5, 4, 1,1 ,1 and 1

now that caster only gets 2 increases... but that can bring them to a 20... lets not give them any magic ups though dc 8+5+4 DC 17 (now that is a good save DC) only 1 save kept pace and the other 5 ALL FELL BEHIND...


so your example of fireball not only needs to be prof but also a stat you are keeping up with the caster to not fall behind.

even prof, with a 13 becoming a 14 and a magic +1 lags 1pt behind between 1st and 11th level.

lets look at 1st-11th level fighters in 2e they start needing to roll above

14

16

15

17

17

now at 11th level need

7

9

8

8

10

an improvment of 7 7 7 9 and 7

even if the wizard gets something (I know there were magic items but I think there were non weapon profs in the dragon mag) that applied a negative they would need it to apply a penalty of 6+ pts and I don't think that was possible,


so lets think how this can work? I don't know...


even my own ideas don't keep up

(my idea is to give both stat increase AND feats like 3e, and give everyone a +1 to all stats at level 11, and give half prof to all non prof saves/skills)

even still that only brings the saves up a small amout 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, and 8 becomes 20 16 15 14 11 9 and prof of 4... non prof 2 (still giving +1 magic)
+10 +7 +6 +5 +3 +2 is still only an increase of +5 +4 +3 +4 +4 +3 against teh DC increasing by 5 and only the best stat and prof keep up

 

[HammerMan]

My buddy Becky wanted to rebuild 5e fighter as a more well rounded class and the first thing she did was made them prof in all saves (she did other things too like give them 4e at wills that scaled at 11th) and we found even full prof in all saves a caster can (and will if able) target your lower stats and get through.

 

[dave2008]

My buddy Becky wanted to rebuild 5e fighter as a more well rounded class and the first thing she did was made them prof in all saves (she did other things too like give them 4e at wills that scaled at 11th) and we found even full prof in all saves a caster can (and will if able) target your lower stats and get through.

That is a good fighter buff. In 1e they had the best saves IIRC. I might consider this for our next campaign

 

[DEFCON 1]

Is it that characters all get worse at saving against effects as they level... or spellcasters get better at spellcasting as they level?

I've never actually checked... but do character's Armor Classes get better equally to character's attack rolls as they level, or are ACs also comparatively worse just like a character's saving throws are? If it is the latter... then our answer would be that all attacks (weapon or spell) get incrementally better than the defenses at the same level. This gives the attacker the feeling of progression-- "As I level, I hit more often with sword or spell".

Now of course if Armor Classes get better at the same rate of Attacks so that at every level there's no feeling of progression for the offense... then yeah, the spellcasters have it better because the defenses are not matching. So the question is whether this is the case? I honestly don't know.

 

[TheSword]

So in the heat metal thread I got to looking at saves... and so I want to make this a spin off. Why do we get worse and worse at resisting effects as we level?

here is from that what I said:
in 2e (when I started) PHB Ch9 The Saving Throw each class got BETTER at resisting spells but in 5e most classes get worse.

lets take a caster with a 15 in there prime stat... so 8+2+2 for a save so DC 12 (not super good but not super bad)
a character has 6 saves useing the defualt array +2/+1 that gives them lets say 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, and 8 again not perfect but not bad... that next lets put a 16 in a prof save stat and 1 16 in a non prof save stat... but put the 13 in the other prop save stat.. that makes our saves +5 +3 +3 +1 +0 -1

lets advance those two characters to 11th level... and say the one making the saves is a rogue or fighter so 3 stat ups... making it 20 16 14 13 10 8 with prof of +4 and I will give +1 magic to all saves... so +10, +7, +4, +2 +1 +0

over all my saves improved by 5, 4, 1,1 ,1 and 1

now that caster only gets 2 increases... but that can bring them to a 20... lets not give them any magic ups though dc 8+5+4 DC 17 (now that is a good save DC) only 1 save kept pace and the other 5 ALL FELL BEHIND...


so your example of fireball not only needs to be prof but also a stat you are keeping up with the caster to not fall behind.

even prof, with a 13 becoming a 14 and a magic +1 lags 1pt behind between 1st and 11th level.

lets look at 1st-11th level fighters in 2e they start needing to roll above

14

16

15

17

17

now at 11th level need

7

9

8

8

10

an improvment of 7 7 7 9 and 7

even if the wizard gets something (I know there were magic items but I think there were non weapon profs in the dragon mag) that applied a negative they would need it to apply a penalty of 6+ pts and I don't think that was possible,


so lets think how this can work? I don't know...


even my own ideas don't keep up

(my idea is to give both stat increase AND feats like 3e, and give everyone a +1 to all stats at level 11, and give half prof to all non prof saves/skills)

even still that only brings the saves up a small amout 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, and 8 becomes 20 16 15 14 11 9 and prof of 4... non prof 2 (still giving +1 magic)
+10 +7 +6 +5 +3 +2 is still only an increase of +5 +4 +3 +4 +4 +3 against teh DC increasing by 5 and only the best stat and prof keep up

It’s not that saves get worse… it’s that characters face more powerful threats.

 

[Jer]

Is it that characters all get worse at saving against effects as they level... or spellcasters get better at spellcasting as they level?

I've never actually checked... but do character's Armor Classes get better equally to character's attack rolls as they level, or are ACs also comparatively worse just like a character's saving throws are? If it is the latter... then our answer would be that all attacks (weapon or spell) get incrementally better than the defenses at the same level. This gives the attacker the feeling of progression-- "As I level, I hit more often with sword or spell".

It's this - AC isn't tied to level directly and generally IME at least getting AC buffs is harder to do in 5e than in previous games unless the DM hands them out as magic items.

The difference is that AC maxes out at a pretty good place even for high level threats while saving throws really don't. And if you aren't proficient in the save you never get better at it (insert my argument here about why having ability score saving throws is bad, and having it be that only 2 of them ever get better as you advance makes it even worse ).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Is it that characters all get worse at saving against effects as they level... or spellcasters get better at spellcasting as they level?

I mean that to me sounds like 2 sides of the same coin... the save is harder is the end result and the number you need to roll on the d20 is higher not lower as you level.

I've never actually checked... but do character's Armor Classes get better equally to character's attack rolls as they level, or are ACs also comparatively worse just like a character's saving throws are?

where I see this as different there is a bit of truth to it... even the best AC goes up only a bit (a paladin going from 16 to 21 while the attacks go up from2 to 6 for prof much slower.... and the prima attack stat (str dex or cha sometimes wis) goes up too.

If it is the latter... then our answer would be that all attacks (weapon or spell) get incrementally better than the defenses at the same level. This gives the attacker the feeling of progression-- "As I level, I hit more often with sword or spell".

yeah my issue is that 99% of the time the spell is more debilitating then the sword hit. ( asword hit can't turn you to stone, stun you, give you disadvantage, ect)

Now of course if Armor Classes get better at the same rate of Attacks so that at every level there's no feeling of progression for the offense... then yeah, the spellcasters have it better because the defenses are not matching. So the question is whether this is the case? I honestly don't know.

this is why I liked 4e flat math... everyone and everything got 1/2 level and you got a 1 time bump at 1st level of +2 to some things... so over all at level 27 17 or 7 you never got worse at saving or avoiding an equal level problem... the argument can be made you didn't get any better at hitting or landing your spell against an equal level threat though (and D&D works best any edition with a range of threats... level +4 level -2 level... ect) but in both cases that 11th level character is better at hitting the 1st level threat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It’s not that saves get worse… it’s that characters face more powerful threats.

it's the number on the die needs to be higher... the story point aside you at the table needed a 13 for your worst save and a 7 on your best... now you need 7 on your best and a 17 on your worst.... and this is if all else is equal... in my experence (and your may differ) at low level I am more likely to face my level or level+1 threats, as we climb I am now given a much bigger range and some may be level+3 or level +4 threats... and if they target my medium saves I can fail a LOT of the time... and saves can be VERY harmful.

in our epic+ game (we went to 20th then went with the epic boons and got 3 or 4 before we ended the game) I found that I targeted a soldier with a wis save that a nat 20 could not make or be stunned... and they could save every turn to get out of it...but again a nat 20 didn't stop it. The DM said "I can aide another him after the fight with the help action" and I laughed "Yes roll 2d20 take the highest and hope that the die comes up a 22"

the good point was since we were also taking lots of down time that story spread of a soldier that was being fed and cleaned by his family for ever locked in a fate worse then death... so my character got some RP moment out of that... but the fact that a PC could fall into the same trap scared us a bit.

 

[Li Shenron]

So in the heat metal thread I got to looking at saves... and so I want to make this a spin off. Why do we get worse and worse at resisting effects as we level?

here is from that what I said:
in 2e (when I started) PHB Ch9 The Saving Throw each class got BETTER at resisting spells but in 5e most classes get worse.

lets take a caster with a 15 in there prime stat... so 8+2+2 for a save so DC 12 (not super good but not super bad)
a character has 6 saves useing the defualt array +2/+1 that gives them lets say 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, and 8 again not perfect but not bad... that next lets put a 16 in a prof save stat and 1 16 in a non prof save stat... but put the 13 in the other prop save stat.. that makes our saves +5 +3 +3 +1 +0 -1

lets advance those two characters to 11th level... and say the one making the saves is a rogue or fighter so 3 stat ups... making it 20 16 14 13 10 8 with prof of +4 and I will give +1 magic to all saves... so +10, +7, +4, +2 +1 +0

That's a completely bonked conclusion.

All characters are getting better at everything, and specifically they all get better in saving throws against the whole world around them.

The fact that they choose to go against better and better enemies, who are getting better faster than them specifically at beating their saving throws is perfectly as intended. You are gaining levels so you are supposed to go against bigger challenges. What kind of lousy game should become easier as you advance?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The difference is that AC maxes out at a pretty good place even for high level threats while saving throws really don't. And if you aren't proficient in the save you never get better at it (insert my argument here about why having ability score saving throws is bad, and having it be that only 2 of them ever get better as you advance makes it even worse ).

yeah having just a fort save and a will save and have both scale well even if 1 scales better then the other sounds better to me then having 6 2 that scale and maybe 1 other you get better at if you up the stat but 3 that never scale)

 

[DEFCON 1]

yeah my issue is that 99% of the time the spell is more debilitating then the sword hit. ( asword hit can't turn you to stone, stun you, give you disadvantage, ect)

That is a very valid point. You are correct that individual saving throws can result in more varied debilitating effects that most weapons can. While there are some magical weapons that can produce very debilitating effects, I suspect that a normal game won't seem them as often because presenting that weapon into the fight means that the PCs can claim that debilitating effect if they win the battle and take the weapon for themselves (which doesn't happen with spells-- PCs don't get to take the spells after they win, usually-- we'll disregard the 'Wizard gains enemy spellbook' thing for sake of this discussion).

So higher level casters do get to give more varied effects to enemies than martial characters do. I am in agreeance. That being said... as the D&D game has always seemed to prioritize magic over mundane weapon combat, I wonder if this is by design? Dragons, lichs etc. are all usually high-powered spellcasters, so doesn't that make them even more threatening? Because they can contribute these debilitating effects and not just pound away on hit points like large meatbags usually do?

In other words... are high-powered spells meant to be scarier than normal martial attacks because they produce more varied effects and are harder to resist?

Good questions. Don't know what the right answer is myself.

 

[Jer]

yeah having just a fort save and a will save and have both scale well even if 1 scales better then the other sounds better to me then having 6 2 that scale and maybe 1 other you get better at if you up the stat but 3 that never scale)

It's the one mistake in design that I personally think would be worth a 5.5 or 6.0 edition switch. It won't happen - they're committed now - but bringing back Fortitude, Reflexes and Willpower in some sane kind of way and dumping ability score saves would be an improvement on the game.

 

[billd91]

here is from that what I said:
in 2e (when I started) PHB Ch9 The Saving Throw each class got BETTER at resisting spells but in 5e most classes get worse.

Yeah, back in AD&D (both 1e and 2e since the tables are the same), classes did get better at saving throws. But that too had some issues. For one thing, save or die/suck/sit spells were increasingly likely to do nothing but waste the caster's turn. That may be fine for some people's idea of game balance since the spells capable of simply ending the encounter had a high chance of outright failure, it was also extremely frustrating to play.
3e came as a bit of a sea change since it allowed casters to intentionally improve their save DCs. This, by itself, wasn't a bad thing, but it did so with an open end to how far it could go and still had encounter-ending save or die/suck/sit spells. 5e reels both of those back by capping the max casting stat, keeping proficiency relatively low, and weakening a lot of the save or die/suck/sit effects through repeated attempts to save or concentration. And while it may not be perfect (too many saves still concentrate on the same stats), I much prefer it to the AD&D days or the 3e days.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's a completely bonked conclusion.

I am sorry you feel the need to come into a thread to insult the conclusion I spent a good deal of time on.

All characters are getting better at everything, and specifically they all get better in saving throws against the whole world around them.

but what the player (not character, the guy sitting at the table) sees is that at 1st level he needs to roll between 7 and 13 depending on if it is a good or a bad save (70% to 40% chance) changing as they level to needing between a 7 and 17 to make it (70% to 20% chance) and where we no long have out right save or die... we have some pretty bad save or suck spells even at 1st level let alone by 9th level (character levels not spell levels...)

The fact that they choose to go against better and better enemies, who are getting better faster than them specifically at beating their saving throws is perfectly as intended. You are gaining levels so you are supposed to go against bigger challenges. What kind of lousy game should become easier as you advance?

the type of game that 2e was? I don't know why you are calling D&D prior to WotC buying it lousy

 

[Laurefindel]

I mean that to me sounds like 2 sides of the same coin... the save is harder is the end result and the number you need to roll on the d20 is higher not lower as you level.

Yes… and no. I agree with your premise but from a different angle.

In 1e/2e, all saves went up, some categories faster than others, but the difficulty itself (baring a few exceptions) always remained the same. End result: characters became progressively better at resisting spells, some better than others)

5e took an approach that isn’t quite the opposite: some categories of saves progress at the same rate as spell DCs, but others remain the same (baring a few exceptions). In effect however, the end result is that casters become progressively better at landing their spells. That plays as much in favour of the PCs than against them.

There are a few mitigating factors, mainly that spells are less delibitating now than they used to be, but I see a important distinction between « getting worse at resisting », and « the other getter better at landing ».

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That being said... as the D&D game has always seemed to prioritize magic over mundane weapon combat, I wonder if this is by design? Dragons, lichs etc. are all usually high-powered spellcasters, so doesn't that make them even more threatening? Because they can contribute these debilitating effects and not just pound away on hit points like large meatbags usually do?

In other words... are high-powered spells meant to be scarier than normal martial attacks because they produce more varied effects and are harder to resist?

the fact that to make dragons scary WotC made them all casters had me sad in 3e... but the way you just put this make me think more and more D&D is not the right game for me...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, back in AD&D (both 1e and 2e since the tables are the same), classes did get better at saving throws. But that too had some issues. For one thing, save or die/suck/sit spells were increasingly likely to do nothing but waste the caster's turn. That may be fine for some people's idea of game balance since the spells capable of simply ending the encounter had a high chance of outright failure, it was also extremely frustrating to play.

I agree... I think doing away with all but the highest level SoD and SoS spells would improve the game... make out of combat versatility and some direct save for half damage spells the norm.

3e came as a bit of a sea change since it allowed casters to intentionally improve their save DCs. This, by itself, wasn't a bad thing, but it did so with an open end to how far it could go and still had encounter-ending save or die/suck/sit spells.

yes this is what drove my group form 3.5 TBH (at least part of it)

5e reels both of those back by capping the max casting stat, keeping proficiency relatively low, and weakening a lot of the save or die/suck/sit effects through repeated attempts to save or concentration. And while it may not be perfect (too many saves still concentrate on the same stats), I much prefer it to the AD&D days or the 3e days.

I can see how and why you feel that way... I still diagree

 

[Maxperson]

My buddy Becky wanted to rebuild 5e fighter as a more well rounded class and the first thing she did was made them prof in all saves (she did other things too like give them 4e at wills that scaled at 11th) and we found even full prof in all saves a caster can (and will if able) target your lower stats and get through.

Another argument for rolled stats.

When you roll stats you don't end up with the vast majority of fighters having an 8 charisma. Casters can't know what the low stat for a class is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes… and no. I agree with your premise but from a different angle.

In 1e/2e, all saves went up, some categories faster than others, but the difficulty itself (baring a few exceptions) always remained the same. End result: characters became progressively better at resisting spells, some better than others)

yes, and I understood that... a lot of saves are almost life or death (more so the farther back we go) and you just get better at saying "no you can't disintegrate my fighter"

5e took an approach that isn’t quite the opposite: some categories of saves progress at the same rate as spell DCs, but others remain the same (baring a few exceptions). In effect however, the end result is that casters become progressively better at landing their spells. That plays as much in favour of the PCs than against them.

it plays out in favor of casters... PC or NPC/Monster. MOnsters without spells and PCs without out spells are the ones that get the fuzzy end of teh lollipop

There are a few mitigating factors, mainly that spells are less delibitating now than they used to be, but I see a important distinction between « getting worse at resisting », and « the other getter better at landing ».

the problem is 'less debilitating' is still very debilitating
even a 1st level spell can be

The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or fall prone, becoming Incapacitated and unable to stand up for the Duration
with the caveat At the end of each of its turns, and each time it takes damage, the target can make another Wisdom saving throw. The target has advantage on the saving throw if it’s triggered by damage. On a success, the spell ends.

now remember it is not easier or harder to save vs a 1st level spell and a 9th level one... so at level 1 a fighter with a 12 wis has a +1 against DC 12 (needs an 11+) but at level 11 has a +2 (remember I am giving them a magic item attuned to help saves) against a DC 17 and as such needs a 15+

the same wizard and him at first he has a 50/50 shot to either not be effected or end the effect and as they both get 'better' with leveling and the fighter attunes to a magic item to be better still at resisting things now that same spell he has 30% chance to not be effected or end the effect.

 

[Maxperson]

And if you aren't proficient in the save you never get better at it (insert my argument here about why having ability score saving throws is bad, and having it be that only 2 of them ever get better as you advance makes it even worse ).

You might hand out proficiency in a new save at 6th, 12th and 18th levels. By end game you'll be proficient in 5 out of 6 saves that way.