D&D 5E Saving throws in 5e

OB1

Jedi Master
I see what you are getting at, but personally, I like the strategic element that this implementation of bounded accuracy provides at higher levels on both offense and defense. PCs need to account for their weaknesses at higher levels, with plans in place to cover those weaknesses when fighting enemies that can exploit them. The same is true for PCs with much lower HP totals at high levels, who can be taken down in one shot. Having counterspell and dispel magic can be just as important to protecting your fighter as having cure wounds and heal is for protecting your wizard.

That said, I do have a house rule that PCs can take the Resilient feat as many times as they wish, as I see no issue with allowing players who choose to get better in saves at ASI levels to do so.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
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... :cry:
Well, all monsters were scary in 1E and 2E because PCs all had lower ACs and HP. So getting your ass kicked was easier in those editions by even just hit point damage.

Starting in 3E they did start to make PCs heartier-- more character options to built up defenses and such-- so the fact that they used magic as a way to not make those players too cocky was their answer to the situation. Seemed like a valid reason to me.

Personally, I really don't get so many people's aversion to magic in D&D? Why getting your ass kicked by weapon-users and those that just target HP is somehow more acceptable than getting your ass kicked by powerful magic? I'm sure you all have your reasons... but I personally don't get it. To me, losing a fight is losing a fight, whether it's by magic or by steel. It sucks either way.
 

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.
I mean you can argue that having diffrent stats give you a chance to suprise someone... but odds are what every array you have (pre gen or rolled randomly) your top stat is going to your attack stat (str or dex for fighters) your second to con and you are prof in str and con.. so even let assume teh most lucky rolls and after race you get 18,17,15,15,13,12 and the stat bumps go for all 3 over the 11 levels so 20 18 16 16 14 12 and you put them in a slightly odd order

12 str 20 dex 16 Con 14 Int 16 wis 18 cha that still nets you (again with the magic cloak +1 eating an attunement slot) str +6 dex +7 con +8 Int +3 wis +4 cha +5 pretty amazing saves and against the 17 (still not giving that wizard the 18 you started with though, nor a magic item) you end up with str 50/50 dex 55/45 con 60/40 int 35/65 wis 40/60 cha 45/55

so targeting the warrior not in heavy armor in str, int or wis still isn't 50/50 and the cha (that you called out) just bearly better then it
 

I like the strategic element that this implementation of bounded accuracy provides at higher levels on both offense and defense.
on offense that is a strategic game only casters can play... fighters target AC and AC alone...

in fact I have to laugh the fighter class (the one I would think should be about strategic play) briskly can't do it offensive and the best defense he can get is to acquire magic items...
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
If this is really such a problem for some people, it does make me wonder how often they take the Resilient feat at 4th level? If you are a table that uses feats, shoring one of them up near the beginning of your career is an easy option... but how often does that happen? Does everybody instead just forsake it for boosting their ASI by 2 to get their prime modifier up by 1? Doesn't that just mean the player has chosen to boost offense over defense, and thus they must lie in the bed they have just made? Is it the game's responsibility to save the player from themself?
 

Personally, I really don't get so many people's aversion to magic in D&D?
I just get board with it... I have played and run games for players with magic casters more then not... and I find that magic trumping all makes less varriance. where in 2e we 'need someone to take it for the team and play the healer' in 3e and 5e I just see everyone play casters (sometimes refluffed as fighters)
Why getting your ass kicked by weapon-users and those that just target HP is somehow more acceptable than getting your ass kicked by powerful magic?
I mean... becuse I want to play weapon useres and feel like I have the options and powers similar to the spell throwers.
I'm sure you all have your reasons... but I personally don't get it. To me, losing a fight is losing a fight, whether it's by magic or by steel. It sucks either way.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I mean you can argue that having diffrent stats give you a chance to suprise someone... but odds are what every array you have (pre gen or rolled randomly) your top stat is going to your attack stat (str or dex for fighters) your second to con and you are prof in str and con.. so even let assume teh most lucky rolls and after race you get 18,17,15,15,13,12 and the stat bumps go for all 3 over the 11 levels so 20 18 16 16 14 12 and you put them in a slightly odd order

12 str 20 dex 16 Con 14 Int 16 wis 18 cha that still nets you (again with the magic cloak +1 eating an attunement slot) str +6 dex +7 con +8 Int +3 wis +4 cha +5 pretty amazing saves and against the 17 (still not giving that wizard the 18 you started with though, nor a magic item) you end up with str 50/50 dex 55/45 con 60/40 int 35/65 wis 40/60 cha 45/55

so targeting the warrior not in heavy armor in str, int or wis still isn't 50/50 and the cha (that you called out) just bearly better then it
I know. It's better than before, though. We also roll stats in order and swap one pair, so a fighter will have high strength or dex, but isn't guaranteed a high con. Intelligence or charisma might be his second highest. We've found that it makes for more interesting characters than using arrays or point buy to do it that way.

Now, I will say that the method we use is pick two stats to be 5d6-2L, two to be 4d6-L, and two to be 3d6 straight, so "dump" stats are the ones you roll 3d6 in, and the two you want highest get the 5d6-2L. It's not uncommon for those 3d6 stats to be higher than a 4d6 or even occasionally a 5d6 stat, though.

I also think it's okay to have some weak saves. They just need to be a bit better, which rolling tends to do.
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I just get board with it... I have played and run games for players with magic casters more then not... and I find that magic trumping all makes less varriance. where in 2e we 'need someone to take it for the team and play the healer' in 3e and 5e I just see everyone play casters (sometimes refluffed as fighters)

I mean... becuse I want to play weapon useres and feel like I have the options and powers similar to the spell throwers.
I can kinda understand it I guess... but then again, if you are bored with magic users, I don't know how playing a martial character with the same options as magic-users is actually giving out variance?

The variance seems to me to be all different character classes doing all different things. If they all can do the same things, that's less variance, not more in my opinion.
 

If this is really such a problem for some people, it does make me wonder how often they take the Resilient feat at 4th level? If you are a table that uses feats, shoring one of them up near the beginning of your career is an easy option... but how often does that happen? Does everybody instead just forsake it for boosting their ASI by 2 to get their prime modifier up by 1? Doesn't that just mean the player has chosen to boost offense over defense, and thus they must lie in the bed they have just made? Is it the game's responsibility to save the player from themself?
lets look at replaceing 1 stat up with reselence and see if it really is the big help (maybe you are right)
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
Okay so I have a 13 stat lets take resilient in that, and lower my prime stat to 18
this makes me 18 16 14 14 10 8 with saves of (again magics +1) to +9 +7 +4 +7 +1 +0 ( so in order 9 7 7 4 1 0)

now my best save went up by 4 4 4 3 1 1 against the DC going up by5 meaning you 'only' fall 1 behind on 3 fall 2 behind on 1 and 4 behind on the las two
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)
so this doesn't seem to be much better... maybe if I put all 3 into it

+1 to my 16 doesn't change the mod but give me prof and +1 to the ten does the same but I loose the 18 prime stat

16 17 14 14 11 8 now gives +8 +8 +7 +7 +5 +0 so that reall eavens out the spread, but does it by taking the save that kept up and knocking it down... so I started at +5 +3 +3 +1 +0 -1 that means I got over the levels +3 +5 +4 +4 +4 +1 while the DC went up by 5 so 1 stat did still keep up (just not prime stat now) so with 3 feats invested that seems to more or less keep us even...

I just realized I stil have a +1 +1 stat line adjustment built in but I am not going back to redo it...
 

OB1

Jedi Master
on offense that is a strategic game only casters can play... fighters target AC and AC alone...

in fact I have to laugh the fighter class (the one I would think should be about strategic play) briskly can't do it offensive and the best defense he can get is to acquire magic items...
I was referring to team strategy. It's a team game with different classes having various strengths and weaknesses when facing various challenges resulting on the spotlight falling on different players in different encounters.
 

You have a flaw in your reasoning.
in my reasoning or my example? becuse I showed that as DCs went up the saves you are not prof in get worse and worse... unless you find a mistake in my math?
5E is not designed for PCs to fight NPCs that are of equal class level to them.
so you want me to go to the MM and get save DCs will that help?
Therefore NPC DCs do not scale the same as PC DCs.
this example was 2 PCs but still would you feel better if I showed DC 11s at low CRs and DC 16s at high CRs (same change 5pts)
 

dave2008

Legend
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.
It also created the situation where particularly tough creatures had to inflict a penalty on a saving throw against their attacks.
 

I can kinda understand it I guess... but then again, if you are bored with magic users, I don't know how playing a martial character with the same options as magic-users is actually giving out variance?
variance of concept...
in 4e I saw SOOO many fighters, and warlords and rangers and rogues... we had multi campaigns were adding togather we had 1 or 2 of what we would call a spell caster now (so druid, wizads, swordmage, bard ect) but now it's all I see. Infact in the last 4 campaings Between me as a player and me as a DM we had 1 rogue (multi classed with ranger and sorcerer) and 2 fighter dips 1 took 2 levels for action surge 1 took 3 for action surge and +1 caster level) of those 4 campaigns we did up to 9th level, then well up into epic+, then 14th level and the last one that ended was at 10th... so in 53 levels of play less then 1/5th of them were fighter or rogue and even then 1 of the fighters was an eldritch knight caster.

in that time I have seen 4 hexblades 2 blade singers, 1 college of swords 1 college of valor bards and 2 clerics that got a 2nd attack... those were are melee characters (TBF 1 of those blade singers is also the eldritch knight we got to 14th level he was a 11/3 wizard/fighter)

in the current game I play in we are all artificers in 1 and we have 1 non caster in the other (straight rogue thief and he keeps complaining 'why can't I get some of those cool toys' and he is new to D&D but not rpgs)
in the 2 current ones I run I have 1 party of hexblade druid cleric warlock/bard and 1 party of hexblade warlock cleric

both games the hexblades are refluffed as fighters in story but useing the hexblade mechanic so they can get spells to refluff as trained maneuvers
The variance seems to me to be all different character classes doing all different things. If they all can do the same things, that's less variance, not more in my opinion.
I don't want my fighter to cast the exact same spell a wizard does (or eldritch knight would be the fix) I want my fighter to get options every level that are on par with but diffrent then spells
 

I was referring to team strategy. It's a team game with different classes having various strengths and weaknesses when facing various challenges resulting on the spotlight falling on different players in different encounters.
and the team with the most spells have the most options for stategies
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
I noticed this trend with saving throws awhile ago, when I was playing in Storm King's Thunder, and we had a few fights against enemies much higher level than the party. Needing to roll a 19 to save, even with advantage, is a pretty tough thing to ask for, and realizing that it was perfectly possible to encounter a monster ability or spellcaster who asked for impossible save DC's at higher tier play was a shock to the system.

And, like with so many problems in D&D, the solution is basically magic. IF Feats are allowed, you can take one to get a single saving throw proficiency.

Other than that, the main ways to get more saving throw bonuses are magical. Inspiration, spells, Paladins, Transmutation Wizards- your only real non-spellcasting option is to be a Monk and eventually get all saving throws proficient.

I know the instant our Cleric said he had Heroes' Feast, I was paying for gourmet dinners every adventure!
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
variance of concept...
in 4e I saw SOOO many fighters, and warlords and rangers and rogues... we had multi campaigns were adding togather we had 1 or 2 of what we would call a spell caster now (so druid, wizads, swordmage, bard ect) but now it's all I see. Infact in the last 4 campaings Between me as a player and me as a DM we had 1 rogue (multi classed with ranger and sorcerer) and 2 fighter dips 1 took 2 levels for action surge 1 took 3 for action surge and +1 caster level) of those 4 campaigns we did up to 9th level, then well up into epic+, then 14th level and the last one that ended was at 10th... so in 53 levels of play less then 1/5th of them were fighter or rogue and even then 1 of the fighters was an eldritch knight caster.

in that time I have seen 4 hexblades 2 blade singers, 1 college of swords 1 college of valor bards and 2 clerics that got a 2nd attack... those were are melee characters (TBF 1 of those blade singers is also the eldritch knight we got to 14th level he was a 11/3 wizard/fighter)

in the current game I play in we are all artificers in 1 and we have 1 non caster in the other (straight rogue thief and he keeps complaining 'why can't I get some of those cool toys' and he is new to D&D but not rpgs)
in the 2 current ones I run I have 1 party of hexblade druid cleric warlock/bard and 1 party of hexblade warlock cleric

both games the hexblades are refluffed as fighters in story but useing the hexblade mechanic so they can get spells to refluff as trained maneuvers

I don't want my fighter to cast the exact same spell a wizard does (or eldritch knight would be the fix) I want my fighter to get options every level that are on par with but diffrent then spells
If this is what is happening at your tables, then the desire to see things change is understandable. Unfortunately, I just don't know likely any of this will change via actions WotC could or would take?

If all of the players at your table are playing spellcasters of various sorts... is that because they just enjoy what they can do? And if that's the case, then why should your boredom of seeing them be at all your business? Why should your boredom impact them? If they like casting spells... your desire to see Fighters and Rogues should not matter.

If all the players at your table are playing spellcasters because they feel spellcasters are more powerful in 5E than martial weapon-users, then I would imagine a lot of those issues are as a result of how your particular DMs are running their games. There are ways to run 5E to certainly help and assist in overpowering spellcasters, so isn't that up to the DMs to change how they run things if they don't the spellcasters to be overpowered? How often do dispel magics, counterspells, antimagic fields, or monsters going straight after the casters appear in the game? These are all things that can help lower the power of spellcasters if that is a necessity. And since WotC knows this too... it doesn't seem to me to be an issue that WotC would feel like they need to do something to "fix" it.

That's not to say they couldn't or won't change things down the line to help get your tables into more of a martial/caster balance... but at least in the short-term from my perspective it's really the table's actions that could "fix" things faster and more effectively than waiting on WotC. Best of luck!
 

If this is what is happening at your tables, then the desire to see things change is understandable. Unfortunately, I just don't know likely any of this will change via actions WotC could or would take?
I mean we could get a new martial class that could do it
If all of the players at your table are playing spellcasters of various sorts... is that because they just enjoy what they can do? And if that's the case, then why should your boredom of seeing them be at all your business? Why should your boredom impact them? If they like casting spells... your desire to see Fighters and Rogues should not matter.
I mean I don't know how to break this to you, but when the same players are complain like I am I don't know how else to explain it... we end up refluffing spell casters when we can to try to jury rig the system... it just isn't working as well as it once did.

we left 3.5 for other systems and 4e brought us back. We were slow to adopt 5e but we were based on no new 4e products... but as 5e has gone we have felt less and less satisfied... this ins't a "Only me" this is my whole group (well 1 exception who loves that as he puts it 'wizards rule and fighter drool')
If all the players at your table are playing spellcasters because they feel spellcasters are more powerful in 5E than martial weapon-users, then I would imagine a lot of those issues are as a result of how your particular DMs are running their games.
okay... so we are running the game were we are about half combat and depending on the DM more exploration or more social rare is it for it to be 1/4 1/4 and I don't think we ever got a 1/3 1/3 1/3 game... some times our combats (although rare) in some campaigns get up to 3/4 the game.
We use mostly huminoid threats (so orcs humans) with the dragon or eldritch horror spread out through out the levels...

we try to minimize player skill and maximize character skill (we don't always pull it off)

not on enworld we call ourselves a narrative focused group... but i have been told what we do by gaming terminology is more gamiest. I also had my first player quite a game in years saying we focused too much on 'problem solving' and I never got a good idea what that meant.

Depending on the night (I game twice a week) there are 3-5 players and we alternate who is the DM... although it looks like we may have a new player coming in soon.
right now I am running every tuesday and we have 2 on 2 off game that I am 1 of the 2 alternating games on saterday and techniqly we have a 1/month game but it has only met 6 or 7 times in the last year so we have some issues getting it togather
There are ways to run 5E to certainly help and assist in overpowering spellcasters, so isn't that up to the DMs to change how they run things if they don't the spellcasters to be overpowered? How often do dispel magics, counterspells, antimagic fields, or monsters going straight after the casters appear in the game?
with the exception of counterspell that is not something we use much, the rest come on a case by case basis... the amount of antimagic zones has lead to more then a few people wanting to have some weapon skill hence why war clerics sword bards and hexblades get the most play but bladesingers are right behind them.
These are all things that can help lower the power of spellcasters if that is a necessity. And since WotC knows this too... it doesn't seem to me to be an issue that WotC would feel like they need to do something to "fix" it.
great... silly me trying to talk about a game on a game fourm... thank you for letting me know not ONLY am I DMing and Playing wrong BUT there is no need to talk about it cause WotC
doesn't seem to me to be an issue that WotC would feel like they need to do something to "fix" it.
That's not to say they couldn't or won't change things down the line to help get your tables into more of a martial/caster balance... but at least in the short-term from my perspective it's really the table's actions that could "fix" things faster and more effectively than waiting on WotC. Best of luck!
this is also why I am hopeing for a 6e... I seem to prefer even numbered editions
 

OB1

Jedi Master
red dragon saves for breath weapon CR 4 at 13 and cr 17 has a 21... over 13 levels the DC goes up by 8

from 4th to 17th level how hard is it to get your save in all stats to increase by 8?
The more difficult save is mitigated by the increase in HP for the PCs, which provides a different layer of protection against the breath weapon and favors fighters, barbarians and the like.

I DM'd a 1-20 5e campaign with a Fighter (Battlemaster), Rogue (Assassin), and Ranger (Hunter), and it worked out just fine. The fighter and ranger had enough HP to soak damage from failed saves, the Rogue had 4 proficient saves plus the amazing evasion ability to make up for lower HP. If the Fighter got dominated or the like, the rest of the party focused on forcing concentration saves or taking out the caster. It was certainly different than the way a party with more than a single 1/2 caster would approach Tier IV, but they found plenty of ways to make it work as a team.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top