D&D 5E Saving throws in 5e

[Charlaquin]

I strongly disagree with this assertion, particularly because saving throws are not a 50/50, and thus their "duration mechanic" effect is wildly different. But okay.

They aren’t always a 50/50, though they can end up that way depending on the caster’s save DC and the target’s save bonus. Point is, 4e introduced the concept of making a save each turn to end an ongoing effect. 5e has that too, it’s just that the math has more variables.

Personally, I’d prefer we go back to using non-AC-defenses with saves being used exclusively as a duration mechanic, but keep the variable DCs and bonuses.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I strongly disagree with this assertion, particularly because saving throws are not a 50/50, and thus their "duration mechanic" effect is wildly different. But okay.

Do as you please.
Redacted for clarity: I won't discuss it any further.
Its a fact. Structural similarity.
If you can't see it, so be it.

*we can discusss the extend of the similarity or the repercussions of the differences, of course.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They aren’t always a 50/50, though they can end up that way depending on the caster’s save DC and the target’s save bonus. Point is, 4e introduced the concept of making a save each turn to end an ongoing effect. 5e has that too, it’s just that the math has more variables.

Personally, I’d prefer we go back to using non-AC-defenses with saves being used exclusively as a duration mechanic, but keep the variable DCs and bonuses.

I could also see how this could work.
Probably allone time effects: save or suck/die/damage working vs static defense, which is a bit higher than the average succes rate for saving throws.

Lesser effects that should usually stick for a few rounds could work with saving throws that have a slightly lower succes rate.

 

[Ondath]

<scrubbed the bits relating to deleted posts>

When it comes to the thread's main question, this is something I think about every now and then. I think one of bounded accuracy's failures (despite my overt love for it in many other areas) is that at some point, saves with which you're not proficient become impossible to make. You don't even need to be level 15+ (where the game isn't even properly balanced anyway) to see this problem: Even the Mind Flayer's DC 15 Intelligence save can be really unfun for someone who dumped INT (-1 modifier and no save proficiency) and has to spend the rest of the combat hoping to roll a 16 or higher just to get to play again (that's a 25% chance just to be allowed to play your character for the whole encounter!).

That said, I do like the design approach of unifying all rolls into the same template, and saves being tied to ability scores achieves that. If anything, I think the designers should've separated more saves from the classic three of Dex/Con/Wis since some of the saves should've been something else but got stuck with the big three because they used to be Ref/Fort/Will saves (Dominate Person clearly should've been a Cha save, for instance).

I don't think the problem is necessarily is due to the ability scores being divided to six saves. To me, it looks more like a scaling problem. Perhaps giving half-proficiency to all non-proficient saves would be one way to alleviate the problem? It's something I've considered but decided not to implement.

 

[James Gasik]

Even auto success on a 20 would be something, but for some reason that was removed from saving throws for 5e. One I can't really fathom, since it's not hard to grok. Most people already believe natural 20's have reality bending powers.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Would making all classes proficient in all saves actually keep up with the usual DCs for each level for non-primary abilities, or would it just mean that they fall behind slower?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Would making all classes proficient in all saves actually keep up with the usual DCs for each level for non-primary abilities, or would it just mean that they fall behind slower?

You would come close to keeping pace.

Primary save DC vs. primary save proficiency should mostly keep pace. Truly powerful save DCs will still be harder, of course.
Primary save DC vs. secondary (lower ability modifier) would fall behind, but not nearly as much as without granting save proficiencies.

But, yes, IMO the easiest thing is to grant proficiency in all saves.

The easiest solution is to give all creatures proficiency in all saves. Creatures who "had proficiency" gain advantage instead.

 

[DND_Reborn]

One thing I would like to point out which I don't recall seeing is that much of this assumes the most powerful save DCs which keep pace with the PCs. IME many times save DCs fall well below this benchmark, allowing even non-proficient saves to have a decent, if not good, chance to succeed.

For example, in tier 3 your PC might face DC 18 saves, but have a +9 or +10, but their chances jump dramatically when they face a DC 13 or 14, which is still very possible in tier 3.

Now, because PCs only have two save proficiencies normally, the reverse is also an issue. A PC without proficiency might be just +1 or +2 to their save, so against those DC 13 or 14 is not great odds, but against the DC 18 it is much worse!

 

[Rabulias]

a bit... I mean I mostly use the stats in the back of the MM with minor tweeks... like use the mage or druid or archmage stats and just add some kobold fluff... not like make a PC sorcerer

I keep going back and forth on getting MotM

Just to be sure you know, Monsters of the Multiverse does not update creatures/NPCs from the Monster Manual.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What a strange tone to take in a discussion thread.

It is also not open for discussion if 2 + 2 = 4...