D&D 5E Saving throws in 5e

[jmartkdr2]

I think that there's an even easier solution to this: just let a nat 20 auto-succeed on saving throws. (and a nat 1 auto-fail)

There's a major difference in how it feels to have an impossible save DC and just an unlikely one - and there are a lot more ways to deal with an unlikely one by gaining advantage on the roll or otherwise making extra rolls. But if the save is just impossible you need a party member with bless prepared and a free slot and nothing better to do with their concentration... and even then it only hopefully gets your total high enough.

I would still make Indomitable auto-succeed a la legendary resistance, and would add a bullet to Warcaster to make a minimum damage threshold (say, your con save bonus) to even force a roll for concentration, but other than that one case I think the core problem can be solved with one common house rule (or maybe more accurately just a common misunderstanding)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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 question is: is it desired that you keep up with your lower saves...

half proficiency would be a good compromise. To Compensate, DCs could be 9 + prof bonus instead of 8 +.

I could also see 1.5 times proficiency bonus to good saves.

Maybe it would be no bad Idea to introduce half, full and 1.5 proficiency bonus as standard and give a list, when which increases...
Then calling it: no, slow, normal, fast pb progression.
I don't know if expertise is still needed.

I'd also vote for +2 to +8 as standard. +1 to + 4 as slow and +3 to +12 as fast progression.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The question is: is it desired that you keep up with your lower saves...

Of course every one has their own response, but for me it is yes. Your proficiency will keep up because your ability scores won't

Think about this: a tier 4 caster will likely have DC 19 spell save for ALL his spells, regardless of which ability saves for those spells.

But his targets will vary. Some will have matching max ability scores, others will have 10's, even in tier 4.

For example, the caster won't use Fireball against a Rogue, but might use Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp to force a STR save. Compare the numbers:

DC 19 vs. DEX save +11 OR DC 19 vs. STR save +0. So, 65% success vs. just 10%!

Just including proficiency would make that DC 19 vs. STR save +6. Now it is 65% success vs. 40%. Obviously the Rogue will have a harder time on the STR save still, but at least experience now matters!

half proficiency would be a good compromise. To Compensate, DCs could be 9 + prof bonus instead of 8 +.

I could also see 1.5 times proficiency bonus to good saves.

Maybe it would be no bad Idea to introduce half, full and 1.5 proficiency bonus as standard and give a list, when which increases...
Then calling it: no, slow, normal, fast pb progression.
I don't know if expertise is still needed.

I'd also vote for +2 to +8 as standard. +1 to + 4 as slow and +3 to +12 as fast progression.

This gets too much into the F/R/W 3E system with poor, avg., and good saves IMO. It is too fiddly for me and doesn't offer enough impact.

 

[Ondath]

<scrubbed since the offending post is gone too>

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@DND_Reborn
As I see it, saving throws in part are replacing old 3.5's rounds/caster level durations. In so far I think it is desired to have casters outscale defenses.
Against the initial save I share your concern.
So maybe just say: on intial save you add your proficiency bonus for all saves (resulting in expertise to proficient saves). As counter balance I would then just have DC = 10 + proficiency bonus + casting stat.

Would that be better?

 

[glass]

Correct. Saving throws in 4e were purely a duration or intensification mechanic (how long will you be affected by X?/will effect X get worse?) In 5e, they determine whether an effect strikes at all.

This is not strictly accurate - saving throws were occasionally used in the first instance (for example when someone tried to push or teleport you off a cliff).

Point is, 4e introduced the concept of making a save each turn to end an ongoing effect.

No it did not, 3.5 did (or possibly 3.0 but I think it was 3.5 - certainly not 4e anyway). And 3.5 (like 5e) used the effect DC and base save, rather than a flat DC 10 and no or minimal bonuses as in 4e.

This is not open for discussion*.

Who made you the arbiter of what is "open for discussion"? (Hint: Nobody.)

_
glass.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Who made you the arbiter of what is "open for discussion"? (Hint: Nobody.)

_
glass.

No: common sense.
Or better: discuss as you wish. But not with me. I can decide what I want to discuss and what not.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

No: common sense.
Or better: discuss as you wish. But not with me. I can decide what I want to discuss and what not.

Then don't discuss it rather than telling others they can't discuss it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I may enjoy 5e infinitely more than I did 3.x, but I think Fort, Reflex, and Will saves were a much better solution than trying to make all 6 abilities into saves (and then not using them half the time).

 

[HomegrownHydra]

I may enjoy 5e infinitely more than I did 3.x, but I think Fort, Reflex, and Will saves were a much better solution than trying to make all 6 abilities into saves (and then not using them half the time).

Is the issue that there are six saves or is it that only half are used? If all six were used roughly equally would that be okay?