D&D 5E Saving throws in 5e

[EzekielRaiden]

Save each round to end the effect is not wildly different from 50/50 each round to end the effect. Different yes, wildly different no.

A 50/50 mechanic is (essentially) guaranteed to wear off after at most four failed saves (chance of failing 5 consecutive saves is less than 5%, in fact exactly 3.125%.) When spellcasters can target weak saves and increase their own saving throw DC (through stats or through items), you can easily get that to be a 70% chance to fail. A weak save may be at +0 or even -1, while a level 4 caster with a single magic item can easily have a DC of 8+4+4+1 = 17, possibly higher; that would mean needing to roll at least 17 (possibly 18), which is an 80% chance to fail. Even if we don't include the magic item and presume a +0 bonus on a monster's weak saves, you're looking at a 75% chance to fail. The equivalent probability (less than 5% chance to fail that much) is twelve consecutive saves, meaning ~11 rounds of maximum effect as opposed to only 4.

And if we consider average effect it's even worse: 50/50 gives exactly 1 round of expected total value. 75/25 gives exactly 3.

I'm pretty sure 3x effect--particularly in a game where "three rounds" may as well be "until the end of the encounter"--is rather dramatically different.

 

[Maxperson]

A 50/50 mechanic is (essentially) guaranteed to wear off after at most four failed saves (chance of failing 5 consecutive saves is less than 5%, in fact exactly 3.125%.) When spellcasters can target weak saves and increase their own saving throw DC (through stats or through items), you can easily get that to be a 70% chance to fail. A weak save may be at +0 or even -1, while a level 4 caster with a single magic item can easily have a DC of 8+4+4+1 = 17, possibly higher; that would mean needing to roll at least 17 (possibly 18), which is an 80% chance to fail. Even if we don't include the magic item and presume a +0 bonus on a monster's weak saves, you're looking at a 75% chance to fail. The equivalent probability (less than 5% chance to fail that much) is twelve consecutive saves, meaning ~11 rounds of maximum effect as opposed to only 4.

And if we consider average effect it's even worse: 50/50 gives exactly 1 round of expected total value. 75/25 gives exactly 3.

I'm pretty sure 3x effect--particularly in a game where "three rounds" may as well be "until the end of the encounter"--is rather dramatically different.

First, you should be comparing the average saves vs. the average bonus, not the extremes, which won't happen nearly as often. Second, if 3 rounds may as well be until the end of the encounter, I've seen 50/50 come up the same way 3 consecutive times a fair amount. It happens 12.5% of the time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First, you should be comparing the average saves vs. the average bonus, not the extremes, which won't happen nearly as often. Second, if 3 rounds may as well be until the end of the encounter, I've seen 50/50 come up the same way 3 consecutive times a fair amount. It happens 12.5% of the time.

Casters almost always have a choice, and will almost always attempt to use weak saves, so no, I don't feel at all like that's an incorrect thing to account for.

And what I'm saying is, that "3 consecutive times" thing happens 12.5% of the time for true 50/50 saves. It happens over 42% of the time for 75/25 saves. That means it would be more than 3x the frequency (3 and 3/8ths to be exact.)

Conversely, granting save bonuses is very much more a player-facing thing in 4e, while bonuses on both sides can vary wildly in 5e, from craptastic negative modifiers and no proficiency to beyond-mortal-limits modifiers and +6 proficiency (I don't believe anything gets expertise in saving throws), on top of the variability in the target numbers. Which even further cements the difference here.

So no. I don't think it's at all inaccurate to say they are so starkly different. Much as Hit Dice and Healing Surges.

 

[Maxperson]

Casters almost always have a choice, and will almost always attempt to use weak saves, so no, I don't feel at all like that's an incorrect thing to account for.

And what I'm saying is, that "3 consecutive times" thing happens 12.5% of the time for true 50/50 saves. It happens over 42% of the time for 75/25 saves. That means it would be more than 3x the frequency (3 and 3/8ths to be exact.)

Conversely, granting save bonuses is very much more a player-facing thing in 4e, while bonuses on both sides can vary wildly in 5e, from craptastic negative modifiers and no proficiency to beyond-mortal-limits modifiers and +6 proficiency (I don't believe anything gets expertise in saving throws), on top of the variability in the target numbers. Which even further cements the difference here.

So no. I don't think it's at all inaccurate to say they are so starkly different. Much as Hit Dice and Healing Surges.

Depending on party make-up, 10 spells with durations happen every combat or two. 3 consecutive failed 50/50 saves will happen a bit more often than that. I don't see how every combat or two is wildly different from every combat. There's a difference, yes, but I still wouldn't categorize it as wildly different.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So no. I don't think it's at all inaccurate to say they are so starkly different. Much as Hit Dice and Healing Surges.

Yes. About the same as healing surges and hit dice. Similar concept. Interpreted differently and having different repercussions for the game. But obviously one is an evolution of the other. Or devolution, depending how you look at it.
I would settle both 5e concepts between 4e and 3e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. About the same as healing surges and hit dice. Similar concept. Interpreted differently and having different repercussions for the game. But obviously one is an evolution of the other. Or devolution, depending how you look at it.
I would settle both 5e concepts between 4e and 3e.

....Hit Dice are literally nothing like Healing Surges other than that they provide healing.

That's it. That's literally the only thing they share in common.

Did you actually play 4e? Because statements like this usually indicate a person did not. That doesn't mean you definitely didn't, which is why I'm asking.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

....Hit Dice are literally nothing like Healing Surges other than that they provide healing.

That's it. That's literally the only thing they share in common.

Did you actually play 4e? Because statements like this usually indicate a person did not. That doesn't mean you definitely didn't, which is why I'm asking.

Over its complete life span.
One evolved (or devolved) from the other.
Both are similar concepts, as I said with distinct differences.
Backpaddling more to 3e if you will.
The Idea of gaining hp back without the need for extern sources like healing magic.
In 4e healing surges limit daily healing on top of that. Again. I will discuss the amount of simiarities and I don't disagree with you that the repercussions for the game are big. They are related.

 

[Scott Christian]

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...

About the only way to level the playing field is make all spells do less damage than martial weapons, but let them keep their side effects. Heck, give them more and varied side effects if you want. But we all know, near the end of the campaign, the fighter is, at best, someone who is trying to do their best. Too bad their best is a small fraction of what a caster can do.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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).

when looking for answers I was playing with mixing 4e and 3.5 and having 3 defenses AC Toughness and Mental... and have saves that are will and fort... BUT let the toughness and mental defense each have 2 possible stats and the saves each have 2 possible stats... and none were Dex that would only be for AC and initiative.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

About the only way to level the playing field is make all spells do less damage than martial weapons, but let them keep their side effects. Heck, give them more and varied side effects if you want. But we all know, near the end of the campaign, the fighter is, at best, someone who is trying to do their best. Too bad their best is a small fraction of what a caster can do.

since everyone says that fighters are supposed to shine in combat I don't understand why we don't just make all damage super weak... but nobody at WotC asks me