D&D 5E Saving Throws

[Jeff Carlsen]

Where was that stated?

I can't speak to any specific location. It's just a sentiment I've picked up in regard to how some people view levels and power.

It's more about monsters than spellcasters IMO.

Sure, but the monsters still follow the same basic principles as casters, as they should.

Basically, I agree with what you said about Ghouls being a bit different than other monsters in regard to higher level parties. I say let them balance differently. So long as they're true to themselves.

 

[zoroaster100]

To me it seems logical that if you are trying to build a system with bounded accuracy, you can't have spellcasting DC's increase with level while having static saving throws. It leads to spells and monster save or die abilities become ridiculously difficult to overcome at higher levels and ultimately a broken unfun system. They need to keep save DCs static and saves static, in my opinion.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, sure, but an orc shaman with the ability to cast a few 1st or 2nd level spells is a classic monster, as is the evil wizard's 2nd-4th level pupils. The issue is the same whether you view it as low-level monsters or low-level spellcasters.

In short, I disagree with your assertion that "PCs rarely meet casters of much lower level or much higher level." A lich is scary precisely because it is a "much higher level" caster (that is somewhat less vulnerable to being whacked by a sword). Sure, you might not see those encounters often if the game mechanics render them unsatisfying, but they are a classic part of D&D.

-KS

A lich (or any other BBEG) is most typically a higher level caster than the PC, but is not a much higher level caster. In fact, with the current bounded accuracy keeping those spells DC bonus within +5, that lich won't have an enormous bonus compared to the PCs.

A much higher level caster is a rare foe, because it's just too hard to kill. You can have maybe a foe 4-5 levels higher than the party in 3e, it'll be a challenge but doable, but more than that and TPK becomes too probably. In 4e the level spread might need to be even smaller. 4 levels more is not yet what I call "much" higher. Higher than that, the DM is not going to play the foe fully, but most likely it's just going to shoot a top-powerful spell or two as a signal that the PCs should just run, so it doesn't matter much at that point what system is used to calculate the DC.

A much lower level caster is also rare, and probably even more so. A sidekick caster of 2 levels lower than the party is something I've seen, but less than that, and again there is little reason for the DM to play such NPC fully (ie with all the spells prepared and abilities defined), it's more convenient to use a simplified version like the dark adepts in 5e, ie a couple of spells defined and that's it. But indeed, with 5e directly offering these foes as an option, these will easily get used much more often than before, so this could be a good reason to think about DC carefully.

For these reasons IMO they are not very much a classic part of D&D, but however they might be more common in 5e, and I think it would be a good thing.

An interesting case to think about, is characters with only a few levels of a spellcaster class. Here we have a slight complication: you will want e.g. a Fighter 7/Wizard 3 to still get something useful out of those few spells he can cast. Thus, basing the DC only on Wizard levels might make it hard (if you want him to cast offensive spells). That also applies to the orc shaman foe with 2 spellcasting levels. If you don't scale DC with caster level at all, these multiclass casters' spells have the same % chance of success when casting the same 1st level spell already, but if you scale DC by level, then they have to think about an additional rule for multiclassed casters.

 

[Blackwarder]

An interesting case to think about, is characters with only a few levels of a spellcaster class. Here we have a slight complication: you will want e.g. a Fighter 7/Wizard 3 to still get something useful out of those few spells he can cast. Thus, basing the DC only on Wizard levels might make it hard (if you want him to cast offensive spells). That also applies to the orc shaman foe with 2 spellcasting levels. If you don't scale DC with caster level at all, these multiclass casters' spells have the same % chance of success when casting the same 1st level spell already, but if you scale DC by level, then they have to think about an additional rule for multiclassed casters.

Thats a very good point, is approach neatly sidestep the issue of multiclassing and caster levels. That's another plus in my book.

Warder

 

[Weather Report]

Why the spellcasting bonus makes sense in relation to DCs, is that characters can only get a max ability score of 20 (+5), monsters can get a max score of 30 (+10), so it balances out.

 

[steeldragons]

Didn't read the whole thread...waaay too long.

All I have to say is, as much as I appreciate the "get back to old school" angle of this idea of making saves PC level dependent, I just don't think it would work in today's day and age...and I agree that saves should be effect-dependent.

A sleep spell from a 20th level caster should be more difficult to resist than one from a 3rd...or 5th...or 10th for that matter. The DC of the spell might not increase, but whether by caster level or Intelligence modifier or some other means, my 10th level party should have a bugger of a time not falling to sleep from a 20th level's sleep spell [I'm envisioning such a casting to be akin to Maleficent in Disney's Sleeping Beauty. Capable of putting a whole kingdom or at least an entire castle to sleep without much problem.]

Should the DCs increase, perhaps due to spell level also?...possibly. A fireball is inherently more difficult to avoid because it is a more powerful spell...regardless of the level of the caster...though dodging a fireball from the 5th level caster should/could/might be easier than a 10th. And 10th level characters should be just as concerned [if not moreso] about a fireball from their 20th level foe as from a 7th level one...Not just or necessarily because the damage is greater, but because it is still dangerous/difficult to avoid.

So, something like saves vs. spells could be detailed as DC10 +spell level +caster level...or caster level Intelligence score [for wizards, Wisdom for Clerics, Charisma for Bards, etc...]?

Being hypnotized by a 10th level Illusionist should be just as possible/plausible for the 10th level PC as a 3rd level caster charming a 3rd level PC.

Other wise, the only point to gainign levels in caster classes becomes, solely, gainign access to new/more powerful spells. Now, yes, that is/should be the caster characters main concern (particularly for wizardy types), but simply because I can now cast Ice Storm or Suggestion shouldn't make Burning Hands and Charm Person obsolete..and/or only useable against goblins, kobolds and commonfolk.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why the spellcasting bonus makes sense in relation to DCs, is that characters can only get a max ability score of 20 (+5), monsters can get a max score of 30 (+10), so it balances out.

How about spellcasting monsters?

A sleep spell from a 20th level caster should be more difficult to resist than one from a 3rd...or 5th...or 10th for that matter.

...

A fireball is inherently more difficult to avoid because it is a more powerful spell...

Absolutely NOT "should", these are one way of doing things, but there is no reason why the opposite couldn't also be the case, i.e. a 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell for everyone or that a higher level spell should be as hard to resist as a lower level spell. This is just what you've been accustomed to, but "should" or "inherently" are not at all given.

That a higher level caster is generally better than a lower level caster is a given. But this doesn't imply that the higher level caster's DC must be higher. There are other ways, e.g. higher level spells, more slots per day etc, special abilities etc.

That a higher level spell is generally better than a lower spell is a given. But this doesn't imply that the higher level spell's DC must be higher. There are other ways, e.g. increased effects.

This might be your favourite way, nothing wrong with that, but realize it's not the only way.

Incidentally, also keep in mind all the buzz-ad-nauseam about Wizards being always quadratic...

 

[steeldragons]

Absolutely NOT "should", these are one way of doing things, but there is no reason why the opposite couldn't also be the case, i.e. a 3rd level spell is a 3rd level spell for everyone or that a higher level spell should be as hard to resist as a lower level spell. This is just what you've been accustomed to, but "should" or "inherently" are not at all given.

No, I suppose not. But "should" and "inherently" are not the same thing. It is my preference and experience. Yes. But it also, to me, seems to be the most simple and "common sense logic", if that's a thing, way to make things. A player with no D&D experience can see that a 3rd level spell is more powerful than a 1st level spell...otherwise, what's the point of having/gaining levels?

That a higher level caster is generally better than a lower level caster is a given. But this doesn't imply that the higher level caster's DC must be higher.

Doesn't it? "a higher level caster is generally better than a lower level caster is a given." Why then would the "generally better" wizard's sleep be no more effective than a 1st level wizard fresh out of the academy/tutelage/apprenticeship?

"Must be"? No, I suppose not. But again, seems common sense. Maybe it's not the most "balanced" or the most mathematically "correct" for those who want everyone on a single playing field, but it makes the most basic sense.

There are other ways, e.g. higher level spells, more slots per day etc, special abilities etc.

Yes, given. All of these things make the higher level caster more powerful. How does that somehow negate the fact that the higher level caster is [to use your term] "inherently" or [I would say] "should be", just plain better (more experience) at casting magics he possesses/has possessed for a while?

That a higher level spell is generally better than a lower spell is a given. But this doesn't imply that the higher level spell's DC must be higher. There are other ways, e.g. increased effects.

Again, see above. Yes, given. "Must be"? No. But it makes total basic sense to the outside observer that the 10th level mage is winging objectively better spells. Are they better because they have more numerous and more powerful spells than the 3rd level mage? Yes. They are.

That's not to say they are not also more powerful simply because they are higher level spells (though those certainly are). They could be...and my preference/thinking is they "should" be more powerful spells across all spell levels because the caster is just more powerful/experienced...they have more magic at their disposal...they have a better understanding, better at manipulating it...they have mastered the best Sleep she can, while she is still perfecting/trying to improve her Lightning bolt and striving/studying to get that Dimension Door to work in the first place instead of just going "PFZAPfizzle."

This might be your favourite way, nothing wrong with that, but realize it's not the only way.

I didn't think it was the only way. Nor meant to imply it was. So, apologies for ruffling anyone's feathers with a perceived "one true wayism." I simply think it makes the most sense/is the simplest for understanding of new players who might be trying to get into their imagination wrapped around this fantasy game than their spell-slinger within it.

Incidentally, also keep in mind all the buzz-ad-nauseam about Wizards being always quadratic...

This is, of course, always a concern...and perhaps why it should be DC increasing by spell level OR caster level...but not necessarily both. Is it still quadratic, yeah, I guess. But not necessarily as egregious while still providing a "higher level is better at doing stuff" feel.

Either way, the point of the thread (as far as the OP), I don't agree with Character level based saves. My love/preference of old school/BECM/1e notwithstanding. OR, perhaps [thinking more about it now] it could be both? Your saves get better as your PC increases level. Given. But the threat from higher level/HD foes also goes up. So the 3rd level PC trying to resist a 3rd level mage's Sleep is just as difficult as a 10th level PC trying to resist a 10th level mage's Sleep. ...Is that less quadratic? I'll leave that to those more interested in number-crunching than myself.

 

[Iosue]

No, I suppose not. But "should" and "inherently" are not the same thing. It is my preference and experience. Yes. But it also, to me, seems to be the most simple and "common sense logic", if that's a thing, way to make things. A player with no D&D experience can see that a 3rd level spell is more powerful than a 1st level spell...otherwise, what's the point of having/gaining levels?

But this is a completely different issue. No one's saying that a 3rd level spell shouldn't be more powerful than a first level spell. The question is "Should a, say, 5th level wizard cast the same spell as a first level wizard, and have that spell be more powerful?" And the answer is, well, yes, while that's certainly a reasonable way to take it, it makes no more sense and is no more common logic than, "Spells are spells. Everyone casts them to the same effect. More powerful wizards can cast more more of them, and spells of more powerful effects." I mean, after all, that is the paradigm of Harry Potter.

But the reason the TSR way is good is that it found a middle way. Some spells always have the same effect. Some spells scale damage or effect with level. Some spells force saving throws, but saving throws improve with level. A 10th wizard's fireball does more damage than a 4th level wizard's. But a higher level character caught in that fireball has a good chance of surviving because they have more hp and can save easier for half-damage.

So, remove the overall spellcasting bonus. Institute a modest save bonus in line with bounded accuracy. And then carefully write each spell, with some of them scaling effects when cast as a higher level spell. Sleep as it is in the current playtest is a good example. Affects a certain amount of hp at 1st level, with more hp effected when cast in a higher slot, which only higher level, more powerful wizards can do. Fireball and Lightning Bolt don't need a spellcasting bonus making the DC difficult -- their damage scales when cast in a higher slot. Have spells like Hold Person being harder to save against, if cast in a higher slot. This gives wizards versatility without making them over powerful.

And incidentally, if ability scores are being used for saves, which I don't have a problem with, if I had my druthers I would remove all ability score bonuses from anything class related. That includes fighters and combat. Let attack bonus and damage bonus come purely from class. Strength gives bonuses on feats of strength. Intelligence gives bonuses on lore checks. Wisdom gives bonuses on perception/insight checks. Dexterity gives bonuses on feats of agility or manual dexterity. Otherwise, all you're doing is encouraging players to pump up their prime stat, at the cost of others, and making it easier for the game to go out of balance.

Let players make intelligent fighters, dextrous clerics, strong rogues, and wise magic-users.

 

[Weather Report]

How about spellcasting monsters?

They seem to have no inherent bonus, unlike PC classes.