D&D 5E Saving Throws

[DEFCON 1]

Well, I'm of the opinion that it's not the power/level of the caster that should affect the save DC, it's the spell slot level the spell was cast at.

If you're a 20th level caster and you cast Sleep using a 1st level slot... you're basically saying "I'm not putting any time, thought, or energy into this spell." Thus, the DC should be the same as a 1st level caster casting it (IE simpler to resist).

I feel this way on both sides... on scaling spell damage and scaling spell DCs. If you want more damage dice for your Fireball... you should have to use a higher spell slot. If you want a higher DC for your saving throws... you should have to use a higher spell slot.

And what does a high-level wizard do with all of his 1st level spell slots that he won't be using for attacks and defenses? He should now be using them for all of his utility spells that he used to cast in ritual form. So he no longer needs to spend 10 minutes to Comprehend Languages or Detect Magic like he used to as a youngster (in order to save his spell slots)... he can now cast it with a single action since he's not going to use the slot in combat for anything else.

That's my opinion at any rate.

 

[keterys]

I wonder if I'm backwards in that I feel like I'd rather it was easier to fail saves against low level spells than high level spells, based purely on the result?

But that I'd also be okay with high level spells having a real result even if you make it.

For example, let's say you make a save vs granting advantage or slowed at 1st level. I'd be fine if that were failed most of the time.

Skip forward to 7th - 11th level, and it's a save vs. "removed from fight, possibly campaign" and I'd prefer that you made that save most of the time. Though I'd be okay if even on a successful save you took damage, maybe granted combat advantage and/or were slowed (ex: you fight off the transformation, but still grant advantage for the next minute from the shock)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Skip forward to 7th - 11th level, and it's a save vs. "removed from fight, possibly campaign" and I'd prefer that you made that save most of the time. Though I'd be okay if even on a successful save you took damage, maybe granted combat advantage and/or were slowed (ex: you fight off the transformation, but still grant advantage for the next minute from the shock)

I dunno... I think that's giving too much agency to the 'Save or Die' spells. In my opinion... you should have two different types of high-level spells: consistent spells that have pretty good effects on a failed save and fairly good effects on a made save (the damaging / half-damaging spells for example); and the all-or-nothing spells that are either outstanding when they work, but have absolutely no effect if they don't (the Save or Dies).

If you're a wizard and you want to tread into the realm of the potential "I win!" spells... you should accept the consequences of a lost action when they don't work. And if you don't like the idea of all-or-nothing... then go back and use the consistent "good not great" spells instead.

 

[keterys]

Making a spell have a 50% chance to do nothing doesn't make up for it doing everything the other 50% of the time.

Personally, more than a 5% chance (ie, on anything other than a 1) is probably too much for me, though. Make it a reasonable spell for its level, and a crit fail on the save has an extra horrific result. Sure.

I'd still rather a lot of the effects were just something that happened if you got damaged enough. Ie, if you could have died from the attack anyways if it were pure damage, then it's fine to kill you. Ditto sleep, petrify, etc.

I'm starting to think the game should just not bother with polymorph. I've already had my "Player scanning through the bestiary for polymorph" moment for this edition, and I'm already done with it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Making a spell have a 50% chance to do nothing doesn't make up for it doing everything the other 50% of the time.

Personally, more than a 5% chance (ie, on anything other than a 1) is probably too much for me, though. Make it a reasonable spell for its level, and a crit fail on the save has an extra horrific result. Sure.

I'd still rather a lot of the effects were just something that happened if you got damaged enough. Ie, if you could have died from the attack anyways if it were pure damage, then it's fine to kill you. Ditto sleep, petrify, etc.

I'm starting to think the game should just not bother with polymorph. I've already had my "Player scanning through the bestiary for polymorph" moment for this edition, and I'm already done with it.

Well, those aren't really 'Save or Die' spells then. It looks like you want all spells of high level to be consistent spells. Which is fine... but that does annoy many players who like the Save or Dies.

But if you are gonna have Save or Dies... there has to be a consequence for attempting them. The win-big / lose-big paradigm is what makes them what they are. Of course... the irony being that the "lose-big" option is really just the loss of an action and a spell slot-- not actually all that consequential, all thing considered.

 

[keterys]

It looks like you want all spells of high level to be consistent spells.

That's actually not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that you can't balance save or die with the assumption that nothing happens, unless the chance for nothing to happen is immense. I'm saying that I feel save or dies wreck a consistent saving DC paradigm.

If the chance for nothing to happen is immense, then it devalues _all other spells_, unless I suppose we also just balance save for half damage spells under the assumption that you almost always take half damage. Which might make them deal enough damage that they effectively become save or die

But, really, I'm just not seeing it being good for casters to go from "50% chance my spells matter" to "10% chance my spells matter" as they level.

 

[jrowland]

DC = 10 + (Caster Level - Target Level)/4 + Casters Relevant ability bonus
Target gets relevant ability bonus on roll

e.g.

10th level Wizard (Int 18) casts Sleep against 5th level Fighter (Dex 12)

DC = 10 + (10-5)/4 + 4 = 15, fighter gets +1 to save

e.g.

1st level Wizards (Int 16) casts Sleep against 5th level Fighter (Wis 12)

DC = 10+ (1-5)/4 + 3 = 12, fighter gets +1 to save.

e.g.

20th Wizard (Int 20) Casts Sleep against 1st Fighter (Wis 8)

DC = 10+ (20-1)/4 + 5 = 19, Fighter gets -1 to save

e.g.

1st Wizard (Int 10, lol) casts sleep against 20th Fighter (Wis 20!)

DC = 10 + (1-20)/4 + 0 = 6, Fighter gets a +4 to save


Spell level is irrelevant (Its baked into the actual spell already)
Spells can still have Hard Limits (Sleep only affects level 5 or lower, e.g.)
Requires Arithmetic, but I think it works
Denominator can be changed (divide by 3 or 5 for example)

 

[billd91]

But if you are gonna have Save or Dies... there has to be a consequence for attempting them. The win-big / lose-big paradigm is what makes them what they are. Of course... the irony being that the "lose-big" option is really just the loss of an action and a spell slot-- not actually all that consequential, all thing considered.

Perhaps not a big cost from the viewpoint of actual game resources spent, but the psychological effect on the player has to be considered. That's probably a significant reason 3e spellcasters got as good as they are - to settle the backlog of complaints that it's not fun to have an action be totally wasted by the target making its saving throw (or have spellcasting interrupted, etc).

I agree, in theory, that a chance of the spell completely fizzling does make save or die/sit spells capable of ending an encounter (or at least completely take out an encounter creature) a less dominating strategy compared to spells that dish out an appropriate level of damage. The player has to balance the frustration of having wasted actions against the satisfaction of being the player who took out the monster. However, in this age of fun and spotlight jealousy among players, I do think having a spell be completely ineffective is perhaps a bad idea. I reluctantly have to think that some form of partial effect or progressive effect may be a good plan. If you try to hit the umber hulk with a charm monster and it makes a save, I think it might be of value to impose some kind of effect on it so that the spellcaster's action wasn't completely wasted yet the creature is not taken out of the encounter. Under 3e/PF, dazed, shaken, sickened, and staggered make good sorts of conditions to impose. But in D&D Next, putting all of the target creatures attacks under disadvantage for the next round may be enough (or even ideal) as it shakes off the magical effect.

As far as balancing save or die and it's chances of failure with other spells or effects that damage a creature, what you could compare is expected values. If the spellcaster used his same-level damaging spells to take down an opponent, how long can we expect the target to suffer the damage before being neutralized? Ideally, a save or die spell's chance of success/failure is set so that the length of time is about the same.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Perhaps not a big cost from the viewpoint of actual game resources spent, but the psychological effect on the player has to be considered. That's probably a significant reason 3e spellcasters got as good as they are - to settle the backlog of complaints that it's not fun to have an action be totally wasted by the target making its saving throw (or have spellcasting interrupted, etc).

Eh... my feeling on this is that if you're a spellcaster who chooses to truck in Save or Die spells... then you go into it knowing the all-or-nothing mentality needed. You cast Flesh To Stone... you might only have a 15% chance of it succeeding... but you take that chance because that's the type of character or player you are, and are gambling to win big. And if you can't handle that type of gamble... you just don't throw those kinds of spells. You can just cast the consistent-damage type spells that assist the weapon-users in the whittling down of monster HP. Nothing wrong with that playstyle... but it's not the only playstyle that the game should accommodate I don't think.

But giving those 'I win' spells a good amount of "don't feel bad" effects is treating those players with kid gloves, which I don't think is necessary or should be encouraged. You don't want your feelings hurt, just cast spells that do half damage on a save, or don't have a saving throw at all.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But giving those 'I win' spells a good amount of "don't feel bad" effects is treating those players with kid gloves, which I don't think is necessary or should be encouraged. You don't want your feelings hurt, just cast spells that do half damage on a save, or don't have a saving throw at all.

I'd like more predictability in my games than that. Both as a player and as the DM. Running a game where one of the PCs action has an 85% chance of doing nothing or a 15% chance of ending an encounter outright is....unsatisfying for me from both sides of the screen. It's just TOO random and ends up with epic encounters ending in one spell.

On the other hand, I don't have much of a problem with any one individual spell or ability having about a 5% chance of killing the enemy. Most crits are going to have this effect. Why not have spells work similarly? Flesh to Stone causes damage and if you crit with it, makes someone solid stone. Maybe the percent chance of critting with it changes based on the level of the target compared to you. So, if you are a powerful wizard you can walk around turning peasants and weak soldiers to stone with a near 100% chance of success.

EDIT: Actually, if this idea was implemented, it might be possible for the DM to adjust the level of deadliness in his campaign fairly easily by moving these sliders around. DMs who like a deadly campaign might make the spell always crit when used while people who wanted absolutely no save or dies could make the chance of crit 0.