D&D 5E Saving Throws

[GX.Sigma]

As long as a single failed save can wreck a PC or Named important enemy, there's probably no really good solution since you're in the unenviable spot of needing monsters to consistently fail saves (so PC spells work) and PCs to consistently make saves (so they don't just get one-shotted by every medusa, beholder, or death knight that crosses their path).

I disagree with that last part. If a medusa, beholder, or death knight crosses their path, they should expect to get one-shotted.

 

[keterys]

I disagree with that last part. If a medusa, beholder, or death knight crosses their path, they should expect to get one-shotted.

whats a good % chance? Per attack I suppose.

 

[GX.Sigma]

whats a good % chance? Per attack I suppose.

Around 50% or better, I guess. All I'm saying is, if a player sees a medusa/beholder/death knight and their first thought isn't "I am going to die, I need to get out of here right now," then the game has failed to support my playstyle.

 

[Wiseblood]

High level casters in earlier editions had more spells. So when a save was made by an enemy it was less problematic. If the save was failed the consequences were more dire. (death, disintegration and such) The opposition mirrored this when players were targeted by an expanding pool of monsters and spellcasters with terrible abilities. The chances of survival climbed as saves became easier. Third edition erased this with ascending DC's that also carried with them the dire consequences. IMO this was the worst feature of the game. Klaus, a third level caster has far weaker spells than an archmage. In all likelihood a successful save vs an archmage's spell will still be terrible. A failed save vs a novice would be far more pleasant. Save DC's should all be 20. Situational bonuses and penalties could alter the DC but players would roll a d20 and add their saving throw modifier trying to beat DC20.

 

[Paraxis]

The problem NEXT has it is supposed to support all play styles.

Mine is a Medusa, a Beholder, and a Deathknight all in the same encounter, and the PC's first reaction is to call out tactics as they charge into battle.

I don't want a single save or suck ability in the whole game, maybe two or three failed saves in a row puts a character out of play for a couple rounds, but not one single failed saving throw.

Standing around watching your friends play D&D is not fun, and that is the core problem with ghoul paralysis and similar abilities.

 

[billd91]

Okay. So two wizards cast a spell at the 10th-level Fighter. One is a 3rd-level novie. The other is a 20th-level archmage. The Fighter will have the same chance of averting both spells?

That's the way it was in editions before 3rd and it worked well. It could even be the case in 3e if the wizards had the same Intelligence (though the 20th level one had more opportunity to improve his and raise his DCs).

 

[Klaus]

That's the way it was in editions before 3rd and it worked well.

That is up for debate.

I really prefer if the current method stays: character rolls save against an effect-specific DC. Higher levels are already factored in through the increased ability scores, and the bounded accuracy means that low-level effects can be more easily overcome, but not so easily that they eventually fade out.

 

[keterys]

Well, low level and high level effects have the same save DC at the moment. It's just low level vs high level casters who appear to follow different rules.

 

[JasonZZ]

Around 50% or better, I guess. All I'm saying is, if a player sees a medusa/beholder/death knight and their first thought isn't "I am going to die, I need to get out of here right now," then the game has failed to support my playstyle.

And if it does work that way, it fails to support *MY* playstyle, where such foes are dangerous but defeatable.

(edit: and I see Paraxis beat me to it. D'oh.)

 

[Li Shenron]

I many ways, 3e's ideas were pretty sound from a simulation point of view. The level of the spell counted since higher level spells should be harder to resist than lower level spells. The offensive stat of the caster mattered because it makes sense that some casters would be more talented than others. Level affected the save bonus because more powerful characters should be more resilient than less experienced ones. Defensive stats mattered because some characters should be more talented at resisting than others. And, finally, it made some sense that character archetypes should be better at some saves than others and have stronger/weakers saves. They then set defensive resistance bonuses to be cheaper than offensive bonuses in magic item prices. That's all good stuff. But put it all together and add in myriad ways to enhance casting stats and imbalances between single-attribute dependent classes and multiple-attribute classes that could be exploited in character generation and you've got some trouble brewing.

I don't like this "should" mentality very much. As you say, these are very good from a simulation point of view, but on the other hand you can't first of all say that the whole game SHOULD be that much simulationist.

IF and only IF you want a good simulationist level, then your ideas above are good (although I'd still say COULD, not SHOULD, because as much as they are reasonable, they are all assumptions that don't ultimately need to be, magic doesn't have to work that way in all games).

How about everybody else tho, those who aren't interested much in this level of simulation? To support the idea of scaling magic, you have just added that (1) spell level must affect spells, (2) caster stat score must affect spells, (3) caster level must affect spells, (4) target stat score must affect spells, (5) target level must affect spells. That IMHO is quite a lot... The game could still function with NONE of these things. It would be a different game sure, but that doesn't mean the game wouldn't work, in fact it would work just fine.

I'm not sure they can make these into a module, because going this route they will certainly add different ST progression to different classes because it's more "simulationist", and once it depends on class, it's hard to play without it.