D&D 5E Saving Throws

[Li Shenron]

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?

Nothing inherently wrong with that.

The 20th level wizard is still more powerful than the 3rd level wizard and thus a bigger threat, even if a single spell by both is the same threat.

 

[DonAdam]

I'd like a 4e style system that uses ability scores (rather than 10 + mod) as the DC that a spellcaster rolls against. That more strongly reinforces the rock-paper-scissors aspect of saves in a good way since individual ability scores increase twice as fast as modifiers, but there are 6 avenues of attack if we have a well designed spell list.

It also offers a bit more reward for bolstering lower stats/spreading out ability score increases.

And, you don't have to add anything to the character sheet. Those numbers are there. It's up to the person creating the weird effect to know how to use it.

That said I'm fine with the static DC based on target idea, with powerful magic have a more powerful effect rather than being harder to resist. And you could build in ad hoc adjustments for difficulty to resist on certain effects, be they just really powerful (-4 saves vs. nymph nymphomania) or have narrative license ("the target gets disadvantage if the caster has a lock of hair from the target").

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'd like to see a return of the rule that requires your relevant ability score to be 10+spell level in order to cast spells of that level.
Then your spellcasting stat has purpose, and can be removed from the DC calculations.
Saving throws will be somewhere between -1 and +5, with potential magical improvement beyond that. If DCs were just 10+magic attack modifier, they would be in the 11-15 range, with potential magical improvement (this could be what implements do).
That's not as wide a spread as physical combat, with ACs going from 10-20, but casters can target weak stats easily. Worst case scenario is DC 11 against a +5 enemy, and you'll still get them sometimes. Best case is DC 15 against a -1 enemy, a stupid ogre, who'll get done in quite often, but then you are a super high level mage by then. I guess it depends on how many weak spots a high-level enemy has and what effects you can throw at them.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd like to see a return of the rule that requires your relevant ability score to be 10+spell level in order to cast spells of that level.

To be honest, I would prefer not to have that rule... it doesn't add much to the game, except the general notion that "only the most clever" (or whatever) can cast spells of a certain level. That's not a problem, but the problem was that 100% of the spellcaster just HAD to have the required stat. I've never seen any player accepting to play a spellcaster who didn't have the stat maximized for this, because having the highest spells level unavailable to you is just unacceptable. OTOH, if stat only affects the spells effects, it's not such an absolute must-have.

The second problem was that in theory, in 3e every time you get ability damage to your spellcasting stat, you should remember that maybe you cannot cast your highest levels spells. This is IMO an interesting occurrence in the game, but most time it happened, nobody remembered, and when someone remembered, the spellcasting player typically hated that. Anyway this is not going to happen in 5e because ability damage is out.

 

[Klaus]

Nothing inherently wrong with that.

The 20th level wizard is still more powerful than the 3rd level wizard and thus a bigger threat, even if a single spell by both is the same threat.

But then you have a character having the same chance of shrugging off a 1st-level wizard's Cause Fear, a lich's fear aura and a dragon's fearsome presence.

 

[Li Shenron]

But then you have a character having the same chance of shrugging off a 1st-level wizard's Cause Fear, a lich's fear aura and a dragon's fearsome presence.

Not necessarily, those high-level monsters abilities can simply be more difficult to resist. They are not the same spell.

 

[Klaus]

Not necessarily, those high-level monsters abilities can simply be more difficult to resist. They are not the same spell.

Yes, necessarily. I asked this on Twitter, and Mearls said that in a "target determines DC" system, the chance to resist would be the same.

I know this is how 1e and 2e did it, but it seems odd to me after all these years. I then asked if this idea could be coupled with 4e's "DC by level" table, with columns for Easy, Average and Hard for more variance.

 

[Jester David]

After my initial nerd rage at the change I found I rather like the idea.
It should play quickly at the table, as everyone knows their save DC. You just roll and move on without having to shout numbers aross the table.

I imagine powerful monsters could impose penalties to saves.

 

[Lackhand]

I feel like the biggest offender in the 6 stat save system is Intelligence, followed by Charisma.
We've had in-combat uses for Strength for so long that turning those from checks to saves doesn't ruffle my feathers.

Dex, Con and Wis get 3e-grandfathered in for me; Dex is overloaded with adventurer goodies, but that's a problem that I don't think D&D can fix in this climate.

Int, though; all the animals get -4 to those rolls, and expecting the PCs not to use spells that rely on that seems like wishful thinking.

Maybe the fix for that is outside the save system; similar to size modifiers to Str and Dex checks, you could have sentience modifiers to Int and Cha, allowing animals to have rolls in the 3-18 range without implying they know how to play chess

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Yes, necessarily. I asked this on Twitter, and Mearls said that in a "target determines DC" system, the chance to resist would be the same.

Just because the designers are doing it doesn't mean it's necessary

However, I noticed what you wrote before, and now I think we've been arguing over 2 different issues... When you said "One is a 3rd-level novie. The other is a 20th-level archmage. The Fighter will have the same chance of averting both spells?", I was just thinking that DC doesn't have to depend on caster level (or spellcaster class level). In 3ed it didn't depend on that, and it wasn't a big deal*. Even in the case the DC would be always identical for both casters (but in general they are not, because of ability score increases), IMO it's not a big deal, because the higher level caster is still much more powerful. Then monsters abilities have their own DC, so the Dragon's DC is not going to be necessarily low in this system.

*basically I thought you were arguing that the same Cause Fear must automatically have a higher DC if cast by a higher level wizard, and I wanted to point out that IMHO that's not necessary; it CAN be done like that, but even if the game makes Cause Fear work identically for both wizards, the game is still fine

OTOH I know understand you were directly referring to the announced changes in the podcast, where DC depends on the target. I also don't like that!

In general, I don't like that much how in 5e every spellcaster has this level-based DC bonus, it's one more fiddly bit to keep track of. Then I expected they would introduce once again a 3e-style saving throws progression, which is 3 more fiddly bits (or maybe 6)... But DC based on the target is even worse, and as you say it might lead to high level monsters to be easier to save against, so how they will fix this? But of course, by giving each monster's ability a "this requires a save at -X", so once again fiddly bits!