D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[BryonD]

there's no good reason for the gap between good saves and bad saves to increase so substantially vs. at-level foes, and yet they do.

The idea that the nimble thief can expect to have a good chance of leaping clear of something while the massive warrior in heavy armor is going to need a wild swing of fate to get out of the way is a good reason.
The idea that the masterful wizard can expect to shrug off mystic attacks while the massive warrior is expected to agree that these are not the droids he is looking for is a good reason.
The idea that the massive warrior can withstand a brutal physical assault that only a a wild whim of fate would save the rogue and wizard from is a good reason.

The narrative space includes a lot of options for terrible threats to one character concept that are not all that scary to another character concept. That is a good reason.

The chance for a fighter to avoid a fireball should be based on the narrative concept of the fireball and the narrative concept of the fighter. It has nothing to do with a rogue who may or may not be present.

The chance for a rogue to avoid a fireball should be based on the narrative concept of the fireball and the narrative concept of the rogue. It has nothing to do with a fighter who may or may not be present.

When the mechanics arbitrarily state that the ability of the fighter to avoid the fireball is implicitly connected to the ability of the rogue to avoid the fireball then a narrative nonsense has taken over. This is a good reason.

Now, I do realize that these reasons produce a completely unsatisfactory gaming experience for you (and others). But the reasons still exist.
I'm not looking to put words in anyone's mouth, but as I understand it, a sense of implicit fairness and equal opportunity in most all situations is one of the elements on a list of things that 4E fans like about it. I respect that.

I also respect that WotC promised to deliver play styles that feel like any edition. This is (among many other things) fundamental to 4E. They should provide a way to solve this for you.

But there are really good reasons "for the gap between good saves and bad saves to increase so substantially vs. at-level foes". Really good reasons.

 

[Obryn]

I'm kinda stuck scratching my head here. I don't see how this is a problem. It's called a flaw within a character. Characters need flaws that are apparent and exploitable to be believable and not just a one dimensional boring character. If a wizard is crappy at con saves things in the world should be scary that affect con-saves, and rightly so. I don't... I just don't understand the complaint I guess.

A gap between your good saves and bad saves starts out, and exists, at 1st level. That gap expands as you get more powerful.

I am not saying characters shouldn't have flaws or weaknesses. I've said repeatedly, that's not my issue at all. The issue is that you keep parity with the stuff you're good at resisting, but get comparatively weaker at the stuff you started out bad at resisting.

The chance for a fighter to avoid a fireball should be based on the narrative concept of the fireball and the narrative concept of the fighter. It has nothing to do with a rogue who may or may not be present.

The chance for a rogue to avoid a fireball should be based on the narrative concept of the fireball and the narrative concept of the rogue. It has nothing to do with a fighter who may or may not be present.

And I'm not saying they should be. I'm asking why a 20th level Fighter or Rogue would never get better at resisting the spells of, say, a 3rd-level Wizard with Hold Person prepared than they were at 1st level.

Look, it's clear this is a matter of taste, but in my mind, they're repeating the good save/bad save disparities that hurt 3e.

 

[BryonD]

And I'm not saying they should be. I'm asking why a 20th level Fighter or Rogue would never get better at resisting the spells of, say, a 3rd-level Wizard with Hold Person prepared than they were at 1st level.

I'd say nothing should happen without a reason for it to happen. I don't see why gaining 14 levels of fighter makes you better at getting out of the way of fireballs.

edit: Also, when you talk about "gaps" you ARE saying that they should be. The idea that a fighter should get better is a different point than there should be a difference in the gap.
For me, both expectations create substandard narrative outcomes.

Look, it's clear this is a matter of taste, but in my mind, they're repeating the good save/bad save disparities that hurt 3e.

May 5E hurt as much as 3E is quite a hopeful statement for the success of 5E.

 

[pemerton]

I was thinking about this. Both Hold Person and Otto's Irresistible Dance require concentration. When the wizard casts one of these on the fighter, the fighter might be okay with failing. If I'm a fighter who considers my job in combat to protect my allies from harm, then a Hold Person on me does a pretty good job of removing the wizard from combat. He's certainly not dropping orbital nukes on me and my party with his 9th level slot. Instead he's concentrating on me.

Page 80 of Basic says that concentrating on a spell precludes casting another spell that requires concentration. But it doesn't stop other spell-casting, does it?

So you use Hold or Dominate or Otto's to take out the fighter, then a damaging spell with a DEX or CON save to apply pressure to the rest of the party.

I'm kinda stuck scratching my head here. I don't see how this is a problem. It's called a flaw within a character.

Why should a 20th level fighter be more vulnerable to SoS from a 20th level mage than a 1st level fighter is from a 1st level mage? Ie why should the "flaw" get worse?

This idea that high level fighters must be weak against MUs is purely a function of 3E. It's not true in B/X, nor in AD&D, nor in 4e.

And [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION], the relevant narrative concept is Aragorn. Or Faramir. Or Conan. Or Arren in The Farthest Shore. Or Captain America. There is a lot of narrative space in which powerful warriors are not easily made pawns to wizards.

(Also, gaining 14 levels does make you better at getting out of the way of fireballs - that's what hp represent, remember, namely skill at dodging and turning aside fireballs and other blows. The worry is about SoS, not damage.)

 

[Obryn]

May 5E hurt as much as 3E is quite a hopeful statement for the success of 5E.

Alright, to me this sounds like elevating a bug to a feature, but to each their own.

My prediction is that, when we're talking about 5e Charop in under a year's time, abusing and guarding against this gap will be the core of optimization.

 

[Obryn]

Page 80 of Basic says that concentrating on a spell precludes casting another spell that requires concentration. But it doesn't stop other spell-casting, does it?

So you use Hold or Dominate or Otto's to take out the fighter, then a damaging spell with a DEX or CON save to apply pressure to the rest of the party.

That's correct. Concentration can be broken by damage, though, so there's that.

Also, there will be a similar factor when the Wizard is making Strength saves, which are apparently common for monsters to hand out. Likely grappling related.

 

[pemerton]

there will be a similar factor when the Wizard is making Strength saves, which are apparently common for monsters to hand out. Likely grappling related.

This will be interesting to see (also the extent to which they can be deployed at range).

 

[beej]

(I'm not sure if it's a good idea to toss in my 2cp in a pool already flled with copper pieces, but here goes)

At level 1, the medium DC is 15. At level 20, the medium DC is... 15. As a DM, if I don't make it a war of DC attrition, then it won't be.

I don't even think everyone will boost their primary to 20. My NPCs certainly won't. (Although Orcus's Finger of Death, which is based on his Cha 27 for DC, will probably be really hard to save against. But entities like Orcus are more the exception rather than the norm.)

Personally, I don't see it as a case of nonproficient characters getting worse, but of proficient characters getting better.

But that's just me and my games. Playstyles may differ.

 

[Evenglare]

Why should a 20th level fighter be more vulnerable to SoS from a 20th level mage than a 1st level fighter is from a 1st level mage? Ie why should the "flaw" get worse?

Uh.. it doesnt? A 20th level fighter would be more vulnerable from a spell a 20th level caster would cast because he's a 20 level mage, basically a demigod. That 1st level mage is only casting a level 1 spell. Let's take a look at a real world example. Let's put up an extreme heavy weight and a person with a PHD in Mathematics. During first grade let's say these 2 were rivals. First grade representing level 1. The teacher asks them to both lift 100 lbs, and both of them to do basic arithmetic. Now we can probably assume, if this is an ideal situation, that the child on their road to being heavy weight lifting champion that he could probably do the 100lbs with a bit of a challenge because he's athletic etc etc, but the child hates math, so he does very poorly at mathematics. On the other hand the child on the path to a PHD in math doesn't go outside much but stays inside working problems etc etc. He can't do the 100lb challenge but completely wastes the other kid at the math test.

Fast forward to level 20. The Heavyweight lifter can just dominate in all aspects of strength and constitution just completely blows out the competition... and the PHD mathematician can solve the worlds foremost complex problems, essentially creating a completely unique new branch of mathematics. Now tests are given to these 2 individuals again only now instead of it being first grade, these are the peak of mortal achievements. The 2 tests are proving the entirety of calculus and differential equations within a day, and the other test is to pull a 747 plane with one pinky (hell, or something else just completely absurd I don't know whats difficult because I myself would be akin to the PhD math person in this scenario).

So yeah, the Heavyweight is going to COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY fail at that mathematical test but dominate at the test that's appropriate for him. In essence he has gotten worse if your point of view is from the mathematician. On the other hand the mathematician is coming to completely and utterly fail at pulling the 747. So your statement, why should a fighter get "worse" compared to a wizard at level 20.... it's because the 2 people have completely excelled in different things. They have realized their field of study and SHOULDN'T have any chance at the other tests.

This is a large reason why 4e felt "samey" to everyone, because if everyone gets equally good at leveling up what the hell is the point of leveling???? There's not one. If everyone is a special snowflake then no one is. Now 3e took it a bit to far. I'll grant you that, but I honestly don't think that 5e is going to make a mistake that colossal. Magic items aren't assumed in 5e, and we have bounded accuracy. So the whole point is still completely absurd to me.

 

[CM]

Uh.. it doesnt? A 20th level fighter would be more vulnerable from a spell a 20th level caster would cast because he's a 20 level mage, basically a demigod.

So..... Mages rule, fighters drool? That's the impression I'm getting here.