D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[pemerton]

It's opt in. Your fighter doesn't HAVE to be. You get plenty of chances to change that narrative, from character creation through to every ability bump you get (especially after maxing your STR -- which is hardly vital, here in Bounded Accuracy land).

Well, one person's opportunity to "opt in" is another person's feat tax. Where the boundary lies is a matter of taste, obviously, but [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] have already posted the examples that show that building up a weak stat isn't likely to help that much.

The issue is the inability to bring a proficiency bonus to bear.

Another issue is the question of fun in PC building - I think that if you are spending all your PC boosts to buff your defence against Hold and Dominate, then it is not as satisfying as it might be.

And pulling back to a bigger context: in all the years of debate around AD&D, and saving throws, and hit points, and whether low-level MUs are too weak and/or high level ones too strong, I never saw the criticism that high level fighter saves are too good. This "narrative space" for low fighter saves is, as best I can see, purely an artefact of 3E. That's not to deny that there might now be a demand for it - but I think that demand has been created by experience with a particular system. It was not inherent to fantasy RPGers as such, I don't think.

 

[The Hitcher]

Can you give use some examples from fiction of this happening, in combat?

No, I don't read a lot of fantasy these days, so I can't think of specific examples. I also don't particularly care. It certainly fits the particular situations D&D produces, and feels like something that resonates on an archetypal level (via thousands of movies, at least).

I agree that the possibilities you suggest would be cool if they were possible. But D&D has never been a game that supports that kind of subtlety of interaction. There are games that do, of course, if that was what one was looking for. As someone suggested up-thread, D&D ultimately only feels like D&D, and this particular aspect doesn't feel like D&D to some people. I see it as an improvement, myself, but until there's enough information from the field, there won't be any settling the matter. The "argument" will be won by the last person standing after the rest get bored and give up posting in this thread.

This argument is disingenuous and facile, a remarkable combination.

Well, this entire discussion is tedious and detached from reality, so...

Haven't you already said that you're not interested in playing this edition? I'm curious as to why you persist in devoting so much of your time to trying to pull its wings off.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, I don't read a lot of fantasy these days, so I can't think of specific examples. I also don't particularly care. It certainly fits the particular situations D&D produces, and feels like something that resonates on an archetypal level (via thousands of movies, at least).

If you're completely unwilling to offer examples of any kind, why the heck invoke "archetypes" and "fantasy literature"? Seems senseless. Thousands of movies? Surely you can name some?

I agree that the possibilities you suggest would be cool if they were possible. But D&D has never been a game that supports that kind of subtlety of interaction. There are games that do, of course, if that was what one was looking for.

Sure it has, just selectively for specific class abilities/spells, rather than as general rules.

Haven't you already said that you're not interested in playing this edition? I'm curious as to why you persist in devoting so much of your time to trying to pull its wings off.

No, I haven't. I have no idea who you are thinking of. I'm not necessarily going to run it (in reality, I probably will at least a bit), but I'll almost undoubtedly end up playing it (either that or my bro will stick with PF, and frankly, better 5E than PF!).

 

[BryonD]

I think the big difference here is a comparison between who is expected to win in the end and the dramatic tension along the way.

It is certainly true that there is a well established history of strong jawed white guys with sword (or gun) in hand overcoming the vile enemy and his suspicious powers. Many of us grew up rooting for that hero. But along the way we feared for the hero. Deep down, we knew he would win in the end. But we feared that if the evil wizard could blast/charm/freeze our hero first then the day may be lost. And sometimes thing would look really bad for the hero. And only after defeat does the hero come back for glorious victory. What we didn’t think at the beginning of the story was “no problem, even if the wizard does cast his charm spell on the hero, he would look that bad guy in the eye and tell him ‘not today’.” If the wizard was able to target the hero, then we knew the hero was in bad trouble. We didn’t think “he just needs to roll a 6 or better, no problem.”

As we grew older and saw more and more stories we certainly became more accustomed to the routine and more cynical. If the hero fights a giant viper we know that a bite means death, but we also don’t fear because we know the bite won’t happen. Our cynicism takes some of the fun out of the story. But even then if the snake does bite, we are terribly disappointed if the hero just laughs at the puny venom. The idea that he can just automatically overcome (make his save) makes for poor storytelling and heroic adventure. Everything after that point is cheap. I think of the scene in Ep 1 when the giant fish thing garbs the sub. QQ never bats an eye. Another bigger fish kills the first fish and QQ casually comments on it like, “I knew it would happen”. It was a crushing moment that took the sense of drama away from everything to follow. Knowing you can easily save is the same.

But that is the exception to the storytelling. Yes, the hero wins in the end. But Vader throws Han’s blaster from his hand with casual ease and Han is captured. Gandalf warns Gimli that he won’t see past the magic of the enemy. The hero’s run and evade. They train their Jedi powers, they attack from surprise, they obtain Excalibur to protect them. Somehow they account for and overcome the terrible power they cannot stare in the eye.

When saves come easy it is that cynical side winning. The drama and tension, and the glory of victory, are lessened.

I agree that the heroes win in the end. I don’t agree that they ever feel like they can shrug off threats.
And lets not even talk about Lovecraft who is also in Appendix N (along with Derleth)

Yes, 1E saves got very easy. I’ll agree that the feel of 1E is valid. (same for 4E in this specific case). I completely respect that if you want that play style you have the reasonable expectation that WotC will keep their word and make that available. I’m not arguing taste. For myself, I can recall even when I was loving 2E as the only game in town being disappointed that magic was often not scary enough.


But to claim that fear of situations which present high probability of death or at least major set-back doesn’t fit in the genre is bizarre. Situations in which the hero stands in the path of a spell and simply ignores it are rare, and usually very unsatisfactory in those unusual cases of them happening. The hero still wins in the end.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, one person's opportunity to "opt in" is another person's feat tax. Where the boundary lies is a matter of taste, obviously, but [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] have already posted the examples that show that building up a weak stat isn't likely to help that much.

The issue is the inability to bring a proficiency bonus to bear.

A +6 bonus is significant at higher levels, but it's not near-auto-success.

Another issue is the question of fun in PC building - I think that if you are spending all your PC boosts to buff your defence against Hold and Dominate, then it is not as satisfying as it might be.

What else are you going to spend those resources on in Basic? You can only pump up your main stats so much. And if your INT and CHA and STR aren't being targeted, there's not much incentive to beef those up unless they are your main stats. If you're leaving a stat as the lowest it can be in the game, you're going to be weak there. There's nothing that's not in character about that.

And pulling back to a bigger context: in all the years of debate around AD&D, and saving throws, and hit points, and whether low-level MUs are too weak and/or high level ones too strong, I never saw the criticism that high level fighter saves are too good. This "narrative space" for low fighter saves is, as best I can see, purely an artefact of 3E. That's not to deny that there might now be a demand for it - but I think that demand has been created by experience with a particular system. It was not inherent to fantasy RPGers as such, I don't think.

The archetype of "big dumb warrior guy" or even "reckless, naive warrior guy" goes well beyond fantasy RPGs, so it's a viable archetype if that's what you want to play.

But the even bigger context is that failing a save is no big deal in 5e. It's not nothing, but it's no worse than taking damage, and can be undone in much the same way. And if you want to dump a stat, having it actually do SOMETHING, if even for a moment, should be something that happens.

 

[The Hitcher]

If you're completely unwilling to offer examples of any kind, why the heck invoke "archetypes" and "fantasy literature"? Seems senseless. Thousands of movies? Surely you can name some?

I was just responding to someone else's unsupported claim about genre norms, but now I'm referring to lower-level Hero's Journey archetypes. The Hero overcomes Challenges with help from Allies, that kind of thing? Yes, he traditionally has to face Death alone, but that's in a story where he's the primary protagonist. D&D has to meld the journeys of several heroes into one.

E.g. Return of the Jedi ends with Luke being dominated by the Emperor, before finally overcoming him. But plenty of preceding scenes in the trilogy involve teamwork between various characters to overcome the opposition. Doesn't seem much of a stretch to combine the two ideas given the specific context of tabletop role-playing. It feels appropriate to me, at any rate.

EDIT: And @BryonD says it better above^

No, I haven't. I have no idea who you are thinking of. I'm not necessarily going to run it (in reality, I probably will at least a bit), but I'll almost undoubtedly end up playing it (either that or my bro will stick with PF, and frankly, better 5E than PF!).

I guess these were the statements that gave me that impression:

Indeed. Right now it looks I'd be basically paying to get a game where I'd have to re-write a significant minority of the mechanics. That's a dumb thing to pay for.

PHB and DMG may change that opinion, but it's desperately "MEH" rules-wise. Elements of fluff are nice, some rules ideas are nice, but there's so much "MEH".

The entire spell chapter is one giant "MEH".

Perhaps it was just wishful thinking.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But to claim that fear of situations which present high probability of death or at least major set-back doesn’t fit in the genre is bizarre. Situations in which the hero stands in the path of a spell and simply ignores it are rare, and usually very unsatisfactory in those unusual cases of them happening. The hero still wins in the end.

I'm sorry, ByronD, but you're either misunderstanding the discussion here, or intentionally re-framing it in a way which does not reflect what people are actually saying, or actually concerned about.

Let's be explicit: no-one here is complaining that D&D has situations where a high chance of death or major set-back is an issue. No-one. So your bolded sentence appears to be nonsensical, or a really odd straw man.

The two major issues being contended are:

1) Do WEAK SAVING THROWS (specifically, not "danger of death or major setback" in a broader sense) fit well with "the genre".

This is further complicated by:

1a) Is the D&D genre distinct from the fantasy genre in general?

and

1b) If not, then does warriors having virtually no chance against mind-control magic fit the wider fantasy genre?

2) Do WEAK SAVING THROWS (specifically, not "danger of death or major setback") benefit the game of D&D?

I also find your injection of a racial element a bit strange. It's only white guys who resist wizard's spells, is it? What are you trying to imply there?

As for "cynical", that's utter tripe, in this context, because the heroes can afford to be cynical as hell under the 5E system - but only against the saves they're proficient in and/or have a big stat bonus in. For example, a PC who is proficient in a save, and has a 20 stat in it is going to make that save at least 60% of the time against enemy casters, at any given level (barring magic items). So they can afford cynicism, by your logic.

Whereas a character who is not proficient, and who doesn't have a meaningful stat bonus, is increasingly certain to fail.

At L1, say, a Wis/Cha 11 Ftr will have a +0, and likely be up against opponents with a +5 or more (i.e. DC of 13). That's a significant differential, but there's still a large chance that he will make his save. He can afford a measure of cynicism, but not a huge measure.

At L10, though, he is still on +0, most likely (perhaps +1). Whereas his opponent is now likely on +9 (i.e. DC17). The differential has increased. He is very likely to fail, with only a 20% chance of success (25% if we assume he bumped WIS/CHA).

At level 17, the issue is even more extreme. It is very unlikely he has gone beyond +1 to those saves (it would require an expenditure of two further Feat/Stat boosts - for a total of three, to even get to +2 on both), but his opponent is now looking at at least +11 (assuming he is capped at 20 stat and no magic items are involved). So the DC to save is 19 (8 + 11). The Fighter has, assuming +1, to thus roll an 18 or great - a 15% chance. Even with the limited re-roll from indomitable, the chances of him being able to break out of the spell are very low.

What is more likely is that someone else in the group will hit the caster and force the caster to make a Con save to maintain concentration on his spell, and said caster will probably not be proficient, and likely have only a moderate CON (let's say, +2, because that actually gives him HP, which is very useful). So he will have to make a check at DC10+ (10 for a hit of 20 damage or less - +1 DC for each 2 points thereafter).

I think it's fair to say that if PCs are regularly seeing 20% or less chances to save against HARD CC (i.e. effects that keep you from taking ANY ACTION, or force you to act against your party), then the game experience will be extremely frustrating for them. There is nothing they can do to further their chances, beyond spending the 1 point of Inspiration they can have, which allows one further save attempt - but given how low the chances of that working are, that will probably just result in waste and further frustration.

On top of all this, this is exact reverse of the way D&D, 1E, and 2E worked, which is worth noting. In all the "classic" editions, saves got easier. You claim this made people "cynical". I would say that's nonsense, having run 2E for years, including at higher levels. It made people more daring, but it did not make them cynical, because any failed save could result in bad problems.

By your logic, too, casters will certainly become very cynical, because they can virtually guarantee that their opponents will fail their saves, if they use the right spells - note that I don't believe this, but it is the logical result of your argument. Apparently that cynicism isn't a problem? You seem to think Darth Vader is only an NPC, whereas in D&D, he's a PC, only he's probably dressed in white but otherwise identical in power.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was just responding to someone else's unsupported claim about genre norms, but now I'm referring to lower-level Hero's Journey archetypes. The Hero overcomes Challenges with help from Allies, that kind of thing? Yes, he traditionally has to face Death alone, but that's in a story where he's the primary protagonist. D&D has to meld the journeys of several heroes into one.

E.g. Return of the Jedi ends with Luke being dominated by the Emperor, before finally overcoming him. But plenty of preceding scenes in the trilogy involve teamwork between various characters to overcome the opposition. Doesn't seem much of a stretch to combine the two ideas given the specific context of tabletop role-playing. It feels appropriate to me, at any rate.

You're proving my point, dude.

The hero needs help from his allies when he is weak, and young, and so on. By the end, however, he can stand alone (and indeed must).

That's closer how it was in BD&D, 1E, and 2E - PCs got better at their saves overall. Everyone was more capable of resisting their opponents at higher levels.

In 3.XE, it got weird. PCs got good at resisting some things, but not other stuff, where they actually got effectively worse (and even the good stuff tended to stay more constant than to get ahead of the opposition). That'd 3.XE-specific and peculiar. It's not found in fantasy literature, nor very typical of D&D over the years.

4E had another take - you didn't really get better at saves, overall, nor worse - they remained roughly constant when facing real threats. There was a "Hero's Journey" effect, though, in that whilst your numbers didn't get better, you did typically acquire a multitude of ways to survive or resist save-requiring effects. So a higher-level 4E character, like a BD&D, 1E, or 2E character, was typically much better at surviving save-requiring effects than a low-level one.

With 5E, we have inexplicably reverted to the 3.XE-specific style which is different all other D&D styles.

This is very weird. 5E claims to "unify" D&D. Yet it's going for 3.XE-specific, rather than the D&D norm.

The big problem with this debate isn't any nonsense about 1-20 campaigns or whatever, it's that we don't know how hard/easy it will be to acquire proficiency in further saving throws. If all it takes is a single level of a class, or if, say, a Feat grants two proficient saves or something, then this becomes merely a "Feat Tax" issue. Boring, but trivial to fix.

It's also possible that non-rare magic items will fix the issue (a multitude of possibilities here), allowing DMs to tailor how much of an issue it is in their campaign.

If, on the other hand, there's really nothing that can be done beyond boosting the stats involved with the very few Feats you have, well, then you're going to be seeing anyone with non-proficient WIS and CHA saves standing around quite a lot whenever enemy casters are about, relying entirely on the other PCs to disrupt the Concentration of those casters (which seems kind of perverse).

 

[BryonD]

Let's be explicit: no-one here is complaining that D&D has situations where a high chance of death or major set-back is an issue. No-one. So your bolded sentence appears to be nonsensical, or a really odd straw man.

Actually, I specifically established this context and was the specifically told that it didn't fit the genre. I'll accept that because I don't spend all day following the board my replies can be a bit out of date. But I am correct in my statement.

As for "cynical", that's utter tripe, in this context, because the heroes can afford to be cynical as hell under the 5E system - but only against the saves they're proficient in and/or have a big stat bonus in.

But that is a huge distinction.

For example, a PC who is proficient in a save, and has a 20 stat in it is going to make that save at least 60% of the time against enemy casters, at any given level (barring magic items). So they can afford cynicism, by your logic.

Right, Luke can resist and knows it. Han can't... and knows it.
This is a good thing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But the even bigger context is that failing a save is no big deal in 5e. It's not nothing, but it's no worse than taking damage, and can be undone in much the same way. And if you want to dump a stat, having it actually do SOMETHING, if even for a moment, should be something that happens.

It absolutely is a big deal from a player-experience PoV. Comparing it to HP is completely silly. If your PC loses HP, you still get to do something on your turn. You don't have to sit it out unless you've lost ALL your HP.

If your PC fails a save against HARD CC (i.e. no actions or actions against party only), you have to sit that round out, only making a save roll, which, if you are not proficient in, you probably fail.

Your whole "opt in" thing is nonsense. If people got to choose which saves they were proficient in, it might work, but as they don't, it isn't.