D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[BryonD]

Regarding the racial part, I do think the historic genre examples do include a lot of baggage in which the (most often British or American) hero relies on traditional force and tactics, whereas magic powers are the realm of strange and untrustworthy people from other lands. Which is why the archetype of the guy without magic being the winner is a common tradition.

Certainly this has become less and less true from multiple angles over time, but the history is there.

 

[Bluenose]

Yes, 1E saves got very easy.

Ah, 1e, 2e, BECM, and in a different way 4e were all similar. It's not just a one-edition thing.

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.

And if they're the only archetypes for warriors, D&D has got it right. If they're not, well, there may be a bit of a problem, unless the goal is only to support a certain subset of archetypes. That's legitimate for some games, like Pendragon, but I'm not sure a game that's trying to permit a larger variety of warriors than the medieval idea of the knight is one that should only mechanically support a few.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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 I'll accept that because I don't spend all day following the board my replies can be a bit out of date.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.

Your statement is irrelevant to this discussion, because you've extended this to cover far more than saves.

But that is a huge distinction.

No, not really, not when you're arguing "cynicism" and the vast majority of truly dangerous saving throws are WIS and CHA (at least last I checked, I could be wrong) in 5E.

If there were tons of awful STR and CON saves, then you might have more of a point, though my points would also stand. If those do exist, they are in the MM.

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

No-one is denying differential make the game interesting, however, you can blandly state that one PC being 60% likely to resist something and one being 15% likely to is "a good thing" without explaining how it is, especially when we consider that there is not, as far as we know, an even distribution of real threats.

Need to find a list of what spells use what saves. I might make it myself later. It's important to this discussion, though.

 

[Sadras]

One has to wonder if all the opponents of 5e saving throw system in this thread complained vigorously when Madmordigan, Sorsha and Airk (all high-level fighters) as well has their entire army did not make their Constitution saves before being polymorphed into pigs by the evil witch-Queen Bavmorda in the movie Willow.
That's a save or suck scene if I ever saw one.

I personally do not have a problem with the incremental increase in DC for spells. I want magic to be terrifying and scary all the time and not have a common-place shrug it off attitude. Most of the BBEG are spell-using types anyways why would we want to make adventurers impervious to everything.

With regards to Domination, it has an easy out in that the victim is allowed to make an additional save should he take damage. I can easily imagine an ally slapping him (the victim) across the face, "waking" him up from the mind effect. One could go even further, more along the lines of something @Ruin Explorer mentioned up-thread if an ally (or loved one) takes damage it might allow for an additional save to be made - this then depends on the leniency of the DM. To make the distinction @Ruin Explorer inferred an auto-success in that situation.

As for Hold & Otto's, the spell allows a saving throw every turn. Really it is not broken and the suck is more like a 'suck this round'.
Anyway, to each their own.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

You don't have to sit out a turn if your buddy damages the spellcaster or dispels the effect, either. And you DO have to sit out a turn if the damage is enough to KO you.

And sitting out a turn is hardly an apocalyptic thing. People have been skipping turns since "LOSE A TURN" cards. A 5e turn is a fairly fast thing, too.

And if you don't want to rely on your friends and you want to have a good chance to avoid the effect, you just stop dumping your WIS/DEX/CON.

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.

You're writing off every other member of the party here, like the cleric (spells) and the rogue (damage to disrupt concentration) are just twiddling their thumbs while the party's action economy and major damage-dealer are being hosed.

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.

The degree to which your WIS save is weak as a fighter is in your hands. "I can only succeed on a save on a 20" is opt in. "I can succeed on a save on a 15+" is not, but that difference is not insignificant, and that 15+ number is within the realm of what would happen in high-level 4e, too.

And if they're the only archetypes for warriors, D&D has got it right.

1) Nothing is stopping you from playing a fighter whose WIS is their highest stat. Since your STR doesn't NEED to be off the charts, it's extremely viable.

2) This is Basic, so I'm comfortable with limited archetypes. The only archetype for clerics is "priest of life," the only archetype for rogues is "sneaky thief," the only archetype for wizards is "pew pew blastyman." Fighters have a menagerie of archetypes by comparison, from archers to skirmishers to tanks to big weapon wielders. You can't expect Basic to accommodate every kind of character out there.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And if you don't want to do it, you just stop dumping your WIS/DEX/CON.

No. You keep saying this. It remains completely untrue.

Dumping means making intentionally low. The standard array in 5E is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

As a Fighter, you absolutely need STR and CON to do your job. So your 15 and 14 are taken, realistically.

Thus you're advocating dump-stat'ing INT. So 8 INT and 13, 12, 10 in WIS/DEX/CHA, in some order.

You're then advocating bumping those as much as possible, but because there are three of them, you can't do as much as you're suggesting.

You're writing off every other member of the party here, like the cleric (spells) and the rogue (damage to disrupt concentration) are just twiddling their thumbs while the party's action economy and major damage-dealer are being hosed.

No, I've already discussed that.

The degree to which your WIS save is weak as a fighter is in your hands. "I can only succeed on a save on a 20" is opt in. "I can succeed on a save on a 15+" is not, but that difference is not insignificant, and that 15+ number is within the realm of what would happen in high-level 4e, too.

No, it isn't. NADs, sure, but not actual saves. You can only get ONE save that high, and only by blowing most of your Feats/Increases on it, in 5E.

But there are three problematic saves.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I'm seeing two different arguments here:

"High level characters shouldn't fail important saves all the time"

vs. "Characters should get better at making saves as they go up levels"

which are related, but hardly the same argument.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm seeing two different arguments here:

"High level characters shouldn't fail important saves all the time"

vs. "Characters should get better at making saves as they go up levels"

which are related, but hardly the same argument.

That's fair. The latter almost inevitably leads to the former, though.

 

[The Hitcher]

*snip*

I wish I cared about anything as much as you seem to care about this. I'll admit that in an extremely rare instance where the DM is intentionally being a dick, this issue could be annoying enough to maybe be seen as a problem. There's a simple solution: don't play with dick DMs

On the narrative/"compared to old editions side", I really couldn't care less. The way it is seems more flavourful. End of story.

And now I'm out.


Oh, you have a typo in your footer. I've been wondering since I first saw it why it doesn't make any sense. Better get some errata on that.

 

[Nagol]

I'm seeing two different arguments here:

"High level characters shouldn't fail important saves all the time"

vs. "Characters should get better at making saves as they go up levels"

which are related, but hardly the same argument.

Pretty much. I wouldn't mind an opt-in system if players have an actual effective method of increasing poor saves. It doesn't exist.

If the PC starts with a pair of 14's in their poor save stats -- 14s not 8s I am not talking abut 'dumping' poor save stats -- at level 9 the character will succeed a poor save 30% of the time. This falls further as the character levels until it hits 20% once his opponents get +6 proficiency.

The best -- absolute best -- a PC can do is spend maximise his stat bumps to increase his save attributes. Moving a 14 to 20 takes three stat bumps. Each bump grants a 5% improvement. A PC has 2 poor save attributes. So spending six bumps means his chance of actually saving against a poor save has gone from 20% to 35%. At 9th level, a PC cannot hit 50%. At high level, there is nothing a PC can do to get a poor save over 35%. I-in-5 to 1-in-3 is an improvement, but it does not move the needle from "will occasionally save" to "can reasonably hope to save".

If we assume point buy, provided array, or less than incredible luck from rolling, assigning two 14s to your weak saves is already a hefty price in negating a slew of character options. The array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Racial mods can add up to 3 (if not human) so you can put the 15 into your main stat (augmented to 17). So let us make the 13 a 14 and the 15 a 17. 17, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8. 17 into your primary stat, 14s into your poor saves, 12 into your good save (if not a Rogue), and 10, 8 into Int/Cha.

Let's assume a Fighter because it is the best case since they get the most stat bumps. (Mountain Dwarf works; his Con ends up 13 instead of 12).

The Fighter's good save now suffers over the lifetime of the character. By 9th level, the Fighter who manages to get his Wis save to the heady heights of 45%, will see his Con save start at 50% and fall to 40%. The 9th level Fighter makes no saving throw half the time.

His saves are Con 40%, Wis 45%, Dex 30% at 9th level. He can't improve Wis further.

So the Fighter get six points to improve Str, Con, or Dex over the remaining levels.

Without further improvement by level 17, his saves will be Wis 35%, Dex 20%, Con 40%. If all bumps go into saves, the PC gains 15% between Dex and Con.