D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[billd91]

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 posting as if the player has no choice in the matter. They must maximize their strength and constitution. I don't think that's the case. Plus, there's always rolling your stats which can give you a different array to work with.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You're posting as if the player has no choice in the matter. They must maximize their strength and constitution. I don't think that's the case. Plus, there's always rolling your stats which can give you a different array to work with.

A Fighter with bad STR and CON is likely to be dead and/or ineffectual, and he STILL won't get a particularly good set of saves out of it. Talk about Catch 22.

Rolling your stats is fine, but likely to produce similar results to the default, and may produce worse.

 

[billd91]

A Fighter with bad STR and CON is likely to be dead and/or ineffectual, and he STILL won't get a particularly good set of saves out of it. Talk about Catch 22.

Considering the bounded accuracy aspect of the rules, I'm thinking this is far less of an issue than you assume.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Considering the bounded accuracy aspect of the rules, I'm thinking this is far less of an issue than you assume.

If you think bounded accuracy means good stats help less, then you fundamentally do not understand how bounded accuracy works. They help MORE.

 

[Obryn]

Considering the bounded accuracy aspect of the rules, I'm thinking this is far less of an issue than you assume.

It's not really very well bounded, though, in this case, which is part of why this conversation is happening. Technically it's still on the rng, but it's using a 65% to 95% failure rate, rather than clustering around the middle.

 

[Nagol]

You're posting as if the player has no choice in the matter. They must maximize their strength and constitution. I don't think that's the case. Plus, there's always rolling your stats which can give you a different array to work with.

So look at what you get if you put your highest stats in the saves. Every 2 points of attribute increases your save 5%

Put the 17 and 16 in your poor saves. Put a 14 in your good save. Drop the 13 into your primary stat.

By 9th level, Your opponents are providing DC 17. Your poor saves are +3 they succeed a massive 35% of the time!

Your good save unfortunately has suffered a bit since you chose a slightly lower stat for it, but at least you get the proficiency bonus, right? Your good save is +6. It succeeds 50% of the time.

The character has three stat boosts to assign. Do you want to get +3 to-hit, damage, and checks; +27 hp and improve your good save 15%; or improve one poor save 10% and the other 5%?

 

[billd91]

It's not really very well bounded, though, in this case, which is part of why this conversation is happening. Technically it's still on the rng, but it's using a 65% to 95% failure rate, rather than clustering around the middle.

That's not directly addressing my point. My point is that stellar stats are less necessary for the character's prime stats (Strength and Constitution) to be effective. A player doesn't have to dump his other saves to maximize his primary stats.

 

[Sadrik]

If you think bounded accuracy means good stats help less, then you fundamentally do not understand how bounded accuracy works. They help MORE.

Maximization of stats would occur with the '20' cap or without the '20' cap, it just sets the goal post and the norm. Just like in economics a cap encourages playing to the cap. Think the three point line in basketball, when it was introduced it limited the mid-range jumper and encouraged the close shot or the three point shot, and diminished the mid-range jumper. I think the same will happen here.

 

[Obryn]

That's not directly addressing my point. My point is that stellar stats are less necessary for the character's prime stats (Strength and Constitution) to be effective. A player doesn't have to dump his other saves to maximize his primary stats.

I'll refer you to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] 's breakdown of it. And the rest of the number crunching in this thread. Because even if you go crazy with your stat allocation and take no feats, you're in a losing battle.

 

[billd91]

I'll refer you to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] 's breakdown of it. And the rest of the number crunching in this thread. Because even if you go crazy with your stat allocation and take no feats, you're in a losing battle.

I don't think that just doing number crunching is going to give you anything more than myopic results. With spells like dominate person as listed in the basic rules and its potential number of retries on the save along with the concentration mechanics, I think the analysis is going to be a lot more complex and I think the results a lot less dire. I think, in play, we may see a lot of short duration effects from the spellcasters' PC-neutralizing spells and I'm fine with that. It creates a more interesting balance between the spellcaster having to bet the farm on an feast-or-famine spell (with all save or die spells tending toward famine in 1e/2e as the target got more powerful) and having encounter-ending spells be too powerful.