D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[CapnZapp]

I dunno... have you had trouble with this in actual high-level play?

My personal concern is the 20+ DC saves for just being in the general vicinity of the Demon Lords that have come out of the Abyss.

How do you deal with a DC 23 Charisma save, for instance. (Yes, that's an official thing)

All classes have their dump stat. I wouldn't expect the save modifier even for a very high level character to reach more than +1, absolute tops.

That's a score of 8 (-1) with two items or blessings that each give +1 to saves. Expecting or asking for a higher bonus than that (for your worst save) is unreasonable given how the game is built.

Yes, asking the players to roll 22 on a d20 is very much a thing in this edition.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

All classes have their dump stat.

Have you considered that perhaps it is wrong to believe this to be true in 5th edition? Perhaps the idea of not needing to care about all of your ability scores, not necessarily evenly but in a more even spread than ever before in D&D, is outmoded?

Yes, asking the players to roll 22 on a d20 is very much a thing in this edition.

Is that what is being asked, or might the game be asking the players to fail some saves and find another way to mitigate the effects of failing a save?

 

[Nagol]

Have you considered that perhaps it is wrong to believe this to be true in 5th edition? Perhaps the idea of not needing to care about all of your ability scores, not necessarily evenly but in a more even spread than ever before in D&D, is outmoded?

Is that what is being asked, or might the game be asking the players to fail some saves and find another way to mitigate the effects of failing a save?

Stat purchase/distribution is a red herring common to threads on this topic.

Even if you have an absolutely flat distribution among your 6 stats, you can basically arrange to have all 14s by 20th level. So 4 of your 6 saving throw bonuses climb up to the awesome peak of +2 base And you've managed to harm your two good saves by -3 compared to having 20s in those controlling stats not to mention the deleterious effects on fulfilling your adventuring effectiveness.

What the design philosophy does is change the constraints of adventure/campaign design. Some like it. Some don't.

 

[CapnZapp]

Don't mind Aaron. If we should conclude the designers have made a mistake his world comes tumbling down.

Of course it's a red herring. As if anyone takes the suggestion to not have any weak saves seriously.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...As if anyone takes the suggestion to not have any weak saves seriously.

It's very strange to me that someone would both not take that suggestion seriously, and complain that their weakest saves end up being too weak for their own taste.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

That's a score of 8 (-1) with two items or blessings that each give +1 to saves.

I wouldn't expect a high level character to have any scores below 10... at least, characters I play sure wouldn't. After boosting the class's most important (which is likely two ASI's and it's maxed out) removing weaknesses and boosting CON would be the next logical place to put the remaining ASIs...

EDIT:
Actually, half the PCs in my game have no scores below 10 before any ASIs, since they used the +2 from their race to balance out their lowest and have no 'weaknesses'.

Unless you roll stats and get several low ones...

 

[Nagol]

It's very strange to me that someone would both not take that suggestion seriously, and complain that their weakest saves end up being too weak for their own taste.

I can't take the suggestion seriously because there is no way to avoid weak saves through application of ASIs. If I decide to split the ASIs among the three "most common" saves and manage to get all three up to the dizzying heights of 16, that means two of the 3 have a base +3 and the "strong" save has a base +9 at 20th level. Compare that to the DC 20 check required by an opponent 4 levels lower (Planetar: the first appropriate one I thought of) and a character has a 50% chance to succeed a saving throw with a "strong" save and a 20% with a weak save.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I can't take the suggestion seriously because there is no way to avoid weak saves through application of ASIs. If I decide to split the ASIs among the three "most common" saves and manage to get all three up to the dizzying heights of 16, that means two of the 3 have a base +3 and the "strong" save has a base +9 at 20th level. Compare that to the DC 20 check required by an opponent 4 levels lower (Planetar: the first appropriate one I thought of) and a character has a 50% chance to succeed a saving throw with a "strong" save and a 20% with a weak save.

...but doesn't that 20% chance with a weak save sound a lot better than the 0-5% chance you'd have if you hadn't tried to mitigate your weak saves?

Also, let's not forget the other idea I suggested some might wish to consider: what if the system purposefully makes it likely that each character has some saves that aren't easy to succeed at?

What is that Planetar doing when a save is failed? Making blade barrier, flame strike, or insect plague do full damage, which isn't a big deal. Even the worst of things to be saving against in this edition aren't actually that bad compared to what failed saves at high level have meant before.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I dunno... have you had trouble with this in actual high-level play?

Not even theoretical trouble in 5e, since I would just house-rule the save progression anyway. The 'trouble' in question, though, was painfully evident in actual experience with 3e, and stood in contrast to my experiences with 1e/2e in which saves improved as you leveled, across-the-board.

Sure, there are six saves, but they aren't all equally important. I'd expect a really high level character to have pretty good scores in the most important saves.

There are three 'important' saves (though really, STR saves aren't that rare, and failing a rare INT or CHA save can have serious consequences), most classes are proficient in only one of them. If it doesn't happen to align with their prime requisite, that's 4 stats they have to boost as they level, so either they neglect one of those entirely, or most of them go up by only a point or two over 20 levels. That's unlikely to get up to 'pretty good.' Now, if feats are available, you can shore up several saves, at the cost of lower stats overall...

And those low-level monsters have pretty low DCs (mummy is DC 11), and they probably wouldn't even get a chance to use their abilities. That mummy would get destroyed before it got within 60 feet of any of the PCs, probably.

Also... in my understanding, low-level monsters are supposed to remain relevant longer in 5E.

Bounded Accuracy - that +4 from proficiency over 20 levels - leaves them relevant. An 8 WIS character would be scared by that mummy on an 11 or less natural roll, 55% of the time. Under the variant I lean towards (prof-2 to 'bad' saves vs full prof for good ones), at 20th, with the same 8 WIS, he'd save on an 8, failing 35% of the time - the monster would still be relevant, but at least the character would have experienced some advancement.

This seems to be a really good summary of the objection to how saving throws work in 5e. While I don't share the objection, it does make me have to think through why it doesn't bother me, because what you're saying there is the kind of thing I would normally agree with.

While I haven't been able to totally figure it out, I think the main reason it doesn't bother me is that almost all characters gain some way of resisting or mitigating the effects of magic through their class advancement, even when it isn't a simple equivalent of more hp (numerical).

I hope you're not thinking of things like 'Indomitable...'

Classes with features that can help with any/all saves:
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Wizards: Spells (helping directly or indirectly)
Fighters: Indomitable
Monks: Proficiency in all saves
Paladins: Charisma to all saves

Proficiency in all saves works, I'll grant. I'd be satisfied with a +4 over 20 level advancement on all saves, and that's probably what I'll do when I run a campaign to high-level (if that ever seems like a good idea - saves aren't the only thing that make me hesitate to do so, for instance, I feel that running introductory games in organized play does more to help the hobby in the long run). Indomitable is a bad joke without some improvement to saves from leveling, run up against a DC 19 in a non-proficient save, it gives you the privilege of failing twice. But I'll grant that casters can mitigate the problem - and benefit from it more than they suffer, because they can target enemies' bad saves.

Classes with one notable weakness (of the big 3 saves):

Nod. I get that a save weakness differentiates classes. I just don't think it has to leave 20th level characters as bad off as they were at 1st level to achieve that differentiation. Different primary/secondary stats and a lesser difference in proficiency bonus would be quite adequate.

Have you considered that perhaps it is wrong to believe this to be true in 5th edition?

Dump stats are still inevitably a thing in 5e. Ironically enough, especially if feats are used. I give 5e every possible credit for trying to reduce that with countervailing incentives - the current 6-save topic, the wide range of ability checks that can potentially be called for. But, yeah, dump stats are still a thing, and MAD is still a disadvantage. Short of just up and giving all starting PCs straight 14s, I don't think it's going to change.

Is that what is being asked, or might the game be asking the players to fail some saves and find another way to mitigate the effects of failing a save?

Clearly when an untouchable DC is set, the intent is for the PC to fail. In the rough 'spotlight' balance of 5e, that's not entirely unexpected, just a bit heavy-handed. And it's something the DM can deal with on a case-by-case basis. Just call for a DC 17 instead of the 23 in the module adventure. I'd just give a scaling bonus to non-proficient saves and take care of the issue that way. 5e may have 'problems' like these but it invites you to solve them.

 

[Nagol]

...but doesn't that 20% chance with a weak save sound a lot better than the 0-5% chance you'd have if you hadn't tried to mitigate your weak saves?

No, not really. If the player cannot count on some reliability with a save then all tactics must turn to denying the ability from occurring. 20% is at best a "Hail Mary" action you use once everything else has failed. I want the game system to offer higher-level characters about a 40% success base with the capacity for the player to drive that up to close to 80% with significant investment. The game doesn't even hit these targets in "good" save categories let alone weak saves.

Also, let's not forget the other idea I suggested some might wish to consider: what if the system purposefully makes it likely that each character has some saves that aren't easy to succeed at?

Well sure. It obviously makes it so in the base game, two thirds of your saves are crap including two-thirds of the "important" saves. All that means is the campaign/adventure designs are constrained in a different way. That doesn't make the design any better for those that don't like that philosophy.

What is that Planetar doing when a save is failed? Making blade barrier, flame strike, or insect plague do full damage, which isn't a big deal. Even the worst of things to be saving against in this edition aren't actually that bad compared to what failed saves at high level have meant before.

Don't know, didn't care. I opened the book to find an opponent in the CR 14-16 range to see a representative save DC and there it was. I'm sure if I cared to look, I'd be able to find some save-or-suck/save-or-defeat opponents. Heck, the CR 6 medusa has a petrify DC of 14. So a 20th level character with a weak Con save of +3 will instantly petrify 25% of the time, become restrained with a 50% chance of petrification at the end of its next turn another 25% of the time. Mind Flayers at CR 7 have a dominate monster effect at DC 15 for another example.