D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[ChrisCarlson]

I can't take the suggestion seriously because there is no way to avoid weak saves through application of ASIs.

Resilient?

 

[Nagol]

Resilient?

That's through the use of a feat not an ASI. Since access to both feats and magic items are campaign-dependent, the base analysis has to exclude both. Both do go some distance is ameliorating the uselessness of weak saves, but even together they don't offer sufficient remedy.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That's through the use of a feat not an ASI.

If the point of expending a particular instance of an ASI is to bolster a weak save, the Resilient feat is far more impactful that just adding +2 to the stat in question.

Since access to both feats and magic items are campaign-dependent, the base analysis has to exclude both.

So you are going to hamstring yourself then complain that you are hamstrung? I will never understand the point of that argument.

Both do go some distance is ameliorating the uselessness of weak saves, but even together they don't offer sufficient remedy.

They don't? Are you sure? Perhaps you should define "sufficient". Also, what evidence do you have to support that theory?

Because my considerable experience runs counter to your statement. So now what? Do our opinions cancel each other out?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

This is where I have problems with these sorts of discussions.

You are meant to be making a persuasive argument for your point, and are unintentionally undermining yourself by not finding the most solid of examples. You say you are sure if you cared to look you'd find save-or-suck/save-or-defeat opponents... but if you don't care to look, then how would you ever prove I'm wrong when I say I don't think 5th edition has any?

Even the medusa you mention - you leave out that anyone can choose to effectively auto-succeed at the save by choosing not to look at the medusa, and the petrification effect is nowhere near as dangerous to a 20th level character as you have indicated because of the increased likelihood of access to greater restoration (which is actually even available from level 1, if you use the DMG's treasure suggestions - it being a 5th level spell, 5th level spell scrolls being on Magic Item Table C, and a CR 0-4 treasure hoard possibly containing 1d4 items from Magic Item Table C).

As for the mind flayer example... there are a lot of built-in mitigating factors, like having advantage on the save against that spell if you are an elf, or a gnome, or if you or your buddies are fighting it, or how the target repeats the save every time it takes damage, or that it is a concentration spell so giving the mind flayer a good smack can snap your buddy out of the effect.

If it weren't relatively likely that the target actually fail that save to have the spell have some effect, would it even get used?

Maybe if it were a save-or-defeat spell like it may have been in prior editions I might not find it perfectly acceptable that it's a little difficult to pass the save against it.

 

[Nagol]

If the point of expending a particular instance of an ASI is to bolster a weak save, the Resilient feat is far more impactful that just adding +2 to the stat in question.


So you are going to hamstring yourself then complain that you are hamstrung? I will never understand the point of that argument.

I'm not hamstringing myself; I am analysing the game as it presents itself. I have extended the analysis to cover those optional elements I would expect to include if I were to run, but the basic default analysis has to be based on the default game.

They don't? Are you sure? Perhaps you should define "sufficient". Also, what evidence do you have to support that theory?

Because my considerable experience runs counter to your statement.

Correct, yes, and my evidence is the sufficiency I defined at the start of my analysis which was not achieved by the system.

So now what? Do our opinions cancel each other out?

No, it just means we like to run/participate in different styles of game.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm not hamstringing myself; I am analysing the game as it presents itself. I have extended the analysis to cover those optional elements I would expect to include if I were to run, but the basic default analysis has to be based on the default game.

Then problem solved. In order to remain consistent, just remove every spell or creature that has the potential to force a weak save you don't want. Because if you "have to" present an analysis based on things that are optional being excluded, all spells and creatures are optional on an individual basis. So all's good.

Correct, yes, and my evidence is the sufficiency I defined at the start of my analysis which was not achieved by the system.

<shrug> Its just that I have found white-room theory-crafting to be minimally applicable, often shallow and/or flat, and pales in comparison to practical play experience.

BTW, you still haven't clarified what you mean when you said they are not a "sufficient remedy". How so?

No, it just means we like to run/participate in different styles of game.

Negative. Or at least, it's not so simple as something as nebulous as "playstyle". You are contending that 5e is failing to perform as intended. Or has a glaring problem. I am playing it and find it is performing as intended. And that your perceived problem is not one. Clearly one of us is having a problem the other isn't. Maybe that's not the system's fault.

 

[Nagol]

This is where I have problems with these sorts of discussions.

You are meant to be making a persuasive argument for your point, and are unintentionally undermining yourself by not finding the most solid of examples. You say you are sure if you cared to look you'd find save-or-suck/save-or-defeat opponents... but if you don't care to look, then how would you ever prove I'm wrong when I say I don't think 5th edition has any?

Do I care to sift through a book presented only in alphabetical order to find higher challenge rated creatures, then sort those to find a specific subset of abilities that are known to exist even on lower rated creatures in order to bolster my argument? Not at the moment. As for how I can challenge your assertion, I can point to those creatures of lower CR like the medusa and mind flayer and suggest the design philosophy as expressed by those designs allows for the inclusion of higher CR creatures with similar (but harder to resist) effects.

Even the medusa you mention - you leave out that anyone can choose to effectively auto-succeed at the save by choosing not to look at the medusa, and the petrification effect is nowhere near as dangerous to a 20th level character as you have indicated because of the increased likelihood of access to greater restoration (which is actually even available from level 1, if you use the DMG's treasure suggestions - it being a 5th level spell, 5th level spell scrolls being on Magic Item Table C, and a CR 0-4 treasure hoard possibly containing 1d4 items from Magic Item Table C).

It is CR6. The fact a 20th level character can be rescued from its effect (assuming a group and non TPK) doesn't come close to addressing the concern that the 20th level at-the-peak-of-experience character has the same chance at failing as a first-level apprentice.

As for the mind flayer example... there are a lot of built-in mitigating factors, like having advantage on the save against that spell if you are an elf, or a gnome, or if you or your buddies are fighting it, or how the target repeats the save every time it takes damage, or that it is a concentration spell so giving the mind flayer a good smack can snap your buddy out of the effect.

Many of the mitigating factors presented require active helpers. The design philosophy does strongly encourage groups - -the larger the better to reduce the probability all members are affected.

If it weren't relatively likely that the target actually fail that save to have the spell have some effect, would it even get used?

Yes. If the typical success rate is between 50-60% and the effect is expected to effectively incapacitate an opponent, you'll see the abilities used. More so if there are partial effects on a save or the effect has the capacity to target multiple opponents.

Maybe if it were a save-or-defeat spell like it may have been in prior editions I might not find it perfectly acceptable that it's a little difficult to pass the save against it.

It's not a little difficult. The base expectation is you'll fail. The occasional save is like winning a tiny lottery -- unexpected and gratifying, but never to be relied on.

 

[Nagol]

Then problem solved. In order to remain consistent, just remove every spell or creature that has the potential to force a weak save you don't want. Because if you "have to" present an analysis based on things that are optional being excluded, all spells and creatures are optional on an individual basis. So all's good.

LOL the problem was far easier to solve than that! I did the analysis when the game was released to help answer the question "Is this something I will run?" I then waited patiently to get the DMG and MM to see if my answer would change. It didn't.

<shrug> Its just that I have found white-room theory-crafting to be minimally applicable, often shallow and/or flat, and pales in comparison to practical play experience.

BTW, you still haven't clarified what you mean when you said they are not a "sufficient remedy". How so?

Even including feats and magic items (but not specific class abilities), a mid to high level PC cannot bring himself to the resilience against save effects I would like to see for a 'zero-to-hero' game I tend to use D&D for.

Negative. Or at least, it's not so simple as something as nebulous as "playstyle". You are contending that 5e is failing to perform as intended. Or has a glaring problem. I am playing it and find it is performing as intended. And that your perceived problem is not one. Clearly one of us is having a problem the other isn't. Maybe that's not the system's fault.

I don't think the weak saves are a design failure; I think 5e is performing exactly as intended! It is just the weak saves are a point where my preferences break from the designers'.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...allows for the inclusion of higher CR creatures with similar (but harder to resist) effects.

"Allows for inclusion" and "Includes" are not phrases that mean the same thing.

It is CR6.

I don't think that means what you think it means since you are bringing it up in a context that suggests you think it means anything but "rested and well equipped characters of 6th level and higher shouldn't die in the process of the party defeating one of these."

...the 20th level at-the-peak-of-experience character has the same chance at failing as a first-level apprentice.

If[/I] the player of that character chooses to.

Yes. If the typical success rate is between 50-60% and the effect is expected to effectively incapacitate an opponent, you'll see the abilities used.

You seem to have answered "yes" and then further explained your answer as functionally being "no" because you have made it seem as though your answer of "yes" is contingent upon dominate monster having an effect which is "expected to effectively incapacitate an opponent," which is not what can be expected of its current effect as written.

It's not a little difficult. The base expectation is you'll fail. The occasional save is like winning a tiny lottery -- unexpected and gratifying, but never to be relied on.

Your statements do not align with my experience with the system thus far. Saves get passed. Save get failed. Attacks hit. Attacks miss. None of those things happen so often as to make their counterpart feel "unexpected."

 

[ChrisCarlson]

LOL the problem was far easier to solve than that! I did the analysis when the game was released to help answer the question "Is this something I will run?" I then waited patiently to get the DMG and MM to see if my answer would change. It didn't.

So this is all just a big "I don't like 5e and won't play it" complaint?

Okay. Then there is no conversation worth having AFAIC. Go find something you like and have fun playing that.

Even including feats and magic items (but not specific class abilities), a mid to high level PC cannot bring himself to the resilience against save effects I would like to see for a 'zero-to-hero' game I tend to use D&D for.

I believe the issue is that you are carrying water for previous edition(s) and dragging preconceived expectations and baggage from said edition(s) into 5e. No wonder you are having issues. They weren't meant to be compared like that.

I don't think the weak saves are a design failure; I think 5e is performing exactly as intended! It is just the weak saves are a point where my preferences break from the designers'.

More of the same "5e is not for me"? How about starting up a thread to discuss things about the edition(s) you do like? That would be far more productive.