D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Nagol]

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.

I did, I have, and I do. I only posted recently because I recall posting in the thread back in 2014 and I saw the same red herring now ("just raise the stats of your weak saves") I saw then.

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'm not carry a torch for any specific edition. I run a lot of different RPGs. I look for a game that best matches the experience at the table I'm looking for and run that.

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.

Hey, I was here first. if anyone should be told the get of the lawn it's not me.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I did, I have, and I do. I only posted recently because I recall posting in the thread back in 2014 and I saw the same red herring now ("just raise the stats of your weak saves") I saw then.

Red herring, huh? Are you sure?

I'm not carry a torch for any specific edition.

I'd bother to go back and quote every instance where you mentioned a previous edition or compared 5e to one, but that'd be a lot of work considering how many times you did it in just this thread. So pardon me if I just say, "go back and read for yourself." It might be self-enlightening.

I run a lot of different RPGs.

Cool. Me too.

I look for a game that best matches the experience at the table I'm looking for and run that.

Cool. Me too. One of the only difference I can see between us is that I don't go to online places, where games I don't like are being discussed, and post nonconstructive, negative comments...

Hey, I was here first. if anyone should be told the get of the lawn it's not me.

This is yet another nonconstructive response. One made to a genuine suggestion intended to help you better explore things that are fun for you. This is what you've got? No wonder you have your XP level turned off...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Huh. Is this another "I haven't actually played 5e but I flipped through the book and it sucks..." thread?

 

[CapnZapp]

Perhaps for those other very verbose posters.

Me, I see a save you won't make even when you roll 20 and see bad design.

Case closed.

Yes, it really is that simple. The game should have had a mechanism to "catch" very high level characters.

It should have been an outspoken design criteria to have all die rolls a player is asked to roll have at least a 20% success rate.

Being asked to make a roll you can't succeed at is bad design, period.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Being asked to make a roll you can't succeed at is bad design, period.

What about being expected not to always have a chance of success in a "nothing bad even happened" way?

 

[CapnZapp]

What about being expected not to always have a chance of success in a "nothing bad even happened" way?

Not sure what you're asking, Aaron.

(I was about to clarify my position isn't the absurd demand to always have a chance, but then I realize you might well be asking about something else, so I won't)

Instead I'll simply say I don't understand the question.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Perhaps for those other very verbose posters.

Me, I see a save you won't make even when you roll 20 and see bad design.

Case closed.

Yes, it really is that simple. The game should have had a mechanism to "catch" very high level characters.

It should have been an outspoken design criteria to have all die rolls a player is asked to roll have at least a 20% success rate.

Being asked to make a roll you can't succeed at is bad design, period.

Could you re-describe the scenario you are describing? (Sorry...late to the thread and can't find what you're referring to.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Not sure what you're asking, Aaron.

(I was about to clarify my position isn't the absurd demand to always have a chance, but then I realize you might well be asking about something else, so I won't)

Instead I'll simply say I don't understand the question.

To elaborate and hopefully clarify:

You have clearly stated that you don't think being asked to make a roll when you can't succeed is acceptable design.

Rather than point out that the design doesn't ask for rolls to be made, the DM does - and is even told that they shouldn't be asking for rolls if there isn't any uncertainty in the outcome, which I expected you would misconstrue - because previously when I mention what a DM or Players are capable of choosing, you've misconstrued that, I asked a different question:

Do you find certain things being a case of a "bad" effect happening to a character and being undone with dice rolls, rather than things always being a case of a die roll to avoid a "bad" effect from occurring at all, to be acceptable design?

Basically, I'm trying to discern exactly what it is in practicality of playing the game that is inciting your negative reaction - that there are things that you are not able to succeed at complete avoidance of by design (a mix of the system, and the player/DM choices), or just that the DM is asking for die rolls when the DM has no reason to be asking for die rolls.

 

[CapnZapp]

The thing that is inciting my negative reaction is that even after five editions, the game still hasn't fixed something as profoundly basic as impossible DCs.

Or, to be honest, that incites a slightly dismayed reaction. As in "Sigh, why couldn't they have fixed this... now I have to tell my players to make a DC 23 Charisma check or DC 26 Intelligence check (or whatever) even when I'm perfectly aware that's an auto-fail for some player characters, not only now but for ever and ever". That the game would - very simply and straightforwardly - have felt more fair and be more fun if it somehow made sure that at least at top level no character had less than, say, a +6 modifier.

What incites my negative reaction, on the other hand, is how some posters go well beyond not having a problem with the thing that incited the slightly dismayed reaction, but spend considerable resources arguing that there's nothing wrong in the first place, coming up with scenarios tailor-made to paint the designers in the most beneficial light possible in order to argue there isn't a problem, not even a small one, and that the thing that incited the slightly dismayed reaction is perfectly good game design.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The thing that is inciting my negative reaction is that even after five editions, the game still hasn't fixed something as profoundly basic as impossible DCs.

...but what is it about "impossible DCs" that you feel needs to be fixed? Could your opinion, given the evidence of five editions not matching it, possibly be some kind of outlier?

What incites my negative reaction, on the other hand, is how some posters go well beyond not having a problem with the thing that incited the slightly dismayed reaction, but spend considerable resources arguing that there's nothing wrong in the first place, coming up with scenarios tailor-made to paint the designers in the most beneficial light possible in order to argue there isn't a problem, not even a small one, and that the thing that incited the slightly dismayed reaction is perfectly good game design.

I'm not sure I have seen anyone actually do what you are claiming some posters have done. For example, I know I have done no such thing even though you have directly accused me of it.