D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Teataine]

Yeah, it does, because failing to consider this is nonsense to me.

I mean, this is an area where RC D&D and AD&D got it right. But the designers are repeating the mistakes from 3rd edition.

The mistake of 3rd edition was that the DC scaled way more than saves, and in the end the disparity was way larger.

For example, a level 20 Fighter in 3E, while fighting a foe of an appropriate CR, might have to make a DC 32 save. If we don't include magic items, then if it's his strong save, he'll be rolling at something like +19. If it's his weak save, he'll be rolling at something like +8.

In 5E, even the highest DCs don't seem to surpass 19. Again, ignoring magic items, when rolling your "strong" save, you're rolling with +11 or more and with your weak save you're rolling around +2. There's a marked difference there.

Also consider we haven't seen all the rules yet, and there might be any number of ways of raising your save, getting new save proficiencies etc. 5E also gives out a lot more ability increases, so a character might "max out" their prefered scores early and then invest in secondary or weak scores/saves.

As for the Rock Paper Scissors comparison...is apt, but I disagree with the conclusion. You can't be good at everything. This is a team game, that grew out of strategy games. If you have a specific weak save, then you need your teammates to back you up, disrupt the caster/effect, buff your save with spells or bard songs or inspiring words. If you want to beat your enemies, you need to find their weak spots, have intel. These are the basics of strategy. Even in the "combat as sport" paradigm, you still have the forward players, the defense line, the goalkeeper etc. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Xodis]

Im ok with characters having a weakness, forces them to think smarter, plan ahead, be prepared. Sure Wizards may get the drop on you and pull a surprise from their sleeve, but thats part of the story. Characters will remember that time when a Wizard locked them down for 4 turns as they watched their friends get their faces smashed in. They will learn that the Greatsword+1 granting free movement MIGHT have been the smarter choice than a Greatsword+3. Clerics will remember "my low level buffs are needed" simply for the advantage mechanic. I think it will balance out in the end.

 

[sidonunspa]

Oh goodness.

Four things.
(1) Yes, it's fine to be worse at saves for your bad stats. However 5e, just like 3e, doubles-down on the "bad stat" idea. Your bad stats will tend to be for saves you're also not proficient in. The system dings you both for the low stat and with the proficiency bonus.
(2) You won't start out with all good stats.
(3) Even if you did, you can't keep up with them because you can push 1 stat by 2 points every 4 levels.
(4) And even if you did that, you wouldn't get to snag any feats, thus losing a huge amount of flexibility.

It's not a good solution at any step.

1) required saves are lower across the board, this is not 3.5, players will be rolling against common DCs: of 12 to 15

2) you can start with a bonus on all your stats, and if you want better saves, use a attribute boost to bring low saves up.. point buy lets you do that.

3) with the hard cap of 20 on attributes, players have a choice... saves... or feats... choices have consequences

And back to your 1st point.. in 3.5 and even in 2nd there were bad saves..... characters have weaknesses... in 3.5 having +8 to a save at 15th level is just as good as having a +1, in 1st and 2nd if you where a fighter good luck making that save vs. spell was a joke...

5e makes dump stats hurt... that's a good thing.... I was getting tired of seeing everyone dump charisma or Int with practically zero reputations...

 

[Thaumaturge]

Assuming there is nothing to mitigate the disparity, it seems easy to add a "half-proficiency" bonus to the game that characters get to their non-proficient saves.

And if such a thing exists where one doesn't want it, it seems easy to remove.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Obryn]

Guys, seriously, I'm on board with characters having a weakness.

I am not on board with how this is (apparently) being handled in 5e. We know that enemy NPCs are being built mostly like PCs, so this is not a corner case scenario.

As you increase in level, facing an even-level foe, you get no better at resisting the stuff you started out good at resisting. However, you get proportionally worse at resisting the things you're bad at resisting because you don't improve while the opposition does.

 

[jrowland]

meh.

Fighter 1 v wizard 1
Fighter has to save vs dump stat and beat DC 15 (int 20 so +5 and +2 proficiency, worse case scenario)

Fighter 20 v Wizard 20
Fighter has to save vs dump stat and beat DC 19 (int 20 so +5 and +6 proficiency, worse case scenario)

the expanding gap across all 20 levels is 4. In the worse case scenario of save vs dump stat. Assuming no other counters by the fighter, his friends, etc.

I'm not worried. Players are bastards, they deserve it

 

[Thaumaturge]

the expanding gap across all 20 levels is 4. In the worse case scenario of save vs dump stat. Assuming no other counters by the fighter, his friends, etc.

Which is nicely negated by the fighter's advantage on all saves.

I'm not worried. Players are bastards, they deserve it

QFT.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Thaumaturge]

As a side note, I like to imagine Ruin Explorer grinding his teeth while reading this thread, waiting for his self-imposed "no 5e rules discussions" rule to lapse with the release of 5B.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Bluenose]

And back to your 1st point.. in 3.5 and even in 2nd there were bad saves..... characters have weaknesses... in 3.5 having +8 to a save at 15th level is just as good as having a +1, in 1st and 2nd if you where a fighter good luck making that save vs. spell was a joke...

In 2e the worst saving throw any character at the top of the saving throw chart had was 11+ (a thief or bard against a breath weapon). A 50% chance is hardly a bad save. And a high level Fighter is much better than that against everything, so I don't know why you think making a save vs spell is hard for them.

 

[Xodis]

Guys, seriously, I'm on board with characters having a weakness.

I am not on board with how this is (apparently) being handled in 5e. We know that enemy NPCs are being built mostly like PCs, so this is not a corner case scenario.

As you increase in level, facing an even-level foe, you get no better at resisting the stuff you started out good at resisting. However, you get proportionally worse at resisting the things you're bad at resisting because you don't improve while the opposition does.

I think a better way to approach this (for me anyways) is think about the difference between natural ability and training. The trained Wizard is going to get better at making Illusions, we all accept that. The trained Fighter is going to get stronger and tougher, again that is accepted. The Wizard was born tough though, hes not getting tougher (maybe even getting weaker living a Librarians life) but hes pretty solid because thats how he is born. If he doesn't try to become more tough than he just wont be tougher. The fighter is pretty hard headed and stubborn, hes going to see through some simple illusions and tricks of some magician. When that trained Wizard steps up and engulfs him some Illusion from his nightmare, hes going to be lost in it if he isn't careful. This helps me understand why characters get left behind in some aspects.