D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[mach1.9pants]

So..... Mages rule, fighters drool? That's the impression I'm getting here.

Conversely a 20th level Mage would be more vulnerable to a fighter's 20th level attack routine than if they were both 1st level.

 

[Stalker0]

So yeah, the Heavyweight is going to COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY fail at that mathematical test but dominate at the test that's appropriate for him. In essence he has gotten worse if your point of view is from the mathematician. On the other hand the mathematician is coming to completely and utterly fail at pulling the 747.

Working with this analogy, which seems like an apt one. It would make sense in the same context if the 20th level fighter can hit the 20th level wizard more easily than their 1st level counterparts could.

Any made any 20th level characters so we could test that out?

 

[samursus]

Working with this analogy, which seems like an apt one. It would make sense in the same context if the 20th level fighter can hit the 20th level wizard more easily than their 1st level counterparts could.

Any made any 20th level characters so we could test that out?

Yeah this was my thought. What AC boosting/hit avoidance spells are applicable? Mage armour, shield definitely. Invisibility? Fly? It all goes back to strategic or tactical intelligence (knowledge of weak areas for ex), which for me, all comes out in a draw...

Until I experience different of course.

 

[Evenglare]

First, thanks for agreeing with my analogy! it might be a first time for me on this board lol. Anyway I don't think testing how easily a level 1/20 fighter can hit a 1/20 Wizard . Don't misunderstand, your proposal has merit but it doesn't really compare to saves as AC is calculated a bit differently. I would think the best way to test them is have the fighter "hit" one of the wizards non proficient saves, as the wizard seems to be hitting the fighters nonproficient saves easily (which is the focus of the topic).

Now notice I said "hit", by this I mean have the fighter use his maneuvers (or whatever they are) and see how the wizard holds up. That being said it might be extremely hard to get an accurate result using basic fighter, especially if the yet to be released PHB fighter has many maneuvers we don't even know about. I suspect feats would also add to the fighter's abilities. It might be best to reserve judgement until PHB launches.

 

[Njall]

Conversely a 20th level Mage would be more vulnerable to a fighter's 20th level attack routine than if they were both 1st level.

That's not a given. HP scale better than damage, remember.
At 1st level, a mage has 6+con mod HP and, say, AC 12.
Assuming a fighter with str 16, his attack bonus is +5, and he deals ( weapon + str ) damage. Let's say he's a greatweapon fighter, so 2d6+3 damage.
So, if he attacks the wizard he deals 0.65*(10) damage per round; on average, that's 6.5 dpr. Wizard is down in 2 rounds tops, assuming average rolls.
Fast forward to level 20: wizard: AC 12, 6+19d6+20*con mod HP. That's 73.5+Con*20 HP. I'd say that assuming con 12 for the wizard would be reasonable, so it's 93.5 HP (I think con 14 is much more likely by level 20, but let's stack the odds in favour of the fighter).
Our fighter attacks 4 times, with an attack bonus of (prof+Ability Score)= 11 (or more if he has a magic weapon, but it won't increase his chance to hit further anyway, in this case ) in case he maxed out his Strength score over the course of his career.
Thus, assuming he's wielding a +3 magic weapon, he deals: 4*0.95*(2d6+8)=57 damage/round on average.
At worst, the wizard ( who invested pratically nothing in terms of defenses in this example ) is pretty much as good as he was at level 1 at whistanding the warrior's blows; at best ( if he put some more points in constitution or grabbed some kind of AC boosting item ) he's better.
Now, I'm discounting class abilities (and critical hits ) here; in case the fighter uses Action Surge, for example, the wizard is down by round one, and, depending on which spells the wizard has prepared (shield or mage armor, for example ) the wizard might last longer, but, generally, the wizard's capability to whitstand physical damage has gone up with level ( and, really, anyone's ability to whitstand physical damage does, because regardless of AC, HPs increases with level).
On the other hand, four of the fighter's saving throws lagged behind ( because save DC scales with proficiency but "bad" saves don't ), and save or suck disregard HP, so the fighter ends up becoming comparatively worse at resisting the wizard's spells.

 

[Njall]

I'd say nothing should happen without a reason for it to happen. I don't see why gaining 14 levels of fighter makes you better at getting out of the way of fireballs.

I'd say "for the same reason a wizard becomes better at surviving in a swordfight".
If non-warriors didn't gain any more HP after level 1 you might have a point, but, as things stand, you don't.
A fighter gets better at avoiding fireballs because he adventured for 14 levels and probably got hit in the face by fireballs often enough to learn that dodging out of the way is better than being hit, just like the wizard's HP increase because he's had to dodge or withstand his fare share of sword blows over the course of his career.

 

[beej]

Why are we making PCs fight PCs, again?

 

[Nikosandros]

I'd say "for the same reason a wizard becomes better at surviving in a swordfight".
If non-warriors didn't gain any more HP after level 1 you might have a point, but, as things stand, you don't.
A fighter gets better at avoiding fireballs because he adventured for 14 levels and probably got hit in the face by fireballs often enough to learn that dodging out of the way is better than being hit, just like the wizard's HP increase because he's had to dodge or withstand his fare share of sword blows over the course of his career.

Full agreement here, not to mention the fact that in the older editions of D&D, the progression in saves was just the opposite. Low level characters tended to fail their saves more often that not, while at higher levels their chances steadily improved.

 

[Akhena]

(I'm not sure if it's a good idea to toss in my 2cp in a pool already flled with copper pieces, but here goes)

At level 1, the medium DC is 15. At level 20, the medium DC is... 15. As a DM, if I don't make it a war of DC attrition, then it won't be.

I don't even think everyone will boost their primary to 20. My NPCs certainly won't. (Although Orcus's Finger of Death, which is based on his Cha 27 for DC, will probably be really hard to save against. But entities like Orcus are more the exception rather than the norm.)

Personally, I don't see it as a case of nonproficient characters getting worse, but of proficient characters getting better.

But that's just me and my games. Playstyles may differ.

Well said!

With bounded accuracy and the way they describe how you can build encounters, you still want your low level Orc shaman to be a (small) threat to the party. And it will for those characters who are not proficient in the targeted save. But this Orc shaman will be quickly dispatched because of his low HP.

When the DM decides to put a 20th level caster NPC against the party, then the spells DCs are expected to be very challenging. Only the classes with a proficiency for the right attribute will feel they have a decent chance at succeeding their saves.

 

[Njall]

Why are we making PCs fight PCs, again?

I'd say because high level NPCs exist in the game.