D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Obryn]

With all due respect, 4E fans should be very cautious in taking *my* opinion of what constituted a "bug" in 4E. I'm very qualified to discuss why 4E doesn't work for me at all. I'm not particularly qualified to talk about what works best and least with 4E for the 4E fanbase. The same applies in reverse for 3E and fans/detractors there.

So rather than your word against mine, just look at the overall.

Well, first, if they provide the modules to create a 4E feel as they have promised, then this need should go away. While, I don't relate to that need, I 100% support it.
Second, it will depend on what group is doing the talking. I fully expect that within your circles of like-minded gamers, this will be true (to the extent a module doesn't make it moot).

I'm more interested in whether there is a thriving 5E Charop debate 5 years from now.

This is not a "4e feel" issue, to me. It is, perhaps, a "3e feel" issue, if in your mind the ever-expanding gap of 3e saving throws is a feature.

I don't think it is, and that's outside of gaming style. I think it's an actual design bug, where the design does not match the intent of the rules. I'm not even talking 4e here in the specifics, since 4e's special effects from spells were smaller than what we're seeing in 5e. Earlier editions - from BX to BECMI/RC to AD&D 1e and 2e - all recognized that you should get better at resisting stuff as you advance. To me, that's a good paradigm for 5e.

I recognize I'm not going to persuade you that making at-level saves comparatively worse at high level is an issue. That's fine. My prediction stands, though, so I guess we'll see how the final game turns out.

 

[MJS]

A challenge 5E may face is that it appears the base set is neither fish nor fowl. Anyone who truly prefers a prior style will need to change some things.

True, and I'm in that camp. However, this seems ok to me. Those who prefer a latter style need that system solidity that someone like myself finds alien. I look at 5e as a supplement to AD&D, or, 5e as the new base supplemented by TSR editions. For instance, if I find the 5e saves problematic, there's nothing broken about the 1e saves (in my eyes). Primarily I look at 5e as a social opportunity to meet new gamers, amid the excitement of the new shiny. We don't get that opportunity too often.

 

[Njall]

5E is a bounded system.
"no scaling at all" and "low (but still real) chance of success" ARE the same thing in this system.

Though that misses the point.
The actual chance isn't all that important if part of the goal is to be highly motivated to not want to ever make that roll in the first place.

I'd also say "hard coded" is again ignoring the NEED for a 4E specific module on this. I, yet again, completely accept and even endorse that. I'm not challenging taste. I'm stating that there are very good reasons for liking it this way. I am pointing out that both of our tastes do come with certain consequences.

And my point is that you can be "highly motivated to not want to ever make the roll" even if DCs and saving throws scale with each other. You just need to increase the DC , regardless of level ( which, in the context of bounded accuracy, is bound, pun not intended, to do just this ). You don't need an increasing gap between your high and low saves, you just need to set a DC that's high enough to make your PCs scared shitless.

 

[BryonD]

This is not a "4e feel" issue, to me. It is, perhaps, a "3e feel" issue, if in your mind the ever-expanding gap of 3e saving throws is a feature.

I don't think it is, and that's outside of gaming style. I think it's an actual design bug, where the design does not match the intent of the rules. I'm not even talking 4e here in the specifics, since 4e's special effects from spells were smaller than what we're seeing in 5e. Earlier editions - from BX to BECMI/RC to AD&D 1e and 2e - all recognized that you should get better at resisting stuff as you advance. To me, that's a good paradigm for 5e.

I recognize I'm not going to persuade you that making at-level saves comparatively worse at high level is an issue. That's fine. My prediction stands, though, so I guess we'll see how the final game turns out.

The key and oft-repeated word in your post is *I*.
Again, comparing the potential success of 5E to the success of 3E speaks very well for 5E.

(And yes, I rather like the 3E system of saves)

 

[BryonD]

And my point is that you can be "highly motivated to not want to ever make the roll" even if DCs and saving throws scale with each other. You just need to increase the DC , regardless of level ( which, in the context of bounded accuracy, is bound, pun not intended, to do just this ). You don't need an increasing gap between your high and low saves, you just need to set a DC that's high enough to make your PCs scared shitless.

I disagree that this produces quality results. You are back to tying the chances of the fighter avoiding the fireball to the rogue who may or may not be there.

The chance should be a function of the fighter and the fireball.

 

[BryonD]

True, and I'm in that camp. However, this seems ok to me. Those who prefer a latter style need that system solidity that someone like myself finds alien. I look at 5e as a supplement to AD&D, or, 5e as the new base supplemented by TSR editions. For instance, if I find the 5e saves problematic, there's nothing broken about the 1e saves (in my eyes). Primarily I look at 5e as a social opportunity to meet new gamers, amid the excitement of the new shiny. We don't get that opportunity too often.

I agree.
If the DMD toolbox works as advertised this could be the best of the best for selling points on the game.

 

[Njall]

I disagree that this produces quality results. You are back to tying the chances of the fighter avoiding the fireball to the rogue who may or may not be there.

The chance should be a function of the fighter and the fireball.

Sorry, I don't really get what you mean here. I'm tying the the chance of success of the fighter avoiding a threat to the fact that the fighter faced such a threat in the past and improved accordingly. This has nothing to do with the rogue or what have you.

 

[BryonD]

Sorry, I don't really get what you mean here. I'm tying the the chance of success of the fighter at avoiding a threat to the fact that the fighter faced such a threat in the past and improved accordingly. This has nothing to do with the rogue or what have you.

Setting a DC so high that the PCs (plural) assumes that all the PCs must share a certain fear. And this fits perfectly with the idea that there should be a limit on the save gap.
In 5E as written I can scare the fighter with a threat that doesn't look so bad to the rogue. I retain more narrative diversity and (IMO) more representation of literary archetypes.

 

[Njall]

Setting a DC so high that the PCs (plural) assumes that all the PCs must share a certain fear. And this fits perfectly with the idea that there should be a limit on the save gap.
In 5E as written I can scare the fighter with a threat that doesn't look so bad to the rogue. I retain more narrative diversity and (IMO) more representation of literary archetypes.

The fighter is still scared if his save is 5+ points lower than the rogue's over the course of his career, though.
Again, I don't get how you need the wonky scaling, "bounded accuracy" should ensure that the difference in ability scores take care of the fighter's lower chance to dodge a fireball ( or what have you ).

 

[jbear]

Sorry, didn't mean so much "examples" as "scenarios". My apologies, it was a poor choice of words.
Let's put my money where my mouth is:
This is how our 20th level fighter pregen might look at level 20.
Let's say he didn't bother with feats ( or he's playing basics ) and he's trying to minimize his weaknesses.
So, now his ability scores and saves look like this:

Str 20 (+5, +11 total)
Dex 15 (+2 total)
Con 18 (+4, +10 total)
Int 14 (+2 total)
Wis 16 (+3 total)
Cha 14 (+2 total).

Against an equal level wizard (int 20), he needs to roll a 17+ to save. So, he fails his "bad" saves 85% of the time.
Bless adds 2.5 points to his saving throws; assuming he's pemanently under the effects of a bless spell, he now fails them 72.5% of the time, on average.
Assuming inspiration, he fails around 52.5% of the time (unless I've done something wrong ).
Seems good enough, right?

Couple of problems with that, though: first, we've taken a high level fighter as our example, and, as such, he got more ability score advancements than anyone else; second, he's taken a grand total of zero feats in order to minimize his weaknesses. While this is a legitimate choice, he's losing quite a bit in the customization department just to turn an auto-fail into a coin toss ( assuming the cleric is backing him up AND he has inspiration ).
Third, if he's ever granted disadvantage, inspiration will at most cancel it out, and thus our (sorta )optimized fighter is back to failing his bad saves 72.5% of the time.

Now, how much you like these specific values is a matter of taste; personally, I have an issue with the fact that I might spend a ton of finite resources, give up pretty much any customization that feats might offer in the process, get help from another party member, and still risk sitting out of the fight half the time when someone targets the wrong half of my saving throws.
Obviously, if that fits your playstyle that's fine, but it doesn't really fit mine.

I don't really know how I feel about the issue and how it lines up with my "play style". I am not even entirely certain how I would define my playstyle as I don't think I have ever sat down to analyse it on such terms. To be clear I am a big 4e fan, and only looking at 5e out of interested curiosity at this stage (why not take a look if WotC are clever enough to gain that interest by giving me free stuff?). It is more than likely that if I were to DM 5e I would quite possibly reduce saves down to 3 (Fort/Ref/Will), taking highest relvant stat as per 4e. I'm just somewhat doubtful that not doing so would result in a non enjoyable or in a some way broken game, just more challenging perhaps.

I think that I am okay with having important weaknesses. If the maths you have worked out is decently accurate then it seems like a fairly resonable chance for a weak willed fighter, or a sickly wizard to fail against a powerful enemy despite previous preparation.

Using Bless seems like a brilliant idea for a boss fight: +1d4 to not only saves but also all attacks and skill checks. Umm... yes please! Cleric has lost concentration: "Don't worry team, I'll get that right back up!" *Casts Bless again. (It seems that good to be honest).

If there are such things as potions of Bear-like fortitude, or at least it can be cast as a spell, then the sickly mage could add another 10% to their chance of success. Very nearly a coin toss as you say. I think I am okay with a coin toss for an epic adventure concluding BBEG type fight at least. Hard Mode. Pretty exciting if you succeed that coin toss, or somehow neutralise that threat so the coin toss never happens but the threat was there and real. Sure, I get that when things go south and your character is taken out 'poof': not so much fun. But maybe then when things work out the victory is all the more sweet?