D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Tony Vargas]

It worked this way in older editions, but I think that was largely important because so many failed saves were instant death

In a practical sense. Thematically, though, it also makes sense to resist other all-or-nothing effects. Being frightened, for instance, doesn't kill you, but it can be terribly out of character for a great & mighty warrior able to defeat armies - especially vs some low-level critter's fear-inducing schtick.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

In a practical sense. Thematically, though, it also makes sense to resist other all-or-nothing effects.

That's a good point. It's imperfect, but I think it's better (IMO) than either the AD&D or the 3E one, at least in the context of 5E's lack of outright save-or-dies and weakened mental effects.

Being frightened, for instance, doesn't kill you, but it can be terribly out of character for a great & mighty warrior able to defeat armies - especially vs some low-level critter's fear-inducing schtick.

Well, fear effects in 5E tend to give a save every round when their 3E counterparts didn't (at least, I checked the mummy, mummy lord, dragon, and tarrasque fear effects).

It can certainly get weird if the level difference is big enough, but I don't think it's that bad in most cases.

EDIT: And at least some of these (like the mummy/mummy lord) are outright magic, so it's out of character in the same way a Charm is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's a good point. It's imperfect, but I think it's better (IMO) than either the AD&D or the 3E one, at least in the context of 5E's lack of outright save-or-dies and weakened mental effects.

Frankly, as bad as AD&D might be considered when it comes to saving throws - between item-dependence and arbitrariness and whatever other -inesses might be annoying - I haven't found any subsequent handling of all-or-nothing effects in D&D to be any better, and most worse. That's one of the few things where I still have to register a clear preference for the Old Ways.

Well, fear effects in 5E tend to give a save every round when their 3E counterparts didn't.

Yeah, 3e did introduce the save-every-round mechanic (sorta, there were a few such effects in the olden days) particularly for Hold Person, 4e expanded it to almost all conditions imposed by monsters and PC dailies, and 5e didn't roll it back (one of the few things it didn't), though it did roll back the meaning of 'save' to 'inverted attack rolled by the target.'

And at least some of these (like the mummy/mummy lord) are outright magic, so it's out of character in the same way a Charm is.

Which is pretty far out of character, IMHO. If you have what it takes to stand up to dragons and demi-gods and demon lords and stay standing after 100 hps of damage, you should be able to resists a 1st level monster imposing Charm or Frightened or whatever.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Which is pretty far out of character, IMHO. If you have what it takes to stand up to dragons and demi-gods and demon lords and stay standing after 100 hps of damage, you should be able to resists a 1st level monster imposing Charm or Frightened or whatever.

I agree that it gets weird when the level gap is really big like that, but not otherwise, IMO (and I'd argue that's a bit of an edge case rather than a fundamental flaw).

Even though a 10th level character with access to remove curse might have no rational reason to fear an ordinary CR 3 mummy, the effect is magical and not based on natural emotions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even though a 10th level character with access to remove curse might have no rational reason to fear an ordinary CR 3 mummy, the effect is magical and not based on natural emotions.

Disintegrate is magical, but doesn't have a shot at killing you if you have sufficient hps. Magic is closely tied to level - look at how much more powerful a 20th level Wizard is compared to a 1st level 1. It simply doesn't make sense for low-level all-or-nothing magic to work as well on a 20th level character as a 1st level one.

I mean, a single hit from a kobold's sling can drop a 1st level 10 CON wizard. If that wizard never buys up his CON, should kobolds still be one-shotting him at 20th?

No.

Same should apply to saves.

Maybe I'm just overly influenced by my early experiences with AD&D, but that's how it's always felt to me.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

When you're dealing with saves to overcome an effect every round, the lower level critters are generally going to have significantly lower save DCs than the higher level ones. So even if the high level fighter fails his save the first round, he's more likely to "snap out of it" quicker against, say, fear caused by a weak creature versus a powerful creature.

That's something at least.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Disintegrate is magical, but doesn't have a shot at killing you if you have sufficient hps.

Disintegrate isn't an all-or-nothing effect, just a source of damage. (In 5E... that too is a "modern" change, IIRC between 3.0 and 3.5. The old disintegrate was save-or-die.)

It simply doesn't make sense for low-level all-or-nothing magic to work as well on a 20th level character as a 1st level one.

Well, it usually won't, because 20th level characters would tend to have higher ability scores and be much more likely to have defensive magic items/abilities/effects.

I'd think Wisdom and Con would be the most important things to raise after your class's primary ability score.

I mean, a single hit from a kobold's sling can drop a 1st level 10 CON wizard. If that wizard never buys up his CON, should kobolds still be one-shotting him at 20th?

No.

Same should apply to saves.

Except that part of the point of having all-or-nothing save effects (as opposed to save-for-half-damage effects like dragon breath and fireball) in the game is that having higher HP doesn't help against them.

Maybe I'm just overly influenced by my early experiences with AD&D, but that's how it's always felt to me.

Well, I have the most background pre-5E with 3E/3.5/Pathfinder, so that might influence my take too.

And I'm not saying your position is wrong - but I don't think the way saves work in 5E is a designers' math error (or if it is, it's a nicely serendipitous one) because it works quite well with the general lack of save-or-dies and really crippling effects.

When I first picked up 5E, I was quite disappointed that the super scary effects of editions before 4E were mostly missing, but now I think it works well overall with the new mechanics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Disintegrate isn't an all-or-nothing effect, just a source of damage. (In 5E... that too is a "modern" change, IIRC between 3.0 and 3.5. The old disintegrate was save-or-die.)

Point is that D&D characters get more resistant to magic as they level, as a matter of course, just as they get more resistant to injury. Thus "it's magical" is no excuse for 20th level character being scared of a 3rd level mummy.

Well, it usually won't, because 20th level characters would tend to have higher ability scores and be much more likely to have defensive magic items/abilities/effects.

Not nearly true enough. You have 6 ability scores, at least one of which will be a high priority for your class, and only so many ASIs. Even a character who does spread his ASIs out to include even his lowest-priority stats will end up improving each of his saves very little over 20 levels.

Except that part of the point of having all-or-nothing save effects (as opposed to save-for-half-damage effects like dragon breath and fireball) in the game is that having higher HP doesn't help against them.

That's a reality of it. It's also a reality of the mechanic that it doesn't matter if you're injured, too. The point is probably more that the condition doesn't involve killing you, and doesn't have a an intermediary state - not that level shouldn't matter, merely that hps aren't the target of the effect.

Well, I have the most background pre-5E with 3E/3.5/Pathfinder, so that might influence my take too.

3.5 is when they introduced 'bad' saves and made it possible to cheese up untouchable DCs, even when good saves were involved. It tilted things wildly in the favor of casters in a lot of ways, relative to both the classic game that preceded it, and the edition that followed.

And I'm not saying your position is wrong - but I don't think the way saves work in 5E is a designers' math error

I don't think it is, either. I think it was a conscious decision, just a bad one.

One strength of 5e, in that regard, is that it's easy enough for me to correct as a DM.

I lean towards giving non-proficient saves a lower proficiency bonus instead of none at all. Prof-2, so 0 at 1st level, going up by +4 over 20 levels.

When I first picked up 5E, I was quite disappointed that the super scary effects of editions before 4E were mostly missing, but now I think it works well overall with the new mechanics.

They're not missing, they're just not implemented the same way. Same was true in 4e. Medusas could still turn you to stone, Beholder Death Rays still kill you, just not via a single bad roll or bad save.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Not nearly true enough. You have 6 ability scores, at least one of which will be a high priority for your class, and only so many ASIs. Even a character who does spread his ASIs out to include even his lowest-priority stats will end up improving each of his saves very little over 20 levels

I dunno... have you had trouble with this in actual high-level play?

Sure, there are six saves, but they aren't all equally important. I'd expect a really high level character to have pretty good scores in the most important saves.

Also, there are a lot of other things likely to help. Magic items (especially at high level), buffs like resistance/bless, racial bonuses (dwarves vs. poison, elves/half-elves vs. charm, halflings vs. fear, gnomes vs. a lot of mind-affecting stuff).

And those low-level monsters have pretty low DCs (mummy is DC 11), and they probably wouldn't even get a chance to use their abilities. That mummy would get destroyed before it got within 60 feet of any of the PCs, probably.

Also... in my understanding, low-level monsters are supposed to remain relevant longer in 5E.

They're not missing, they're just not implemented the same way. Same was true in 4e. Medusas could still turn you to stone, Beholder Death Rays still kill you, just not via a single bad roll or bad save.

The amount of really nasty effects is reduced a lot (undead don't energy-drain, finger of death isn't save-or-die, etc.), and the ones that are left (like petrification) are usually mitigated, is what I meant.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Point is that D&D characters get more resistant to magic as they level, as a matter of course, just as they get more resistant to injury. Thus "it's magical" is no excuse for 20th level character being scared of a 3rd level mummy.

This seems to be a really good summary of the objection to how saving throws work in 5e. While I don't share the objection, it does make me have to think through why it doesn't bother me, because what you're saying there is the kind of thing I would normally agree with.

While I haven't been able to totally figure it out, I think the main reason it doesn't bother me is that almost all characters gain some way of resisting or mitigating the effects of magic through their class advancement, even when it isn't a simple equivalent of more hp (numerical).

Without an in-depth analysis...

Classes with features that can help with any/all saves:
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Wizards: Spells (helping directly or indirectly)
Fighters: Indomitable
Monks: Proficiency in all saves
Paladins: Charisma to all saves

Classes with one notable weakness (of the big 3 saves):
Barbarian: Wisdom. While they aren't proficient in Dex saves, most of those effects target hp, which barbarians have in abundance.
Rogues: Constitution. (Slippery Mind takes care of Wisdom)

If feats are in play, an individual barbarian or rogue could take Resilient and then they'd be fine, but we can't assume feats when analyzing.

That leaves Rangers and Warlocks without any universal class feature that is coming to my mind that is especially helpful in avoiding or mitigating spells that require saves.