# Return to the 3 saves for 1D&D?



## Horwath (Oct 24, 2022)

Should 1D&D return to classic 3 saving throws?
And how would it be done?

And using all abilities with that option also?


3 Saves for 1D&D;

Fortitude save: current STR and CON saves
Reflex save: current DEX saves
Will save: current INT, WIS and CHA saves.

how to use all abilities?

Fort saves: str+con mod
ref saves: dex+int mod
will saves: wis+cha mod

Every class would have proficiency in one saving throw:

fort save: barbarian, fighter, sorcerer, artificer
reflex save: bard, ranger, rogue, monk
will save: cleric, druid, warlock, wizard

average save modifier with various abilities:
16,16,16,8,8,8 = +6 over 6 saves = +1. +6 over 3 saves = +2
14,14,14,12,12,12 = +9 over 6 saves = +1,5. +9 over 3 saves = +3

then we move base DC back to 10 from 8.

and we add half proficiency mod to unproficient saves. Round down.
just to have all saves scale somewhat with levels, not depending only on ASIs

resilient feat would add proficiency in one save. with +1 ASI included as normal.


----------



## payn (Oct 24, 2022)

Why are we adding proficiency 1/2 mods to nonproficient saves? Seems like bounded accuracy was set up to stop having to do things like this?

Also, not a big fan of use X or use Y saves. Just makes ability scores routine and boring.


----------



## Lojaan (Oct 24, 2022)

Works for me. Especially as it's how many years in and no one has been able to explain concisely what even int or cha saves even are.

I would swap your wis and int around tho. Wis as awareness of surroundings works well with reflex saves.

(Not sure how int works for fort either but hey, maybe reading books in DnD makes you stubborn )


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 24, 2022)

I kinda like that it would make strength a bit more viable as a stat. Currently having class proficiency in strength saves is a big oof.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 24, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Works for me. Especially as it's how many years in and no one has been able to explain concisely what even int or cha saves even are.
> 
> I would swap your wis and int around tho. Wis as awareness of surroundings works well with reflex saves.
> 
> (Not sure how int works for fort either but hey, maybe reading books in DnD makes you stubborn )




Int saves work for reflex, as you can calculate trajectories in your head.

What I do reject is calling those saves "classic" which instead would be "spells", "paralyzation, poison and death magic", "staves, wands and rods", "breath weapons", "petrification and polymorph"... 

Sometimes I think, proficiency should grant a bonus to those categories and you can decide yourself which stat is relevant.

Poison, paralyzation and death magic is probably connected to con, but maybe also wisdom. breath weapons might be countered with dex (avoid) or con (resist) and so on.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 24, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I kinda like that it would make strength a bit more viable as a stat. Currently having class proficiency in strength saves is a big oof.




No. Strenght is the best of the rare saves. So many animals that grapple or trip you force a strength saving throw. And woth the current 1D&D rules, strength saving throws can be used to escape regular grapples. Which I really like.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> What I do reject is calling those saves "classic" which instead would be "spells", "paralyzation, poison and death magic", "staves, wands and rods", "breath weapons", "petrification and polymorph"...



Indeed.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 24, 2022)

I think I'd prefer if they went back with the weird saves of the old editions, but with the maths of the more recent ones, totally separating them from the ability scores!

Breath/Blast/Beam
Magic Items/Curses
Polymorph/Petrification/Transmutation
Poison/Paralyze/Death
Spells/Magic/Psi


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 24, 2022)

I would certainly prefer to return to Fort, Ref, and Will saves. Out of the three saving throw groupings we've had, it's solidly the best. They were conceptually easy to grasp; none of the three was clearly more important than the others; most effects could slot easily into one of the three; and the names didn't overlap with other similar mechanics.

However, I think 1D&D's mandate for backward compatibility is going to make that a nonstarter. The best we can hope for is a rebalancing of saving throws to make all six equally important.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 24, 2022)

I just want less different saves. I think a situation where every PC was proficient in 2 of them would be absolutely fine, honestly. The current six-save situation is just annoying and feels deeply ill-distributed. So yes please return Fort/Ref/Will, it's the only grouping I've seen people really grok and it has a simplicity that works really well.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 24, 2022)

When I think "Classic," I think of:

*Poison/Death Ray: *a save throw for avoiding poison, sure, but also everything that affects your bodily functions and life force....things like system shock, disease, instant death, and necromancy.  Would later be called "Fortitude," then Constitution.
*Magic Wands:* a save throw for jumping out of the way of something, like the beam from a magic wand.  It would later be called "Reflex," then Dexterity.
*Paralysis/Turn to Stone:* a save throw for resisting change (like getting changed into stone), force effects, or physical strength (like breaking magical bindings that "paralyze" you.)  Would later be rolled into Fortitude, then become Strength.
*Dragon's Breath:* a saving throw made against area effects (like dragon's breath).  It models your ability to cover up in time to avoid something.  Would later get rolled into Reflex, then Dexterity.
*Spells/Magic Staff: *a catch-all save throw for resisting charms, enchantments, curses, and other spells and effects not covered above, a measure of things like influence, personality, and willpower.  Would later be called "Will," and then split into Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.
Do we need to go back to them?  Nah.  They're fun in their native system (BECM), but I imagine they would be clunky and weird in the modern 5E D20 System.  (See also:  Fort/Ref/Will.)


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 24, 2022)

How about we keep 6 saves and actually have spells and effects that call for STR, INT, and Cha saves,?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 24, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> but I imagine they would be clunky and weird in the modern 5E D20 System. (See also: Fort/Ref/Will.)



Old school save are so arbitrary and weird, that's why I love them: it makes magic and supernatural effects something parallel to the physical/mental attributes of the character, something a character has not much power over. 

It makes magic spells and magical features more strange and special.

Just have them be 1d20 + Class bonus + Race bonus + proficiency bonus against a DC.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 24, 2022)

I'd kinda like to replace _all save throws _with a single one, called "Luck."   I'm talking ALL saving throws, including death saves.
All character classes would be proficient, but no ability score would adjust it...a "Luck save" would always be (1d20+ProfBonus), every time, no matter how you optimized your stats.

It's probably a bit too monochromatic for most D&D players, but I'd like to take it for a test drive someday.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> What I do reject is calling those saves "classic" which instead would be "spells", "paralyzation, poison and death magic", "staves, wands and rods", "breath weapons", "petrification and polymorph"...



Super meh. Plenty of people round here cut their teeth on 3E, and it came out over 20 years ago. When someone says "classic three saves" it's clear what they're talking about, because BD&D/AD&D had more than three, so that can't be what they're referring to.


----------



## John R Davis (Oct 24, 2022)

I like the six stat saves!


----------



## edosan (Oct 24, 2022)

I'd love to go back to Fort/Ref/Will - it was the model people picked up most intuitively.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 24, 2022)

No.  Change the existing six saves so that they all get more usage: Strength vs any spells that push or hold, Intelligence saves when interacting with illusions, instead of investigation checks, charisma saves vs spells that dominate rather than influence etc.


----------



## Lidgar (Oct 24, 2022)

Two saves: Physical and Mental.

*Physical*: Str/Dex/Con. Use your highest modifier from any one of these stats and add your proficiency bonus if your class is proficient in physical saves. 

*Mental*: Int/Wis/Cha. Use your highest modifier from any one of these stats and add your proficiency bonus if your class is proficient in mental saves.

Warriors and Experts proficient in Physical Saves. 

Priests and Mages proficient in Mental Saves.


----------



## Lojaan (Oct 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Int saves work for reflex, as you can calculate trajectories in your head.



Aaaaah so this is why people who are really good at maths are also really good at sports


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 24, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Super meh. Plenty of people round here cut their teeth on 3E, and it came out over 20 years ago. When someone says "classic three saves" it's clear what they're talking about, because BD&D/AD&D had more than three, so that can't be what they're referring to.



Get off my lawn!*




*just to make it clear:


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 24, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Aaaaah so this is why people who are really good at maths are also really good at sports




Exactly! Take chess as a representative sport...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 24, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> No.  Change the existing six saves so that they all get more usage: Strength vs any spells that push or hold, Intelligence saves when interacting with illusions, instead of investigation checks, charisma saves vs spells that dominate rather than influence etc.




I am very split on illusions and saves instead of investigation.

Since disbelieving is something active, I think it is a good use of the new study action.
I think however, that escaping should allow for automatic saves if you happen to interact with illusions accidently/passively.

So I think, when you try to escape a phantasmal force spell that attacks you, you should be granted a saving throw. When you are in front of an illusionary wall, a study check might help you find the illusion, but then, if you try to lean on a on illusionary wall, an int save would be in order if you fall through or if your mind subtely shifts your balance (on a failure), so you won't pass through.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 24, 2022)

Just do the 6 saves right.


STRENGTH
Forced Movement
Knocked Prone
Restrants
Grapples

DEXTERITY
Quick Direct Attacks
Area Elemental damage

CONSTITUTION
Poison
Disease
Cold
Necrotic

INTELLIGENCE
Illusions
Psionics
Puzzles

WISDOM
Stuns
Charms 
Fear

CHARISMA
Emotional Damage
Mind Control
Madness
Possession
Banishment


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 24, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am very split on illusions and saves instead of investigation.
> 
> Since disbelieving is something active, I think it is a good use of the new study action.
> I think however, that escaping should allow for automatic saves if you happen to interact with illusions accidently/passively.
> ...



Exactly this, yes.  The two should not be mutually exclusive.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 24, 2022)

There are defacto 4 saves:

Strength-Constitution (Fortitude)
Dexterity-Athletics (Reflex)
Intelligence-Perception (versus Hidden, Illusion, etcetera)
Charisma-Wisdom (Will)


----------



## John Lloyd1 (Oct 24, 2022)

edosan said:


> I'd love to go back to Fort/Ref/Will - it was the model people picked up most intuitively.



As someone who has only played B/X/1E/2E & 5E, it doesn't seem to be intuitive to me. I wouldn't object to cutting down the number of saves to DEX, CON and WIS though.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 24, 2022)

payn said:


> Why are we adding proficiency 1/2 mods to nonproficient saves? Seems like bounded accuracy was set up to stop having to do things like this?
> 
> Also, not a big fan of use X or use Y saves. Just makes ability scores routine and boring.



I would like to go back to the fort/reflex/will saves but seem to recall a variant (stat+stat)/2 formula for them that was either a common houserule or perhaps unearthed arcana/phb2/dragon mag type thing that encouraged more distributed attribute arrays & gave certain lacking builds a slightly better footing.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Should 1D&D return to classic 3 saving throws?
> And how would it be done?
> 
> And using all abilities with that option also?
> ...



I would not like this at all.  Too much like 3E .... it makes me cringe to even think about it.  It also totally screws the idea of targeting weak saves.  Your casters will be strong against all mind affecting stuff, where as under the current system you can use an intel save spell on a cleric or a charisma save spell on a wizard.

With bounded accuracy you would have a bunch of players that would be nearly mmune to a certain type of spell or affect.

I've been playing since the red box and the current 5.5 is the most elegant and meaningful and fun IMO.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Lidgar said:


> Warriors and Experts proficient in Physical Saves. Priests and Mages proficient in Mental Saves.



If we did this, I think the game would be more fun if we actually reversed this.


----------



## Lidgar (Oct 25, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> If we did this, I think the game would be more fun if we actually reversed this.



Sounds like a good feat!


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 25, 2022)

Paralyzation, Poison or Death Magic

Petrification or Polymorph

Rod, Staff or Wand

Breath Weapon

Spell


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 25, 2022)

They've clearly established Intelligence as being the save against Brute Force Psychic Damage attacks, that are typically Psionics.

And they've established Strength saves as something against forceful attacks that might knock you down or crush you.

Charisma saves are less established.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 25, 2022)

Please let's. We've already seen that no one, not even the designers really wants to use STR, INT or CHA saves. Making them split ability lets it actually do what it feels like they were trying to do without actually using the 4e method. Adding some bonuses would also go a long way to helping 6e break away from BA.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 25, 2022)

payn said:


> Why are we adding proficiency 1/2 mods to nonproficient saves? Seems like bounded accuracy was set up to stop having to do things like this?



If it was, then the designers utterly failed. A dump stat with a nonproficient save is gonna be at -1 while a primary stat with proficient save will be at +7 by level 8. A 9-point spread is pretty far from bounded.



payn said:


> Also, not a big fan of use X or use Y saves. Just makes ability scores routine and boring.



Locking saves to one ability score each encourages MAD. So does locking initiative to dexterity and HP to constitution, for that matter.

Dex adding to AC is another problem, but it's somewhat mitigated by heavy armor.


----------



## payn (Oct 25, 2022)

Oh, no, BA is here to stay!


----------



## payn (Oct 25, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> If it was, then the designers utterly failed. A dump stat with a nonproficient save is gonna be at -1 while a primary stat with proficient save will be at +7 by level 8. A 9-point spread is pretty far from bounded.
> 
> 
> Locking saves to one ability score each encourages MAD. So does locking initiative to dexterity and HP to constitution, for that matter.
> ...



I like MAD, so dont see the issue.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 25, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> They've clearly established Intelligence as being the save against Brute Force Psychic Damage attacks, that are typically Psionics.
> 
> And they've established Strength saves as something against forceful attacks that might knock you down or crush you.
> 
> Charisma saves are less established.



The problem frequency.

There are not enought Psionics in the MM nor most adventures.

WOTC doesn't give large monsters and eemy warriors enough shoves, grapples, and knockdowns.

And Charisma is tied to Banishment and Confusion. Not enough monsters cause madness, confusion, or baleful telepolts.

Solution: Fewer sacks of HP and blaster casters.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The problem frequency.
> 
> There are not enought Psionics in the MM nor most adventures.
> 
> ...



95% of 5e's problems could be fixed by adopting a fix 4e already made to 3.5.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 25, 2022)

Can we return to the 4e NADs instead? That had actual gameplay and worldbuilding benefits, encouraging both simplicity of mechanics and variety of abilities while only changing who rolls for some things.


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 25, 2022)

I don't remember having to think on what Save to use when there were only Fort/Refl/Will, it was so easy. If Wizards don't want the rules to be the protagonist, they should think of bringing back the 3 saves.
I just don't like the 4e way of "pick up the highest ability mod from x and y", it makes some builds more powerful than others. Pick the lowest is no different, mean or sum of 2 abilities is no standard math.
My idea is the middle ability modifier, like 13th Age.

Fort: str/con/dex
Refl: con/dex/wis
Will: int/wis/car
Main 3 abilities for saves (con/dex/wis) are still important, but not that much since you get the middle of 3.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 25, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> 95% of 5e's problems could be fixed by adopting a fix 4e already made to 3.5.



4ehadsacks of HP and blaster casters.

It just gave monsters and traps way more effect variety.

5e is missing offensive teleports and banishments though.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Please let's. We've already seen that no one, not even the designers really wants to use STR, INT or CHA saves. Making them split ability lets it actually do what it feels like they were trying to do without actually using the 4e method. Adding some bonuses would also go a long way to helping 6e break away from BA.




Why would you want to break away from BA?  It is a cornerstone of the system and probably the single biggest mechanical reason 5E is such a success.

And Wizards (the class) definitely want to use Intelligence saves.   It is the reason Tasha's Hideous Laughter, R. Psychic Lance and Synaptic static are such great spells and for the most part better than spells of the same level with more powerful effects on a Wisdom or Constitution save.

I don't see why every save needs to be as useful as every other save.  Clearly Wisdom, Dexterity and Constitution are the most important and on one tier while the others are on a different tier, but I don't see why that is bad, especially when every class has proficiency in one "good save" and one "bad save".


----------



## Staffan (Oct 25, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I would like to go back to the fort/reflex/will saves but seem to recall a variant (stat+stat)/2 formula for them that was either a common houserule or perhaps unearthed arcana/phb2/dragon mag type thing that encouraged more distributed attribute arrays & gave certain lacking builds a slightly better footing.



13th Age has a Physical and a Mental defense where Physical uses the middle stat of Strength/Dexterity/Constitution and Mental uses the middle stat of Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 25, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I don't see why every save needs to be as useful as every other save.  Clearly Wisdom, Dexterity and Constitution are the most important and on one tier while the others are on a different tier, but I don't see why that is bad, especially when every class has proficiency in one "good save" and one "bad save".



I don't disagree, but I think it should be called out more. As is, there's nothing that states Wisdom saves are more common than Intelligence or Charisma saves unless you actually have knowledge of a large portion of potential threats.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 25, 2022)

Staffan said:


> 13th Age has a Physical and a Mental defense where Physical uses the middle stat of Strength/Dexterity/Constitution and Mental uses the middle stat of Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma.



considering how low usually 5th and 6th ability is in D&D, we could have also 2 defenses:
Physical: str+dex+con,
Mental: int+wis+cha,

on extreme ends defenses would be based on abilities:
16,16,16,8,8,8, and 14,14,14,12,12,12

one set would be; 19(10+3+3+3) and 7(10-1-1-1) or 15(10+3+3-1) and 11(10+3-1-1)
or another:  16(10+2+2+2) and 13(10+1+1+1) or 15(10+2+2+1) and 14(10+2+1+1)


since then spellcasters make attacks, the base DC of 8 turns into 10,5 average on d20.

then classes get one defense proficient and resilient feat gives proficiency on other defense.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> considering how low usually 5th and 6th ability is in D&D, we could have also 2 defenses:
> Physical: str+dex+con,
> Mental: int+wis+cha,
> 
> ...



I think going with only two is too much of a consolidation.  with fort/reflex/will there was always at least a moment of thought but two would just make it automatic


----------



## Horwath (Oct 25, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I think going with only two is too much of a consolidation.  with fort/reflex/will there was always at least a moment of thought but two would just make it automatic



I agree, 3 are the best for D&D, this was just example in comparison to 13th age


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 25, 2022)

Two routes, either of which I would find equally acceptable:

1. Go back to Fort, Ref, and Will, but you add the higher of your Str or Con to Fort, the higher of your Dex or Wis to Ref, and the higher of your Int or Cha to Will. You get proficiency in one save.

2. Stick with saves for each ability, but you don’t get proficiency bonus in saves. Instead, skill and tool proficiencies can be applied to saves as well as checks.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 25, 2022)

The 6 saves system is (IMO) one of the worst ideas of d&d 5e. The designers kind of acknowledged this by making 3 of those 6 saves far better than the other 3, but I believe we would still be better off going back to fort, reflex and will. Remove the resilient feat, while we’re at it.

The 6 saves system actually works decently fine at low levels, but the math and scaling completely breaks at higher levels, to the point that expert players usually make sure to include a paladin in the party just to patch their saving throws. It’s bad.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> How about we keep 6 saves and actually have spells and effects that call for STR, INT, and Cha saves,?



This. What 5e could have done better is make the 6 saves more equal rather than 3 being more useful than the others. 

For example, all effects that block movements (incl. petrification/paralysis) could have granted Str saves on the ground that you could resist them actively by physically exerting force against them. Illusions could use Int saves. Many mental effects could switch to Cha saves if it makes sense to resist them with force of personality. 

Sometimes I think the game suffers from the old concept that Wisdom must include savvyness (only to allow low-Int characters to do the "right thing" without understanding why) and willpower. What if Wisdom was more or less entirely about Perception? It would still be hugely important, but some chunks of its usefulness could be relocated to Int and Cha or even Con.

In addition, I'd rather have the game evolve forward than backwards, so thanks but no to going back to older editions saves.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 25, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> The 6 saves system is (IMO) one of the worst ideas of d&d 5e. The designers kind of acknowledged this by making 3 of those 6 saves far better than the other 3, but I believe we would still be better off going back to fort, reflex and will. Remove the resilient feat, while we’re at it.
> 
> The 6 saves system actually works decently fine at low levels, but the math and scaling completely breaks at higher levels, to the point that expert players usually make sure to include a paladin in the party just to patch their saving throws. It’s bad.



The idea seemed nice at first because it further unified the core mechanic. Whether a PC was making a check or a save, the DM could use the same logic to determine which ability to call for a roll with. But, yeah, the payoff isn’t worth the wonky scaling it causes.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 25, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> The 6 saves system is (IMO) one of the worst ideas of d&d 5e. The designers kind of acknowledged this by making 3 of those 6 saves far better than the other 3, but I believe we would still be better off going back to fort, reflex and will. Remove the resilient feat, while we’re at it.
> 
> The 6 saves system actually works decently fine at low levels, but the math and scaling completely breaks at higher levels, to the point that expert players usually make sure to include a paladin in the party just to patch their saving throws. It’s bad.



The 6 saves system works. Theproblem is the designers used a 3e logic in their 6 save system.

There is no reason why every class only starts with proficincy in 2 saves and only a few gain proficiency in more. A level 10 fighter shouldhave pro in STR, DEX, AND CON as they mastered their body for combat. By level 20, they should have at least 4 save profiecincies. Same with most noncasters.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 25, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> I don't remember having to think on what Save to use when there were only Fort/Refl/Will, it was so easy. If Wizards don't want the rules to be the protagonist, they should think of bringing back the 3 saves.
> I just don't like the 4e way of "pick up the highest ability mod from x and y", it makes some builds more powerful than others. Pick the lowest is no different, mean or sum of 2 abilities is no standard math.
> My idea is the middle ability modifier, like 13th Age.
> 
> ...



this still leaves the problem that you can now dump str and int or cha and still have great saves.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The 6 saves system works. Theproblem is the designers used a 3e logic in their 6 save system.
> 
> There is no reason why every class only starts with proficincy in 2 saves and only a few gain proficiency in more. A level 10 fighter shouldhave pro in STR, DEX, AND CON as they mastered their body for combat. By level 20, they should have at least 4 save profiecincies. Same with most noncasters.



Thing is, even that wouldn’t be enough to fix the scaling. Heck, even high levels monks, with their Omni-save proficiency, are basically just as good at passing high level saving throw DCs than low level characters are at passing low level DCs (not taking re-roll potential into account, only talking about numbers).
The 5e saving throw scaling is really, really poor.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 25, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Thing is, even that wouldn’t be enough to fix the scaling. Heck, even high levels monks, with their Omni-save proficiency, are basically just as good at passing high level saving throw DCs than low level characters are at passing low level DCs (not taking re-roll potential into account, only talking about numbers).
> The 5e saving throw scaling is really, really poor.



That's why warrior classes should get Expertise in saving throws.

Warrior types get Expertise in two of STR DEX and CON saves
Skill monkeys get Expertise 2-4 skills and 1 saving throw
Casters get Expertise in Religion or Arcana and saving throw of their casting stat.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> That's why warrior classes should get Expertise in saving throws.
> 
> Warrior types get Expertise in two of STR DEX and CON saves
> Skill monkeys get Expertise 2-4 skills and 1 saving throw
> Casters get Expertise in Religion or Arcana and saving throw of their casting stat.



I’m sure the 6 saving throw setup can be saved, with a lot of tweaks, effort and math revisions. I’m not sure it’s worth saving, when Fort/Ref/Will would be simpler and more intuitive.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 25, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I’m sure the 6 saving throw setup can be saved, with a lot of tweaks, effort and math revisions. I’m not sure it’s worth saving, when Fort/Ref/Will would be simpler and more intuitive.



Simpler isn't better.

3 saves boosts Dex even more, nerfs STR & INT more, and returns to silly ideas where vitality helps you from being knocked down.

Proper Implementation of 6 saves > Arbitrary Classic saves> Proper Implementation of 3 saves > Poor Implementation of 3 or 6 saves.

It's not hard.*Just stop designing like it's 3rd edition.*


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Simpler isn't better.
> 
> 3 saves boosts Dex even more, nerfs STR & INT more, and returns to silly ideas where vitality helps you from being knocked down.
> 
> ...



Personally, I’m a fan of the 4e implementation, with fort/ref/will as static NADs, and Str/Con linked to Fort, Dex/Int contributing to Reflex, and Wis/Cha contributing to Will.
But I realize that ship has probably sailed.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Oct 25, 2022)

I very much agree with @Olrox on this.
When we finish the current campaign, the homebrew rules I'm going to use will have the intuitive 4e saving throw system. But I'm also going to change a wad of other mechanics...one day


----------



## Zubatcarteira (Oct 25, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Why would you want to break away from BA?  It is a cornerstone of the system and probably the single biggest mechanical reason 5E is such a success.
> 
> And Wizards (the class) definitely want to use Intelligence saves.   It is the reason Tasha's Hideous Laughter, R. Psychic Lance and Synaptic static are such great spells and for the most part better than spells of the same level with more powerful effects on a Wisdom or Constitution save.
> 
> I don't see why every save needs to be as useful as every other save.  Clearly Wisdom, Dexterity and Constitution are the most important and on one tier while the others are on a different tier, but I don't see why that is bad, especially when every class has proficiency in one "good save" and one "bad save".



Hideous Laughter is a wisdom save, Tasha's Mind Whip would be the Intelligence one.


----------



## Zubatcarteira (Oct 25, 2022)

Honestly, I really dislike the current save system, six are too many, and if you have a low save you're pretty much useless if the enemy is targetting it. I play a Wizard in a westmarch server, and had whole quests where he just spammed Tasha's Mind Whip nonstop since so many enemies have terrible Intelligence saves and will basically auto-fail. 

Intelligence and Charisma in particular, there aren't too many effects that target them, but those that do can just annihilate you, and there are a lot of enemies with very low saves on those two, while at least Wisdom people remember to make good. 

For players, they'll usually have a couple stats that are low unless they roll godly, and as the levels go up they can just auto-fail against certain effects.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 25, 2022)

Zubatcarteira said:


> Honestly, I really dislike the current save system, six are too many, and if you have a low save you're pretty much useless if the enemy is targetting it. I play a Wizard in a westmarch server, and had whole quests where he just spammed Tasha's Mind Whip nonstop since so many enemies have terrible Intelligence saves and will basically auto-fail.
> 
> Intelligence and Charisma in particular, there aren't too many effects that target them, but those that do can just annihilate you, and there are a lot of enemies with very low saves on those two, while at least Wisdom people remember to make good.
> 
> For players, they'll usually have a couple stats that are low unless they roll godly, and as the levels go up they can just auto-fail against certain effects.



Again these are implementation issues.

If the designers didn't learn the mistakes of 3e, it doesn't matter if you have 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, or 12 saves.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Just do the 6 saves right.
> 
> 
> STRENGTH
> ...



Completely this, the Ability scores are underutilised as is.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 25, 2022)

payn said:


> Oh, no, BA is here to stay!



Nah, fam. Good game design will win out eventually.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 25, 2022)

No, the game will not return to 3 saves.  Because it will make the use of older adventures more difficult to use, with DMs needing to translate every mention of one of the six saves into now one of the three new ones.

It could certainly be done if it was at all necessary... but I do not believe it to be that necessary.  There is nothing outright wrong with six saves.  They are not bad enough to make this major switch to the game.  Not enough is gained.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 25, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> No, the game will not return to 3 saves.  Because it will make the use of older adventures more difficult to use, with DMs needing to translate every mention of one of the six saves into now one of the three new ones.
> 
> It could certainly be done if it was at all necessary... but I do not believe it to be that necessary.  There is nothing outright wrong with six saves.  They are not bad enough to make this major switch to the game.  Not enough is gained.



while it could be a hassle for 1st session, I think that everyone would switch fast;

str->fort
dex->ref
con->fort
int->will
wis->will
cha->will


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> while it could be a hassle for 1st session, I think that everyone would switch fast;
> 
> str->fort
> dex->ref
> ...



I'd prefer

INT -> Ref

But yeah. it's not hard. Then again 'add two' is something people got in a tizzy about.


----------



## payn (Oct 25, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I'd prefer
> 
> INT -> Ref
> 
> But yeah. it's not hard. Then again 'add two' is something people got in a tizzy about.



Too templated. Everyone has the same stat array distributed in 1-2 different ways.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 25, 2022)

payn said:


> Too templated. Everyone has the same stat array distributed in 1-2 different ways.



Perfect!

And that's the way it shall be!


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> this still leaves the problem that you can now dump str and int or cha and still have great saves.



To avoid this problem you should have lowest of 'n' abilities or str, cha and int having their own save and these saves being meaningful (not 5e way). Even the sum of 'n' is not enough since you can boost the others and dump str, cha, int. Any other option?


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> this still leaves the problem that you can now dump str and int or cha and still have great saves.



Two of those problems are caused by "streamlining" & "simplifications" made elsewhere.  With int no longer impacting how many skills/skill points you get & skills condensed from 37 down to  only 18 it's no longer needed to bone up on skills & it became almost impossible for anyone to have serious gaps in the skills anyways.   By shifting from medium & heavy loads that a player might reasonably hit with penalties they might still adventure under to a value so high it almost takes fiat to achieve even before considering the player facing option to simply veto it at the chargen level.  As to the third, charisma is already a pretty awesome stat if you can use uit for both social stuff _and_ your primary stat


----------



## Blue (Oct 25, 2022)

Lidgar said:


> Two saves: Physical and Mental.
> 
> *Physical*: Str/Dex/Con. Use your highest modifier from any one of these stats and add your proficiency bonus if your class is proficient in physical saves.
> 
> ...



This is quite close to 13th Age (a d20 that came out a bit before 5e).  But the saves use the modifier from the middle of the three ability scores, so you can't just easily min/max them.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Oct 25, 2022)

Personally, I want to go back to having special saves for the same magic _but out of a wand. _


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 25, 2022)

payn said:


> Why are we adding proficiency 1/2 mods to nonproficient saves? Seems like bounded accuracy was set up to stop having to do things like this?



yeah, I can see doing so while keeping 6 saves, but doing both changes in the OP seems unnecessary.


----------



## Blue (Oct 25, 2022)

So, what are the design points of 5e saves?

1. PCs are strong is about 1/3 of their saves.  Foes with varied attack types will sometimes match and sometimes bypass their strengths.

2. Foes are usually good on 1-4 saves, sort of based on epicness.  So PCs who are focused around the same sort of saves (like bards) will find themselves good against some types of foes and poor against others.  Classes with wide spell list have the meaningful choice of going for "the best" spells, or going for spells with a wide variety of saving throws even if they have overlap in effect (like AoE damage) to hunt for poor saves.

3. The three "strong" saves are the most commonly saved against, and include: The already most powerful ability score, the useful-for-everyone ability score, and another ability score that does happen to have the most common skill associated with it.

The first two points I find as valuable, the last one I find as counterproductive.

Moving to the 4e save (not "classic" saves) weakens #2, and strengthens #3.  These are both moves in the wrong direction, so are arguably worse than the current system.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 25, 2022)

The issue with the way too many saves that aren't equally distributed is the problem with fire as a damage type. When the correct answer is 'Wisdom save' and the incorrect answer is 'Charisma save', you're just adding trap choices.

Only they're not choices. They're baked into the class and not something you pick.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 25, 2022)

Blue said:


> So, what are the design points of 5e saves?
> 
> 1. PCs are strong is about 1/3 of their saves.  Foes with varied attack types will sometimes match and sometimes bypass their strengths.
> 
> ...



point 2 should probably be broken into 2a & 2b:

*2A*." _Foes are usually good on 1-4 saves, sort of based on epicness.  So PCs who are focused around the same sort of saves (like bards) will find themselves good against some types of foes and poor against others._"  
Bard dex save spells. (4)
Bard con save spells (6)
Bard int save spells. (6)
Bard Cha save spells. (6)
Bard wis save spells. (31)

*2B* "_Classes with wide spell list have the meaningful choice of going for "the best" spells, or going for spells with a wide variety of saving throws even if they have overlap in effect (like AoE damage) to hunt for poor saves._"
On 2a, 31 is > than 0+4+6+6=22 by far but that distribution is not significantly out of the ordinary for other casters simply because bards have most of the int save spells & the rest comes down to the general save distributions across spells. I don't think 5e even approached a point where 2a is the case & the split is too fine grained to meaningfully target.

On 2b wotc deliberately murdered that out of the gate with "iconic" spells & overuse of concentration even _if_ the save distribution had been  diverse & clear enough to really accomplish in a way that didn't feel like guesswork with minimal returns that are rarely much more than a point or two of difference thanks to so many monsters not actually being proficient in any saves.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 25, 2022)

Blue said:


> So, what are the design points of 5e saves?
> 
> 1. PCs are strong is about 1/3 of their saves.  Foes with varied attack types will sometimes match and sometimes bypass their strengths.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree.

1. The 5e balance only holds true at low levels. Saving throw scaling is very bad, so saves cannot keep up with DCs.
At first level a typical PC will have 2 good saves it can pass with an 8 or so, another couple of decent saves where it gets a 50/50 shot, and one or two bad saves where a 13 or 14 is needed.
At level 20, the PC will usually still have two good saves (if they invested a lot in straight +2 ASIs, that is), and _maybe_ another decent 50/50 save if they also took the Resilient Focus feat, but all other saves will be terrible, needing a roll of 18, 19 or 20 to succeed.

2. 5e monsters are usually written to be complete trash at saves. Even most (supposedly) legendary monsters would be easily bypassed, if it weren't for their (IMO) inelegant but absolutely necessary Legendary Resistance feature. So, I disagree that 5e handles monster saves well: in fact, I believe it does very poorly.

3. Are you aware that the 4e save system allows for other scores beside Dex, Con and Wis to contribute to Reflex, Fort and Will? A 10 Dex, 20 Int character would sport a +5 to Reflex. If anything, this is exactly what's needed to move away from the sheer power of Dex, Con and Wis.


----------



## Lidgar (Oct 25, 2022)

Blue said:


> This is quite close to 13th Age (a d20 that came out a bit before 5e).  But the saves use the modifier from the middle of the three ability scores, so you can't just easily min/max them.



Thanks, was not aware of that. I suppose I don't mind a PC being really good in one category of saves and less so in another. I tend to gravitate towards simple, intuitive systems. So an 8th level fighter with a 20 in one of the physical ability scores would have a +8 to physical saves, and maybe a +0 or +1 to mental saves. 

Granted, I seriously doubt One D&D is going to tinker with the saving throw system at this scale however. At most, they might reassign the relevant ability score needed for saving against some spells so that the more neglected ones become more relevant. They might also tinker with starting save proficiencies for some classes as well I suppose. Anything else might be too radical for "backwards compatibility."


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 25, 2022)

Horwath said:


> while it could be a hassle for 1st session, I think that everyone would switch fast;
> 
> str->fort
> dex->ref
> ...




I fight the poison with my fists...
no thanks


Rather lump con and cha together. Physical and Mental fortitude. Then Dex and Str for reflexes and power to withstand or bypass force. 
And Wis and Int for escaping attacks on your mind. 

Still a bit forced, bit better than str and con together. 
I would even say, if you put str and con in the same saving throw, you could as well ditch con altogether, as con's signature feature is endurance of your body even if you might be physically weak.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Zubatcarteira said:


> Hideous Laughter is a wisdom save, Tasha's Mind Whip would be the Intelligence one.



TMW is what I meant and was thinking of.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Blue said:


> So, what are the design points of 5e saves?
> 
> 1. PCs are strong is about 1/3 of their saves.  Foes with varied attack types will sometimes match and sometimes bypass their strengths.
> 
> ...



I would disagree with your 3rd point.  I find Dexterity to be the most powerful ability score and Wisdom to be important due to how often perception is used.  Constitution though, the third "strong save" is just not that important other than the save.  

Constitution is an important save, but I don't see it as being a particularly important ability.  Class and build notwithstading, if not for being a strong save I would put it behind Dexterity, Wisdom and Charisma for most characters and roughly equal to intelligence.  The save is what makes it important IMO.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> 1. The 5e balance only holds true at low levels. Saving throw scaling is very bad, so saves cannot keep up with DCs.
> At first level a typical PC will have 2 good saves it can pass with an 8 or so, another couple of decent saves where it gets a 50/50 shot, and one or two bad saves where a 13 or 14 is needed.
> ...




But at higher levels PCs are going to have spells, abilities and immunities that either make them immune to many of the things you would need to save against or get advantage on those saves.

Take a Ranger for example - Nature's veil means he can make him immune to any effect the enemy needs to "see" you with for a lot of enemies.  1st level spells like fog cloud can do the same.




Olrox17 said:


> 2. 5e monsters are usually written to be complete trash at saves. Even most (supposedly) legendary monsters would be easily bypassed, if it weren't for their (IMO) inelegant but absolutely necessary Legendary Resistance feature. So, I disagree that 5e handles monster saves well: in fact, I believe it does very poorly.




I don't think this is true either.  Aside from LR many legendary monsters have good/great saves.

A CR17 adult Red Dragon for example is +8S, +6D, +13C, +7Wis, +3Int, +11CH

That means against a level 15 PC with a 20 ability (DC18) he needs a 12 or less for every save except intelligence (where he needs a 15).

A CR 13 Beholder has S0, D2, C4, I8, W7, CH8.  So he makes all the mind saves on a 10 or 11 against that 15th level PC, and while his physical saves are not good he also is only a CR13 monster you are putting up agaist a 15th-level character with a max ability score.

Add in magic resistance, fey immunity/advantage, poison immunity and the abnormally high wisdom scores for many monsters and you have monsters making saves quite often.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 25, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I would disagree with your 3rd point.  I find Dexterity to be the most powerful ability score and Wisdom to be important due to how often perception is used.  Constitution though, the third "strong save" is just not that important other than the save.
> 
> Constitution is an important save, but I don't see it as being a particularly important ability.  Class and build notwithstading, if not for being a strong save I would put it behind Dexterity, Wisdom and Charisma for most characters and roughly equal to intelligence.  The save is what makes it important IMO.




Depnding on class, con is way more useful than dex.

Con saves help you resist poisons that give you the poisoned condition or keep up concentration. Wisdom saving throws can also easily take you out of combat.

All a dex save does in many cases is reducing damage of a spell by 50%.

Lets take fireball against you at level 5 as probably the best example of a damage spell:

When you can chose between Con 16, Dex 10 and Dex 16, Con 10, we are speaking about a difference of 3 hp per level which is 15 hp at level 5.

Fireball does 28 damage on average, 14 on a successful save so you shrug of the extra damage of the first fireball with your extra hp. Your chances to save are just 15% lower. I'd take con everyday over dex.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 25, 2022)

Staffan said:


> 13th Age has a Physical and a Mental defense where Physical uses the middle stat of Strength/Dexterity/Constitution and Mental uses the middle stat of Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma.



Probably the best idea (well, I'm only this far in the thread).


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Con saves help you resist poisons that give you the poisoned condition or keep up concentration. Wisdom saving throws can also easily take you out of combat.




Only on a saving throw as far as I know.  Being a Dwarf gives you resistance, but as far as I know there is no benefit to constitution and poision other than the saving throw.

When I pointed out Con was not that useful I stipulated it is not that important "other than the save"

I think his point was Constitution was one of the three skills you want anyway and that was not a good design because it makes the already important traits even more important by making them strong saves (it is possible I misunderstood his point).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 25, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Only on a saving throw as far as I know.  Being a Dwarf gives you resistance, but as far as I know there is no benefit to constitution and poision other than the saving throw.
> 
> When I pointed out Con was not that useful I stipulated it is not that important "other than the save"
> 
> I think his point was Constitution was one of the three skills you want anyway and that was not a good design because it makes the already important traits even more important by making them strong saves (it is possible I misunderstood his point).



Then I misunderstood you. But still 15 extra hp are a lot. So con has a very important role.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 25, 2022)

payn said:


> Why are we adding proficiency 1/2 mods to nonproficient saves? Seems like bounded accuracy was set up to stop having to do things like this?



because going 20 levels never improving 4 out of 6 saves is dumb and a BAD idea when casters DCs go up


----------



## RealAlHazred (Oct 25, 2022)

I think saving throws should be different based on what they're in response to. Like, I don't know, say, "dragon's breath," "spells," etc. We could have, like, five or six, and the numbers could change every few levels to make it easier and show progress. I think that would be a pretty unique and new way to do it!


----------



## payn (Oct 25, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> because going 20 levels never improving 4 out of 6 saves is dumb and a BAD idea when casters DCs go up



The problem is the pump and dump stats at no expense...oh wait


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 25, 2022)

payn said:


> The problem is the pump and dump stats at no expense...oh wait



what is pump and dump?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 25, 2022)

I think everyone should have the bard's jack of all trades to a lesser extent... follow the cantrip progression and saves and skills you are not prof in you add +1 at 5th +1 at 11th and +1 at 17th to... but I also think ALL stats should go up at level 10 by 1 (character level not class level)


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 25, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I fight the poison with my fists...
> no thanks



Since Strength represents much more than just how hard you punch things, this is a very silly response, and amounts to a misrepresentation of what Strength means in the game.

It's exactly equivalent to responding to your argument to combine Con and Cha instead by saying "I talk the poison out of affecting me... no thanks."


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 25, 2022)

The think people don't get.

If WOTC doesn't learn the mistakes of the past, then in a 3 save system you WILL have a common save that you won't be able to increase.you weak save. 

In a 3 save system with no lessons learned, the Resilient feat won't and can't exist. And 1/2 the party will have +2 to Will saves vs ALL illusions, enchantments, and psionics and their 15+ DCs.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 25, 2022)

RealAlHazred said:


> I think saving throws should be different based on what they're in response to. Like, I don't know, say, "dragon's breath," "spells," etc. We could have, like, five or six, and the numbers could change every few levels to make it easier and show progress. I think that would be a pretty unique and new way to do it!



And in addition to a non-all-encompassing list, we could have an arbitrary hierarchy because you'd need one due to the overlap in the categories!


----------



## payn (Oct 25, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> what is pump and dump?



Min/max, pick two stats forget the rest, etc...


GMforPowergamers said:


> I think everyone should have the bard's jack of all trades to a lesser extent... follow the cantrip progression and saves and skills you are not prof in you add +1 at 5th +1 at 11th and +1 at 17th to... but I also think ALL stats should go up at level 10 by 1 (character level not class level)



Then what does the Bard get? I like BA because it gets away from this idea you should just get better at everything because level. If you really want that in the game experience PF2 does it as a main feature.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 25, 2022)

payn said:


> Min/max, pick two stats forget the rest, etc...



that isn't what I am talking about though... so


payn said:


> Then what does the Bard get?



TBH the bard needs to get less... the bard without spells is about equal to a fighter or rogue, so it could use some toneing down. 


payn said:


> I like BA because it gets away from this idea you should just get better at everything because level.



yeah why would you get better with experience... oh wait


payn said:


> If you really want that in the game experience PF2 does it as a main feature.



I don't play PF but 4e did it real good


----------



## payn (Oct 25, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> that isn't what I am talking about though... so



Actually, its exactly what you are talking about. 


GMforPowergamers said:


> TBH the bard needs to get less... the bard without spells is about equal to a fighter or rogue, so it could use some toneing down.



Why? So the I hate bard memes can be correct?


GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah why would you get better with experience... oh wait



Right, because everything you are non-proficient in just gets better despite never going for a swim, picking a lock, intimidating anyone, etc...


GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't play PF but 4e did it real good



Then you would really like PF2.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 25, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think everyone should have the bard's jack of all trades to a lesser extent... follow the cantrip progression and saves and skills you are not prof in you add +1 at 5th +1 at 11th and +1 at 17th to... but I also think ALL stats should go up at level 10 by 1 (character level not class level)



Nah I think the opposite - that expertise should only add half your proficiency (i.e. +1 to +3).  Expertise leads to a subconscious desire on the part of DMs to make DCs higher, making it more difficult for untrained, or even trained characters to pass.  Stand by bounded accuracy, keep the upper level tougher to achieve.  At level 20 a character could still have +14 to a roll with expertise compared to +5 untrained.  Number inflation is pointless.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 25, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Since Strength represents much more than just how hard you punch things, this is a very silly response, and amounts to a misrepresentation of what Strength means in the game.




Of course it was a silly response. But also meant seriously. If you combine strength and con, just combine them completely. I don't know if that fits tge fiction of wizards though... I'd probably put concentration checks on a different stat than strength/con


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 25, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> because going 20 levels never improving 4 out of 6 saves is dumb and a BAD idea when casters DCs go up




Only partially correct. If saving throws would be consequently implemented as a duration mechanic, then it should work that way. 

The way I see it, is that we need two kinds of saving throws: initial saving throws to resist and end of turn saving throws to end effects. 

I'd add one extra proficiency bonus (no proficiency - > proficiency, proficiency - > expertise) on the initial saving throw and probably change DC to 9+ instead of 8+

So your chance to resist a spell actually goes up against an even level caster on your profocient saves, but if it sticks on you, you wil have the same duration.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 25, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I fight the poison with my fists...
> no thanks



Ooo... a new 'all your wounds are healed by sleeping' style argument.

I've never seen one being born before. It's amazing how scurrilous that are even hours old.

Edit: Even if you didn't mean it seriously, it will be applied seriously soon enough.


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 25, 2022)

The problem with 5e saves is that you'll have bad saves, at least 2. And when saves are your defense against spells, look at the problem in combat: casters have options, it is easy to pick 3 cantrips that require one save each and the chances you'll have one that is almost certain hit is high. Compare it to a simple attack that always aims AC, and everyone is trying to have high AC, this is unbalanced.
Bad saves always existed, but in 5e they not only increased their quantity but also gave spellcasters spells they can use at-will just like a fighter swinging his sword, and doing the same damage + some special effects!
3e had no at-will spells so the benefit for aiming a lower defense was balanced by the fact that you had to bur a spell slot.
4e also had bad "saves" (called defenses), but at least they gave the martials options to aim Fort/Refl/Will somehow. Not the best solution, but way more balanced.
IMO, more than how many saves the game should have, they should be balanced.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> The problem with 5e saves is that you'll have bad saves, at least 2. And when saves are your defense against spells, look at the problem in combat: casters have options, it is easy to pick 3 cantrips that require one save each and the chances you'll have one that is almost certain hit is high.




I think this is a bad idea.  That is a lot of your cantrips you are investing in and save cantrips do not land as well as attack cantrips generally.  Add to that the intelligence-based cantrips are pretty weak overall in terms of damage.

If you do this you need to "fish" for the low save and that is not easy when you take the dice into play.  You throw down Toll the Dead and he rolls a 3 .... well does he have a bad wisdom or was that just a really low roll?

I also don't think all classes even have cantrips with 3 different saves.  Druids for example only have constitution and dexterity options I think.

This is before you consider uses.  Clerics for example can get Wisdom, Constitution and Dex saves but the con save cantrip (word of radience) requires you to get within 5 feet of the enemy.



leonardozg said:


> Compare it to a simple attack that always aims AC, and everyone is trying to have high AC, this is unbalanced.




No because the target number for a hit is usually lower than the target for a cantrip.  For example at 1st level average AC for foes you are facing should be 13, which means you need an 8 to hit (assuming 16 in prome stat) which means you hit 65% of the time.  Your spell DC is 13 whick means your save cantrips only hit 60% if your enemy has a 0 on the save and chances are good they have higher than 0.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 25, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> The problem with 5e saves is that you'll have bad saves, at least 2. And when saves are your defense against spells, look at the problem in combat: casters have options, it is easy to pick 3 cantrips that require one save each and the chances you'll have one that is almost certain hit is high. Compare it to a simple attack that always aims AC, and everyone is trying to have high AC, this is unbalanced.
> Bad saves always existed, but in 5e they not only increased their quantity but also gave spellcasters spells they can use at-will just like a fighter swinging his sword, and doing the same damage + some special effects!
> 3e had no at-will spells so the benefit for aiming a lower defense was balanced by the fact that you had to bur a spell slot.
> 4e also had bad "saves" (called defenses), but at least they gave the martials options to aim Fort/Refl/Will somehow. Not the best solution, but way more balanced.
> IMO, more than how many saves the game should have, they should be balanced.



My experience is that players don't operate like this and cantrips feel very lacklustre compared to weapon effects, except for Eldritch Blast, which is a bit overpowered.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 25, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Then I misunderstood you. But still 15 extra hp are a lot. So con has a very important role.



Not really.  Not nearly as much as the +1 on the save.

Consider a 1st-level false life will give you half that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 26, 2022)

payn said:


> Actually, its exactly what you are talking about.



no it isn't you are talking about uping a stat every 4 levels and I am talking about the prof bonus


----------



## payn (Oct 26, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't you are talking about uping a stat every 4 levels and I am talking about the prof bonus



Ok, I apologize. I do think you should rock PF2 in addition to D&D. Simply because that design milk shake that you want from WotC is being served right now by Paizo.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 26, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> Personally, I want to go back to having special saves for the same magic _but out of a wand. _



Psst.
Wanna know a secret?

Here's the saving throw table from AD&D 2e:




Take a look at the Rod/Staff/Wand column. Then at the Spell column.
Rod/Staff/Wand is in all cases 1 point lower than the Spell save. The only reason it exists (instead of wands just giving saves at +1) is save priority (the farther left a save category is in the table the higher priority it is, which is why the footnotes has _polymorph wand_ as an exception to Petrification & Polymorph saves.


----------



## Composer99 (Oct 26, 2022)

I'm not sure I'm up for reverting to a mechanical instantiation of 3.X/4e version of saves (whether as saves or as static defences), much less the TSR-era saves.

However, I do have to say that the fact that your saves only scale with level if you are proficient with them has just about never sat well with me. To my mind, what TSR-era saves have going for them that 5e saves ought to emulate is that _they actually get better as you gain levels_.

While 3.X/4e saves/defences increase steadily as you gain levels, that is offset by the fact that monster save DCs or attack rolls, depending on edition, _also_ increased steadily, leading to the treadmill that 5e tries to get away from. In fact without magic items, as far as I'm aware 3.X/4e saves/defences end up falling behind on the treadmill as monster save DCs/attack rolls increase faster than the saves/defences increase innately.

5e saves you're not proficient with have more in common with 3.X/4e than TSR-era saves - not only don't they stay on par with monster save DCs as you gain levels, but because save DCs escalate as the average CR of enemies you face increases, _they get worse over time_. I see this as basically re-creating the worst aspects of the 3.X/4e treadmill.

This doesn't happen with weapon attacks (since basically no one is going to make a habit of making attacks without proficiency), and while it also happens with ability checks, I expect it happens to a lesser extent (because check DCs scaling isn't baked into the system the way save DC scaling is), and in any case it just doesn't rub me the wrong way quite as much.

Suffice to say while I am sure 1D&D won't make any changes to way PC saving throws work, I would much rather that it did approach them with the _spirit_ of TSR-era saves in mind.

(Here I should point out that, to my mind, there is nothing about bounded accuracy _qua_ bounded accuracy that _prohibits_ instantiating saving throws such that player characters just get better at them across the board as they gain levels; the principle of the thing is that the d20 should still be the primary determinant of success.)


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 26, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I think this is a bad idea.  That is a lot of your cantrips you are investing in and save cantrips do not land as well as attack cantrips generally.  Add to that the intelligence-based cantrips are pretty weak overall in terms of damage.
> 
> If you do this you need to "fish" for the low save and that is not easy when you take the dice into play.  You throw down Toll the Dead and he rolls a 3 .... well does he have a bad wisdom or was that just a really low roll?
> 
> ...



So, worst case scenario spellcasters have the same chance martials trying to hit AC, but spellcasters can change the save they'll aim next round.


----------



## ART! (Oct 26, 2022)

I don't want to see that, no. I like the design space created by six saving throws, and without having to add anything to the game - the six Abilities are already there, and not going anywhere. It's seems to good to mess with.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 26, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> But at higher levels PCs are going to have spells, abilities and immunities that either make them immune to many of the things you would need to save against or get advantage on those saves.
> 
> Take a Ranger for example - Nature's veil means he can make him immune to any effect the enemy needs to "see" you with for a lot of enemies.  1st level spells like fog cloud can do the same.



To a degree, yes. But, at higher levels, you could also have NPCs enemies and spellcasting monsters dropping really dangerous AoE stuff on the party, so it's a wash.
Low level characters may have to deal with an Hold Person targeting a couple party members. 
High level parties may have to deal with an enemy using Psychic Scream on the whole party, or a multitude of lower level enemies using Hold Person, Phantasmal Force, Hypnotic Pattern etc at the same time. 


ECMO3 said:


> I don't think this is true either.  Aside from LR many legendary monsters have good/great saves.
> 
> A CR17 adult Red Dragon for example is +8S, +6D, +13C, +7Wis, +3Int, +11CH
> 
> ...



You don't even mention non-legendary monsters (that is, 95% of monsters), so I assume you're conceding the point that the vast majority of monsters are complete trash at saves.

I stand by my point on Legendaries, too. The examples of legendary monsters you provided say it all: a mighty Red dragon is extremely easily affected by an Int save, and you have a fair shot of nailing its Wisdom, too. Without the blunt and inelegant (but again, absolutely necessary) Legendary Resistance feature to patch things up, the red dragon would be screwed.
As for the beholder? Putting aside how exceedingly easy it would be to target its Str save, having a 50/50 shot at mental saves isn't good when you're very likely to be outnumbered, as legendary monsters usually will be (because they're supposedly designed to be "bosses" of sort). 
Nevermind how easy it is to shut down a beholder with a single darkness spell casted over the party...that's just an embarrassing design oversight that has nothing to do with saves.


----------



## Blue (Oct 26, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I have to disagree.



Fair enough.



Olrox17 said:


> 1. The 5e balance only holds true at low levels. Saving throw scaling is very bad, so saves cannot keep up with DCs.
> At first level a typical PC will have 2 good saves it can pass with an 8 or so, another couple of decent saves where it gets a 50/50 shot, and one or two bad saves where a 13 or 14 is needed.
> At level 20, the PC will usually still have two good saves (if they invested a lot in straight +2 ASIs, that is), and _maybe_ another decent 50/50 save if they also took the Resilient Focus feat, but all other saves will be terrible, needing a roll of 18, 19 or 20 to succeed.



This supports my point which was that PCs only have 2 good saves.



Olrox17 said:


> 2. 5e monsters are usually written to be complete trash at saves. Even most (supposedly) legendary monsters would be easily bypassed, if it weren't for their (IMO) inelegant but absolutely necessary Legendary Resistance feature. So, I disagree that 5e handles monster saves well: in fact, I believe it does very poorly.



Let's take a look.  A 17th character will likely have a DC of 8+6(prof)+5(ability) = 19.  So a +9 is 50%.  Let me take a look at some higher CR creatures in the MM to compare.

Storm Giant has four good saves vs. 17th-20th level characters at CR 13.
Balor (CR 19) has four good saves.
Empyrean has four_FIVE_ good saves.  It has four listed as enhanced:  Str +17, Int +12, Wis +13, Chr +15.  But the default so Con is +10 so it also qualifies.
Kraken (CR24) has four good saves.
Ancient Red Dragon has 3 good saves (50% or better), and one almost there.  Heck, an adult red almost has the same.  I'm not going to go through all the dragons, but assume there are more.
Solar (CR21) has three amazing saves.
Planetar (CR 16) has 3 good saves.
Marilith (CR 16) has three good save, and WIS only misses by 1 at +8.
Androsphinx (CR 17) has three good saves.
Demilich (CR18) has three good saves.
Lich (CR21) has three good saves.

I think the facts speak for themselves, that creatures have up to 4 good saves sort of depending on their Epicness.



Olrox17 said:


> 3. Are you aware that the 4e save system allows for other scores beside Dex, Con and Wis to contribute to Reflex, Fort and Will? A 10 Dex, 20 Int character would sport a +5 to Reflex. If anything, this is exactly what's needed to move away from the sheer power of Dex, Con and Wis.



Thank you for reminding me of that, that's a good point.  Though Con and Wis aren't "sheer power".  I've got people in this same thread putting down both of them as not a big deal.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 26, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> My experience is that players don't operate like this and cantrips feel very lacklustre compared to weapon effects, except for Eldritch Blast, which is a bit overpowered.



EB is not nearly as good as a weapon attack unless you get the agonizing blast evocation through a feat or Warlock class and that is a high price to pay to boost it.  

Without that EB does the same average damage as a dagger with a 16 in your attack ability.   At no point do I think it is straight overpowered compared to weapons (compared to other cantrips yes).


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 26, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> So, worst case scenario spellcasters have the same chance martials trying to hit AC, but spellcasters can change the save they'll aim next round.



No not worst case.  The example I gave you attacks were better, more like best case, on top of this attacks also crit where saves don't and they generally do more base damage than save cantrips.

Spell casters can change out to try to figure this out, but unless they have metagame knowledge of the monster it will not be very efficient.   Assuming the DM lets you see the roll, you have about a 25% chance of gaining some insight based on his roll on a save.  With a 13 DC, if he rolls between a 10 and 14 it is useful but still not very telling on a single roll alone.  Any other number lower than 10 or higher than 14 is almost useless by itself unless he has extremely good or bad saves, and that is assuming the DM does public rolls

So statistically it is normally going to take 2-3 rounds (sometimes more) to get any useful information at all and even then your info is limited.

Example: your DC 13 Wizard tolls the dead on the bad guy and he rolls a 9 and fails.  You don't know much from that, so you toll the dead again and he rolls a 15 and saves.  You still don't know much.  Then you toll the dead a 3rd time and he rolls a 14 and saves.  Ok you have spent 3 turns doing this and you know his save is better than -2 and less than +4.  This example is BETTER than it will usually be as all 3 of these rolls fall in the middle 50% of the distribution. Distribute it more widely where one of these is a 3 and the other an 18 and you still know basically nothing after 3 attempts.

If the DM does not do public rolls it is going to take dozens of rolls to get this right with any sort of reliability.

Add into this the difference in damage and you have something you can't typically figure out without observing many rolls.  Say I am considering targeting intelligence with mind sliver and 1d4 damage vs wisdom with toll the dead with 1d12 damage.  Now you need to consider not only the save but the damage since TTD does well over twice as much damage on average.  So casting TTD against someone with a +2 is going to do more damage on average than casting a mind sliver against someone with an automatic fail.

Give me an example with real numbers and real hypothetical rolls to show me how you would actually use this to determine which of these is the best choice.  Or better yet roll it out on your kitchen table 3 times and let me know what you find out.


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 26, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> So statistically it is normally going to take 2-3 rounds (sometimes more) to get any useful information at all and even then your info is limited.



How many rounds it will take for a martial to figure out that the target has a good AC and then what he'll do with this information? He can only target AC, that's my point: lack of choice.
You have to take in consideration that saves scale very badly, it's not hard to have a +11 Dex save in level 20 and -1 in Int save. A level 20 spellcaster can easily have spell DC 19 and in no more than 6 round he'll find out the save that the target needs a 20 (95% success). He'll not be sure, ok, but when he targets Dex save, he has the same chance to hit then a fighter with +11 to hit against a 19 AC, easy values for level 20.
The opposite case where a fighter needs 2 or more to hit (95%) is really challenging to find. And against a target with good AC he has no option other than keep aiming AC.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 26, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> How many rounds it will take for a martial to figure out that the target has a good AC and then what he'll do with this information? He can only target AC, that's my point: lack of choice.
> You have to take in consideration that saves scale very badly, it's not hard to have a +11 Dex save in level 20 and -1 in Int save. A level 20 spellcaster can easily have spell DC 19 and in no more than 6 round he'll find out the save that the target needs a 20 (95% success). He'll not be sure, ok, but when he targets Dex save, he has the same chance to hit then a fighter with +11 to hit against a 19 AC, easy values for level 20.
> The opposite case where a fighter needs 2 or more to hit (95%) is really challenging to find. And against a target with good AC he has no option other than keep aiming AC.



Can you name some monsters with what you consider "good ac"?  A fighter at that same level 20 you note is going to have +11 to hit and pointing at isolated lehsndary boss monster types ignores the reprehensible design of 5e where the gm is expected to fit six to eight medium to hard encounters in every adventuring day.... It would be quite an unusual world with support for multiple ancient dragons & tsrrasque being slaughtered by an adventuring party every day.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 26, 2022)

Blue said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> This supports my point which was that PCs only have 2 good saves.
> ...



At that level, it doesn't matter how many good saves they have because a lot of those guys have 'Autocheat Three Times' as an ability.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 26, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Not really.  Not nearly as much as the +1 on the save.
> 
> Consider a 1st-level false life will give you half that.




I disagree. A 0 level resistance gives you +1d4 on a save.
You realy value a 1 in 20 chance higher than 5hp at level 5?


----------



## Andvari (Oct 26, 2022)

The Rules Cyclopedia for BECM(I) offers optional rules for saving throws which allow all ability scores, except for Charisma, to contribute. The optional rule is applied on top of the existing saving throw system (save vs breath, save vs rods, save vs spells etc.), which improves PCs' saves automatically as they level.



> *Ability Scores and Saving Throws*
> 
> In the standard rules, the only ability score
> that can affect a saving throw is Wisdom (affects
> ...




One thing I like about Wisdom as a general save against spells in that system is that it helps clerics resist those effects a little better, enabling them to better use their support spells to aid allies who fail their saves.

I do think saves should improve as characters level. Bad and good saves can remain bad and good, but I prefer it to be relative to the DCs a PC can be reasonably expected to face as they increase in level.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 26, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> EB is not nearly as good as a weapon attack unless you get the agonizing blast evocation through a feat or Warlock class and that is a high price to pay to boost it.
> 
> Without that EB does the same average damage as a dagger with a 16 in your attack ability.   At no point do I think it is straight overpowered compared to weapons (compared to other cantrips yes).



Yes I was referring to agonising blast.  You say it's a high price to pay and yet most Warlocks are willing to pay it.   I wish Warlock improvements existed for other cantrips too.  It might be more balanced, albeit far less popular, if the damage only applied once per round.  In fact layering that on top of all the invocations might please me and just ditch agonising blast.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 26, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Yes I was referring to agonising blast.  You say it's a high price to pay and yet most Warlocks are willing to pay it.   I wish Warlock improvements existed for other cantrips too.  It might be more balanced, albeit far less popular, if the damage only applied once per round.  In fact layering that on top of all the invocations might please me and just ditch agonising blast.



The buy in for agonizing blast for EB is cost for multiclass dip.
you need 2 levels and you need one out of two invocations that you get at 2nd level.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 26, 2022)

I think it would be interesting if different spells had different DCs (or DC modifiers, same difference). The way I'd do it that low-stakes debuffs would have very high DCs, while higher-stakes one would have fairly low ones. So something like _bane_ or _faerie fire_ would be a near auto-hit, while something like _banishment_ would be significantly less likely to work.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 26, 2022)

Staffan said:


> I think it would be interesting if different spells had different DCs (or DC modifiers, same difference). The way I'd do it that low-stakes debuffs would have very high DCs, while higher-stakes one would have fairly low ones. So something like _bane_ or _faerie fire_ would be a near auto-hit, while something like _banishment_ would be significantly less likely to work.



please no.

that would lead to all kind of mess.
certain spells, in certain circumstances could give disadvantage on save vs it's effect.

better balance would be:

1. no save
2. partial effect on save
3. no effect on save.

but I would not want any spell to have no effect on save.
It's a limited daily resource, so all spells(except cantrips) should have partial or half effect(damage) on successful save or missed attack roll.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 26, 2022)

Staffan said:


> I think it would be interesting if different spells had different DCs (or DC modifiers, same difference). The way I'd do it that low-stakes debuffs would have very high DCs, while higher-stakes one would have fairly low ones. So something like _bane_ or _faerie fire_ would be a near auto-hit, while something like _banishment_ would be significantly less likely to work.



That's a really complicated way to imiment spell resistance just to avoid giving some monsters a spell resistance value for the needed spell raft check  when casting a SR:yes spell & adding a ST: yes/no tag logically set to each spell.

SR was a useful & meaningful tool that added a lot but this would just be a pointless complexity to avoid calling it or letting it look like spell resistance


----------



## Staffan (Oct 26, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> That's a really complicated way to imiment spell resistance just to avoid giving some monsters a spell resistance value for the needed spell raft check  when casting a SR:yes spell & adding a ST: yes/no tag logically swt to each spell.
> 
> AR was a useful & meaningful tool that added a lot but this would just be a pointless complexity to avoid calling it or letting it look like spell resistance



The intent would be to make "setup" spells easy to succeed with, and "effect" spells hard. 3e Spell Resistance generally dealt with whether a spell had a direct or indirect effect, which is a different issue.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 26, 2022)

Staffan said:


> The intent would be to make "setup" spells easy to succeed with, and "effect" spells hard. 3e Spell Resistance generally dealt with whether a spell had a direct or indirect effect, which is a different issue.



What the heck is a "set up spell"?


----------



## Horwath (Oct 26, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> What the heck is a "set up spell"?



I would say any spell than makes your/your allies attacks easier to land or make enemy attacks less likely to land.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> The buy in for agonizing blast for EB is cost for multiclass dip.
> you need 2 levels and you need one out of two invocations that you get at 2nd level.



EB is not a spell any more so it may only scale with warlock levels.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 26, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I would say any spell than makes your/your allies attacks easier to land or make enemy attacks less likely to land.



That sounds like a round about description of "debuffs". There were very good reasons why some debuffs were Sr yes & others Sr no.  Specifically ones like web & grease  were sr no because they impacted the environment without automatically crippling the impacted targets in a save or suck/lose situation even if they put a crimp on movement options.  Spells like faerie-fire bane & feeblemind were Sr yes because  they were powerful save or suck/lose spells that could with a single die roll nullify even what would now by considered an "elite monster" or once (in 4e?)  a "solo monster".

Since it was usually blasters who focused on things like spell penetration other casters like God wizards focused on things like buff/debuff/control spells when faced with sr possessing monsters were incentivized to lean on environment shaping spells & buffs since those did not usually involve sr.  The overuse of concentration would need to be fixed in 5.5/6e to make that a meaningful option though.


----------



## Blue (Oct 26, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> At that level, it doesn't matter how many good saves they have because a lot of those guys have 'Autocheat Three Times' as an ability.



Which is true, but not the point I was talking about.

And it's a required gamist balance point.  With bounded accuracy ensuring that players don't just whiff alot, even good saves have a reasonable chance of failure.  So with the action economy of a party vs. a solo and the existance of save-or-suck spells, legendary saves are basically required to stop solo fights from being short, disappointing affairs if the casters have the right spells.  It's no more a "cheat" then giving monsters more HPs than PCs can ever get so they last for several rounds.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 26, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> What the heck is a "set up spell"?



Spells have different jobs. Some spells directly impact a foe, e.g. by doing damage, stunning them, and so on. Others are designed more to soften the target up for other spells and/or characters to have an impact on the target.

For example, _faerie fire_ doesn't do much by itself. But it does give others advantage on attacking the target. It's a spell that sets the target up for increased damage from the party damage dealers, hence "setup spell". I think that this kind of spell should be easier to "hit" with than actual damage spells.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 26, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Spells have different jobs. Some spells directly impact a foe, e.g. by doing damage, stunning them, and so on. Others are designed more to soften the target up for other spells and/or characters to have an impact on the target.
> 
> For example, _faerie fire_ doesn't do much by itself. But it does give others advantage on attacking the target. It's a spell that sets the target up for increased damage from the party damage dealers, hence "setup spell". I think that this kind of spell should be easier to "hit" with than actual damage spells.



Why the effort trying to invent new terms for commonly understood existing jargon that's well understood even beyond ttrpg circles?  *How is this distinct enough to not just be "debuff" or something?*  d&d once had a nuanced subsystem for what you seem to be talking about


Spoiler: 3.x dmg298



SPELL RESISTANCE
Spell resistance is the extraordinary ability to avoid being affected by spells. (Some spells also grant spell resistance.) To affect a creature that has spell resistance, a spellcaster must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature’s spell resistance. (The defender’s spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks.) If the caster fails the check, the spell doesn’t affect the creature. The possessor does not have to do anything special to use spell resistance. The creature need not even be aware of the threat for its spell resistance to operate.

Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement
bonuses on magic weapons) are not. For example, the fear effect from a rod of lordly might is subject to spell resistance because it is a
spell-like effect. The rod’s combat bonuses (such as the +2 bonus from the rod’s mace form) are not. A creature can have some abilities that are subject to spell resistance and some that are not. For example, an androsphinx’s divine spells are subject to spell resistance, but its roar is not. (The roar is a supernatural ability.) A, cleric’s spells are subject to spell resistance, but his use of positive or negative energy is not. Even some spells ignore spell resistance; see When Spell Resistance Applies, below.

A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature’s next turn. At the beginning of the creature’s next turn, the creature’s spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).

A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities. A creature with spell resistance cannot impart this power to others by touching them or standing in their midst. Only the rarest of creatures and a few magic items have the ability to bestow spell resistance upon another.

Spell resistance does not stack. It overlaps. If a cleric wearing +1 chainmail that grants him spell resistance 15 casts holy aura, which grants spell resistance 25 against evil spells and spells cast by evil creatures, he has spell resistance 25 against the aforementioned spells and spell resistance 15 against other spells and spell-like abilities.

When Spell Resistance Applies Each spell described in the Player’s Handbook includes an entry that indicates whether spell resistance applies to the spell. In general, whether spell resistance applies depends on what the spell does:
*Targeted Spells: *Spell resistance applies if the spell is targeted at the creature. Some individually targeted spells, such as magic missile when cast by a 3rd-level caster, can be directed at several creatures simultaneously. In such cases, a creature’s spell resistance applies only to the portion of the spell actually targeted at that creature. If several different resistant creatures are subjected to such a spell, each checks its spell resistance separately.

*Area Spells:* Spell resistance applies if the resistant creature is within the spell’s area. It protects the resistant creature without affecting the spell itself.

*Effect Spells: *Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. For instance, summon monster I summons a monster that can attack a creature with spell resistance normally. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web.

Spell resistance can protect a creature from a spell that’s already been cast. Check spell resistance when the creature is first affected by the spell. For example, if an ogre mage flies within 10 feet of a wall of fire, the caster must make a caster level check against the ogre mage’s spell resistance of 18. If the caster fails, the wall does not damage the ogre mage.

Check spell resistance only once for any particular casting of a spell or use of a spell-like ability. If spell resistance fails the first time, it fails each time the creature encounters that same casting of the spell. Likewise, if the spell resistance succeeds the first time, it always succeeds. For example, a succubus encounters Jozan’s blade barrier spell. If the cleric makes a successful roll to overcome the spell resistance of the succubus, the creature takes damage from the spell. If the succubus survives and enters that particular blade barrier a second time, the creature will be damaged again. No second roll is needed. If the creature has voluntarily lowered its spell resistance and is then subjected to a spell, the creature still has a single chance to resist that spell later, when its spell resistance is up.

Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature’s mind or body. If the spell acts on anything else (the air, the ground, the room’s light), and the creature is affected as a consequence, no roll is required. Creatures can be harmed by a spell without being directly affected. For example, a daylight spell harms a dark elf because drow have light blindness. Daylight, however, usually is cast on the area containing the drow, making it bright, not on the drow itself, so the effect is indirect. Spell resistance would only apply if someone tried to cast daylight on an object the drow was holding.

Spell resistance does not apply if an effect fools the creature’s senses or reveals something about the creature, such as minor illusion or detect thoughts does.

Magic actually has to be working for spell resistance to apply. Spells that have instantaneous durations but lasting results aren’t subject to spell resistance unless the resistant creature is exposed to the spell the instant it is cast. For example, a creature with spell resistance can’t undo a wall of stone that has already been cast. When in doubt about whether a spell’s effect is direct or indirect, consider the spell’s school:

*Abjuration:* The target creature must be harmed, changed, or restricted in some manner for spell resistance to apply. Perception changes, such as nondetection, aren’t subject to spell resistance. Abjurations that block or negate attacks are not subject to an attacker’s spell resistance—it is the protected creature that is affected by the spell (becoming immune or resistant to the attack).

*Conjuration: *These spells are usually not subject to spell resistance unless the spell conjures some form of energy, such as Melf ’s acid arrow or power word stun. Spells that summon creatures or produce effects that function like creatures are not subject to spell resistance.

*Divination:* These spells do not affect creatures directly and are not subject to spell resistance, even though what they reveal about a creature might be very damaging.

*Enchantment:* Since enchantment spells affect creatures’ minds, they are typically subject to spell resistance.

*Evocation*: If an evocation spell deals damage to the creature, it has a direct effect. If the spell damages something else, it has an
indirect effect. For example, a lightning bolt cast at a resistant creature is subject to spell resistance (which would protect only the
creature but would not affect the spell itself ). If the lightning bolt is cast at a chamber’s ceiling, bringing down a rain of debris, it is not subject to spell resistance.

*Illusion:* These spells are almost never subject to spell resistance. Illusions that entail a direct attack, such as phantasmal killer or shadow evocation, are exceptions.

*Necromancy*: Most of these spells alter the target creature’s life force and are subject to spell resistance. Unusual necromancy spells, such as spectral hand, don’t affect other creatures directly and are not subject to spell resistance.

*Transmutation:* These spells are subject to spell resistance if they transform the target creature. Transmutation spells are not
subject to spell resistance if they are targeted on a point in space instead of on a creature. Transmute rock to mud and entangle change
a creature’s surroundings, not the creature itself, and are not subject to spell resistance. Some transmutations make objects harmful (or
more harmful), such as magic stone. Even these spells are not generally subject to spell resistance because they affect the objects, not the creatures against which the objects are used. Spell resistance works against magic stone only if the creature with spell resistance is holding the stones when the cleric casts magic stone on them.

Successful Spell Resistance

Spell resistance prevents a spell or a spell-like ability from affecting or harming the resistant creature, but it never removes a magical effect from another creature or negates a spell’s effect on another creature. Spell resistance prevents a spell from disrupting
another spell.

Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to
ignore any effect the spell might have. The magic continues to affect others normally.





Spoiler: and the MM pg300 BTC guidance



ehind the curtain: Spell Resistance & Damage Reduction
Too much spell resistance or damage reduction can' make a monster virtually unbeatable at the Challenge Rating you're aiming for. *Too little, and the monster might as well not: have any at all. Since any character will havee the caster level or magic weaponry necessary to penetrate the creature's defense.*
Spell Resistance: If you choose to give your monster this ability. you'll probably want to set the resistance number equal to the creature's CR+11 This means that a character of a level equal to the creature's will have a 50%”: chance to overcome the monster's spell resistance (Barring Spell Penetration Feat). For example. a 12th-levecharacter has a 50% chance to overcome spell resistance 23, so 23 is
a good spell res-stance number for a CR 12 creature. You may need to adjust a creature's spell resistance number after
you ﬁnally settle on a CR {or the creature...
If you want a highly magic-resistant creature. set the monster's spell resistance higher than CR +11 For lesser resistance set the spell resistance lower. For each point of resistance. you'll change the change the chance of successfully overcoming spell resistance by 5%. For example. a 12tlevel caster has a 45% chance to overcome spell resistance 24. and no chance to overcome spell resistance 33
*Damage Reduction:* Assigning a damage reduction value can be tricky. Setting the value. too high can make a creature virtually immune
to physical attacks. On the other hand. most player characters carry some magic weapons. so setting the value too low can result in an ineffective ability.
Recommended
Target CR - Recommended Damage Reduction
0~2 - None
3—5 - 5
6—13 - 10
14-20 - 15

Remember. even if player characters can hurt the monster. lesser creatures in the game world often cannot hurt the creature. nor can the
player character's cohorts or any creatures their summon.



"Set up spell" sounds like a term that falls somewhere between engrish translations or looking back at the efforts of old scifi to come up with what seemed like futuristic sounding terms for "computer"


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 26, 2022)

lets do some math...

lets take the basic array 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

you get +2 to 1 and +1 to another... I will end up with 
16 15 14 12 10 8 (not bad I can totally make a character out of that)
we will give the 2 prof saves to the 12 and the 16
16 (+5) 15 (+2) 14 (+2) 12 (+3) and 8 (-1)

DMG


> Use the Table. You can start with the monster's expected challenge rating and use the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table to determine an appropriate save DC for any effect that requires a target to make a saving throw.
> 
> Calculate the DCs. Alternatively, you can calculate a monster's save DCs as follows: 8 + the monster's proficiency bonus + the monster's relevant ability modifier. You choose the ability that best applies. For example, if the effect is a poison, the relevant ability is probably the monster's Constitution. If the effect is similar to that of a spell, the relevant ability might be the monster's Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.
> 
> Don't worry if the save DCs aren't matching up with the expected challenge rating for the monster. Other factors can affect a monster's challenge rating, as shown in later steps, and you can always adjust the sa - DCs later on.




here is a redit post with a break down of monsters  
Okay so at CR 1/4-4 (what I would expect to come across most often in the +2 prof days) you have 13 DCs
At CR 16-21 (what I expect most 13-17th level characters with a +5 prof to see) you have a 18-21 DC range...


so at the start you make your best save in an 8 your worst on a 14

level ups are hard to calculate... do you up stats or take feats (or multi class like I do alot to keep spellcasting from getting out of hand) but the prof is for sure... I think assumeing a +1 magic is not too far out there...

no stat increase 
16 (+9) 15 (+3) 14 (+3) 12 (+7) and 8 (-)

up your prime stat to 20, and secondary to 18
20 (+11) 18 (+5) 14 (+3) 12 (+7) and 8 (-)

up prime to 18 and secondary to 16 and the 8 to a 10
18 (+10) 16 (+4) 14 (+3) 12 (+7) and 10 (+1)

3 arrays and we can do out what you need to make best and worst... so 
DC 18 if no stat boost you need a 9 if some but not max you need an 8 and if you max it you need a 7.
Your best save on the low end of the spectrum is running on a treadmill
DC 21  if no stat boost you need a 12 if some but not max you need an 11 and if you max it you need a 10.
Your best save on the high end is WORSE for you then you started.

Worst save is either a straight roll or +1 
DC 18 if no stat boost you need a 17 if some but not max you need an 16 
Your save save is so bad you might as well not try... it WISHES it was ONLY on a treadmill
DC 21  if no stat boost you need a - opps nat 20 doesn't auto pass in 5e no save for you... if some but not max you need a nat 20
Your worse save might just be an auto fail, but if it's not it might as well be...

you go from (best save in an 8 your worst on a 14)  35%- 60%  to (best needing 7-9 and worse 20) 60%-5% 

you don't get better at avoiding threats that are level appropriate you get WORSE>


----------



## Vaalingrade (Oct 26, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> you don't get better at avoiding threats that are level appropriate you get WORSE>



A small price to pay for flat math... somehow.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 26, 2022)

I'm a little torn because part of me likes the six saving throw system we have, but another part of me thinks it would be better to go back to fort, ref, will. I'd probably mix and match 3e and 4e so that they are still saves, but the highest of 2 scores are added to them: Fort (str or con), Ref (dex or int), Will (wis or cha).


----------



## Marcotic (Oct 26, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Can we return to the 4e NADs instead? That had actual gameplay and worldbuilding benefits, encouraging both simplicity of mechanics and variety of abilities while only changing who rolls for some things.



That's 4e though. It doesn't seem like a strike against it, but it is I guess?


----------



## Staffan (Oct 26, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Why the effort trying to invent new terms for commonly understood existing jargon that's well understood even beyond ttrpg circles?  *How is this distinct enough to not just be "debuff" or something?*  d&d once had a nuanced subsystem for what you seem to be talking about
> 
> SPELL RESISTANCE



Spell Resistance (and formerly Magic Resistance) is/was something completely different (cue Monty Python here). Spell resistance was the ability to completely shrug off direct magic, but did not work against magic acting indirectly (it would prevent you from being dominated, but it wouldn't help if I dominate your buddy and make him attack you). It was also a fairly rare ability, mostly used for highly magical creatures like outsiders, dragons, and some aberrations.

What I'm after is something more akin to Pathfinder 2's designation of certain abilities as "Incapacitation" (although using a different method). In PF2, a debuff that can negate a combatants ability to fight entirely, or nearly so, will usually have a tag called Incapacitation. This includes things like _blindness_, _paralyze_, _charm_, and so on. These are things that essentially end a fight. The effect in PF2 is that if you use such an ability on a creature with level higher than double the spell's level (or higher than your level if it's a non-spell), the target improves the result of their save one step (critical failure to failure to success to critical success). This combined with PF2's rapidly escalating numerical values means that such spells are virtually useless against higher-level creatures.

I would instead go the other way and have spells and abilities that debuff *without* incapacitating be more or less automatic. You already have this on some spells – there's no save against _hunter's mark_, for example. That's because while it is technically a debuff on the target, it acts more like a buff on the caster – the caster deals more damage and has advantage on certain checks. Similarly, while _bane_ technically gives the enemy a penalty to attacks, the net effect is similar to giving yourself/your allies an AC bonus.


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 27, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Can you name some monsters with what you consider "good ac"?  A fighter at that same level 20 you note is going to have +11 to hit and pointing at isolated lehsndary boss monster types ignores the reprehensible design of 5e where the gm is expected to fit six to eight medium to hard encounters in every adventuring day.... It would be quite an unusual world with support for multiple ancient dragons & tsrrasque being slaughtered by an adventuring party every day.



From Dungeon of the Mad Mage, an adventure that ends in high tier levels. Shadowdusk Hold & Mad Wizard's Lair levels (for characters above 17th level), non-boss enemies:

MonsterCRACLowest SaveChance of avoiding a martial +11 attackChance of avoiding a spellcaster DC 19 spellCantripChampion9​18​0 (Str)30%​10%​Lightning LureWill-O'-Wisp2​19​+1 (Int)35%​15%​Mind SliverScaladar8​19​-5 (Int)35%​0%​Mind SliverHelmed Horror4​20​0 (Wis)40%​19%​Toll the Dead

Of course, there are monsters that is better to aim AC, but for these the spellcaster can have 1 attack cantrip and it's a draw.
So, when aiming AC is better, martials and spellcasters have the same to hit chance, but when aiming a Save is better, the martials can't do it so they have lower to hit chance. It happens because AC is just one and Saves are 6 and spellcasters can test for the worst Save.

What is better? To have a only one Defense (AC) 16 or to have two Defenses (Saves) 14 and 18 and the attacker being able to chose which one to attack?


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 27, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> From Dungeon of the Mad Mage, an adventure that ends in high tier levels. Shadowdusk Hold & Mad Wizard's Lair levels (for characters above 17th level), non-boss enemies:
> 
> MonsterCRACLowest SaveChance of avoiding *a* martial +11 attackChance of avoiding *a *spellcaster DC 19 spellCantripChampion9​18​0 (Str)30%​10%​Lightning LureWill-O'-Wisp2​19​+1 (Int)35%​15%​Mind SliverScaladar8​19​-5 (Int)35%​0%​Mind Sliver*Helmed Horror*4​20​0 (Wis)40%​19%​*Toll the Dead*
> 
> ...



Here I thought by "high ac" you meant monsters that _actually_ had high ac.  Those ACs are functional at best & far too low to be considered "high AC" as characters progress through tier3 levels.  You _do_ realize that the fighter * A:*  willbe making 4 attacks.* B:* will almost certainly have a +1 weapon +2 weapon or better else something like the magic weapon spell *C:* may have advantage on each of those rolls from pack tactics or a poorly designed flanking rule.  *D*: may have advantage if the target is prone or stunned. *E:* Most importantly is not consuming anything but an action & will never run out of attack slots or something.  

Amazingly you even listed a necrotic cantrip against the helmed horror which has necrotic immunity in addition to the magic resistance for advantage on the save.  Advantage tends to amount to roughly a +5 to the average.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 27, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Here I thought by "high ac" you meant monsters that _actually_ had high ac.  Those ACs are functional at best & far too low to be considered "high AC" as characters progress through tier3 levels.  You _do_ realize that the fighter * A:*  willbe making 4 attacks.* B:* will almost certainly have a +1 weapon +2 weapon or better else something like the magic weapon spell *C:* may have advantage on each of those rolls from pack tactics or a poorly designed flanking rule.  *D*: may have advantage if the target is prone or stunned. *E:* Most importantly is not consuming anything but an action & will never run out of attack slots or something.
> 
> Amazingly you even listed a necrotic cantrip against the helmed horror which has necrotic immunity in addition to the magic resistance for advantage on the save.  Advantage tends to amount to roughly a +5 to the average.



IME very few groups play with flanking ..... because like you said it is terrible.

There are several groups I played with that started out using it and the DM canned it after a few levels.  I've only had one campaign in the last several years where the DM stuck with flanking for more than a few sessions, and that is not a combat-centric campaign.  We have like 1 combat every 3 days or so.

Also I find proned causes disadvantage more than it causes advantage because there are more people making ranged attacks typically than there are making melee attacks.  Proned is actually one of the few times my casters will go to a ranged save cantrip.

I do agree with your overall point though and those "high" ACs are going to be hit by attacks a lot at appropriate levels .... a lot more than saves will land.

Even without considering this though, it hardly puts the wizard ahead.  Lighting Lure is doing 19 damage, mind sliver is doing 14 damage and toll the dead is doing 26 if the enemy is already damaged or 18 if he is not.  A fighter is doing about 40 on an attack routine before you consider fighting style, subclass damage, magic weapons bonuses, feats etc.

70% of 40 damage (28) is  WAY more than 90% of 19 (17).
65% of 40 (26) is WAY more than 85% of 14 (12)
65% of 40 (26) is still WAY more than 100% of 14 (14)
60% of 40 (24) is more than 81% of 26 (21) even if he was already damaged and was not immune.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I disagree. A 0 level resistance gives you +1d4 on a save.
> You realy value a 1 in 20 chance higher than 5hp at level 5?



I didn'tsay resistance, I said false life.  A 1st level false life is 6.5 temp hp, a 3rd level false life (which you can cast at 5th level) is 16.5 hps on average.  2 points in constitution at 5th level will  give you 10 more hps.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 27, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> To a degree, yes. But, at higher levels, you could also have NPCs enemies and spellcasting monsters dropping really dangerous AoE stuff on the party, so it's a wash.




No it is not awash, sure they have powerful abilities but yous spells beat those.  Counter spell BEATS a spell of equal level and has a good chance of beating a spell of higher level and that is before you make the save.  Death Ward Beats disintegrate beforeyou even have to roll a save.

I find 1st level to be the most deadly and this is directly counter to this hypothesis.  If the hypothesis were true things would get harder as you level and they don't, they get easier.  I have only had one character over level 3 hard die in a campaign in the last 3 years and he only died because he sacrificed himself to close a gate too the elemental plane of water and then drowned on the other side of it, he did not actually die in combat from failing a save.



Olrox17 said:


> Low level characters may have to deal with an Hold Person targeting a couple party members.
> High level parties may have to deal with an enemy using Psychic Scream on the whole party, or a multitude of lower level enemies using Hold Person, Phantasmal Force, Hypnotic Pattern etc at the same time.




Hold person is going to kill 3rd level characters A LOT faster than psychich scream will kill 17th level characters.  

14d6 is not going to kill anyone at that level and while the stun is significant, counterspell cast at 3rd level will flat kill it 35% of the time ON A 3RD LEVEL SLOT and chances are you are not going to counter at 3rd level, you are going to use the highest slot you have.  

If you are close to the Paladin you have a +5 to your save.  If it takes effect dispel magic or cleansing touch eliminates it and many characters are probably running around with a contingency if they get immobilized like that.  

On top of all this your Wizard has proficiency on this save and so does his Simulacrum and both of them have counterspell, dispel magic and if you knew you were going up against an enemy with psychic scream they probably have anti-magic shell.

The point is everything I mentioned here is available LONG before psychic scream is available and before you say "only if you prepared it" ...... if I am pushed I can use wish to create any of these effects, so I only need to prepare one spell to have all of these options at my disposal.




Olrox17 said:


> You don't even mention non-legendary monsters (that is, 95% of monsters), so I assume you're conceding the point that the vast majority of monsters are complete trash at saves.




I was respnding to someone who made a point about legendary monsters specifically and claimed (falsely) that even legendary monsters don't have good saves other than legendary resistance.  I believe I qouted him if you want to take that in context.

In play enemies make saves all the time.  It is quite rare that you throw down an AOE or multi target spell and all of them fail.  By contrast it is far more common that you target a single enemy and he makes that save.



Olrox17 said:


> I stand by my point on Legendaries, too. The examples of legendary monsters you provided say it all: a mighty Red dragon is extremely easily affected by an Int save, and you have a fair shot of nailing its Wisdom, too. Without the blunt and inelegant (but again, absolutely necessary) Legendary Resistance feature to patch things up, the red dragon would be screwed.




Not easily.  For one thing he will flat make 25% of his intelligence saves against a 20th level caster, even without legendary resistance and he is a 13 CR enemy, so he should  not be going against a level 20 caster.   Against a level 13 caster he is going to make 35%, against a level 8 caster (which is probably when you would meet him) he is going to make 40% of them.

Why don't you tell me what spells your 8th level Cleric, Druid or Ranger are going to throw against this Dragon's intelligence that are going to completely overwhelm him and turn this into an easy fight?




Olrox17 said:


> As for the beholder? Putting aside how exceedingly easy it would be to target its Str s




Examples of spells you would use to target strength saves and take down this beholder please.



Olrox17 said:


> Nevermind how easy it is to shut down a beholder with a single darkness spell casted over the party...that's just an embarrassing design oversight that has nothing to do with saves.



Sure, but this has nothing at all to do with his saves.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 27, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> How many rounds it will take for a martial to figure out that the target has a good AC and then what he'll do with this information? He can only target AC, that's my point: lack of choice.




A good AC is a lot weaker than a good save and because he is making multiple attacks a round, and other party members are as well, it will be much quicker.  In a party of 4 with 1 martial you are probably looking at 1-2 rounds on average to get a good idea of what AC is.



leonardozg said:


> You have to take in consideration that saves scale very badly, it's not hard to have a +11 Dex save in level 20 and -1 in Int save.




Can you provide an example of a monster with this (+11 Dex, -1 Intelligence)?  If it is really not uncommon then there should be many examples.




leonardozg said:


> A level 20 spellcaster can easily have spell DC 19 and in no more than 6 round he'll find out the save that the target needs a 20 (95% success).




Most fights won't last 6 rounds and he will not find this out.

Give me real world examples here and tell me what spells your cleric will cast, in what order to find this out in 6 rounds.

If your cleric casts a DC 19 flamestrike spell in round 1 to probe his dex save and that strawman you mentioned above with a +11 dex rolls a 6 then he just failed, and you either know nothing about his dex save (if you saw the roll) or you incorrectly come to the conclusion he has a poor dex save (if you didn't see the roll) .... _"hey guys dexterity works, target dexterity"  _



leonardozg said:


> The opposite case where a fighter needs 2 or more to hit (95%) is really challenging to find. And against a target with good AC he has no option other than keep aiming AC.




It is actually more common than needing a 20 to save, especially when you consider ubiquitous magic weapons, fighting styles and subclass abilities.

A 20th level Samaurai with archery, elven accuracy, a +1 bow using a bonus action to get advantage will hit a 22AC over 95% of the time and that took me about 5 seconds to figure out that build.  An optimized build would do even better.

At 20th level there are far more enemies you will face with better than a -1 on all saves than there will be with a 22 AC, even if you could prepare enough meanigful spells to target any save and you had metagame knowege of their saves.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 27, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> long post snipped




I could go on and write a huge back and forth reply, but at this point it would probably be a very lengthy and agonizing read. I believe we both expressed our opinions and everyone reading can figure out on their own who's right and wrong or whatever.

I will just reply very shortly to this part, which IMO encapsulates our disagreement:


ECMO3 said:


> If you are close to the Paladin you have a +5 to your save.  If it takes effect dispel magic or cleansing touch eliminates it and many characters are probably running around with a contingency if they get immobilized like that.
> 
> On top of all this your Wizard has proficiency on this save and so does his Simulacrum and both of them have counterspell, dispel magic and if you knew you were going up against an enemy with psychic scream they probably have anti-magic shell.



If your idea of balance is assuming that every party, high level or not, should have very specific classes (like paladins or wizards) and very specific spells (like counterspell, which has its own crapton of issues btw, and would probably deserve its own thread) for the game to work properly, we have extremely different ideas on how this game should be balanced.

The game should be properly balanced, _even at high levels_, for all reasonably diverse parties, not just for the savvily optimized "meta" ones. Current 5e just isn't, and the saving throw setup is a considerable part of the problem (on both sides of the screen). This is my position on the matter.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 27, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> 1. The 5e balance only holds true at low levels. Saving throw scaling is very bad, so saves cannot keep up with DCs.
> At first level a typical PC will have 2 good saves it can pass with an 8 or so, another couple of decent saves where it gets a 50/50 shot, and one or two bad saves where a 13 or 14 is needed.
> ...



A lot(but not all) of the problems with the 5e save system could be relieved by changing all class proficiencies in saves to expertise, and granting proficiency to all non-expertise saves.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 27, 2022)

Branduil said:


> A lot(but not all) of the problems with the 5e save system could be relieved by changing all class proficiencies in saves to expertise, and granting proficiency to all non-expertise saves.



that would be too much.
but having half prof bonus to non proficient saves(round down) would work.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 27, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that would be too much.
> but having half prof bonus to non proficient saves(round down) would work.



If you're having to roll an 18 or 19 to save with your worst saves (or higher), this change that number to 12 or 13. I don't think that's unreasonable for a worst save at high levels when any save failed is likely to be highly debilitating. Since spellcasters get to add proficiency to their save DCs, this merely helps players tread water on their worst saves. Realistically, even with proficiency characters will still fall behind since they're not likely to bump their worst save stats to 20.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 27, 2022)

Branduil said:


> If you're having to roll an 18 or 19 to save with your worst saves (or higher), this change that number to 12 or 13. I don't think that's unreasonable for a worst save at high levels when any save failed is likely to be highly debilitating. Since spellcasters get to add proficiency to their save DCs, this merely helps players tread water on their worst saves. Realistically, even with proficiency characters will still fall behind since they're not likely to bump their worst save stats to 20.



Since AC does not scale with prof bonus, so most saves should not.

Spells get more reliable as levels goes on, unless you target that specific save.


there are few solutions to failing too much on spells;

1. Make resilient give two proficiencies and make it so you can take that feat twice. One save must be from dex, con or wis and other from str, int or cha.

2. make hard crowd control effects on failed saves little bit weaker, so players are not out of the game for several rounds.

3. don't dump stats

4. my suggestion on ability usage:








						Using abilities for only ability checks.
					

Yes, an idea to remove most effects from abilities so the only affect ability checks/skills. Have abilities only have mostly RP value. all combat is based on your level.  In all other aspects of the game; attacks, saves, damage and DC's, ability mod would be replaced by your proficiency bonus...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 27, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I didn'tsay resistance, I said false life.  A 1st level false life is 6.5 temp hp, a 3rd level false life (which you can cast at 5th level) is 16.5 hps on average.  2 points in constitution at 5th level will  give you 10 more hps.




Yes. You said false life gives easy hp, this 15hp are not a lot. I said, resistance gives easy saving throw bonuses, so +3 to a saving throw is also not a lot.

Edit: also imaine using false life on someone with already high hp... They don't care if they make a dex save or not.


----------



## Audiomancer (Oct 27, 2022)

One idea I’ve kicked around in my head would be to give characters one additional save proficiency whenever they would get a Feat/ASI—so, new proficiencies at levels 4, 8, 12, etc. (This would be in addition to the Feat/ASI, so I’d probably nuke Resilient altogether)

All characters would eventually be proficient in all saves… but it takes a while. Until you reach epic level, you’re going to have one or two weak saves. Plan accordingly, adventurer!


----------



## The Old Crow (Oct 27, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Since AC does not scale with prof bonus, so most saves should not.




I have always viewed saves as more analogous to a combination of hp and AC. Hit points do scale by level.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 27, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Since AC does not scale with prof bonus, so most saves should not.



the problem is that things (mostly) that are saves are MORE deadly then attack rolls. 

You can get attacked twice by a fighter for 1d8+5 damage or take 8d6 fire save for half


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 27, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the problem is that things (mostly) that are saves are MORE deadly then attack rolls.
> 
> You can get attacked twice by a fighter for 1d8+5 damage or take 8d6 fire save for half



You have obviously never been hit by a giant.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 27, 2022)

I never really thought about how AC doesn't scale with PB like Saves do.  In 3e, your AC started with a base of 10 + your various modifiers (DEX, Armor, Shield, Magic Items, etc.).  5e just baked that 10 into the armor itself, so 3e's Studded Leather armor was +2, while 5e's Studded Leather armor is 12.  They could revert the armor bonuses beck to the 3e method (5e - 10) and do something similar to Saves and Spells Saves where your AC would be 8 + PB + DEX + Armor + Shield.  Then your AC would scale with PB, but then AC's might get too high and ruin BA or something.  I don't know, I'm just spit-balling on a slow afternoon at work . . .


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 27, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the problem is that things (mostly) that are saves are MORE deadly then attack rolls.
> 
> You can get attacked twice by a fighter for 1d8+5 damage or take 8d6 fire save for half




If the fighter only does 1d8+5 damage, he does something wrong.

But I do agree, the saving throws do fulfill both the 3e and the 4e function: prevent an effect and determine the duration respectively.

I like it for the latter, but I think it is too weak for the former.
I already proposed adding your proficiency bonus on top for the initial save.
I used to have an even better Idea, that makes HP do what they are supposed to:

For every 20hp you have, you get bonus of +1 to the initial saving throw with a cap of +5.

That way, a fighter will eventually have great saving throws if they have full hp. Wizards


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> If the fighter only does 1d8+5 damage, he does something wrong.



wait...what? thats a 18 stat a +1 longsword how much more do you think they do?!? there isn't a lot of options for fighters. 
I guess they could go 2 handed and do 2d6+5 (reroll 1s and 2s) but they loose out on shield or off hand weapon then


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 27, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> wait...what? thats a 18 stat a +1 longsword how much more do you think they do?!? there isn't a lot of options for fighters.
> I guess they could go 2 handed and do 2d6+5 (reroll 1s and 2s) but they loose out on shield or off hand weapon then




This is definitely not an 18 stat.
It is a 16 stat with duelling. Or 20 stat without.
You also have an action surge for 4 attacks and you have battlemaster maneuvers... So yes, I expect a bit more.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> This is definitely not an 18 stat.
> It is a 16 stat with duelling. Or 20 stat without.
> You also have an action surge for 4 attacks and you have battlemaster maneuvers... So yes, I expect a bit more.



battle masters are a subclass and no that was an 18 str and longsword and shield or 18 dex and rapier and shield... 4pts from stat and 1 from magic...


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 27, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> battle masters are a subclass and no that was an 18 str and longsword and shield or 18 dex and rapier and shield... 4pts from stat and 1 from magic...



Extra attack is a base class feature though & other archetypes get other features.  Why are we focused on what a level one fighter with 18 strength does for damage against higher cr monsters?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 27, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Extra attack is a base class feature though & other archetypes get other features.  Why are we focused on what a level one fighter with 18 strength does for damage against higher cr monsters?



it wasn't a low level and it wasn't one attack. if you go back it was 2 attacks each for 1d8+5 or a 8d6 elemental save for half


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 27, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> battle masters are a subclass and no that was an 18 str and longsword and shield or 18 dex and rapier and shield... 4pts from stat and 1 from magic...




Duelling is no subclass ability. So if you want to insist, that a fighter does 1d8+5 damage... I concede.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Duelling is no subclass ability. So if you want to insist, that a fighter does 1d8+5 damage... I concede.



I don't get you at all... dueling says you have 1 weapon in hand, and it's not like you can trade out each fight so yeah you CAN have it


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Duelling is no subclass ability. So if you want to insist, that a fighter does 1d8+5 damage... I concede.



It's a mistake to attempt bald damage comparisons like this.  Fighters usually do more damage over the adventuring day.  Wizards will spike when the circumstances allow and may set up situations where the fighter does more damage.  In my experience, if you only count damage that actually matters (i.e. ignoring damage that doesn't count because the enemy is already at zero hp), the paladin ends up top and the cleric bottom but there isn't as much in it as you think and a cleric with Firestorm in the right scenario will come out top if enough victims are close together.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 27, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't get you at all... dueling says you have 1 weapon in hand, and it's not like you can trade out each fight so yeah you CAN have it




What?
I really don't get you at all. Youbsaid the fighter has two attacks at 1d8+5. I just said, that is undeselling what a fighter can actually do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 27, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> It's a mistake to attempt bald damage comparisons like this.  Fighters usually do more damage over the adventuring day.  Wizards will spike when the circumstances allow and may set up situations where the fighter does more damage.  In my experience, if you only count damage that actually matters (i.e. ignoring damage that doesn't count because the enemy is already at zero hp), the paladin ends up top and the cleric bottom but there isn't as much in it as you think and a cleric with Firestorm in the right scenario will come out top if enough victims are close together.




I did not say that the fighter is only doing a few points of damage. I think the fighter does a lot more. So I agree with you.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I did not say that the fighter is only doing a few points of damage. I think the fighter does a lot more. So I agree with you.



Not only this but if crits are going to be downgraded so that extra dice are not doubled, fighter damage might well take over as the top damage dealer.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 27, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Not only this but if crits are going to be downgraded so that extra dice are not doubled, fighter damage might well take over as the top damage dealer.




Yes, the fighter would be the winner.
In our games the fighters never had a damage problem and they were never optimized...


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 28, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> If your idea of balance is assuming that every party, high level or not, should have very specific classes (like paladins or wizards) and very specific spells (like counterspell, which has its own crapton of issues btw, and would probably deserve its own thread) for the game to work properly, we have extremely different ideas on how this game should be balanced.




Your example uses a very specific spell - psychic scream, and one that is not on any published monster's spell list as far as I am aware. 

In terms of specific, I think there are far, far more parties with Wizards and Paladins than there are parties that get psychic scream cast at them.  Probably something on the order of 100 to 1 or more.

Finally, 8 different classes can cast dispel magic and 3 different classes can cast counterspell (not counting Rogue and Fighter subclasses that can cast them).  So I think it is a safe bet you have those spells in most parties.




Olrox17 said:


> The game should be properly balanced, _even at high levels_, for all reasonably diverse parties, not just for the savvily optimized "meta" ones. Current 5e just isn't, and the saving throw setup is a considerable part of the problem (on both sides of the screen). This is my position on the matter.




I believe it is.  High level characters very rarely die and they have high level abilities and high level spells which as a group more than compensate for the adversaries abilities and spells.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 28, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. You said false life gives easy hp, this 15hp are not a lot. I said, resistance gives easy saving throw bonuses, so +3 to a saving throw is also not a lot.
> 
> Edit: also imaine using false life on someone with already high hp... They don't care if they make a dex save or not.




Ok, I agree but I don't understand your point vis-a-vis the value of a high constitution score outside the save.

For clarity; my position is that Constitution is not a very useful stat except for the common constitution save and the extra hit points you get are not very many and not as benificial as a higher score in another stat.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 28, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> It's a mistake to attempt bald damage comparisons like this.  Fighters usually do more damage over the adventuring day.  Wizards will spike when the circumstances allow and may set up situations where the fighter does more damage.  In my experience, if you only count damage that actually matters (i.e. ignoring damage that doesn't count because the enemy is already at zero hp), the paladin ends up top and the cleric bottom but there isn't as much in it as you think and a cleric with Firestorm in the right scenario will come out top if enough victims are close together.




In most campaigns with experienced players wizards do very little damage IME.  While they have the ability to spike damage with something like fireball, and occasionally that is the right call, usually damaging spells are not the best way to use your limited spell slots and abilities.

I am playing with a 7th level Dwarf Enchantment Wizard/Order Cleric with a 7 strength and 8 dexterity and he probably averages less than 10 points of damage per battle and all of that with cantrips.  In 7 levels I don't think he has ever cast a leveled spell that does damage, he is usually casting a control spell or using hypnotic gaze.

I am not sure I would agree Paladins are at the top either.  I think archers and blaster warlocks probably outdo a lot of paladin builds because they can make an effective attack more often, where the Paladin spends substantial time dashing or throwing a Javelin.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 28, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> In most campaigns with experienced players wizards do very little damage IME.  While they have the ability to spike damage with something like fireball, and occasionally that is the right call, usually damaging spells are (NOT?) the best way to use your limited spell slots and abilities.
> 
> I am playing with a 7th level Dwarf Enchantment Wizard/Order Cleric with a 7 strength and 8 dexterity and he probably averages less than 10 points of damage per battle and all of that with cantrips.  In 7 levels I don't think he has ever cast a leveled spell that does damage, he is usually casting a control spell or using hypnotic gaze.
> 
> I am not sure I would agree Paladins are at the top either.  I think archers and blaster warlocks probably outdo a lot of paladin builds because they can make an effective attack more often, where the Paladin spends substantial time dashing or throwing a Javelin.



I thinm you left out a "not"?


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 28, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Here I thought by "high ac" you meant monsters that _actually_ had high ac. Those ACs are functional at best & far too low to be considered "high AC" as characters progress through tier3 levels.



I thought you asked for non-boss monsters. Still, even with these "not high" ACs, it's better to aim at the lower save.



tetrasodium said:


> You _do_ realize that the fighter * A:* willbe making 4 attacks.



I do. 4 attacks dealing 1d8 each is no different than a cantrip dealing 4d8. I could consider critical hit chance but it's more math than I want to do and I think I don't need, because in these cases the spellcasters can use their attack cantrips to aim at AC too.



tetrasodium said:


> *B:* will almost certainly have a +1 weapon +2 weapon or better else something like the magic weapon spell



It's simetrical, spellcaster almost certainly have an item that increases spell save DC. Targets can also have magic armor os shields that increase AC as much as the magic weapon bonus. Moreover, I think it is easier to increase AC with magic items than to increase weapon attacks or saves.



tetrasodium said:


> *C:* may have advantage on each of those rolls from pack tactics or a poorly designed flanking rule. *D*: may have advantage if the target is prone or stunned.



It's simetrical. Spell targets could also have disadvantage in saves.



tetrasodium said:


> *E:* Most importantly is not consuming anything but an action & will never run out of attack slots or something.



Spellcasters will never run out of cantrips.



tetrasodium said:


> Amazingly you even listed a necrotic cantrip against the helmed horror which has necrotic immunity



Amazingly I did, my bad. There are 3 other examples there, and mainly, all NPCs built using the same PCs rules will have the problem I mentioned. Just take all PCs you ever created and look at their sheets. Unless you did an amazing job increasing all saves, there's a high chance AC is higher than the lower save. These PCs could be NPCs, bosses, villains. Every time someone asks me to point monsters as examples I think they forget it's possible to play non-dungeoncrawl adventures set in cities and dealing with non-monster enemies.



tetrasodium said:


> in addition to the magic resistance for advantage on the save. Advantage tends to amount to roughly a +5 to the average.



It was considered. Advantage tends to add +5 only if chances are 50% or near. The Helmed Horror is an example, without advantage the chances of avoiding a spellcaster DC 19 spell with +0 Str would be 10% without advantage vrs. spell, it is 19% because of the advantage.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 28, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> I thought you asked for non-boss monsters. Still, even with these "not high" ACs, it's better to aim at the lower save.
> 
> 
> I do. 4 attacks dealing 1d8 each is no different than a cantrip dealing 4d8. I could consider critical hit chance but it's more math than I want to do and I think I don't need, because in these cases the spellcasters can use their attack cantrips to aim at AC too.
> ...



What does that have to do with your original point?  You've gone from talking about how the ability to target different virtually identical saves is a boon over being "forced" to target AC even against high ac monsters to arguing anything that avoids the fact that 5e doesn't really  have "_high_ ac" monsters unless you jump to epic tier cr20++ legendary monsters like the tarrasque & ancient dragons.  The presence of monsters with moderate AC that needs an 8-10ish to hit  doesn't make them into monsters with "_high_ AC".  Casters would actually be better off and capable of targeting weak saves with confidence if monsters had a great save  & poor/trash save as they once did instead of 6 mediocre saves they get to roll 2d20 & drop the lower on & 3x nosell legendary resists.


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 28, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> What does that have to do with your original point?



I don't know, you asked me to name monsters with good AC as examples. We've gone too far in this discussion.
We can go as deep as we want in the discussion, add complexity by taking in consideration a lot of factors like criticals, ability bonuses, specific builds, average monster AC and saves and the chance to face them, but it will lead us more to discuss what we should be taking in consideration than my central point. So I'll stop here, just saying the core idea of my point:

- Having multiple saves like 5e is not good because it's hard to keep all of them with decent values. Not good in the sense that it makes spellcasters better when compared to martials because spellcasters can aim at different saves with cantrips and, even thought not knowing which one is the worst save, it's not hard figure it out and, in average, be more effective than martials that can only aim at AC. So, in short, to avoid spellcasters you need to increase 6 saves, while, to avoid martials, you only need to have a good AC.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 28, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Ok, I agree but I don't understand your point vis-a-vis the value of a high constitution score outside the save.
> 
> For clarity; my position is that Constitution is not a very useful stat except for the common constitution save and the extra hit points you get are not very many and not as benificial as a higher score in another stat.




I understand your position and disagree. The extra HP are worth a lot. You also heal more during a short rest and so a +2 modifier of constitution as you correctly wrote means 20 more hp at level 5.
This is more than the difference between the full damage of a fireball and the reduced damage when you make the save.  The +2 save bonus you would get from a +2 higher dex bonus is just a 10% chance to actually make the save.
So HP are actually worth more than you give it credit.
Also, dex saves, although very common often just reduce damage. Thus I, as you too, value the +2 bonus to con saves higher than +2 dex saves, as for casters, the most common save is Con vs DC 10, a concentration save. Here I value 10% higher chance of keeping my concentration up very highly, because it increases my reliability. 
But my point stands: HP in 5e are very valuable. And before I raise my dexterity from 14 to 16 I bring my con from 10 to 14. Dexterity is way overrated. It is not the god stat people say.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 28, 2022)

PCs with unusually high ACs and paladins with a big boost to all saves impact the game far more than characters investing in saves. 

Magic shield bonuses bracers of defence and rings of protection should not stack with other magic bonuses.  Paladins bonuses to saves should be halved.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 28, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Dexterity is way overrated. It is not the god stat people say.



partially, I agree.

but STR weapons are still too weak in comparison to DEX weapons.
and DEX has better utility vs. STR.

Strength:
melee and thrown attack and damage
str saves
1 skill
carry capacity

dexterity:
finesse and ranged attack and damage
dex saves
3 skills
AC
initiative

even if you value bot groups of weapons as equal(they are not), dex gets stronger save, 3 skills vs 1 skill, AC calculation in most cases, initiative bonus, versus STR carry capacity.

non-finesse weapons need to deal more damage.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 28, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> PCs with unusually high ACs and paladins with a big boost to all saves impact the game far more than characters investing in saves.
> 
> Magic shield bonuses bracers of defence and rings of protection should not stack with other magic bonuses.  Paladins bonuses to saves should be halved.



agree with most.

Paladin aura should give +1 bonus when you get it, +2 at 11th level, +3 at 17th level.
aura range should be increased, 30ft at start, 60ft when improved.

armors and shields should not have +X bonus to AC, only unique cool features.
+X might add damage reduction instead.
instead of +1 AC, you get 2 damage reduction from every attack.

weapons should not have +X attack and +X damage bonus.
instead add +Xd6 damage only.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 28, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Your example uses a very specific spell - psychic scream, and one that is not on any published monster's spell list as far as I am aware.
> 
> In terms of specific, I think there are far, far more parties with Wizards and Paladins than there are parties that get psychic scream cast at them.  Probably something on the order of 100 to 1 or more.
> 
> ...



I think you're getting yourself hanged on very specific examples (especially the Psychic Scream one for some reason? I think the example involving multitudes of low CR enemies using low level control spell was way more interesting, I've dismantled optimized and cocky parties with easy encounters using that strategy), and you're losing sight of the bigger picture. 

As other posters have already pointed out, the Attack vs AC - damage vs HP game works well enough in 5e. AC scales less than attack rolls at higher levels, but regardless, even if attack rolls completely eclipsed AC, it still wouldn't be a huge problem: weapon attacks generally do damage, and very little else. HPs usually scale enough to keep up with damage, so that part of the game tends to be balanced enough.

Saving throws...nope. DCs growth will completely eclipse saving throw growth, and, even worse, saving throw are often of the "_Save or Suck_" variety, with no secondary mechanic to balance things out (like damage/HP does to Attack roll/AC). For monsters and PCs alike the situation can often be that you get to roll one save, with a 5-10% chance of success, and you'll be removed from a fight if you fail. That. Is. Not. Good. Balance.

Tbh, and I mean no offense, it looks like you either never DMed high level 5e, or you're so used to fixing the bad mechanics by yourself (as a good DM should) that you no longer see them as issues.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 28, 2022)

Horwath said:


> partially, I agree.
> 
> but STR weapons are still too weak in comparison to DEX weapons.
> and DEX has better utility vs. STR.
> ...




I partially agree, but strenght twf is better than dex twf and it is also used in AC, by allowing better armor. And you forget active grapple attempts.
Having only 1 skill is actually an advantage, as it is a so universal skill.
Also, if youbare strength based, you feel much less pressure to max it ASAP, as you only lose out on the offense (this is why the twf feat is better for strength characters, while it is mostly useless for dex characters).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 28, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Saving throws...nope. DCs growth will completely eclipse saving throw growth, and, even worse, saving throw are often of the "_Save or Suck_" variety, with no secondary mechanic to balance things out (like damage/HP does to Attack roll/AC). For monsters and PCs alike the situation can often be that you get to roll one save, with a 5-10% chance of success, and you'll be removed from a fight if you fail. That. Is. Not. Good. Balance.




Yes, there should be no fail initial save or totally suck spell. Saving throw bonus as tgey are right now only work for scaling the duration. One save and out of combat spells need to be rebalanced.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 28, 2022)

Horwath said:


> agree with most.
> 
> Paladin aura should give +1 bonus when you get it, +2 at 11th level, +3 at 17th level.
> aura range should be increased, 30ft at start, 60ft when improved.
> ...




Paladin aura usually does not give more than +3, except when you have a hexadin.
Probably making it half proficiency bonus though would be a great idea.

I do like +x weapons. They are not gamebreaking on their own. Currently the only way to make sword and board useful is the duble dip on magic armor bonuses. With power feats removed, it is probably not needed anymore.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 28, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Paladin aura usually does not give more than +3, except when you have a hexadin.
> Probably making it half proficiency bonus though would be a great idea.



I don't know if +3 would be the limit for me.

I'm looking now at half-elf paladin with Fey touched feat(silvery barbs+misty step) at 4th level and at 8th level +2 cha for that +5 to all saves and lots of spells prepared for added versatility and DCs

str 16, save +8
dex 8, save +4
con 14, save +7
int 10, save +5
wis 10, save +8
cha 20, save +13



UngeheuerLich said:


> I do like +x weapons. They are not gamebreaking on their own. Currently the only way to make sword and board useful is the duble dip on magic armor bonuses. With power feats removed, it is probably not needed anymore.



shield+armor both gaining +X can lead to some problems.
+1 plate and +1 shield with +1 for defense fighting style goes to AC 23.
if DM is looking for a decent challenge, and if they aim for at least 40% hit chance vs. you(13+), other party members will be hammered with their decent and expected AC of 17 or 18. with AC 18 hit chance will be 65%, they will be getting 63% more damage than you.

not to mention that casters have their AC in 14 to 16 range.

I believe that DM has easiest time when party AC difference in 4 or less form lowest to highest AC.

in one campaign we have a Sorcerer with AC 16(mage armor 24/7 and 16 dex), Bladesinger wizard AC 16(dex 18 + studded leather, or 17 with mage armor) and Barbarian with mithral halfplate AC 17. Perfect.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 28, 2022)

Of course applying strength bonuses to all dex weapons except crossbows might work.  Cap bonus to +2 on a shortbow.  Bonus on xbow depends on size.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 28, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I don't know if +3 would be the limit for me.
> 
> I'm looking now at half-elf paladin with Fey touched feat(silvery barbs+misty step) at 4th level and at 8th level +2 cha for that +5 to all saves and lots of spells prepared for added versatility and DCs
> 
> ...




I tend to agree. The balance was that virtually nobody actually tanked up that much, because if all you have is AC and no offense, you are just ignored and kileld last.

I think having at least no +x shields and removal of imbalanced feats makes the game better. You can still tank up a bit with +2 to AC and a neat bonus and you won't fall too much behind in damage of you chose one hand + shield a s barbarian or fighter for example.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 28, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Of course applying strength bonuses to all dex weapons except crossbows might work.  Cap bonus to +2 on a shortbow.  Bonus on xbow depends on size.



there used to be 'mighty composite' bows that let you add your Str to damage (not to hit) and had an increased cost per + of str allowed... I know they were in 2e I can't remember if 3e had them (I think they did).  I know there was a third party 3e book that had a mechanical assist bow that just added to damage...


----------



## Horwath (Oct 28, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> there used to be 'mighty composite' bows that let you add your Str to damage (not to hit) and had an increased cost per + of str allowed... I know they were in 2e I can't remember if 3e had them (I think they did).  I know there was a third party 3e book that had a mechanical assist bow that just added to damage...



they were in 3.5e also.

I would add them into 5e, but I would keep dex to damage also.

"mighty" bows could be:

d4: Str n/a range 50/200
d6: Str 8 range 100/400
d8: Str 12, range 150/600
d10: Str 16, range 200/800
d12: Str 20, range 250/1000

add dex normally to attack and damage.

this way you need at least 12 strength to use "default" bow.

it is also a good option for STR charctars with decent dex(barbarian/ melee rangers)

with +3 prof and 20 str and 14 dex, you could have:

thrown weapon with +8 attack and 1d6+5 damage with 30/120 range or
longbow with +5 attack and 1d12+2 damage with 250/1000 range.

trading attack roll for range.


and if you have both STR and DEX at 20 for 1d12+5 damage at 250ft, congratulations, you have earned it.
Now lets talk about your other dump stats and no feats to speak of.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 28, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> there used to be 'mighty composite' bows that let you add your Str to damage (not to hit) and had an increased cost per + of str allowed... I know they were in 2e I can't remember if 3e had them (I think they did).  I know there was a third party 3e book that had a mechanical assist bow that just added to damage...



it was in 3.5 yes.


Spoiler: 3.5phb 119



its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If 
you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when 
you use a longbow. If you have a bonus for high Strength, you can 
apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see 
below) but not a regular longbow. 
Longbow, Composite: You need at least two hands to use a bow, 
regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while 
mounted. Composite bows are made from laminated horn, wood, or 
bone and built with a recurve, meaning that the bow remains bow-
shaped even when unstrung. All composite bows are made with a 
particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum 
Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is 
less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can’t 
effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it. The 
default composite longbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or 
higher to use with proficiency. A composite longbow can be made 
with a high strength rating (representing an especially heavy pull) to 
take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature 
allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the 
maximum bonus indicated for the bow. *Each point of Strength 
bonus granted by the bow adds 100 gp to its cost. For instance, a 
composite longbow (+1 Str bonus) costs 200 gp, while a composite 
longbow (+4 Str bonus) costs 500 gp. *
For example, Tordek has a +2 Strength bonus. With a regular 
composite longbow, he gets no modifier on damage rolls. For 200 
gp, he can buy a composite longbow (+1 Str bonus), which lets him 
add +1 to his damage rolls. For 300 gp, he can buy one that lets him 
add his entire +2 Strength bonus. Even if he paid 400 gp for a 
composite longbow (+3 Str bonus), he would still get only a +2 bo-
nus on damage rolls and takes a –2 penalty on attacks with it because 
his Strength is insufficient to use the weapon to best advantage. The 
bow can’t grant him a higher bonus than he already has. 
For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite 
longbow is treated as if it were a longbow. Thus, if you have Weapon 
Focus (longbow), that feat applies both to longbows and composite 
longbows.


That bold bit would really add up when enchanting  them iirc


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 28, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I'd kinda like to replace _all save throws _with a single one, called "Luck."   I'm talking ALL saving throws, including death saves.
> All character classes would be proficient, but no ability score would adjust it...a "Luck save" would always be (1d20+ProfBonus), every time, no matter how you optimized your stats.
> 
> It's probably a bit too monochromatic for most D&D players, but I'd like to take it for a test drive someday.



That's interesting. Not sure I love it, but worth a think...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 28, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I'd kinda like to replace _all save throws _with a single one, called "Luck."   I'm talking ALL saving throws, including death saves.
> All character classes would be proficient, but no ability score would adjust it...a "Luck save" would always be (1d20+ProfBonus), every time, no matter how you optimized your stats.
> 
> It's probably a bit too monochromatic for most D&D players, but I'd like to take it for a test drive someday.



okay so origin talk time...

in wargaming a throw of the die to save you from an effect is a saving throw.  Way back when it was a d6 (cause they all were) and you needed to roll a 6, or some heroic characters a 5 or 6.

I have not been active in war games in 14 or so years but I know that last time I was watching one there were 'armor save on a 3+, and agility save on a 5+) in at least one game.

go way way back and that is what D&D is trying to emulate (partially) the ability of luck and skill to survive what should be not be survivable...    I had played with something like your 'luck save' in a throw back to that idea...


----------



## leonardozg (Oct 28, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> PCs with unusually high ACs and paladins with a big boost to all saves impact the game far more than characters investing in saves.
> 
> Magic shield bonuses bracers of defence and rings of protection should not stack with other magic bonuses.  Paladins bonuses to saves should be halved.



What I really can't understand is that Wizards know how to avoid this kind of problem but it seems they chose not to do it in 5e. Just bring back bonus types and don't let them stack. Paladin Aura of Protection bonus should be considered as ability bonus, so instead of adding to the saves it would replace the original ability bonus if greater, still being a powerfull special ability. The same way, magic item bonus for AC should be classified as shield bonus, deflection bonus or so.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 28, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> What I really can't understand is that Wizards know how to avoid this kind of problem but semmed they choosed not to do it in 5e. Just bring back bonus types and don't let them stack.



system mastery and complexity...

in 3.5 a novice that didn't understand would be like "Wait, why doesn't my cloak and ring stack, but his ring and amulate do?" 

and it lead to weird cheese (at least that I saw) where people would be like "I have an X bonus and a Y bonus, now to find a Z bonus"


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 28, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> What I really can't understand is that Wizards know how to avoid this kind of problem but semmed they choosed not to do it in 5e. Just bring back bonus types and don't let them stack. Paladin Aura of Protection bonus should be considered as ability bonus, so instead of adding to the saves it would replace the original ability bonus if greater, still being a powerfull special ability. The same way, magic item bonus for AC should be classified as shield bonus, deflection bonus or so.



Yes it was like they forgot bounded accuracy existed.  Taking the highest bonus would be better.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 28, 2022)

Horwath said:


> agree with most.
> 
> Paladin aura should give +1 bonus when you get it, +2 at 11th level, +3 at 17th level.
> aura range should be increased, 30ft at start, 60ft when improved.
> ...



Agree, magic bonuses don't seem priced into monster scaling in 5e and this change would help bounded accuracy. Besides magic weapons feel more special with unique features like cantrips or limited-use spell-like effects, instead of static bonuses


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 28, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I understand your position and disagree. The extra HP are worth a lot. You also heal more during a short rest and so a +2 modifier of constitution as you correctly wrote means 20 more hp at level 5.
> This is more than the difference between the full damage of a fireball and the reduced damage when you make the save.  The +2 save bonus you would get from a +2 higher dex bonus is just a 10% chance to actually make the save.
> So HP are actually worth more than you give it credit.
> Also, dex saves, although very common often just reduce damage. Thus I, as you too, value the +2 bonus to con saves higher than +2 dex saves, as for casters, the most common save is Con vs DC 10, a concentration save. Here I value 10% higher chance of keeping my concentration up very highly, because it increases my reliability.
> But my point stands: HP in 5e are very valuable. And before I raise my dexterity from 14 to 16 I bring my con from 10 to 14. Dexterity is way overrated. It is not the god stat people say.



I don't think the math really supports this and I don't think Con is behind dex, I think it is also behind Wisdom and if it wasn't for  being a common save it  would be dead last IMO.

hit points are easy to come by in 5E and healing is plentiful.  The biggest weakness of Constitution is that is not used for any skills.  

Most of my characters who do point buy or standard array play with a 10 or 12 Constitution.  The only point buy character  I;ve played that started with higher than a 12 is a Rune Knight and only because he needed it for DC against his rune knight powers.  I would use a higher constitution on a Barbarian too, but I have never played one myself.  Everything else I can always find a better stat to  put points towards.   If you are rolling abilities, like I do for a lot of  my games, then it  is a different  story.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 28, 2022)

Unless I have a very specific build in mind (the high hit point bruiser) I normally don't care too much about Constitution. I'll have a minimum of 10 because I don't want the penalty but don't often feel the need to have it higher than 10 or 12.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 28, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I think you're getting yourself hanged on very specific examples (especially the Psychic Scream one for some reason? I think the example involving multitudes of low CR enemies using low level control spell was way more interesting, I've dismantled optimized and cocky parties with easy encounters using that strategy), and you're losing sight of the bigger picture.
> 
> As other posters have already pointed out, the Attack vs AC - damage vs HP game works well enough in 5e. AC scales less than attack rolls at higher levels, but regardless, even if attack rolls completely eclipsed AC, it still wouldn't be a huge problem: weapon attacks generally do damage, and very little else. HPs usually scale enough to keep up with damage, so that part of the game tends to be balanced enough.
> 
> ...



And I think you are wrong.  Yes players have low saves, but they also have overwhelming powers and spells to compensate for those low saves.

As I said, players are weakest and die most often at low level when DCs are makeable even with low unproficienct saves.

I concentrated on psychic scream because that is the example YOU used and I provided numerous examples of very effective ways to counter it, including some widely available at 5th level.

Psychic Scream is one example, but whatever example you throw out there will be LOTs of counters to it and those counters will be common in most parities at that level.

We played Rise of the Drow recently and our party was hit us with the highest damage spell I have seen in a game.  A Drow Matron/demon boss hit us with a spell published in the adventure that did 20d20 damage (it was 10d20 of necrotic and 10d20 of acid I think) on a dexsave.  One PC (Paladin Warlock) made his save I think and still went down, 1 PC (Range-Fighter) made his save and had like 10 hit points after he used absorb elements for the acid part of the damage.  My character saved and took no damage because she had evasion (Arcane  Trickster 9/Arcane Archer 6/Shadow Sorcerer 1), she would have died outright without evasion.  Our cleric was not in the AOE.    Next Round the boss put hold person on me (which I failed) and the Ranger (who had proficiency from a subclass and passed), and our Cleric (who failed despite proficiency), but by that time the Paladin was back in the fight having benefited from mass healing word by the cleric  who also turned most of the undead henchmen in the same turn and I had used a wand of conjure animals to surround the boss, her two drow gaurds and the few undead that did not fail with a bunch of giant bats.  I followed up the conjure animals with a bonus action quick toss sneak attack against one of the guards using a dart and then readied an action (action surge) and hit the other guard off my turn (on one of the bat's turns who went next and used help), with a shot from my long bow which included sharpshooter+grasping arrow+sneak attack+menacing attack using an arrow+2.  In one turn I had brought multiple allies (and actions) on to the battefield, significantly damaged one guard and severely damaged the other while also reducing his movement, frightening him and causing him further damage when he tried to move.   After the boss's turn I was held for several rounds, eventually I made the save, or maybe she died first I can't remember, but the point is we survived that battle fairly easily despite the enemy having high power spells and starting far away and being able to do massive damage and having a 19DC.  Once the Paladin got in close and could use counterspell, it was over for her.

Our party was not abnormal, it was built on point buy using published rules and we did not have any uber-powerful magic items and we survived relatively easily.  That is not a specific example, it is an actual example from play at 16th level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 28, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I don't think the math really supports this and I don't think Con is behind dex, I think it is also behind Wisdom and if it wasn't for  being a common save it  would be dead last IMO.
> 
> hit points are easy to come by in 5E and healing is plentiful.  The biggest weakness of Constitution is that is not used for any skills.
> 
> Most of my characters who do point buy or standard array play with a 10 or 12 Constitution.  The only point buy character  I;ve played that started with higher than a 12 is a Rune Knight and only because he needed it for DC against his rune knight powers.  I would use a higher constitution on a Barbarian too, but I have never played one myself.  Everything else I can always find a better stat to  put points towards.   If you are rolling abilities, like I do for a lot of  my games, then it  is a different  story.




It is not about what you think the math supports and which characters you played. A +1 bonus is just 5%, a 1 in 20 chance that it matters. So having 1 point more dex at level 5 means you prevent about 10 to 14 damage (firebolt or fire ball) in 1 of 20 cases. 5 more hp will help you more often... As a wizard, 5 more hp going up from 10 are about 23% more hp. And more importantly raises your hp so high that you might survive an unsaved fireball about 40% of the times instead of only about 10% of the times.
If you go up from 12 to 14, it is still an 18% increase in hp, and you will survive a fireball with an unsuccessful save with about 75% chance.

Yes, constitution is not used for any skill by default (but mightcome into play if you are doing athletics for a longer duration), but I take my chances with a bit higher HP and better concentration saves most of the time. If you value +1 dex for AC and initiative higher, that is ok. But con and HP are very valuable.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 29, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> It is not about what you think the math supports and which characters you played. A +1 bonus is just 5%, a 1 in 20 chance that it matters. So having 1 point more dex at level 5 means you prevent about 10 to 14 damage (firebolt or fire ball) in 1 of 20 cases. 5 more hp will help you more often...




You are preventing 10-14 damage a lot more than 1 in 20* hits*.  It is a 1 point boost in AC which will cut the amount of damage you take by a lot more than 5%. 

A 5th level wizard with mage armor a 16 dexterity and shield spell is hit 6 times in 20 against an enemy with a +6 attack bonus, the same wizard with a 15 dexterity is hit 7 times in 20, so that one point dexterity eliminates 17% of hits.  In terms of the number of times you can be attacked until you "run out of hit points" it is 17% more.

Further this is a very, very simple case.  Put that same Wizard under Protection from good and Evil or blur which give the adversary disadvantage and now that 1 point in dexterity reduces the number of times he is hit by 27%.

Make it a bladesinger in bladesong instead of just a basic wizard and now the point in dex drives the number needed to hit from 18 to 19 and reduces the damage taken from those firebolts by 33%.  Add blur on top of bladesong and that 1 point of dexterity is cutting the amount of damage she takes by over 50%.

That is compared to that static 5 point boost in hit points which amounts to a maximum of 25% more hit points at 5th level.




UngeheuerLich said:


> As a wizard, 5 more hp going up from 10 are about 23% more hp. And more importantly raises your hp so high that you might survive an unsaved fireball about 40% of the times instead of only about 10% of the times.




Absorb elements and counterspell is how a wizard usually survives a fireball.




UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes, constitution is not used for any skill by default (but mightcome into play if you are doing athletics for a longer duration), but I take my chances with a bit higher HP and better concentration saves most of the time. If you value +1 dex for AC and initiative higher, that is ok. But con and HP are very valuable.




There are a ton of ways to get hit points.  You can buy them in the basic equipment section of the players handbook at ~7gp per hit point (potions of healing) and numerous spells can give you temp hit points.

Moreover on concentration saves it is highly dependant on your AC,  because a point in dexterity will be an "auto save" on 5% of attacks directed against you and will result in approximately 15% fewer total saves you need to make. 

A character with a +2 con fails 7 in 20 DC 10 concentration saves.  Someone with a +1 con fails 8 in 20, but if he has a higher dexterity he gets hit less..

 So your 18 AC character with a +2 con takes 20 attacks from a bad guy with a +6 attack bonus.   He gets hit 9 times on average, with your 14 con you are going to fail con saves 3.15 times on average from being attacked 20  times with a _6 (assuming DC10).    A character with 19 AC and a +1 con save (better dex wors con) gets hit 8 times and will fail the exact same number of concentration saves (3.15 times) on average.

If you move the AC  in the example, with ACs lower than 18/19 the guy with the higher dexterity will fail concentration more and with ACs higher than 18/19 the guy with the higher constitution will fail concentration more.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 29, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Snip




Usong absorb elements, your 5 hp are suddenly 10...

So after all those calculations, seems more or less balanced, doesn't it?

On a side note: you can't prevent the concentration save against save half spells. So your calculation is flawed.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 29, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> And I think you are wrong.  Yes players have low saves, but they also have overwhelming powers and spells to compensate for those low saves.
> 
> As I said, players are weakest and die most often at low level when DCs are makeable even with low unproficienct saves.
> 
> ...



I still think you’re losing the bigger picture by over focusing on specific examples and anecdotes - but I’ll ask a question. From your Rise of the Drow playtest report, I gathered that you were a player, not the DM. Have you ever DMed high level 5e? Do you Dm at all?


----------



## Branduil (Oct 29, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Since AC does not scale with prof bonus, so most saves should not.
> 
> Spells get more reliable as levels goes on, unless you target that specific save.
> 
> ...



Yes, technically (the best kind of correct) AC does not scale with level. But we all know most players will increase their AC over time regardless, because of being able to afford better armor, magical armor, higher Dex, etc. And really, with physical attacks, you can consider it to actually be two lines of defense; AC is merely the first, hit points are the second, and they massively increase as you level up. Losing hit points essentially doesn't matter until you hit zero, so getting hit with an attack rarely takes someone out of the fight. I think effects which debilitate or remove the actions of a player should be harder to achieve than hitting AC, not easier.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 29, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I still think you’re losing the bigger picture by over focusing on specific examples and anecdotes - but I’ll ask a question. From your Rise of the Drow playtest report, I gathered that you were a player, not the DM. Have you ever DMed high level 5e? Do you Dm at all?



Yes.  I DM a lot, I used to primarily DM, but I like playing better so recently I have DMed less then I have played.  I am currently DMing 2 campaigns which are at level 6 and level 12.

As far as high level campaigns, I DMed Dungeon of the Mad Mage until level 18 (when we lost interest).   I was a player in ROD as you guessed.

I am not saying high level characters are not faced with near-impossible or even impossible saves, they are. But they also have world-altering abilities and spells that WAY more than compensate for this and that is before you consider legendary magic items and other such things they are likely to have at high level.


----------



## jasper (Oct 29, 2022)

No, That would be backwards to 3.5.


----------

