They aren't, I guess, but I find that the whole concept of saving throws for continuing effects has driven me entirely away from certain spells.
Hold person comes to mind. You cast it and, yay!, your opponent fails his save for once. Success! Except he gets to keep making a save. It really doesn't feel like the spell ever works. Of course, I get it that it's a deadly effect if the held creature doesn't happen to have buddies to help it out.
And I'm aware of how nice it is for my own characters to be able to keep making saves versus that very effect and others (dragon fear comes to mind).
But now if I see a spell doesn't do anything if they make their save and/or they get to keep making their save... I just don't typically bother. It's too much of a downer.
At long last, a question: how bad does the math get if the spell doesn't end when they make their save? Ie, what if casters could keep concentrating and force the opponent to keep making saves for the duration of the spell? I'm not good at the number crunching and am curious how that would imbalance things😀
I pick my spells based on which ones affect multiple targets so that when one successful save negates the spell multiple opponents have to save instead of just one. That limits me because some of the more powerful spells only affect a single target, but at least I’m more likely to have some affect that way too.
Right, I see your point. Then again, it's not exactly the same, right? The fighter's sword doesn't dissolve into thin air when he misses like a 2nd-level spell slot does.
That might be what's at heart of this for me. The spell not working feels like a wasted resource.
Even one round of Hold Person can be devastating, both for action economy and because the target is easy to kill while paralyzed. But this is why it's known as "save or suck" - it used to be even worse, with a failed save meaning you were stuck for the duration of the spell, even for PCs. If you think saves each turn kill the fun, you don't know how one-or-none saves can kill the fun. If it's getting you down, gravitate toward spells with lesser effects that don't allow for saves each turn, like Suggestion.
All creatures will have some saves that target their strengths and some will target their weaknesses. When choosing spells, try to have a good mix of abilities targeted. Big strong looking monster? Hit him with dex and wisdom saves. Evil cleric in heavy armor? Dex. Wizard? Strength.
It won’t always work. Sometimes the dice don’t roll your way, but you will on average get better results if you make the spell fit the target.
All creatures will have some saves that target their strengths and some will target their weaknesses. When choosing spells, try to have a good mix of abilities targeted. Big strong looking monster? Hit him with dex and wisdom saves. Evil cleric in heavy armor? Dex. Wizard? Strength.
It won’t always work. Sometimes the dice don’t roll your way, but you will on average get better results if you make the spell fit the target.
I'd guess this is the key, in a nutshell. Where before, hold person or whatever could apply in more situations, now it requires consideration.
Which is fine. But I remain curious: how bad would it get if succeeding on a save didn't get you out of hot water? Ie: not quite save-or-suck. You still get to save each turn, no matter success or failure. Too crazy?
They aren't, I guess, but I find that the whole concept of saving throws for continuing effects has driven me entirely away from certain spells.
Hold person comes to mind. You cast it and, yay!, your opponent fails his save for once. Success! Except he gets to keep making a save. It really doesn't feel like the spell ever works. Of course, I get it that it's a deadly effect if the held creature doesn't happen to have buddies to help it out.
And I'm aware of how nice it is for my own characters to be able to keep making saves versus that very effect and others (dragon fear comes to mind).
But now if I see a spell doesn't do anything if they make their save and/or they get to keep making their save... I just don't typically bother. It's too much of a downer.
At long last, a question: how bad does the math get if the spell doesn't end when they make their save? Ie, what if casters could keep concentrating and force the opponent to keep making saves for the duration of the spell? I'm not good at the number crunching and am curious how that would imbalance things😀
So. you want a 2nd level enchantment spell... that when successful, guarantees every hit on the target to be a critical hit. (super devastating if you have a half-orc barbarian or fighter with you). Additionally, if its cast at a spell level higher than 2. you can target 1 more humanoid for each level...
and you think, it's not a good spell, because they *could* save out of it, after 1 round, and then you're down a spell slot? Never mind the fact that Rogue-instant crit and sneak attack. or savage attacker crits from half-orcs, etc.
Nevermind even the fact, that nothing is stopping another PC, from going over to the creature under hold person, and restraining them, since, they can't resist being restrained, to where even if they do save out of the spell, they are still grappled and restrained...
I understand what you're getting at as someone who has played earlier versions. One of the big design intentions of 5E seems to be player agency. There are a few exceptions, but the game is built around keeping the players in the action as much as possible rather than sitting at the table twiddling their thumbs while everyone else takes their turn.
Of course, I get it that it's a deadly effect if the held creature doesn't happen to have buddies to help it out.
So. you want a 2nd level enchantment spell... that when successful, guarantees every hit on the target to be a critical hit. (super devastating if you have a half-orc barbarian or fighter with you). ...
and you think, it's not a good spell, because they *could* save out of it, after 1 round, and then you're down a spell slot? ...
you think this spell needs to be more powerful?
All certainly true. And I acknowledged that hold person at least can be very devastating.
I just noticed that I tend to stay away from spell like it because I assume my luck with the dice won't work out. So, I was asking how terrible the balance got if the saves had to be rolled either way.
In other words, if a spell allows a save and has a duration of 1 minute, what if (as long as concentration was maintained) you had to roll saves for each of those 10 rounds? Obviously none of the math baked into 5e is built around this, so it would certainly imbalance things. I was trying gauge by how much :)
I understand what you're getting at as someone who has played earlier versions. One of the big design intentions of 5E seems to be player agency. There are a few exceptions, but the game is built around keeping the players in the action as much as possible rather than sitting at the table twiddling their thumbs while everyone else takes their turn.
True. Your point is the best argument in favor of the way it is, and, as a player, I've certainly appreciated lots of shots at breaking out of those effects. (Although I spent an entire encounter trying to make a wisdom save versus dragon fear, failing each time. Oh well.)
Just a personal preference, ultimately. Because of how the saves are built in, I tend toward spells that deal guaranteed smaller effects, at least, and have other effects that the opponent can save out of. I just don't like to leave it up to the dice. Which sounds weird because so much can be up to the dice...
Spells are generally balanced so that their effect is reduced if they effect multiple targets or they have a longer duration. If the Hold Person spell didn’t give a chance to save every turn then it would have to have its effect lessened to balance things.
It is a very powerful spell that can take a very strong monster out of combat for several rounds, or may do nothing. If you don’t want to take the gamble then there are less damaging spells that have a higher certainty.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They aren't, I guess, but I find that the whole concept of saving throws for continuing effects has driven me entirely away from certain spells.
Hold person comes to mind. You cast it and, yay!, your opponent fails his save for once. Success! Except he gets to keep making a save. It really doesn't feel like the spell ever works. Of course, I get it that it's a deadly effect if the held creature doesn't happen to have buddies to help it out.
And I'm aware of how nice it is for my own characters to be able to keep making saves versus that very effect and others (dragon fear comes to mind).
But now if I see a spell doesn't do anything if they make their save and/or they get to keep making their save... I just don't typically bother. It's too much of a downer.
At long last, a question: how bad does the math get if the spell doesn't end when they make their save? Ie, what if casters could keep concentrating and force the opponent to keep making saves for the duration of the spell? I'm not good at the number crunching and am curious how that would imbalance things😀
I pick my spells based on which ones affect multiple targets so that when one successful save negates the spell multiple opponents have to save instead of just one. That limits me because some of the more powerful spells only affect a single target, but at least I’m more likely to have some affect that way too.
Professional computer geek
The flip side of your question is, what happens when a fighter misses his attack roll? The same thing.
Professional computer geek
Right, I see your point. Then again, it's not exactly the same, right? The fighter's sword doesn't dissolve into thin air when he misses like a 2nd-level spell slot does.
That might be what's at heart of this for me. The spell not working feels like a wasted resource.
Even one round of Hold Person can be devastating, both for action economy and because the target is easy to kill while paralyzed. But this is why it's known as "save or suck" - it used to be even worse, with a failed save meaning you were stuck for the duration of the spell, even for PCs. If you think saves each turn kill the fun, you don't know how one-or-none saves can kill the fun. If it's getting you down, gravitate toward spells with lesser effects that don't allow for saves each turn, like Suggestion.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
All creatures will have some saves that target their strengths and some will target their weaknesses. When choosing spells, try to have a good mix of abilities targeted. Big strong looking monster? Hit him with dex and wisdom saves. Evil cleric in heavy armor? Dex. Wizard? Strength.
It won’t always work. Sometimes the dice don’t roll your way, but you will on average get better results if you make the spell fit the target.
I'd guess this is the key, in a nutshell. Where before, hold person or whatever could apply in more situations, now it requires consideration.
Which is fine. But I remain curious: how bad would it get if succeeding on a save didn't get you out of hot water? Ie: not quite save-or-suck. You still get to save each turn, no matter success or failure. Too crazy?
So. you want a 2nd level enchantment spell... that when successful, guarantees every hit on the target to be a critical hit. (super devastating if you have a half-orc barbarian or fighter with you). Additionally, if its cast at a spell level higher than 2. you can target 1 more humanoid for each level...
and you think, it's not a good spell, because they *could* save out of it, after 1 round, and then you're down a spell slot? Never mind the fact that Rogue-instant crit and sneak attack. or savage attacker crits from half-orcs, etc.
Nevermind even the fact, that nothing is stopping another PC, from going over to the creature under hold person, and restraining them, since, they can't resist being restrained, to where even if they do save out of the spell, they are still grappled and restrained...
you think this spell needs to be more powerful?
Blank
I understand what you're getting at as someone who has played earlier versions. One of the big design intentions of 5E seems to be player agency. There are a few exceptions, but the game is built around keeping the players in the action as much as possible rather than sitting at the table twiddling their thumbs while everyone else takes their turn.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
All certainly true. And I acknowledged that hold person at least can be very devastating.
I just noticed that I tend to stay away from spell like it because I assume my luck with the dice won't work out. So, I was asking how terrible the balance got if the saves had to be rolled either way.
In other words, if a spell allows a save and has a duration of 1 minute, what if (as long as concentration was maintained) you had to roll saves for each of those 10 rounds? Obviously none of the math baked into 5e is built around this, so it would certainly imbalance things. I was trying gauge by how much :)
True. Your point is the best argument in favor of the way it is, and, as a player, I've certainly appreciated lots of shots at breaking out of those effects. (Although I spent an entire encounter trying to make a wisdom save versus dragon fear, failing each time. Oh well.)
Just a personal preference, ultimately. Because of how the saves are built in, I tend toward spells that deal guaranteed smaller effects, at least, and have other effects that the opponent can save out of. I just don't like to leave it up to the dice. Which sounds weird because so much can be up to the dice...
Spells are generally balanced so that their effect is reduced if they effect multiple targets or they have a longer duration. If the Hold Person spell didn’t give a chance to save every turn then it would have to have its effect lessened to balance things.
It is a very powerful spell that can take a very strong monster out of combat for several rounds, or may do nothing. If you don’t want to take the gamble then there are less damaging spells that have a higher certainty.