Poll: How Often Should a Save Succeed?

[Tequila Sunrise]

A thread over on Enworld got me thinking about saves and DCs. I think it is often a problem that gamers have no commonly accepted standard of how often a save should be successful.

1. Should a character's good save be successful 50%, 75% or 95%?
2. Should a character's bad save be successful 5%, 25% or 50%?
3. Should character DCs differ from monster DCs? If so, by how much?
4. Do your opinions about how saves/DCs should interact differ from your experiences of how they actually interact? If so, how?

[Saph]

If I'm remembering the DMG right, the way it's supposed to be balanced is that, for a monster of a given CR, a character of equal level will make the save against their ability/effect/spell 50% of the time, if it's their good save.

So I suppose that makes it 50% of the time for good saves, and 25%-ish for bad saves. That sounds about right to me, although it doesn't take into account effects that are easy to save against but numerous (like vermin poison or carrion crawler tentacles).

- Saph

[bosssmiley]

Question rephrased: "How long is a piece of string?"

Saves should be passed or failed as often as is dramatically appropriate given your style of play. If you play 'the world, the gods and the laws of nature and fate all hate you' in a Gygax or WFRP style, failing saves should be often and harsh in outcome. If you play a fast-and-loose swashbuckling style even a failed save shouldn't usually be a ticket to the dead PC boxfile.

This may require some fudge-work on the part of the GM, but that's why you get the screen.

[Human Paragon 3]

It all depends on what monsters and traps the PCs face and vice versa. This striked me as a bit nit-picky, I mean, you roll the dice and hope for the best. If the DM is paying any sort of attention to the challenge ratings things should work out fine.

[ZeroNumerous]

This may require some fudge-work on the part of the GM, but that's why you get the screen.

I fully support this notion. Just because your halfling rogue failed his reflex save to grab onto the ledge that hangs over the Bottomless Chasm of Doom(TM) doesn't mean the party shouldn't get a chance to save him.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have to say, I've posted this thread on three other boards and the responses here are by far the most hippie-ish. Not good or bad...just interesting.

[Neon Knight]

I feel good saves should succeed 75% of the time and poor 25% of the time.

[LotharBot]

it is often a problem that gamers have no commonly accepted standard of how often a save should be successful.

Why is this a problem, exactly?

So long as everyone at your gaming table agrees with each other, or at least is willing not to whine too much about their disagreements, it's all good.

[Jack_Simth]

I fully support this notion. Just because your halfling rogue failed his reflex save to grab onto the ledge that hangs over the Bottomless Chasm of Doom(TM) doesn't mean the party shouldn't get a chance to save him.

If it's truely the Bottomless Chasm of Doom(TM), they've got time. The biggest danger is starvation.

It's not the fall that hurts, it's the sudden stop at the end. If there's no bottom to the pit....

[Quietus]

As a DM, I look at how often they'll be asked to make that save. If it's a "Save or die" that the creature can do a limited (small) number of times, I set it up so that those with a Good save will make it about 75% of the time, and the poor saves between 25-50 (Depending on character optimization). This way you don't end up with a few unlucky rolls ruining everything without a pile of natural 1's.

If it's a limited number of times, but only annoying, not save or die, then I'll let the save rise a bit higher, so that a good save gets you a 50% pass, and a poor save is 25% pass.

If it's something that I expect to be applied many times (see builds that utilize monks, natural attacks, and Touch of Golden Ice), I keep the DC VERY low. I make sure that the lowest save in the party can pass it at least 50%, which means those with good saves should be well over 75%.

If they're going up against the BBEG, I'll see to it that they have the saves raised a bit, because if they do things right they'll have planning on their side, and no one with good planning should go into a BBEG fight unbuffed. That means that the above remains approximately equal, until Dispels start getting thrown around. Then it's all in the dice's hands.

[Orzel]

I believe it should be (past level 3 or so)

Good save with high importance on corresponding attribute: 90%
Good save with normal-low importance on corresponding attribute: 75%
Poor save with high importance on corresponding attribute: 50%
Poor save with high importance on corresponding attribute: 25%

A good save is 2 + 1/2 your level + the attribute mod.
A poor save is 1/3 your level + the attribute mod.
Most non spell DCs are 10 + 1/2 the HD + the attribute mod.
Spell DCs are 10-19 + the attribute mod. A full caster's highest spell level increases by 1/2 their level +1 (making their highest spell DC normally 11 + /12 level + the attribute mod)

So a person would need an 8 or 9 to make a good save and a 12 or more for a poor one. Poor saves require an increasing better roll with level. Having an importance to the save's attribute decreases your roll need. Fort and Ref monster saves are usually easier because they an Con or Cha based and Con/Cha is usually not their highest stat. Spells are tougher since casters tend to boost them highest but they can't spam their highest level spell.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I think PCs should save 75% of the time and monsters 25% of the time. It's annoying for PCs to be taken out of action due to a single role and annoying for monsters to pass their save wasting an entire spell slot.

[Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick]

I'm fond of a relatively high save rate, myself.
While it doesn't fit any 'gritty' or high-TPK playstyle, some single-save abilities just shut down at least one character's fun.

To give an example- the Umber Hulk's confusing gaze recently gobsmacked out party Cleric in one game I played.
Because of that one failed save, she spent the battle wailing, running away, and generally being unhelpful, but most of all, she spent the battle out of the player's control. There are very few things as infuriating as completely losing control of your character, and more often than not, a failed save means just that.

[Lord Zentei]

I have to say, I've posted this thread on three other boards and the responses here are by far the most hippie-ish. Not good or bad...just interesting.

What does "hippie-ish" mean?

I think PCs should save 75% of the time and monsters 25% of the time. It's annoying for PCs to be taken out of action due to a single role and annoying for monsters to pass their save wasting an entire spell slot.

Depends on the monster; whether it is a minor encounter or a major one. For minor ones, I'd say 75% for the PC, 25% for the monster. For major encounters it's more 50% - 50% (modifiable in the character's favour depending on how well they have been performing during the mission: picking up the right items, getting the right intel, etc). The difference between "major" and "minor" being the importance of the encounter vis-a-vis the episode in question.

The reason for making important mosters stronger is that the PCs don't deserve victory just by marching in there and blasting, but by building up their resources and, well, advancing the plot. Archvillains for story arcs: skewed heavily in the archvillain's favour, but modifiable to the 50-50 point as for "major" encounters above and for the same reasons.

And while I agree that allowing a PC to be taken out by a single roll (at least for a "minor" encounter) is bad, the same does not hold for monsters, neccesarily, since losing a spell slot is not the same as losing a character: you presumably have more where it came from, and it's not as though success should be immediate and certain.

[Draz74]

I feel good saves should succeed 75% of the time and poor 25% of the time.

That's interesting, because the furthest apart the two ever get is a 30% difference. And that's only at level 20. (Since characters who increase selective saves somehow, such as Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will feats, will generally improve their save that is otherwise weak, not the one that is already good!)

EDIT: My own opinion: the game has too many save-or-lose effects in it right now, so saves had better have a pretty decent success rate (though never as high as 95%, I would hope). But most effects should hopefully have partial effects that still work on a successful save.

If the game had much weaker effects that could happen with a failed save, but the save negated the effect completely, then I would be in favor of successful saves actually being rare.

[Matthew]

It's interesting this, and feeds into the discussion about how to enhance Fighters, as well. The ways Saves were changed in 3.x D&D was brilliant and stupid at the same time. Fortitude, Reflex and Willpower are great ideas, poorly executed. Seriously, a Level 20 Fighter gets +6 Basic Save against Spells that range from 11-19 in DC and are generally much higher?
Looking back at (A)D&D it just makes no sense at all, as Fighter 20 Saves there are fixed scores of 75% to 95% success before modifiers (which were usually -20% for very powerful Spells, but could be countered by high Wisdom).

A Level 20 Wizard is going to be creating Level Nine DCs of something like 25-30. A Level 20 Fighter, even with maxed out Attributes, is more than likely going to fail Reflex and Willpower Saves.

I am going to plump for 'it ought to be' around 25% failure to resist at equivalent levels without magical aid, but enforcing that sort of thing on such variable dynamics is very difficult.