Why don't 1s/20s autofail/pass on Saving Throws?

[Dalinar]

I think there's a bigger philosophical divide about randomness in TTRPGs and how swingy any given thing ought to be.

But with respect to saving throws, yeah, if you're seeing players who cannot pass/fail on a 20/1 respectively, something about the scaling of their opposition has gotten out of balance. I think I'd support it anyway for edge cases like "I have 8 INT at tier four and am supposed to be facing DC20+ saves at this level," and for the greater question, which is why bother rolling if every result on the die will have the same effect?

[Luccan]

First, this thread is actually the first time I realized that rule was different in 5e. It doesn't come up that much that a nat 20 wouldn't pass a save anyway, as others have said, although clearly it can.

Second, it's also important to remember, despite what the forums seem to think, plenty of tables still roll stats. I have seen plenty of characters with stats lower than 8, so even a DC 19 can be flat out impossible for a character, let alone a save DC that breaks with bounded accuracy.

[Cheesegear]

It's a little weird how I acknowledged ability checks in my first post and both thread title and first post were about saving throws specifically, but you still wrote a lot about ability checks, and not saving throws.

Same difference.

I can probably count on two hands, maybe, the number of Saving Throw DCs in the 21+ range. And even then, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of those threats are in the high Tier 3, Tier 4 range*. Those creatures are supposed to be campaign-ending threats. I would hate the idea of a flat 5% chance of just ignoring a campaign-ending threat-level attack. And if a character dies to one such attack...Yep.

(As I said, Asmodeus being the example in the OP is probably the worst example you could give. I hope you find the battle against the Lord of the Nine Hells hard. I hope he kills a character. Maybe even two! But I can't imagine that the "better" examples are even that much better.)

*The lowest hostile I can find is a Goristro, with its DC 21 Hoof attack - they're CR 17.

Same thing at the low end. You're 16th Level Cleric with a +5 in Wisdom - +11. Some Cult Fanatic hits you with a Hold Person...And there's a flat 5% chance that it works. At level 16 a Cleric will have fought several demons and maybe even a Lich. But some Cult Fanatic gets lucky with a cheap shot? I guess that's possible...But it's lame.

Knowing that your character has literally zero chance of doing anything is not fun.

That should happen to your character. More than once. What's incredibly frustrating is if your DM is doing that all the time.

If my players find it frustrating because in a particular fight they couldn't do anything, they would try to come up with a way so that it doesn't happen again.

Worse, it puts all of the other characters/players in the horrible position of either fighting shorthanded or trying to come up with some way to help the impossible saving throw.

That's probably what makes the fight...Well...A challenge. Effectively you're saying that "Hard DCs make fights hard, and that's bad."

When I cast a Dominate Person against the party, and the player spends four turns not rolling higher than an 8 and the dice just hate them. How is that really different to if they could never pass the save at all? The spend the whole fight being Dominated one way or the other.
(Why didn't the Wizard just cast Dispel Magic? ...Because they thought the character would pass the saving throw eventually.)

Second, it's also important to remember, despite what the forums seem to think, plenty of tables still roll stats. I have seen plenty of characters with stats lower than 8, so even a DC 19 can be flat out impossible for a character, let alone a save DC that breaks with bounded accuracy.

And that's fine.
Tables who roll stats are perfectly aware that glaring weaknesses in their characters cause glaring problems - and that's one of them. Hopefully the DM takes that into account and doesn't just tailor to their weaknesses. But of course, every so often they will ('cause why wouldn't they) and what does the party do then?

[Jerrykhor]

When I cast a Dominate Person against the party, and the player spends four turns not rolling higher than an 8 and the dice just hate them. How is that really different to if they could never pass the save at all? The spend the whole fight being Dominated one way or the other.
(Why didn't the Wizard just cast Dispel Magic? ...Because they thought the character would pass the saving throw eventually.)

Of course its different, do you really have to ask that? Is it different if a man dies of an accident compared to if he was murdered?

[Cheesegear]

Of course its different, do you really have to ask that?

Yes. In fact I already have. D&D is a consequentialist game. It doesn't matter if you roll a 4 or a 14. Neither pass a DC 15...And since you didn't pass a DC 15, you weren't going to pass a DC 21, either.

Is it different if a man dies of an accident compared to if he was murdered?

Motivationally? Of course.
Consequentially? No.

I can only pass a DC 21+ save (or make a DC 21+ skill check) if I roll a 20. Which is gonna make it feel so good when I pass.
But the other 19 times you will fail.
So you're saying there's a chance!?
I...Guess?
14.
Fail. You are cooked by the Ancient Dragon's Breath Weapon. Go to dying.

The Ancient Black Dragon's Breath Weapon has DC 22.
Well I have a +1 in DEX, so the max I can roll is 21.
Auto-fail. Take 98 Acid damage.
I'm down.

19 out of 20 times the outcome is the same. But if you allow the 5% auto-pass, that's just gambling.

Are we actually arguing for the endorphin rush for the chance of hitting that 5%? ...I suppose there's something to be said for that. But I don't support it.

[Jerrykhor]

Yes. In fact I already have. D&D is a consequentialist game. It doesn't matter if you roll a 4 or a 14. Neither pass a DC 15...And since you didn't pass a DC 15, you weren't going to pass a DC 21, either.

But it does matter. If you roll close to the DC, you still might pass due to things like Bless, Flash of Genius etc.

I can only pass a DC 21+ save (or make a DC 21+ skill check) if I roll a 20. Which is gonna make it feel so good when I pass.
But the other 19 times you will fail.
So you're saying there's a chance!?
I...Guess?

Its not 'I guess' its 'Yes'. 5% is a chance, 0% is not a chance.

19 out of 20 times the outcome is the same. But if you allow the 5% auto-pass, that's just gambling.

Then the entire game is just gambling since its almost all made of dice rolls. And it can be more than 5% you know. Like if i take a Dodge action before making a Dex save.

Are we actually arguing for the endorphin rush for the chance of hitting that 5%? ...I suppose there's something to be said for that. But I don't support it.

Yes..? Do you not play games to feel good? Do you not play games for fun? I dont mean to sound harsh but some of the comments are so dumb.

[Cheesegear]

But it does matter. If you roll close to the DC, you still might pass due to things like Bless, Flash of Genius etc.

I already assume that if you're making a hard saving throw, you're already doing everything you can to pass it. I'm already taking bonuses into account. When I say "Roll", I'm including all modifiers.

If you can't pass a DC 22 save without Bless, why don't you have Bless already?

Then the entire game is just gambling since its almost all made of dice rolls.

No. The game is about rigging things in your favor. You take Proficiency in Athletics to fudge the dice roll, so that when you roll a 14, and fails, the modifier actually makes it a 19 and passes DC 15. You didn't roll a 14. You fudged the dice roll using choices you made and it was a 19. You already mentioned Bless and Flash of Genius. You are continuously adding modifiers to make your chances better. Ideally, at some point, you can't even fail a roll even if you roll a '1'. It's no longer gambling... Unless you say that a '1' always fails no matter what...Then you will always be gambling on failure - even on easy checks. If it has a dice roll (e.g; DC 5), you can fail at it, even if your modifier is +11.

But this check is so easy my character can do it in their sleep! Why do I even have to roll?
Nope. You always have a base 5% failure rate even if - or especially if - the DC is only 5.

When a Rogue literally can't roll below a 10...Are they still gambling when they can always pass any DC 10 or less?

Yes..? Do you not play games to feel good?

I don't play D&D to simulate gambling, no. I'm an adult. If I wanted to gamble...Well I could just go do that.

[rel]

The real issue for me is not the specific nature of saving throw mechanics, but the presence of effects that immediately remove a character from the fight, save or no.

I think the game is improved if effects like that simply do not exist.

At no point, should a player be unable to participate in the game no matter how badly they roll or how their character was constructed.
Steps were taken to reduce the frequency with which this happened in 5e, when compared to earlier editions, but I don't think they went far enough, and some of those efforts were actually walked back over time.

The issue isn't saves, it's the effects you have to save against.

[Rukelnikov]

The real issue for me is not the specific nature of saving throw mechanics, but the presence of effects that immediately remove a character from the fight, save or no.

I think the game is improved if effects like that simply do not exist.

At no point, should a player be unable to participate in the game no matter how badly they roll or how their character was constructed.
Steps were taken to reduce the frequency with which this happened in 5e, when compared to earlier editions, but I don't think they went far enough, and some of those efforts were actually walked back over time.

The issue isn't saves, it's the effects you have to save against.

How many times in stories are princes turned into frogs or champions turned to stone? Those elements are very much part of medieval fantasy stories and should be present in the game, if some groups don't like those kinds of effects they shouldn't use them, but their presence in the spellcasting chapter and monster manual is more than warranted.

[Cheesegear]

The real issue for me is not the specific nature of saving throw mechanics, but the presence of effects that immediately remove a character from the fight, save or no.

Terrain can remove a character from a fight. A bad Initiative roll removes a character from a fight - the fight is over before you even get a turn.

Something, something...Surprise round.

At no point, should a player be unable to participate in the game no matter how badly they roll or how their character was constructed.

Down this road leads "Conditions shouldn't exist, and the only way to remove Creatures from the game is to do Hit Point damage."

That game gets boring pretty fast. Unless you follow up with "The players should be allowed to, but the DM can't..."

The issue isn't saves, it's the effects you have to save against.

An Ancient Black Dragon has a Breath Weapon with a DC of 22.
On a failed save, it can fairly moderately do around 100 damage. It Recharges.

It doesn't paralyse. It doesn't petrify. The Breath Weapon just does hit point damage. Is this what you want everything to be?

[Jerrykhor]

Another point to make is the fact that most spells that last 1 min have repeating save every round. Its supposed to help you break free early, but it defeats the purpose if the DC is too high to the point where you have 0% chance. Therefore the houserule serve as a min baseline to pass the save. 5% is a fine minimum.

[Mastikator]

Another point to make is the fact that most spells that last 1 min have repeating save every round. Its supposed to help you break free early, but it defeats the purpose if the DC is too high to the point where you have 0% chance. Therefore the houserule serve as a min baseline to pass the save. 5% is a fine minimum.

You have a 40% chance to break free after 10 turns if the odds are 5% per turn. That's 10 turns of doing nothing, or more realistically, 3 combats of doing nothing. A nat 20 = auto save is false hope. What will happen in play will feel and play the same.

This is not a rules issue but a team play issue. You need the support of your team, they should be buffing you, or trying to break the concentration of the enemy caster, or dispelling the effect.

[Amnestic]

Same difference.

I don't think that really works when the examples you made objectively can never apply to saving throws.

I can probably count on two hands, maybe, the number of Saving Throw DCs in the 21+ range. And even then, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of those threats are in the high Tier 3, Tier 4 range*. Those creatures are supposed to be campaign-ending threats. I would hate the idea of a flat 5% chance of just ignoring a campaign-ending threat-level attack. And if a character dies to one such attack...Yep.

(As I said, Asmodeus being the example in the OP is probably the worst example you could give. I hope you find the battle against the Lord of the Nine Hells hard. I hope he kills a character. Maybe even two! But I can't imagine that the "better" examples are even that much better.)

Same thing at the low end. You're 16th Level Cleric with a +5 in Wisdom - +11. Some Cult Fanatic hits you with a Hold Person...And there's a flat 5% chance that it works. At level 16 a Cleric will have fought several demons and maybe even a Lich. But some Cult Fanatic gets lucky with a cheap shot? I guess that's possible...But it's lame.

I don't think it's lame! And that's kinda the end of the discussion on that one, lol.

A nat 20 = auto save is false hope.

Ain't false when it comes true!

[Salmon343]

Not really a fan of auto fails and successes. It only really punishes optimisation, and being particularly good at things.

Normally you'd fail on a natural one regardless, due to missing the DC. So you'll only pass if the DC is low and you're highly skilled, or if you've optimised for success.

For the first option, failing here can often lead to disappointing scenarios that diminishes a character's skill. The wizard failing to remember basic arcane theory, or the fighter stumbling on an easy athletic feat.

On the top end, automatically succeeding on a natural 20 can diminish other character's specialisations. Such as a character lucking into obscure religious lore that the cleric has no idea of. Of course you can have the DM refuse rolls without sufficient reasoning to have the knowledge or skill, but this essentially shifts the burden away from the mechanics spitting a failure out to the DM having to keep track of even more variables. While I as a DM do make checks easier or only possible for the appropriate characters, that would be more difficult for a larger party. And I don't always do it - I often set high DCs without gating the check, it requires a high level of specialisation for me to do that.

For the second option, I feel like if someone's burned resources and/or character build choices to be good as something, they should be good at it. If you allow too much randomness without the ability to mitigate it through skill, you destroy the tactical joy of the game.

For example, Conc. checks and BG3. Going prone breaks concentration in BG3. There's no counterplay other than preventing yourself from going prone. Worse still, you can auto fail on a natural 1 for even DC 10 checks. So I can have a decent con, proficiency in the save, and my paladin aura up, and still have a 5% failure chance. That's high when you're rocking haste! It essentially kills the tactical play of maintaining concentration, making battles more swingy and making concentration spells a worse option because they're unreliable. Or my Paladin may roll a natural 1 and fail a DC 5 Persuasion check, when he's rocking a +10 to it. It kills reliability, which is what you want skilled characters to have for easy tasks. As much as I love BG3, auto fails on a 1 is one of the many changes they've made that I think doesn't benefit the game.

If we must have auto fails and passes, please just roll 3d6. (All 1s and all 6s.) I can accept the chance of "stuff happens" when it's ten times less likely.

[Rukelnikov]

You have a 40% chance to break free after 10 turns if the odds are 5% per turn. That's 10 turns of doing nothing, or more realistically, 3 combats of doing nothing. A nat 20 = auto save is false hope. What will happen in play will feel and play the same.

Right, because otherwise when you roll a 20 to get free of Hold Monster but still don't beat the DC you feel much better.

This is not a rules issue but a team play issue. You need the support of your team, they should be buffing you, or trying to break the concentration of the enemy caster, or dispelling the effect.

Which is completely independent of a character's chances of resisting a spell or effect, if the effect shouldn't be resistible at all then don't roll.

[Mastikator]

Right, because otherwise when you roll a 20 to get free of Hold Monster but still don't beat the DC you feel much better.



Which is completely independent of a character's chances of resisting a spell or effect, if the effect shouldn't be resistible at all then don't roll.

If your plan is to roll 20 then you are planning on having a bad time.

Edit- I need to stress why this is not a good argument. If every combat lasts long enough for you to get 3 turns and you always get targeted by Hold Person on the first turn, a nat 20 will save you 15% of the combats. That's slightly more than once per 11 combats. You will still spend 10 combats doing nothing and 1 combat where you get to do something.

This is what I call false hope. Getting to act 10% of the time is still a bad time. As was mentioned in this thread, you're playing to your weakness. You are planning on having a bad time.

[Cheesegear]

This is not a rules issue but a team play issue. You need the support of your team, they should be buffing you, or trying to break the concentration of the enemy caster, or dispelling the effect.

Agreed.

Again. I need to point out that the easiest creature that has a DC 21+ saving throw (Strength), is CR 17.
(Against anything other than DC 21+, a nat 20 would pass anyway)

Your DM is unlikely to put you up against a CR 17 creature until you're at least Level 12. Remember, a Goristro is the least of your problems. If your DM puts you against much higher threats (such as a Pit Fiend or Ancient Dragon), you should be an even higher level than 12 - or your DM is actively trying for a TPK.

If you're in Level 13+ play, and have been Incapacitated for more than...Let's say two rounds...Your party has let you down. Badly.
(Seriously though, more than one round?)

[Amnestic]

Most of the concentration discussion, for obvious reasons, has been centred around player characters, but I'd note that there's a creatures out there with really solid con saves (dragons, for example) where suddenly you need to be doing 30+ damage in a a single attack in order to have a chance to break their concentration.

Which isn't really viable for some characters. Martials especially. Some can do it (paladins with big smites) but what's a ranger going to do? Or a monk? Or even a fighter? Yeah they can attack 8 times a turn, but if each attack is only doing 1d8+10 from their +3 longsword and dueling fighting style then they've never got a chance at it. Even on a crit!

Should a master combatant, a 20th level fighter, be completely unable to even have a chance at breaking the concentration of an ancient dragon outside of killing it? Is this once again something they must rely on spellcasters to achieve for them via Disintegrate or some other large damage spell?

You are planning on having a bad time.

No one is planning "oh I will roll a nat 20 so it'll be fine".

But having it as something that can happen is neat. Maybe no one can save you because they're otherwise occupied. Maybe they don't need to because you hit that 20. Or maybe it give you just a sliver of something to do each turn while you wait to be helped, instead of "I do nothing, since I autofail the save".

[Jerrykhor]

If your plan is to roll 20 then you are planning on having a bad time.

Every time i roll a d20, i plan to get a 20. I seldom do, but i dont feel terrible when i dont.

Edit- I need to stress why this is not a good argument. If every combat lasts long enough for you to get 3 turns and you always get targeted by Hold Person on the first turn, a nat 20 will save you 15% of the combats. That's slightly more than once per 11 combats. You will still spend 10 combats doing nothing and 1 combat where you get to do something.

This is what I call false hope. Getting to act 10% of the time is still a bad time. As was mentioned in this thread, you're playing to your weakness. You are planning on having a bad time.

I see some of you all haven't experienced rolling a nat20 when you absolutely need a nat20. Nobody plans to get hit with a Hold Person every combat. Barbarian players don't purposely seek out Illithids to fight. Yes, the math is not in your favour. But so what? You know that actual outcome doesn't always reflect the statistical chance. right?

Nat20s on death save can also get you up from being downed. Does that mean players plan to be downed?

[Mastikator]

No one is planning "oh I will roll a nat 20 so it'll be fine".

But having it as something that can happen is neat. Maybe no one can save you because they're otherwise occupied. Maybe they don't need to because you hit that 20. Or maybe it give you just a sliver of something to do each turn while you wait to be helped, instead of "I do nothing, since I autofail the save".

That sliver is that for every 10 combat where you do nothing, you get to do something for one combat. When you fail on a 20 you'd spend 11 combats doing nothing, this change changes that so you are able to do something in 1 of those 11 combats. Going from 0/11 to 1/11 is to my mind still a waste of time. Barely worth showing up for the game. Definitely not worth playing this character. But if you plan on playing a character who is so easily CC'd, and your answer to change the rules, then your plan is still a plan where you have a bad time.

I think what you are not taking into consideration with this auto-save on nat 20 rule change is this: you are still planning on spending 10 out of 11 combats doing nothing. That is a plan to have a bad time. Thinking this rule will change the experience is false hope, because it won't. If anything it is hope torture, it tricks players into thinking there's a chance, while realistically there isn't.

[Amnestic]

If anything it is hope torture, it tricks players into thinking there's a chance, while realistically there isn't.

I mean, realistically there is a chance. 5%! That's infinitely more than 0%!

[Salmon343]

Most of the concentration discussion, for obvious reasons, has been centred around player characters, but I'd note that there's a creatures out there with really solid con saves (dragons, for example) where suddenly you need to be doing 30+ damage in a a single attack in order to have a chance to break their concentration.

Which isn't really viable for some characters. Martials especially. Some can do it (paladins with big smites) but what's a ranger going to do? Or a monk? Or even a fighter? Yeah they can attack 8 times a turn, but if each attack is only doing 1d8+10 from their +3 longsword and dueling fighting style then they've never got a chance at it. Even on a crit!

Should a master combatant, a 20th level fighter, be completely unable to even have a chance at breaking the concentration of an ancient dragon outside of killing it? Is this once again something they must rely on spellcasters to achieve for them via Disintegrate or some other large damage spell?

I think there's better ways of fixing this. Perhaps martials should have a feature that instead chances the concentration DC to 10, or dmg (whichever is higher), or 10+(dmg/2). This would allow martials to have some measure of control over this by increasing how much damage they deal with other class features.

We can also flip this on its head. The martial might deserve a 5% chance of shaking an enemy's concentration, but does the dragon deserve a 5% chance of losing it when a lucky arrow from a plucky commoner hits?

[Cheesegear]

I think what you are not taking into consideration with this auto-save on nat 20 rule change is this: you are still planning on spending 10 out of 11 combats doing nothing. That is a plan to have a bad time. Thinking this rule will change the experience is false hope, because it won't. If anything it is hope torture, it tricks players into thinking there's a chance, while realistically there isn't.

For the record, the encounter sheet for the session the DM has reads like this:

Encounter 1. Ancient Red Dragon
2. Goristro
3. Ancient Black Dragon
4. Nightwalker
5. Goristro
6. Jubilex for some reason is here
7. Nightwalker again
8. Kraken
9. Demogorgon
10. Ancient Red Dragon again
11. Followed up by a third Nightwalker

The only purpose of the Nat 20 Pass is to make some of the hardest monsters in the game, slightly easier. Is this the game session that people in this thread are talking about? Because the above session is the only circumstance where the "Nat 20" rule applies. In all other encounters, rolling a 20 without modifiers beats the DC, you win!

The Drow Mage casts Cloudkill, make a Save.
NAT 20!!!!11!1!
...A 14 would have worked just as well. You get nothing by rolling a 20 except for what you would've got anyway.

DC 21+ Skill checks (especially when they're Opposed Checks) are much more common, and are therefore much more worth talking about.

[Amnestic]

We can also flip this on its head. The martial might deserve a 5% chance of shaking an enemy's concentration, but does the dragon deserve a 5% chance of losing it when a lucky arrow from a plucky commoner hits?

Personally, yes, because that's part of the appeal/idea of bounded accuracy, or so I thought? That low level creatures could still be viable threats, and that high level creatures weren't so completely dominating that there was "nothing" you could do.

[Mastikator]

I mean, realistically there is a chance. 5%! That's infinitely more than 0%!

If that's the difference between a boring game and a fun game for you then be my guest. I'd probably add auto-success on nat 20 if my players asked me. They'd ask me because they think it will save them, and I don't mind adding it because I know that it won't.

But I'd probably talk to them about how they can improve their teamwork, and I'd look into using CC monsters with lower DCs.

Edit-
@Cheesegear Out of respect for the topic I'll withhold my opinion on skill checks, but I do agree with you.
However I don't think it makes it slightly easier. That is an epic party doing epic stuff, they probably have DCs in the 20s too. A caster with synaptic static and a +3 DC item at this level would have a save DC of 22. A Goristro has an int save of -2, it also saves against spells with advantage. You gave yourself a 5% (up from 0%) chance to do stuff in exchange for the Goristro getting a 9.75% (up from 0%) to not sucking. Nat1/Nat20 rules tend to even the odds between two teams, and since players have much bigger chance to win this change actually benefits the monsters.
The only scenario where the players benefit from nat1/nat20 on saves are combats where the odds are stacked against the players and they are more likely to TPK than win.

[Cheesegear]

Rolling a 1. Realistically, the only thing this applies to is Concentration, where the DC is often 10. And too many hostiles have a Con +9 or more. If the DCs are higher than 11 or 12 (very common), then the difference between rolling a 1 or 2 is irrelevant.

However, if you're complaining that the hostiles keep passing DC 10 Con saves to make Concentration, maybe you should try doing more damage? Why isn't the Paladin doing a Divine Smite and forcing a DC 28 Concentration save? Is the Rogue not Sneak Attack'ing right?

Basically, anyone who thinks that Nat 1 saving throws need to be a thing is merely complaining that Hostiles can Concentrate, and that means their spells stay up, and that makes them too hard. Boo. Hiss.

Rolling a 20. As has been brought up several times, if you can roll a 20 on a saving throw. You've passed nearly all the saving throws in the game. The only saving throws you haven't passed, are those that are DC 21+. Reserved for literally the dozen or so strongest monsters in the game (and it's quite arguable that them having DC 21+ is what makes them so difficult), most of which your DM shouldn't even play with until you're at least Level 13.

Basically, anyone who thinks that Nat 20 saving throws need to be a thing is merely complaining that the literal strongest monsters in the game need to be 5% easier for some characters.

However I don't think it makes it slightly easier. That is an epic party doing epic stuff, they probably have DCs in the 20s too. A caster with synaptic static and a +3 DC item at this level would have a save DC of 22. A Goristro has an int save of -2, it also saves against spells with advantage...

I assume that the Nat 1/20 issue is from a player's side. Not from a DM's side.
If the DM is playing fairly, and knows that the power-gaming party has a DC 22 Caster, they can always just not use the Goristo. Or like...Anything with Legendary Resistance.
If the DM is playing unfairly they can do whatever they want.

I don't believe that the Nat 1/20 rule for saving throws would be an issue for DMs.

[Amnestic]

Rolling a 1. Realistically, the only thing this applies to is Concentration, where the DC is often 10. And too many hostiles have a Con +9 or more. If the DCs are higher than 11 or 12 (very common), then the difference between rolling a 1 or 2 is irrelevant.

However, if you're complaining that the hostiles keep passing DC 10 Con saves to make Concentration, maybe you should try doing more damage? Why isn't the Paladin doing a Divine Smite and forcing a DC 28 Concentration save? Is the Rogue not Sneak Attack'ing right?

I pointed out martials that can do higher concentration saves, and ones that cannot, and your response is "just be another class", I guess? Not really very helpful there. Didn't know that paladins were mandatory for higher level content, but the more you know I guess.

[Salmon343]

Personally, yes, because that's part of the appeal/idea of bounded accuracy, or so I thought? That low level creatures could still be viable threats, and that high level creatures weren't so completely dominating that there was "nothing" you could do.

Good point. I personally prefer level scaling in some form, but bounded accuracy is a part of 5e's identity.

I'd still argue that there's a more elegant way to do it than just by having 1's and 20's automatically fail and succeed, for how they impact reliability. I can accept attrition being a factor (so having a low chance of automatically failing) if it's a lot lower than 5%. Maybe natural failures should confirm similarly to crits in 3.5, which would make it 1/400 rather than 1/20.

[Mastikator]

I assume that the Nat 1/20 issue is from a player's side. Not from a DM's side.
If the DM is playing fairly, and knows that the power-gaming party has a DC 22 Caster, they can always just not use the Goristo. Or like...Anything with Legendary Resistance.
If the DM is playing unfairly they can do whatever they want.

I don't believe that the Nat 1/20 rule for saving throws would be an issue for DMs.

I don't assume that, I assume dice rules are symmetric between players and NPCs. The part that is asymmetric is the goals, the players goal is to complete the quest and killing the NPCs is a means to that end. The DM's goal is to challenge the party as they complete the quest, add stakes to make them care and obstacles to make them try. A goristro is still a fine choice of encounter because the party will be expending resources, and it's OK to let the players win by playing strategically.
If you have 2 combats (each lasting 3 rounds), each with a goristro, and the goristro now saves on a nat 20 (and without this rule they don't), then it's a ~54% chance that one of them will save at least once (up from 0%). I'd say that this rule should be symmetric between PCs and NPCs, and is not a basis for the DM to change anything. Because it will not help the players anyway.

[Rukelnikov]

Basically, anyone who thinks that Nat 20 saving throws need to be a thing is merely complaining that the literal strongest monsters in the game need to be 5% easier for some characters.

No, I complain about a lack of consistency in the design philosophy of the game and the checks it calls for.

The game establishes that when there's no uncertainty in the outcome of an event no roll is needed, and when someone is subject to a spell or effect it calls for a ST.

Therefore the ST must have at least 2 different outcomes.