Saving Throws Every Round

[Trask]

A lot, lot, LOT of spells in this game grant the target a saving throw every single round.

Does anyone ever feel a little perplexed or annoyed by this? I feel as though when I play a caster I can't have any sense of reliability on my magic's power. And sometimes it just produces a silly effect wherein you blind or paralyze someone for a single round and its comedic to visualize.

I can see that the game probably does this in order to make spells less devastating fight enders, but I feel as though they went too far, or that there could have been a better mechanic for this. The target suffers the effect for a number of rounds equal to your spellcasting ability modifier perhaps. Or perhaps start save DCs at 10 rather than 8.

Does anyone else feel similarly?

[Tiadoppler]

The spell has to still be fun for the players, even when it's cast on them by enemies. I think that in a general sense: a player doesn't want to have to sit out an entire encounter because they failed a saving throw on round 1. D&D is a game, first, and a consistent magic system, second, (or distant thirty-fifth).

Also, balance is important. If you have a spell that Stuns/Paralyzes for (Spellcasting Ability Modifier) rounds, that's probably going to have to be a level 7-9 spell. It would utterly destroy any target that gets hit, because you and your allies can keep attacking them, for huge chunks of damage. By having more frequent saving throws, it lets spellcasters get access to those status effects at lower levels without balance issues.

[stoutstien]

Target weaker saves for more reliable results or use buffs which have no saves😊.
General rules:
Big and dumb target Wis, int, or cha
Fast and agile target strength and constitution

All else fails cast haste on the barb and let the lunk do the hard work.

[rel]

The problems with save or lose in 5e are twofold.

First:
Saves are much less reliable so everyone fails a lot more.

Second:
Divination wizards can use their portents to force failure.

I'm playing in a house ruled 5e game with flat out save or lose spells added in and the wizard I'm playing feels extremely over powered when compared to everyone else because a save once or lose is effectively a no save and lose.

My recommendation is to stick to the save every round design for debuffs and to seriously consider adding a save every round in if you come across a spell or ability especially a monster spell or ability that does not follow that principle.

However, if you are desperate to add more power to your spell casters look for the home brew book "The (Nearly) Complete Tome of Spells". It features a bunch of spells ported from second edition so concepts like saves every round, concentration and balanced effects do not make an appearance.

[Dark Schneider]

Remember that applies in both directions, so probably is for balance. Also because the resistances were removed, repeating the roll represents it for creatures with better saving throws.

[Unoriginal]

A lot, lot, LOT of spells in this game grant the target a saving throw every single round.

Does anyone ever feel a little perplexed or annoyed by this? I feel as though when I play a caster I can't have any sense of reliability on my magic's power

Magic is just neither as strong or as reliable as you want it to be.

It's still strong, though. It's just not strong enough make other combatants obsolete.

[EggKookoo]

My only problem with it is we often forget to roll. There are a number of ways to deal with that (tokens, etc.) and in a way it's a problem that solves itself. If we realized we forgot to roll last round, we can just assume the save failed and technically nothing broke.

I do also like how the victim has some power over shrugging off the effects.

[Gryndle]

Yeah, I'm of the "this is an improvement/working as intended camp."

Having played every edition of the game going back to the 70's/early 80's I have always hated the spells and effects that come down to 1 die roll deciding if you've won or lost. That and level loss were to me, the two worst design elements of ALL the editions, and I'm glad to see them gone.

[Trask]

I'm not experienced with any previous editions so I guess I can't comment too much on the other side. And I do concede that it is better than having them be total fight enders, but I feel as though there is a middle ground here they missed in their design, because for every devastating paralyzing spell that grants a save every round there is a spell like blindness/deafness that is almost completely useless due to its bad save target (also bad design IMO) and the fact that 1-3 rounds at most is not enough for anything you want blinded to really be that effective for anything outside of combat.

And really thats a big crux. The every round saves feel like they were build for combat first and foremost, and not for any kind of exploration, social, or sneaky gameplay. It just doesnt last long enough to be reliable for any of those things. And thats not inherently a bad thing but it basically shows that 5e's supposed "3 pillar" design is BS.

[MaxWilson]

A lot, lot, LOT of spells in this game grant the target a saving throw every single round.

Does anyone ever feel a little perplexed or annoyed by this?...Does anyone else feel similarly?

Nope. AD&D had spells which last e.g. 1 round per level of the caster. This is just another way of accomplishing that. The higher your DC relative to the target's save bonus, the longer the spell will last.

I do find Legendary Resistance annoying though because it so clunky, gamist and binary. (E.g. Legendary Resistance makes it extremely important to know whether a given spell is resisted by a "save" or a "check" or neither.)

As DM I've replaced Legendary Resistance with old-school magic resistance which lets you shrug off magic like "water off a duck's back." This makes Maze/Otto's/Wall of Force not overwhelmingly better than Hold Monster/Confusion/Hypnotic Pattern/Slow against dragons/titans/etc.

I'm not experienced with any previous editions so I guess I can't comment too much on the other side. And I do concede that it is better than having them be total fight enders, but I feel as though there is a middle ground here they missed in their design, because for every devastating paralyzing spell that grants a save every round there is a spell like blindness/deafness that is almost completely useless due to its bad save target (also bad design IMO) and the fact that 1-3 rounds at most is not enough for anything you want blinded to really be that effective for anything outside of combat.

And really thats a big crux. The every round saves feel like they were build for combat first and foremost, and not for any kind of exploration, social, or sneaky gameplay. It just doesnt last long enough to be reliable for any of those things. And thats not inherently a bad thing but it basically shows that 5e's supposed "3 pillar" design is BS.

Welcome to 5E. Everything in 5E is about combat. Why do you think 5E dragons fly at the speed of unwieldy blimps, 9 miles per hour when they're not Dashing? Do you really want to imagine a dragon drifting leisurely through the skies? But apparently they wanted to make dragons slow enough to "fit" their movement nicely on a typical tiny battle grid.

Why do you think the MM is filled with combat stats but has almost zero non-cliched guidance on monster organization, ecology, goals and motivations? 5E assumes that most monsters will appear onscreen briefly (approximately 18 seconds) and then die so the players can move on to the next "encounter."

Why do you think Savage Attacker costs the same as Mobile and Skulker, despite the latter being far more powerful in Combat As War scenarios? 5E is designed around Combat As Sport play where fights are basically a cage match; it doesn't even really contemplate the value of recon-in-force or skirmishing tactics. The assumption apparently is that Savage Attacker and other abilities that add a small percentage to your DPR are as valuable as abilities like Mobile because if you use Mobile to evade attack, the monster will just attack a different target--no thought at all is given to scenarios where players choose tactics that deny a monster the opportunity to attack any target, because in a Combat As Sport cage match where the monsters appear out of nowhere in your face on a tiny battlegrid those tactics can't be used. (Usually those tactics involve spreading out the party, putting a skirmisher on point, and exploiting ranged weaponry to provide mutual support from a distance.)

If you're not playing a game centered first and foremost on gamist Combat As Sport play, you should ask yourself why you chose 5E as your game system in the first place.

[Unoriginal]

And really thats a big crux. The every round saves feel like they were build for combat first and foremost, and not for any kind of exploration, social, or sneaky gameplay. It just doesnt last long enough to be reliable for any of those things. And thats not inherently a bad thing but it basically shows that 5e's supposed "3 pillar" design is BS.

It's unlikely that there will be rounds at all in an exploration or social situation. And I don't really see how you're going to use saving throw spells in exploration or social situations, too.

So... it kinda sounds like you have a solution in search of a problem. And no, the design is not bovine manure.

[Trustypeaches]

I'm not experienced with any previous editions so I guess I can't comment too much on the other side. And I do concede that it is better than having them be total fight enders, but I feel as though there is a middle ground here they missed in their design, because for every devastating paralyzing spell that grants a save every round there is a spell like blindness/deafness that is almost completely useless due to its bad save target (also bad design IMO) and the fact that 1-3 rounds at most is not enough for anything you want blinded to really be that effective for anything outside of combat.

Blindness/Deafness is balanced against it not requiring concentration, unlike almost every other major buff / debuff.

Also you don’t have to use “rounds” outside of combat.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Blindness/Deafness is balanced against it not requiring concentration, unlike almost every other major buff / debuff.

Also you don’t have to use “rounds” outside of combat.

It’s also not limited by creature type unlike hold person. I think the poster is also under valuing blindness. Disadvantage on attack rolls. Advantage to hit the target and shutting down abilities that require they see you.
In the most extreem example a blind beholder has zero offensive capability because all their eye rays require a creature that it can see.