I think saves you are not proficient in get to weak as you level. Initially you have a decent chance to make a will save. But at high levels and they are like DC 19 and you still are +0 at it.
Im thinking that you should get your proficiency bonus to all saves and have advantage in the saves you are trained in. Monsters should get similar bumps in saves.
What do you think of this as a house rule? He'll maybe errata when people start playing high level games more. Other than minor nitpicks and a wish that you got feats and stat bumps it's my only real complaint. I find the game well balanced otherwise for a launch.
3.5 was similar, and it was one of my critiques of the game. Either you were almost assured to make a save or you have very little shot of doing so.
In my own 3.5 homebrew I assigned players an extra point to improve the save of their choice every few levels, along with a bonus point that had to be put into the char's primary save every few levels. This made is so, by 20th level, the char's saves could look very much like they did in the 3.5 normal way of doing things, but if the player preferred, the saves could be much more evened out.
Huntsman57 wrote:
I think the idea was to nerf spells, and give very few spell slots to casters - having done that, the spells should actually work at a respectable clip (> 50%?)
In other words, your spells might be tougher to save against vs. 3e - but many spells allow a save every round now, and again casters have like 1/4 the slots of spells level 6+ as 3e. So they'd better have a good chance to have an effect.
Frankly, I'm worried about casters at high levels. Your 1 spell per day of levels 6+ gets saved against, resisted, misses, or whatever, and you're maybe using low level spells against legendary monsters etc Haven't played high level so not sure. Can say that casters are AOK at lower levels I've played.
mcintma wrote:
I've never cared for using spells that are 1 shot either it works or nothing happens, particularly when the spell is single target. I'd prefer to buff my party and deal damage to the enemies...activities that always have an impact. Now in 5E, with so many of these spells allowing the target to attempt a renewed save every round after having failed the save...I don't see why anyone would take such spells. They strike me as almost a waste of a spell slot.
Ahglock wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The effects of failing a save have been, generally speaking, reduced - thus making it not as significant of an "issue" that non-proficient saves become more difficult to succeed at.
I think that it would require playing at high level for a prolonged period of time to see for sure if there is an actual problem to fix, or if it just looks like a problem on paper.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Oh no, the PC's aren't invulnerable to high level monster attacks. Whatever are we to do?
I think Ability boosts and the Resiliant Feat can alter saves for those who are concerned. Also, Shield Master feat will grant +2 to Dex save if it can be blocked by a shield, and Mage Slayer will grant advantage vs. spells against a casting foe within 5' of the PC.
Then there are the spell and class abilities that help so if you have a bard (bardic inspiration), cleric (bless) or paladin (aura of protection is awesome), saves can easily be augmented with spells and abilities.
I think they are low to encourage interesting decision making within a party.
Zardnaar wrote:
I'll see what happens in play. Lots of classes, items, and feats might help but be missed.
And, realistically, it's only a problem for a small percentage of the game experience (high level) that most people won't reach. At high levels, when the spellcasters use their big spell, most creatures should fail.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I think this will be mostly a problem for people who start at a high level rather than having gotten there through play. These types of issues will be mitigated by player choices as they level. There are more than enough options within the game at the moment to counter this, it simply requires choosing those options in the first place. A group that starts at high level, however, will have a tendancy to create their characters in isolation and optimise their character for one particular aspect, rather than making them more well-rounded for a better, party-oriented, play experience.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Huntsman57 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I have thought about doing something similar. I was thinking about having everyone proficient in all saves, and the only difference being the ability score modifier. Then I was going to change the DC for effects to be 10+proficiency bonus + ability score modifier. I will not try something like this until I have played the game as is for a few character from 1st to 20th level. But such a system is tempting to me.
Zardnaar wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
I ran the numbers, and without magic items, 3.5 saves and 5e saves yield similar success chances for good and bad saves against the highest level of spells at most levels.
The difference i however the function the saving throw plays:
In 3.5 it could be one missed save and you are either dead or out of the game for a while. The duration usually a function of the caster level. Damage spells were usually worthles, because they were low damage on average, especially on a successful save..
In 5e you are expected to fail your save against a spell. Usually every save or suck spell allows a saving throw every round. Duration does not scale by caster level directly, damage does not scale directly too. Damage and duration scales with your save DC. A fireball from a level 20 caster is just harder to resist for people not proficient in dex saves. A hold person spell is so hard to resist that it may stick for a few rounds before breaking.
If that Idea works out as expected... we´ll see. At low levels it works fine.
Oh, don´t forget concentration mechanic. You can easily break some debuffs by attacking the caster.
Whether saves are good or bad, I would prefer all the classes have abilities that require saves, in addition to attacks. And the amount of those types of abilities (saves or attacks) increases with level. That way the playing field is leveled and each class has interesting choices to make. That alone with increase the tactical depth of the game.
Thank_Dog wrote:
I agree that it should be +1/2 to your non-proficenct saves.
A level 20 barbarian should be slightly harder for a level 1 wizard to charm.
Slyck314 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
DsEtAoTrHm wrote:
Your typical level 20 fighter will run away from a CR 17 red dragon forever. DC 21 fear, no proficiency, and an 8-10 wisdom for a typical fighter means you can never succeed at your save. They will also never make a Dex save vs the Dragon's breath.
If you take a specific feat for proficiency in wis saves, your chance to save is still only 35%. This means the dragon easily incapacitates you for the whole combat. Basically, that feat becomes a feat tax and still provides only a very small amount of protection against high level effects.
Oh, and the fighter design goals said they were suppose to be good at resisting magical effects. Clearly working as intended...
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
What Lawolf said.
You will not see many level 20 Fighters with a wisdom outside of the 8-10 range.
A halfing Fighter gets Advantage on the fear save.
Paladin level 10 has a 10 Foot fear immunity aura effect.
The breath weapon; If you have Shield Master and Resilient (Dexterity) Feats, you might make the roll, depending on your Dexterity mod.
Resilient (Dexterity) feels like a Feat tax for Shield Master.
Lucky....never go level 12+ without it.
Granville7482 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Granville7482 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
I disagree that spending ABI's on WIS when it's not a primary stat is a waste if a person is worried about saving throws. That sounds like it's an investment to fail less saving throws. Also, the figher isn't going to run away from dragon fear.
From Pg 8 of the DMG PDF under Adult Red Dragon:
Frightful Presence: Each creature of the dragon’s choice that
is within 120 feet of the dragon and aware of it must succeed
on a DC 19 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened for 1
minute. A creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of
each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. If a
creature’s saving throw is successful or the effect ends for it,
the creature is immune to the dragon’s Frightful Presence for
the next 24 hours.
From Pg 290 of the PHB under Appendix A: Conditions:
Frightened
• A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability
checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is
within line of sight.
• The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source
of its fear.
This doesn't shut down anyone. This prevents movement and means a reliance on ranged tactics, and disadvantage on the attack rolls at worst. The running away part seems to be removed. The young green dragon doesn't even have frightful presence. There are many ways of removing disadvantage or the frightened condition.
I came here to read some actual playtest feedback for why saves are too low at high levels.
Instead, all I see are the same people shouting out white-room assumptions and theorycrafting nonsense.
Oh well, maybe next time.
Prima facie, there is an obvious problem with saving throws at high levels. There is no playtesting because nobody is high level yet, and very little playtesting has been done at high levels. Thus, theorycrafting is the next best way to playtest.
My take on the whole situation is, that since the possible problem is so obvious (I'm mathematically inept and even I see the problem) I have to believe that the designers put in enough controls/counterbalancers to where it is actually not a problem (or will). But perhaps I'm showing too much faith?
But I'm feeling a little better about it, because the effects from failing saves doesn't seem all that bad, a lot of the times.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
The only real "problem" here is the assumption that people are making that it IS a problem. That is to say, the "problem" is only a "problem" because people keep using the word "problem". The 5e system is different than the ones that came before it, and people seem to forget that. Maybe instead of assuming that the system is faulty, we assume that the system is designed to work as intended. Maybe the "problem" isn't a "problem" at all, but the intentional design of the Saving Throw system.
The 5e Saving Throw system says the following things:
- You get better at resisting harmful effects (i.e. succeeding on Saving Throws) by your natural talents (Ability Scores) and specific training (Save Proficiency).
- Your harmful effects are harder to resist (i.e. Save DC's are higher) due to your natural talents (Ability Scores) and specific training (Proficiency).
So, if you don't have any natural talent or specific training in resisting a particular effect, then you are not going to be particularly good at resisting the effect. Makes the most sense, really!
Now what about higher levels, you ask? In previous editions there was a level-scaling bonus for all of the saves, so you had a higher chance of succeeding at saves as you leveled up. This edition does it differently, however. The only thing that scales at every level is your hit point maximum. Higher level creatures have more hit points, and thus, are harder to kill (or otherwise incapacitate). With no natural talent or training to help you, it is expected that you fail more saving throws, even at high levels. This is a result of Bounded Accuracy. Higher level creatures don't suddenly become immune to level 1 creatures. They do, however, have a LOT more capability to defeat their foes, and have the hit points to survive without hardly taking a scratch.
Example: In a recent 5e game, the party Cleric cast Hold Person on one of the BBEGs, who failed the save and became paralyzed. The party Rogue Assassin wanted to 1-shot the BBEG from across the room with a Critical Sneak Attack Arrow, and rolled his attack. The BBEG, however, had enough hit points that even a critical sneak attack arrow wasn't enough to 1-shot it. The BBEG made his re-save the following round and the battle resumed. The BBEG took a lot of damage while paralyzed, sure, but he had the hit points to survive and keep on fighting for a few rounds more. That's exactly how 5e is designed to work, and it's working just as intended.
NPC spellcasters are kind of rare though.
Putting theory crafting aside if you do use a large amount of spellcasters the PCs are in big trouble. Using the encounter guidelines RAW things like level 1 acolytes casting Bane can really ruin a PCs day. The priest has spells as a 5th level cleric but is only CR3.
My PCs are blowing saves a lot as well even their good ones. A spell like slow or hypnotism has TPK written all over it. It is actually worse than 3.5 as spell DCs were not a major problem there until maybe the highest levels and it depended on various factors.
Its not quite as borked as min/maxed 3.0 or high level powergaming in 3rd ed but for the most part it is bad. PCs rarely leave home with lower than 12 wisdom, cha and int are the dump stats they are using. We almost had a TPK due to the Drow in LMoP using Faerie fire on us due to his mooks. For the most part you seem to have a 1/3 chance of failing a good save, 50/50 on an ok to meh save and 60%+ on bad saves and all saves at higher levels that are not a good save. It is also will saves that are the killer, dex and con saves are "only" more damage. Anarae my light cleric was reduced from 28 hp to 0 from a fireball in LMoP as well along with 2/5 of the party and everyone else was more or less dead. 0hp is inconvenient, will saves and being paralyzed or KO are the new eep effects.
AD&D may have got this one right. The care bear healing you kind of need because you would be dead without it. In combat healing seems poor as well, outside combat a bit to generous. Its like fire and ice. Its so over the place it makes things hard.
I have run D&D 5E when I converted D&D Next over at 14th and the PCs are now 15th level. Saves are not a problem. This edition runs well at 14th and 15th level. No house rules needed so far.
Zardnaar wrote:
Simple answer..
Everyone should be a monk. 
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Other then the dragon, who effectivly has blur, are there any other monster's with a 19 DC?
Ahglock wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I believe, spells and effects are written in a way, that non increasing bad saves are taken into account, the saving throw itself more or less a duration timer.
Needing a 19 to save means, an effect will stick for a while. Not more, not less.
A hold person spell is not worth a lot, if an enemy will break out o it one round later. Just a trade of actions, or even worse, a waste of an action. A DC of 19 will most probably help you against someone with a below average wisdom save.
DC 21 is hard, and a CR24 creature should be hard.
The only time I could see adding + half proficiency bonus to the saving throw may be the initial saving throw against a save or terribly suck/die. But those spels are rare.
A fireballs 8d6 at level 20 is only useful, because a high level spellcaster would usually hit against not so dextrous people. If people would always make their save, why bother casting that spell. Even a 12d6 level 7 fireball isn´t worth a lot if it is reduced to 6d6 most of the time.
Which spells are so debilating that a successful saving throw is needed?
A dragon´s fear is not that dangerous. And when you look at the dragon´s hp, maybe its only hope to survive more than a round or two.
Kravell wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Refresh my memory. We're sitting at level 20. What class features related to savings throws are in play at this point?
Arithezoo wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
The you will make a save by round 2 or3 is actually huge BTW. In magic the gathering terns tempo is a difficullt concept but basically you suck the speed out of the other player. You can use this in online games like RTS games or whatever.
In D&D that is sells like Hypnotism, Slow, Sleet Storm etc. A few people do not seem to understand how these spells work in play but even having the NPCs miss a round assuming they use their turns with hypnotism to rouse their compatriots is huge.
Fireball can be a save or die spell and fireball number 2 will probably kill the whole party. I know this because we got hit by it in the LMoP at level 4. A monster with a 4d6 fireball in 3.5 is the same CR in 5E but with an 8d6 fireball and hit dice and hit points are the same as 3.5. AoE spells like Bane and Faerie Fire will often get around half the party. Faerie Fire nailed 4/5 PCs on Sunday and the Drow had 6 NPCs to take advantage of that. Faerie fire did not grant advantage in 3.5 and even in 1st ed it only granted +2 to hit. Low level spell casting mooks are way tougher than their low CR would indicate as they can cast spells like bless, bane, guiding bolt, magic missile and inflct wounds all of which are massively buffed over spells in 3.5.
Its really hard to judge spellcaster in 5E. Compared to 3.5 though the problems start at level 1 instead of level 7 and that is due to level 1 spellcasters having spells that hit as hard as level 3-5 spell casters in 3.5. Spellcaster are also a lot lower CR than 3.5 as well so lower level PCs are more likely to come across them. A priest for example is CR3 in the DMG PDF and casts spells as a 5th level clerics, the mage is levle 9 caster CR 6.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Most fighter in my parties have 12 or 14 wisdom. Hgih attck stas 1st followed by contstitution and then wisdom and/or dex get the 3rd and 4th highest scores, charisma and intelligence are usually used as dump stats.
I don't need to use a dragon as a theory craft example but this is why I am still claiming dex is over powered. DPR doesn't matter as much vs accuracy and being able to make multiple attacks. Strength is really only good in certain situations (short range), dex is good all the time and is linked to a better save, skills and ranged combat. A strength based fighter is hosed by a Dragon or anything flying really. A crappy dex save can easily get you killed using LMoP as a prime example there.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
RCanine wrote:
MykeSchultz wrote:
On a slightly related topic, anyone realize that PC AC becomes useless at high levels. High level monsters have +14 to +20 attack bonuses. A great weapon fighter in plate armor has an AC of 18. A 20 Dex rogue has an AC of 17. Basically, high level monsters don't miss.
Lawolf wrote:
As others have mentioned, there are a number of ways to gain bonus to saves. I'm sure that the overall design of the game and the lower saves are accounting for that.
I also think that the game was designed to present unprepared PCs that try to fight an adult dragon with a nearly impossilbe task.
For higher level PCs that want to fight some of the most nasty undead that cause fear, and the dragons and other fear inducing creatures, it would behoove them to fortify their wisdom.
The 1st level Heroism spell is also a very easy way to give PCs immunity to being frightened. A bard is a great party companion.
Of course, whether saves are too low or too high will always depend on how specific DMs and players view their own games. As it is now, fear inducing creatures are scary and much more difficult to face without preparation. I like it, but I can certainly see how others who want power fighters or power PCs in general don't like it.
If a DM/group doesn't like the feel of the numbers in play, it would be awesome to create a quest designed to grant a magical item or a special boon that would give 1 or more PCs in the group a way to resist fear. That sounds like an awesome goal for a group of PCs who are planning to be dragon hunters or Lich killers.
The game is not about how well 1 character is against an opponent or monster. It is how well a party is against the encounter. No one character is going to have all the defense and attack forms necessary against a powerful encounter. That is why this is a team game. The fighter needs the wizard (cleric, bard, or whatever), the wizard needs the Fighter. Individually they are defeated, as a team, they are powerful.
Karnos wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Also do not forget there going to be magic items that add to saves, give resistances, and maybe even advantage vs different type of saves. I can see that spell shield being in there. Magic items will add to the base line of armor class and saves. I would hold off giving a opinion till we see them added to the game as a whole. I hope they add a resivore of magic items.
Karnos wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
serch wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Here are some real stats from actual play at 15th level. The PCs all have ACs between 18 and 21 (can go higher with spells like shield and flare giving disadvantage).
A mummy lord (C 15) has +9 to hit and dreadful glare has a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw. I don't have my PH handy but I know if the paladin is nearby he helps the barbarian make this save. Otherwise the barbarian has a 25% chance to make it. The mummy lord has an AC of 17, crap saves against Dex, and takes extra damage from fire so it can be hurt really easily. The barbarian has a +10 to hit and can do so with advantage if he doesn't mind getting smacked around more.
A purple worm (C 15) has a +9 to hit. DC 19 Dex save to avoid being swallowed and DC 19 Con save to resist the poison. These saves are tough. However, they don't take the PC out of the fight. Getting swallowed makes the fight more interesting and gross requiring the PC to damage his way out of the stomach while fighting with disadvantage. However, his buddies can also kill the worm and get him out. The failed Con save does extra posion damage. Its AC is 18 and also has crap Dex saves so wizards can fire away at it.
A warrior vampire (C 15) has a +9 to hit. He has various magical powers and weaknesses and AC 18.
A spellcaster vampire (C 15) has an AC of 16 and can cast mirror image and greater invisibility. He can cast dominate person with a DC of 15. Again, the barbarian is the most vulnerable but he can make the save eventually, especially with an assist.
If you use a challenge higher than 15 then yes things get tougher as the game is designed. If you go over challenge 20 than no fight is easy.
But at level 15 you can see the solid math. ACs are close to each other as are to hits. Saves for more deadly abilities have a lower DC than damaging or restricting attacks. The monsters have some options to choose from in battle that the PCs might have to counter.
Kravell wrote:
I am not playing at level 20 yet, but let's look at what might happen.
The barbarian will have a +13 to hit! His AC will be higher most likely around 20. Will saves still suck.
A pit fiend has an AC of 19. The barbarian can hit him easily. However, to do so he needs to get into melee from at least 21 feet away. He moves 40 feet and might be able to fly that speed so he should be able to close if he goes before the pit fiend. Then if he fails his save he will be fighting with disadvantage likely cancelled by his own advantage attack. If the pit fiend closes to ten feet and attacks then the barbarian is in trouble (he can't move closer if he is afraid).
In this case, the game is broken right? The barbarian can never make his Wisdom saving throw of 21 so game over.
No, There are four other party members including a cleric and paladin both of whom are quite capable of helping the barbarian out. Is this a flaw in the game? The barbarian has to rely on his party? That isn't right!
No. Do you think the paladin wants to take the damage the barbarian can handle by being in melee? The barbarian has 285 hit points and hits like a sledgehammer. So one party member gets him moved 5 feet and he starts pounding away at the pit fiend. And that is only if he doesn't get to move into position first.
If the pit fiend gets time to cast it, it can also cast hold monster with a Charisma save of 21. Also tough and very nasty. The pit fiend can cast it 3 times and might be able to get three party members (but it does no damage while trying ths). So again the divine casters may need to help out the rest of the party.
Kravell wrote:
Against an ancient white dragon, the barbarian does better. The fear save is DC 16 so he can make this eventually especially with an assist. The beast has an AC 20, not a problem for the barbarian to hit. Its breath weapon is a Con DC so the barbarian won't even feel it. The dragon will hit the barbarian often doing 50 hps or so if doesn't hit with all three attacks. Plus some extra attacks after each PC goes. The barbarian has 285 hp so he can take a lot and that's assuming the dragon doesn't have to hit other PCs.
The lair actions the dragon have don't concern the barbarian much at all and will likely be targeted at spell flingers.
The dragon can fly really fast. It can knock down creatures with a DC 22 Dex save and fly away 40 ft. In this case, the barbarian may have to chase it around some, but he moves 40 ft. (20 ft. if knocked prone and he has to get up) so if he can close with the dragon is it will be hard for the beast to get away. And again, the other party members will also be hemming the monster in.
The fight should be dramatic and tough, with the barbarian having some setbacks. However, the wizard won't like it if the dragon knocks down all the martials, flys over, and breaths on him either. The wizard will probably have between 122 and 132 hps and if he fails the DC 22 Con save he'll take 72 cold damage.
So the party will have to work together to win. Which is as it should be. You can't mathmatically completely predict what will happen because monsters and PCs don't just stand next to each other and pound away. The dragon will use wing buffet to move to set up breath attacks. PCs will fly and teleport in and out to attack it. The wizard may blink in and out of combat. A lot will be going on.
However, the PCs can hit the monster and it can hit them but neither are auto hits. Saves are tough in some cases but not impossible. Hit points are high enough that most PCs can last at least a round even against a full breath attack with a failed save.
The game works. It is challenging. it require smart play.
Zardnaar wrote:
Kravell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Kravell wrote:
Cleric and Druid get Heroe's Feast. Paladin and Bard have Heroism.
Divination Wizards, *Bless* and Bards can affect saving throws.
Berzerker Barbarians can be immune to fear. Monks get proficiency in all saves and can spend Ki to re-roll a save. Hunter Rangers can have advantage on fear saving throws. Fighters can reroll saves using Indomitable. Rogues gain Wisdom save proficiency.
Anyone can get Heroism with Magic Initiate Feat, a scroll.
There are plenty of methods for a prepared, full party to take on a Dragon's *fear* ability.
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Actually, you could play 5E with non-casters and with a diverse party. A barbarian (berserker), fighter (not eldtitch knight), rogue (not arcane trickster), and a monk (way of the open hand) could adventure together. The monk would have a decent base Will save and taking a feat to gain proficiency in Will saves would be a good investment for at least two characters. The PCs would also need to get some decent ranged attacks to go with the melee.
As an interesting anecdote....back in the 5e playtest, I actually ran a homebrew adventure at 10-11th level. The group was a Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Monk. Not a single caster (or even healer!!!) in the party. It was tough, but they managed to do just fine by using clever roleplaying and good tactics. Magic is very helpful, but it certainly isn't 100% required either. (And no, I didn't "go easy" on them)
Kravell wrote:
serch wrote:
serch wrote:
There might be things other than DPR that are important.
serch wrote:
A character can save against fear with almost any monster with a Challenge of 20 or lower with a Wis of 12 and Inspiration roughly 25% of the time (advantage being roughly equal to a +5 bonus). If they make it, they are immune to that monster's fear for 24 hours and are good to go.
If you fail the save you can fight with disadvantage or if the beast is 10 feet away and you don't have reach you can always move back and use ranged attacks. Maybe do something stupid and/or heroic again to regain Inspiration to help with the save again. You are not out of the fight. And if the monster moves into melee range you can attack with disadvantage as long as you don't move away. Maybe carry around a reach weapon for just such an occasion in case the monster has reach.
Also, if the monster has companions you could choose to attack those instead until you finally roll a 20 and make a save or your buddies kill the boss.
Tactical. Fun. Crazy fast chaotic combat that can be won with some careful thought and decent play. Good times.
Also, a 1st level character could even make the save. The follow up attacks would hurt of course.
serch wrote:
serch wrote:
serch wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
serch wrote:
Amount of people thinking they have more data and understanding of game than developers is too damn high!
All of this without taking in account any character abilities that can help with saving throws and so much more things. The just see number 19 and that's all info they need.
serch wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lipfi wrote:
Kravell wrote:
Why do I get the feeling the same type of people who whine about high-level/epic/uber-powerful monsters having hard-to-save-against effects, would be the same people who'd come here to complain if monsters too easily saved against their high-level/epic/uber-powerful PC's spell effects...
Yeah. That. 
serch wrote:
Kravell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
A lot of nay-saying people are facing hypothetical monsters with their hypothetical parties.
All I can say is, "Your DM must be a HUUUUUUGE dirtbag"
Hey, they don't have a rogue, LULZ HERE ARE TRAPS EVERYWHER!
Oops, all fighters? You get a Will save, YOU get a Will save. EVERYBODY MAKE A WILL SAVE!
Ranger with a Favored Enemy and a Favored terrain? Nah, you'll never be in any of these environments, much less face these enemies. BECAUSE REASONS!
Seriously guys, remember, a DM is supposed to Challenge a party (making some characters shine, while making others struggle on rare occassions), but if he outright kills them because you opened a door and suddenly there's an unexpected red dragon there and you turn around to flee and there's lava behind you...your DM is a dick (well, maybe. I, myself, might have a good laugh at this situation).
DMs are arbitrators. I know the stereotype is "DM vs. PCs" but in healthy games, the DM works WITH the players, to ensure everyone is having a good time.
The system is fine, because the system basically requires a DM. Though having a good one (or decent one) certainly helps.
Kravell wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Hmmm, Contagion is pretty rough.
But it also has a Touch distance. So unless you're using a Familiar, things could get hashtag #Dicey
Timborama wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
serch wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
serch wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
serch wrote:
serch wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
And for the record, I may be brief but I rarely mince words. Assuming you're new-ish here, you should know that I have, on numerous occasions, bluntly asked anti-5e trolls here to leave. Or asked them why they bother sticking around other than to crap on this game. I did not do that with you in this case. After you implied that 5e might not be the game for you, I pointed out that you are still here. You're continuing to be defensive is starting to be telling, however.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Timborama wrote:
serch wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
serch wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
serch wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Karnos wrote:
serch wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
serch wrote:
I've used contagion in combat as a Cleric and it certainly does NOT stunlock enemies.
The only spell that is truly a problem as I have mentioned before is Bestow Curse as a level 5 spell. No concentration, 24 hour duration, and will effectively waste the turn of anything with low wis for a.long time. This is an oversight I believe.
Against a dragon though it would be useless until round 4 of combat. I also ran some combat last night in roll20, and four level 20 fighters can kill the Adult Red Dragon in the first two rounds of combat, even with frightened status. Using 4 attacks and action surge and a non magical lowbow they each have huge damage potential. They can burn inspiration or manoeuvre dice to counter the fear, giving them an excellent chance of ruining its day. Don't even get me started on a Ftr/Rog Assassin who wins initiative.
Lawolf wrote:
serch wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I think both camps may be right. THe people who are power gamers or know how to cheese out saves can work around them but things like the resilent feats are almost feat taxes.
Casual players however are kind of screwed. THey mauy not be using feats and if they are there are no signposts in the PHB to tell them to buff saves at all costs. If you can get around the feear effect I think you can probably kill the Dragon in 1-2 rounds due to a lack of hit points, AC and defences.
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Contagion isn't autokill against an Adult Red Dragon. You still have to run up to an Adult Red Dragon and hit it with a spell touch attack. Kinda hard to do if it is flying, since it can move 40ft, use all of its attacks, then move another 40ft out of touch range.
But yeah, the stun effect of Slimey Doom is probably broken. Seems out of line with the other diseases.
And also Contagion as written is not an example of saves being a problem.
If you are worried about saves make the following character. (This is a quick build JUST for saves to show the lenghts one can go to if worried about saving throws)
Human, 8 Paladin (Oath of the Ancients), 12 Fighter (any fighter archetype)
Level 1 Starting Stats:
Str: 15, Dex: 9, Con: 15, Int: 9, Wis: 12, Chr: 16
Level 20 Stats after feats and stat bumps:
Str: 16, Dex: 10, Con: 16, Int:10, Wis: 12, Chr: 20
Feats: Human: Resilent (Strength), 4th: Resilent (Dexterity), 8th: Resilent (Constitution), 12th: Resilent (Intelligence), 14th: Stat Bump Charisma +2, 16th: Stat Bump Charisma +2, 20th: Shieldmaster
Obviously you can take the feats in any order but you need all of the listed feats/stat bumps.
At level 20 you have the following Saving Throws (no magic items):
Str: +14, Dex: +13, Con: +14, Int: +11, Wis: +12, Chr: +16
Not to mention that you give your Charisma Bonus to all allies within 10ft AND resistance to spell damage (you get it too)
Fighter gives you 1 use per day of Indomitable... Just incase you happen to fail a save
Shieldmaster gives you +2 to dex.
I'm sure I missed some stuff. This was written up quick...Oh! You could go Gnome to get advantage on Int, Wis and Chr Saves vs Spells. Lucky Feat would be nice too, maybe instead of Shield Master.
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Once again we have a thread that starts off with a ridiculous claim (saving throw system is broken at high levels) that is not supported by any proof (i.e. playtesting), then some people come up with a very contrived example (a certain party composition fighting an Adult Red Dragon) that allegedly supports the original claim.
The truth is if you have to reach for such a contrived example, then the claim you are trying to prove probably isn't true.
If you're so worried about the poor widdle Ancient Wed Dwagon being a pushover just give it spellcasting as per the variant option.
Dimension Door/Teleport/Dispel Magic/Counterspell/Greater Restoration will get it out of the no-save or save-or-die spells.
Hell, give the Dragon the Contagion and Force Cage spells for itself.
As for other high-CR Liches are automatically strong spellcasters with counterspell and many other abilities to challenge concentration with.
The Vampire has a variant with at least a couple of useful spells available RAW (nondection -> greater invisibility or just cantrip/dominate whoever is casting the force cage/reverse gravity).
The Demilich has antimagic field available as a lair action.
Death Knight has dispel magic.
Balor and Marilith can teleport.
Pit Fiend can fireball at-will to break concentration, or if the caster is slightly closer than max-range on FC or RG he can use the dominate spell.
So [Rocket Launchers] are not broken because everyone can have [Rocket Launchers}?
1eejit wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Karnos wrote:
So four people can te trapped in a forcecage because they can stick their arms out, this having a total width larger than 20 feet?
And how can the dragon not fit in a 20 by 20 forcecage when it can squeeze down and fit inside a 10 ft opening in a cave?
Clearly, limb size isn't being taken into account here when mentionining spell area of effect. Otherwise, a fighter could grapple a giants tail from 10 feet behind the dragon. A wizard could AoE the dragons head with a cone of cold without affecting the barbarian who is in melee with the dragon. A whole slew of situations that go against the games rules start occurring if you make rulings like that.
Of course, you are more than welcome to houserule your game if you are the DM. Feel free to say that forcecage cannot trap the dragon despite the dragon being able to squeeze itself in a 10 by 10 space.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I am guessing that, for the most part, if a DM were to describe the dragon and I told the caster beforehand they were too large (either during the encounter if it was a "surprise" or when he is prepping spells for the day if this is a planned strike vs a/the dragon), even if I included a grid in my campaign I'd be hard-pressed to find a player who would get their feathers ruffled. The idea of stuffing a dragon in the dragon in the box would probably seem unintuitive to them anyway.
Mind you, in my homebrew campaign, Force Cage will have "Hardness" and HP values so that sticking it on a massive creature is more of a delay tactic than a win-tactic. I might also eliminate the "bars" option so there is none of this cheesy "bars + shoot through the cage with 1/2inch thick gaps" stuff (though I sincerely doubt my players would try that kind of cheese anyway).
spelley wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Dang, you're right about the invisible part! I always invisioned it as an opaque-ish plexiglass thing. Like what they keep the bad guys in in movies.
Orethalion wrote:
A 2nd edition red dragon size is as follows:
[Listing averages for each range]
Age Body (feet) Tail (feet)
1 6' 7'
2 16' 16'
3 32' 25'
4 51' 39'
8 127' 115'
12 179' 166'
Basically, other than age 1 (hatchling), red dragons are too big for forcecages. Age 2 dragons are about 32' long on average, with tail included, and age 3+ dragons are over 30' long even ignoring the tail.
I know this is info from 2nd edition, but that is only because I don't see exact size figures in the 5th edition stat boxes. Is there some fluff somewhere that explains 5e dragons as being tiny shrunken versions of the dragons we had a decade ago? If not, I think it's safe to say that very few dragons are normally small enough to fit inside a forcecage, other than hatchlings.
cheethorne wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Karnos wrote:
cheethorne wrote:
Timborama wrote:
If anyone has a 4E draconomicon, or isn't so lazy as to not scan back a page or two where someone lists the sizes, you can get your answers on how big a posst 2E dragon is there!
Zardnaar wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
For one, most dragons aren't stretched out to full length in combat. Look at most pictures of dragons, they tend to have their tail curled around and their necks upright.
Another point that a fighter with a 6 ft zweihander can still be trapped in a 5 ft box in D&D. Size represents size minus limbs. This is why a panther isn't large despite being longer than 5 ft from head to tail. This is why a party can be trapped within a forcecage even when they have their hands outstretched. This is why you cant target a fireballs edge 5ft away from a warrior and still hit his arms.
Another point is that since a huge creature can squeeze into a 10 by 10 ft space, a 20 by 20 space is more than large enough to capture a huge creature. Sure its limbs may be longer than that when outstretched, but its limbs also easily fit within the space.
Another point is, there are many non dragon solo enemies that forcecage works on.
Another point is that the way forcecage is written implies space. A dragon that is 15 ft by 15 ft is still fully within the area of the cage. He is not to large for the cage. Of course, if you had two dragons side by side and attempted to catch both of them, you would fail. This is because the area would only partially cover each ones space.
Ok children, time to go to bed
edwin_su wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Some Dragon minis to see if that helps for scale arguments. Colossal Red, gargantuan black, my Cleric of Lathender mini used for my light cleric and PHB for scale purposes.
Orethalion wrote:
Haha, thanks Zardnaar! That's an awesome picture. Are the Ancient Red Dragons in 5e still Colossal? If so...oh my pelor. That thing is huge.
Ramzour wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Some context from the Monster Manual:
Several people have asked if anything in 5e is colossal. At this point, Gargantuan is the largest size category listed, thus nothing occupies more than 20'x20' on the grid. Now, that being said, there are several monsters listed under certain size categories in their stat block, though have specific dimensions mentioned in the text. Also, comparing the size categories of real life animals to their real life dimensions shows the abstract nature of size categories in D&D.
Dinosaurs
I think these give great insight into the abstract nature of size category in D&D. For example, the Allosaurus is Large in D&D, though in actuality, they averaged a length of roughly 28 feet. Ankylosaurus, listed as Huge, could range anywhere between 15 and 30 feet long. I think the most obvious comparison though is the T-Rex: listed as Huge in the Monster Manual, a T-Rex could be 40 feet long, and 15 feet tall at the hip, possibly taller.
Giants
All giants in 5e are placed in the Huge size category. However, there is a graphic showing a size comparison of the different Giant types. Despite all being Huge, they range from 16 feet to 26 feet tall.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9-nj_70g56fSXphZEo1WE5VVUU/edit?usp=sharing
Lions, Tigers and Bears
In D&D, lions are Large, and in real life, big tigers can reach lengths just under 12 feet including their tail. Tigers, Large in D&D terms, vary in size quite a bit, but Siberian and Bengal tigers can reach over 12 feet in length (including tail, and in some tigers, tails account for almost a third of total length). The brown bears and polar bears in D&D are also Large. In real life, grizzlies and polar bears don't reach the length of the big cats, but they tend to out weigh them sinificantly.
Roc
Gargantuan size, described as having a 200 foot wingspan. Admittedly, a wingspan will be the largest dimension of any flying creature, this still goes to show the highly abstracted nature of size categories in D&D.
Tarrasque
The Tarrasque is another Gargantuan creature, however it is described as 50 feet tall and and 70 feet long.
I think what all this does for us is really show that size category is really not meant to show the actual dimensions of a creature in D&D, which is clearly stated right in the rules. I think for most of the creatures above, the size categories make sense, even though their actual dimensions may not reach, or may excede those of their size category. While the Allosaurus may be 28 feet long, its head and tail are high enough off of the ground that you can get around under there if you have to. Same goes for the larger creatures like the tarrasque.
What does this mean for spells like force cage? Honestly, after all the debate, I think it's a table by table ruling. I think for creatures with specific sizes listed that go way beyond the normal dimensions of their size category, it should just never work (ie Tarrasque). My opinion of course.
So now some of the original posters on the side of "Saves are broken at higher levels" are using spells that do not have saving throws initially (Contagion*, Force Cage) to argue their point?
*Depending on your interpretation.
Ramzour wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
This, like hit points, is something that should be on a dial. It's too gritty for some of us.
Samrin wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Devilbass wrote:
serch wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
serch wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
So I've only been kinda skimming this topic, but there has there been an actual rebuttal to "save system is busted" beyond "Well don't ever get into a situation where you'd ahve to make a bad save" and discounting any time you would have to make said bad save as "Well your white room mi/maxing, doesn't count"?
Ahglock wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
There is a simple solution: if you think saves are too low at high levels, give everyone proficiency in all saves. If you think that makes the saves too high, give everyone half proficiency (you can get full proficiency as usual from your class or feats).
Zardnaar wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I agree. In my last 4e campaign I had a couple encounters with shadows and devils where the Barbarian was Dominated the entire battle.
Orethalion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
DLfan wrote:
DLfan wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Karnos wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
It's funny how just a month ago there were lots of threads complaining about how the game is too hard at low levels, because hp is too low and a single crit can cause death. People complained that the game was backwards- low levels were the hardest, while high level play was much easier because hp pools were bigger. Low levels are harder than high levels, this is horrible, the game is broken!
Now it seems the argument has been reversed! Low levels are easy, because non-proficient saves are still fairly easy to succeed in against low level foes, but at high levels the game is way too hard because non-proficient saves are nearly impossible to make without party support or specific feat choices! High levels are harder than low levels, this is horrible, the game is broken!
I'm looking forward to next month, when someone discovers the huge weakness of mid-level characters, and complains that getting through the mid levels is way too hard compared to the easy low levels and easy high levels.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Gaming Truism:
Telling someone else they are "doing it wrong" is doing it wrong.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Party composition and things like feats do lean heavily towards how people "in the know" pay the game vs how people who want to have fun actually play the game. There is also a lot of ifs present for example.
1. IfF you have a Paladin
2. IF the Cleric or whoever has cast (or knows) the right sepll
3. IF the spellcaster manages to keep that spell up
4. IF they have chosen the right feats
5. IF feats are even allowed into the game.
6. IF you know you are going to be facing a dragon in the 1st place
The th save DCs do not matter. My players are getting used to being knocked on their ass all the time now, they are not used to being killed though so IDK how much things like blown saves will matter at higher levels. I do know a level 6 PC went from full hit points to 0 via a critical hit from a CR5 hill giant last night.
Shasarak wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Karnos wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Samrin wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I guess that sentence at the start if the PHB about requiring magic users to play the ame was right...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Some of the theory crafting here is funny. Last night my PCs used hypnotism to neutralise a Hill GIoant wile they focused fire on a Frost GIant. The crappy save thing is more PCs vs NPCs as PCs get hit a llot less with save or suck type spells than the other way around. They also have more ways of buffing them than most PCs so the crappy saving throws is not only just about PCs getting hit with XYZ effect but what they can do.
A single low levle spell can more or less neutralise a monster for a round or two vs focus fire form 5 PC in order to kill it. Outside of legnedary being which have the make your save 3 times per day thing that is another reason I have doubtts about this game working at higher levels.
If PCs were getting hit with spells every round every fight I am sure you would see more squawking on the forums about the saves being crap. One of the nasty fights I gave them was vs NPC acolytes and priests who threw a heap of hold persons and bane at the party. They had to nova off to survive that fight.
The game is still kind of fun but complaints are starting to come in form my players about various things so once that new shiny feeling wears off IDK how that will work. The big ones seem to be.
1. Rocket tag starting from level 1, getting one shot a lot on critical hits.
2. Saving throws being meh both NPC and getting nailed with NPC spell effects.
3.Healing rates. In combat healing being hard/inefficient, short and long rest healing being to good.
Fomr the DM PoV the short rest mechanics are making life harder for me. To many recharge adventures making it difficult to get pacing right. One thing keeping things in check is how hard it is to die in 5th as you get the 3 saves things and even if you flunk the 1st two you have 3 rounds minimum to tend to somoen with a healers kit, spell or class ability. We have had several sessions in a row with PCs getting one shot either by spell (fireballs), or critcal hits from bugbears/hill giants etc.
A double fireball has TPK written all over it.
...but not before this last gem:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Samrin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
There should be a dial to increase survivability overall from levels 1-20. Making level 1 characters a bit tougher (I'm not a fan of having to skip 2 levels when I've already lost 10 from the last edition). This is the kind of stuff that the DMG is supposed to address. Tons of optional rules. Why are people so opposed to a dial that can adjust this kind of stuff to suit the table's needs?
Samrin wrote:
Samrin wrote:
Samrin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Again, dials solve the problem. They let everyone play the way they want. Its supposed to be a modular system, and this is easily a modular rule.
In any white room scenario I can imagine, my Wisdom 8 Half-Orc Sword and Board Level 20 Fighter fighting the CR 24 Big Red Dragon has bigger problems than the Fear save I will only make on a roll of a 20 + Indomitiable + Lucky
With a Reaction, Shield Master, Resilient (Dexterity) and Dexterity 16, on a roll of 15 I can ignore his Fire Breath which is DC 24 for 26 to 156 FireDamage. 25% Chance + There rolls from Indomitiable and Lucky, not great, not horrible. 35% Chance for a similiar character with Dexterity 20
That big problem is the fact that Big Red can likely drop in and slaughter my Cleric or Wizard party members with Melee attacks, and I can do very little to help them ;) Dragon will Fly into range with 80 Movement, Bite, Claw, Claw, Tail, Wings + 40 movement of Flight out, flying away and laughing.
It's a CR 24 Monster, it's supposed to be somewhat nasty.
serch wrote:
You dont have very many saves in the MM that are covered by INT or CHA saves, like 4-5 total. Mindflayer and Intellect Devowerer are pretty nasty.
I see no problem with a fighter being shafted on Wis/Int/Cha saves, you can't have it all and the fighter is pretty stacked as is.
It's nice enough you get re-rolls as class feature, I believe that Indomitable stacks with Lucky, Lucky let's you roll 2 dice, Indomitiable gives you a re-roll. That means your -1 to saves has three dice going for it to roll a 20 when the DC is above 19. It's not perfect.
You could put points in Wisdom or get Resilient (Wisdom) or both as that coves a wide range of nasty saves.
Get buffs from your party members....maybe a magic item.
If in theroy said fighter with -1 to Wis/Int/Cha saves had 1/2 Proficiency in them at level 20, now he's at +2 to those saves.
I guess every little bit helps but I think you'l find this effect more or less only protects you from weaker opponents your party is likely to step over as is.
serch wrote:
serch wrote:
serch wrote:
serch wrote:
serch wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lord_Phobetor wrote:
My very first outing back in first edition we were in a tavern and minotaurs burst in on a raid. My fighter died.
I'll never forget it lol.
Auticus wrote:
serch wrote:
4 Attacks + Action Surge = I win button.
You'll pulverize 95% of the MM with this :P
Intellect Devourer: Watch this CR 2 Brain on Legs WTFPWN everyone in your party except for Wizards!
Granville7482 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
I actually REALLY like 5th's compromise between 3.x and 4E in the "save or die" department. They have things like the Intellect Devourer, which is similar to 4E's way of doing it (multiple attacks or saves), but they also have what I call "pseudo-save or die" effects. Several monsters say "If you fail, something bad happens. If you fail by 5 or more, you're petrified/Dead/Asleep."
And I think that is AWESOME. But...maybe that's me? I know somepeople really hate Save or Die effects :-x
Gnarl wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
when looking at the high CR creatures and save DC they feal a bit high (but not by much).
Actual play will have to show if they are problematic (for our group)
Now the question is what causes these DC values to be sligtly higer then I expected them to be?
Looking trough the MM the cause seems to be that the proficiency bonus for monsters goes upto +9 while the max proficiency bonus for the players is +6.
So if we run into truble at higer levels i might consider capping the monster proficiency bonus at +6
Lawolf wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Honestly this isnt something that is broken with the system saves are fine. 1) If i blow an 8th or 9th level spell on someone, my success rate should be at least 80%. High level spells are a precious resource so i am usually pretty upset if something does save. Also it ensures, unlike previous editions, there are saves you can target that your enemy isnt proficient in rather than being happy my meteor swarm sticks 20% of the time. Also there are ITEMS that aid with certain saves, like the ring of evasion basically makes it to where you wont ever fail a dex saving throw unless you are really unlucky. Plus like it was mentioned very few spells are so damning that failing a save means you lose. Dragons, can auto succeed 3 saves per day by the way.
Lawolf wrote:
For the curious, this is a (very rough) breakdown of the Monstrous Manual's saving throws:
~50 str (vast majority vs prone, handful vs restrained or other misc movement effects, 1 stun)
~40 dex (majority area damage, a few high single target damage, a few prone/slow/etc)
~110 con (vast majority poison damage, status, or both, ~20% stun/paralyze/death/petrify, others include blindness, life drain, and long term diseases/curses)
~40 wis (~50% fear, 25% charm, 20% other disable, a few other effects including slow or disadvantage and 1 death effect)
4 intelligence (stun/psychic damage)
4 charisma (confusion, possession, psych damage and trap the soul on Acererak)
I didn't include the NPCs, lair actions, or count all the dragons but these don't change the overall proportions (dragons line up perfectly with con/dex for large damage or wis for frightened anyway, although the metallic dragons are unique in that the have some of the only 'serious' str save effects in the game).
This breakdown implies a number of things:
- Being bad at Con saves is going to come up the most often, by far. Most of these instances are extra damage (and most of this is poison, so Monk and Druid of the Land 10 abilities are just as relevant as proficiencies), although it includes a handful of Really Bad(tm) effects as well. Also, there's a strong double-dip effect here: the people who are the worst at these saves will also have the least HP to deal with the damage.
- Being bad at Dex saves, like in most editions, mostly means extra damage.
- Being bad at Wis saves is bad for all the reasons covered in the thread, as almost all the effects disable the target in some way. That said, 75% of the effects fall into 2 keywords with an abundance of hard counters.
- While Str saves are the mildest in effect by far, they're also pretty common.
danyc wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I think some of you should just adopt the AD&D saving throw system. It seems more in line with what you want.
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
There was the suggestion in Dragonlance Adventures that Raistlin feigned poor health to make his enemies think he was weaker than he really was, fwiw.
An 8 con wizard in 5e would have, on average, more hp than Raistlin. The change from d4 to d6 hit dice is a key factor.
And so, going back to the orginial comment, whoever said an 8 Con Wizard was unviable, Raistlin would also be unviable, as even with his 10 Con, he had less hp than the unviably low hp 8 Con wizard.
Karnos wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
danyc wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
So... Yeah, I'm glad my totally throwaway comment provoked a debate about Ye Olde Offycyal Charactere ſtatiſtics but obviously not the point. 
Generic 8 Con Wizard is still a bad idea. Probably a worse idea than Wis 8 Fighter, since taking damage is a lot more universal than status effects, even ignoring the potential keyword immunities that are easy to pick up. The game has many, many things like this, where playing a particular type of character will be hard or even suicidal, such as playing a character with a low primary stat for their class, playing poorly thought out multiclass characters with non-complimentary abilities, etc. But this is part of the game, and always has been, to varrying degrees. 5e is more forgiving than 3e, but less than 4e.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
danyc wrote:
It's sort of pointless to wonder what Raistlin's Constitution should be in 5e.
Back in 1e and 2e ability scores were a descriptor of your character. They represented the innate physical and mental condition/aptitudes of the character. And because of that you never raised your ability scores (except through very exceptional means), they weren't a representation of training or technique. Raistlin would have a low Con (whatever the exact number) to represent his sickly physique.
D&D has long since moved away from that definition of ability scores. They are now just numbers on a sheet that are used to calculate other mechanical factors. With the enourmous ammount of ability increases you have nowadays it is very unlikely that any character, wizard or otherwise, would stay under such poor physical conditions as Raistlin, were Constitution still a measure of a character's innate physical resistance. Since he could very easily just raise that ability.
What I mean is, with a system that lets you so easily raise abilities, using for example Constitution to "describe" a character as sickly of physically weak wouldn't work. Raistlin, being a high-level wizard as he's become, would have no doubt raised his Con score since his health was his major weakness and left him often in life-threatening situations.
So if you actually want to express in this new system a PERSISTENT condition of a sickly character, just a low Con wouldn't do as it can very quickly be overcome by ability increases. You'd need some other sort of mechanics like a permanent drawback on the character's sheet somewhere.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
I'm not sure that stat booss are necessary at all but I am finding that my players get twitchy if they don't have 18 in their main stat. I think it's a hang over from 4e. Coming from 1e I think 16 should be enough and in fact my own character has 15 and 14 in her class stats. I'll have to see how well she plays in practice. To me 16 is exceptional and 18 is top of your game. That our group have 4 out of 7 characters with 18+ Dex makes me sad.
pauln6 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Halving the bonus on attack rolls puts you more in line with earlier editions but while still giving something for the higher stats:
S12-13 +0/+1
S14-15 +1/+2
S16-17 +1/+3
S18-19 +2/+4
S20 +2/+5
Of course there is still a massive incentive to get an 18 for an extra +1 to attack, but doing this does free up a bit more room for magical, class feature, and feat stacking I guess.
Castels and Crusades uses the BECMI stat modifiers. For scores higher than 18 IIRC you get +1 every two levels after 19 up to a limit of 30. 20 is +4, 22 is +5, 24 is +6 etc. That is deity territory though I do not think you can get your stats much higher than 18 even with wish spells and magic. You might be able to get dex to 19 as all classes get +1 dex at level 15 or something.
18 is nice to have in BECMI games but the goal is really 16 to get a +2 modifer. We used 3d6 in ACKs and one PC had no score higher than a 15 which is only a +1 bonus and I think only the fighter had an 18. Monsters are a lot weaker so the incentive to get a 16 or 18 at all costs is reduced IMHO. You do not have AC 18 hobgblins with +3 to hit and a potnential +2d6 damage to scare the crap out of you.
Hobgoblin BECMI style
HD 1+1 hp 6
At +0 to hit, dmg 1d8
AC 13
Thats more or less your hobgoblin stat block. A lvl 1 fighter (AC 16 chain+shield) and +1 to hit via 13 strength works fine.
Zardnaar wrote:
Why can't the game be more dangerous at high levels?
dmgorgon wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Karnos wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Have you played it?
Uchawi wrote: