On Sunday we fought a huge blue Dragon (CR 14 or 15 IIRC) and I flunked my will save vs Dragon fear. I was a valor bard polymorphed into a T-Rex (Bard hit points=1 due to breath weapon and healer feat).
A T-Rex only has a +1 will save which was actually better than my bards +0 wisdom save. Valor Bards are also MAD so I did not have the resilient feat or a wisdom save that was that good.
I also can't change my spells and did not have heroism which seems to be a bard only spell and at level 10 we had no heroes feast spell. Most bard spells are short range.
I also flunked the saving throw every round after the 1st. I'm not 100% sure what the save DC was but I think it was 19 so in Bard form I have a 90% chance of flunking that save.
Long story short I was fairly useless at level 10. I do not mind save or sucks/die as long as you have a reasonable chance of success. For example in AD&D a level 10 bard has a base 50% chance of success at level 10 before ability scores and things like rings of protection are factored in. Odds are youwould have a Ring of Protection of some sort in AD&D by level 10.
I have a 9 point difference between my best saving throw (+8 cha) and my worst (-1 int). My best save in one that matter much is +6 on my dex save. In theory things could be worse in 3E but that was mostly at higher levels and you could buy magic items to help that.
So having an 85-90% chance at flunking a save is not fun.
No that sounds about right, the game is designed so that everyone hits more than in 4e.
Fear does not make a bard uselss. They can still bless, insperation, and fairy fire. In fact, it hardly affects them at all.
It does make a t-rex useless, but that's just a bad call on your part. Should of picked something with better wis, or just healed yourself.
And dragons need that fear, otherwise they would be lunch.
Zardnaar wrote:
I say working as intended.
Zardnaar wrote:
Sure, you may say "feature" or "working as intended", but the fact remains that save DCs far outpace player saving throws which leads to players being unable to act for entire encounters.
No matter your opionin, it is bad game design to cause players to actively disengage from the game. When players any do anything for 30 minutes time, they get bored or distracted. They play around on their phone. They complain about the game being bad. When situations like the OP's happen, you have a failure in game design.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I don't see a problem. You made a very poor choice which led to you being ineffective. You had other options which wouldn't have hurt you as much.
Also your party was fighting an over-levelled dragon. If you were of an equal level to its CR you could have had access to Heroes' Feast, which makes Fear utterly worthless.
What if instead of bard, he had been a ranger. Or a totem barbarian. Or a sorcerer. Or a fighter. Or a rogue. The outcome would have been the same.
Even if the party was level 15, the outcome would have been the same. Remember, saving throw bonuses don't increase as you level in 5e unless you are proficiency. You cannot blame this issue on the CR difference between the monster and the party.
Also, saying the OP played wrong because he didn't choose a specific spell (Heroism) reeks of as game design. You shouldn't be required to have specific spells in order for a game to function. Especially if there are a alf dozen other classes Zard could have played that would also have a +0 Wisdom save and would not even have access to Heroism.
I think it's working as intended. I share you preference though. Having a 90% chance of failing at my saving throw isn't my favorite either.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Anyone else find the whole situation ironic?
A month or two ago, there was a big thread about how polymorph is too strong. Now we have a thread complaining that fear is too strong, because it counters the polymorph form chosen.
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Rereading the OP, I see the real reason the bard was useless: his hp in natural form was 1, because he was downed in previous fight and healed to 1 with a medicine kit.
Polymorph was being used to ignore the bards natural hp.
The *only* reason fear was effective at neutralizing the bard, was because he was at 1 hp. If he was at full, he could have dropped the polymorph and fought from range.
So really, this is a thread compalining that a character at 1 hp can't fight at full capability by using polymorph to ignore the drawback of having only 1 hp.
In my games, a character down to 1 hp *should be* adversely affected by it. I don't see a problem with the OP scenario at all.
Slyck314 wrote:
What I want to know is why they just didn't end the polymorph. Isn't it a concentration spell? Couldn't the caster just end it and allow the bard to function?
Oh the irony (didn't you extole how important and powerful Bless became?) Where was the cleric with the bless spell? This is just the right situation for the bless spell. Rather than using it on every combat situation, save some for when saving throws will be critical in an encounter.
I'm sort of surprised to not find a post from FFSAA in here, since they once claimed fear to be irrelevant past (iirc) 6th level.
That aside, I have to join the chorus of voices saying this is working as intended - you went up against an effect you have an obvious weakness to and you and your party didn't use any of the various options available in the game to mitigate your weakness.
It's no different than refusing to carry a ranged weapon on your character and then facing a flying enemy: it's your fault you are having trouble, not the rules of the game.
It also sounds like an exciting encounter that became dangerous. Cool.
Rhenny wrote:
Consider, this works for the players too.
Proficiency bonus of +4, 20 in stat (+5), spell DC is now 17. Purple worms (CR15) have a wisdom of 8, and a Wis save of +4, so they fail on a 13+. They have Dex saves of -2, so they pretty much always take full damage from lots of things. Adult blue dragons have +5 dex saves, so only make it on a 12+. Goristro demons save vs Int at -2, so you can pretty much always nail them with Phantasmal Force, even with magic resistance. Dragon turtles (+0 vs Int) are the same way, and no magic resistance.
Correct application of attacks against weak defenses is very, i might even say frighteningly, effective.
http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4162596 talks about that some.
I think saves are fine as they are. Especially considering, that most monsters aren't that much better. Having a dump ability score hurts, which is positive imo. And having proficiency in a save makes you much less vulnerable.
Not being able to make something useful in combat hurts, but there are simply days in every system. Like the fighter, who couldn't get the fly spell while all enemies are flying in 3e. Or the wizards who turned to stone. Or if get stunned regularly in 4e.
There are a lot of ways around difficult situations, as long you don't let you get bound by rule-thinking and the DM is capable. Since I don't know the specifics about the situation, I suggest this:
1.) Accept that Adult Blue Dragons are hard opponents, who are capable to slaughter hundreds and should have the traits to do so.
2.) You have the known spells you chose. If you don't have the spell for the right situation, you got either smarter or outsmarted.
3.) Be sure to double-check your resources and if they could be useful in another way than normally assumed.
4.) If the combat rules don't bring salvation, 5e is designed to handle a lot of unusual situations you might come up with easily. Suggest something out of a movie instead out of a game, if the situation calls it.
5.) Running away is an option, too. Especially when frightened. Or at least take cover, while making preperations.
6.) Dinosaurs are afraid of dragons.
I know, you're frustrated and it's OK to be. And that passing a save can be almost impossible, but that design is wanted. Next time grab a bow, try to polymorph the dragon (succeed-rate non-existance, as long Legendary Resistance are still there) or make yourself an Giant Ape. And I suppose, there are some spells in your list, which might have been useful.
But remember: The saves of enemies aren't often as high either. Dragons are a bit better of, but they're m*therf*cking dragons, embodyment of pure power.
Slyck314 wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Maybe I missed something, but the character was level 10 and facing a Huge Blue Dragon (CR14). Doesn't that mean that the dragon was more powerful than the character? I'm not sure why the rules should allow for a character to be able to effectively combat something that is stronger than he/she is.
Please point out any fallable logic here, because I'm winging this, but isn't that like complaining that your 10th level fighter didn't have more success against a 14th level fighter? Theoretically, the 14th level character isn't just 40% higher level, but should be multiplicatively more powerful -- considering it takes more xp to advance at higher levels?
Perhaps the other part I'm missing is how a 10th level character can have a saving throw at +0. Is that something new to 5E? Yeesh.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I don't even think Zaard is arguing. He's just posting his experience and asking if the community thinks saving throws work as intended.
The Bard may have been frightened, but he has a gazillion spells he can use including bardic inspiration. For this one fight, the bard of valor had to become a support bard. After the fight, the other members of the party probably teased him about his fear, and of course he didn't feel as valorous as he could have if he had shaken off the dragonfear, but it makes a good story.
Brave, brave Sir Robin....
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I almost feel that saves need a +3 across the board. There's no reason that the absolute toughest fighter on the planet should still fail a Con save 35%, especially when it means that a moderately-frailer-than-average cleric needs a 20 to succeed. Bump the best-case scenario up to 80% success, and bring the worst-case scenario up to a 20% chance.
Some more info I suppose. We have a 5 man party.
My PC kind of is the party healer, and I was down as 66 hit points at level10 is not that impressive the the Dragon KOed me with its breath weapon.
I did not have heroism because I have faerie fire,cure wnds and healing word instead. I do not know that many spells and I can't really afford to ditch the other spells.
For magical secrets I took Aura of Vitality and Destructive Wave. We do not have a primary healer as such healing duties are split between the thiref (healer feat), Druid (goodberry) and myself.
I was in T-Rex form as the Druid was busy in air elemntal form lettiing the Rogue sneak attack and dealing some damage herself. I did have a gun from the DMG a 2d10 rifle but you can only put away 1 item a turn for free and I can't put away a sword and shield in the same round and draw the gun.
I also did not want to anyway as I have the shield master feat and if the Dragons breath weapon recharged and I flunked another save on a good damage roll I would be dead. The wizard polymorphed me so I would not die to a random death effect due tocrappy saves.
Before I went down I had greater invisability cast on the Rogue who was using bonus action hide rolls. Our fighter charged the Dragonon the ground but didn't think to gosomewhere where the Dragon could not hit 2 PCs and the Druid did not think to get in beside the Dragon to use sentinel to keep the Dragon there. So some slight tactical errors I suppose in that regard.
The Dragon is CR16 but that is not for level 14 PCs. It was 1000xp over a deadly encounter but our party has dealt with 28000 xp fights before and the rules say sopmething about 5 or 6 man parties. The DC was 19 on the dexterity save so I had a 60% chance of failing that initially being one of my "good" saves and a 90% chance of flunking my wisdom save vs the fear effect. THe Dragon still died, 3/5 of the parety more or less dealt with it at range (Moon Druid, Rogue and Wizard). I think the great weapon fighter switched to a rifle as well.
Well if saves were really a problem, then your entire party would be screwed no?
Instead I see a spellcaster gish that didn't have any defensive spells (cast on him) or defensive feats get toasted by a Dragon.
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Except:
Flunking a save in AD&D = death.
Flunking a save in D&D 5e = minor inconvenience, with some exceptions.
Again, it wasn't the Dragon fear that made you useless in that combat, it was the fact you were polymorphed into a useless T-Rex. The fact you needed to be polymorphed in the first place is also due to the fact you had the defensive value of a wet paper towel. No good defensive saves, no defensive feats, no defensive spells cast on yourself. What do you expect?
You built a pretty poor character, focusing too much on a one trick pony ability, instead of building a well rounded character suitable for surviving the hazards of adventuring.
DaveDash wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
CCS wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
You still gimped yourself by picking too many ability scores. Again, I had a character do exactly the same thing you did. The difference is I kicked his grappling arse in combat so bad that he ditched that idea and decided to go Dex based instead.
Some points.
1. Bardic inspiration recharges after a SHORT rest once you hit 5th level.
2. Resilience (Wisdom) is a bit of a feat tax, I consider it so, given that Wisdom saves can be bad later on.
3. A 10th level Bard knows 14 spells, you definitely should have some sort of removing fear spell (Herorism or Calm Emotions) prepared. Again, fear is probably the #1 debuff in the monsters manual.
4. The game is designed so that you don't fear damage, you fear saving throws. Look at the hitpoint pool. However the game is also designed so that saving throws are no where near as fatal as previous editions. If you boost player saving throws too much then you have nothing to fear.
5. Not picking any spells that can deal with debuffs I consider a mistake on your part. You have a Wizard, let him deal with the big boom spells.
6. Not picking any good defensive spells to keep your weak MAD character alive is also a mistake on your part.
7. You say that damage isn't an issue. Why waste a magical secrets slot on Aura of Vitality then?
Now we come back to the fact that you faced a situation you were not well built to face, and got punished. Consider your melee fighter. The higher level your group gets to, the more monsters you will encounter that can fly, teleport, or use legendary actions to move. The fighter is going to find himself 'sitting out' of many combats. Are you going to start banning fly? No.
You need to suck it up and move on. Your group made some poor choices and here you are. The game is working as intended.
If you really think saves are becoming a big problem, maybe it's time to swap out a spell for bless, and rethink your feat/spell selection. Or spend some of that gold on a NPC hireling Paladin.
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
from what I'm seeing he is having the same problem as a A melee fighter that got feared and has no ranged weapon.
Except unlike the fighter the bard can become a bard again and gain spells and ranged attacks
Zardnaar wrote:
Look if you rush a freaking dragon with 1 hp you're boned. There's not much you can do to get around it.
rampant wrote:
rampant wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic that lead to this situation, and all those flaws point to a poor build and poor decisions during combat.
That's ok, there's nothing wrong with that, but the system is working fine.
If your group isn't as optimised as your other group then your DM should also consider toning down some of the encounters.
Actually the difference between good and bad saves is about the same as it was in 3e. It's 6 vs. 0 instead of 12 vs. 6., but it's still a difference of 6 once you hit level 20, and getting a save to be good is a lot easier in 5e. If anything the DCs are gonna be a bit lower what with ability scores running lower on average and the DC being set at 8, and monsters don't always seem to get the full proficiency bonus either. As far as I can tell you just got really unlucky, and chose a bad creature to turn into. Forgetting about dragonfear is how a lot of otherwise competent adventurers end up dead, or worse back on the rails. YEah saves are kind of swingy in 5e, that's the nature of the emphasis on qick combat. Conditions have to be harsher in order to be meaningful in short fights, so getting afflicted with one at the wrong time is debilitating.
1eejit wrote:
Ok, that makes sense.
But why did the rogue need greater invisibility/hide to sneak attack? His Air Elemental-form Druid buddy can get next to the Blue Dragon to allow sneak attack.
1eejit wrote:
Hmm, a 10th level Rogue would have Evasion and high Dexterity. Blue Dragon breath really shouldn't be that big a deal.
This thread is like a singularity of Zardnaar being wrong about things.
Elsewhere, he declares healing meaningless because hit dice and healer feat rogues and blah blah blah. And then the poor Bard is stuck at 1 hp.
He goes on and on about the uberness of polymorph, and then it takes away his ability to act in an encounter.
He builds a janky character (shield mastery 4-stat MAD bard?) to optimize on a 'broken' strategy... and seems confused that said pile of cobbled mechanics should have a weakness left over. Boo hoo.
Zardnaar, all I hope is that you at least take away from this that 'broken' strategies are not broken all the time and that the vagaries of play do matter. Your party was challenged in a way it wasn't fully prepared for but ultimately succeeded (after doing useful things previously, I might add, like driving the dragon out of its lair). Sounds like a good outcome. You would have been out of combat either way at your 1 hp though, so you're being a little disingenuous about how much the fear really mattered.
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
danyc wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I think Zardnaar would be happier playing The Dark Eye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Eye
It is threads like this why we thrown out feats. Feats are nothing more that a WotC mistake at trying to insert a CCG into a RPG. Each feat is nothing more than a boost card that would be applied to a creature in a MtG deck. Just like having poor cards in a deck, people choose poor combinations of feats. Then there is a long series of posts complaining about how the "Mox" character did not work out as planed.
draegn wrote:
draegn wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I'm also seeing a bit of the irony here with all we know of Zard's posts of late. Healing, polymorph, etc.
At some point, someone is going to want everything banned because bad things happen. Just recently, in the new campaign I'm running, the fighter went an entire fight never rolling above a 5. He was getting noticeably flustered. I felt bad for him. We should ban armor class. It was clearly getting in the way of his "fun". Working as intended?
I have absolutely zero issue with how saves are working in 5e. Nor do I take exception to the way things went down in Zard's particular situation. Feature. Not bug. IMO.
In fact, if his 1hp, +0/+1 save, poly-t-rex bard was running around willy-nilly and being all superheroy against a +4 CR badass dragon, in spite of his dire circumstances and various poor decisions, that's when I'd have a problem with the system.
Orethalion wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
draegn wrote:
I also see irony here...
- CR higer than party average level -> DMG advice: careful
- DC is the main way of scaling spell damage and effect. Damage nearly stays the same for all dragon age category, fear is exactly the same except for the effect. In 3.x, failing on save meant being out of combat for hours, minutes or at least quite a few rounds. Now saving throws are usually a duration measurment mechanic. with 10% chance to save however it is 10 rounds on average. But since it is the maximum duration also, the average goes down considerably. You have about a 50% chance to save after round 5 and before (including the initial save). A simple bless would reduce the average considerably again.
- The T-Rex, a CR8 crature should stand no chance vs a CR 14 Dragon. It is way underleveled. Polymorphing yourself (or willingly allow someone to polymorph you) down to CR8 does not seem like a good idea against a high level foe.
The story is also very familiar:
"Optimized characters" always have selfmade weaknesses. A limited number of resources means, that any resource spent to one thing means that it is not available for different things. Usually the game is built with "dimishing returns". As an example, going from 14 to 16 with point buy costs as much as going from 8 to 14 or so. Meaning, your average stats are way lower. On the other hand, no strength at all is also a weakness, as you are unfocussed. So finding a middleground is the best idea.
I can give an example. Each line presents a different ability. All are needed in normal games.
Normal character:
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxx
The character can be the best in The group can cover for the weaknesses of that character.
Jack of all trades character:
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
Good for a solo game, but since he has no weakness, someone is always better in every field. (Not the best choice in a party)
Optmized character 1:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxx
xxxxx
One field of expertize. Way better than anyone else in that field, making other contributions irrelevant. Bad at everything else. But not totally helpless in most situations. Group has a ahard time to cover for his one weakness.
Optimized character 2:
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
x
Many fields of expertise. Tries to be one of the best, if not the best in everything. If the one thing comes up, where he is really bad, noone can help him.
Both are playable, but don´t complain, if your weakness sometimes plays a role.
Also "optimized characters" inevitably result in a situation like the OP described: the DM is used to having the enemies stomped, because usually the optimized characters are playig on their terms. But then, if something goes wrong, and the PC´s have to play with their weak abilities, they get stomped in return. Or at least that "optimized" character will have a bad day. But those problems are always self-made. Don´t blame the system, just because it is not completely fool proof.
I must say that this edition doesn't allow many game-breaking optimized options as older editions did. The save mechanics is one of the exemple where this edition says ''optimize all you want, characters' weaknesses are built in the system, you cannot ''fix'' them''.
It is a old dilema with spell in DnD:
Caster want their save or die spells to be effective.
But on the other hand nobody including the DM want to suffer the effect of save or die spells.
I think the save work as intented for the "Magic Sucks!" aspect. Spells and some magic effects should be feared of.
Otherwise we only have a DPR run and Uber damage solution for combat.
Well honestly the save or die spels tend to contribute to the uber damage solution seeing as how things like death, disintigration, petrify, sleep, etc. could be considered infinite damage. That's why 4e made those kinds of spells either take several turns to fully set in (such as with petrify), or only last for a round tops, or otherwise work differently, so they could still be effectivewithin the game without causing all sorts of insane balance issues. That's the reason 5e makes use of HP thresholds for those kinds of things so that people can have all the 'classic flavor' of save or die effects without again screwing up the game balance so much. FEar operates in a bit of a middle ground between conditions like slow and ongoing damage which are bad but not inherently debilitating, or effects like stun or immobilize which can very easily turn into a lose condition. Against some characters it's annoying, while other builds find it cripples their offense, and it can get kinda sketchy on whether or not it needs an HP cap or a slowed advancement.
draegn wrote:
Yeah, I'm not seeing this as a problem with the game mechanics.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I really like the numbers between levels 1 to 5.
A typical save DC for those levels is 13.
A PC with a high attribute and proficiency will have around +7 so will succeed 75% of the time.
A PC with an average attribute and proficiency will have around a +3 so will succeed 55% of the time.
A PC with a low attribute and no proficiency will have around a +0 so will succeed 40% of the time.
Those are good numbers for success and failure IMHO. The expert is making their save 75% of the time. In the middle, you have PCs making their save about 55% of the time. On the low end, they only make their save 40% of the time. Most PCs will only be an expert in 1 save, average in a second, and poor in the remaining 4.
I don't see a need for these numbers to change much across level. Afterall, the conditions you face are actually getting more powerful, making a failed saving throw that much more detrimental. No need to punish a PC across two axis'.
Zards PC was suffering MAD and his party completely unprepared for fear from a much higher CR monster.
Lawolf I understand your point where you want a baseline and then bonuses above that, but that was 4e. I find 5e much more interesting the way it is.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
My Cleric always carriers around Calm Emotions because I know fear is so common in the monsters manual, so fear is not so much of a problem.
But that is beside the point that fear doesn't make you sit out of anything. You keep banging on about "unable to act" but this is a straw man argument. Melee you suffer yes, but I am if the opinion high level melee suffers greatly in general anyway.
My group that I DM, they have a Paladin, Lore Bard, Abjurer Wizard (countersprll), and Light Cleric. They laugh off debuffs.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
I've ran beholder fights in their lair against a fighter, barbarian, cleric, and Fighter/Rogue.
Saves where annoying but not the end of the world. They're no where near as deadly as they used to be.
Speaking of which aren't Barbarians immune to fear when raging?
DaveDash wrote:
5E decided to use fixed difficulties. A DC 19 is supposed to be hard (DC 20 being a hard task) and should remain the same at every level. A level 1 can do it and a level 20 can do it but it reminds a hard ability to save against from level 1 (only luck can help you) through 20 (you are more resilient in some things, but its still a luck game).
Someone with proficiency in a save is expected to succeed more often then not.
Someone not proficient in a save is expected to fail and only luck can make him succeed.
You are expected to succeed only when playing to your strenght's, have a chance of success when using your ''meh'' abilities and fail when using something you are not proficient with or not good at.
Also, 5E's philosophy is that when an ability is used it should matter. So AC is lower, saves are lower, everything is made to enable the flow to go on instead of stopping everytime and say ''no you didn't hit, good use of that spell but he saved, nice ability but he saved, etc.).
Works as intended (just FYI, C&C used the same philosophy which I prefer to the optimization mayhem of other games)!
SillyMind wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
mellored wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
The classes was designed around the idea that each would have a one "good" save and one "secondary" save. And proficiency goes a long way. At all levels. If you want more, don't dump that "important save" stat.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The fear effect is there to counter melee characters getting to close... it works as intended.
You were still attacking it with your range attacks thus contributing to the fight, no at your max capacity but still.
You are telling me that your group fought a dragon without having anything to protect itself against its fear effect (one of its CORE ability with flying and breath weapon)? That is your party's fault, not the system.
Any dragonslayer/townfolk/hobbo will tell you that to fight the king of all creature you must prepare for its breath, counter its flying ability and its fear effect (some of them are even rumored to be spellcasters... be warned).
DaveDash wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Why worry about failing saves when you can stack paladin auras and ahve the whole party never fail a save!!!
woohoo paladin party
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Yeah. It's almost tragic that some people actually think rediculous ideas like that will somehow help them "win" D&D. I commend you for your deadpan humor skills. Well played.
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Guys, I think you are looking at this the wrong way.
Zards choices made made the game boring for him. The game should not reach a point where a player is bored because they didn't design a PC to have literally no weaknesses.
The he game wasn't made difficult due to his decisions though. The rest of the party handled the fight just fine. So don't get infused saying Zard's choices made the combat challenging. That isn't the case at all. Zard's choices led to a boring experience for him and IMHO the root of the problem lies in the scaling of saving throw DCs compared to PC saving throw bonuses.
Remember Dave, not all parties will have a high level of teamwork, system master, or knowledge of the the MM. In fact, your typical D&D party tends to have unoptimized players making RP choices with very little coordination in combat. Hell, in many games I that describes over half the players (myself included sometimes).
I worry about those players and their enjoyment. I know that the optimized player won't really have a problem because they will take Resilient or be in a party with a Cleric or Paladin. But having those should be the exception, not the rule.
DaveDash wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
As I said way back making errors of judgement is fine, I've done it a lot and posting my experiences on here has helped me learn.
I'm giving you a hard time in this thread because you're trying to argue 1 + 1 = 4. Not because you should always be prepared or run optimised characters.
In the example you citied, the Fighter was also basically useless. You make no complaint about that, only that YOU felt you were forced into a bad situation by game mechanics. How did he feel about that? Did he feel that the game was broken?
The irony here is that you ultimately had more flexibility than he, if you made different decisions, yet game mechanics practically did force him into being a side kick.
Azzy1974 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
CCS wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I view it that way: you weren't nerfed by the dragon's fear effect, you were unable to fight because of the polymorph... The WIZARD ''stun-locked'' you, he could have cast hold person on you and it would have had the same effect and then maybe you would have seen that your companion was responsable for your uselessness and not the dragon.
A dragon's fear effect is an important part of its effectiveness in combat and it's not as debilitating as you make it to be, as I said, it's only a speed-bump/complication and not an auto-win button. Dragons, other legendary creatures and the saves mechanic were playtested a lot because they are new features or changes to the old rules that were introduced in this edition.
A creature/character's effectiveness depends on the DM and the player, not the system, ergo the fight's fun and your engagingness depend on you and the DM, not the game. It is one of the instance were you can say: Don't hate the game hate the players/dm.
OOT: I don't know if I play the game differently than you but I don't get all the threads like: ''This creatures is too weak'', ''This creatures is too hard'', ''This ability/spell is too weak'' or ''This ability/spell is to strong''. In older editions their were two kind of fights: 1-round Win or 1-round TPK. In this edition, even trivial fights are 2+ rounds, are still engaging and enjoyable. Deadly fights can take 5+ rounds and require a lot of good tactic/thinking from the party. As I said earlier, every condition is as serious as you make it to be and every creature is as dangerous as you make it to be. A dragon in the hand of an unexperience DM or someone that doesn't use the creature effectively can be trivial at best. In my experience, and I'm playing with experienced D&D players and powergamers, the game is really hard and challenge my players to what I called the ''Deadly meter's sweetspot'' while one of my new player, completely new to D&D, isn't in it over his head and feels he is a valuable part of the group even un-optimized. The class/sub-class' options available to a character ensure that the character has always something to do or contribute to the party.
Even classes or options that are said to be ''weak'' on those boards can be overpowered depending on the player, the DM, the setting, the style of play, etc.
Edit: Also I must say that Zard took the easy/safe option and himself limited his options. The game encourage courageous deeds and risk-taking. It's like you are saying ''Zard had 1HP so he decided to hide beeing a rock and stand still doing nothing because he was too afraid (the player). This game sucks because I'M to afraid to do anything and it should somehow reward me for doing nothing''.
SillyMind wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
I think overall, the saves are working as intended, but some players/groups don't want an effect like fear or paralysis to last for too long. As stated up thread by many including me, there are probably enough ways for a group to prepare for fear or even paralysis if that's what they decide to do. If they don't prepare for it, they should suffer the consequences.
That said, I do agree with Zaard that the older dragons may be a tad weak. I think that the Legendary template should have more options, or DM should just add special abilities to make the Adult Dragon and above a little more special. Personally, I don't like that each dragon has the same Legendary actions. I could also see some dragons having "feats" (or other options) that grant them similar abilities to PCs. What if the dragon had Armor Mastery that gave him DR, or if the dragon had the Sentenal feat, or it was a Mage Slayer, etc. This would be a great surprise to the party and it would make the dragon more interesting to fight.
For groups that don't like when a PC suffers ill effects for multiple rounds, I do like the idea that each round the PC gets a bonus to make the save, but I'd add that the player/PC has to devise a reson why...maybe ducking behind a wall or rock or tree to gain composure, or by calling upon the souls of his ancestors. Maybe even forcing someone in the group, or the PC himself to use an Inspiration Point.
Here's another solution. Allow players to trade the Inspiration "Advantage" for a flat +4 bonus to the next roll.
If the rules are not working for specific groups/individuals, make them work. I don't think that a few "bad" experiences means that the game or feature in the game is broken.
Rhenny wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Karnos wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Did anyone think that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't Zard's time to shine during this encounter? Though it sounds like it was more bad luck
Also of note because it came up a few times: Creatures with CR higher than PC level CAN be dangerous. Some say with minions, some say with environment and tactics, others say a spellcasting variant will help. I think all of that is true, but would like to remind people of another option! Wearing the PCs down BEFORE the big dragon...
The CR and Encounter guidelines were not made for "Rest. Kill Dragon. Rest." adventuring days. They were made with NO assumption of party capability, and with the assumption of 6-8 encounters a day with 2 short rests.
Zard, did you have any encounters before or after this fight? If so, how many and what resources were used? Either way, sounds like SirEmil made a cool encounter. I hope you and everyone had more fun than it sounds like 
And that's what this boils down to, the DM designing encounters (tailoring them for or against the party's composition as well as individual PC choices).
And LAWolf, I'll put CHA saves over INT ones any day! Yes I know Mindflayers and Intellect devourers are harsh. But so is being Banished or Planeshifted...
(and c'mon, guys, Resilience isn't a feat tax unless your DM is a jerk and every encounter you have features a debilitating Save or Suck effect from a monster...No more so than a ranged weapon is a weapon tax if the DM throws nothing but flying monsters at you)
Timborama wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
The irony of this thread is that fear is probably the weakest debuff in the game to have on a support caster.
Melee warriors I can understand having their fun ruined in a big Dragon fight, but a support caster? Lol.
In the game I've run, I've debuffed the Bard with fear twice (outside the Paladin aura ftw) and I might as well have just had the monsters cuddle him for all the good it did.
Also Zard it just sounds like you're not equipped to handle all the various roles in the party. To me it sounds like you're trying to do too many things. You need others in your group to pick up some slack in terms of healing and support (toughness feat, druid help with healing, etc). It sounds like they're doing what they want to do and leaving you to try and plug the gaps.
Timborama wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
danyc wrote:
think about it the other way around.
Think about all those spellcaster in the game, Wizard, Sorcerer, warlock, cleric, Druid, BARD....
Now tell them that you think there spell shoudl work only 50% of the time against your BAD save how is that fair?
What is my sorcerer suppose to do at the moment, I knwo that if I face a wizard, I cast a Constitution, Charisma or Strenght save spell, Wizard got (usually) bad constitution and strenght saves.
When my sorcerer face a rogue, I knwo to not try a Dex save spell, but I can probably land a Strenght, Constitution safely
When I face a bard, I know to not try a Charisma or Dex save spell, I'll try a Wisdom spell instead because this is the best option.
If you had 50% chance to resist a spell against your WEAK save, that would make the wizard best option 50% chance effective? when you try to attack that wizard with your longsword/longbow how much % do you have to hit? let' assume regular stats and no magical item for no one, you have being valor you probably have 20 Dex, compare to the 14 dex of the wizard, the wizard might have mage armor on for a total of 15 AC. your bard should have +9 to hit, so you need to roll 6+ to hit the wizard, meaning 70% chance to hit, and you can easily get advantage to improved your chance further, while the wizard doesn't have many option to improved his chance to land a DC spell (sorcerer Heighten metamagic costing 3 SP, the eldritch Knight eldritch strike or a spell combination (contagion (druid only spell) with any other DC spell)).
So yes I believe this is intentional and work as intended, if you think this is OP, then start learning some good DC spell, being a bard you got plenty of those and cast them, charm the monster convincing him that your his best friend so he will try to grapple his friend and stop the fight from happening. you can suggest a monster to go fetch that stick you just throw down in the chasm, by the time he get his rope, climb down, you can just cut the rope and here a save or die spell using a Wisdom save that you can cast on any low wisdom creature (usually the mosnter who hit hard with melee weapon and who got a lot of health).
Personnaly I've been playing spellcaster since the begining of 5e. at low level, DC spell are useless (DC13, give most mosnter a 45% chance to resist them so I try to avoid them at all cost and take mainly AC spell like scorching ray or auto hit spell like magic missile and sleep)
Once I reach lvl 4 my DC go up to 14 (+2spell casting stat).
lvl 5 DC go up to 15 (+1 proficiency) Now DC spell start to be worth it, and I usually start taking spell like Fireball, even if I fail at least I still do 50% damage
and the DC goes up to 19 once you get +6 proficiency and +5 in your Spellcaster stats.
and as long that you avoid the strong save of the target they work well, so if Wisdom are your big problem, go get resilience wisdom, or stay a MAD valor bard who get feared by dragons. You have option to make your character stronger, you simply choose to avoid not take them.
Sorxores wrote:
I'm not to worried what the actual save % are but there can be a 12 point gap between a good and bad save and even 3.5 only had a 6 pont gap unless you worked hard to cheese that out with various splat books and you could plug those gaps easier than in 5E (more feats and buying magic items.).
Sorxores wrote:
In 5th nobody is safe.
Without proficiency a save DC 13 is a problem to a character of any level.
A save DC 19 is a problem for any character.
Hopefully DC will mostly be in this range 13 to 19. We wont see DC 25 or 30 in 5th.
Your recent game reports have proove that 5th characters can deal with monster without fear, despite of poor save bonus.
Do they need bullet proof save bonus?
FFSAA wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I Keep seing this phrase used over an over by posters can you clarify what you mean by it ....
"I can't do anything meaningful."
and when you say
"I can't contribute in a meaning full way."
I want to know what you mean, so that I can make any comments.
Bluenose wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
If you have a group that has no divine spell casters, no debuff removing spells/auras, and you have one of the only classes in the game that doesn't have debuff resistances in some form, yeah, you're going to find saves hard work. However you're also running a party outside the "norm".
Its kind of like going down into the tomb of horrors with only Fighters. You're going to struggle.
I like the way the game is now, because it rewards players individually for feeling special and unique based on their class. Unlike 3e where it became trivial to build a character that was immune to everything and could handle anything by themselves. I'm glad those days are gone.
DaveDash wrote:
But when you are the one casting a spell, and the enemy resists all the time, it is no fun also. Same as never hitting with an attack. So without using different rules for NPCs and PCs, you can´t make everything funf for everyone all the time.
I guess when a barbarian can only save vs fear on a 20, then he has deliberately dumped wisdom and is fighting a monster way above his level.
If you want scaling defenses for everyone, add half proficiency bonus as many people suggest here. But be careful not to make your game unfun for casters, since duration of spells is determined by the DC.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Giving half prof bonus to saves is lame. Some classes are built around being better than others at saves, and other classes are built around helping the party with bad stuff (Clerics).
The game is also too easy already for well built parties.
If you're that concerned instead, make it so that the DC drops by 5 each subsequent round you are debuffed. Then its more like 4e.
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
To prevent long term spell or dragonfear, you could use a modified Escalation Die idea from 13th Age.
Whenever a PC gets hit with an ongoing effect, after the first failed save give the PC a d6 with the 1 side up. On the next save, he/she adds +1 to the saving throw. If he/she fails, turn the die to 2. On the next save, he/she adds +2 to the saving throw. Continue as necessary.
This could be a special ability granted to heroes in the realm or special NPCs as well.
I intend to allow a player to use an attack, reaction, or bonus action to let them try to snap someone within 5 feet of them out of a fear effect by letting them attempt another save against it. It's basically the old trope of someone being too frightened to act and coming out of it when an ally slaps her and tells her to pull it together because they need her.
MechaPilot wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I think sample data based on this thread definitely puts it in the "feature" camp.
I do like the decreasing save idea, but that wont solve flying/mobile/teleporting issues with player disengagement.
The fundamental issue is str based melee characters are underwhelming when they cannot melee, and thus its up to the DM, not the ruleset, to ensure that all players are engaged and enjoying combat.
Nothing prevented the DM landing the Dragon near the Barbarian, attempt to grapple him whilst separated, etc. Nothing prevented the DM knowing before hand that he has melee characters in the group, and thus populating the fight with swarms of minions, etc.
If I have a BBEG fight and the BBEG is immune to 6th level spells or lower, the 12th level Wizard is going to feel pretty hosed as well, its *my* job as the DM to provide an encounter where he will feel more engaged, not ask that the game be made easier than it already is.
If on the other hand you want a hard mode game where all monsters are played to the best of their ability, and you refuse to build a well rounded party, then you need to expect to get hosed.
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
I got bored.
Difference between good and bad save lvl 1 5E. 6 points. Level 20 11 points.
AD&D 2E.
Warriors (Barbarian, Paldins, Rangers, Fighters) Lvl 1 3 ponts, level 20 3 points
Rogues (Thieves, Bards) Lvl 1 3 points, lvl 20 6 points
Priests (Clerics, Druids, Specialty priests)Lvl 1 6 points lvl 20 6 points
Mages (Wizards, specialist wizards) Lvl 1 4 points, Lvl 20 5 points
Mostly a 4 point differnece between a good and bad save and the classes that could do something about it (spell casters) generall have a higher difference in their saves. These are also base rates as well you would uusally get a rinfg of protection and ability score modifiers on those saves.
A failed save in AD&D is more brutal of course but the opportunity cost of using a spell to offset that is also lower. You had more of them to cast and no concentration mechanic. My players are not using spells like Energy reistance type effects as they are.
1. Situational.
2. Require concnetration.
3. Spell slots are scarce.
4. Have been watered down from AD&D/3.5 in most cases even when they were not a broken spell to begin with.
At higher level in AD&D you would usually make your save 75-95% of the time as well. Thats what broke 3E you could fail your save 75%-95% of the time. I actually did a comparison between a 5E T-Recx and 2E T-Rex. The 2E T-Rex saves vs spells 75% of the time, the 5E T-Rex failed 75% of the time although that can vary on the spell effect.
5E combat can be very rocket tag due to this except you are racing to drop the best spell effect 1st. The Alert feat in 5E is often great for spellcasters due to +5 initiative and you can't be surprised. Getting a bless up before the other team is also great let alone nuking the other team 1st. 5E spellcasting also favors PCs due to things like the warcaster/resilient feat and other feats which NPCs lack. Spell caster heavy parties like the one Davedash posted and out 1st PHB party which had 5/6 spellcasters will have a drastically easier time in 5E than other party compositions. Encounters involving NPC spellcasters are a lot more threatening.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Huh, there have been combats at low level where my character got knocked unconcious in the first round and stayed that way the rest of the fight. I didn't cry myself to sleep about it or anything. Stuff happens.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I'm almost of the opinion that it should be weak saves get proficiency bonus strong saves proficiency bonusx2.
During the play test I was shooting for the DC to be 5+proficiency+attribute bonus.(reducing all monster dcs by 3)And even that might have been too high. I'm not very concerned with a PC being sidelined as I kind of think so what unless I'm super stacking monsters like this it's a rare event. I am concerned with how stupid easy it will be for the pcs to one shot way too many enemies by making a really easy what is their weak save determination.
Lawolf wrote:
The 13th Age Escalation Die seems like an option (as others have suggested).