Strong Conditions vs. Weak Conditions

[Nagog]

I've been doing some reading into the intricacies of 5e's game design in light of some potentially published homebrews in the future, and while Strong and Weak saves are a readily known concept, do you think the same kind of thing applies to the various conditions those saves (typically) apply?

For example, Strong saves typically inflict the following conditions upon a failure:

Wisdom: Charmed or Frightened
Constitution: Stunned, Poisoned, HP Drain
Dexterity: Big Damage or AoE

Whereas Weak saves typically inflict these effects:

Str: Forced Movement or Prone
Int: Denial of Action Economy or Stats
Charisma: Altering of the Sense of Self (Banishment, The ability to Lie, etc.)

Obviously some things don't line up: Failing a Str save (a "Weak" save) is often a far less punishing that failing a Wis save (a Strong save), but failing an Int save (weak) can be far more detrimental than failing a Dex save (strong).

Does this mean that some conditions/effects are considered "strong" or "weak" in the same manner that their saves are? For example, if there was an effect that Charmed a target on a Str save, would that be considered too powerful, or would a Con save against being knocked Prone be considered too weak?

TL,DR: Is the various saving throws being typically connected to various conditions integral to the balancing of those conditions, or can they be swapped around with negligible impact?

[GeoffWatson]

It's more that Dex/Con/Wis saves are a lot more common than Int/Cha/Str saves.

Str saves aren't that rare, but most of them are minor effects like trip or push.
Int saves are very rare in the original three books, but more have been added later.

[Witty Username]

Kinda,
I think the design principles are more trying to make sense,
Dex to duck, strength to keep your feat, con being a sign of a good liver and strong immune system, etc.

I think you could take some balance concerns into account, strength is more frequency of effects as I understand.
Strength and Intelligence saves are both pretty rare in published content, and don't always fit the guidelines, with alot of wis saves, dex saves, or strength checks instead of saves.

Playing with this can change how classes are balanced some, putting more effects to a weak save, or playing with the effects some. Like paralysis could fit as a strength save, but that will affect will start to affect the feeling of peoples choices for saves, or say handling grappling as a strength save rather than Athletics/Arcobatics will remove an option for dex builds to deal with it.

Not inherently a bad thing, but it will shift things. Things that are normally wisdom saves being int saves will make int saves more valuable, which is good for rogues and wizards, bad for monks and clerics.

More strength saves instead of checks would probably be good anyway, I feel like would work decently for restrained type affects.

[Oramac]

while Strong and Weak saves are a readily known concept, do you think the same kind of thing applies to the various conditions those saves (typically) apply?

IMO, yes and no.

Yes, in so far as each condition has a "Typical Ability" that it generally targets.

No in that I don't think the game was designed with Strong/Weak Conditions in mind; it just sort of happened that way for thematic reasons. Dodging a fireball makes more sense than "charisma-ing" your way out of it, for example.

[Skrum]

The further I've gone into the weeds of the mechanics of 5e (a result of playing in hundreds of sessions at this point), the more frustrated I am by the balance point of saving throws. Most classes have no good or possibly even *any* way to boost saves. This combines with no scaling at all of non-proficient saves and DC's going up with CR.

Characters should get better at stuff as they go up in level. But saves are largely the opposite. With the exception of paladins, characters get worse at saving throws. In contrast to the rest of the bounded accuracy system, very little thought seems to have been put into saving throws.

[Dr.Samurai]

If you accept that Strength saves are really targeted at melee characters, then I think they are somewhat underrated. I was effectively locked out of a fight against a BBEG because of his Push+Prone Legendary Action.

If the DM makes use of hazardous terrain and/or initiative groups, then being pushed around and knocked prone can be a very bad day for any character.

Some spells and monster attacks also Restrain on a failed Strength save. If you can deal with the Debuff to attacks and AC, that's fine. But if you can't reach your enemy and MUST get rid of the condition, then it will require your Action to do so, so the save can be considered a save against Action denial in that sense (that itself requires a Strength check).

I think Strength saves are a little more nuanced. They can gate extra attacks, debuff you at inopportune times, prevent you from reaching your target, and result in action denial. It may take a little more finessing from the DM to get better outcomes; it's not as straightforward as catching PCs in an AoE or targeting weak mental saves with a control effect.

[Psyren]

I'd say Charmed on its own is weak too. If the Charmed is accompanied by something else, like an Incapacitate effect, domination, or something else that causes loss of control of your character, then t's strong - but a character who is merely charmed usually has a lot of options.

[sithlordnergal]

I think its less the conditions themselves that are strong or weak, and more to do with how common a save is. A person actually went through the entire Monster Manual and wrote down the number of times an ability called for a specific save. In the Monster Manual alone, there were:

Strength saves 34 times,
Dexterity saves 87 times,
Constitution saves 120 times,
Intelligence saves 3 times
Wisdom saves 57 times,
Charisma saves 4 times.


You'll notice the "weak" saves are extremely rare. Strength saves were the most common of the weak saves, and even then they only show up 34 times with monster abilities. If you add all the spells from officially published content up to 2022 with the Monster Manual, you end up with:

- 52 Strength Saves
- 152 Dexterity Saves
- 177 Constitution Saves
- 12 Intelligence Saves
- 111 Wisdom Saves
- 18 Charisma Saves

When we add those spells into the mix...nothing changes. In fact, the gap between the frequency of Strong and Weak saves becomes a lot bigger.

[Dr.Samurai]

And that all depends on the campaign as well. Dragons represent a huge chunk of those Dex save numbers (1 for each type, for each age category, with exception of white dragons I think); remove them and it's much closer. But remove Beasts and you get fewer Strength saves as well.

How common spellcaster enemies are in your game will also play into this, and which spells they use.

[SharkForce]

The further I've gone into the weeds of the mechanics of 5e (a result of playing in hundreds of sessions at this point), the more frustrated I am by the balance point of saving throws. Most classes have no good or possibly even *any* way to boost saves. This combines with no scaling at all of non-proficient saves and DC's going up with CR.

Characters should get better at stuff as they go up in level. But saves are largely the opposite. With the exception of paladins, characters get worse at saving throws. In contrast to the rest of the bounded accuracy system, very little thought seems to have been put into saving throws.

Bounded accuracy doesn't mean you get better at everything as you gain levels. So long as saving throw DCs don't get too high, bounded accuracy is being respected. I haven't seen a lot of the later adventures and stuff they've published, but at least in the core books, there aren't an awful lot of saving throw DCs in the 21+ range.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bounded accuracy doesn't mean you get better at everything as you gain levels. So long as saving throw DCs don't get too high, bounded accuracy is being respected. I haven't seen a lot of the later adventures and stuff they've published, but at least in the core books, there aren't an awful lot of saving throw DCs in the 21+ range.

This.

In fact, bounded accuracy means that the system assumes that if you don't get better at accuracy (% chance of success) in any particular fashion by leveling alone, everything still works.

You're expected to fail saves at high levels. And at low levels. And get hit. That's what you have HP and other features for, including allies who can remove conditions.

[Skrum]

Bounded accuracy doesn't mean you get better at everything as you gain levels. So long as saving throw DCs don't get too high, bounded accuracy is being respected. I haven't seen a lot of the later adventures and stuff they've published, but at least in the core books, there aren't an awful lot of saving throw DCs in the 21+ range.

A character with +0 or -1 to their Wisdom save (this is going to be, most likely, rogue fighter barbarian sorcerer artificer and bard, all classes that don't need wisdom and don't get it as a save) has a ~45% chance to succeed against DC 12. That's roughly the DC that most monsters in the CR 3 or less fall in.

By CR 10 the DC has risen to 16, and these character's chances to pass a wisdom save have dropped to 25%.

By CR 13 the DC has risen to 18, and their chance has dropped to 15%.

Of all these classes, the artificer is the only one that gets a notable boost to their saves.

To me, the spirit of bounded accuracy is that rolls don't ever scale into "always pass/always fail" territory. Saves comes super super close to doing that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A character with +0 or -1 to their Wisdom save (this is going to be, most likely, rogue fighter barbarian sorcerer artificer and bard, all classes that don't need wisdom and don't get it as a save) has a ~45% chance to succeed against DC 12. That's roughly the DC that most monsters in the CR 3 or less fall in.

By CR 10 the DC has risen to 16, and these character's chances to pass a wisdom save have dropped to 25%.

By CR 13 the DC has risen to 18, and their chance has dropped to 15%.

Of all these classes, the artificer is the only one that gets a notable boost to their saves.

To me, the spirit of bounded accuracy is that rolls don't ever scale into "always pass/always fail" territory. Saves comes super super close to doing that.

I'd say "I dumped one of the highly-common, highly-debilitating saves and didn't take any care to do anything about it" to be a user problem, not a system problem. You made the affirmative choice to have a sucky save there in order to have more stat points (or feats) for your offense or whatever. That's a you problem, not a system problem. And you don't need much--one or two ASIs or a single feat. And rogues and fighters, in particular, have extra ASIs.

Edit: Another way of saying this is

The game does not expect that you'll get better at everything with levels. It expects you will get better at the things you put effort into during those levels. A level 20 Champion fighter is not a better spell-caster than a level 1 Champion fighter, and I think we'd all accept that fact. Someone who left their DEX at 10 and never upgraded either their armor or their DEX will not improve their AC. Someone who doesn't upgrade their STR will not improve their ability to hit with non-finesse melee weapons they're not proficient in. Similarly, you get some automatic "focus" on specific saving throws for free. Anything else, you are expected, by the system, to put some build or play resources into improving if you want them to scale. That's the expectation. If you care about low saves, do something about it. You have the tools. Sure, it will come with costs and tradeoffs. That's a feature, not a defect. You should be able to choose which weaknesses you want to have, and everyone should have some weaknesses no matter what they do. If you want to pass all saving throws with high probability, you should have to pay for that by being much much weaker in other ways.

4e this is not, where everything increases at 1/2 level. 3e this is not either. Expecting it to work those ways contradicts the underlying fundamental system math.

[Dr.Samurai]

Disagree. Some classes get strong mental saves, and fight predominantly at Ranged, and therefore don't have to worry about Str/Con saves as much.

Whereas melee classes have to worry about generally all saves. So something can be done to shore up that disparity.

And of course, it may seem that the points are the same, but in fact not getting better at something is not quite the same thing as actually getting worse at it. Proficiency does indeed improve things automatically in 5E without any other investment, and certain classes do get prof saves later on as features, or bonuses to saves, or reaction abilities to pump their saves, etc.

I agree that more can be done to shore up saves. You don't have to have better than even odds at succeeding, but practically auto-failing is not good either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Disagree. Some classes get strong mental saves, and fight predominantly at Ranged, and therefore don't have to worry about Str/Con saves as much.

Whereas melee classes have to worry about generally all saves. So something can be done to shore up that disparity.

And of course, it may seem that the points are the same, but in fact not getting better at something is not quite the same thing as actually getting worse at it. Proficiency does indeed improve things automatically in 5E without any other investment, and certain classes do get prof saves later on as features, or bonuses to saves, or reaction abilities to pump their saves, etc.

I agree that more can be done to shore up saves. You don't have to have better than even odds at succeeding, but practically auto-failing is not good either.

No one needs to worry generally about all saves. You have teammates, and teammates can remove conditions.

You only get worse if you change the targets! Which necessarily invalidates comparisons. You stay the same against monsters of the same CR. And bounded accuracy says that's what's supposed to happen. Note that the same thing happens with AC--higher CR monsters hit everyone more often than low-CR monsters hit people. That's by design. You are supposed to fail against high-CR monsters more frequently than against low CR monsters. Otherwise they're not doing their jobs! That's why your HP and other non-number defenses (abilities to avoid or remove conditions, for example) go up! The only difference between AC and saves is that it's cheaper (too cheap, in fact) to boost your AC up to the sky. But it still has a meaningful cost for nearly everyone. You're also not supposed to mostly be fighting CR >= level monsters, so comparing a CR 20 to a level 20 isn't a valid comparison! CR 20s are boss monsters, designed to be the spice, not the day-in, day-out fights. The median CR according to the books for a level 20 party is CR 10!

Further, no one gets proficiency in everything. Don't have proficiency with weapons? You get worse at attacking higher-CR monsters. And there are ways at getting proficiency in saves, but they cost resources (like they should). And frankly, getting hit with an incapacitation effect is worse for a caster than it is for a martial--you lose concentration among other things, and more of your defenses require actions on your part (such as shield). And getting WIS save proficiency (the only one that really matters, because INT saves are very few and far between except in particular campaigns and CHA saves are generally not that bad and are also quite rare) is dirt cheap--a single feat. Of which fighters and rogues have extras and are SAD anyway. Monks get it for free AND have high WIS. Paladins get +CHA to their WIS saves, plus proficiency. Rangers have decent WIS. So the only melee that doesn't get something for it directly are barbarians, and barbarians have some sub-class features to help...if you want to pay the cost.

[Skrum]

- snip -

I just disagree with this entire premise.

Different classes are good at different saves =/= all of the saves are equally useful. In terms of preventing terrible effects, Wisdom is the best save to have a high score for. Getting feared or suggested and being effectively removed from combat *sucks,* and it's common. Having to spend a feat to shore up this weakness is flat-out not an actual solution. If you play to level 12 (a high end estimate for most tables), most characters get 3 ASI. Many characters at many tables will only get 2. Fighter and rogue get 1 more than that. Spending as much as 50% of your ASI's on keeping your Wisdom save bad instead of AWFUL?? No. No. That's not an real answer. "There's a feat for that" is not only bad game design, the feat that's available is awful.

TBC, I'm not saying that all classes should be good at all things - I'm saying characters shouldn't get WORSE as they go up in level. When it comes to saves, they demonstrably do.

[Trask]

IME the whole "strong saves" and "weak saves" divide has been more theory than fact. Failing a strength save feels really bad when you get restrained by one of the 100 tentacles monsters that can do that and also hit you afterwards. Or knock you down then attack you when they knock you down. Charisma saves don't feel like a "weak" save when your DM likes to use banishment as much as mine does. Int saves are probably the closest to being weak due to their rarity, but its not a coincidence that whenever mind flayers show up, bodies start hitting to floor.

[Dr.Samurai]

I just disagree with this entire premise.

Different classes are good at different saves =/= all of the saves are equally useful. In terms of preventing terrible effects, Wisdom is the best save to have a high score for. Getting feared or suggested and being effectively removed from combat *sucks,* and it's common. Having to spend a feat to shore up this weakness is flat-out not an actual solution. If you play to level 12 (a high end estimate for most tables), most characters get 3 ASI. Many characters at many tables will only get 2. Fighter and rogue get 1 more than that. Spending as much as 50% of your ASI's on keeping your Wisdom save bad instead of AWFUL?? No. No. That's not an real answer. "There's a feat for that" is not only bad game design, the feat that's available is awful.

TBC, I'm not saying that all classes should be good at all things - I'm saying characters shouldn't get WORSE as they go up in level. When it comes to saves, they demonstrably do.
I agree with this.

For some reason, orcs remain a threat despite the fact that I'm level 20. But also for some reason, my will save gets worse and worse as I get to level 20.

Cool cool cool.

IME the whole "strong saves" and "weak saves" divide has been more theory than fact. Failing a strength save feels really bad when you get restrained by one of the 100 tentacles monsters that can do that and also hit you afterwards. Or knock you down then attack you when they knock you down. Charisma saves don't feel like a "weak" save when your DM likes to use banishment as much as mine does. Int saves are probably the closest to being weak due to their rarity, but its not a coincidence that whenever mind flayers show up, bodies start hitting to floor.
Indeed. This literally just happened to me in a pbp. My halfling barbarian got stunned by a mind flayer. No one in the party "removed the condition". I just had to make my save. Thank goodness I was Large sized and immune to grapple+brain scoop.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just disagree with this entire premise.

Different classes are good at different saves =/= all of the saves are equally useful. In terms of preventing terrible effects, Wisdom is the best save to have a high score for. Getting feared or suggested and being effectively removed from combat *sucks,* and it's common. Having to spend a feat to shore up this weakness is flat-out not an actual solution. If you play to level 12 (a high end estimate for most tables), most characters get 3 ASI. Many characters at many tables will only get 2. Fighter and rogue get 1 more than that. Spending as much as 50% of your ASI's on keeping your Wisdom save bad instead of AWFUL?? No. No. That's not an real answer. "There's a feat for that" is not only bad game design, the feat that's available is awful.

TBC, I'm not saying that all classes should be good at all things - I'm saying characters shouldn't get WORSE as they go up in level. When it comes to saves, they demonstrably do.

One, single ASI. That's all it takes. Because getting proficiency OR a good bonus is enough to keep up with the scaling--the entire range from 1-20 is ~5-6. More for DEX saves, less for some of the others. Which is exactly the same as proficiency.

Would you say that someone who never upgrades their armor or boosts their AC-stat is getting WORSE at avoiding attacks and that that's unfair? It's exactly the same logic. If you compare like to like (ie level 1 PCs AND level 12 PCs to CR 1 monsters), no one ever gets worse. If you compare like to unlike (level 1 PCs to CR 1 monsters and level 12 PCs to CR 12 monsters), you get different results. But that's normal--you've changed the comparison points. Those two sides are designed to scale differently, because a CR 12 monster is designed to be faced by ~level 8 characters as part of a boss fight or level ~20 PCs in bulk, not by level 12 PCs as a solo fight. CR =/= level.

The core of bounded accuracy is that the system does not expect your defenses (AC and saves) OR the monsters' versions of the same to scale. That's not saying that they can't scale, but that the system doesn't care one way or another--that the system's expectations are satisfied even if no one had save proficiency in anything and the only changes came from ASIs. Trying to force things to scale breaks everything--high CR monsters are already not particularly scary (relative to low-CR ones vs low level PCs) because all the other, non-numerical defenses + HP have drastically outscaled their offensive capabilities, and their defenses are sub-par so they generally get 1-2 rounds of being focused fired. They have to land those abilities just to have a chance of not dying like a damp squib. You are fully expected to fail most of your saves against high-CR monsters unless you get a "good" matchup (ie high stat + proficiency). That's the game's fundamental design, and changing that breaks everything. You have to completely rewrite all the monsters if you do that.

Edit: in fact, let's do take AC for a second here.

The maximum that your base AC can really go up (excepting level 20 barbarians for a second here[2]) is ~8: from 18 (chain + shield) to 26 (+3 plate and a +3 shield). For most characters, the most they expect to increase is by 3-4. The DMB difference over 20 CRs in attack bonus is...7 (+3 to +10) and lots of monsters have much higher than +10 even well before CR 20. By the same arguments made here, everyone gets way worse at avoiding hits. To me, that says that the system very very much expects you to get hit and to fail saves more than half the time against high-CR monsters. That's why the system gave you

a) hyper-scaling HP
b) hordes of defensive abilities
c) bunches of abilities that buff saves, including low level ones
d) bunches of abilities that remove conditions, including low level ones.

Wanting to have your cake (being able to dump all your resources into MORE DAMAGE) and eat it to (rarely get hit/fail a save) is ludicrous IMO. Use the tools the system gave you or don't whine when it doesn't work. More importantly, it goes against the core of the system.

[2] barbarians gain +2 AC from their level 20 ability if unarmored, hitting AC 24 if they were shirtless with a regular shield and capped both DEX and CON, 27 if they have a +3 shield. In which case they lose out on the ability to wear +3 armor. So it's basically a wash.

[RSP]

[2] barbarians gain +2 AC from their level 20 ability if unarmored, hitting AC 24 if they were shirtless with a regular shield and capped both DEX and CON, 27 if they have a +3 shield. In which case they lose out on the ability to wear +3 armor. So it's basically a wash.

Just curious if you’re intentionally omitting other AC boosting items for some reason. Bracers of Defense, Ring/Cloak of Protection, etc, can all impact AC increase.

[Skrum]

One, single ASI. That's all it takes.

An eighth level character most likely has 2 ASI's. A CR 10 creature has saves ~16. The classes I listed would have a 25% chance or less to succeed. But sure, spend 50% of their ASI's on raising their chance to succeed to 40%. And honestly, that's like best case: at the table I play at, facing DC's of 18 are not uncommon in boss fights, even at level 7 or 8.



Wanting to have your cake (being able to dump all your resources into MORE DAMAGE) and eat it to (rarely get hit/fail a save) is ludicrous IMO. Use the tools the system gave you or don't whine when it doesn't work. More importantly, it goes against the core of the system.


I'd be happy with 50/50 actually. Yah know, something that felt like my character isn't just a helpless buffoon that falls for literally every magical effect in the world. But that's not even on the table.

You're also not comparing this correctly. A fighter giving up +2 to their core stat for a +3 bonus to wisdom saves - that absolutely makes the character worse. Str or Dex are their CORE stat for a reason. Most of their rolls use that stat. -1 to hit, -1 to all damage rolls, -1 to athletics; that's a very significant tradeoff. And Resiliency is just the most mundane, boring, lackluster effect.

We clearly disagree on this entire framing. Not really sure what else to say at this point.

[Psyren]

Just curious if you’re intentionally omitting other AC boosting items for some reason. Bracers of Defense, Ring/Cloak of Protection, etc, can all impact AC increase.

Cloak and Ring are a wash as they boost both the armored and unarmored barb. Bracers don't stack with shield.

[RSP]

Cloak and Ring are a wash as they boost both the armored and unarmored barb. Bracers don't stack with shield.

The point is increasing AC to +3 armor and +3 shield is NOT the high end: there are other items that can contribute to AC increases.

[Rerem115]

Despite being a 'strong' save, Dexterity is kind of the oddball of the bunch. Failing one isn't likely to inflict any debilitating condition—except for damage. Explosive spells and the like, bladed traps, whirling blades or limbs, and the occasional slippery terrain or flung web. At worst, it's falling prone, or maybe getting restrained, but most of the time it's just ducking out of the way before losing your eyebrows.

And damage is relatively easy to mitigate. Absorb Elements, resistance, healing, temporary hit points, or just having a bigger pool to begin with! On top of that, since Dexterity is important for a whole slew of skills and almost all ranged weapons, even characters that aren't proficient in Dexterity Saves can often have a better time with them than their actual class saves!

Grumble grumble...which is why Ranger can be so frustrating sometimes; I'd gladly trade my Dexterity saves for Constitution, to better keep all my concentration spells going, or Wisdom, so I don't get stuck with a flat +2/+3 for my entire career. Remember, even if your DM allows feats, you can only take Resilient once.

[stoutstien]

The entire concept of weak/strong common/uncommon saves was one of those biggest mistakes as far as design goes. They should be roughly equal in frequency and intensity.

[Witty Username]

c) bunches of abilities that buff saves, including low level ones
d) bunches of abilities that remove conditions, including low level ones.


This isn't true for fighters, they get one feature, at 9th level to reroll saves and have no way to remove conditions.
This isn't true for barbarian, the get one feature, and it only applies to dex saves.
This isn't true for rogues, they get no features that remove conditions, and evasion and slippery mind are both fairly late in the game.

Even high value classes like paladin and monk have to wait a bit for their features, 6th and 14th respectively.

I don't see bunches of abilities, let alone low level.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm unfamiliar with all of the abilities that everyone has that removes conditions. As I mentioned earlier, I was Stunned by Mind Blast last week and no one stepped forward to remove it from me miraculously.

And with regards to Dexterity saving throws... they have to be one of the most overrated features in the game. I do not fear Dexterity saving throws anywhere near the level to which the internet says I should. It's like fearing incoming attacks. Damage is damage. How can I square up against a giant that is dealing 50 damage with it's Multiattack, but be terrified of AoE damage?

The people that fear Dexterity saving throws are the ones in the back and out of melee range, because it's one of the few ways they might take damage in the encounter.

[Witty Username]

And with regards to Dexterity saving throws... they have to be one of the most overrated features in the game. I do not fear Dexterity saving throws anywhere near the level to which the internet says I should. It's like fearing incoming attacks. Damage is damage. How can I square up against a giant that is dealing 50 damage with it's Multiattack, but be terrified of AoE damage?


There are a few dex saves to avoid prone and restrain, but yeah, it is usually some damage, not even damage because save will only get you half.

I have heard it brought up that its Wis, Con, Dex, in that order usually. Along with it doesn't come up much but Int will wreck you if you don't have it.

A 2nd level character failing a dex save may need to short rest, a 2nd level character failing an Int save may need to roll a new character.
I think the lightest effect for Int save is mind blast. So it can be said stunned for a minute is the floor of an int save.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd be happy with 50/50 actually. Yah know, something that felt like my character isn't just a helpless buffoon that falls for literally every magical effect in the world. But that's not even on the table.

You're also not comparing this correctly. A fighter giving up +2 to their core stat for a +3 bonus to wisdom saves - that absolutely makes the character worse. Str or Dex are their CORE stat for a reason. Most of their rolls use that stat. -1 to hit, -1 to all damage rolls, -1 to athletics; that's a very significant tradeoff. And Resiliency is just the most mundane, boring, lackluster effect.

We clearly disagree on this entire framing. Not really sure what else to say at this point.

You can have STR maxed by level 8, level 4 if you started with 18 STR or DEX. And you don't need the WIS save until much later.

And looking at AC (because it's a simpler comparison), the system does not expect you to have specific magic items. So the system is totally happy if your AC goes from 16-18 for heavy armor types (heavy armor, shield or not, 14-15 for light/medium armor) to 17-20. The average character will see a total change of +3 AC. When the monsters go up by at least 7 over the same range.

You are supposed to get hit. You are supposed to fail saves. Both at much more than 50% chances. You are supposed to hit monsters ~65% of the time. You are supposed to get hit ~65% of the time. Same with saves--you are supposed to land a saving throw effect ~60% of the time. You are supposed to fail a saving throw ~60% of the time. The error bars for saves are wider, since you can have "good matchups" (for either side, depending on how you look at it).

If you have a +1 total modifier to your save, you are not off the d20 until DC 22. That's rare, if ever. And that's all bounded accuracy asks.

----

For everyone else--you are not supposed to be self-sufficient. No one is. If you want to be, expect to pay a significant opportunity cost. You have team-mates. A simple bless gives at least 1, on average 2 to your saves. Standing near a paladin gives +CHA to your saves. A simple level 2 calm emotions suppressed fear; a protection from evil and good prevents a huge swath of issues. A bardic inspiration gives min 1, more often 4+ to a save. Heroism (at low levels) and hero's feast (at higher levels) completely remove fear from the equation, and that's the vast majority of WIS saves. Etc.

----
This is not to say that I oppose giving martials some better tools in this regard. I'm 100% on board with making Indomitable be straight up Legendary Resistance--I've even implemented that in my own games. But I am opposed to just giving everyone proficiency. Flat numbers boosts just cause stat inflation (using monsters with higher DCs in this case), they don't actually solve anything.

Edit: or even redistributing what saves monsters call for a bit.

[Telok]

Yeah the "worse at saves" thing is something our entire group gripes about on a regular basis, gm & players alike. Smart players with casters can harsh monsters with a good casting stat & debuff+hard cc combo, while our fighter ranger & barbarian have all been functionally perma stun/fear/hold locked for whole fights with dc 17-19 saves. And of course there's the ever present stuff like banish, maze, and the hamster ball spell thats save or lose for all pcs without teleport, plane shift, or dispel magic.

It just seems like it starts to break down at around level 9-10 and only npcs with the legandary save hack can actually get out of the strong status effects.

[RSP]

I'm unfamiliar with all of the abilities that everyone has that removes conditions. As I mentioned earlier, I was Stunned by Mind Blast last week and no one stepped forward to remove it from me miraculously.

Is your argument that the system is bad based on an experience of failing a save with your PC? I’m not sure what to do with that.

The game is meant to be difficult, to have challenges that are actually challenging. Yes there are monsters that can kill PCs, including some that have saving throw based abilities. There are also monsters that do damage when they hit the PCs.

This is all by design. If PCs were meant to reliably pass saves from a monster’s abilities, what’s the point of the monster even having the ability?

[Amnestic]

Got a problem with not being proficient in a save?

Shoulda rolled monk (and got to 14th level) :smallcool:

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is all by design. If PCs were meant to reliably pass saves from a monster’s abilities, what’s the point of the monster even having the ability?

You said it in way fewer words than I attempted to. Thanks.

[TaiLiu]

Why do people want saving throws to increase as they level up? I think part of that desire, which hasn't been discussed yet, stems from how dull it is to be inflicted with a serious condition.

The mind flayer's mind blast was mentioned earlier:


Mind Blast (Recharge 5–6). The mind flayer magically emits psychic energy in a 60-foot cone. Each creature in that area must succeed on a DC 15 Intelligence saving throw or take 22 (4d8+4) psychic damage and be stunned 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.

Assuming the victim has a +0 modifier to their Intelligence, they have a 30% chance to succeed on their save. If they fail, they get to do nothing on their turn except roll again and hope they get lucky. Considering how slow combat can be, that sucks.

In contrast, consider blindness. Being blind sucks, but it also keeps you in play and can be an interesting roleplaying problem to deal with. Now I'm blind, but I still get to act and figure out what to do next.

In short: the problem might not be the saving throws themselves. It might be about the consequences of failing them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why do people want saving throws to increase as they level up? I think part of that desire, which hasn't been discussed yet, stems from how dull it is to be inflicted with a serious condition.

The mind flayer's mind blast was mentioned earlier:


Mind Blast (Recharge 5–6). The mind flayer magically emits psychic energy in a 60-foot cone. Each creature in that area must succeed on a DC 15 Intelligence saving throw or take 22 (4d8+4) psychic damage and be stunned 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.

Assuming the victim has a +0 modifier to their Intelligence, they have a 30% chance to succeed on their save. If they fail, they get to do nothing on their turn except roll again and hope they get lucky. Considering how slow combat can be, that sucks.

In contrast, consider blindness. Being blind sucks, but it also keeps you in play and can be an interesting roleplaying problem to deal with. Now I'm blind, but I still get to act and figure out what to do next.

In short: the problem might not be the saving throws themselves. It might be about the consequences of failing them.

I basically agree with this, and try to avoid "hard" conditions much of the time. I'm working on creating a bunch more "soft" conditions and moving things towards them or have escalation--fail once and you're "staggered" (action or movement, one attack only, ie a softened slow), fail a second time and you're stunned, succeed once and you clear it all.

[TaiLiu]

I basically agree with this, and try to avoid "hard" conditions much of the time. I'm working on creating a bunch more "soft" conditions and moving things towards them or have escalation--fail once and you're "staggered" (action or movement, one attack only, ie a softened slow), fail a second time and you're stunned, succeed once and you clear it all.
Yeah, having escalating saves is far better than save-or-suck for sure. I also wonder if the binary pass/fail nature of saves contributes to this sentiment.

[Dr.Samurai]

I do like how escalating saves feel in the narrative. Like you are turning to stone with enough time to do something, but it's still pretty fast.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, having escalating saves is far better than save-or-suck for sure. I also wonder if the binary pass/fail nature of saves contributes to this sentiment.

Likely. I also wonder about how much DMs using spellcasting monsters contributes--there are a lot of hard conditions that are mostly (other than mind flayers) imposed via spells. So someone whose DM mostly uses non-spellcasting monsters (generally imposing restraint, prone, poisoned, and fear) gets a very different picture from someone regularly going up against spell-casters (especially obligate spellcasters like humanoid spellcaster NPCs).

[TaiLiu]

I do like how escalating saves feel in the narrative. Like you are turning to stone with enough time to do something, but it's still pretty fast.
For sure. It also has tactical and roleplay value. If you know you're probably gonna turn to stone soon, you can grapple a foe to give your teammates an advantage. Can't do that if it's instant!


Likely. I also wonder about how much DMs using spellcasting monsters contributes--there are a lot of hard conditions that are mostly (other than mind flayers) imposed via spells. So someone whose DM mostly uses non-spellcasting monsters (generally imposing restraint, prone, poisoned, and fear) gets a very different picture from someone regularly going up against spell-casters (especially obligate spellcasters like humanoid spellcaster NPCs).
Yeah. I don't feel the need to have all of my saves scale. Part of that is probably the fact that we've encountered relatively few enemy spellcasters in my main campaign. My Sorcerer actually swapped out counterspell for sending—the former got no use whatsoever.

[Dr.Samurai]

For sure. It also has tactical and roleplay value. If you know you're probably gonna turn to stone soon, you can grapple a foe to give your teammates an advantage. Can't do that if it's instant!
That's pretty slick. Bear hug and turn to stone; maybe impose Disadvantage on their attempts to escape :smallconfused:.


Yeah. I don't feel the need to have all of my saves scale. Part of that is probably the fact that we've encountered relatively few enemy spellcasters in my main campaign. My Sorcerer actually swapped out counterspell for sending—the former got no use whatsoever.
DMs play a large part of practically all of the conversations we have here, and this is no exception. Monster types make a big difference.

EDIT: We are in Against the Giants and barely make saving throws. And yet... I leveled up to 12 and still took Resilient (Wisdom). One of the most metagamey things I've ever done lol.

[PhoenixPhyre]

DMs play a large part of practically all of the conversations we have here, and this is no exception. Monster types make a big difference.

EDIT: We are in Against the Giants and barely make saving throws. And yet... I leveled up to 12 and still took Resilient (Wisdom). One of the most metagamey things I've ever done lol.

Yeah. It's one reason that things like resistance to various things can either be a huge bummer... Or no big deal. It's why you can't just take an average over the whole MM (or worse, cherry pick the worst/best case) and have it be meaningful to how people actually play, because people don't fight a statistically representative sample of the MM (etc).

[Witty Username]

This line of reasoning sounds very close to why I pick see invisibility on any build that has even mild opportunity for it.

Invisible enemies are rare, but they only need to come up once to be a TPK.

[RSP]

“Hard” conditions are fine, though they shouldn’t come up every encounter (or the Players should know it’s a big part of the campaign at session zero).

Yeah, it sucks to have your character not doing anything in combat, but it’s one of the ways to have interesting enemies, and vary encounters.

If every enemy was just “bag of HPs that does damage” the game would be a lot less interesting. And you’d still have Players doing nothing on their turn: when their PCs hit 0 HPs or the PCs die.

I like that if the PCs happen upon a Mind Flayer, there’s a sense of “oh crap” that isn’t present by presenting an encounter of equal CR number Orcs.

I further like that PCs can have strengths and weaknesses: that, again, adds to variety. If everyone was great at everything, what’s the point?

[Dr.Samurai]

I regret deleting my post now, as you are continuing with the same strawman. Who is arguing that everyone should be great at everything?

[RSP]

I regret deleting my post now, as you are continuing with the same strawman. Who is arguing that everyone should be great at everything?

I’m not sure what post you’re referring to. Or what argument/straw man. A few posts referred to conditions that take PCs out of a combat for a turn or two. I added my thoughts on it that: basically that those features add something fun to the game when used right.

[Witty Username]

I’m not sure what post you’re referring to. Or what argument/straw man. A few posts referred to conditions that take PCs out of a combat for a turn or two. I added my thoughts on it that: basically that those features add something fun to the game when used right.
I think what Dr. Samurai is getting at involves this.


This is all by design. If PCs were meant to reliably pass saves from a monster’s abilities, what’s the point of the monster even having the ability?

Which, going the other way, if PCs were always meant to fail saves, what is the point of DCs?

I am pretty sure this is not the intention of the statement. But that is the jist, it is possible to believe save effects should exist but also believe that the current state is too unforgiving.

[Skrum]

My frustration with saves is when the chance of success crosses into "why am I even here" territory.

One memorable combat saw my character get feared, and he had to run as far away as he could in the arena-like room we were in. And there he stayed, crammed against the wall, for the 75 minutes it took to resolve the combat. My character even had Heroism prepared, but it didn't matter cause he couldn't take actions.

While this was the most egregious example, it's the not the only one - my current character has a -1 Wisdom save and hasn't passed a Wisdom save in...well I'm not sure how long it's been. There's no way to meaningfully boost it either, not without severely compromising his other abilities, and even then the benefits would be modest. It's not nearly worth it.

I frankly have similar complaints about certain abilities PC's have (most of them spells). Cast a spell, NPC fails a roll, and the encounter just ceases to be fun or meaningful in any way. Legendary Resistance was added as like a hacky patch to this problem, and it sorta works, but it's strong evidence that the problem absolutely exists.

All of this is why I say I don't think a lot of thought was put into saving throws.

[Dr.Samurai]

I’m not sure what post you’re referring to.
That's because, as I said, I deleted it. I didn't feel like starting an argument with you, but then you returned to imply that people want "everyone to be great at everything". Your post before that was condescending, explaining to us that the game is meant to be challenging, and what is the point of having saves if you're just going to make them all the time.

Can you point to a single post where someone suggested PCs should always be making saving throws and the game shouldn't be challenging? Did someone say, somewhere in this thread, that everyone should be great at everything?

This is what I've seen said:


To me, the spirit of bounded accuracy is that rolls don't ever scale into "always pass/always fail" territory. Saves comes super super close to doing that.

You don't have to have better than even odds at succeeding, but practically auto-failing is not good either.

TBC, I'm not saying that all classes should be good at all things - I'm saying characters shouldn't get WORSE as they go up in level. When it comes to saves, they demonstrably do.


I'd be happy with 50/50 actually. Yah know, something that felt like my character isn't just a helpless buffoon that falls for literally every magical effect in the world. But that's not even on the table.

Smart players with casters can harsh monsters with a good casting stat & debuff+hard cc combo, while our fighter ranger & barbarian have all been functionally perma stun/fear/hold locked for whole fights with dc 17-19 saves. And of course there's the ever present stuff like banish, maze, and the hamster ball spell thats save or lose for all pcs without teleport, plane shift, or dispel magic.

It just seems like it starts to break down at around level 9-10 and only npcs with the legandary save hack can actually get out of the strong status effects.

In short: the problem might not be the saving throws themselves. It might be about the consequences of failing them.

Seems like people are talking about the consequences of failing saves, the frequency with which that happens, and the levels at which it starts to be a problem, all in their experience. If you interpret this as people wanting to breeze through the game and to succeed at every roll, then, to quote you, I don't know what to do with that.

[TaiLiu]

That's pretty slick. Bear hug and turn to stone; maybe impose Disadvantage on their attempts to escape :smallconfused:.
For sure! I think the most important aspect for me is that turning to stone actually affords me a cool tactical opportunity that wouldn't be the case if I wasn't afflicted with the condition. Immediate save-or-sucks that inflict hard conditions are boring cuz they just remove options without adding anything.


DMs play a large part of practically all of the conversations we have here, and this is no exception. Monster types make a big difference.

EDIT: We are in Against the Giants and barely make saving throws. And yet... I leveled up to 12 and still took Resilient (Wisdom). One of the most metagamey things I've ever done lol.
In your defense, obtaining Resilient (Wisdom) is kinda awkward to justify, roleplay-wise. You became more mentally resilient by... mediating daily? Pondering koans? :smalltongue:


“Hard” conditions are fine, though they shouldn’t come up every encounter (or the Players should know it’s a big part of the campaign at session zero).

Yeah, it sucks to have your character not doing anything in combat, but it’s one of the ways to have interesting enemies, and vary encounters.

If every enemy was just “bag of HPs that does damage” the game would be a lot less interesting. And you’d still have Players doing nothing on their turn: when their PCs hit 0 HPs or the PCs die.

I like that if the PCs happen upon a Mind Flayer, there’s a sense of “oh crap” that isn’t present by presenting an encounter of equal CR number Orcs.

I further like that PCs can have strengths and weaknesses: that, again, adds to variety. If everyone was great at everything, what’s the point?
Do hard conditions contribute anything that soft conditions don't? And do you have any examples?

I remember failing against confusion recently, which caused me to waste a round or two. I didn't mind, but didn't seem any better than giving me disadvantage or blindness or something. It sure wasn't interesting.

We're talking about worst case scenarios with hard conditions, which definitely biases us. I'm curious if the benefits outweigh these scenarios.


My frustration with saves is when the chance of success crosses into "why am I even here" territory.

One memorable combat saw my character get feared, and he had to run as far away as he could in the arena-like room we were in. And there he stayed, crammed against the wall, for the 75 minutes it took to resolve the combat. My character even had Heroism prepared, but it didn't matter cause he couldn't take actions.

While this was the most egregious example, it's the not the only one - my current character has a -1 Wisdom save and hasn't passed a Wisdom save in...well I'm not sure how long it's been. There's no way to meaningfully boost it either, not without severely compromising his other abilities, and even then the benefits would be modest. It's not nearly worth it.

I frankly have similar complaints about certain abilities PC's have (most of them spells). Cast a spell, NPC fails a roll, and the encounter just ceases to be fun or meaningful in any way. Legendary Resistance was added as like a hacky patch to this problem, and it sorta works, but it's strong evidence that the problem absolutely exists.

All of this is why I say I don't think a lot of thought was put into saving throws.
For sure. Hard conditions paired with slow combats make for dull sessions.

[RSP]

Do hard conditions contribute anything that soft conditions don't? And do you have any examples?

I remember failing against confusion recently, which caused me to waste a round or two. I didn't mind, but didn't seem any better than giving me disadvantage or blindness or something. It sure wasn't interesting.

We're talking about worst case scenarios with hard conditions, which definitely biases us. I'm curious if the benefits outweigh these scenarios.


I’d go with the example I gave previously. You can face a group of Orcs vs an encounter with Mind Flayers. Obviously you need more Orcs to make up the CR for fewer MFs.

As a Player, there’s a much different level of concern to facing MFs than to Orcs, even if they’re the same CR. And that’s essentially due to the “hard” conditions the MF can cause.

If you took those out, there isn’t that feeling of “oh crap” the Players feel when the encounter with the MFs start.

In my opinion, having that associated with the MFs are a good thing: it make the game more interesting.

Beholders would be another example. If either Beholders or MFs lost their “hard” conditions, are they still the iconic monsters they’re supposed to be? I don’t think so. If you had a creature that just did “save or take X damage” it’s just like getting hit.

As proof, I offer the difference in how people view Con/Wis saves vs Dex saves. I think it’s even found in this thread “Dex is just damage” so it’s less worried about.

I think facing encounters with different threats is a good thing. Having encounters/enemies that are more than just bags of HPs that do damage, is a good thing.

Also, if you really wanted to take the “hard” conditions out, while keeping the threat of the enemies up, you’re just looking at increasing the amount of damage the enemies do and inflicting the dead “condition” on the PCs.

This equals the same issue: the dead PC’s Player isn’t any more involved in the encounter than the stunned PC is in the MF encounter (though the Stunned PC has a greater chance of becoming involved).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Some thoughts I had about "chained" conditions and what save prompts what condition: I could see something like the following


None of these are set in stone, just brainstorming ideas

STR: Immobilized (speed = 0) -> restrained -> petrified.
DEX: Mostly damage, occasionally low-rank conditions from STR or CON. Save for half vs save negates.
CON: Two sets:
* staggered[1] -> stunned -> paralyzed
* nauseated[2] -> poisoned
INT: Mostly damage, occasionally low-rank conditions from WIS or CHA. Save for half vs save negates.
WIS: Shaken[3] -> frightened -> broken[4]
CHA: charmed -> dominated

CON gets two because it doesn't have any skills. And yes, this means that hold person (et al) is now a CON save, not a WIS save. And charm effects are CHA, not WIS. There are other "one-off" conditions like blinded that wouldn't change from what they are now.

[1] move or action, 1 attack max, 50% chance spell fails (does not consume slot, just action), basically half of slow
[2] disadvantage on ability checks?
[3] disadvantage on attacks?


The idea is that

1. low-CR monsters should only impose low-rank conditions or require multiple failures to reach higher ranks (fail 1 save -> immobilized, fail 2nd save -> restrained)
2. Medium-CR monsters should have one of (per ability) low DCs to impose mid-rank conditions directly, higher DCs + multiple failures to impose mid and high rank conditions indirectly (high DC or staggered, second fail stunned, third paralyzed).
3. High-CR monsters can have one of (per ability) low DC to impose high-rank conditions directly or higher DCs + multiple failures to impose them indirectly via mid-rank conditions (high DC or stunned, second fail paralyzed).

That, or a different model where you have effectively 2 DCs per ability--a lower one to impose a heftier condition and a higher one to impose a lesser condition. This is basically the same as having one DC for the lesser condition but with a "fail by X or more and you're <worse condition> instead"--either way works depending on how you look at it.

[Witty Username]

Also, if you really wanted to take the “hard” conditions out, while keeping the threat of the enemies up, you’re just looking at increasing the amount of damage the enemies do and inflicting the dead “condition” on the PCs.


This is an oversimplification, there are many conditions that allow for a character to keep participating in a combat without being straight damage.
Blinded was given as a example, which will reduce alot of spellcasting and reduce combat effectiveness but won't remove a character from combat.

Paralyzed, stunned and petrified are scary, but so is blinded, frightened and restrained. But they also don't have the TPK rep of things like paralysis and ghouls do.

I do get where your comming from though, but I also miss the 'dead' condition so I am probably the wrong person to ask.

[RSP]

…Seems like people are talking about the consequences of failing saves, the frequency with which that happens, and the levels at which it starts to be a problem, all in their experience. If you interpret this as people wanting to breeze through the game and to succeed at every roll, then, to quote you, I don't know what to do with that.

The being great at everything point was in regards to complaining about being bad at a save in the first place. Specifically, the anecdotal evidence of “I failed a save and got Stunned; it wasn’t fun.”

Regardless of what save we’re discussing, something similar could be said: “I got caught in a Web, it wasn’t fun”, “I got Banished, it wasn’t fun”, “I got Feared, it wasn’t fun”, etc. so the only way to not have that be a factor in the game, is to have high enough modifiers to not have to worry about failing a save.

If your PC is so good at saves that you don’t need to worry about failing them, that, to me, is great at everything for the point I was trying to make.

That’s the issue with having the view that since your PC failed a save, the system is no good: it’s designed so that PCs will fail saves.

With action economy the way it is, certain creatures rely on PCs failing those saves with “hard” condition consequences. If the PCs don’t fail, the creature essentially gave a free round to the PCs, which is probably enough to end certain combats (like for the AC 15, 71 HP Mind Flayer being discussed).

The “fix” to that complaint is to have everyone pass every save, and therefore not being challenged by encounters. Or to only have monsters that are HPs+attacks that just do damage, and have no abilities that rely on saves.

I prefer the game to have varied challenges, as it makes it so you can use varied PCs and builds.

[Witty Username]

If your PC is so good at saves that you don’t need to worry about failing them, that, to me, is great at everything for the point I was trying to make.


If PCs are supposed to always fail saves, why do we need to roll them?

[Telok]

If PCs are supposed to always fail saves, why do we need to roll them?

True. Nobody's actually complained about mind flayers or beholders, because the dc 15-16 saves aren't a problem. Its always been the 18+ saves at my table where you see perma-feared melee warrior characters for half an hour because they can't roll a 16+ in three tries.

[RSP]

If PCs are supposed to always fail saves, why do we need to roll them?

They are not, so you should continue to roll them.

[Nagog]

I just disagree with this entire premise.

Different classes are good at different saves =/= all of the saves are equally useful. In terms of preventing terrible effects, Wisdom is the best save to have a high score for. Getting feared or suggested and being effectively removed from combat *sucks,* and it's common. Having to spend a feat to shore up this weakness is flat-out not an actual solution. If you play to level 12 (a high end estimate for most tables), most characters get 3 ASI. Many characters at many tables will only get 2. Fighter and rogue get 1 more than that. Spending as much as 50% of your ASI's on keeping your Wisdom save bad instead of AWFUL?? No. No. That's not an real answer. "There's a feat for that" is not only bad game design, the feat that's available is awful.

TBC, I'm not saying that all classes should be good at all things - I'm saying characters shouldn't get WORSE as they go up in level. When it comes to saves, they demonstrably do.


An eighth level character most likely has 2 ASI's. A CR 10 creature has saves ~16. The classes I listed would have a 25% chance or less to succeed. But sure, spend 50% of their ASI's on raising their chance to succeed to 40%. And honestly, that's like best case: at the table I play at, facing DC's of 18 are not uncommon in boss fights, even at level 7 or 8.


In boss fights, having things like Bless or other support options are HUGE. That's intentional. Adventurers work together as a team for very good reason: each character/class is good at different things. Having a support-oriented character in the party is a need if you want to succeed on all saving throws all the time. Bless, Bardic Inspiration, Aura of Protection, etc. If you're playing a Fighter or Barbarian and decide to face tank a spellcaster or gish without support, that's a user error too.



I'd be happy with 50/50 actually. Yah know, something that felt like my character isn't just a helpless buffoon that falls for literally every magical effect in the world. But that's not even on the table.


It is on the table actually: ASI can give you a +1 to two different ability scores. If either of those abilities are odd, you'll get a bonus to it, if they're not, doing the same thing with your next ASI is an option too. Obviously that's not as effective as picking up Resilient or a +2 to the stat overall, but that's the tradeoff of being 50/50: neither option gets 100% of it's benefit.
Furthermore, if you're falling for "literally every magical effect in the world", you've either done something very wrong in character creation, or your DM is all too happy to target a single saving throw. If it's the latter, you're in luck: Getting the Resilient feat in that saving throw will be all the more effective.



You're also not comparing this correctly. A fighter giving up +2 to their core stat for a +3 bonus to wisdom saves - that absolutely makes the character worse. Str or Dex are their CORE stat for a reason. Most of their rolls use that stat. -1 to hit, -1 to all damage rolls, -1 to athletics; that's a very significant tradeoff. And Resiliency is just the most mundane, boring, lackluster effect.

We clearly disagree on this entire framing. Not really sure what else to say at this point.

The comparison is just fine: Are you focusing on offense or defense? This is the same decision that is made when deciding to have a Greatsword or a longsword and shield: Do you want to deal more damage, or do you want to avoid more debilitating stuff?

[Dr.Samurai]

Don't have time for a proper response but are we specifically talking about Wisdom saves? Because Resilient can only be taken once. You can't have a 16 in all of your ability scores, and accusing someone of "making a choice" because they aren't leaving their attack stat at 14 so they can have a better saving throw is unreasonable in my opinion.

50% is 10% less than PP's 60%, so shouldn't be a big deal.

[Nagog]

Don't have time for a proper response but are we specifically talking about Wisdom saves? Because Resilient can only be taken once. You can't have a 16 in all of your ability scores, and accusing someone of "making a choice" because they aren't leaving their attack stat at 14 so they can have a better saving throw is unreasonable in my opinion.


How is that not "making a choice"? Or to better phrase that, how is that considered unreasonable? It's not an optimal choice by any means, but if the player is more frustrated about failing a specific type of saving throw than they are at their missed attacks, it's a reasonable decision they could make.
A far more optimal decision would be to stick close to the party's support and boost your primary stat, but if that's not something the player wants to do, then Resilient is where that power should be invested.

From my perspective, it seems that the argument being made but not actually said here is "I don't want to invest any resources into being good at this because my resources are needed elsewhere, so I should just naturally be better at this." And the response I have for that is "You have the resources to be good at it, and as a Fighter/Rogue (the classes presented as suffering most from this) you already have a more generous helping of those resources than anybody else."

If I'm mistaken in that, please correct me because this seems obvious to me.



50% is 10% less than PP's 60%, so shouldn't be a big deal.

I have no idea what this is in reference to. My mind is translating PP to Passive Perception, which is related to Wisdom but not really to Wisdom saves, am I missing something here?

[Dr.Samurai]

How is that not "making a choice"? Or to better phrase that, how is that considered unreasonable? It's not an optimal choice by any means, but if the player is more frustrated about failing a specific type of saving throw than they are at their missed attacks, it's a reasonable decision they could make.
A far more optimal decision would be to stick close to the party's support and boost your primary stat, but if that's not something the player wants to do, then Resilient is where that power should be invested.
Because the benefits do not outweigh the negatives.

From my perspective, it seems that the argument being made but not actually said here is "I don't want to invest any resources into being good at this because my resources are needed elsewhere, so I should just naturally be better at this." And the response I have for that is "You have the resources to be good at it, and as a Fighter/Rogue (the classes presented as suffering most from this) you already have a more generous helping of those resources than anybody else."

If I'm mistaken in that, please correct me because this seems obvious to me.
I think you are, because I do not see anyone advocating to be "good" at all saves.

I have no idea what this is in reference to. My mind is translating PP to Passive Perception, which is related to Wisdom but not really to Wisdom saves, am I missing something here?
PP is the man, the myth, the legend... PhoenixPhyre lol.

My barbarian has a -1 to Intelligence saves. He has a 75% chance to fail against the Mind Flayer stun effect (whether through Mind Blast or Tentacles). That percentage is only going to get worse as we gain more levels and face stronger enemies. That's a small chance against something that might keep me out of the entire fight. You're saying I have to invest my resources now to be "good" at this saving throw, which would mean I'd be at something like 60% if I grab Resilient (Intelligence). And that's 1 save, not my Wisdom or Charisma.

The game forces you into a position based on roles and ability scores and proficiencies, and this causes certain classes to really feel the pain of these "strong" conditions. The response of "just be better" or "just put your precious resources towards it" are not acceptable to me. Not to mention the sheer patheticness of a heroic D&D warrior crumpling to every fear effect that comes their way. Utter embarrassment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My barbarian has a -1 to Intelligence saves. He has a 75% chance to fail against the Mind Flayer stun effect (whether through Mind Blast or Tentacles). That percentage is only going to get worse as we gain more levels and face stronger enemies. That's a small chance against something that might keep me out of the entire fight. You're saying I have to invest my resources now to be "good" at this saving throw, which would mean I'd be at something like 60% if I grab Resilient (Intelligence). And that's 1 save, not my Wisdom or Charisma.

The game forces you into a position based on roles and ability scores and proficiencies, and this causes certain classes to really feel the pain of these "strong" conditions. The response of "just be better" or "just put your precious resources towards it" are not acceptable to me. Not to mention the sheer patheticness of a heroic D&D warrior crumpling to every fear effect that comes their way. Utter embarrassment.

Except...the number of things that do INT saves is...basically Mind Flayers. And they're constant, not scaling. There really aren't higher-CR versions of them. And how many times do you face Mind Flayers? If the whole campaign is Mind Flayers (and their allies), taking -1 INT was a bad idea. If it happens 1x in a campaign, that's a different thing entirely.

[Skrum]

I'm honestly baffled by this response lol

Like, 27 point buy, playing a ranger, barb, rogue, fighter, sorcerer, etc., I'm supposed to reduce a key stat to 12 or less just so I can raise wis OR int to 10 or 12? And then spend 1 of 2 ASI's I'm ever going to get (assuming the game only goes to level 10ish, which many/most do) on Resiliency??. If I'm playing a barb, that means either never taking GWM or PAM, or staying at 16 str.

The cost in terms of resources it's just...like really think about what that is. Especially for the classes that don't have enough resources already. This goes way beyond "offense vs defense;" this is "do you want to function at your classes' core competencies, or do you want to have a fighting chance at making occasional saves." That's not a fair or good dynamic.

And seriously, no one is saying "characters should succeed on all saves." But you guys seem to be arguing HARD for the status quo where daring, powerful warriors are hard countered by every fear, charm, illusion, and moral effect.

[RSP]

Except...the number of things that do INT saves is...basically Mind Flayers. And they're constant, not scaling. There really aren't higher-CR versions of them. And how many times do you face Mind Flayers? If the whole campaign is Mind Flayers (and their allies), taking -1 INT was a bad idea. If it happens 1x in a campaign, that's a different thing entirely.

This, plus Barbarians are already amazingly resilient in the HP/handling straight attacks department, not to mention the PC is probably fairly well off against Str, Con and Dex saves.

So this goes back to the “being great at everything” statement.

You want a barbarian that is already great in standard combat (most HPs/rage resistance/good AC), and the “physical” saves AND isn’t going to have a weakness making a save you chose to dump.

Would you be less upset if your Barb failed a Wis save that took them out of the combat for a few turns? What if they failed a Cha save against Banishment and missed some rounds?

The game has trade offs. Barring your DM forcing you somehow to to play this PC, you chose to have a -1 mod for Int, and picked a class with no Int save, right?

And, as pointed out, Int saves that stun are very rare, so it’s probably unlikely to even come up again, unless it’s a big campaign arc or something. As stated previously in this thread, I’d Mind Flayers we’re going to be a huge part of the campaign, I’d say the DM should have given the group a heads up in session 0. But if it’s just the monster of the week, we’ll every PC has weaknesses.



The cost in terms of resources it's just...like really think about what that is. Especially for the classes that don't have enough resources already. This goes way beyond "offense vs defense;" this is "do you want to function at your classes' core competencies, or do you want to have a fighting chance at making occasional saves." That's not a fair or good dynamic.

And seriously, no one is saying "characters should succeed on all saves." But you guys seem to be arguing HARD for the status quo where daring, powerful warriors are hard countered by every fear, charm, illusion, and moral effect.

So that Barb has Advantage on Dex Saves at level 2. Prof in Str and Con saves. Probably has the most HPs in the party and can resist damage. And should have good AC either by medium armor or by Dex+Con.

Literally their only combat weaknesses are mental saves and you’re wanting those to go away.

Should the Wizard get d12 HPs because it’s not fun to take a hit that reduces your PC to 0?

That’s the equivalent of what you’re saying, as I see it.

Every class has weaknesses. Choosing a Barb, choosing to dump Int is a choice. You still have the choice (campaign dependent of course) to take a feat to increase defenses. But wanting a character with no weaknesses and everything optimized isn’t what 5e intends to provide.

[Skrum]

This, plus Barbarians are already amazingly resilient in the HP/handling straight attacks department, not to mention the PC is probably fairly well off against Str, Con and Dex saves.

So this goes back to the “being great at everything” statement.

You want a barbarian that is already great in standard combat (most HPs/rage resistance/good AC), and the “physical” saves AND isn’t going to have a weakness making a save you chose to dump.

Would you be less upset if your Barb failed a Wis save that took them out of the combat for a few turns? What if they failed a Cha save against Banishment and missed some rounds?

The game has trade offs. Barring your DM forcing you somehow to to play this PC, you chose to have a -1 mod for Int, and picked a class with no Int save, right?

And, as pointed out, Int saves that stun are very rare, so it’s probably unlikely to even come up again, unless it’s a big campaign arc or something. As stated previously in this thread, I’d Mind Flayers we’re going to be a huge part of the campaign, I’d say the DM should have given the group a heads up in session 0. But if it’s just the monster of the week, we’ll every PC has weaknesses.

Except a barb mostly likely has -1 or +0 in Int, Wis, and Cha. Meaning they *start off* bad against ALL fear, charm, illusion, moral, and mind-affecting effects. By end of t2, heading into t3, they are essentially hard countered by those effects - very unlikely to succeed, and it will take them multiple turns to break out. "There's other members of the party, who are playing better classes than you, and they can protect/free you," like can you not see why that's not a satisfactory answer?

Different classes have different strengths. True. But I want barb to be as good at resisting mental attacks as wizards are at withstanding physical ones - i.e., while being tough isn't a core strength of the wizard, they are far from helpless in that regard, and they have several tools at their disposable. Barbs (and others) have "well I sure hope there's a paladin in the party."

[Dr.Samurai]

Except...the number of things that do INT saves is...basically Mind Flayers. And they're constant, not scaling. There really aren't higher-CR versions of them. And how many times do you face Mind Flayers? If the whole campaign is Mind Flayers (and their allies), taking -1 INT was a bad idea. If it happens 1x in a campaign, that's a different thing entirely.
Did you miss my post before that where I specifically ask for confirmation that we are only talking about Wisdom saving throws?

Mind Flayers progress to Alhoons, Ulitharids, and Elder Brains.

And this mentality is mind boggling. As I understand it... having a 75% chance to fail against a debilitating effect is either:

1. Exactly what should happen because you're playing a martial.
2. Deserved for not doing something to make those chances better.

Really? There's no in between there?

I'm honestly baffled by this response lol

Like, 27 point buy, playing a ranger, barb, rogue, fighter, sorcerer, etc., I'm supposed to reduce a key stat to 12 or less just so I can raise wis OR int to 10 or 12? And then spend 1 of 2 ASI's I'm ever going to get (assuming the game only goes to level 10ish, which many/most do) on Resiliency??. If I'm playing a barb, that means either never taking GWM or PAM, or staying at 16 str.

The cost in terms of resources it's just...like really think about what that is. Especially for the classes that don't have enough resources already. This goes way beyond "offense vs defense;" this is "do you want to function at your classes' core competencies, or do you want to have a fighting chance at making occasional saves." That's not a fair or good dynamic.

And seriously, no one is saying "characters should succeed on all saves." But you guys seem to be arguing HARD for the status quo where daring, powerful warriors are hard countered by every fear, charm, illusion, and moral effect.
My barbarian that just got Stunned... a PbP game. I had no idea what the game was about. Rolled a barbarian. Put an 8 in Intelligence and Charisma, and a 10 in Wisdom. Explored a space ship and found myself surrounded by 8 Mind Flayers lol.

What was I supposed to do? Swap my 16 Con with my 10 Int somehow? Throw my 16 Dex into Wis? I have a 75% chance to get Stunned by Mind Blast/Tentacles, and a 70% chance to get Dominated. Woo-hoo lol. Put a 13 in everything so that my chances improve by 5% and drastically lower elsewhere?

Don't worry, mind flayers are uncommon. But across a campaign, I've got a 70% chance to fail debilitating wisdom and charisma saves, and a 75% chance to fail intelligence saves. I can fix one of those, and the rest of the time "Hey, F U, you chose this".

Meanwhile, the wizard is tougher than my barbarian thanks to sky high AC, and can halve the damage from Dex saves with Absorb Elements. But please talk to me about wanting to be "great at everything" lol.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Meanwhile, the wizard is tougher than my barbarian thanks to sky high AC, and can halve the damage from Dex saves with Absorb Elements. But please talk to me about wanting to be "great at everything" lol.

Only going to respond to this part--yeah. That's a problem. But it's a separate problem that should be solved by nerfing the crap out of wizards ability to be tanky in those ways, not by general number inflation.

Because all that happens with general number inflation is that DMs inflate their numbers too and nothing happens...except the times it TPKs everyone or turns into a snooze-fest. Number inflation is everywhere and always a negative, because it destabilizes the system.

[Amnestic]

Unironically, delete or change every (defensive) spell with a Reaction cast time.

Shield, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Temporal Shunt, and Counterspell can all get in the bin/get changed in some way to not be reactions.

Feather Fall, Hellish Rebuke, and Soul Cage (lol) can stay, I guess.

[Skrum]

Because all that happens with general number inflation is that DMs inflate their numbers too and nothing happens...except the times it TPKs everyone or turns into a snooze-fest. Number inflation is everywhere and always a negative, because it destabilizes the system.

My core premise here is characters shouldn't be helpless. Hearing the words "I need a wis (or int or cha) save" shouldn't elicit groans from all of the players that were "stupid" enough to play [let's see, nearly half the classes that get no native defense against mental attacks]. Going back to something I said at the very beginning, Bounded Accuracy to me means the floor on a roll should be ~35%, and the ceiling should be maybe 80%. When chance of success strays out of those ranges, it can feel extremely frustrating in a "what am I even doing here" kind of way.

Even if it was done in the most crude way possible (say, giving all classes proficiency with all saves, essentially a ~+3 bonus to saves) wouldn't (or shouldn't) cause number inflation. Barbs would still generally make their strength saves and fail their wisdom saves. Wizards the opposite. But it wouldn't feel *hopeless,* and it would be much less likely a player gets stuck in a CC for rounds on end.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My core premise here is characters shouldn't be helpless. Hearing the words "I need a wis (or int or cha) save" shouldn't elicit groans from all of the players that were "stupid" enough to play [let's see, nearly half the classes that get no native defense against mental attacks]. Going back to something I said at the very beginning, Bounded Accuracy to me means the floor on a roll should be ~35%, and the ceiling should be maybe 80%. When chance of success strays out of those ranges, it can feel extremely frustrating in a "what am I even doing here" kind of way.

Even if it was done in the most crude way possible (say, giving all classes proficiency with all saves, essentially a ~+3 bonus to saves) wouldn't (or shouldn't) cause number inflation. Barbs would still generally make their strength saves and fail their wisdom saves. Wizards the opposite. But it wouldn't feel *hopeless,* and it would be much less likely a player gets stuck in a CC for rounds on end.

No, giving everyone proficiency with all saves absolutely would cause number inflation. Especially at the low-CR range. And it goes 100% against bounded accuracy. It's exactly the same as doing 4e's "add half your level to everything" with slightly smaller numbers--it turns it all into a spiral.

Bounded accuracy says that teh floor on a roll should be 5% and the ceiling 95%. Except not even that. It says that the system does not and should not presume that defenses scale with level. And they don't, generally. AC does not scale with level in any reliable sense. Most (4/6) saving throws do not scale with level at all.

I think you drastically overestimate, due to play-style things we've already discussed, how high of save DCs most people face. Your tables are already playing way outside the system norms on these matters. Already, I find that most times a monster has a DC 12-14 save, I might as well not even ask for it unless there are multiple monsters forcing that same save. But then my players don't feel the need to drop every resource they have into offense because I don't play number escalation games! You're already hip deep in number escalation spirals, which is why you're having these problems! Making it worse makes it worse!

And to be clear, I have no problem with solving this "problem" by doing things like

1. making there just be fewer hard CC overall and more soft CC. That's something I already do, and plan to do more of. More condition tracks, fewer "save or you're SoL". One thing I've already implemented is making all force effects (wall of force, forcecage, etc) breakable so you're not just stuck. And I plan to change mind flayers so it's not "did they get their stun off? Ok, you're screwed. They didn't? Ok, they're screwed." binary like it is. Because that sucks for everyone, completely independent of how often people succeed or fail.
2. Making more non-spell ways to resist and overcome such effects, usually at a cost. And increasing the cost of the spell-based ones so they're on the same playing field. One of the pieces of my 5e overhaul is letting everyone use one of the two new global resources to add proficiency to this particular saving throw, at the cost of not having it to spend later. And I'm 100% ok with making Indomitable be straight up legendary resistance--that's even implemented in my house rules currently.
3. Etc.

I am only opposed to just boosting everyones numbers. Because that never works. All it does is now the DM bumps up the save DCs a couple to compensate and everything goes on, until it suddenly doesn't.

[GeoffWatson]

The problem with claiming "Bounded Accuracy" is that the monsters ignore it.
If high-level monsters had reasonable save DCs it might count, but they are nearly all super high, so PCs who don't focus on that save need a 20 to save.
Last session our 11th level group fought a Nightwalker and a Ghost Dragon, and all their DCs were over 20.
The spectres had lower DCs, but there were dozens of them.

[Skrum]

I disagree. Characters are most likely to get save proficiencies with the ability scores they are raising for other reasons. A level 5 str-based fighter is likely to have saving throws that look something like
str +7
dex +0
con +6
int -1
wis +2
cha -1

If they were proficient with all saves, it would look like
str +7
dex +3
con +6
int +2
wis +5
cha +2

Their good saves haven't changed, but their low ones have. Against a DC of 15, they are still more than likely going to fail dex, int, and cha saves. They are 45% likely to fail wis saves - that's hardly immune - but a 55% chance of success far better captures the sense that this character is like...actually exceptional lol. Do you enjoy your fighters, barbarians, and rogues, all hardened warriors, peeing themselves when the dragon shows up?

I also think you're being a little head in the sand about number inflation. The players are *going* to want to make powerful, competent characters. That to me is a given. And the DM is going to want to run memorable, fun encounters that challenge the players. I.e., the recipe for an arms race is built into the game. "Well you just shouldn't do that" isn't really an answer. But putting the core math of the game in a good place is.

[TaiLiu]

I’d go with the example I gave previously. You can face a group of Orcs vs an encounter with Mind Flayers. Obviously you need more Orcs to make up the CR for fewer MFs.

As a Player, there’s a much different level of concern to facing MFs than to Orcs, even if they’re the same CR. And that’s essentially due to the “hard” conditions the MF can cause.

If you took those out, there isn’t that feeling of “oh crap” the Players feel when the encounter with the MFs start.

In my opinion, having that associated with the MFs are a good thing: it make the game more interesting.

Beholders would be another example. If either Beholders or MFs lost their “hard” conditions, are they still the iconic monsters they’re supposed to be? I don’t think so. If you had a creature that just did “save or take X damage” it’s just like getting hit.

As proof, I offer the difference in how people view Con/Wis saves vs Dex saves. I think it’s even found in this thread “Dex is just damage” so it’s less worried about.

I think facing encounters with different threats is a good thing. Having encounters/enemies that are more than just bags of HPs that do damage, is a good thing.

Also, if you really wanted to take the “hard” conditions out, while keeping the threat of the enemies up, you’re just looking at increasing the amount of damage the enemies do and inflicting the dead “condition” on the PCs.

This equals the same issue: the dead PC’s Player isn’t any more involved in the encounter than the stunned PC is in the MF encounter (though the Stunned PC has a greater chance of becoming involved).
I appreciate the response.

Part of my response would be that I don't think hard conditions make mind flayers so scary; and if they do, it's not worth it compared to how dull they can make a game for some players.

Mind flayers have alien mindsets and wanna eat your brain or make you one of their own. You can't negotiate with them the way you can an orc. The specifics of the mind blast ability contribute very little to their iconicity—they were also scary in 3.5e, where there existed a wealth of ways (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/33536/how-to-defend-from-mind-flayers-psionic-blast) to protect yourself from mind blasts.

The other part of my response is that there are preexisting and possible conditions that aren't hard or just damage. I think that soft conditions should replace hard conditions, because soft conditions let characters continue acting.

I've been using blindness as an ideal soft condition, because D&D 5e characters tend to rely heavily on vision. Being blind removes options, especially for spellcaster characters, but being blind also allows you to continue acting and encourages actions that a character might not take while sighted.


Some thoughts I had about "chained" conditions and what save prompts what condition: I could see something like the following


None of these are set in stone, just brainstorming ideas

STR: Immobilized (speed = 0) -> restrained -> petrified.
DEX: Mostly damage, occasionally low-rank conditions from STR or CON. Save for half vs save negates.
CON: Two sets:
* staggered[1] -> stunned -> paralyzed
* nauseated[2] -> poisoned
INT: Mostly damage, occasionally low-rank conditions from WIS or CHA. Save for half vs save negates.
WIS: Shaken[3] -> frightened -> broken[4]
CHA: charmed -> dominated

CON gets two because it doesn't have any skills. And yes, this means that hold person (et al) is now a CON save, not a WIS save. And charm effects are CHA, not WIS. There are other "one-off" conditions like blinded that wouldn't change from what they are now.

[1] move or action, 1 attack max, 50% chance spell fails (does not consume slot, just action), basically half of slow
[2] disadvantage on ability checks?
[3] disadvantage on attacks?


The idea is that

1. low-CR monsters should only impose low-rank conditions or require multiple failures to reach higher ranks (fail 1 save -> immobilized, fail 2nd save -> restrained)
2. Medium-CR monsters should have one of (per ability) low DCs to impose mid-rank conditions directly, higher DCs + multiple failures to impose mid and high rank conditions indirectly (high DC or staggered, second fail stunned, third paralyzed).
3. High-CR monsters can have one of (per ability) low DC to impose high-rank conditions directly or higher DCs + multiple failures to impose them indirectly via mid-rank conditions (high DC or stunned, second fail paralyzed).

That, or a different model where you have effectively 2 DCs per ability--a lower one to impose a heftier condition and a higher one to impose a lesser condition. This is basically the same as having one DC for the lesser condition but with a "fail by X or more and you're <worse condition> instead"--either way works depending on how you look at it.
I like the different model for sure—it's kinda like what many Powered by the Apocalypse games use. Getting the DCs right is likely gonna be a challenge, though. The flat d20 resolution system means I'd want the distance between the DCs for soft and hard conditions to be wide.


Would you be less upset if your Barb failed a Wis save that took them out of the combat for a few turns? What if they failed a Cha save against Banishment and missed some rounds?
Your response wasn't directed at me, but: taking someone out of combat for a few turns is the problem, not failing a save.

Impose blindness, disadvantage, speed 0... the severity doesn't matter too much. Giving the player a chance to do more than roll a save on their turn matters.

[Telok]

Wait, are we really back to "someone has to play a cleric" type excuses because 8th level barbarians & fighters have saves vs fear like cr 1/8 rats? Well I guess that explains all the times our tables' fighter has been feared, held, stunned, banished, or hamster balled since level 10. Oh, wait, it doesn't.

I mean, sure, post 10th level the warlock & clerics & sorcerer of our group get stunned a turn once in a while, and there was one dc 21 con save paralysis fear thing that took out three of us for a whole fight. But mostly we're only mildly inconvenienced by all the physical save vs prone & damage stuff. The barby & fighter however can expect to sit out three to six turns for failing a mental save about one out of every 10 to 12 fights.

Ideally you'd spread different effects across different saves, have multiple ways to break the effect available to multiple character types, and ensure than short of full on min/max dump statting they'd keep about a worst case of 20% save rate. But near all hard "go play on your phone for 10 minutes until we get back to you" control is mental saves while the physical saves are mainly just movement reducers and plain old damage. Well, I guess it just means the warrior classes aren't supposed to be able to do anything to cr 12+ casters and adult+ dragons. Or we can always go back to blaming people for not playing sufficently optimized characters and accusing them of playing the game wrong.

[RSP]

Your response wasn't directed at me, but: taking someone out of combat for a few turns is the problem, not failing a save.

Impose blindness, disadvantage, speed 0... the severity doesn't matter too much. Giving the player a chance to do more than roll a save on their turn matters.

So being dropped to 0, or worse, dying, has the same effect as being Stunned, except it’s easier to recover from on your own: you get a Save every round to beat MF’s Stun, as opposed to needing to roll a 20 on a Death Save.

Going by your theory, we should make dropping to 0 just equivalent to blindness, no? Because it’s a “hard” condition as well.

The Barb is already extremely durable to conventional attacks: more durable than any other class, I’d say; I don’t think it needs to be durable to everything.

[TaiLiu]

So being dropped to 0, or worse, dying, has the same effect as being Stunned, except it’s easier to recover from on your own: you get a Save every round to beat MF’s Stun, as opposed to needing to roll a 20 on a Death Save.

Going by your theory, we should make dropping to 0 just equivalent to blindness, no? Because it’s a “hard” condition as well.
I think dying is more similar to PhoenixPhyre's suggestion of chained conditions than the save-or-suck abilities I'm railing against. (As an aside flesh to stone is a good preexisting example of a chained condition. I wonder if others exist.)

Much like how you get multiple chances to stop yourself from turning to stone, a foe needs to go through the hit point buffer before inflicting the dying condition on you. Unlike conditions like stunned, it's also easier to remove the condition from your allies.

However, you're right that I am interested in dropping the dying condition for the same reason I'm interested in dropping the stunned condition. Maybe we could replace it with some kinda context-specific grave debuff?


The Barb is already extremely durable to conventional attacks: more durable than any other class, I’d say; I don’t think it needs to be durable to everything.
I think you meant to send this to someone else. I didn't mention anything about the Barbarian. And I'm arguing about what conditions should exist, not durability.

[Dr.Samurai]

Only going to respond to this part--yeah. That's a problem. But it's a separate problem that should be solved by nerfing the crap out of wizards ability to be tanky in those ways, not by general number inflation.
Many of the responses here speak as if there is NO problem, and that the system is working EXACTLY as intended. For suggesting that the saves be looked at, we're accused of wanting everything... meanwhile there are actual classes that have everything even as we have this conversation (excuse the hyperbole, making a point).

Because all that happens with general number inflation is that DMs inflate their numbers too and nothing happens...except the times it TPKs everyone or turns into a snooze-fest. Number inflation is everywhere and always a negative, because it destabilizes the system.
I think this is a different thing. Couldn't we be talking about resetting the target numbers instead of simply "inflating" the numbers?

Unironically, delete or change every (defensive) spell with a Reaction cast time.

Shield, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Temporal Shunt, and Counterspell can all get in the bin/get changed in some way to not be reactions.

Feather Fall, Hellish Rebuke, and Soul Cage (lol) can stay, I guess.
Where do I sign?

Do you enjoy your fighters, barbarians, and rogues, all hardened warriors, peeing themselves when the dragon shows up?
Yeah, the tropes for D&D warriors are in the gutter. "Stand near me warrior so you don't totally lose your **** when the big mean monster shows up!"

Wait, are we really back to "someone has to play a cleric" type excuses because 8th level barbarians & fighters have saves vs fear like cr 1/8 rats? Well I guess that explains all the times our tables' fighter has been feared, held, stunned, banished, or hamster balled since level 10. Oh, wait, it doesn't.

I mean, sure, post 10th level the warlock & clerics & sorcerer of our group get stunned a turn once in a while, and there was one dc 21 con save paralysis fear thing that took out three of us for a whole fight. But mostly we're only mildly inconvenienced by all the physical save vs prone & damage stuff. The barby & fighter however can expect to sit out three to six turns for failing a mental save about one out of every 10 to 12 fights.
This was my experience running through Avernus, and a point I made earlier. My barbarian was getting rocked by saves left and right just because of proximity to the monsters. Hellwasps, vrocks, mummies, etc. were all enemies where my barbarian is making constitution saves left and right because he's in the thick of it. We had multiple vrock encounters and in one of those encounters the group was clumped up and they stunned some of my allies. But the rest of the time the sharpshooter ranger and the wizard were away from melee (cleric was a melee type but struggled joining the fray, real poor mobility). And when the DM had a Wisdom save to target, like with the mummies or chain devils, he targeted my barbarian anyway, despite having more range on those attacks, because I'm the only one that didn't either have proficiency in Wisdom and/or a good wisdom score. Only attacks like the Narzugon's, which has a huge range, generally hit all of us, but again my allies have better mental saves when those times come up. When we fought the slaad, my barbarian got Plane Shifted, because between me and the cleric, who's Charisma save is the DM going to target?

Melee characters, generally, get hit with the Str and Con saves simply due to engaging the monsters in melee, but then also get hit with AoE effects, which generally target Dex, and then also are prime targets for Int/Wis/Cha effects, because they're always in range and have the lowest saves in these areas.

Ideally you'd spread different effects across different saves, have multiple ways to break the effect available to multiple character types, and ensure than short of full on min/max dump statting they'd keep about a worst case of 20% save rate. But near all hard "go play on your phone for 10 minutes until we get back to you" control is mental saves while the physical saves are mainly just movement reducers and plain old damage. Well, I guess it just means the warrior classes aren't supposed to be able to do anything to cr 12+ casters and adult+ dragons. Or we can always go back to blaming people for not playing sufficently optimized characters and accusing them of playing the game wrong.
Wizard make a Strength save. You fail. You get pushed back and knocked prone so hard you're stunned. Should have picked a different class you newb.

[Witty Username]

I wouldn't mind fighters having better saving throws than everyone else, hard to kill is supposed to be their thing.
I wouldn't mind barbarian being immune to the charmed or frightened condition, possibly while raging. That feels on brand.

Rogue I think is about right already, with wisdom saves, Int saves and evasion for dex, with a soft point in con and strength. It covers what a mobile character should be good at.

[RSP]

This was my experience running through Avernus, and a point I made earlier. My barbarian was getting rocked by saves left and right just because of proximity to the monsters. Hellwasps, vrocks, mummies, etc. were all enemies where my barbarian is making constitution saves left and right because he's in the thick of it.

So you want the Barb to be good enough at every type of save that monsters are regularly wasting their turns having the Barb pass everything?

And you still want it to be just as Tammy against conventional attacks?

Isn’t that wanting it to be good at everything?



However, you're right that I am interested in dropping the dying condition for the same reason I'm interested in dropping the stunned condition. Maybe we could replace it with some kinda context-specific grave debuff?

I’m not sure many will get behind the position “dying isn’t fun, let’s remove it from the game”. I know I can’t. Whatever fun the game brings even with the occasional player sitting out a turn or two, you lose with it now being without real consequence.

[Dr.Samurai]

I wouldn't mind fighters having better saving throws than everyone else, hard to kill is supposed to be their thing.
If I understand correctly, that used to be the case. But over the editions, both fighters and magic users have gotten weaker and have lost features. Magic users have gotten stronger and stronger, and this is the status quo being vigorously defended from even just a conversation.

I wouldn't mind barbarian being immune to the charmed or frightened condition, possibly while raging. That feels on brand.
It's one of the reasons Berserker is one of my favorite subclasses; it makes a huge difference.


So you want the Barb to be good enough at every type of save that monsters are regularly wasting their turns having the Barb pass everything?

And you still want it to be just as Tammy against conventional attacks?

Isn’t that wanting it to be good at everything?
My crystal ball tells me you'll be reporting me in the very near future if I don't hop off this merry go round with you so... enjoy repeating yourself ad nauseum. (See mods, you've whipped me into submission I'm growing.)

The other part of my response is that there are preexisting and possible conditions that aren't hard or just damage. I think that soft conditions should replace hard conditions, because soft conditions let characters continue acting.

I've been using blindness as an ideal soft condition, because D&D 5e characters tend to rely heavily on vision. Being blind removes options, especially for spellcaster characters, but being blind also allows you to continue acting and encourages actions that a character might not take while sighted.

Personally I don't mind the "strong" conditions. In the example with the Mind Flayers and my barbarian getting Stunned, the dice went in my favor and I was only Stunned for 1 round, rolling a 16 on my first chance to shake it off. There is something fun about that.

But I think the fact that, in my experience, melee characters are taking the lion's share of attacks and saving throws, and have some of the weakest defenses against saving throws is a problem.

The big bad in our Avernus game forces a Con save vs Paralysis on a hit, and a Wis save vs Confusion on a hit with their weapon, another attack forces a Strength save to avoid being pushed back and knocked prone. Who is going to make those saving throws? Not the flying wizard and ranger, who are attacking from afar.

There's sort of an obvious solution in giving a feature that adds to the save, like the Artificer has, but what about a feature that can turn a hard condition into a soft one? So if you get Stunned, instead you're Restrained, or something like that?

[Witty Username]

If I understand correctly, that used to be the case. But over the editions, both fighters and magic users have gotten weaker and have lost features. Magic users have gotten stronger and stronger, and this is the status quo being vigorously defended from even just a conversation.


It is more fighters have lost numbers, at least from what I can tell.
The conversion to 3.5s save system and the 5e introduction of bounded accuracy mean that fighters don't have the raw save and attack values of yore.
This setup favors features over values. A +1 from higher strength means nothing in comparison to something like fireball, hypnotic pattern, lessor restoration or spike growth.

The obvious solution is add features, and powerful ones at that. Defensively the things that fit this bill would be Condition Immunity, self healing of damage and Conditions and limited capacity to negate attacks.

The proposed solutions seem to be to nerf everyone into mediocrity for the affront for getting more powerful as they level.

[RSP]

Personally I don't mind the "strong" conditions. In the example with the Mind Flayers and my barbarian getting Stunned, the dice went in my favor and I was only Stunned for 1 round, rolling a 16 on my first chance to shake it off. There is something fun about that.

“Hard” (or “strong”) conditions absolutely have their place and add to the game’s fun.

And this goes to the point of why the system doesn’t need to adjust saves. Even with a -1, in the case presented, the Barb lost 1 Turn. So the MF used an Action, and on the failed Save, one PC lost one Turn.

Assuming a party of 4, that’s a win for the party already. If we were to change the rules to “Barb can’t fail save”, then MF is using their action for nothing.

It is also noteworthy that, as mentioned, they’re a subclass that is immune to Fear and Charm while Raging. Why have such benefits if the idea is to change the Barb so they don’t fail saves?



But I think the fact that, in my experience, melee characters are taking the lion's share of attacks and saving throws, and have some of the weakest defenses against saving throws is a problem.


And here, as previously noted, is just a discrepancy in how different tables play.

My thorny melee frontline PC is usually not taking as many melee hits as our Cleric and Wizards.

Not sure why the difference in play, but generally speaking, our table has a decent history of “there is no back line”.

But overall, the complaint of “my character failed a save and missed 1 Turn so the system is bad”, just doesn’t seem like a good piece of evidence that there’s actually a flaw in the system. Particularly since the character used in this case is designed to be super tough in other areas of combat, with this particular area meant to be it’s weakness.



The obvious solution is add features, and powerful ones at that. Defensively the things that fit this bill would be Condition Immunity, self healing of damage and Conditions and limited capacity to negate attacks.

The proposed solutions seem to be to nerf everyone into mediocrity for the affront for getting more powerful as they level.

Disagree with said “obvious” or proposed solutions.

The game wants to have “hard” conditions that successfully afflict PCs: that’s the monsters functioning as intended.

Yes, there are features that help against those conditions, magic items as well, but that’s why those features are good. If we just add features to every class that make those saves moot, you haven’t made the game more fun, but less fun; while also just watering down what we’re good features.

[stoutstien]

My solution to the the corner cases I when the DC for features goes beyond the point that reasonable investment makes a difference (16) I just alter it so the DC is lower but is guaranteed to stick at least once.
So instead of having an ancient Red dragon's fear aura to be a DC 21 it's 16 but always effects a target for at least one round, assuming they aren't immune to fear.

[Dr.Samurai]

It is more fighters have lost numbers, at least from what I can tell.
The conversion to 3.5s save system and the 5e introduction of bounded accuracy mean that fighters don't have the raw save and attack values of yore.
This setup favors features over values. A +1 from higher strength means nothing in comparison to something like fireball, hypnotic pattern, lessor restoration or spike growth.

The obvious solution is add features, and powerful ones at that. Defensively the things that fit this bill would be Condition Immunity, self healing of damage and Conditions and limited capacity to negate attacks.

The proposed solutions seem to be to nerf everyone into mediocrity for the affront for getting more powerful as they level.
Yeah, I don't really get the appeal of Bounded Accuracy. It seems to keep things simple, which does have a benefit.

But it really keeps martials feeling weak.

“Hard” (or “strong”) conditions absolutely have their place and add to the game’s fun.

And this goes to the point of why the system doesn’t need to adjust saves. Even with a -1, in the case presented, the Barb lost 1 Turn. So the MF used an Action, and on the failed Save, one PC lost one Turn.

Assuming a party of 4, that’s a win for the party already. If we were to change the rules to “Barb can’t fail save”, then MF is using their action for nothing.

It is also noteworthy that, as mentioned, they’re a subclass that is immune to Fear and Charm while Raging. Why have such benefits if the idea is to change the Barb so they don’t fail saves?
Again I ask you... who is saying the barbarian shouldn't fail saves?

And here, as previously noted, is just a discrepancy in how different tables play.

My thorny melee frontline PC is usually not taking as many melee hits as our Cleric and Wizards.

Not sure why the difference in play, but generally speaking, our table has a decent history of “there is no back line”.

Not sure why ranged characters would put themselves on the front line but sure, I can see table variance being a factor (I said as much earlier even). In some encounters, there really isn't space for a front and back line, so ranged characters can get targeted just as easily by auras and close burst abilities. But when there is space, there is definitely a discrepancy.

But overall, the complaint of “my character failed a save and missed 1 Turn so the system is bad”, just doesn’t seem like a good piece of evidence that there’s actually a flaw in the system.
I know, which is why you keep torching this strawman.

The mind flayer example was a rebuttal to "your allies will remove the conditions from you". I literally say, in the post you are quoting, that I enjoyed the experience.

I've also clarified this to you before so... what is your intent by continuing to bang this drum?

Particularly since the character used in this case is designed to be super tough in other areas of combat, with this particular area meant to be it’s weakness.
Hit points are meant to be a weakness for casters but they have Absorb Elements and THP features left, right, and center. Armor Class is meant to be a weakness of spellcasters but they have Shield and Blur and Mirror Image, and Subclass features.

Saving throws are supposed to be a weakness but there's Aura of Protection and Flash of Genius and Diamond Soul.

It really seems like what you're saying is "the game wants specifically for barbarians and fighters to have weaknesses, and no features to mitigate them".

[Witty Username]

If we just add features to every class that make those saves moot, you haven’t made the game more fun, but less fun; while also just watering down what we’re good features.

They don't need to be moot to be possible,

Like say a proposed fighter that gets proficiency in Int saves, they would still fail a save against mind blast about half the time.

This is in comparison to the around 25% chance of success they have in the existing system.

This would still be a bunch of scary things are scary, but the fighter is doing less thumb twidling because they picked the wrong class for this game.

Or something like condition removal, a barbarian shaking off frightened with a rage is on brand but also costly. This is still a danger point.

Especially in a mind flayer example because they can target two different saves with two different conditions (stunned and charmed). A dominate on a barbarian bringing out a rage, only for the barbarian to be stunned by a mind blast, losing rage, is what we call pain.

--
The "solutions" is more observations from multiple threads at this point.

I personally think warrior types could use some love, and I tend to favor passive effects to keep cognitive load down (that is a big factor in the appeal those classes have, and I wouldn't want that wrecked).

Proficiency in all saves would be a little on the far end for me, but that wouldn't mean much for the whole system. Fighter would still fail alot of saves, it would just be less sitting out of entire sessions for picking the wrong class.

[Brookshw]

Yeah, I don't really get the appeal of Bounded Accuracy. It seems to keep things simple, which does have a benefit.

But it really keeps martials feeling weak.

I don't see why they couldn't keep bounded accuracy while giving out some buffs to certain classes for certain purposes, like, giving warriors an additional +1 per tier to weapon attacks isn't going to break anything.


It really seems like what you're saying is "the game wants specifically for barbarians and fighters to have weaknesses, and no features to mitigate them". it's fine for classes to have weaknesses and no mitigation, it's a team game after all, the problem arises when that isn't true across all classes/races/etc.

[Skrum]

Proficiency in all saves would be a little on the far end for me, but that wouldn't mean much for the whole system. Fighter would still fail alot of saves, it would just be less sitting out of entire sessions for picking the wrong class.

This.

A 12th level barbarian with 8 Cha gets targeted with a Banishment. The DC is 18. They have a 10% chance to succeed on the save. At the end of each of their turns, they get a new roll with the same 10% chance of success. After 3 rounds (so, 3 missed turns and 4 total rolls), there's a 35% chance they've broken free. 65% of the time, the barb will *still* be Banished. After 6 total rolls, so 5 missed turns, they've broken the "coin flip" line. Best to break out the phone and tell yourself "well at least the enemy caster can't concentrate on anything else."

Same situation, but now the Barb has proficiency with all saves. Their cha save is a +3. They have a 30% chance to succeed, and get a new save at the end of each turn.
70% chance to fail the initial save (so, quite likely they will fail)
50% of the time though, the barb will end the effect by the end of their first turn (so, losing 1 turn and ending their probable rage)
There's only a 24% chance they're still stuck after 3 rounds

That to me is a far more desirable gaming situation. I play dnd to *play the game,* not make futile saving throws and listen to the rest of the table take part in a cool combat.

Obviously, bad things need to happen to the characters, and they need to be threatened. This isn't about NEVER failing a save. That's literally part of the game and where the drama of combat comes from. But I strongly believe design mistakes have been made when players start to think "dang, I really picked the wrong class." Getting CC'd for rounds on end, that's just not fun, and classes shouldn't be set up where that's the statistical likelihood.

[Composer99]

I honestly have a real problem with the apparent logic behind "suck it up buttercup!"-style arguments as regards saving throws and conditions in threads like these.

History
First of all, of course, it's ahistorical for D&D. Throughout TSR D&D you just got better at saving throws as you gained levels, period. In 3.X and 4e, saving throws (or defences in 4e's case) rose over time, even if the enemy save DCs or attacks scaled to match. (And at least in 4e, the actual saving throw mechanic was one that you could genuinely get better at over time, with flat bonuses from feats or powers, rerolls, rolling a save out of turn, and the like).

5e is the only edition where you could very well be just as bad at a saving throw at 20th level than you were at 1st level. To my mind, that is sufficiently out of line with the D&D gameplay experience to... well, not feel like D&D.

Gameplay and Participation
I think we do have to be asking ourselves here, "are we asking people to spend their leisure time in an enjoyable way?" After all, whether people are having an enjoyable and engaging gameplay experience is kind of the point here. I think it's safe to say that spending fifteen to thirty to forty-five minutes not participating in gameplay except as a spectator is out of line, plain and simple. As long as you're "in play", so to speak, even when it's not your turn, you have an incentive to follow along and stay engaged if you have something to do. Do nothing on your turn except roll a saving throw that you're very likely to fail is just a waste of a player's time - a far greater design transgression than any alleged offence against the game's maths.

I like to think that the game could encourage players to find ways to enjoy the setbacks and adversity, defeats and tragedies that their characters occasionally experience, the way they do for other fictional personas they come to identify with. With that in mind, it would help if such setbacks and defeats were actually interesting to play out at the table! It's not at all clear to me that "save or suck" effects, when you're terrible at making the save, qualify as interesting to play out, and nonsensically pretending that other players want their characters to be good at everything is certainly not putting forth a reasonable argument that they are.

(Granted, such things as dying or petrification often remove characters from play, but because they tend to happen more slowly and are easier to reverse or avert, they're not as likely to cause players to disengage from play - and they can as often be the endpoint of heroic sacrifices or satisfying emergent character arcs, potentially making them interesting or engaging in themselves.)

[TaiLiu]

I’m not sure many will get behind the position “dying isn’t fun, let’s remove it from the game”. I know I can’t. Whatever fun the game brings even with the occasional player sitting out a turn or two, you lose with it now being without real consequence.
We must have very different ideas of what real consequences look like.

Dying can be stopped with an orison and can be reversed entirely with a first-level spell. Death can be cured with a third-level spell. I think this is kinda boring. What if you lost a hand instead? Became trapped in your own mind? Broke a magic item?

Admittedly, consequences like these would change how players approach combat. Depending on the game, these changes may be good or bad. But these sure feel like real consequences. Dying? Death? Reversible in Tier 1 or 2 with relative ease.


Personally I don't mind the "strong" conditions. In the example with the Mind Flayers and my barbarian getting Stunned, the dice went in my favor and I was only Stunned for 1 round, rolling a 16 on my first chance to shake it off. There is something fun about that.

But I think the fact that, in my experience, melee characters are taking the lion's share of attacks and saving throws, and have some of the weakest defenses against saving throws is a problem.

The big bad in our Avernus game forces a Con save vs Paralysis on a hit, and a Wis save vs Confusion on a hit with their weapon, another attack forces a Strength save to avoid being pushed back and knocked prone. Who is going to make those saving throws? Not the flying wizard and ranger, who are attacking from afar.

There's sort of an obvious solution in giving a feature that adds to the save, like the Artificer has, but what about a feature that can turn a hard condition into a soft one? So if you get Stunned, instead you're Restrained, or something like that?
Yes, you're right about melee characters needing to roll more saves than ranged characters. I never really thought about that.

I like the idea of shrugging off a condition to acquire a lesser one, too. It's not my preferred solution, but I think it would make for better gameplay.


Gameplay and Participation
I think we do have to be asking ourselves here, "are we asking people to spend their leisure time in an enjoyable way?" After all, whether people are having an enjoyable and engaging gameplay experience is kind of the point here. I think it's safe to say that spending fifteen to thirty to forty-five minutes not participating in gameplay except as a spectator is out of line, plain and simple. As long as you're "in play", so to speak, even when it's not your turn, you have an incentive to follow along and stay engaged if you have something to do. Do nothing on your turn except roll a saving throw that you're very likely to fail is just a waste of a player's time - a far greater design transgression than any alleged offence against the game's maths.

I like to think that the game could encourage players to find ways to enjoy the setbacks and adversity, defeats and tragedies that their characters occasionally experience, the way they do for other fictional personas they come to identify with. With that in mind, it would help if such setbacks and defeats were actually interesting to play out at the table! It's not at all clear to me that "save or suck" effects, when you're terrible at making the save, qualify as interesting to play out, and nonsensically pretending that other players want their characters to be good at everything is certainly not putting forth a reasonable argument that they are.

(Granted, such things as dying or petrification often remove characters from play, but because they tend to happen more slowly and are easier to reverse or avert, they're not as likely to cause players to disengage from play - and they can as often be the endpoint of heroic sacrifices or satisfying emergent character arcs, potentially making them interesting or engaging in themselves.)
Yes, exactly. Well-written.

[Witty Username]

Yeah, I don't really get the appeal of Bounded Accuracy. It seems to keep things simple, which does have a benefit.

There is benefits to keeping things in the same wheel house.

For example if DC 20 ish is the ceiling, which it kinda is, that means more or less anyone has a chance of success. it means both a lot of challenges stay relevant and higher end things are easier to use without level gating.

I have been meaning to put together a one-shot for a level 1 party, which is a castle setup and the meat of the one shot is the castle being attacked by a dragon. This could be done in older editions but it has alot more opportunity on paper in 5e, because hurting an adult dragon is hard - but not impossible.

But some take the concept to mean that a +0 to a roll is as valid at 20th level, as it is at 1st, which doesn't really speak to that initial practical value.

Like I take for example, if the character can't succeed on a save without a paladin next to them, bounded accuracy is already violated. Bounded accuracy would expect an unassisted fighter would have a shot at the save unassisted but a paladin would still be helpful.
--
Generally, saves as the numbers bare out, starts at a 60% chance of failure, and success chance doesn't go up, but failure chance does.
I think this is fine as the general rule, and should apply to casters, with I think spells previously brought up that remove conditions and basic saves are sufficient. Remove shield from the game.
Rogue, monk and paladin already get stuff beyond the norm, with aura of protection and proficiency in additional saves.

Fighter and Barbarian seem to be the ones on the way side, with fighter having a single reroll a day feature, which is more often than not going to still fail, And Barbarian, which has a couple subclasses to get something.

[Hurrashane]

Could just give everyone (or just martials if you want) half proficiency on non-proficient saves. That way they go up, but not so much that the math needs to change. Will it make much of a difference? Probably not, but it'd probably feel a bit better.

OneD&D at least seems to be looking at giving classes more features to help with saves, the latest Fighter's indomitable for one, reroll with +fighter level.

[Dr.Samurai]

OneD&D at least seems to be looking at giving classes more features to help with saves, the latest Fighter's indomitable for one, reroll with +fighter level.
I can say that in our current game, Indomitable has not turned a failed save into a successful save a single time. Last night we leveled up to 13, so I gained a second daily use of Indomitable. I also rolled a nat 1 on my additional HP so... not a thrilling level up lol. (In fairness, saving throws have been few and far between throughout the campaign. But they do occur, and for the failed ones, this feature hasn't made a difference.)

Our monk, on the other hand, has had to have virtually everything transpiring translated to him because he doesn't speak Giant and we're playing Against the Giants. Now at level 13 he's gained Tongue of the Sun and Moon and you'd think he ascended to godhood last night he was so excited :smallcool:.

[RSP]

We must have very different ideas of what real consequences look like.

Dying can be stopped with an orison and can be reversed entirely with a first-level spell. Death can be cured with a third-level spell. I think this is kinda boring. What if you lost a hand instead? Became trapped in your own mind? Broke a magic item?

Admittedly, consequences like these would change how players approach combat. Depending on the game, these changes may be good or bad. But these sure feel like real consequences. Dying? Death? Reversible in Tier 1 or 2 with relative ease.


And saves become much easier for 3 characters with a 1st round spell (Bless), or even can make certain saves moot (Heroism or PfGandE), etc.

That’s completely ignoring the actual conversation, though.

The point being made was “hard conditions aren’t fun”. My counter was that death does the same thing (even if a cantrip stabilizes a PC they still aren’t acting).

In either case, teammates can help, so saying “but with dropping to zero teammates can help!” is moot.

It’s still the same previous argument: if you’re saying remove “hard” conditions from the game because it’s not fun for Players to not get to act (which I believe was your argument), the same is true of dropping to zero.

[Dr.Samurai]

Allies cannot always help in actuality. Like, if we leave this theoretical conversation and jump into actual games, allies cannot always help. That was the ENTIRE point of my mind flayer example; Stunned is not an easy condition to remove. Many conditions are not easy to remove. And then you start getting into specific classes having to be in the party, or subclasses, and then spells, etc.

It was the entire point of my mind flayer example, which you kept turning into "hard conditions aren't fun because I was stunned for a turn", and here you are making the exact same point I was refuting in the first place (your allies will save you).

And dying is not the same as having a hard condition.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

I've never understood why Polymorph is a wisdom save. Seems like 100% it should be a Charisma save based on what those generally entail as OP mentioned. I guess it's either wisdom=willpower (which... eh that's a big stretch imo) or because Charisma is probably the lowest avg characteristic for most monsters and having a 4th level widely accessible save-or-suck that targeted a state that is on average lower (and generally either VERY low or very high, and it's pretty obvious which just by looking at the thing) would be too powerful

[RSP]

Allies cannot always help in actuality. Like, if we leave this theoretical conversation and jump into actual games, allies cannot always help. That was the ENTIRE point of my mind flayer example; Stunned is not an easy condition to remove. Many conditions are not easy to remove. And then you start getting into specific classes having to be in the party, or subclasses, and then spells, etc.

It was the entire point of my mind flayer example, which you kept turning into "hard conditions aren't fun because I was stunned for a turn", and here you are making the exact same point I was refuting in the first place (your allies will save you).

And dying is not the same as having a hard condition.

When did I say “your allies will save you”? It’s meant to be a team game, but that’s not the same as requiring fellow party mates having to remove conditions from your character. It’s also a rather self centered view to have if one is necessitating others to rescue their character; which is not what I’m advocating for.

For instance, in your example: what conditions is your character removing from other PCs? Other than possibly ending a Conc from a caster, do they use their Turns to remove conditions from other PCs?

Also, just so you’re aware (based off your “dying is not the same…” comment) the poster I was responding to included an upthread comment up thread of removing the dropping to zero/dying “hard” condition, because it has the same effect as the others we’re discussing.

But I will very much say, if the argument is “hard conditions aren’t fun because the player doesn’t get to participate”, then it is very much the same as being at 0 HP, which has the exact same effect.

Barbs shine in HP attrition encounters, when they can have Rage up, and just shrug off the same attacks that would drop a monk, Wizard, Sorc, Druid (specifically, non-Moon Druids more so than Moon), etc.

They shine in Str, Dex and Con saves where they generally have good chances to beat the save.

They have a weakness in mental saves. Just like wizards or Sorc’s have a weakness in hp-attrition encounters.

So again, if the issue is “we shouldn’t have hard conditions because players not being able to play isn’t fun” then that holds true for the Wizard and Sorc (or any PC really) that drops to zero and can’t play.

Now I disagree with that premise: I’m fine with “hard” conditions, as I believe it’s more fun overall when there are real consequences to the PCs adventuring. Death being real for the PCs is part of that.

In addition, removing hard conditions makes combats and monsters less interesting as it makes them more geared to “bags of HPs that do damage”.

I prefer interesting.

[Dr.Samurai]

When did I say “your allies will save you”?
This appears to be the fallback response; "it's a team game, your allies will help you with saving throws". It would appear to me that, despite these claims, it clearly is not happening given the complaints we are reading in this thread (and countless other threads).

It’s meant to be a team game, but that’s not the same as requiring fellow party mates having to remove conditions from your character. It’s also a rather self centered view to have if one is necessitating others to rescue their character; which is not what I’m advocating for.
I'm not advocating for that either; I'm asking you to back up your claim. I made it very clear that this position requires certain classes/subclasses/spells/features. So you're excusing a part of the game people are saying can be tweaked by saying "well so long as someone in your party plays xyz, it's fine".

For instance, in your example: what conditions is your character removing from other PCs? Other than possibly ending a Conc from a caster, do they use their Turns to remove conditions from other PCs?
No. No no no no no. Stop. I am the one asking that question, not you.

Apart from Bless, how else are your allies making a difference with these hard conditions? We know they can't remove most of them, so are you assuming a bard or cleric or artificer? And then what?

But I will very much say, if the argument is “hard conditions aren’t fun because the player doesn’t get to participate”, then it is very much the same as being at 0 HP, which has the exact same effect.
They are different things, obviously.

Barbs shine in HP attrition encounters, when they can have Rage up, and just shrug off the same attacks that would drop a monk, Wizard, Sorc, Druid (specifically, non-Moon Druids more so than Moon), etc.
I've addressed this already. You ignored it.

Also, earlier you said the casters in your party are taking more melee hits than the frontliner. So I guess they drop to 0 a lot, since HP attrition is their weakness?

[TaiLiu]

And saves become much easier for 3 characters with a 1st round spell (Bless), or even can make certain saves moot (Heroism or PfGandE), etc.

That’s completely ignoring the actual conversation, though.

The point being made was “hard conditions aren’t fun”. My counter was that death does the same thing (even if a cantrip stabilizes a PC they still aren’t acting).

In either case, teammates can help, so saying “but with dropping to zero teammates can help!” is moot.

It’s still the same previous argument: if you’re saying remove “hard” conditions from the game because it’s not fun for Players to not get to act (which I believe was your argument), the same is true of dropping to zero.
Sorry. I'm confused. Either I'm misunderstanding you or you've confused me with someone else or...

Cuz I agreed that dying and death are boring and I wanna replace them. And I didn't say anything about how teammates can help. It feels like we're having orthogonal conversations.

[Skrum]

I'm not advocating for that either; I'm asking you to back up your claim. I made it very clear that this position requires certain classes/subclasses/spells/features. So you're excusing a part of the game people are saying can be tweaked by saying "well so long as someone in your party plays xyz, it's fine".


I'd also like to point out that "it's OK that very specific classes have weaknesses because very specific other classes don't, and can prop up the former" is not a team game in the true sense of the term. That's good classes helping bad/weaker classes.

I've in fact run into this pretty recently - our game is in a series of "finale" games with very challenging combats and powerful foes. What ends up mattering, continually, is whether the clerics are still up, maintaining things like twilight sanctuary, circle of power, and aura of life, and whether the wizards/sorcerers are dealing hundreds of points of damage with AoE and countering the worst of the enemy attacks. The martial characters are like...present lol. They deal damage, to single targets, but it's entirely a "replacement level" thing.

(I'm agreeing with you BTW, just adding to your point)

[RSP]

Sorry. I'm confused. Either I'm misunderstanding you or you've confused me with someone else or...

Cuz I agreed that dying and death are boring and I wanna replace them. And I didn't say anything about how teammates can help. It feels like we're having orthogonal conversations.

You very much did mention teammates helping, right in what I quoted from you: you stated being at 0 or dying can be helped with an “orison” (which I took to mean cantrip), or a first level spell.

Unless you were suggesting that the dying character themselves cast the spell, while being at 0 HP, which isnt possible as I’m aware; then it would, in fact, necessitate having a teammate help.

[TaiLiu]

You very much did mention teammates helping, right in what I quoted from you: you stated being at 0 or dying can be helped with an “orison” (which I took to mean cantrip), or a first level spell.

Unless you were suggesting that the dying character themselves cast the spell, while being at 0 HP, which isnt possible as I’m aware; then it would, in fact, necessitate having a teammate help.
Right. That was an argument against dying and death being serious consequences. I didn't argue that dying and death are excluded from my hard conditions are boring argument.

[RSP]

This appears to be the fallback response; "it's a team game, your allies will help you with saving throws". It would appear to me that, despite these claims, it clearly is not happening given the complaints we are reading in this thread (and countless other threads).

So you’re telling me to back up what I didn’t say; but what others said, or what you’ve read on other posts? I’m not following why you think that’s a thing.




I'm not advocating for that either; I'm asking you to back up your claim. I made it very clear that this position requires certain classes/subclasses/spells/features. So you're excusing a part of the game people are saying can be tweaked by saying "well so long as someone in your party plays xyz, it's fine".

I’m not saying someone in your party has to play xyz, though. Direct your requests at who is saying that if you want it backed up.



No. No no no no no. Stop. I am the one asking that question, not you.

Huh?

The point is for the party to overcome the encounters. Some encounters will be enemies that have standard attacks, some encounters will be traps, some encounters may just be social encounters. Some encounters some PCs will shine, others will have other PCs shine. Some might be tough for some PCs, while some are tough for other PCs.

And some encounters have Mind Flayers.

I stated the MFs are supposed to have a hard condition, and that the save isn’t supposed to be easy to pass it. That’s the point of the MFs: they’re supposed to be scary and dangerous in ways other monsters aren’t. If every PC gets high mods to reliably pass the save, then MFs are really bad monsters to use in an encounter: they’re 15 AC, 71 HP monsters that waste their Actions NOT doing anything to the PCs…

I did not state that parties need “xyz” to pass the encounter. I’m stating the point is to have the party succeed in overcoming the encounter. The fact that no one helped your character with the hard condition is moot. The MF (as I understand it) was defeated. So the party succeeded.

Just like if the Wizard goes down in a HP attrition fight, your Barb isn’t required to resolve that: instead the Barb can continue trying to resolve the combat.



Apart from Bless, how else are your allies making a difference with these hard conditions? We know they can't remove most of them, so are you assuming a bard or cleric or artificer? And then what?

The Bless comment was in response to another poster talking about how dying and death is equal to “hard” conditions.

Neither now, nor when I made that comment, did I assume anything about classes, because it wasn’t a response to who can do what; it was a response to “it’s easy to heal a dying PC”.

There’s other features, other spells, in the game. I don’t have the list of features that could help remove conditions, nor am I particularly inclined to find one.



Also, earlier you said the casters in your party are taking more melee hits than the frontliner. So I guess they drop to 0 a lot, since HP attrition is their weakness?

We’ve had numerous PCs drop to zero as our combats tend to be “no back line”, yes (Wizard, Monk, Cleric, Sorc, Rogue, Ranger). My first Sorc actually died via failed Intellect Devourer Save, though, so I guess Sorcerers need increased saves as well, in your estimation?

Our Cleric just died the last encounter (after dropping to 0, being healed, then dropping again) and our Rogue dropped twice as well, but survived. However, we were able to get the Cleric Reincarnated though.

For me, the threat of PCs dying makes the game more fun rather than just ignoring bad things, or removing them from the game.


Right. That was an argument against dying and death being serious consequences. I didn't argue that dying and death are excluded from my hard conditions are boring argument.

But the dying character can’t cast those healing spells themself, right? That requires someone else helping.

You stated you said nothing about teammates helping, when, in fact, you did: it’s the teammate healing the dying PC.

[TaiLiu]

But the dying character can’t cast those healing spells themself, right? That requires someone else helping.

You stated you said nothing about teammates helping, when, in fact, you did: it’s the teammate healing the dying PC.
Yes, you're right. I should've written something along the lines of "my point isn't about assistance from teammates" instead of "I didn't say anything about how teammates can help."

[Dr.Samurai]

And I'm reminded why I don't engage with RSP. I should have opted out when I said I was going to previously in this thread lol.

Anyways, moving on to more productive conversation...

I would be in favor for spreading hard conditions across the various saving throws, instead of just making them mostly mental saves, with some con saves mixed in there. That way it doesn't feel like melee types are intended to be fubar'ed while everyone else gets to continue having fun. Also, I don't know why the classes that get save boosts get them. If they are going to exist, spread the love. Or remove the features. But why should artificers get Flash of Genius but there not be some Grit and Mettle for the fighter or barbarian?

I wouldn't want to get rid of hard conditions, but they need to be more evenly spread so we don't get this "sucks to be you" mentality toward classes that don't have innately good mental saves nor class features to help with their saves.

[Witty Username]

.
And some encounters have Mind Flayers.

I stated the MFs are supposed to have a hard condition, and that the save isn’t supposed to be easy to pass it. That’s the point of the MFs: they’re supposed to be scary and dangerous in ways other monsters aren’t. If every PC gets high mods to reliably pass the save, then MFs are really bad monsters to use in an encounter: they’re 15 AC, 71 HP monsters that waste their Actions NOT doing anything to the PCs…


Scary and dangerous aren't reliant on probability.

The last party I ran was slanted towards Int saves, and so I use intellect devourers and mind flayers in greater frequency than I normally would.

And the party still reacts like they are scary. Because even if it is low, that doesn't change that an intellect devourer represents immediate brain death for a failed roll.

Being stunned or paralyzed for 1 round is plenty scary, and that only takes 1 time for the dice to decide they gonna get you today.

--
I am nostalgic for the days of ability drain, level loss, and save or die. But these must be applied sparingly, or players sit on their butt for 3 hours when they were wanting to play d&d.

One way is to make these effects low probability - humies are pretty bad at assessment of outcomes.

When was the last time you saw a banshee actually TPK a party, when was the last time you saw a party change play behavior to minimize a TPK risk, just by seeing a banshee?

[RSP]

Scary and dangerous aren't reliant on probability.

The last party I ran was slanted towards Int saves, and so I use intellect devourers and mind flayers in greater frequency than I normally would.

And the party still reacts like they are scary. Because even if it is low, that doesn't change that an intellect devourer represents immediate brain death for a failed roll.

Being stunned or paralyzed for 1 round is plenty scary, and that only takes 1 time for the dice to decide they gonna get you today.


So let’s assume the players are aware of the threat of MFs (whether or not they’re aware of the specifics of the stat block/save DCs/effects).

Players see a MF and know there’s going to be trouble.

As is, a party of four will probably at least have one or two fail the initial save from a mind blast, just going off d20 roll possibilities, with at least one PC passing. The effect is a 60’ cone, and the MF is probably using it from as far a distance as possible, so they’re still going to need to move 40-50 at least.

So long as a couple PCs are affected, the MF using that ability had an effective round for what the combat expects. The MF still needs to get within melee range of a PC to do anything else, and PCs who saved will get actions and those who didn’t will still get saves every round to break the condition. The MF then needs to hit with a melee attack 2 rounds in a row. That’s at least 3 rounds for the MF to be a threat to kill a PC.

As it stands, that MF probably won’t be able to just pick off stunned PCs, as it will have to still deal with the PC(s) who passed their save, and any who recover over those 3+ rounds (again, it’s possible, and probably likely, the MF needs to move the 60-ish ft to engage in melee. Keep in mind, other than it’s blast, it doesn’t have ranged attacks, so distance favors the PCs.)

By arbitrarily deciding “hey these PCs should be better at resisting Int saves” you make the encounter much more likely to be a push over for the PCs: the MF now uses its action to a lot less effect, while a level-appropriate party just takes it out in the round it uses its blast, as the MF isn’t horribly durable (15 AC, 71 HPs).

The entire threat of the encounter is the MF’s ability to stun: which if you just increase Int save mods, you’re just mitigating the encounter difficulty.

So, I’d say the situation shouldn’t be looked at as “did my PC get stunned, and was that less fun for me” because it’s a team game. The situation should be looked at as “was this a reasonable challenge for the party”.



When was the last time you saw a banshee actually TPK a party, when was the last time you saw a party change play behavior to minimize a TPK risk, just by seeing a banshee?

Why is the standard you use TPK? I’m of the opinion encounters should be challenging to the PCs, but the standard shouldn’t be killing the party; though tables may vary in this.

[OvisCaedo]

So, I’d say the situation shouldn’t be looked at as “did my PC get stunned, and was that less fun for me” because it’s a team game. The situation should be looked at as “was this a reasonable challenge for the party”.

It being a team game is also the exact reason why one character being instantly removed from the fight by a hard stun they have extremely low chances of shaking off is pretty obnoxious! Because, you know, that's now a person who isn't playing, and not just a unit down from your controlled team.

You're acting like the only thing that matters is if the party wins or loses, and how statistically likely it was for them to do so.

[Skrum]

The Mind Flayer is actually a great example of BAD monster design - it indeed has low hit points, low AC/defenses, no particular movement or mitigation technique, and no other notable abilities besides mind blast. Its "threat" to the party is entirely based on Do Several Members of the Party Fail Their Save.

From a fun perspective...this isn't very fun at all. Either the mind blast takes out a bunch of PC's and leaves them twiddling their thumbs, or the flayer gets wasted almost immediately. In boxing parlance, this is a "two true outcome." Only two ways it can go, and either one is wipeout. There's no outcome where a competitive fight happens.

I don't think there should be NO monsters that fit this paradigm (banshees for instances are interesting - but there's several differences between a banshee's scream and mind blast, starting with other party members being able to get a downed character up from zero), but having monsters like this and then working backwards into "characters need to have crippling bad saves" is not good game design.

Characters' low saves need to be better, and mind flayers should get additional buffs and abilities to keep them as the alien, dangerous monsters the lore says they are.

[Witty Username]

Why is the standard you use TPK? I’m of the opinion encounters should be challenging to the PCs, but the standard shouldn’t be killing the party; though tables may vary in this.

This is specific to Banshee,
Banshee is one of the scarier enemies of its CR, because it has a fail save reduce character to 0 HP, and rather than a single target attack it's an AoE.
Its a DC 13 con save so most characters will be able to resist. But a string of poor rolls could turn victory into final death. I personally doubt this even happens very often, but it has turned DMs off of using banshees and changes PC behavior significantly, because this low probability is still terrifying.


The overall point is that fear is beyond probability if the possibility is still scary.

To bring it back to the mind flayer example, DC 15, most characters will have around a 70% chance of failure, very few characters have Int save proficiency or reason to invest in int. Characters with either prof or a reason to invest in int will have around 50% chance of failure.
Something you learn pretty quickly playing, 50% is not alot safer than 70%. Heck applied to a party generally, this is the difference between 3 people being stunned and 2 in a party of 4. But it means you are less likely to death spiral. Stunned for one round, getting grappled into a bunch of damage is scary. But being stunned for an entire combat can get tedious. Both of these are still entirely possible, it just trends more to scary instead of tedious.


and no other notable abilities besides mind blast.
There is also dominate monster, which frankly is the scarier one, and more fun as its your opportunity to wipe that smug grin off your wizard's face.

Dominate the rogue, stun the fighter, rogue moves in. A party can get got very quickly by a mind flayer that knows what it is doing.

[RSP]

From a fun perspective...this isn't very fun at all. Either the mind blast takes out a bunch of PC's and leaves them twiddling their thumbs, or the flayer gets wasted almost immediately. In boxing parlance, this is a "two true outcome." Only two ways it can go, and either one is wipeout. There's no outcome where a competitive fight happens.

Disagree with the last sentence. And on that point will only add, if you think what you find fun is the only possible fun, I’d say you’re wrong, and “Skrum’s [or any one person’s opinion of what is or isn’t fun] idea of fun should dictate what is or isn’t allowed in 5e” is a horrible way to design the game. Lots of tables play different ways, and have fun with different aspects of 5e.

Also, a MF, can indeed be a competitive fight and I disagree with the “proof” you’re using to show it cannot be.

Now, more to the point of “it’s not fun to have combats where PCs can’t act”, then we need to remove dying and death from the game, because, in my experience, and at various tables in which I’ve played, dying and death is the #1 cause of players not being able to act.



I don't think there should be NO monsters that fit this paradigm (banshees for instances are interesting - but there's several differences between a banshee's scream and mind blast, starting with other party members being able to get a downed character up from zero), but having monsters like this and then working backwards into "characters need to have crippling bad saves" is not good game design.

Characters' low saves need to be better, and mind flayers should get additional buffs and abilities to keep them as the alien, dangerous monsters the lore says they are.

Again, if you don’t like MFs, or any monster that has abilities that incapacitate, stun, dominate, etc, don’t use them. If your table feels this way, let the DM know “hey we don’t enjoy encounters with anything that can take away a PC’s turn”.

But to say they shouldn’t be allowed in the game is to take away anything but “bag of HP that does damage” from Monster’s bags of tricks. I, for one, enjoy having encounters with various threats to the PCs, other than just “let’s have yet another encounter of HP attrition”.

[OvisCaedo]

Now, more to the point of “it’s not fun to have combats where PCs can’t act”, then we need to remove dying and death from the game, because, in my experience, and at various tables in which I’ve played, dying and death is the #1 cause of players not being able to act

And, generally, dying and death are not things that happen immediately at the beginning of a fight to otherwise healthy characters from one bad (but also extremely likely!) roll. It's usually the end result of prolonged combat and attrition, with a lot of chances along the way to try to make choices and cooperate with the other party members to avoid reaching that state.

Is it possible for people to be sent into dying instantly from the first round of a combat? Yes! And I also do generally consider that a bad thing. But it shouldn't often be statistically likely unless the combat is extremely lopsided.

[Witty Username]

Now, more to the point of “it’s not fun to have combats where PCs can’t act”, then we need to remove dying and death from the game, because, in my experience, and at various tables in which I’ve played, dying and death is the #1 cause of players not being able to act.


The constructive response here is some tables already take steps to minimize dead time.

After all, a dead PC, does not necessarily mean an inactive player.

Mind flayer seems topical since this came up for me in a game (absent not dead, but same idea). We had one player that decided for his character to sit out of a run (the character had a why am I doing this style conundrum). So I gave them an NPC to control so they could keep playing (mind flayer archanist stats, straight up). And they seemed to have alot of fun while there character was role-playing.

Backup characters are the more common solution, I once heard an anecdote of a DM describing how much time a player should wait for a backup character to be introduced, which was a character had been killed by a troll, and the new character was found in the trolls stomach from the previous adventuring party. YMMV on the method, but this is definitely a thing tables already see as a problem worth mitigating.


Backup characters and DM flexibility can keep a player in without much trouble with dead character, and getting dead is a bit complex and how combat works most of the time.

But as you might imagine this is more difficult, if it is every 5 min because you want to use interesting monsters.

[RSP]

The constructive response here is some tables already take steps to minimize dead time.

After all, a dead PC, does not necessarily mean an inactive player.

Mind flayer seems topical since this came up for me in a game (absent not dead, but same idea). We had one player that decided for his character to sit out of a run (the character had a why am I doing this style conundrum). So I gave them an NPC to control so they could keep playing (mind flayer archanist stats, straight up). And they seemed to have alot of fun while there character was role-playing.

Backup characters are the more common solution, I once heard an anecdote of a DM describing how much time a player should wait for a backup character to be introduced, which was a character had been killed by a troll, and the new character was found in the trolls stomach from the previous adventuring party. YMMV on the method, but this is definitely a thing tables already see as a problem worth mitigating.


Backup characters and DM flexibility can keep a player in without much trouble with dead character, and getting dead is a bit complex and how combat works most of the time.

But as you might imagine this is more difficult, if it is every 5 min because you want to use interesting monsters.

My take away from your response is you, for some reason, think players at my table sit around for sessions because their PC died. That’s not the case, though.

At the tables I play at, the only real times a player is skipping a turn of participation is when their PC drops to 0, or dies. However, when that happens, they either get revived or have a new PC the next session.

I haven’t played in a game where that “dead time was extended.

As to your “give them something else to do while their PC is dead” comments: sure, but if that’s an option during combat, why not also let the stunned player play the npc (if being stunned is such a big issue).

[Dr.Samurai]

Folks... whether or not Death is the same as being Stunned (it isn't) is irrelevant. One can argue for conditions/saving throws to be modified without having to remove Death from the game. Don't let people distract you :smallwink:

[Witty Username]

As to your “give them something else to do while their PC is dead” comments: sure, but if that’s an option during combat, why not also let the stunned player play the npc (if being stunned is such a big issue).



But as you might imagine this is more difficult, if it is every 5 min because you want to use interesting monsters.

I can attempt a more thorough answer, but that is the answer to that question I already gave.

And before it comes up, every 5 min is an expression, not literally 5 minutes. Like say every session someone needs to sit out because your dungeon is themed around a monster type with strong CC.
--

But what Dr. Samurai said, death and dead are kinda different with how they play out in game.

Characters being downed tend to be near the end of combats, where disables are more near the beginning due to how recharge and resources tend to work as just one part of that.

The constructive answer, was the note that wanting to mitigate the effects of dead is a thing, and not nessasarily an outlandish to do so.
--
Also, at least for me, I like hard control effects personally. But they can be overused, pretty easily, especially when most saves are in the -1 to +1 range.

[RSP]

And before it comes up, every 5 min is an expression, not literally 5 minutes. Like say every session someone needs to sit out because your dungeon is themed around a monster type with strong CC.
--
…Characters being downed tend to be near the end of combats, where disables are more near the beginning due to how recharge and resources tend to work as just one part of that.

The constructive answer, was the note that wanting to mitigate the effects of dead is a thing, and not nessasarily an outlandish to do so.
--
Also, at least for me, I like hard control effects personally. But they can be overused, pretty easily, especially when most saves are in the -1 to +1 range.

The monsters that have hard conditions are designed that way. If everyone had better saves, they’d just be easier encounters. If they’re “overused”, and the players are having less fun because of that, as I said upthread, the players can talk to the DM.

Likewise, if you change the MF to have a DC 10 blast, and they become regular roll over encounters, the players will probably tire of that and say it’s less fun.

The point is hard conditions are a way to have encounters that aren’t just “bags of HPs that do damage”. But for them to be threats, there has to be PCs who fail them, otherwise they’re just wasted Actions and the monsters using them will be pushovers.

As for dying and death vs hard conditions, I don’t see a difference. People can say that they’re different, but in terms relevant to this thread, that the basis of the argument is “hard conditions aren’t fun for the player who isn’t participating in combat so they shouldn’t come up”, it’s the same: the player who is dying isn’t participating in combat anymore than the player who is not playing due to a hard condition.

If the player misses a Turn on the second round of combat, and so isn’t having fun. Do they not have fun on rounds 1, 3, 4, 5, etc? Likewise, if the player drops to 0 on turn 5, do they suddenly enjoy sitting out the next Turn?

If the argument is “sitting out Turns isn’t fun” then that applies to dying and death just as much as hard conditions.

And dying can be just as unexpected as a hard conditions in terms of taking a character out; ever been crit by a hard hitting creature, say like a Drow Elite? That can take out a level appropriate PC early in combat (it’s happened to me).

Moreover, failing a save vs a hard condition doesn’t make you less likely to pass that save next time, if it were to come up again; but dropping to 0, very much makes it more likely you’ll drop to zero again, if you recover from the dying “condition”.

I’d say the percentage of missed Turns players have come from dying or death probably at least 95% of the time, in my experience. It’s the reason Turns are skipped by a very wide margin.

[Dr.Samurai]

But what Dr. Samurai said, death and dead are kinda different with how they play out in game.

Characters being downed tend to be near the end of combats, where disables are more near the beginning due to how recharge and resources tend to work as just one part of that.

--
Also, at least for me, I like hard control effects personally. But they can be overused, pretty easily, especially when most saves are in the -1 to +1 range.
Right. So it's unlikely that combat begins and a player just dies and is no longer in combat. Even the example given of being crit is a 5% chance generally, and would have to be against a player character with few enough hit points to go down.

Compare to the always in effect -1 to +1 saving throw vs hard control effects, that can occur in the opening of an encounter, and last for several turns.

Death is the failure state you're trying to avoid practically in every encounter. You have AC and Hit Points to fend death off for a time, or you have attacks that you can do from a distance to limit the number of attacks against you, with spells and features to supplement both. This means Death occurs after some turns of gameplay. It also means that Death cannot be statistically likely all the time because you're avoiding it in every single encounter. If you had a 75% chance to die in every encounter just like you have a 75% chance to fail a Wisdom or Intelligence or Charisma saving throw, you'd never get to play because you'd be dead in your first encounter, or definitely by your second encounter.

These are not apples to apples. It's a distraction. When someone is complaining about HOW EASY it is to succumb to Stunned or Paralyzed, the focus isn't simply on "it's not fun to be out of gameplay", it's "it's not fun to so easily be out of gameplay and not have a decent chance to do anything about it".

To equate that to Death when it's not so easy to wind up dead is confusing the issue.

[Skrum]

These are not apples to apples. It's a distraction. When someone is complaining about HOW EASY it is to succumb to Stunned or Paralyzed, the focus isn't simply on "it's not fun to be out of gameplay", it's "it's not fun to so easily be out of gameplay and not have a decent chance to do anything about it".


This.

I'd also add, at least at the table I play at, when someone goes down, getting them back up is priority. The majority of the time, players don't even lose a turn - they get brought back up before it comes back around to them. Getting allies back into the initiative order and able to act...like that's just smart gameplay, on top of being *fun* gameplay because no one misses a turn.

I really don't know how else to say this, cause like 5 people have explained it 3 different ways each: consequence-and-danger-free combat is NOT the goal. Challenging, interesting combats are the heart of DND, at least to me. But getting removed from combat by abilities that a character has effectively no way to defend themselves or recover from, like that's just not very fun.

[Amnestic]

I'd also add, at least at the table I play at, when someone goes down, getting them back up is priority. The majority of the time, players don't even lose a turn - they get brought back up before it comes back around to them. Getting allies back into the initiative order and able to act...like that's just smart gameplay, on top of being *fun* gameplay because no one misses a turn.

I'm not against buffing the fighters/barbs of the world to help them a little (and I did with my own houserules), but in addition would a selection of relatively affordable consumables help? Nothing over 50gp (since that's what a potion of healing runs you to 'cure' being at 0HP) - stuff like "Potion of Healing the Stunned Condition", "Unguent of No Longer Paralyzed", "Oil of Incapacitation-Be-Gone!" that would allow a party member to break people out from conditions they might otherwise be locked into.

[Witty Username]

If the player misses a Turn on the second round of combat, and so isn’t having fun. Do they not have fun on rounds 1, 3, 4, 5, etc? Likewise, if the player drops to 0 on turn 5, do they suddenly enjoy sitting out the next Turn?


If a player sits out on rounds 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. And they complain when you say they could do stuff on round 7, do you ignore them?

--
Lowering DC is not the same as what I would be interested in. Because that implies all classes play the same.

You brought up sorcerer, on the one hand they have the same problems as other characters when it comes to saves. On the other, they have capabilities to boost saves and remove conditions. So they have other means of mitigating poor save rolls.

Other characters like barbarian and fighter, do not have similar tools. So some boosts to saving throws balances this out, and gives some more flavor options.
Casters have lower resistance but better support abilities.
Martials have better resistance but weak to no support abilities.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not against buffing the fighters/barbs of the world to help them a little (and I did with my own houserules), but in addition would a selection of relatively affordable consumables help? Nothing over 50gp (since that's what a potion of healing runs you to 'cure' being at 0HP) - stuff like "Potion of Healing the Stunned Condition", "Unguent of No Longer Paralyzed", "Oil of Incapacitation-Be-Gone!" that would allow a party member to break people out from conditions they might otherwise be locked into.
I would LOVE this kind of stuff.

It's a shame that magic items have such a bad reputation and DMs are always cautioned against giving them out.

EDIT: It would be a great way to add utility to Herbalism Kits and Alchemical Tools.

[RSP]

If a player sits out on rounds 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. And they complain when you say they could do stuff on round 7, do you ignore them?

Why would I ignore them?



Lowering DC is not the same as what I would be interested in. Because that implies all classes play the same.

Classes, subclasses, and build variation can all play differently. Every class, subclass, and build has strengths and weaknesses, to differing degrees.

A Barb can shore up their lack of an Int save via magic items and/or multiclassing (campaign dependent, though so is facing MFs in the first place). Their subclasses can provide features that help themselves or their teammates.

No, they don’t have a Sorcerer’s Spellcasting: by design, they have other features, that grant them other abilities.

Also, if a Barb player specifically wants to not have a bad Int save, they can choose not to dump Int. In the example give. Upthread, the Barb player had dumped Int (I believe they stated a -1 to the save, though I’m going off memory).

If a player chooses to play a class that has outstanding durability to conventional attacks, has great physical saves, but doesn’t have great Int saves, then further chooses to dump Int, im not horribly worried if they say “hey, I need to have a character that isn’t weak against Int saves.” I’ll explain to them that the game is designed so there aren’t perfect classes, and no perfect defenses; but there are ways to not have that (like not dumping Int).

My current Sorc has 7 Str: I don’t complain when he fails Str Saves.



You brought up sorcerer, on the one hand they have the same problems as other characters when it comes to saves. On the other, they have capabilities to boost saves and remove conditions. So they have other means of mitigating poor save rolls.

Yes and no. You’re for some reason not including the Barb has built in boosted saves (Str, Dex and Con), and subclasses (Berserker for instances) that has ways of mitigating Charm and fear, each of which is way more common than Int saves.

And the Sorc doesn’t have any real way of mitigating the failed Int save issue: they aren’t anymore capable of coming out of being Stunned by the MF than the Barb. So should my Sorc get Stunned for a turn vs MFs, should we then not boost Sorc saves?

Sorcerer also is way weaker against conventional attacks than the Barb is.

Yes, they have different abilities: that’s by design and a good thing. If you want to play a Barb, don’t play a Sorc.

Also, I’m addition to specifically drilling down on Int saves vs MFs, if we said “okay, let’s increase the Barbs Int saves”, then this same scenario comes up when the Barb is Banishment-ed, are we then also increasing their Cha saves? And are we then not getting down to “we want the Barb to good at everything”?

[Dr.Samurai]

*Dr. Samurai checking all the times when failed Strength saves remove player agency for multiple turns in an encounter*

https://i.giphy.com/media/l0HlOBZcl7sbV6LnO/giphy.webp

[RSP]

*Dr. Samurai checking all the times when failed Strength saves remove player agency for multiple turns in an encounter*


Is dropping to zero not the most often occurring instance of “removing player agency” in not having the PC act?

It seems you’re only concerned with specific instances of “removing player agency”.

[Amnestic]

Is dropping to zero not the most often occurring instance of “removing player agency” in not having the PC act?


Can you cure being being stunned or paralyzed or banished with a 1st level spell slot and a bonus action, or a 50gp investment and an action?

Doesn't seem like you can, but it's possible I'm forgetting something.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes, that's correct, I am only concerned with specific instances of removing player agency. I've made that clear. I've explained why Death is not the same as the hard conditions. Amnestic has also provided another great example of why they don't function similarly.

[RSP]

Can you cure being being stunned or paralyzed or banished with a 1st level spell slot and a bonus action, or a 50gp investment and an action?

Doesn't seem like you can, but it's possible I'm forgetting something.

Less in fact, depending on the condition and its source.

If a character gets Banished, for instance, attacking the caster could well end the spell, no? So it can be undone without ever taking a specific action away from any other character, or utilizing any resource whatsoever.

Specifically, though, the issue presented was the Barb WAS NOT helped by others, so the argument made was they needed higher saves to prevent the condition.

So no, if you take out others helping, the only way for a dying or dead PC to recover is either via a LR, or rolling a 20 on a death save. Rolling a 20 is less likely than rolling a 16+ to overcome the Stunned condition of a MF, no?

Now, if you want to add in help from others, yes, a 1st level spell (Bless) can help them (and do more!). Depending on specific conditions other spells could help like Heroism vs Fear, Prot from Evil and Good can help, some others as well.

[Telok]

Can you cure being being stunned or paralyzed or banished with a 1st level spell slot and a bonus action, or a 50gp investment and an action?

Doesn't seem like you can, but it's possible I'm forgetting something.

Don't think you are.

Like I said, all my 5e experience the casters tend to occasionally get disabled for multiple turns by a swallow whole and a "your blinded so you can't see yourself to cast any spells on yourself" ruling, or a rare high save paralysis effect. But the warrior types get three or four rounds of fear, paralysis, banishment, hamster ball, etc., at about three or five times as often. Short range auras, ya know? And the "drops to zero" happens to all at about the same rates except our bard goes down at twice as often and the sorcerer at about half as often. But that's a super easy fix since everyone but the fighter has a spell or magic item to give him back some hit points.

[RSP]

Yes, that's correct, I am only concerned with specific instances of removing player agency. I've made that clear. I've explained why Death is not the same as the hard conditions. Amnestic has also provided another great example of why they don't function similarly.

You “explaining” it’s not the same, does not, in fact, change the facts that they do have the same effect.

If your concern is “why isn’t the Barbarian good at Int Saves”, the answer is still that it was done by design. The game wants MFs to be difficult encounters.

If that is your concern, not dumping Int is a measure that can be taken to help mitigate the issue. Others like taking a Resilient (Int) can help. Pursuing magic items to help saves, multiclassing, other feats, etc.

[Telok]

Can you cure being being stunned or paralyzed or banished with a 1st level spell slot and a bonus action, or a 50gp investment and an action?

Doesn't seem like you can, but it's possible I'm forgetting something.

Don't think you are.

Like I said, all my 5e experience the casters tend to occasionally get disabled for multiple turns by a swallow whole and a "your blinded so you can't see yourself to cast any spells on yourself" ruling, or a rare high save paralysis effect. But the warrior types get three or four rounds of fear, paralysis, banishment, hamster ball, etc., at about three or five times as often. Short range auras, ya know? And the "drops to zero" happens to all at about the same rates except our bard goes down at twice as often and the sorcerer at about half as often. But that's a super easy fix since everyone but the fighter has a spell or magic item to give him back some hit points.

[Dr.Samurai]

Specifically, though, the issue presented was the Barb WAS NOT helped by others, so the argument made was they needed higher saves to prevent the condition.
This argument was never made. Please, I am appealing to human decency, please stop doing this.

Don't think you are.

Like I said, all my 5e experience the casters tend to occasionally get disabled for multiple turns by a swallow whole and a "your blinded so you can't see yourself to cast any spells on yourself" ruling, or a rare high save paralysis effect. But the warrior types get three or four rounds of fear, paralysis, banishment, hamster ball, etc., at about three or five times as often. Short range auras, ya know? And the "drops to zero" happens to all at about the same rates except our bard goes down at twice as often and the sorcerer at about half as often. But that's a super easy fix since everyone but the fighter has a spell or magic item to give him back some hit points.
My experience as well.

You “explaining” it’s not the same, does not, in fact, change the facts that they do have the same effect.
So your argument is that because they have the same effect they are in fact the same thing?

My barbarian was never concerned with Death. Hell, my current fighter is the target of yo-yo healing right now as we speak and I don't miss a turn when I'm knocked unconscious.

Stunned or Banishment on the other hand removes me from the game for rounds at a time.

If your concern is “why isn’t the Barbarian good at Int Saves”, the answer is still that it was done by design.
RSP, you don't have to try and (incorrectly) restate my concern. It's all over this thread. Instead of "reading into" what we're saying, just read what we're saying. The design of being Stunned for multiple rounds without very little chance of breaking free sucks. You saying "it's by design tho" doesn't change that opinion that the design is no good.

The game wants MFs to be difficult encounters.
If this is the argument you are making then you are saying that MFs can't make for difficult encounters unless they can Stun people for multiple rounds. This is obviously not true. Your reflexive aversion to redesigning components of the game doesn't mean it can't be done.

If that is your concern, not dumping Int is a measure that can be taken to help mitigate the issue.
Improving my chances from 75% to 70% is not mitigating the issue.

Others like taking a Resilient (Int) can help. Pursuing magic items to help saves, multiclassing, other feats, etc.
Variant rule, not in my power, another variant rule, more variant rules, etc.

BTW, I'm fully aware of the rules and what can be done, no one is asking you "how can I improve my saves". You seem to be having a very different conversation than literally everyone else in this thread.

[Nagog]

Except a barb mostly likely has -1 or +0 in Int, Wis, and Cha. Meaning they *start off* bad against ALL fear, charm, illusion, moral, and mind-affecting effects. By end of t2, heading into t3, they are essentially hard countered by those effects - very unlikely to succeed, and it will take them multiple turns to break out. "There's other members of the party, who are playing better classes than you, and they can protect/free you," like can you not see why that's not a satisfactory answer?


(Emphasis mine) That but is inherently untrue. A class isn't better or worse because it has or lacks a specific saving throw proficiency. It may be better suited for this fight, but in a fight with something that procs Str saves or Grapples party members, suddenly the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Monk/Bard/Rogue/whatever else that isn't Str built is going to be in the dumpster and the Str Fighter/Barbarian is suddenly seen as a "better" class.



Different classes have different strengths. True. But I want barb to be as good at resisting mental attacks as wizards are at withstanding physical ones - i.e., while being tough isn't a core strength of the wizard, they are far from helpless in that regard, and they have several tools at their disposable. Barbs (and others) have "well I sure hope there's a paladin in the party."

Having played a lot of Wizards and Sorcerers, this is pretty much how a lot of it plays out. The Wizard or Sorcerer gets hit by an attack: They're down for the count. Then they're really hoping "Well I sure hope there's a paladin in the party." (or cleric/other healer, you get my drift). Sure there are defensive things these classes may pick up, but just like Resilient, or Berserker subclass, those are choices made in the character creation process, and unlike Resilient or Berserker, each time those defenses are used, it costs resources. (This is an unrelated tangent/rant, but Wiz and Sorc get a lot of hate for being "Too powerful" compared to everything else, but it's seriously just because they're entirely clay and most other classes are bricks. Wiz and Sorc have a million different choices in spell list and subclasses, while martials in particular have fewer choices but those choices mean a lot more.)


Did you miss my post before that where I specifically ask for confirmation that we are only talking about Wisdom saving throws?

Mind Flayers progress to Alhoons, Ulitharids, and Elder Brains.

And this mentality is mind boggling. As I understand it... having a 75% chance to fail against a debilitating effect is either:

1. Exactly what should happen because you're playing a martial.
2. Deserved for not doing something to make those chances better.

Really? There's no in between there?

My barbarian that just got Stunned... a PbP game. I had no idea what the game was about. Rolled a barbarian. Put an 8 in Intelligence and Charisma, and a 10 in Wisdom. Explored a space ship and found myself surrounded by 8 Mind Flayers lol.

What was I supposed to do? Swap my 16 Con with my 10 Int somehow? Throw my 16 Dex into Wis? I have a 75% chance to get Stunned by Mind Blast/Tentacles, and a 70% chance to get Dominated. Woo-hoo lol. Put a 13 in everything so that my chances improve by 5% and drastically lower elsewhere?

Don't worry, mind flayers are uncommon. But across a campaign, I've got a 70% chance to fail debilitating wisdom and charisma saves, and a 75% chance to fail intelligence saves. I can fix one of those, and the rest of the time "Hey, F U, you chose this".

Meanwhile, the wizard is tougher than my barbarian thanks to sky high AC, and can halve the damage from Dex saves with Absorb Elements. But please talk to me about wanting to be "great at everything" lol.

That sounds like a rough session. Reminds me of the Giant-themed campaign I played in as a Sorcerer. We literally had a tally that got into double digits of how many times my character (as the party face) got one-shot by a thrown boulder. While that wasn't fun by any stretch, and it often removed me from the fight for multiple rounds unless an ally took pity on me and healed me, I understood that my strengths were elsewhere, and there were plenty of encounters that my Sorcerer excelled in. In that same campaign, he tricked a Devil into killing a major enemy using the loopholes of the deal's diction and a good Charisma roll. By the end of the campaign, my Sorc was still getting one-shot by thrown boulders (even getting close to instant death once or twice), but he was still very potent in other areas of play. That was the tradeoff.


My core premise here is characters shouldn't be helpless. Hearing the words "I need a wis (or int or cha) save" shouldn't elicit groans from all of the players that were "stupid" enough to play [let's see, nearly half the classes that get no native defense against mental attacks]. Going back to something I said at the very beginning, Bounded Accuracy to me means the floor on a roll should be ~35%, and the ceiling should be maybe 80%. When chance of success strays out of those ranges, it can feel extremely frustrating in a "what am I even doing here" kind of way.

Even if it was done in the most crude way possible (say, giving all classes proficiency with all saves, essentially a ~+3 bonus to saves) wouldn't (or shouldn't) cause number inflation. Barbs would still generally make their strength saves and fail their wisdom saves. Wizards the opposite. But it wouldn't feel *hopeless,* and it would be much less likely a player gets stuck in a CC for rounds on end.

Proficiency in all saves is a major strength of high level Monks. While one class having something shouldn't necessarily mean nobody else should (that's poor game design and poor logical reasoning), this does mean it has seen enough playtesting to show that proficiency in all saves across the board does have a major balancing effect. If you raise all saving throw bonuses by anywhere from +2 to +6, you not only need to now adjust all saving throw DCs accordingly, but now you need to mandate certain party sizes so that CR isn't even worse at balancing encounters. Monster design would need to take into account the party's Proficiency Bonus in all saving throw DCs, meaning a party of 6 (instead of the usual calculated 4) would need to face harder monsters a party of 4 would at the same level, except now the saving throw DCs are much higher and they're in much higher danger of TPK.

Beyond that, the balancing of saving throws is built in such a way that some party members will fail and some will succeed. Having a disparity of 12 in bonuses (proficiency and max stat being +11, not proficient and -1 in stat being -1) creates a far wider span of "Str vs. Weakness" than limiting that differential to a 6 point difference at maximum (+5 to base stat vs -1 in base stat) is a tiny window to shoot for in terms of "some will save some will not". That smaller window means that the difference between somebody who invested in the ability vs. one who dumped it is at maximum 30% more likely to make a saving throw. That's low enough that any saving throw will likely either effect nobody or everybody, which creates the "boring slog or near TPK" dichotomy somebody (idr who now) mentioned.

[Nagog]

The game wants MFs to be difficult encounters.

Can attest: Most of the difficult encounters I've had in general have been with MFs.



RSP, you don't have to try and (incorrectly) restate my concern. It's all over this thread. Instead of "reading into" what we're saying, just read what we're saying. The design of being Stunned for multiple rounds without very little chance of breaking free sucks. You saying "it's by design tho" doesn't change that opinion that the design is no good.
(Snip)
BTW, I'm fully aware of the rules and what can be done, no one is asking you "how can I improve my saves". You seem to be having a very different conversation than literally everyone else in this thread.

(Edit mine)

I feel like if people misunderstanding your argument/stance is such an issue in this thread, we may all be benefitted by you restating exactly what it is you mean. As-is, all I've seen is "being weak at something sucks and is poor game design", to which has been repeatedly responded to with "Every class has a built-in weakness, if you don't want to be weak in that there are ways to mitigate that". If that's not what you're advocating for, please clarify, otherwise this conversation is going to continue it's circling (FR I went on my honeymoon for a week and it's still here orbiting this topic...)

[Telok]

We literally had a tally that got into double digits of how many times my character (as the party face) got one-shot by a thrown boulder. While that wasn't fun by any stretch, and it often removed me from the fight for multiple rounds unless an ally took pity on me and healed me, I

So you were seeing a 65%-75% one-hit-KO every time the GM said "a giant throws a boulder at you" until someone in the party used a 1st or 2nd level spell slot to fix it? That's about what I see, without the easy ability to fix the condition, when my party's fighter or barby gets will-save-neutered.

So here's a question; is that a consistent outcome across a several years, multiple GMs, and many 12 constitution & 12 dexterity sorcerers & wizards when those classes face multiple common enemy types (dragons, humanoid casters, abberations, etc.)? Or was it basically the equivalent of having a single campaign consisting almost entirely of one enemy type that you had one character which was weak to? Were there multiple casters in the game that also regularly experienced one-hit-KOs? Did the rate of knockout increase as you leveled up and fought higher level stuff?

[Witty Username]

That sounds like a rough session. Reminds me of the Giant-themed campaign I played in as a Sorcerer. We literally had a tally that got into double digits of how many times my character (as the party face) got one-shot by a thrown boulder. While that wasn't fun by any stretch, and it often removed me from the fight for multiple rounds unless an ally took pity on me and healed me, I understood that my strengths were elsewhere, and there were plenty of encounters that my Sorcerer excelled in. In that same campaign, he tricked a Devil into killing a major enemy using the loopholes of the deal's diction and a good Charisma roll. By the end of the campaign, my Sorc was still getting one-shot by thrown boulders (even getting close to instant death once or twice), but he was still very potent in other areas of play. That was the tradeoff.


That is an issue for barbarians as well though. I have some recent play data in BG3 on this point, while barbarian is tougher, intermittently, they also have much less tools to handle situations with, This has lead to many encounters where I need to, as the barbarian, backing off, conserving HP and relying on the white mage for healing all come into play. More so than my caster types. There is an argument to be made that the fighter types, especially the ones intended for up front work, need more significant tools to function as intended.

When barbarian is supposed to excel they struggle, when they are not supposed to excel they are ineffectual. Among Dr. Samuai's points is that class needs are not the same from roll to roll, noting that a melee character will fail more strength saves than a ranged character or caster. due to the increased volume of effects to resist.

[Skrum]

I feel like if people misunderstanding your argument/stance is such an issue in this thread, we may all be benefitted by you restating exactly what it is you mean.

I really think the argument has been stated, in detail, multiple times, by multiple people. I for one am not really sure how else to put it.

[Dr.Samurai]

(Emphasis mine) That but is inherently untrue. A class isn't better or worse because it has or lacks a specific saving throw proficiency. It may be better suited for this fight, but in a fight with something that procs Str saves or Grapples party members, suddenly the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Monk/Bard/Rogue/whatever else that isn't Str built is going to be in the dumpster and the Str Fighter/Barbarian is suddenly seen as a "better" class.
Firstly, it’s a common misconception that grapples are generally resisted by Strength saving throws. They are not. In my vast experience as a melee god, grapples are simply automatic as riders on a successful attack, and then a strength check is needed to escape.

But you’re missing a major point that’s already been pointed out. In the last few posts before this one even. And that is the consequences of losing a strength saving throw vs the mental saves. This is why your appeal for me to clarify myself later on has fallen on deaf ears.


Having played a lot of Wizards and Sorcerers, this is pretty much how a lot of it plays out. The Wizard or Sorcerer gets hit by an attack: They're down for the count. Then they're really hoping "Well I sure hope there's a paladin in the party." (or cleric/other healer, you get my drift). Sure there are defensive things these classes may pick up, but just like Resilient, or Berserker subclass, those are choices made in the character creation process, and unlike Resilient or Berserker, each time those defenses are used, it costs resources. (This is an unrelated tangent/rant, but Wiz and Sorc get a lot of hate for being "Too powerful" compared to everything else, but it's seriously just because they're entirely clay and most other classes are bricks. Wiz and Sorc have a million different choices in spell list and subclasses, while martials in particular have fewer choices but those choices mean a lot more.)
This has not been my experience as far as casters going down and also people refusing to heal them back up. Given how powerful and versatile and encounter ending spells can be, it seems like a very weird strategy to not heal an unconscious caster unless you “pity” them.

Also, hard disagree that the fewer martial choices “mean a lot more”. Please provide examples of what you mean.

That sounds like a rough session.
It wasn’t. We trounced the mind flayers due to some cheesy use of Daern’s Instant Fortress.

The point of the example was not that it was a terrible experience, but to rebut first the idea that allies will remove conditions. Stunned is a difficult condition to remove. Later I mentioned it again to show that a martial can’t easily move around their point buy points to significantly increase their saving throw, and even if they do grab Resilient, they are still vulnerable to other hard conditions against other saving throws (you succeed vs Intelligence mind blast, only to fail against Wisdom dominate person or Charisma banishment).

Again, I’ve explained this already, multiple times, despite you insisting I need to be more clear.


Reminds me of the Giant-themed campaign I played in as a Sorcerer. We literally had a tally that got into double digits of how many times my character (as the party face) got one-shot by a thrown boulder. While that wasn't fun by any stretch, and it often removed me from the fight for multiple rounds unless an ally took pity on me and healed me, I understood that my strengths were elsewhere, and there were plenty of encounters that my Sorcerer excelled in. In that same campaign, he tricked a Devil into killing a major enemy using the loopholes of the deal's diction and a good Charisma roll. By the end of the campaign, my Sorc was still getting one-shot by thrown boulders (even getting close to instant death once or twice), but he was still very potent in other areas of play. That was the tradeoff.
I am currently in a giant themed game and my fighter gets roughed up routinely. The sharpshooter ranger on the other hand is almost always at full hp. The Druid also usually has most of his hp. The monk gets thrashed like me. As with RSP, I am surprised that your caster is taking so much damage unless you too do not have a “back line”. In which case, ymmv.

But even still, everyone understands trade offs. You guys are essentially making the argument that the only way these things can be balanced is if martials are vulnerable to losing player agency easily and for several turns in a row.


(Edit mine)

I feel like if people misunderstanding your argument/stance is such an issue in this thread, we may all be benefitted by you restating exactly what it is you mean.
No one is misunderstanding my points. People are choosing to reply as if I have not made them, as you did, more than once, up above. No amount of me repeating myself, as I already have, will force you to engage with those points. Only you and others can make that choice for yourselves.
As-is, all I've seen is "being weak at something sucks and is poor game design"
Then I encourage you to reread the posts in this thread.


If that's not what you're advocating for, please clarify, otherwise this conversation is going to continue it's circling (FR I went on my honeymoon for a week and it's still here orbiting this topic...)
I am not the reason this conversation is going in circles. People ignoring the points others have made, such as you have, are.

[Witty Username]

Restating people’s points, quick strawmans only:
Mine: “It should be possible to PCs to succeed at saving throws, and hey isn’t it weird that the tough customer classes aren’t actually tougher than squishes, that is hella weird isn’t it?”

Skrum: “Why is it just game design for me to be deleted from combat, guaranteed, at least give me a coin flip of being relevant, the usual seems dumb and bad”

Dr. Samurai: “I needs saving throws to do the melees, and don’t tell me I can dump the melees to do the saving throws, that means I can’t do the melees”

RSP: “I believe raising a single saving throw by 1 is equivalent to removing death from the game. And people who use the word nuance are liars and thieves”

[Osuniev]

(Emphasis mine) in a fight with something that procs Str saves or Grapples party members, suddenly the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Monk/Bard/Rogue/whatever else that isn't Str built is going to be in the dumpster and the Str Fighter/Barbarian is suddenly seen as a "better" class.


I disagree.

The wizard/sorcerer/bard is going to use Misty Step to get out of the Grapple, and ignore the result of the Strength save since being Prone or Restrained doesn't affect their
Spellcasting which is mostly save based.

It is true that the Spellcasters have loads of ways to get around their "weaknesses" while the Martials have little (gestures at Indomitable being ineffective).

I believe 1st and 2nd editions had a lot more in terms of spellcaster weaknesses and martial defenses.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree.

The wizard/sorcerer/bard is going to use Misty Step to get out of the Grapple, and ignore the result of the Strength save since being Prone or Restrained doesn't affect their
Spellcasting which is mostly save based.

It is true that the Spellcasters have loads of ways to get around their "weaknesses" while the Martials have little (gestures at Indomitable being ineffective).

I believe 1st and 2nd editions had a lot more in terms of spellcaster weaknesses and martial defenses.
One thing I’ve considered doing is making restrained prevent spellcasting with material or somatic components.

And spellcasters won’t always have misty step prepared or have slots for it.

[sithlordnergal]

One thing I’ve considered doing is making restrained prevent spellcasting with material or somatic components.

And spellcasters won’t always have misty step prepared or have slots for it.

I'd maybe make some kind of opposed check. Like a caster has to make some kind of Arcana check using their spellcasting ability against whatever is restraining/grappling them. That way its not really an automatic thing, and it gives some kind of counterplay outside of just trying to break free from a grapple. Don't have it be an action either, if you're grappled and you want to cast a spell, it just procs the check.

Plus it makes sense that you'd need to be specifically holding a Caster's hands, and focusing on doing that since somatic components can range from a complicated gesture to the flick of the wrist. Like, I can't imagine the somatic component to Shield or Counterspell being complicated given they happen between something occurring and the effects of it occurring. Same with Misty Step, its a bonus action and really fast. So narrative wise, it makes sense for there to be an opposed check.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd maybe make some kind of opposed check. Like a caster has to make some kind of Arcana check using their spellcasting ability against whatever is restraining/grappling them. That way its not really an automatic thing, and it gives some kind of counterplay outside of just trying to break free from a grapple. Don't have it be an action either, if you're grappled and you want to cast a spell, it just procs the check.

Plus it makes sense that you'd need to be specifically holding a Caster's hands, and focusing on doing that since somatic components can range from a complicated gesture to the flick of the wrist. Like, I can't imagine the somatic component to Shield or Counterspell being complicated given they happen between something occurring and the effects of it occurring. Same with Misty Step, its a bonus action and really fast. So narrative wise, it makes sense for there to be an opposed check.

Nope. The whole point is to have conditions that are just as punishing to casters as to non-casters. If you're wrapped up in a monster's tongue or web, you can't make the bold, significant movements necessary to use a somatic component. You need to break free before you can do that. Yes, that means STR saves and monsters that auto-grapple/restrain are going to be a pain point for casters. GOOD.

Casters always get the benefit of the doubt--things that mildly inconvenience them get blown up to "you're crippling us!" and get removed, while things that cripple non-casters get ignored as being "realistic". Or casters get "well, it makes sense..." while non-casters get stuck as the guy at the gym. And I'm sick of it. You can't reach any kind of balance by simply buffing people--a lot of the problem is that casters have too many ways to avoid problems relative to the opposition, not to martials. They need to have fewer ways.

Edit: note this also allows imprisoning casters by other means than killing them. Manacles and a gag would actually work. Or at worst manacles and a silence spell/effect.

[sithlordnergal]

Nope. The whole point is to have conditions that are just as punishing to casters as to non-casters. If you're wrapped up in a monster's tongue or web, you can't make the bold, significant movements necessary to use a somatic component. You need to break free before you can do that. Yes, that means STR saves and monsters that auto-grapple/restrain are going to be a pain point for casters. GOOD.

Casters always get the benefit of the doubt--things that mildly inconvenience them get blown up to "you're crippling us!" and get removed, while things that cripple non-casters get ignored as being "realistic". Or casters get "well, it makes sense..." while non-casters get stuck as the guy at the gym. And I'm sick of it. You can't reach any kind of balance by simply buffing people--a lot of the problem is that casters have too many ways to avoid problems relative to the opposition, not to martials. They need to have fewer ways.

Edit: note this also allows imprisoning casters by other means than killing them. Manacles and a gag would actually work. Or at worst manacles and a silence spell/effect.

Eh, I mean if that's your goal, I don't know how effective it'll be. Strength and Acrobatics aren't really a pain point for casters. They tend to have either decent Strength, if they're a Cleric, or a high Dexterity, if they're a Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Bard, or Druid. And I've yet to see any character that doesn't have Athletics or Acrobatics proficiency. Additionally, it has no effect on spells with Verbal components. This includes most, if not all, of the short range Teleportation spells.

I feel like the ruling's only effect would end with trivializing encounters with NPCs

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh, I mean if that's your goal, I don't know how effective it'll be. Strength and Acrobatics aren't really a pain point for casters. They tend to have either decent Strength, if they're a Cleric, or a high Dexterity, if they're a Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Bard, or Druid. And I've yet to see any character that doesn't have Athletics or Acrobatics proficiency. Additionally, it has no effect on spells with Verbal components. This includes most, if not all, of the short range Teleportation spells.

I feel like the ruling's only effect would end with trivializing encounters with NPCs

Having to spend actions and resources (no, a 2nd level spell slot and a bonus action is not free, neither is spending your action to get out...only to get re-grappled on the opportunity attack you incur trying to move away or maybe get re-grappled the next move) to get out of something the monster can re-apply as part of its attacks is a massive penalty. Plus the whole "enemies have advantage to hit you" thing. Not only that, bards don't get short-range teleports natively, neither do clerics. Sorcerers already don't have tons of spells known, and for a warlock to spend one of his two slots on misty step is painful. So it basically comes down to wizards being over-tuned. Well, we all knew that.

Generally, if a monster is restrained by the PCs, they're already screwed regardless. Especially the caster-type NPCs--they're so woefully bad at defenses that they tend to evaporate if anyone looks at them funny. So it doesn't change much there.

And as far as high STR/DEX goes...martials all have either capped STR or DEX as their attack stat, and basically all of them get proficiency in saves. So they have an even easier time escaping it. And have less reliance on gimmicks to survive, with all of them having equal or better AC and HP (not counting spell-based AC boosts here, since you can't cast them while restrained under this rule change).

As for proficiency in Athletics/Acrobatics, the only full caster who can get proficiency in either of those as part of their class is bards. All other full-casters have to spend a feat, a background, or an odd dip (rogue or ranger) to get it. All of which are significant opportunity costs. All the martials can pick it up with class picks.

[sithlordnergal]

Having to spend actions and resources (no, a 2nd level spell slot and a bonus action is not free, neither is spending your action to get out...only to get re-grappled on the opportunity attack you incur trying to move away or maybe get re-grappled the next move) to get out of something the monster can re-apply as part of its attacks is a massive penalty. Plus the whole "enemies have advantage to hit you" thing. Not only that, bards don't get short-range teleports natively, neither do clerics. Sorcerers already don't have tons of spells known, and for a warlock to spend one of his two slots on misty step is painful. So it basically comes down to wizards being over-tuned. Well, we all knew that.


So, you do have to spend some sort of resource to escape, be it an action or a 2nd Level Spell slot, is it really that much of a cost? Also, why would you assume the caster immediately wants to move and proc an attack of opportunity in the first place? Don't get me wrong, you're right that it does cost something, I just don't think the cost would be enough to cause a huge shift in a caster's strategy. The only one who is really hit by this is the Warlock who really could use a small buff by getting a 3rd slot at level 6.

Bards don't have as much of an issue since they can get proficiency with Acrobatics or Athletics just from their Class.

Clerics are a bit weirder, cause their subclass can really change how easy it is. That said, unless you plan on removing the ability for Clerics to use their Shield as a Material Focus, which would have a LOT more for a Cleric than just grappling, they're stil able to cast a decent number of spells. Additionally, would this rule make it impossible to use a hand that's holding a shield for somatic components? And if so, shouldn't they also lose the benefit of being able to properly wield a Shield? Which in turn targets a ton of martials and nerfs them?





Generally, if a monster is restrained by the PCs, they're already screwed regardless. Especially the caster-type NPCs--they're so woefully bad at defenses that they tend to evaporate if anyone looks at them funny. So it doesn't change much there.


I was just talking about being grappled. There's a reason PCs can't restrain things without some heavy specialized investment because of how powerful of a condition it is. And if your ruling was just for the restrained condition I'd find it a lot better and more balanced. But if its grappled or restrained, then you might wanna look at tweaking some stuff. Cause you're right, a restrained NPC is already screwed. A grappled NPC has options.




And as far as high STR/DEX goes...martials all have either capped STR or DEX as their attack stat, and basically all of them get proficiency in saves. So they have an even easier time escaping it. And have less reliance on gimmicks to survive, with all of them having equal or better AC and HP (not counting spell-based AC boosts here, since you can't cast them while restrained under this rule change).

As for proficiency in Athletics/Acrobatics, the only full caster who can get proficiency in either of those as part of their class is bards. All other full-casters have to spend a feat, a background, or an odd dip (rogue or ranger) to get it. All of which are significant opportunity costs. All the martials can pick it up with class picks.

And most casters are going to have a high Dex or Strength as well. Maybe not maxed, but generally high enough to escape most things. Especially since things like Grapple and Restrain conditions from attacks usually call for a Skill Check and not a save.

Also, why do you think getting it from a Background is a huge opportunity cost. Creating your own Background where you get two skills of your choice, either two tool proficiencies, two languages, or a mix, and the option to choose one of the background features from any of the listed backgrounds isn't just there in the PHB. Its not even listed as "optional" or a rule variant like with Feats. Heck, the PHB itself notes that the given Backgrounds are fully optional and encourages you to make your own. Its about as as significant of an opportunity cost as a Martial character choosing one or the other.


Edit: Now that isn't to say that this rule would have no effect on casters. It would. But I don't think it would have a very significant effect on a caster. At least, not in the way you might be hoping. Hence why I suggest creating some kind of counterplay instead of having it be a hard "No, you can't cast spells while grappled". Its why I feel martials should have some counterplay as well. They should be able to use their reaction to make an attack that disrupts a spell caster's casting, like in 3.5

[Witty Username]

The restrained and grappled conditions preventing most or all physical movement does feel right to me (the part of my brain that enjoyed AD&D is tickled by it). Notably though, I don't see a good argument for being able to make weapon attacks but not cast spells, beyond possible game balance.

I do think it is a bit weird to focus on one part of the game a to be a pain point for casters, when more or less all conditions are pain points for non-casters.

Which is why non-casters just being better at saving throws doesn't bother me, being a tough bastard is part of the narative and more effects are a direct concern for them.

Or in some cases more accessible, the great barbarian tragedy is the only subclass that gets fear Immunity is almost unplayable from its other features. Moving that feature to the base class, would mostly make the barbarian feel more like its core identity.

Paladin already gets superlative saves. Monk and rogue similarly have late game abilities that give a greater range of saves. Fighter, barbarian, and ranger all don't really get anything in that direction, and not really anything in other areas.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, you do have to spend some sort of resource to escape, be it an action or a 2nd Level Spell slot, is it really that much of a cost? Also, why would you assume the caster immediately wants to move and proc an attack of opportunity in the first place? Don't get me wrong, you're right that it does cost something, I just don't think the cost would be enough to cause a huge shift in a caster's strategy. The only one who is really hit by this is the Warlock who really could use a small buff by getting a 3rd slot at level 6.

Bards don't have as much of an issue since they can get proficiency with Acrobatics or Athletics just from their Class.

Clerics are a bit weirder, cause their subclass can really change how easy it is. That said, unless you plan on removing the ability for Clerics to use their Shield as a Material Focus, which would have a LOT more for a Cleric than just grappling, they're stil able to cast a decent number of spells. Additionally, would this rule make it impossible to use a hand that's holding a shield for somatic components? And if so, shouldn't they also lose the benefit of being able to properly wield a Shield? Which in turn targets a ton of martials and nerfs them?


Losing a turn is a huge cost. As is being restricted to only using cantrips that turn (the cost of spending a bonus action to cast a spell). Note that that was countering someone who said that restrained really doesn't matter to spellcasters, because they don't usually make attacks. I don't expect this to completely nerf casters, just make them have to think carefully if there's something that can restrain them.

As for shields, meh. I don't care, it applies across the board. No Somatic or Material components, even with a focus. Why? Because I hate spell casters. Really, it's just for simplicity.




I was just talking about being grappled. There's a reason PCs can't restrain things without some heavy specialized investment because of how powerful of a condition it is. And if your ruling was just for the restrained condition I'd find it a lot better and more balanced. But if its grappled or restrained, then you might wanna look at tweaking some stuff. Cause you're right, a restrained NPC is already screwed. A grappled NPC has options.


And I was only talking about restrained from the get-go. I never mentioned grappled. So yeah.




1) And most casters are going to have a high Dex or Strength as well. Maybe not maxed, but generally high enough to escape most things. Especially since things like Grapple and Restrain conditions from attacks usually call for a Skill Check and not a save.

2) Also, why do you think getting it from a Background is a huge opportunity cost. Creating your own Background where you get two skills of your choice, either two tool proficiencies, two languages, or a mix, and the option to choose one of the background features from any of the listed backgrounds isn't just there in the PHB. Its not even listed as "optional" or a rule variant like with Feats. Heck, the PHB itself notes that the given Backgrounds are fully optional and encourages you to make your own. Its about as as significant of an opportunity cost as a Martial character choosing one or the other.


3) Edit: Now that isn't to say that this rule would have no effect on casters. It would. But I don't think it would have a very significant effect on a caster. At least, not in the way you might be hoping. Hence why I suggest creating some kind of counterplay instead of having it be a hard "No, you can't cast spells while grappled". Its why I feel martials should have some counterplay as well. They should be able to use their reaction to make an attack that disrupts a spell caster's casting, like in 3.5

1) Ehh...no, outside of very special games? Heavy armor clerics don't tend to go above +2 STR, and don't get proficiency in anything useful by default (saves or checks). Bards, yes. That's ok, bards have a fair number of restrictions. And even then, Dex is a secondary (at best) stat. Sorcerers have dex as a secondary (at best) stat and no useful proficiencies. Wizards same, and if they're armored, they generally don't take high STR or DEX! In fact, I've generally seen full casters with fairly poor STR/DEX (+2/+3 generally, which upthread was determined to be utterly useless for these sorts of things when people said that spending a feat to get proficiency in a save was a horrible tradeoff). But sure. If they've spent significant build resources to gain those high ability scores and proficiency, then that's great. They've paid the cost! The whole point is to impose a cost.

2) Every one you take from a background is a different one you can't take. For example, if you lock in Athletics or Acrobatics, it means that
-- clerics, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards have to think very carefully--the only way for them to get Perception proficiency (also considered a "must have" at many tables) is to use their other background proficiency for that. Meaning they can't pick up stealth proficiency at all.
-- Druids that want Stealth are locked in to that as a background proficiency. Leaving them rather lack-luster for their ability check proficiencies.

3) I'm totally fine with letting martials disrupt spell-casting--in fact one of my NIH-system changes is that spell-casting (other than touch/self-range) provokes opportunity attacks. And several classes get exactly that, except expanded to more than just spells. The barbarian punching (with an axe, probably) the dragon so hard it can't use its breath weapon that turn? Yup. Etc.

The problem with "counterplay" is that generally it massively slows things down for not much benefit. And can be optimized to heck and back on the PC side. Same with concentration saves--they generally become trivial after a point because the default ones just can't be failed very frequently at all.

And the point of this (which, to be clear, I haven't actually settled on doing!) is not to fix everything by itself. But merely to force a change in behavior. No more "ignore it and keep on casting spells". It creates counterplay at a macro level--I am firmly convinced that the game would be better off if primary-casters (those who mostly just cast spells) had to be seriously worried about an enemy getting in their face. I'm a believer that the game would be better if the dictum (from the Steven Brust Dragaera novels) "no matter how subtle the sorcerer, a knife between his shoulder blades seriously cramps his style" were applicable here. No more "magic counters magic...and magic counters steel, but steel doesn't counter magic" crap.


The restrained and grappled conditions preventing most or all physical movement does feel right to me (the part of my brain that enjoyed AD&D is tickled by it). Notably though, I don't see a good argument for being able to make weapon attacks but not cast spells, beyond possible game balance.

I do think it is a bit weird to focus on one part of the game a to be a pain point for casters, when more or less all conditions are pain points for non-casters.

Which is why non-casters just being better at saving throws doesn't bother me, being a tough bastard is part of the narative and more effects are a direct concern for them.

Or in some cases more accessible, the great barbarian tragedy is the only subclass that gets fear Immunity is almost unplayable from its other features. Moving that feature to the base class, would mostly make the barbarian feel more like its core identity.

Paladin already gets superlative saves. Monk and rogue similarly have late game abilities that give a greater range of saves. Fighter, barbarian, and ranger all don't really get anything in that direction, and not really anything in other areas.

Just bumping people's static numbers only breaks things, it fixes nothing. All it does is trivialize a lot of monsters that depend on saves. No thanks. Static numbers are boring.

I'm fine with giving people more active tools. But I also think that making conditions be equally painful for everyone (in different ways) is an important part. Heck, it's not just grappled/restrained. A lot of conditions apply disadvantage to attacks...which hits spellcasters way less than others (except warlocks). Fear, for instance, is way less debilitating to a caster. So it should be more debilitating--the conditions themselves shouldn't play favorites. That way, different people can be good at avoiding different conditions without causing imbalance.

I'm also looking at introducing a fair number of new conditions, most of which are parts of either spell effects (e.g. slow) or are partial "hard" conditions.

Such as:

Shaken
- No reactions
- Speed cut in half.

Staggered
- Disadvantage on attack rolls
- Disadvantage on Dex saves & checks
- Trying to cast a spell requires a CON save (DC 10 + spell level). On a failed save, the action is wasted but the spell slot is not.

As well as shifting a lot of the hard control effects (both spell and otherwise) to a more progressive model. Such as: hold person and hold monster are merged (loses targeting restriction), but at base only staggers. Second failed save makes them stunned. Upcasting it to Xth (haven't decided the right level, probably 4+) moves it to stunned -> paralyzed. Oh, and it should be a CON save, not a WIS save.

[Witty Username]

Losing a turn is a huge cost. As is being restricted to only using cantrips that turn (the cost of spending a bonus action to cast a spell). Note that that was countering someone who said that restrained really doesn't matter to spellcasters, because they don't usually make attacks. I don't expect this to completely nerf casters, just make them have to think carefully if there's something that can restrain them.


I can only speak for myself, but avoiding melee is already a thing I do as a caster. Dr. Samurai brought up this issue as how conditions are delivered also slants in favor of casters (or more accurately, ranged characters). Most restrained conditions are applied at short range, so whether or not they are in of themselves dangerous doesn't really affect my play patterns.

Active effects, can help with conditions, but they slow the game down and increase cognitive load. The whole reason some people play a fighter is simplicity to pilot, so adding a bunch of effects to the game reduces that value.

[Amnestic]

This isn't a 'real' suggestion per se, but as someone who has spent many an hour MMO gaming it's a fairly persistent issue for melee to be punished more than ranged. Some of the mechanics to help equalise that which you see are features which only target ranged players (unless everyone's in melee) or 'doughnut' AoEs where close is safe and ranged is dangerous.

The difficulty of that is that they are, well, 'gamey' and not very versimillitudinous (I will not fix my spelling) for most tables. Cones and AoE bursts both feel realistic. Doughnut AoEs? Not so much.

[Dr.Samurai]

I would be in favor of something like what PP is suggesting, which is to make failing some of these "weak" saves more punishing for casters.

There is a big discrepancy between caster/ranged character saving throws and martial saving throws. And I'm not bringing that up to complain about it, I love playing martials and I also love being subjected to enemy attacks. To me, there's little point in playing the game if I can't mix it up with monsters at some point and rough them up and get roughed up in turn.

I bring up the discrepancy as a justification, in my opinion, to boost martials in some way when it comes to saving throws. It doesn't have to be prof in all saves or something like the earliest editions of D&D (thought that does feel "right" to me as it goes along with tropes). But some classes get immunities to some conditions, Paladins get Aura of Protection, other classes or subclasses get additional proficiencies, Artificers get Flash of Genius. And then spells and features provide additional options.

It isn't obvious to me that barbarians and fighters and rangers shouldn't have some feature that does something for them. Rage like... barely improves across 20 levels. Basically they give it a "you can lose it if you don't attack/take damage feature" and then dial that back 15 levels later, and you get +1 damage every tier. That's about it. I find it hard to believe that there's really no design space to improve Rage to give barbarian heroes a fighting chance against some conditions.

If fighter's get Indomitable changed as in the playtest, that will obviously help a lot, though maybe it should be baked into Second Wind so it refreshes on a Short Rest.

EDIT: I agree with Amnestic that those types of AoE's would be gamey. But also want to clarify that I'm not exactly looking for having ranged characters make more saving throws. It's more like... maybe throw some love to the characters that ARE making all of these saving throws instead of leaving them high and dry.

[sithlordnergal]

And I was only talking about restrained from the get-go. I never mentioned grappled. So yeah.


Wait...you're right. You only mentioned Restrained. I don't know where I read "Grappled" as well as "Restrained". Welp, I think the change will be fine then. And while yes, counterplay can slow down the game, I find the options it brings to the table to be worth the slow down. Though I tend to do big, complicated combat encounters that can take an entire session or longer, depending on how many moving pieces there are. So longer combat isn't an issue for me.

Plus I encourage, and somewhat require, a level of optimization or you'll have a bad time in my games. I've had players bring in low wisdom characters, or characters with low Constitution out of a desire for story or rp purposes. They quickly found themselves mind controlled and forced to kill the party, or dying due to a trap.So more ways to optimize is a good thing in my books.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Wait...you're right. You only mentioned Restrained. I don't know where I read "Grappled" as well as "Restrained". Welp, I think the change will be fine then. And while yes, counterplay can slow down the game, I find the options it brings to the table to be worth the slow down. Though I tend to do big, complicated combat encounters that can take an entire session or longer, depending on how many moving pieces there are. So longer combat isn't an issue for me.

Plus I encourage, and somewhat require, a level of optimization or you'll have a bad time in my games. I've had players bring in low wisdom characters, or characters with low Constitution out of a desire for story or rp purposes. They quickly found themselves mind controlled and forced to kill the party, or dying due to a trap.So more ways to optimize is a good thing in my books.

Yeah. I think we just play in utterly disjoint ways. Which is one thing I've noticed--things that some of us consider problems, others consider features. And even if we agree on the problem, there isn't a well-posed solution that works for everyone. It's one reason I'm hesitant to encode a lot of my personal preference in the core system.

Now in my WIP system, I'm absolutely encoding my personal play style. Because I have no expectation that anyone else will ever run it. :smallwink:

[Skrum]

I've had players bring in low wisdom characters, or characters with low Constitution out of a desire for story or rp purposes. They quickly found themselves mind controlled and forced to kill the party, or dying due to a trap.So more ways to optimize is a good thing in my books.

OK I gotta ask - barbarians, fighters, and rogues specifically have no mental defenses, and unless you use roll for stats and the player rolls very well, the best they're gonna be able to do it like 12 wisdom instead of 8. This is the part that I'm really not seeing eye to eye with everyone here who's like "well you can't just dump your mental stats." These classes not only don't have any natural defenses against mental attacks, they have no good option to correct it. Resilient is laughably unreasonable, especially before level 12 or so - you'd be sacrificing significant competency at the class' core features.

What as a DM are you really expecting players to do here, short of "don't play these classes."

[JNAProductions]

OK I gotta ask - barbarians, fighters, and rogues specifically have no mental defenses, and unless you use roll for stats and the player rolls very well, the best they're gonna be able to do it like 12 wisdom instead of 8. This is the part that I'm really not seeing eye to eye with everyone here who's like "well you can't just dump your mental stats." These classes not only don't have any natural defenses against mental attacks, they have no good option to correct it. Resilient is laughably unreasonable, especially before level 12 or so - you'd be sacrificing significant competency at the class' core features.

What as a DM are you really expecting players to do here, short of "don't play these classes."

The difference between +3 and +4 in your attack stat is not "Sacrificing significant competency at the class' core features."
Same for +4 and +5.

If you're a Barbarian, a 16 Strength gives you +6 to-hit at level 5 for 2d6+3 damage. If you crank that to 18, it goes up to +7 and 2d6+4. (Assuming Great Weapon, not Sword and Board.)
Against AC 20, it's pretty significant. +4 gives you 25% more damage.
Even at AC 16, it's a 20% boost.
Unless you use Reckless Attack, which would drop the difference to 22% and 16%.

But if taking Resilient gets you one extra turn from passing a save you'd have otherwise failed (a 15% chance on every single save you make with that stat, and that only increases with levels) then suddenly it looks a lot better.

I do think it'd be nice to have saves scale a bit. I don't think the hard conditions that monsters like Mind Flayers put out, with an easily failable and very binary save are the best way to handle monsters.
However, losing one point on your main offensive stat to significantly shore up a defense... That's not an end of the world trade off.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The difference between +3 and +4 in your attack stat is not "Sacrificing significant competency at the class' core features."
Same for +4 and +5.

If you're a Barbarian, a 16 Strength gives you +6 to-hit at level 5 for 2d6+3 damage. If you crank that to 18, it goes up to +7 and 2d6+4. (Assuming Great Weapon, not Sword and Board.)
Against AC 20, it's pretty significant. +4 gives you 25% more damage.
Even at AC 16, it's a 20% boost.
Unless you use Reckless Attack, which would drop the difference to 22% and 16%.

But if taking Resilient gets you one extra turn from passing a save you'd have otherwise failed (a 15% chance on every single save you make with that stat, and that only increases with levels) then suddenly it looks a lot better.

I do think it'd be nice to have saves scale a bit. I don't think the hard conditions that monsters like Mind Flayers put out, with an easily failable and very binary save are the best way to handle monsters.
However, losing one point on your main offensive stat to significantly shore up a defense... That's not an end of the world trade off.

Exactly. Especially when the base game math does not expect you to ever cap your main stat. It's totally fine with ending at 18 in your attack stat at high levels. To be clear, it's fine if you do. It's just not a system expectation.

Unless, of course, you play it very off-guidelines like @Skrum does. In which case, the breakage is 100% a table problem. The game was not designed to primarily fight 1 big deadly+++ fight in a day, especially if that's a high-CR (relative to level) solo monster. You're expected to face that kind of fight maybe 1x or 2x per campaign. Instead of thinking about a mind flayer at level 7-8, think about a couple mind flayers at level 16 or so. Very different model.

[Dr.Samurai]

I too am curious what people's expectations are in this regard. There is such a "this is your fault" mentality here and I am not sure what more exactly can be done. It also smacks of metagaming that every martial should definitely make sure to put at least a 10 in each of Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma and at some point grab Resilient in one of those stats instead of just... playing a character organically.

Rolling 4d6b3 and using Standard Array are the default standard methods for ability score generation. Standard Array comes with an 8 and 10. Not sure what people expect from this. Rolling 4d6b3 can come with 7s and even lower on spectacularly awful rolls. It can also get you 18s, which will go in your primary stats, obviously.

I should note... I absolutely HATE dump stats. I can't stand having an ability score below 10, and I'd prefer to have them all above average if possible. I just think a heroic character would have a heroic array across the board. But I don't know how much it is in our power to do something about that. Not everyone uses Point Buy, and it's a variant rule. My last several PbPs have been Standard Array. My real time game was roll, and take Standard Array if you don't like your rolls. Some PbPs are roll or use Point Buy if you don't like your rolls. But it's not a guarantee. The game practically assumes you'll have dump stats.

It's unfair to tell people "if you don't like getting knocked out of combat for several turns at a time, make sure you don't have dump stats".

[JNAProductions]

From my recruitment template:

Ability Scores: Pick six numbers. These are your pre-racial stats. No number may be higher than 18 or less than 8. You may modify them freely up until the game starts, and may pick duplicate numbers.And I don't think "If you have a glaring weakness, try shoring it up" is some kind of blasphemous piece of writing.

Now, if you hit level 8, take Resilient (Wisdom) and then immediately after start a Mind Flayer arc, I'd talk to your DM about switching Resilient from Wisdom to Intelligence. But just saying "I should be able to pump my offensive abilities while disregarding defense and not face any consequences for it," isn't really a good stance to have, in my opinion.

[Dr.Samurai]

Feats are a variant rule though.

In the same way that PhoenixPhyre reminds us the game doesn't assume we will max our stats, the game does not assume we will have access to feats, let alone that every martial will specifically grab Resilient.

If that's the case, then we should discuss this issue under the default game assumptions. The game thinks it is okay for these types of hard condition saving throws to exist at the same time as martials having poor saving throws in these ability scores.

Is that okay? Some of us are arguing that no, it is too harsh to get Stunned, Banished, Paralyzed, Dominated for turns at a time with no good defenses against it.

[Skrum]

"I should be able to pump my offensive abilities while disregarding defense and not face any consequences for it," isn't really a good stance to have, in my opinion.

What should a barbarian, fighter, or rogue do about int, wis, and cha saves. Specifically. Assume point buy ability scores. Because taking a 16 in your main stat to raise your wis to 11 is *not an answer*

[JNAProductions]

What should a barbarian, fighter, or rogue do about int, wis, and cha saves. Specifically. Assume point buy ability scores. Because taking a 16 in your main stat to raise your wis to 11 is *not an answer*

They should have some features (be it active/reactive defenses or just plain ol' number boosts) to help them.
I'm not arguing that all defenses are fine-all I'm saying is that not boosting up your prime ability one modifier to shore up a weakness isn't the end of the world. Because it really seems like some posters think that not having a 20 in your main offensive stat by level eight is heresy.

[Dr.Samurai]

As someone with a 13th level fighter that has an 18 in Strength and Resilient (Wisdom), I'm not one of those people.

But I don't think +1 to a stat modifier is "shoring up a weakness" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Skrum]

They should have some features (be it active/reactive defenses or just plain ol' number boosts) to help them.
I'm not arguing that all defenses are fine-all I'm saying is that not boosting up your prime ability one modifier to shore up a weakness isn't the end of the world. Because it really seems like some posters think that not having a 20 in your main offensive stat by level eight is heresy.

I mean I understand the sentiment, but looking at the reality of a build...

I play 27 point buy. A generic-type barb I would probably play something like 17 12 16 8 13 8.
At level 4 I get an ASI/feat, I favor something that'll bring my str up to 18. Skill Expert or Crusher or something like that.
If I go all the way to barb 8, it'd be really nice to take GWM. But I should take something defensive instead Resilient is literally the only option. Raise my wis to a 14 and proficiency for a total of +5. So I'm giving up GWM.
Or, I could take GWM at 4th, meaning my str is a +3.

Idk. Is that a "bad" build? No. It's fine. Frankly what I really reject is saying that not only are barbs, fighters, and rogues at a disadvantage in general, they need to devote an ASI to 1) boosting a tertiary stat to 2) get the most basic of defenses against a common attack. Meanwhile the top classes *can* just sink all their resources into being better at their core functions, and it's literally the best and most complete way to make their character.

(and like....forget about multiclassing. Probably going to have a single ASI for large chunk of the game)

[Rerem115]

They should have some features (be it active/reactive defenses or just plain ol' number boosts) to help them.

One of the campaigns I've been in has inadvertently highlighted a lot of the discrepancies noted upthread, and I can't help but agree so much with this statement. Our DM uses Steinhardt's Guide to the Eldritch Hunt, and while it's been a lot of fun, the setting's rules are extremely punishing towards...basically every martial class not called 'Paladin'. Insanity is a constant, ever-looming threat, and saves versus Madness are Wisdom saves that add your Intelligence modifier. Looking at the wrong thing, fighting the wrong monster, even just walking up to the wrong door can all trigger these saves, and failing a single one can cripple you for up to five minutes. Failing three in a week can cripple you for a month. Failing nine in a month can cripple you forever.

Our druid hasn't been troubled at all by the saves, but my Gloom Stalker ranger has barely managed to keep his mind intact, and our rogue is a gibbering wreck. We just hit 4th level last session, but taking Resilient Wisdom seems wasteful, given that we'll all eventually get proficiency through class. We all have positive Intelligence and Wisdom modifiers, but the frequency of these saves is frankly terrifying.

I speak with confidence when I say that being good at Wisdom saves is far more powerful than being good at Strength saves in this edition. And, it's probably gonna stay that way, at least until they start adding penalties as punishing as 'Save or Die/Lose a limb' to Strength saves.

[JNAProductions]

One of the campaigns I've been in has inadvertently highlighted a lot of the discrepancies noted upthread, and I can't help but agree so much with this statement. Our DM uses Steinhardt's Guide to the Eldritch Hunt, and while it's been a lot of fun, the setting's rules are extremely punishing towards...basically every martial class not called 'Paladin'. Insanity is a constant, ever-looming threat, and saves versus Madness are Wisdom saves that add your Intelligence modifier. Looking at the wrong thing, fighting the wrong monster, even just walking up to the wrong door can all trigger these saves, and failing a single one can cripple you for up to five minutes. Failing three in a week can cripple you for a month. Failing nine in a month can cripple you forever.

Our druid hasn't been troubled at all by the saves, but my Gloom Stalker ranger has barely managed to keep his mind intact, and our rogue is a gibbering wreck. We just hit 4th level last session, but taking Resilient Wisdom seems wasteful, given that we'll all eventually get proficiency through class. We all have positive Intelligence and Wisdom modifiers, but the frequency of these saves is frankly terrifying.

I speak with confidence when I say that being good at Wisdom saves is far more powerful than being good at Strength saves in this edition. And, it's probably gonna stay that way, at least until they start adding penalties as punishing as 'Save or Die/Lose a limb' effects to Strength saves.

Yeah, I really wish the Rogue and any other class that gets a save later on offered something if you already had that proficiency.
And yeah, I definitely think that Barbarians and other martials could've been designed better.

[Witty Username]

On expectations, I use rolled stats exclusively for play.
For one, I personally favor more extreme stats. A wizard with a 8 str just doesn't play the same as one with a strength of 5 (when you have to actually worry about getting your basic equipment under encumbrance). Also it allows for things that are impossible traditionally, like having a good Int on a fighter, which point by asks you to sacrifice being effective to do.

My notes on saves is that it is pretty easy to be out bounded on them, as you only get 2 good ones.
Monsters use 8+prof+abillity bonus like everyone else, and this means DCs always scale where ~4 saves for most characters are unchanging. Especially in high level games this leads into a number of saves that edge not worth rolling. Funnily enough, we actually had a instance in our last session where a character rolled a natural 20 on a save, and still failed.

At least to me this feels like a violation of bounded accuracy, and proposed solutions like spellcasting, don't really address this problem in any meaningful way for a number of characters. Certain characters getting better saves than others is already a thing in the game, and high level abilities are generally lacking, so this seems like a natural solution to give select classes better saves.

[sithlordnergal]

OK I gotta ask - barbarians, fighters, and rogues specifically have no mental defenses, and unless you use roll for stats and the player rolls very well, the best they're gonna be able to do it like 12 wisdom instead of 8. This is the part that I'm really not seeing eye to eye with everyone here who's like "well you can't just dump your mental stats." These classes not only don't have any natural defenses against mental attacks, they have no good option to correct it. Resilient is laughably unreasonable, especially before level 12 or so - you'd be sacrificing significant competency at the class' core features.

What as a DM are you really expecting players to do here, short of "don't play these classes."

So, my thoughts on that are that you should have, at a minimum, a +1 to Wisdom Saves. There are a lot of ways to boost saving throws during encounters via Bless, Paladin Auras, and Bardic Inspiration, and those can help that +1 go the distance. And while not every party will have a Paladin or Bard, Bless is a very, very common spell. Consider a DC 15 Wisdom save, that's a pretty common save and a pretty common Tier 2 value. If you have a -1, you only have a 25% chance of success. If you have a +1, you have a 35% chance. That's a 10% difference, which is pretty significant. Especially when you consider those buffs you can get to saves.


So while yes, Martial classes don't have great mental saves, I expect players to try to compensate for their weaknesses. I don't expect you to be the absolute best, but I expect you to compensate. And if you choose not to compensate, then you shouldn't get super annoyed when you constantly fail those saves. Especially if you choose to make one of the most common saves in the game your dump stat, and you've been playing the game for years.



What should a barbarian, fighter, or rogue do about int, wis, and cha saves. Specifically. Assume point buy ability scores. Because taking a 16 in your main stat to raise your wis to 11 is *not an answer*

That is exactly the answer I expect. Starting with a 16 in your main stat is perfectly optimized. In exchange, you get a +1 to Wisdom. If you choose to keep your wisdom at 8, then you shouldn't get annoyed when you're hit with Hold Person, Dominate Person, Charm Person, Fear, and all of those other effects that require Wisdom saves.

[Skrum]

That is exactly the answer I expect. Starting with a 16 in your main stat is perfectly optimized. In exchange, you get a +1 to Wisdom. If you choose to keep your wisdom at 8, then you shouldn't get annoyed when you're hit with Hold Person, Dominate Person, Charm Person, Fear, and all of those other effects that require Wisdom saves.

I frankly don't think this is a reasonable answer; on top of the base classes being unequal, the weaker classes are also apparently expected to spend their resources to shore up core weaknesses that the stronger classes simply don't have.

And yes, I will continue to get annoyed when I sit out of combat for 50 minutes because I can't succeed on a DC 19 int/wis/cha save. Changing my chance of success from 10% to 20% (on a single save out of three no less) at the cost of being 5% worse at everything my character is supposed to be good at is not a justifiable solution.

[Telok]

Consider a DC 15 Wisdom save, that's a pretty common save and a pretty common Tier 2 value. If you have a -1, you only have a 25% chance of success. If you have a +1, you have a 35% chance. That's a 10% difference, which is pretty significant.

So who was saying the dc 15 saves were a make/break issue again? Because I've just been talking about my actual play experience being that fighters, barbies, and rangers suffer lots more debilitating "go sit in a corner for 30-45 minutes" dc 17+ saves in late tier 2 and in tiers 3 & 4. Gotten to the point we won't play our D&D high level game unless the counterspell warlock is player is going to make it, just because the warriors getting mazed banished hamsterballed held stunned and dominated is too common for it to be fun. Thankfully we finally got them immune to fear, the 18+ dragon fear auras were totally screwing them over almost every time and we need to gank that dracolich again.

Also, 25% ~ 35% isn't actually a noticable difference in play unless the player knows the exact dc they're up against and is actively doing math looking for the difference. Going from 1/4 save to 1/3 save is still experienced in play as "welp, probably gonna fail this one too". People will notice small %s doubling, large %s halving, and then its about a 15%-20% minimum rate change for people to notice a change when they don't have perfect knowledge and are doing math to keep track of it.

[Dr.Samurai]

*me, looking at my halfling barbarian as everyone says to put your point-buy points away from Strength and use your ASIs to shore up your weaknesses*


So basically, moral of the story is... some people think it's fine to have to sit out of combat for several turns at a time, with very little chance of resisting or avoiding that effect. And if not, they think that an ability score and feat tax is appropriate as an alternative that won't increase your chances all that much.

And this is for a game where 90% of the words on the pages govern combat lol.

Hope your DM likes every variant rule in the system; ability score generation, Tasha's customized ability scores, feats, multiclassing. Oh, and make sure you can guarantee yourself some specific magic items as well. :smallamused:

[sithlordnergal]

So yes, a 25% chance turning into a 35% chance doesn't feel like a huge improvement, I will agree with that. 1/4th and 1/3rd are not something you'd notice at a table during regular play. However, this is where the other piece of the puzzle comes in, things that temporarily boost your saves. Things like Bless, a Paladin Aura, and Bardic Inspiration are the most well known features that do this, but Artificers, Hobgoblins, certain Wizard and Sorcerer subclasses also provide ways to boost a saving throw. And yes, the 1d4 from Bless may not seem like its adding a lot, but every +1 counts in 5e, especially when it comes to saves.

Consider that DC 15 save I mentioned earlier. With a +1 you have a 35% chance of success, with a -1 you have a 25% chance. As Telok mentioned, it doesn't feel like a major difference. But with Bless, you gain an average of about 2.5 on your rolls. Your +1 save now has about a 45% chance of success, which is close enough to 50% that players feel like they can succeed on that throw 50% of the time. If you're in Tier 4 and dealing with a DC 24 Save, you cannot pass that at all if you have a -1 to your save without heavy support from everyone else. With a +1, you have a chance to succeeding with Bless alone. Not a high chance, but more of a chance than 0.


As for giving up something in order to shore up your weakness, I expect that of every class. Are you a Wizard with low Con Saves and low AC? Best look for ways to boost both your Con Save and AC, otherwise you're gonna have a bad time when I break your Concentration and shoot you with an arrow coated in poison. Are you a Paladin that struggles against ranged enemies and mobs? Find a to compensate, cause that group of flying archers aren't landing any time soon, and you can bet that they're at least 35 feet above you or more to force Disadvantage on your Javelin attacks. Are you a Moon Druid who thinks they're a big shot cause they're hiding behind two layers of HP? Hopefully you can handle a Sleep spell or two.

I run tactical encounters that are designed to be difficult. My NPCs are rarely mindless, and most will pounce on a weakness the second its exposed, and exploit it. Even mindless NPCs are generally commanded by someone who's smart. Now this isn't to say I don't make encounters where party members get to shine. They do get to shine, all the time. Nor do I make unfair encounters. I've never caused a TPK in my entire career as a DM, and its something I'm very proud of because I know how to get a party an inch away from death without actually killing them.

I also don't care how you attempt to compensate. You could multiclass, grab a feat, or look for a magic item. But you still need to compensate for those weaknesses, because there is a 100% chance of those weaknesses being targeted at some point during the game. And if you choose not to compensate...well...I'm not sure what to tell ya. You should know the inherent weaknesses of your class, unless you're a brand new player or doing something you've never done before

[Dr.Samurai]

Suppose I play a halfling barbarian, as I just did. But instead of maxing my Strength and Constitution, I instead end up with an array of:

Str 14
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 10

Is that sufficiently compensating for my weaknesses?

[sithlordnergal]

Suppose I play a halfling barbarian, as I just did. But instead of maxing my Strength and Constitution, I instead end up with an array of:

Str 14
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 10

Is that sufficiently compensating for my weaknesses?

That's plenty since you can get away with a 12 in Wisdom when you have sufficient support from the rest of the party. Also, since you're a Barbarian, you can get away with having a lower Dex since Dex saves are mostly used to avoid damage and you have a LOT of HP.

Now, I do allow players to move around the ability score bonuses of their race, so you can put the +2/+1 anywhere, and I always use 27 point buy. So that gives you some more wiggle room as well. But if you were using static ability score bonuses, you could do:

Stout Halfling:

Str 15

Dex 10

Con 16

Int 10

Wis 12

Cha 10

Uses 26 points, you have at least a +1 to the most common mental save in the game, you have higher HP, and you lack any negatives. Yeah, your Initiative is a bit low, but getting Advantage on that helps to shore that up. And Dex saves themselves aren't much of a problem for you since Dex saves are for damage, and your entire class is built around soaking up damage.

If you wanted a higher Dex, just drop the Strength to a 14 instead of a 15. With floating ability score bonuses, you have even more options. You could get:

Str 16

Dex 11

Con 16

Int 10

Wis 12

Cha 10

And use a half feat to boost your Dex by one later on, or just focus on Con and Strength. You could also make Dex 10 and Wisdom 13, then take Resilient Wisdom to get 14 Wisdom and Proficiency.

[Amnestic]

So if you're playing your standard fighter-wizard-cleric-rogue party, the sole hope is that your tier 3-4 cleric wants to spend his Concentration on Bless, do I have that right?

[OvisCaedo]

It's just what fighters and barbarians deserve for NOT picking one of the chosen one classes that get universal saving throw boosts that work with their core attributes.

But it is kind of one of the problems with bounded accuracy and smaller number ranges; it handles stacking bonuses really poorly as they quickly overtake the base values for things. Which is why the system normally (in theory) tries to avoid having stacking bonuses! But because Paladin and Bard exist, the loser classes have to get nothing or they'd be too good in the situation where they get those stacking bonuses. And screw you if you don't have them in your party.

it's not a great design space for balance to be stuck in.

[sithlordnergal]

So if you're playing your standard fighter-wizard-cleric-rogue party, the sole hope is that your tier 3-4 cleric wants to spend his Concentration on Bless, do I have that right?

To be fair...what else is the cleric going to spend concentration on during combat with their spells. Their spell list isn't exactly filled with outstanding combat Concentration spells at high level. :smalltongue:

That said, by the time you reach Tier 3-4, a Fighter and Rogue both have had 4 ASI boosts at a minimum, and 6 at a maximum. Additionally Rogues gain Wisdom Proficiency, and Fighters have Indomitable to allow a reroll. You should be able to spare an ASI for some extra Wisdom, or Resilient.

Like it or not, Wisdom saves are the most common mental save in the game. Do I think wisdom should be the most common? No, I don't. There are a lot of spells that call for a Wisdom save that should really use a Charisma or Intelligence save. But I'm not going to homebrew a change just because you chose to make yourself vulnerable, nor will I pull a punch just because its your weakest save.

Just like I won't pull my punches when I see a pool of lava, and am within grappling distance of the wizard that didn't take Athletics or Acrobatics. I'll happily take all of the potential opportunity attacks if it means dealing 10d10 fire damage to the squishy wizard via an attack that bypasses Armor and Saving throws.

[Amnestic]

To be fair...what else is the cleric going to spend concentration on during combat with their spells. Their spell list isn't exactly filled with outstanding combat Concentration spells at high level. :smalltongue:

I mean just a few choices...Summon Celestial, Conjure Celestial, Sunbeam, Banishment, Spirit Guardians?

Why bother buffing the fighter's limited chance of making a saving throw when you can just replace him with your Summoned Celestial? \o/

[sithlordnergal]

I mean just a few choices...Summon Celestial, Conjure Celestial, Sunbeam, Banishment, Spirit Guardians?

Why bother buffing the fighter's limited chance of making a saving throw when you can just replace him with your Summoned Celestial? \o/

Because I find Summon Celestial to be a high level spell slot for a low level effect. 50 HP, and 16 AC if you're an Avenger or 18 if you're the Defender? Not exactly going to stay on the battlefield for very long. That's what? About two Fireballs? Same problem with Conjure Celestial. Not really enough decent CR creatures to be worth casting, especially since it takes a minute. Now, if you had a spell similar to Conjure Animals for Clerics, then I'd say its worthwhile, if only because having 8 to 16 CR 1/4th creatures is inherently encounter breaking.

Sunbeam and Spirit Guardians are a decent choice. But then you have to make a decision, which is better? Some damage from Sunbeam or Spirit Guardians, or letting me have my way with the Fighter. Cause why waste time with Hold Person and Fear when I can use Dominate Person and force the Fighter to dump their Action Surge into attacking the Wizard? Or if I did paralyze him, why not just merc the Fighter with auto-crits and force you to spend Actions and Bonus Actions healing him, while I then focus on someone else?

Honestly, Banishment is kind of the only one that I'd say you should concentrate on over saving the Fighter since it removes an enemy from the battlefield.


Edit: Actually, thinking more on Summon Celestial and Conjure Celestial. One major weakness for both spells is Dispel Magic. Yeah, its a DC 15 and 17 respectively, but higher CR casters, which is what you'd run into by the time you have 7th level slots, tend to have pretty decent casting stats. And if I can take away a 5th or 7th level spell slot for a 3rd level one, I'm happy with that. Same with Counterspelling them.

[Amnestic]

Same problem with Conjure Celestial. Not really enough decent CR creatures to be worth casting, especially since it takes a minute. Now, if you had a spell similar to Conjure Animals for Clerics, then I'd say its worthwhile, if only because having 8 to 16 CR 1/4th creatures is inherently encounter breaking.

You're not meant to treat it like Conjure Animals. Conjure Celestial should really be called Conjure Couatl, and it is definitely worth your Concentration.

Though I suppose, ironically, it can provide Bless for you instead.

[sithlordnergal]

You're not meant to treat it like Conjure Animals. Conjure Celestial should really be called Conjure Couatl, and it is definitely worth your Concentration.

Though I suppose, ironically, it can provide Bless for you instead.

I mean...are they though? They have decent party buffs, but once they run out of their limited number of spells they really aren't that impressive. As a DM, I tend to ignore them because they're just not a threat.

I do get that you aren't meant to treat Conjure Celestials like you do Conjure Animals. I'm just saying if the Cleric had something similar to Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland Beings, then it would be worth the Concentration. As it stands, I hold Conjure Celestial in the same space as I put Conjure Elemental: Only cast if you can afford to use Planar Binding. Otherwise, its a waste of your Concentration, and you'll be really sad when that Concentration is broken.

[Rerem115]

As for giving up something in order to shore up your weakness, I expect that of every class.

...Except that the examples you gave don't really have to give anything up? Wizards are encouraged through both media tropes and design to play tactically and let others take hits for them, and they get a whole suite of spells to compensate for their 'low' AC—Shield, Mage Armor, Mirror Image, Blur, Haste, Protection from Evil and Good, and Silvery Barbs, to name just a few. It's not that much of a cost to pick up some-or all!-of them when you're guaranteed 44 spells known, and they're already good spells. And these are things any wizard can do, let alone the more defensive subclasses. As for improving their Constitution after getting an 18 or 20 in Int, it gives hit points, Concentration saves, and saves against conditions—everyone needs Constitution, so no loss there.

A Paladin struggling against mobs and ranged enemies? Gee whilikers, that sounds like being a Strength Fighter, or a Barbarian. I mean, you all can really only hit one person at a time, and you better grab javelins or throw boot daggers at those archers...except that the Paladin can also choose to prepare Command, or any of their useful subclass spells, or have multiclassed into Sorcerer or Warlock, or even brought their own Destructive Wave or flying mount to the table.

And seriously, Sleep? You can't even defend against that after race choice. Granted, it'll work once as a 'gotcha,' but if your table plays like how you describe, they'll learn pretty fast that all they have to do is save their Wild Shape and start slinging spells. The best full-caster in early play has to use their spellcasting, what a devastating turn of events.

Those aren't weaknesses. In the last two, the 'disadvantage' state is just not being better than everyone else.

[Witty Username]

Edit: Actually, thinking more on Summon Celestial and Conjure Celestial. One major weakness for both spells is Dispel Magic. Yeah, its a DC 15 and 17 respectively, but higher CR casters, which is what you'd run into by the time you have 7th level slots, tend to have pretty decent casting stats.

I want to focus on this point,
Casting stats apply to save DCs as well, a caster that is likely to counter a high level spell is exactly the kind of enemy bless could be a wasted action for.

You also bring up saving the fighter, that isn't really how bless works, for saves it has to be used predictively and also it is a +2 bonus about, this means alot of the time bless will not actually make a difference.

Summon Celestial may only need a few fireballs, but proper placement means that is damage not hitting the party, and much closer to guaranteed effects. It costs actions to mitigate. Bless often times does not warrant mitigation.

--
Now this sidesteps an important part of this conversation, why fighter? Afterall a paladin fills a similar role in this discussion, but aura of protection makes them and potentially the entire party a hard point for saves.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's plenty since you can get away with a 12 in Wisdom when you have sufficient support from the rest of the party. Also, since you're a Barbarian, you can get away with having a lower Dex since Dex saves are mostly used to avoid damage and you have a LOT of HP.
Honestly, I don't think it is plenty.

Respectfully, I think this doesn't address the complaint of "it is easy for martials to get locked out of combat for multiple turns with little chance to prevent or stop it". It does seem to address the vague general counter-argument of "some classes have weaknesses, and you can take measures to lessen those weaknesses in some small way".

The latter case can be true and still allow for the former case.

In addition, you've now reduced your AC to 13 (as a reminder, barbarians do not start out with any armor equipment). That increases to 14 when you get medium armor, 10% lower than the 16 you'd have with a 14 Dexterity. Is a 10% decreases in Armor worth a 10% increase in Wisdom saving throw bonuses? I don't think it is.

Also, I again ask what people consider to be sufficient support. In my current real time game, there is my Fighter, a monk, a ranger, and a druid. No one is supporting anyone's saving throws. In the pbp that just wrapped up, it is my aforementioned halfling barbarian, a warlock, a rogue, and a fighter. No one was supporting anyone's saving throws in that party.

Now, I am also in a PbP right now where I'm playing an artificer, and the party is larger and consists of a paladin, a wizard, a cleric, and a rogue. Between Flash of Genius, the paladin aura, and Bless (if the cleric casts it), saving throws are real strong. But that arrangement is not a guarantee.

Now, I do allow players to move around the ability score bonuses of their race, so you can put the +2/+1 anywhere, and I always use 27 point buy. So that gives you some more wiggle room as well. But if you were using static ability score bonuses, you could do:

Stout Halfling:

Str 15

Dex 10

Con 16

Int 10

Wis 12

Cha 10

Uses 26 points, you have at least a +1 to the most common mental save in the game, you have higher HP, and you lack any negatives. Yeah, your Initiative is a bit low, but getting Advantage on that helps to shore that up. And Dex saves themselves aren't much of a problem for you since Dex saves are for damage, and your entire class is built around soaking up damage.

If you wanted a higher Dex, just drop the Strength to a 14 instead of a 15. With floating ability score bonuses, you have even more options. You could get:

Str 16

Dex 11

Con 16

Int 10

Wis 12

Cha 10

And use a half feat to boost your Dex by one later on, or just focus on Con and Strength. You could also make Dex 10 and Wisdom 13, then take Resilient Wisdom to get 14 Wisdom and Proficiency.
Are you requiring Resilient (Wisdom) or no? That was the original question, what do you think sufficient compensation is? Because I don't think the difference between -1 and +1 is that large to make a meaningful difference, and your Intelligence and Charisma saves are still 0, and your AC is 14 in medium armor.

[RSP]

So basically, moral of the story is... some people think it's fine to have to sit out of combat for several turns at a time, with very little chance of resisting or avoiding that effect. And if not, they think that an ability score and feat tax is appropriate as an alternative that won't increase your chances all that much.

And this is for a game where 90% of the words on the pages govern combat lol.

Hope your DM likes every variant rule in the system; ability score generation, Tasha's customized ability scores, feats, multiclassing. Oh, and make sure you can guarantee yourself some specific magic items as well. :smallamused:

(Apologies as I’ve missed a whole lot of posts and don’t think I can catch up individually, so will generalize off what I’ve read)

Is it fine to sit out multiple rounds of combat because your character dropped to 0? I know you’re going to say dying is different that missing a save, but it’s the same effect, and if you use “players not playing” as your reasoning, then other ways players aren’t playing is fair game.

(Also of note: the Barb is much more likely to have the durability to not die outright from a MF Brain Extraction than d6 and d8 classes. But I understand such things aren’t in favor of your argument.)

If you’re still arguing that is an issue, then dying/dead fits that category just as well as MFs blast does (more so actually as you get a save every turn with MFs’ blast, with a DC of 16, vs when you do get a save while dying/dead, you need a nat 20 to recover).

Also, rolling is the standard for 5e ability score generation.

—

As to the general argument I see on some posts that “martials need better saves”, each class has strengths and weaknesses. That’s by design, and the monsters with high DCs on their saves, are also by design: they’re meant to be tough to pass.

But why the specific outrage for Fighters, Rogues and Barbs? Why is the Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric or Druid better at passing that MF’s blast save? None of them have Int saves either, or use Int as their main stat.

Likewise, I think it’s a table-dependent thing that “melees are specifically targeted more on these saves than other builds”.

Again, I don’t find it to be the case that either “back row doesn’t get attacked” or “melees are specifically targeted more” at my tables. Off the top of my head, I’d say out of 5 PCs, the Monk and Cleric drop the most in our current campaign, followed by our Rogue and my Sorc (which is actually built as a melee combatant). Our Cleric/Wiz multiclass drops the least I think, but I that’s more due to playstyle than class(es).

Even with Barb, Rogue and Fighters there are class/subclass abilities that do help these things.

But again, if the argument is “we must change the system because Rogues, Fighters and Barbs need to pass non-proficient saves more”, why?

Why should those PCs be immune to “player not playing” effects? On tables (like mine) where specific builds are overly targeted, why are those systematic changes needed?

Again, my suggestion, if this is a recurring problem at a table, for one specific PC, is talk to your DM about why that’s happening to their specific character. Is it meta gaming in that the DM is specifically targeting the PC that’s least likely to pass the save? Are they specifically, repeatedly, building encounters that target the weakness of one PC? If so, why? And if this is the case, why does the 5e system need to address this rather than the table?

So if it’s just one PCs issue, find out why it’s such a recurring problem for that PC at that table.

(In our last campaign, we did SKT. My blade lock had no way to keep up with the Barb on the frontlines, regularly fighting giants that could basically down him in one turn. It impacted my fun, as the character was designed as a melee. So I talked to my DM and decided to make a new character (with a great in-story RP reason as to why my bladelock wasn’t my PC anymore).)

Now, if every player at the table has the same issue, and every PC is regularly experiencing these issues, it could well be that the DM is overtuning encounters. And if each Player is regularly sitting out turns, bring this up to the DM: “why are you using so many creatures that specifically take our turns away?”

That sounds like a table specific problem (such as “no one knew this campaign was going to involve so many encounters with Mind Flayers…”).

Also, what level are the PCs facing these encounters? As PP pointed out upthread, I don’t think MFs are intended to be regular encounters in tier 2, for instance. If this is the case, I’d suggest again this is a table issue of the DM overtuning encounters.

[Skrum]

Being at zero and being banished are only alike in the most superficial ways.

Being at zero means you lost all your HP, which for barbs means you *probably* got to the use the part of your class that's actually good. Being tough and having a lot of hit points. Eventually going down on the 3rd or 4th round after fighting furiously feels WAY different than having a specific weakness getting targeted on round 1 and being shut out. The former, I got to do exactly what a barb is meant to do, in the latter, why did I even show up.

Further, there's like a billion ways to get a character up from zero. Like I said, characters rarely even miss a turn from going down. Someone else has healing word, aid, a potion, something, and the downed character is back in it.

Disrupting a spell, or removing conditions? Nah. That's extremely context and party dependent.

[Witty Username]

Why is the Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric or Druid better at passing that MF’s blast save? None of them have Int saves either, or use Int as their main stat.


That's why the system gave you
b) hordes of defensive abilities
c) bunches of abilities that buff saves, including low level ones
d) bunches of abilities that remove conditions, including low level ones.


What PhoenixPhyre said.

[Dr.Samurai]

(Apologies as I’ve missed a whole lot of posts and don’t think I can catch up individually, so will generalize off what I’ve read)
:smallamused::smallamused::smallamused:


Is it fine to sit out multiple rounds of combat because your character dropped to 0? I know you’re going to say dying is different that missing a save, but it’s the same effect, and if you use “players not playing” as your reasoning, then other ways players aren’t playing is fair game.

If you’re still arguing that is an issue, then dying/dead fits that category just as well as MFs blast does (more so actually as you get a save every turn with MFs’ blast, with a DC of 16, vs when you do get a save while dying/dead, you need a nat 20 to recover).
I like this forum a lot, because I like some of the people here and the convos, and of course the PbPs. But one of the frustrating bits about this forum is that people can simply ignore posts, and keep posting as if the point hasn't already been addressed. And when you call those people out, they report you, and the moderators give you a warning or worse because you're not allowed to call out... well, let me stop myself before my prediction comes true...


(Also of note: the Barb is much more likely to have the durability to not die outright from a MF Brain Extraction than d6 and d8 classes.
1. Sure, but like... did you miss the part where the barbarian has the lowest chances of getting out of that Stunned condition though?
2. Sure, but like... the barbarian also has the highest chances of being targeted by Extract Brain because it requires an Incapacitated target that is also Grappled by the Mind Flayer. Barbarian has poor Intelligence saves and also engages in melee so...

But I understand such things aren’t in favor of your argument.)
This is rich coming from the "So sorry, I'm going to ignore all of your posts and just pick back up repeating my same old talking points" guy.

Also, rolling is the standard for 5e ability score generation.
Ok

4d6b3
4d6b3
4d6b3
4d6b3
4d6b3
4d6b3
EDIT: Dammit Dr. Samurai, why'd you hit "Preview Post"?


As to the general argument I see on some posts that “martials need better saves”, each class has strengths and weaknesses. That’s by design, and the monsters with high DCs on their saves, are also by design: they’re meant to be tough to pass.
Been there, done that.

It is possible for strengths and weaknesses to be by design, and for those strengths and weaknesses to need fine-tuning.

As an example, say the Fighter's Extra Attack improved at level 5 to allow for 6 attacks as an Action, and if you hit the same monster more than once, each successive hit was an automatic critical hit.

I would say that is overpowered and makes the game not fun.

You would say "Each class has strengths and weaknesses. That's by design..."

Hopefully you understand now that you're not actually addressing the complaints.

But why the specific outrage for Fighters, Rogues and Barbs?
For me, it's because I play fighters and barbs, so that's where my experience comes from.

Also, fighters and barbs don't have a single mental saving throw. And the majority of these debilitating effects target mental saves, whether it's Mind Flayers/Phantasmal Force/Maze or Banishment/Possession/Plane Shift or Hold Person/Dominate Monster/Suggestion/Eyebite/etc.

So even having Wis/Cha covers a lot of effects. Druids have Int by the way.

Why is the Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric or Druid better at passing that MF’s blast save? None of them have Int saves either, or use Int as their main stat.
But... what do you mean? Clerics have Bless. Problem solved.

But it sucks for anyone. The point is it is not fun to spend several rounds of combat making a saving throw only.

Likewise, I think it’s a table-dependent thing that “melees are specifically targeted more on these saves than other builds”.
Everything is a table dependent thing.

Again, I don’t find it to be the case that either “back row doesn’t get attacked” or “melees are specifically targeted more” at my tables.
*roll eye emoji x1000*

I don't find it to be the case that anyone said the "back row doesn't get attacked". Nor did I say "melees are specifically targeted more". By virtue of being in melee, they are likely to make more saving throws. Many saving throws are riders on melee attacks. And abilities that force saving throws at range naturally can target the melee character as well. So they're just almost always available as a target. That's not "specifically" targeting them, as you've said in your... creative rewording.

Off the top of my head, I’d say out of 5 PCs, the Monk and Cleric drop the most in our current campaign, followed by our Rogue and my Sorc (which is actually built as a melee combatant).
I don't know what the cleric is but yeah, that makes sense, you don't really have a frontliner.

Our Cleric/Wiz multiclass drops the least I think, but I that’s more due to playstyle than class(es).
What playstyle would that be?

Even with Barb, Rogue and Fighters there are class/subclass abilities that do help these things.
Again, as I've said before, the answer is "stunlocking is okay". If you don't like it "enjoy this subclass/feat/point-buy tax".

But again, if the argument is “we must change the system because Rogues, Fighters and Barbs need to pass non-proficient saves more”, why?
It's been said numerous times. The question is more like... why should we keep repeating ourselves to you?

Why should those PCs be immune to “player not playing” effects?
Can you point on the teddy bear where someone said they should be immune?

On tables (like mine) where specific builds are overly targeted, why are those systematic changes needed?
Your table needs a dedicated frontliner more than anything.

Again, my suggestion, if this is a recurring problem at a table, for one specific PC, is talk to your DM about why that’s happening to their specific character.
Where did you get the impression that this is an isolated incident? I've counted numerous posts in this thread of people relaying that either their characters or other party members are getting knocked out of fights routinely...

(In our last campaign, we did SKT. My blade lock had no way to keep up with the Barb on the frontlines, regularly fighting giants that could basically down him in one turn. It impacted my fun, as the character was designed as a melee.
Ah, so you DO recognize that not getting to act in combat is not fun. That's good, we're making progress.


Also, what level are the PCs facing these encounters? As PP pointed out upthread, I don’t think MFs are intended to be regular encounters in tier 2, for instance. If this is the case, I’d suggest again this is a table issue of the DM overtuning encounters.
It doesn't matter. You keep glossing over the point. It could tier 1, 2, 3, or 4. The point is that some people don't like sitting out of combat because they've been incapacitated by a saving throw they have a 15% chance of making. Combat is like... super fun. Roleplaying your character is great, and the back and forth with NPCs and with your allies is a lot of fun. And then you go into combat and it's awesome to use your abilities. It's a big downer to be removed from combat so easily and for so long.

But to get back to your point... you're always going to run into table variance. My barbarian that walked into a chamber full of flayers was level 12. My monk that found himself in a room with a mind flayer and an intellect devourer was level 1. And that's an official WotC module. The flayer fled, but the intellect devourer reduced my monk into a Stunned moron. Not only was I out of the fight, I couldn't recover and had to get dragged out by the party. Which means I wasn't involved in the return trip, etc.

This is true also for the idea that "wisdom saves are more common". No. It all depends. Remember, we're talking about HARD conditions. Not just charming someone or giving them Frightened, but controlling their ability to use their action. So the go-to response is "mind flayers aren't that common". Sure, okay. But I guess neither are beholders, and slaadi, and yuan-ti, and arcanaloths and other fiends, and ghosts and etc etc. How does anyone know what will be in their game to force a debilitating saving throw, and which one will be targeted?

So these points about the level and the monster and subclasses, it's all irrelevant. It assumes that at some point, it's fine to knock certain characters out of the fight for turns at a time. And maybe it is. But obviously some people don't like it. And that lack of fun is what caused Save-or-Dies to go the way of the dodo, so I don't see what's so offensive about people complaining about it.

Being at zero and being banished are only alike in the most superficial ways.

Being at zero means you lost all your HP, which for barbs means you *probably* got to the use the part of your class that's actually good. Being tough and having a lot of hit points. Eventually going down on the 3rd or 4th round after fighting furiously feels WAY different than having a specific weakness getting targeted on round 1 and being shut out. The former, I got to do exactly what a barb is meant to do, in the latter, why did I even show up. 1000% agreed.


Further, there's like a billion ways to get a character up from zero. Like I said, characters rarely even miss a turn from going down. Someone else has healing word, aid, a potion, something, and the downed character is back in it.
This is my experience as well. My current Rune Knight is the king of yo-yo healing. He gets knocked out, a Healing Word pops him back up. He power attacks, either kills or bloodies an enemy, and gets knocked out again. Rinse and repeat. I'm actually not a fan of this because of the narrative behind it, but it beats standing around incapacitated for 4 turns.

Disrupting a spell, or removing conditions? Nah. That's extremely context and party dependent.
Also agreed. I'll note what you've said has been said before, but somehow keeps needing to be repeated :smallconfused:

[Witty Username]

Also, what level are the PCs facing these encounters? As PP pointed out upthread, I don’t think MFs are intended to be regular encounters in tier 2, for instance. If this is the case, I’d suggest again this is a table issue of the DM overtuning encounters.

Scarecrows then.

I can only speak for myself but I thought mind flayers were only in the conversation this long because they are an example monster.
Stunned is a good example of a hard control.
Int saves are a good example of a save that you arguably need but have difficulty safely investing in.
Needing investment in multiple saves, as a mind flayer can target both Int and Wis.
So it is not a simple, just invest problem.

But i believe we have gotten fully of base by now with this birch tree, perhaps there is else of Interest in this forest.

[RSP]

Being at zero and being banished are only alike in the most superficial ways.

Being at zero means you lost all your HP, which for barbs means you *probably* got to the use the part of your class that's actually good. Being tough and having a lot of hit points. Eventually going down on the 3rd or 4th round after fighting furiously feels WAY different than having a specific weakness getting targeted on round 1 and being shut out. The former, I got to do exactly what a barb is meant to do, in the latter, why did I even show up.


Right. The Barb is great in regards to their defense against conventional attacks. That’s one of their strengths. Sorcerers, not so much, it’s one of their weaknesses.

So if the complaint is “the game shouldn’t have rounds when Players don’t get to play”, then that holds true when players don’t get to play do to reasons other than failing a Int save.

So if we’re shoring up weaknesses to prevent players not playing, we should add hit points, armor prof and whatnot to shore up conventional defenses where that is a weakness, no?

Surely dying or dead is way more common than Stunned.


What PhoenixPhyre said.

Except that doesn’t actually answer the question.

If you build a character dumping Int, and don’t have Int saves, you aren’t any better than the Int dumped Barb if you’re targeted by a MFs stun.




That's why the system gave you
b) hordes of defensive abilities
c) bunches of abilities that buff saves, including low level ones
d) bunches of abilities that remove conditions, including low level ones.

How does the Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, pre14 Monk, Druid, Cleric have these?

Cleric does with Bless, if they have it up, and two others get the benefit too. The others? A specific subclass of Sorc might have Bless.

But I’m not seeing the rest as class abilities, some subclass stuff, but same with Barb. Fighter has Indomitable which would grant a reroll. Maybe I’m missing something though.

“d)” isn’t really a thing, as there’s no way for any of the characters to remove the Stunned condition from themselves while they’re Stunned.

Specific to being Stunned, or Banished (for non-Cha Save prof classes), or dominated or held (for non-Wis Save classes), there’s nothing those classes have that either prevent the condition, or undo it.

Bards have Inspiration, but that’s only for others to use, and can countercharm, but that helps the whole party.

So why would those classes be better at passing Int saves than the Barb? I don’t see how they are, but let me know if I’m missing a class ability.

Clerics can undo conditions in others, sure, but that kind of their thing.

Now, can a Bard build to have Bless at level 10? Sure, I wouldn’t take it as my Magical Secrets, but sure. But now we’re talking about building specifically towards having better saves at the cost of other options and resources. Which the Barb has as well, but in the example given, specifically chose not to do that.

At one point it was stated that PCs being Stunned takes away player agency, yet we have player agency in deciding their builds. That agency is made moot if the response is “regardless of what weaknesses I choose for my character to have, I don’t want them to be weaknesses”. You made the build choices mean nothing.

Further, a quick look on Google shows there’s a bunch of monsters that can cause the Stunned condition off of Con saves: Martial Arts Adept, Vrock, Mummy Lord, Otyugh, Myconid Adult, and Myconid Sovereign.

That’s more than creatures that cause it from Int (MF and Intellect Devourer). Guess the discussion should move to Wizards getting Con save proficiency for free as it’s no fun for the Wizard player to be stunned for a turn or two…



I can only speak for myself but I thought mind flayers were only in the conversation this long because they are an example monster.
Stunned is a good example of a hard control.
Int saves are a good example of a save that you arguably need but have difficulty safely investing in.
Needing investment in multiple saves, as a mind flayer can target both Int and Wis.
So it is not a simple, just invest problem.


So for you, if I’m understanding correctly, it’s a matter of everyone should have better saves without investment, so stuff like Mind Flayers won’t be as difficult an encounter?

[Zuras]

I really don’t get the reasoning that 5e saves follow the bounded accuracy paradigm. Attack bonuses scale much faster than AC increases, which basically require DM permission to increase via magic items. PC get increasing hit points and many damage mitigation tools to deal with the increasing deadliness of combat.

For save effects, especially those to avoid debilitating conditions, you have in effect exactly the same number of HP you did at 1st level. You can only take Resilient once, so at *most* you are going to be decent at half your saves.

In old school D&D all your saves improved, and high level fighters were very difficult to affect with save effects. Indomitable is so terrible in comparison sometimes it feels like the designers were trolling.

[Witty Username]

So for you, if I’m understanding correctly, it’s a matter of everyone should have better saves without investment, so stuff like Mind Flayers won’t be as difficult an encounter?

My personal stance is that I wouldn't mind for the classes that represent tough bastard archetypes to be mechanically tough bastards.

There are game design arguments that I sympathize with, upthread the concerns with conditions that lock players out of the game, melee characters having a generally harder time with saves as they have less tools to avoid being targeted, etc.

But ultimately, my interests are more martial/caster divides and characters feeling like their role.

We have already accepted monk and paladin can just have better saving throws than everyone else, and fighter and barbarian tend to be lacking in high level abilities. What would be wrong with them getting something in that direction?

Casters on the other hand, have all sorts of stuff at high level, and don't have a strong theme of sitting at the tough customer table. This is a team game after all, needing to hide behind the tank is part of being a support.

[RSP]

:
1. Sure, but like... did you miss the part where the barbarian has the lowest chances of getting out of that Stunned condition though?
2. Sure, but like... the barbarian also has the highest chances of being targeted by Extract Brain because it requires an Incapacitated target that is also Grappled by the Mind Flayer. Barbarian has poor Intelligence saves and also engages in melee so...

It’s the same chance as any non-prof character has who decided to dump Int, though. You WANT this to be specific to Barbs, but it isn’t.



Also, fighters and barbs don't have a single mental saving throw. And the majority of these debilitating effects target mental saves, whether it's Mind Flayers/Phantasmal Force/Maze or Banishment/Possession/Plane Shift or Hold Person/Dominate Monster/Suggestion/Eyebite/etc.

See above creatures that stun off con Saves.



But it sucks for anyone. The point is it is not fun to spend several rounds of combat making a saving throw only.

So…like a Death Save?



Ah, so you DO recognize that not getting to act in combat is not fun. That's good, we're making progress.

Classes/subclasses/builds will have strengths and weaknesses. I realized how I wanted to play my PC wasn’t working, so I retired the character.

I didn’t, however, decide Giants should be banned from the game because causing Players to not act is unfun; or suggest Warlocks have resistance to all damage as a 5e system change because the PC I made was weak in an area I didn’t like.



The point is that some people don't like sitting out of combat because they've been incapacitated by a saving throw they have a 15% chance of making.

Sure, and some people like having variety of threats and encounters, not just bags of hit points that do damage. That variety is GOOD for the game. Just because the game has stuff that you don’t like doesn’t mean the system is broken. Does the rest of your table feel the same way? If so tell the DM that you, as the players, don’t like those types of challenges. Problem solved!

If the other players don’t agree, then why are you trying to take away their fun? If it’s just “I don’t want MY character to have bad things happen to them” well then don’t have them go exploring underground caverns and whatnot.

To me this isn’t a system problem, it’s a you not liking a type of encounter issue. And that’s fine, but you not liking it doesn’t mean it’s bad for the game. It just means you might want to express this dislike to your table and DM.

[TaiLiu]

Now, I am also in a PbP right now where I'm playing an artificer, and the party is larger and consists of a paladin, a wizard, a cleric, and a rogue. Between Flash of Genius, the paladin aura, and Bless (if the cleric casts it), saving throws are real strong. But that arrangement is not a guarantee.
Curse of Strahd campaign represent! :smallcool:

[Zuras]

I didn’t, however, decide Giants should be banned from the game because causing Players to not act is unfun; or suggest Warlocks have resistance to all damage as a 5e system change because the PC I made was weak in an area I didn’t like.


The 5e designers literally decided that players not having turns to act is unfun, and created the whole pop-up healing feature that is periodically bemoaned as a core annoyance of 5e.

Extra deadly effects that target non-standard features are design junk food. A few monsters that insta-kill you with a bad Int roll or attack your stats is an interesting spice, but most monsters should not work like Intellect Devourers and Shadows.

[Dr.Samurai]

My personal stance is that I wouldn't mind for the classes that represent tough bastard archetypes to be mechanically tough bastards.
I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread but since we're all forced to repeat ourselves, why not mention it again? I personally feel this way as well, in broad ways about how the melee classes are treated in the game. They don't really align with the archetypes.

When we move away from Hard conditions, even the fact that fighters and barbarians are terribly easy to Frighten just feels wrong, like the tip of some Cthulhu-esque being's tentacle touched our universe and warped the game. All the THP and AC features doled out to casters and not the warriors seems wrong.

There are game design arguments that I sympathize with, upthread the concerns with conditions that lock players out of the game, melee characters having a generally harder time with saves as they have less tools to avoid being targeted, etc.

...

We have already accepted monk and paladin can just have better saving throws than everyone else, and fighter and barbarian tend to be lacking in high level abilities. What would be wrong with them getting something in that direction?
I think a feature that gives them a decent bonus or lets them save x number of times per day (maybe 1/rest, pb may be too much, not sure I'm not a designer) might work.

It’s the same chance as any non-prof character has who decided to dump Int, though. You WANT this to be specific to Barbs, but it isn’t.
I literally said it applies to all of them, and explained why I mention barbarians and fighters. It's easier to cite one class than to say something like "non-proficient character". But also, in my mind, barbarian is the worst of the lot, for reasons already given; proximity to monsters, dump stats, no features, no mental saves. If someone can't convince you with the worst case (because you consistently ignore the argument most of the time) how can I convince you of a bard (who lacks Int but has Wis/Cha)?

See above creatures that stun off con Saves.
Ok... once again we have to make arguments to you that have already been made, because you're dead set on disagreeing without engaging. Can you guess what these all have in common? They are in melee range (vrock is within 20ft). Can you guess what else they have in common? With the exception of the myconid, they last for one turn.

Martial Arts Adept - 5ft reach, requires a successful attack, lasts 1 turn, updated in Mordenkainen's and lost Stunning ability

Vrock - 20ft range, lasts 1 turn (I used vrocks as an example of the range issue, as my character was making many Con saves vs Screech often, and my ranged allies were not, until one encounter where they got the jump on us and multiple vrocks resulted in everyone getting Stunned. But that wasn't the norm.)

Otyugh - 10ft reach, requires a successful attack, requires a turn to set up, lasts 1 turn (I used otyughs as an example in another thread about why frontliners should have constitution saving throw proficiencies and not just a high weapon attack modifier and good AC) (As an aside, my friend just told me in the game that he's DMing, the group was ambushed by a medusa, and the level 5 paladin, the greatest 5E class ever designed and the ultimate front liner, failed his con save twice over two turns and was Petrified.)

Myconid Adult/Sovereign - 5ft range, lasts for 1 minute

Mummy Lord - 10ft range, requires 2 Legendary Actions, lasts for 1 turn

So in all of these cases, you have to be very close to the monster, within melee range. And that can happen (I mentioned how my party was beset upon by vrocks), but it is not the natural stomping grounds for non-melee characters.

And I want to highlight my point with your example of the Mummy Lord. This guy causes the following saving throws:

1. Rotting Fist, Con save, can't regain hit points
2. Dreadful Glare, Wis save, Frightened, potentially Paralyzed
3. Blinding Dust, Con save, Blinded
4. Blasphemous Word, Con save, Stunned
5. Lair Action, Con save, Necrotic damage/spell level

Of those, Rotting Fist, Blinding Dust, and Blasphemous Word are melee range (5ft, 5ft, and 10ft). Dreadful Glare can hit anyone in 60ft, so that includes frontliners of course (and those without wis proficiency have the greatest chance of getting paralyzed, which is likely to be the frontliners). And the Lair Action is specifically targeted at spell casters and reaches anyone in the lair.

I know in your game, everyone is just engaging the Mummy Lord in melee regardless of the class they are playing, but I'd say that's a table exception, and not the norm. (Current sharpshooter in our Against the Giants game is so allergic to the frontline that he routinely doesn't know what's happening in the room because the moment he has line of sight, he'll stop moving and start loosing arrows. Since he ignores cover and long distance, he can tag enemies from weird angles and locations.)

But further still, here are a couple more differences you're not considering:

1. Constitution is not a dump stat for any class, and casters are incentivized to have a decent con and con save due to the Concentration mechanic.
2. Some of these saving throws require a successful attack first, which means buff spells like Mirror Image, Blur, Shield, etc. may prevent the caster from making the save in the first place (another point I've already made about how some of the spells casters get help them mitigate saving throw effects incidentally)

So…like a Death Save?
I've addressed this, Amnestic addressed this, Skrum just addressed it again. Probably Witty Username has addressed it. It is extremely easy to pop up from unconsciousness due to HP loss.


Classes/subclasses/builds will have strengths and weaknesses. I realized how I wanted to play my PC wasn’t working, so I retired the character.
You realized that being out of combat for turns at a time was not fun.

I didn’t, however, decide Giants should be banned from the game because causing Players to not act is unfun; or suggest Warlocks have resistance to all damage as a 5e system change because the PC I made was weak in an area I didn’t like.
Dr. Samurai: The new Indomitable feature will help a lot.
RSP: You want to ban monsters from the game and make your characters immune to everything!

Sure, and some people like having variety of threats and encounters, not just bags of hit points that do damage. That variety is GOOD for the game. Just because the game has stuff that you don’t like doesn’t mean the system is broken. Does the rest of your table feel the same way? If so tell the DM that you, as the players, don’t like those types of challenges. Problem solved!

If the other players don’t agree, then why are you trying to take away their fun?
Hi RSP, I just want to remind you that this is a discussion forum, where people talk about stuff. And someone mentioned that saving throws need retooling, and I agreed with them.

Just in case you thought that there were stakes at play here and somehow the game was going to be altered in some way based on the findings in this thread or something...

If it’s just “I don’t want MY character to have bad things happen to them” well then don’t have them go exploring underground caverns and whatnot.
No one has said this. These arguments are cringe-worthy my friend.

To me this isn’t a system problem, it’s a you not liking a type of encounter issue. And that’s fine, but you not liking it doesn’t mean it’s bad for the game. It just means you might want to express this dislike to your table and DM.
I just want to clarify... are you telling me I shouldn't participate in this conversation?

Curse of Strahd campaign represent! :smallcool:
Yo yo, we got Yikkol in the house!! :smallcool:

I really don’t get the reasoning that 5e saves follow the bounded accuracy paradigm. Attack bonuses scale much faster than AC increases, which basically require DM permission to increase via magic items. PC get increasing hit points and many damage mitigation tools to deal with the increasing deadliness of combat.

For save effects, especially those to avoid debilitating conditions, you have in effect exactly the same number of HP you did at 1st level. You can only take Resilient once, so at *most* you are going to be decent at half your saves.

In old school D&D all your saves improved, and high level fighters were very difficult to affect with save effects. Indomitable is so terrible in comparison sometimes it feels like the designers were trolling.
I agree with this sentiment.

EDIT: I just remembered, the yeti, or its bigger version, forces a Con save vs Paralysis that lasts for more than 1 turn. Hit our monk from a distance. He didn't enjoy that, and it kept him out of the fight until the very end when he finally made the save and chased down the last yeti and killed it. We fought something like 6 yetis and the chieftain. He was able to throw one attack roll and finish off a weakened retreating enemy.

[RSP]

The 5e designers literally decided that players not having turns to act is unfun, and created the whole pop-up healing feature that is periodically bemoaned as a core annoyance of 5e.

If that’s true of the “designers” (and I’m not doubting you, just it’s a broad statement that applies to a lot of people that I assume have their own opinions), it’s not true of the players. There is so much disparity in how tables play, I don’t think you can come up with singular statements of “this is fun” or “this is unfun” in 5e. Some tables like 1 encounter a day, super deadly; some don’t. Some don’t like PC deaths, some do; etc.

I believe even Dr Samurai at one point stated they enjoyed the MF encounter they used as their example, but perhaps I’m wrong about that. For me, I do like have interesting monsters that have abilities that are threats to the party in ways that aren’t just bad of hit points that do damage.



Extra deadly effects that target non-standard features are design junk food. A few monsters that insta-kill you with a bad Int roll or attack your stats is an interesting spice, but most monsters should not work like Intellect Devourers and Shadows.

I don’t agree that novel effects are “junk food”.

I like variety in my encounters and challenges. I want there to be consequences for how the characters act. I don’t want all cake walks. I don’t want all combats to be HP attrition slog-feats.

I agree, barring a campaign designed around them (and with the players aware of it at session 0), most monsters should not work like IDs or MFs (and they don’t!). I agree most monsters should work like Shadows (and they don’t!).

But we shouldn’t be trying to take IDs, Shadows, MFs, etc, out of the game: they have their place, just like bags of hit points that do damage have their place.

[Zuras]

I don’t agree that novel effects are “junk food”.

I like variety in my encounters and challenges. I want there to be consequences for how the characters act. I don’t want all cake walks. I don’t want all combats to be HP attrition slog-feats.

I agree, barring a campaign designed around them (and with the players aware of it at session 0), most monsters should not work like IDs or MFs (and they don’t!). I agree most monsters should work like Shadows (and they don’t!).

But we shouldn’t be trying to take IDs, Shadows, MFs, etc, out of the game: they have their place, just like bags of hit points that do damage have their place.

If novel effects become frequent, they’re not novel anymore. If it’s supposed to be novel, it’s not the fault of player choices that their PC is ill-suited to facing the threat.

The worst part of the 5e save system is that it further skews the game towards casters. Martials can primarily target an enemy’s AC (outside of minor debuffs like prone and the monk’s Stunning Strike). Casters have a full menu of different saves they can target. When you add that to increasing vulnerability to the most impactful effects at higher levels, it’s a definite weak spot of the system.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the sweet spot for me would be keep monsters as is, but add a feature to classes that let them boost a save in some way x number of times per day. It shouldn't be too frequent, otherwise they could just use it every single time they get taken out of combat. But enough where the dice rolls still matter, but it's not basically a given that every Dominate Person, Hold Person, Banishment, Plane Shift, Suggestion, Fear spell, Mind Blast, Sleep Ray, Gentle Lullaby, Confusion, Polymorph, Eyebite, Bestow Curse, Euphoria Breath, Terrifying Glare, Luring Song, Confusion Ray, Mass Suggestion, Enslave, Phantasmal Force, Devour Intellect, Trap the Soul, Confusing Gaze, or Possession will take you out of the fight for several rounds at a time.

[Skrum]

I think the sweet spot for me would be keep monsters as is, but add a feature to classes that let them boost a save in some way x number of times per day. It shouldn't be too frequent, otherwise they could just use it every single time they get taken out of combat. But enough where the dice rolls still matter, but it's not basically a given that every Dominate Person, Hold Person, Banishment, Plane Shift, Suggestion, Fear spell, Mind Blast, Sleep Ray, Gentle Lullaby, Confusion, Polymorph, Eyebite, Bestow Curse, Euphoria Breath, Terrifying Glare, Luring Song, Confusion Ray, Mass Suggestion, Enslave, Phantasmal Force, Devour Intellect, Trap the Soul, Confusing Gaze, or Possession will take you out of the fight for several rounds at a time.

This is exactly why I (mathematically speaking) like proficiency with all saves. A character's good saves aren't going to get any better (most classes are proficient in saves that are attached to ability scores they need to raise), but the low end would be in the 20-30% range instead of 10%.

A 25% chance to save vs a 10% chance is a HUGE difference when it comes to multiple rolls. It is still quite likely that the barb is going to fail their save against the dragon's fear, the mind flayer's mind blast, and the archmage's banish. But the chance they get stuck for 5 rounds is *drastically* less.

If I were to implement this change, I'd probably increase monster damage to compensate for the fact that characters will spend less time in hitstun (but that kinda needs to happen anyway).

[Dr.Samurai]

This is exactly why I (mathematically speaking) like proficiency with all saves. A character's good saves aren't going to get any better (most classes are proficient in saves that are attached to ability scores they need to raise), but the low end would be in the 20-30% range instead of 10%.

A 25% chance to save vs a 10% chance is a HUGE difference when it comes to multiple rolls. It is still quite likely that the barb is going to fail their save against the dragon's fear, the mind flayer's mind blast, and the archmage's banish. But the chance they get stuck for 5 rounds is *drastically* less.

If I were to implement this change, I'd probably increase monster damage to compensate for the fact that characters will spend less time in hitstun (but that kinda needs to happen anyway).
The idea isn't offensive to me, and I like it because, as I've mentioned before, it is in line with heroic characters (strong, agile, tough, and mentally resilient).

But I think the concern mentioned before is that it stacks with the buffs; so a paladin or Bless or a bard will make these proficiencies that much more effective.

[Skrum]

But I think the concern mentioned before is that it stacks with the buffs; so a paladin or Bless or a bard will make these proficiencies that much more effective.

I mean isn't that what the abilities are supposed to do though? Bless in particular, if someone is spending their concentration on it, bringing the party's low saves from 25% to 42% and their high saves from 60% to 77%, that feels pretty fine.

Stack Aura of Protection AND bless, and I suppose I'm beginning to see the problem...but I think the problem is Aura of Protection. A +3 or +4 to all saves buff is such a huge increase from a single source

[RSP]

This is exactly why I (mathematically speaking) like proficiency with all saves. A character's good saves aren't going to get any better (most classes are proficient in saves that are attached to ability scores they need to raise), but the low end would be in the 20-30% range instead of 10%.

A 25% chance to save vs a 10% chance is a HUGE difference when it comes to multiple rolls. It is still quite likely that the barb is going to fail their save against the dragon's fear, the mind flayer's mind blast, and the archmage's banish. But the chance they get stuck for 5 rounds is *drastically* less.

If I were to implement this change, I'd probably increase monster damage to compensate for the fact that characters will spend less time in hitstun (but that kinda needs to happen anyway).

So this is exactly “just make encounters easier”. Literally all this is, is having enemies use actions to less effect.

I can’t see this differently than “I want to have encounters be easier.”


I think the sweet spot for me would be keep monsters as is, but add a feature to classes that let them boost a save in some way x number of times per day.

Same as above: “let’s make it so monsters that do something other than attack HPs, are less effective and easier to beat.”

[Skrum]

I can’t see this differently than “I want to have encounters be easier.”


Despite the 7 pages of multiple people giving various accounts and reasons for exactly what our complaints with saving throws are and what we'd like to see (not to mention the hundreds/thousands of pages on martial class shortcomings that any regular of this forum would be familiar with), you simply can't see it as anything but "we want encounters to be easier." That's a choice you're making, my friend.

[RSP]

Hi RSP, I just want to remind you that this is a discussion forum, where people talk about stuff. And someone mentioned that saving throws need retooling, and I agreed with them.


Indeed it is! And I disagree this is a system problem: it’s a table or maybe just a player preference issue.

Let’s go back to that Warlock example. I didn’t conclude that since my Warlock wasn’t able to frontline as well as the Barb that Warlocks now need Rage.

Characters don’t need to be great at everything. There’s supposed to be weaknesses. That’s okay.

Did you ask your table how they felt about the MF encounter; if they wanted to have effects go away? If so, did you ask the DM?

I don’t think the system works fine for saving throws: some characters are strong in certain areas, others stronger in others. That’s okay. Characters don’t need to be great at everything.


Despite the 7 pages of multiple people giving various accounts and reasons for exactly what our complaints with saving throws are and what we'd like to see (not to mention the hundreds/thousands of pages on martial class shortcomings that any regular of this forum would be familiar with), you simply can't see it as anything but "we want encounters to be easier." That's a choice you're making, my friend.

Yes, because that’s exactly what you’re describing. You literally posted about making every character better at saving throws. The effect of that is “monster effects will be less effective.”

If Monster effects are less effective, but they still spend their actions on them, then that encounter is easier.

[Skrum]

Yes, because that’s exactly what you’re describing. You literally posted about making every character better at saving throws. The effect of that is “monster effects will be less effective.”

If Monster effects are less effective, but they still spend their actions on them, then that encounter is easier.

Actually, my specific concern is that I don't enjoy getting stuck in CC effects for round after round (often constituting many minutes or even hour+ of RL time where I'm entirely a spectator while the rest of the table plays the game). Moreover, myself and others gave many reasons why certain classes are far more likely/prone to getting hit by these effects. I proposed one potential solution, just as an example, of a very simply way to address this without complicating classes.

But you're on to me, my true motive is I want combats to be easier. /s

[sithlordnergal]

Are you requiring Resilient (Wisdom) or no? That was the original question, what do you think sufficient compensation is? Because I don't think the difference between -1 and +1 is that large to make a meaningful difference, and your Intelligence and Charisma saves are still 0, and your AC is 14 in medium armor.

So, first things first, I don't actually require Resilient. Take it if you want, I usually suggest just having a minimum of +1 in Wisdom saves due to how common and devastating they can be. Charisma and Intelligence saves are far less common, don't cover the multitude of Conditions that Wisdom Saves do, and usually aren't instant character killers. Like...Being hit by Feeblemind as a Paladin, Fighter, or Barbarian can be pretty bad, but its not "You no longer play" levels of bad. While a +1 can make a huge difference since the numbers are a lot smaller in 5e.



Honestly, I don't think it is plenty.

Respectfully, I think this doesn't address the complaint of "it is easy for martials to get locked out of combat for multiple turns with little chance to prevent or stop it". It does seem to address the vague general counter-argument of "some classes have weaknesses, and you can take measures to lessen those weaknesses in some small way".

The latter case can be true and still allow for the former case.

In addition, you've now reduced your AC to 13 (as a reminder, barbarians do not start out with any armor equipment). That increases to 14 when you get medium armor, 10% lower than the 16 you'd have with a 14 Dexterity. Is a 10% decreases in Armor worth a 10% increase in Wisdom saving throw bonuses? I don't think it is.


A +1 will not guarantee that you successfully make a Wisdom save, and while I do understand why it can be annoying if you keep on failing a save, the fact of the matter is those Conditions exist. But a +1 will help. You need to play around the Conditions, and if you're experienced enough to realize a majority of them are caused by a failed Wisdom save, you, the player, need to account for that. And a +1 Wisdom will usually go a long way into accounting for that

Now, if you have no support, then I do agree that a +1 isn't going to do much. But at that point, I'd talk to your party to see if someone can multiclass or take Fey Touched in order to snag Bless at the very least. Otherwise, you might want to look into getting Resilient since you can't rely on any of the other party members.

As for a lower AC, I'd compare the effects of having 10% higher AC to the effects of 10% higher Wisdom saves. With higher AC you protect your HP, which is important. With a higher Wisdom Save, you have a higher chance of either avoiding or ending effects that remove you from the game. Or just lead to you being flat out killed. I'd say having a 10% higher Wisdom save is going to do you more good then having higher AC since you already have a ton of HP

Case in point, I recently had an encounter where the Barbarian in my party with a -1 to Wisdom Saves tried to rush a Mind Flayer. He ended up being paralyzed by Hold Person, then I waited one round to let his Rage end, then I used Extract Brain to deal 20d10. I warned him that rushing in when no-one else could reach him was a bad idea, he did it anyway. The players tried to reach him, but were unable. The guy even rolled a 16, which was the DC he needed to beat...but his -1 knocked that down to a 15 and he remained Paralyzed. Now, I will say, the player did not blame me, he blamed his own poor decision at trying to fight a Mind Flayer on his own. But if he had a +1, that would have been a successful save.

[Dr.Samurai]

So this is exactly “just make encounters easier”. Literally all this is, is having enemies use actions to less effect.

I can’t see this differently than “I want to have encounters be easier.”
That's because granting proficiencies in all saves impacts every saving throw made, instead of just the hard condition ones we're discussing.

Same as above: “let’s make it so monsters that do something other than attack HPs, are less effective and easier to beat.”
When I really like I song I also jam it on repeat and sing it over and over and over and over again.

Indeed it is!
Oh good, I'm glad you agree. So hopefully no more distracting and dramatic posts about how we're trying to ruin everyone else's fun by simply discussing our opinion on the game and what we find problematic with it.

And I disagree this is a system problem: it’s a table or maybe just a player preference issue.
If enough players have a preference issue with it, it becomes a system problem.

Let’s go back to that Warlock example. I didn’t conclude that since my Warlock wasn’t able to frontline as well as the Barb that Warlocks now need Rage.
You concluded that not being able to do anything for several turns in each encounter was no fun, and something had to change for you to enjoy the game. It's a pity you can't extend that same understanding to other people.

And your problem was self-inflicted; you chose to play a class that's bad at being on the frontline as a frontliner. It was your fault. And that's EXACTLY the SAME attitude you and others have toward me and others commenting on hard conditions; we chose to play classes that are bad at mental saving throws, so it's our fault when we get locked out of the game with hard conditions.

We think that's a system problem, whereas you and others think it's just deserts.

Characters don’t need to be great at everything. There’s supposed to be weaknesses. That’s okay.
*yawn* Back to repeating the same old stuff that's already been addressed. Weaknesses and strengths have degrees. You're not interested in arguing about those degrees, instead speaking down to everyone like they don't understand game design. As I said... if the fighter was dealing 1 million damage with an attack and you complained about it as too powerful, a response of "There's supposed to be strengths and weaknesses, and that's okay" is not sufficient.

Did you ask your table how they felt about the MF encounter; if they wanted to have effects go away? If so, did you ask the DM?
*yawn* Still bringing up the MF encounter despite numerous explanations that it wasn't a problem.

I don’t think the system works fine for saving throws: some characters are strong in certain areas, others stronger in others. That’s okay. Characters don’t need to be great at everything.

Yes, because that’s exactly what you’re describing. You literally posted about making every character better at saving throws. The effect of that is “monster effects will be less effective.”

If Monster effects are less effective, but they still spend their actions on them, then that encounter is easier.
The problem with status quo arguments is that they have to argue everything is fine even when those arguments don't make sense. Case in point... RSP is worried that features that mitigate "weaknesses" will make the game easier.

This is bad, presumably.

But the problem is that things like Shield and Aid and Blur and Misty Step, etc exist. Casters have numerous options to mitigate their weaknesses. You can imagine a conversation between two developers as 5E is being designed:

Dev 1: Armor class and hit points are a wizard's weaknesses, and those are most strongly targeted in melee.
Dev 2: Yep. But, in case a wizard somehow finds themselves in melee range with a monster, should we add some sort of abilities to help mitigate their weaknesses in those critical moments?
Dev 1: What do you have in mind?
Dev 2: I'm thinking a Shield spell that will blow it's AC through the roof for the entire rest of the round. Then also we can do something like Misty Step, so they can easily bamf away as a bonus action, and then use their normal movement to move out of melee range of an enemy.
Dev 1: Hmm... do you think that will make "encounters easier" if we add stuff that lets you get around a "weakness"?
Dev 2: We don't care about that right now. But if we find ourselves arguing on a forum, we will definitely make this argument then...

The artificer literally has a feature like the one I'm suggesting, and the artificer also can get heavy armor proficiency, all martial weapon proficiencies, Extra Attack, temp HPs, Shield and all the other buff spells, etc etc etc etc. The artificer's "weakness" is "doesn't get 9th level spells" lol. This is a joke to pretend that giving this love to martials is going to somehow disrupt whatever "delicate balance" people think currently exists.

But sure, everything is fine, the game definitely has principles like "don't add features that buff a weakness" and should definitely make sure martials never get something like that...

So, first things first, I don't actually require Resilient. Take it if you want, I usually suggest just having a minimum of +1 in Wisdom saves due to how common and devastating they can be.
Okay. Earlier you seemed to suggest that players deserve being locked out of combat for not adequately addressing their "weakness". Having a +1 in wisdom saves means that player will still get paralyzed and stunned and incapacitated more often than not and for more than one round at a time. So the effect is the same; but you feel better about one because it appears at least the player tried to do something about it.

Charisma and Intelligence saves are far less common, don't cover the multitude of Conditions that Wisdom Saves do, and usually aren't instant character killers. Like...Being hit by Feeblemind as a Paladin, Fighter, or Barbarian can be pretty bad, but its not "You no longer play" levels of bad. While a +1 can make a huge difference since the numbers are a lot smaller in 5e.
Charisma saves can leave you stranded on another plane. Intelligence saves can certainly get you killed.

A +1 will not guarantee that you successfully make a Wisdom save, and while I do understand why it can be annoying if you keep on failing a save, the fact of the matter is those Conditions exist. But a +1 will help. You need to play around the Conditions, and if you're experienced enough to realize a majority of them are caused by a failed Wisdom save, you, the player, need to account for that. And a +1 Wisdom will usually go a long way into accounting for that

But you understand that a +1 is not actually solving the problem right?

Now, if you have no support, then I do agree that a +1 isn't going to do much. But at that point, I'd talk to your party to see if someone can multiclass or take Fey Touched in order to snag Bless at the very least. Otherwise, you might want to look into getting Resilient since you can't rely on any of the other party members.
Ah, everyone loves a feat tax lol.

As for a lower AC, I'd compare the effects of having 10% higher AC to the effects of 10% higher Wisdom saves. With higher AC you protect your HP, which is important. With a higher Wisdom Save, you have a higher chance of either avoiding or ending effects that remove you from the game. Or just lead to you being flat out killed. I'd say having a 10% higher Wisdom save is going to do you more good then having higher AC since you already have a ton of HP
I can't disagree more. An AC of 14 on the frontline is death. And you take FAR more attacks against your AC than you make Wisdom saves against hard conditions, so this is certainly not an apples to applies comparison. Setting your AC to 14 is just not a reasonable solution.

Case in point, I recently had an encounter where the Barbarian in my party with a -1 to Wisdom Saves tried to rush a Mind Flayer. He ended up being paralyzed by Hold Person, then I waited one round to let his Rage end, then I used Extract Brain to deal 20d10. I warned him that rushing in when no-one else could reach him was a bad idea, he did it anyway. The players tried to reach him, but were unable. The guy even rolled a 16, which was the DC he needed to beat...but his -1 knocked that down to a 15 and he remained Paralyzed. Now, I will say, the player did not blame me, he blamed his own poor decision at trying to fight a Mind Flayer on his own. But if he had a +1, that would have been a successful save.
A +1 is still a 70% chance of sitting out this fight. That's why we keep saying it's not really making a difference.

[Witty Username]

Also, since you're a Barbarian, you can get away with having a lower Dex since Dex saves are mostly used to avoid damage and you have a LOT of HP.


Do barbarian's actually have alot of HP though?
They have the most HP, but not alot more, d12 to everyone elses d10 for the durable classes.
There is rage but more often than not its resistance won't apply, as it only applies to physical damage and has a pretty short duration. And it isn't like other classes don't have defensive abilities. Fighters second wind is alot of raw health, especially at low levels. And that isn't getting into some of the weird stuff, like uncanny dodge or Fiendish Vigor.

I am not convinced that barbarian is much better defensively than other classes, definitely not by enough to take a hit to AC and saves over it.

[Nagog]

Honestly, I don't think it is plenty.

Respectfully, I think this doesn't address the complaint of "it is easy for martials to get locked out of combat for multiple turns with little chance to prevent or stop it". It does seem to address the vague general counter-argument of "some classes have weaknesses, and you can take measures to lessen those weaknesses in some small way".

The latter case can be true and still allow for the former case.

In addition, you've now reduced your AC to 13 (as a reminder, barbarians do not start out with any armor equipment). That increases to 14 when you get medium armor, 10% lower than the 16 you'd have with a 14 Dexterity. Is a 10% decreases in Armor worth a 10% increase in Wisdom saving throw bonuses? I don't think it is.

Also, I again ask what people consider to be sufficient support. In my current real time game, there is my Fighter, a monk, a ranger, and a druid. No one is supporting anyone's saving throws. In the pbp that just wrapped up, it is my aforementioned halfling barbarian, a warlock, a rogue, and a fighter. No one was supporting anyone's saving throws in that party.

Now, I am also in a PbP right now where I'm playing an artificer, and the party is larger and consists of a paladin, a wizard, a cleric, and a rogue. Between Flash of Genius, the paladin aura, and Bless (if the cleric casts it), saving throws are real strong. But that arrangement is not a guarantee.

Are you requiring Resilient (Wisdom) or no? That was the original question, what do you think sufficient compensation is? Because I don't think the difference between -1 and +1 is that large to make a meaningful difference, and your Intelligence and Charisma saves are still 0, and your AC is 14 in medium armor.

This thread has been updating regularly for nearly a month on this topic (which, may I remind you, is not the topic of this thread).

I played in a one-shot last night where I played a Bard. I had -1 Intelligence, and we ended up fighting a small group of Mind Flayers. I spent most of the combat stunned. In a combat that lasted ~5 rounds, I was able to use any of my action economy for 2 of them. Was this poor game design?

No. It was a combination of poor character building on my part and the factor of the DM choosing a monster that (unintentionally) targeted that weakness pretty heavily. In a different one-shot later in the night, I was playing a tanky Artificer that invested heavily in Con, and against the poison/undead enemies in that one-shot it was extremely effective. That wasn't poor game design either, it was just a favorable matchup on my part. So evidently this issue isn't specific to Barbarians or Martials or whatever other class or grouping you're advocating for, it's a facet of any team-based game to have characters have different strengths and weaknesses.

I've tried asking for clarification on what you feel the issue is, and the only answer seems to be "I don't like that these classes have these weaknesses", and blaming it on poor game design. you can reword it as many times as you'd like, but this all boils down to "I don't want to invest anything in making my character stronger in these areas, I just want this given to me naturally all the time". The fact of the matter is, min-maxing has min in it for a reason. If you want to maximize any class, you'll need to make sacrifices elsewhere to make it achievable.

If you want to pursue this further, you are welcome to create a new thread on this, but you've hijacked my thread and made it a discussion entirely tangent to what I came here looking for, so unless we can get back on topic, I'd prefer if this thread were locked so I can ask the question I actually need an answer to in a new thread.

[Amnestic]

I've tried asking for clarification on what you feel the issue is, and the only answer seems to be "I don't like that these classes have these weaknesses",

It has been stated a number of times that part of the problem is "I don't like sitting out of a combat for the better part of an hour" while also noting that most of the conditions that cause a loss of character are "mental" saves, while "physical" saves typically either deal additional damage or just move you around (knocked prone, pushed away). Did you enjoy not playing the game for over half the fight? If not, do you understand why someone would say "I'm not having fun playing a game, I would like to discuss how it could be changed so that I am then having fun"?

Were the poison saves you succeeded against something that would have taken you out of the combat entirely? Were they something your allies could have helped with if so? Are there any 50gp consumables you can purchase that give you advantage on saving throws against being stunned for an hour like there is for poison?

[TaiLiu]

Yo yo, we got Yikkol in the house!! :smallcool:
Yay! :smallbiggrin:


This thread has been updating regularly for nearly a month on this topic (which, may I remind you, is not the topic of this thread).

I played in a one-shot last night where I played a Bard. I had -1 Intelligence, and we ended up fighting a small group of Mind Flayers. I spent most of the combat stunned. In a combat that lasted ~5 rounds, I was able to use any of my action economy for 2 of them. Was this poor game design?

No. It was a combination of poor character building on my part and the factor of the DM choosing a monster that (unintentionally) targeted that weakness pretty heavily. In a different one-shot later in the night, I was playing a tanky Artificer that invested heavily in Con, and against the poison/undead enemies in that one-shot it was extremely effective. That wasn't poor game design either, it was just a favorable matchup on my part. So evidently this issue isn't specific to Barbarians or Martials or whatever other class or grouping you're advocating for, it's a facet of any team-based game to have characters have different strengths and weaknesses.

I've tried asking for clarification on what you feel the issue is, and the only answer seems to be "I don't like that these classes have these weaknesses", and blaming it on poor game design. you can reword it as many times as you'd like, but this all boils down to "I don't want to invest anything in making my character stronger in these areas, I just want this given to me naturally all the time". The fact of the matter is, min-maxing has min in it for a reason. If you want to maximize any class, you'll need to make sacrifices elsewhere to make it achievable.

If you want to pursue this further, you are welcome to create a new thread on this, but you've hijacked my thread and made it a discussion entirely tangent to what I came here looking for, so unless we can get back on topic, I'd prefer if this thread were locked so I can ask the question I actually need an answer to in a new thread.
As I’m sure you know, threads going off-topic is typical of this forum. If you want a straightforward answer, you might wanna try the RPG Stack Exchange website. :smallsmile:

I guess people have disagreements re: good game design. Given the nature of D&D 5e combat, being able to only spend two-fifths of combat doing anything other than roll a save kinda sucks.

Even if we ourselves don’t mind, we’re either unusual people or play unusual games. I’m in a game right now where I don’t mind skipping multiple turns. That’s cuz the party is small and the DM is a wonderful storyteller. I’ve been in games with large parties and boring descriptions where it takes a real long time to get back to my turn. I would hate to lose three-fifths of my action economy in such a game.

[Nagog]

It has been stated a number of times that part of the problem is "I don't like sitting out of a combat for the better part of an hour" while also noting that most of the conditions that cause a loss of character are "mental" saves, while "physical" saves typically either deal additional damage or just move you around (knocked prone, pushed away). Did you enjoy not playing the game for over half the fight? If not, do you understand why someone would say "I'm not having fun playing a game, I would like to discuss how it could be changed so that I am then having fun"?

Were the poison saves you succeeded against something that would have taken you out of the combat entirely? Were they something your allies could have helped with if so? Are there any 50gp consumables you can purchase that give you advantage on saving throws against being stunned for an hour like there is for poison?

Failing a save that targets your weakness and being locked out for a while is a weakness. Getting trapped by rubble due to an Earthquake spell and needing to make a DC 20 Athletics check as a -1 Str Wizard is the same basic principle. A Bard failing the Dex save of an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere also removes them from play for long periods of time. Hitting a Wizard or Sorcerer with the Dex save Disintegrate is likely to remove them from the campaign permanently. Any caster having their entire kit shut down by Blindness on a Con save or Silence (without a save in the latter even) will tell you the same.

Yeah it sucks when an encounter hits your weaknesses. Every class has them. If you want to discuss that, make a thread about it. This thread is supposed to be about the relative strength of various conditions across the board and how changing the typical saving throw attached to them may effect the balancing or power of that condition. If you have nothing to say on that, please post your own thread to discuss the things you do have stuff to say on.

[Amnestic]

Failing a save that targets your weakness and being locked out for a while is a weakness. Getting trapped by rubble due to an Earthquake spell and needing to make a DC 20 Athletics check as a -1 Str Wizard is the same basic principle.

Spellcasters have multiple teleport effects to simply exit the rubble without making the check at all. Also that the only thing out there that hinders them is an 8th level spell. There's also the implication that, again, your party can help free you, allowing you to rejoin the battle through teamwork.


A Bard failing the Dex save of an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere also removes them from play for long periods of time

Actually, no, it doesn't. While it hinders their actions, they're not removed at all. They can explicitly use their action to move the invulnerable object around, allowing it to serve as cover or a blockage. Even when they're trapped, there is still a way for them to contribute to the fight. They still get to play the game.

Also, as noted, your allies can assist with it (by ending Concentration).


Hitting a Wizard or Sorcerer with the Dex save Disintegrate is likely to remove them from the campaign permanently.

What's the earliest spellcaster that drops Disintegrate? The CR21 lich? It sounds like the counterplay is to be a high enough HP total to not get disintegrated permanently on a failed save - something even a wizard can manage since the spell does an average of 75 damage and a 13th level wizard with 14 Con exceeds that (though not by much, but then how often are you facing a Lich at level 13?). Though I guess they'd just drop PW:K on you instead.

But yeah, you're right, Disintegrate - a very specific 6th level spell - that can instant kill you does kinda suck and probably isn't very fun to get hit with. Save or Die spells generally are. That's why 5e moved away from most of them.



Any caster having their entire kit shut down by Blindness on a Con save or Silence (without a save in the latter even) will tell you the same.

There are multiple spells that can be cast while blinded. The only caster whose spell list entirely involves V components is Cleric. Even in the event that they are hit by these they still get to play. They can attack. Dodge. Move out of the immobile Silence effect. Cast a spell that lets them target stuff while blinded (of which there are many) or that doesn't have a V component.

It's telling to me that I asked about having fun not playing the game for long periods of time, half the responses were about things where you still absolutely get to play, you just couldn't do it 'optimally'.

[Nagog]

Spellcasters have multiple teleport effects to simply exit the rubble without making the check at all. Also that the only thing out there that hinders them is an 8th level spell. There's also the implication that, again, your party can help free you, allowing you to rejoin the battle through teamwork.



Actually, no, it doesn't. While it hinders their actions, they're not removed at all. They can explicitly use their action to move the invulnerable object around, allowing it to serve as cover or a blockage. Even when they're trapped, there is still a way for them to contribute to the fight. They still get to play the game.

Also, as noted, your allies can assist with it (by ending Concentration).



What's the earliest spellcaster that drops Disintegrate? The CR21 lich? It sounds like the counterplay is to be a high enough HP total to not get disintegrated permanently on a failed save - something even a wizard can manage since the spell does an average of 75 damage and a 13th level wizard with 14 Con exceeds that (though not by much, but then how often are you facing a Lich at level 13?). Though I guess they'd just drop PW:K on you instead.

But yeah, you're right, Disintegrate - a very specific 6th level spell - that can instant kill you does kinda suck and probably isn't very fun to get hit with. Save or Die spells generally are. That's why 5e moved away from most of them.



There are multiple spells that can be cast while blinded. The only caster whose spell list entirely involves V components is Cleric. Even in the event that they are hit by these they still get to play. They can attack. Dodge. Move out of the immobile Silence effect. Cast a spell that lets them target stuff while blinded (of which there are many) or that doesn't have a V component.

It's telling to me that I asked about having fun not playing the game for long periods of time, half the responses were about things where you still absolutely get to play, you just couldn't do it 'optimally'.

Sure, whatever, I don't particularly care. But could you please stop hijacking my thread where I asked for smoothing entirely different and discuss this in it's own thread where people who want to discuss this can find it?

[Dr.Samurai]

Do barbarian's actually have alot of HP though?
They have the most HP, but not alot more, d12 to everyone elses d10 for the durable classes.
There is rage but more often than not its resistance won't apply, as it only applies to physical damage and has a pretty short duration. And it isn't like other classes don't have defensive abilities. Fighters second wind is alot of raw health, especially at low levels. And that isn't getting into some of the weird stuff, like uncanny dodge or Fiendish Vigor.

I am not convinced that barbarian is much better defensively than other classes, definitely not by enough to take a hit to AC and saves over it.
As someone that plays them often, I do feel tougher than other characters, but not enough to completely tank my AC. I'm also not on board with the "general" advice to ignore AC because you'll be using Reckless Attack, since sometimes you'll have Advantage and won't have to use Reckless Attack, in which case you'll want to take advantage of a good AC. Also, not all enemies will have amazing to-hit modifiers and will miss even with Disadvantage, assuming you're not neglecting your AC otherwise. So yeah, I don't agree that barbarians can dump their AC.

Similarly, a 14 in your attack stat and no magical modifiers is all nice on paper, but the second you start getting debuffed, you'll start to wish you leaned into your strengths and didn't set out to make yourself mediocre just to increase your mental save by +5%.

I played in a one-shot last night where I played a Bard. I had -1 Intelligence, and we ended up fighting a small group of Mind Flayers. I spent most of the combat stunned. In a combat that lasted ~5 rounds, I was able to use any of my action economy for 2 of them. Was this poor game design?

No. It was a combination of poor character building on my part and the factor of the DM choosing a monster that (unintentionally) targeted that weakness pretty heavily.
How is it poor character building on your part though?

In a different one-shot later in the night, I was playing a tanky Artificer that invested heavily in Con, and against the poison/undead enemies in that one-shot it was extremely effective. That wasn't poor game design either, it was just a favorable matchup on my part.
Artificers have proficiency in constitution saves natively, and everyone in D&D 5e has a decent con score. And being poisoned doesn't remove your agency (most of the time), it's a debuff, not the "strong condition" referenced in the OP.

So evidently this issue isn't specific to Barbarians or Martials or whatever other class or grouping you're advocating for, it's a facet of any team-based game to have characters have different strengths and weaknesses.
Some weaknesses hurt more than others. I mean... this is the premise in the OP, that some conditions are worse than others. I'm not sure why it's difficult to understand now.

I've tried asking for clarification on what you feel the issue is, and the only answer seems to be "I don't like that these classes have these weaknesses", and blaming it on poor game design. you can reword it as many times as you'd like, but this all boils down to "I don't want to invest anything in making my character stronger in these areas, I just want this given to me naturally all the time". The fact of the matter is, min-maxing has min in it for a reason. If you want to maximize any class, you'll need to make sacrifices elsewhere to make it achievable.
I've stated it many times, and you and others have continued to argue against strawmen. Nothing I can do about that; I can't force you to contend with what is actually said in our posts.

If you want to pursue this further, you are welcome to create a new thread on this, but you've hijacked my thread and made it a discussion entirely tangent to what I came here looking for, so unless we can get back on topic, I'd prefer if this thread were locked so I can ask the question I actually need an answer to in a new thread.
I didn't realize you were the OP. I'm happy to let the thread get back on track. I'm curious though what you think a strong condition is vs a weak condition if you're comparing getting Poisoned to Stunned. It seems to me that you understand well enough to ask your question in the OP, but don't understand it when people are commenting on getting stun-locked out of a combat. Comparing this to getting poisoned, or restrained, or blinded is simply missing the point. Would you agree?

[Skrum]

Sure, whatever, I don't particularly care. But could you please stop hijacking my thread where I asked for smoothing entirely different and discuss this in it's own thread where people who want to discuss this can find it?


Wasn't it kinda answered though? And then it went off on a (related) tangent?


I've been doing some reading into the intricacies of 5e's game design in light of some potentially published homebrews in the future, and while Strong and Weak saves are a readily known concept, do you think the same kind of thing applies to the various conditions those saves (typically) apply?

For example, Strong saves typically inflict the following conditions upon a failure:

Wisdom: Charmed or Frightened
Constitution: Stunned, Poisoned, HP Drain
Dexterity: Big Damage or AoE

Whereas Weak saves typically inflict these effects:

Str: Forced Movement or Prone
Int: Denial of Action Economy or Stats
Charisma: Altering of the Sense of Self (Banishment, The ability to Lie, etc.)

Obviously some things don't line up: Failing a Str save (a "Weak" save) is often a far less punishing that failing a Wis save (a Strong save), but failing an Int save (weak) can be far more detrimental than failing a Dex save (strong).

Does this mean that some conditions/effects are considered "strong" or "weak" in the same manner that their saves are? For example, if there was an effect that Charmed a target on a Str save, would that be considered too powerful, or would a Con save against being knocked Prone be considered too weak?

TL,DR: Is the various saving throws being typically connected to various conditions integral to the balancing of those conditions, or can they be swapped around with negligible impact?

Granted, I didn't read what you're reading, but no, I don't think it applies. As you note, Int and Cha saves tend to be just as detrimental as Wis saves (losing actions, losing turns).

I think it would look more like:

Saves that it sucks to fail the vast majority of the time -
Wis
Cha
Int

Saves that are mixed, but are still often dangerous -
Con

Saves that generally just save you some damage -
Dex
Str

======

I see no balance here at all. Thematic associations, yes, but no mechanical balance. Str and Dex are by far the least important saves, as they usually just mean damage (either directing via an AoE, or indirectly by getting tripped or similar, increasing the likelihood of getting hit). This means poor Str and Dex saves can often be mitigated in other ways.

Personally, I would like to see conditions get spread around more, thus making each of the saves more even relative to the others. This would be bringing the game into a more balanced state, as opposed to now where it's quite imbalanced.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ah, given the conversation that rose up, I thought the OP did not count Poisoned, Charmed, and Frightened, etc. as "hard conditions", so my reply to Nagog is not correct. I disagree that those are "hard conditions". They're certainly troublesome, and perhaps not in the same boat as Prone or Deafened. But still, they're definitely not in the same boat as Stunned, Paralyzed, Incapacitated, etc.

[tKUUNK]

Some thoughts I had about "chained" conditions and what save prompts what condition: I could see something like the following


None of these are set in stone, just brainstorming ideas

STR: Immobilized (speed = 0) -> restrained -> petrified.
DEX: Mostly damage, occasionally low-rank conditions from STR or CON. Save for half vs save negates.
CON: Two sets:
* staggered[1] -> stunned -> paralyzed
* nauseated[2] -> poisoned
INT: Mostly damage, occasionally low-rank conditions from WIS or CHA. Save for half vs save negates.
WIS: Shaken[3] -> frightened -> broken[4]
CHA: charmed -> dominated

CON gets two because it doesn't have any skills. And yes, this means that hold person (et al) is now a CON save, not a WIS save. And charm effects are CHA, not WIS. There are other "one-off" conditions like blinded that wouldn't change from what they are now.

[1] move or action, 1 attack max, 50% chance spell fails (does not consume slot, just action), basically half of slow
[2] disadvantage on ability checks?
[3] disadvantage on attacks?


The idea is that

1. low-CR monsters should only impose low-rank conditions or require multiple failures to reach higher ranks (fail 1 save -> immobilized, fail 2nd save -> restrained)
2. Medium-CR monsters should have one of (per ability) low DCs to impose mid-rank conditions directly, higher DCs + multiple failures to impose mid and high rank conditions indirectly (high DC or staggered, second fail stunned, third paralyzed).
3. High-CR monsters can have one of (per ability) low DC to impose high-rank conditions directly or higher DCs + multiple failures to impose them indirectly via mid-rank conditions (high DC or stunned, second fail paralyzed).

That, or a different model where you have effectively 2 DCs per ability--a lower one to impose a heftier condition and a higher one to impose a lesser condition. This is basically the same as having one DC for the lesser condition but with a "fail by X or more and you're <worse condition> instead"--either way works depending on how you look at it.

I like the way you chose to tie abilities with conditions here.

Also, I misinterpreted (at first) the part about "2 DCs per ability--a lower one...". I agree on that point too.

And it gave me this idea to give players meaningful tactical choices around their weak saving throws:

Let's use mind flayers as an example: DC 15 or you're stunned. Not bad. If you have a -1 to INT saves, like our entire party right now who 3 out of 4 dumped INT (lol)...you've got about a 20% chance to succeed there. NOW it's bad lol. I've seen extreme cases where you literally can't pass a saving throw because the DC is higher than you can roll with modifiers (unless you toss a nat 20 for auto-success). This tends to take some joy & fairness out of the game, because Why Bother Rolling Dice if it's an auto-fail. So I'd be willing to allow players the choice to automatically accept a lesser condition than Stunned....say something like Poisoned or Dazed- and in exchange, have the DC for the Stunned condition (or whatever other nasty effect) lowered appreciably. The tradeoff here is, no matter how HIGH you roll, you're stuck with that lesser condition until the worse one would have ended. It's a little messy but with the right group of (friendly) players it would be easy to manage with ad hoc rulings.

[RSP]

My personal stance is that I wouldn't mind for the classes that represent tough bastard archetypes to be mechanically tough bastards.

Been meaning to circle back on this.

Barbs are already “tough bastards”. They have more HPs than anyone, while also having Rage, Str saves, Con saves and advantage on Dex saves. They can wear med armor and shields, or be naked and still have decent-to-good AC, if built that way (can still add a shield too).

Tough is covered I’d say.



We have already accepted monk and paladin can just have better saving throws than everyone else, and fighter and barbarian tend to be lacking in high level abilities. What would be wrong with them getting something in that direction?

Casters on the other hand, have all sorts of stuff at high level, and don't have a strong theme of sitting at the tough customer table. This is a team game after all, needing to hide behind the tank is part of being a support.

I don’t mind Barb in particular having high level abilities re-examined, but that’s a completely different discussion than “5e saving throws are broken” or “fighters and barbs need proficiency in all saves”. Even the Monk’s big defensive boost only come in at level 14, when most campaigns are either wrapping up, or over.

Plus, I think if going with archetypal “feel”, the big strong powerhouse is archetypically susceptible to the effects of Int/Wis saves: like Superman being particularly susceptible to magic and compulsion.

I don’t know that “not tough” is something casters need to abide by though. I mean, we are all playing characters that are willing to regularly risk their life to adventure. None of these characters are particularly susceptible to cowardice, in that sense.

And build matters. My Sorc is built to frontline, not to control. Their spells are in line with that. I love playing casters on the frontline. I’ve shared my Bladelock experience (they’re fine until the end of T2/start of T3 for frontlining, but drop quickly once at that point due to d8 HPs plus no way to mitigate attacks or damage). I currently play a Sorc that frontlines. At 9, he’s doing okay so far (though the first iteration of the build did perm die to Intellect Devourers around level 5).

A Sorc built to blast, won’t last long on the frontlines, I’d imagine.

But that’s true to about the Barb, too. You can build a very defensive Barb, with good saves. It will sacrifice some offensive capabilities, but that’s okay, that’s how the system is designed. I see it the same as my current Sorc: if I built him as a blaster, he’d never last on the frontlines.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Spellcasters have multiple teleport effects to simply exit the rubble without making the check at all.

I will note that's not true by default for all spell-casters--the only short-range teleport that works when your line of sight is cut off is dimension door, which is bard/sorcerer/warlock/wizard (plus off-school access for EK/AT). And as a 4th level spell, that's level 9 (and then it's burning your highest slot). For warlocks, that's one of 2-3 spells total per short rest.

If you're not entirely covered in rubble (ie your head is free so you can see), misty step works, but that's native access for sorcerer/warlock/wizard, plus 1 (suboptimal) druid circle (land -> coast) and two paladin oaths (plus off-school access for EK/AT). A second level spell slot, sure, and a useful one.

So you're a cleric? Yup, you're screwed. Clerics get no short-range teleportation, and their only long range teleportation is plane shift. Are you a druid? Well, you're mostly screwed (unless you're a coast druid). Bard? Better like spending a 4th level slot and a precious spell known. Paladin? Vengeance or Open Sea can misty step, but a 2nd level slot is a much steeper penalty.

Warlocks have tight resource constraints that mean those spell slots are painful. Sorcerers have tight spells-known constraints that make picking those spells painful.

People talk about "spellcasters" this, spellcasters that...but what they mean is wizards. Wizards are the only ones who get native access to all the good spells and have enough slots and prep slots to actually utilize them. In fact, I'd say that if the wizard class simply did not exist, the martial/caster disparity would seem much less salient. That would have other consequences, so I'm not suggesting it. Not outright, anyway.

[Amnestic]

If you're not entirely covered in rubble (ie your head is free so you can see),

If the spell wanted to impose the Blinded condition when buried, it would say it would. If we adhere to the idea of "spells only do what they say", then they should be able to see just fine. DMs may rule otherwise but if DMs are going to buff spells to inconvenience spellcasters more than there's probably better targets than the outlier that is Earthquake (8th level).


That would have other consequences, so I'm not suggesting it. Not outright, anyway.

I will! Deleting wizards would be very cool actually. Swap warlock and/oror bard onto Int-casting to help balance the stats (it's not without precedent - bards were int-casters in 2e iirc?), make sure you've got Artificer for the half-caster representation for Int and everything's hunky-dorey.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If the spell wanted to impose the Blinded condition when buried, it would say it would. If we adhere to the idea of "spells only do what they say", then they should be able to see just fine. DMs may rule otherwise but if DMs are going to buff spells to inconvenience spellcasters more than there's probably better targets than the outlier that is Earthquake (8th level).


Being buried in rubble actually does block line of sight. That's rather inherent in the nature of being buried in rubble!. You don't have the blinded condition, your line of sight is just constrained to yourself and the rubble immediately around you. Same as if you're in a very small room. And you can be buried in rubble (or otherwise have your line of sight cut off) for lots more reasons than just the spell earthquake.

This is just more of the motivated reasoning used to make spell-casters look omnipotent by handwaving away any objection. Sorry, it doesn't fly with me any more.

[Dr.Samurai]

But that’s true to about the Barb, too. You can build a very defensive Barb, with good saves. It will sacrifice some offensive capabilities, but that’s okay, that’s how the system is designed.
Can you please provide an example of what you mean?


With regards to saves and the need for difficult encounters... I'm in a game right now with a paladin and a cleric. We are fighting the BBEG and my artificer is currently under the effects of Aura of Protection and Bless. So my saves are as follows:

Str: 5+1d4
Dex: 6+1d4
Con: 11+1d4
Int: 13+1d4
Wis: 6+1d4
Cha: 3+1d4

And I can use a reaction 4 times right now to boost any of those by an additional +5 if needed. So... is it still a "hard" encounter? Or do all of these saving throw buffs make it a slam dunk for me and the party?

This costs a resource (Bless) but is also affecting everyone, which is 5 times more effective than Skrum's suggestion of giving a fighter proficiency in all saves (which would be a +4 at this level, like the Paladin aura) which only affects the fighter and does not stack with proficiency. But that would make things "easier".

But not sure how the paladin aura+bless+flash of genius is not doing that already. I'm squinting super hard at our current encounter and I can't find all the weaknesses people keep mentioning in this thread, because our saves are stacked to the heavens...

[Amnestic]

Being buried in rubble actually does block line of sight. That's rather inherent in the nature of being buried in rubble!.

Not at all. There's plenty of cases where people are buried under rubble, able to see a path to safety just fine, but be unable to reach it.

Though I'd note that the spell also only specifies you're knocked prone but not Restrained or otherwise have your speeds set to 0. That's an inference you could make, but it's not what the spell says, and it's not like "guy crawling around while buried under rubble" is unheard of either.



This is just more of the motivated reasoning used to make spell-casters look omnipotent by handwaving away any objection. Sorry, it doesn't fly with me any more.

I don't really care what "flies with you". It doesn't change how the spell is written. If you want to rule that anyone buried in rubble is 100% covered, locked in place, restrained, and suffocating (because oxygen is presumably also cut off?) then man, you do you, but that's not what the spell says it does.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not at all. There's plenty of cases where people are buried under rubble, able to see a path to safety just fine, but be unable to reach it.

Though I'd note that the spell also only specifies you're knocked prone but not Restrained or otherwise have your speeds set to 0. That's an inference you could make, but it's not what the spell says, and it's not like "guy crawling around while buried under rubble" is unheard of either.



I don't really care what "flies with you". It doesn't change how the spell is written. If you want to rule that anyone buried in rubble is 100% covered, locked in place, restrained, and suffocating (because oxygen is presumably also cut off?) then man, you do you, but that's not what the spell says it does.

Note that I put two different paths. There's "you can see" in which case you have misty step and dimension door (for PHB spells), and there's "you can't see" (both options depending on the fiction of the circumstance causing it), in which case only dimension door works.

But the salient point was that most spell casters do not have native access to both of those spells! And both of those take fairly expensive resources. Clerics are just boned. So saying "spellcasters" have free options is just flat wrong--some spellcasters may have access to one option for this. Not "all spellcasters have multiple options." The point is to be more precise and say what we mean--that wizards have too many spells that trivialize things that affect others. Because that's the real point here.

[Skrum]

This costs a resource (Bless) but is also affecting everyone, which is 5 times more effective than Skrum's suggestion of giving a fighter proficiency in all saves (which would be a +4 at this level, like the Paladin aura) which only affects the fighter and does not stack with proficiency. But that would make things "easier".


I know we're arguing for the same thing, but I just want to point out that getting all saves would only boost low saves. Top end would stay the same. This is honestly why I think it's a great idea (don't mind me patting myself on the back a bit :smallbiggrin:); there's no need to mess with/raise the DC of anything. Statistically, the main thing it changes is the likelihood of getting multi-round-locked.

It would still be incredibly worth it to stack save defenses, like your party has done.

[RSP]

Can you please provide an example of what you mean?

Barbs can be build without sacrificing Wis/Int/Cha, depending on how they generate stats, and how the allocate ASIs/race choices.

Not dumping those stats, or getting Resilient to shore up a weak save, could definitely help. Taking the Berserker subclass can help against Fear and Charm-based effects.



With regards to saves and the need for difficult encounters... I'm in a game right now with a paladin and a cleric. We are fighting the BBEG and my artificer is currently under the effects of Aura of Protection and Bless.

Do you know the BBEG has a debilitating effect? Or is Bless always up, costing spell slots and the Cleric (I’m assuming’s) Concentration?

That’s a decent cost for ~+2.5 to saves, particularly if fighting a creature that doesn’t force saves. Obviously the boost to attacks still helps.



And I can use a reaction 4 times right now to boost any of those by an additional +5 if needed. So... is it still a "hard" encounter? Or do all of these saving throw buffs make it a slam dunk for me and the party?

Is it a slam dunk? Do all those save boosts help if there isn’t something to save against?

Is the Artificer going to be as good as a Barb in terms of survivability against HP attacks?

If the BBEG is set up to threaten PCs via saves, and the PCs are able to successfully counter that threat, then I imagine it’ll be an easier fight by comparison.

But if the party puts their resources and planning into boosting saves, and they face conventional HP attacks, I’d imagine the defenses of a Barb might come in handy.

So yes, if a situation is specifically set up for success against a threat, they’ll probably do well. But that’s not unique to the situation you describe: the Barb will make plenty of encounters easier as well, due to their abilities, particularly if they have other PCs boosting them.

For instance, which character is better in this situation: the Artificer or the Barb? If saves are already boosted, is the Artificer’s ability to boost them further redundant, particularly if saves aren’t being targeted? If tanking conventional attacks is needed, it’s the Barb. If doing damage is needed, it might be be the Barb as well, depending on build.

Would this party and situation not have benefited your Barb going against the MFs?



This costs a resource (Bless) but is also affecting everyone, which is 5 times more effective than Skrum's suggestion of giving a fighter proficiency in all saves (which would be a +4 at this level, like the Paladin aura) which only affects the fighter and does not stack with proficiency. But that would make things "easier".

It costs Concentration, a spell slot (I’m assuming upcasted if affecting 5 characters), and an Action. And it goes away if Conc is dropped. The Paly Aura goes away if outside of that.

It also cost build choices, including what classes were taken.

Giving characters better saves, does, indeed, just make save-based encounters easier. Just like giving everyone Resistance to damage makes HP damage encounters easier, regardless of the fact that the Barb already possess that trait.

Now if you play at a table, where the DM only throws certain encounters at the PCs, ones that are more difficult for the Barb by design, then that’s a table issue (not a system issue).



But not sure how the paladin aura+bless+flash of genius is not doing that already. I'm squinting super hard at our current encounter and I can't find all the weaknesses people keep mentioning in this thread, because our saves are stacked to the heavens...

We could come up with encounters in which the Barb is better prepared for as well, and then specifically ask if the encounters are easier because of the barb’s abilities. If your goal was to cherry pick encounters that show the Barb has weaknesses, you’ve done that. Congrats. The same can be done with any class.

Also of note: if you have a party working together to shore up the defenses of the party members, that’s the game working as intended.

[Dr.Samurai]

I know we're arguing for the same thing, but I just want to point out that getting all saves would only boost low saves. Top end would stay the same. This is honestly why I think it's a great idea (don't mind me patting myself on the back a bit :smallbiggrin:); there's no need to mess with/raise the DC of anything. Statistically, the main thing it changes is the likelihood of getting multi-round-locked.

It would still be incredibly worth it to stack save defenses, like your party has done.
I could have been clearer but that's what I meant by "doesn't stack with proficiency". For your suggestion, only 4 saves will be improved, and only on the one class, vs the paladin's aura that improves everyone within the aura and stacks with their proficient saves as well.

Barbs can be build without sacrificing Wis/Int/Cha, depending on how they generate stats, and how the allocate ASIs/race choices.

Not dumping those stats, or getting Resilient to shore up a weak save, could definitely help. Taking the Berserker subclass can help against Fear and Charm-based effects.
Ok, so the same stuff we've already gone over. Got it.

Do you know the BBEG has a debilitating effect? Or is Bless always up, costing spell slots and the Cleric (I’m assuming’s) Concentration?
I have no clue. Cleric thought it was a good spell to cast, and I'm glad he did. DM posted earlier today and my artificer would have failed a fireball saving throw, but thanks to both the paladin and Bless my artificer made it (paladin aura also cut the damage in half, so 21 fire damage turned to 5 when everything was said and done).

That’s a decent cost for ~+2.5 to saves, particularly if fighting a creature that doesn’t force saves.
A cost that seems worth it given that you and others have mentioned the Bless spell... *checks thread*... 5 billion times, so I wouldn't expect any pushback now.

Is it a slam dunk?
That is the question I am asking you, RSP.

Skrum suggested a fighter get proficiency in all saves. I suggested a feature similar to Flash of Genius, but with fewer uses, and only targeting the player.

In both cases you said this was a bad thing because it would make the game too easy.

I am now showing you that my entire party has, essentially, all good saves right now, just by virtue of the classes people are playing. And I am asking you if this is too easy now, as you said it was simply for one class to have it.

Do all those save boosts help if there isn’t something to save against?

Irrelevant.

Is the Artificer going to be as good as a Barb in terms of survivability against HP attacks?
My AC is 23. I can say that none of my barbarians have ever approached an AC of 23. Probably hard to take hit point damage from attacks if your enemies never hit you.


If the BBEG is set up to threaten PCs via saves, and the PCs are able to successfully counter that threat, then I imagine it’ll be an easier fight by comparison.

But if the party puts their resources and planning into boosting saves, and they face conventional HP attacks, I’d imagine the defenses of a Barb might come in handy.
And the paladin, with high AC, HP, AND great saves will be handy in both right? And the artificer, with sky-high AC and Flash of Genius will be handy either way as well right?

It also cost build choices, including what classes were taken.
Yes, we know. That's been the theme; if you pick a certain class, kick rocks.

[RSP]

I have no clue. Cleric thought it was a good spell to cast, and I'm glad he did. DM posted earlier today and my artificer would have failed a fireball saving throw, but thanks to both the paladin and Bless my artificer made it (paladin aura also cut the damage in half, so 21 fire damage turned to 5 when everything was said and done).

So the Barb would have passed it possibly without the Bless, given the Advantage.



A cost that seems worth it given that you and others have mentioned the Bless spell... *checks thread*... 5 billion times, so I wouldn't expect any pushback now.

I’m not sure what you think I’ve said about Bless, but whatever I did, it was in response to other posters. So I’m not sure what you think you’re getting out of posts such as these.



That is the question I am asking you, RSP.

Skrum suggested a fighter get proficiency in all saves. I suggested a feature similar to Flash of Genius, but with fewer uses, and only targeting the player.

In both cases you said this was a bad thing because it would make the game too easy.

You’re misquoting me. It makes the encounters easier. The suggested “fix” was giving everyone every proficiency, which is just making saves easier.



I am now showing you that my entire party has, essentially, all good saves right now, just by virtue of the classes people are playing. And I am asking you if this is too easy now, as you said it was simply for one class to have it.

Irrelevant.

And you still almost failed the fireball. If that failure had come against MF, and you were stunned instead, you’d want your saves even higher, because you’re still facing the same issue: you’re upset because your PC didn’t pass their saves.

And ignoring the fact that PC are not meant to be without weaknesses. And ignoring that your original complaint seems solved by having different different PCs around them, even without changing the game.



My AC is 23. I can say that none of my barbarians have ever approached an AC of 23. Probably hard to take hit point damage from attacks if your enemies never hit you.

AC 23 is not unhittable, which you seem to be suggesting. Why is it 23 now? Why have your barbs never “approached” that AC? Are these build choices you’ve made, or magic items assisting?

How come you aren’t getting hit? Do you get targeted an equal amount of times with each character? Is it simply the AC? How much damage is mitigated by Rage?



And the paladin, with high AC, HP, AND great saves will be handy in both right? And the artificer, with sky-high AC and Flash of Genius will be handy either way as well right?

Yes, we know. That's been the theme; if you pick a certain class, kick rocks.

23AC is not “sky high”. Artificer, and Paladins, have their pluses and minuses, depending on build. Paladins, particularly, are generally considered up there in terms of “power” with Wizards, so yeah, I’d imagine Paladins are a pretty good defensive class.

None of that equates to the 5e save system being broken, however. If you have PCs with abilities that boost saves, they’ll do better in situations when saves are called for.

Just giving everyone more saves, does indeed, impact the level of difficulty encounters based on saves will be.

Just like if you give every character Rage for free, it will impact how difficult HP attrition encounters will be.

On your last statement, in a HP attrition encounter, should the Sorc “kick rocks” because they choose the “wrong” class? No. Encounters should be varied. That’s good for the game. There should be challenges that present different dangers for the characters. Some will be better prepared for them than others. That okay, that’s by design.

[Dr.Samurai]

So the Barb would have passed it possibly without the Bless, given the Advantage.
I've never been concerned with Dexterity saving throws though, as I've mentioned in this thread. And barbarians don't have Advantage on Int/Wis/Cha saves.

I’m not sure what you think I’ve said about Bless, but whatever I did, it was in response to other posters. So I’m not sure what you think you’re getting out of posts such as these.
"Bless" has been virtually assumed all throughout these arguments about "weaknesses" and "teamwork". Now that I mention it, suddenly we have to consider the "costs" lol.

The point isn't the cost, it's how "easy" it makes encounters, which is your sticking point to the suggestion of *any* feature to assist with saves that we suggest. Despite the fact that these features already exist in the game. Hence the "status quo" argument. You're fine with features that get rid of weaknesses and make things easier, so long as they are already in the game.

You’re misquoting me. It makes the encounters easier. The suggested “fix” was giving everyone every proficiency, which is just making saves easier.
But the paladin does this already, and not just for himself but for everyone around him. So does the Bless spell. So can the artificer. So what is your bar? Who is allowed, according to you, to get rid of weaknesses and make things easier?


And you still almost failed the fireball. If that failure had come against MF, and you were stunned instead, you’d want your saves even higher, because you’re still facing the same issue: you’re upset because your PC didn’t pass their saves.
When no argument can be made, attack your enemy's motives lol.

I'm not upset kiddo. I've said I wouldn't want to get rid of hard conditions. I've said the mind flayer encounter was enjoyable, and making the save despite my poor bonus was part of that. Slide the strawmen you keep building off your computer desk and engage with what people are actually saying.

And ignoring the fact that PC are not meant to be without weaknesses. And ignoring that your original complaint seems solved by having different different PCs around them, even without changing the game.
1. Which PCs are not meant to be without weaknesses?
2. My complaint is solved by having different classes around? So are you suggesting that I mandate what classes my party plays? Because, as I've already mentioned in this thread (what a theme), my party with the mind flayer encounter did not have a paladin, bard, or artificer or cleric. My real time weekly game also does not have a paladin, bard, artificer, or cleric.

AC 23 is not unhittable, which you seem to be suggesting. Why is it 23 now? Why have your barbs never “approached” that AC? Are these build choices you’ve made, or magic items assisting?
It doesn't need to be "unhittable" to compete. It just needs to be "hard to hit". Fewer hits means a lot less damage received, as opposed to the barbarian with medium armor AC and Reckless Attack.

How come you aren’t getting hit?
Because my AC is very high, as I've said.

Do you get targeted an equal amount of times with each character?
Both are tanking, so I can only guess that yes, that is the case. I mean, I've been attacked in every encounter, swarmed even in one of them.

This is a larger party, and had a few frontliners, so that will have an impact. We are down to me and the paladin, but I'm being attacked, for sure.

How much damage is mitigated by Rage?
Half; resistance cuts the damage in half, rounded down. Assuming you're resistant to the damage of course. So far in this campaign we've faced regular B/P/S damage, and also psychic, necrotic, and fire. Rage only works on B/P/S.

Incidentally, Temporary Hit Points (like the kind my artificer has) work against all damage types. Funny how that works for those "weak vs HP damage" classes :smallamused:.

23AC is not “sky high”.
Sure it is. You can approach this with Defense fighting style, Plate, and Shield. That gets you to 21. That's really good. 23 is of course even better.

Artificer, and Paladins, have their pluses and minuses, depending on build.
So you say, but do you mind espousing on that?

Because the paladin has heavy armor, Lay on Hands, and a bonus to all saves, as well as Frightened Immunity. So that's high AC, good saves, native healing, and condition immunity. ALSO they have spells and can Smite for really good damage!

My artificer has 23 AC, Flash of Genius, an extra 40thp per day, and has spells as well to supplement that. So this idea that my artificer is weak vs damage attacks is simply not true, and they also have the saving throw boost.

So again, what is your metric for determining what strengths and weaknesses are appropriate? Other than "the current game is fine, no changes needed".

Paladins, particularly, are generally considered up there in terms of “power” with Wizards, so yeah, I’d imagine Paladins are a pretty good defensive class.
Defensive AND offensive. Best of both worlds.

None of that equates to the 5e save system being broken, however.
The argument is that stun-lock abilities and their ilk are no fun for characters that have little chance of resisting them. Your counter-argument is that changing this dynamic will result in a worse game.

I am not arguing that the save system is broken (whatever that means) and you have not been arguing that the save system is not broken. Just to be clear.

Just giving everyone more saves, does indeed, impact the level of difficulty encounters based on saves will be.
It seems in your estimation that the game can tolerate this to some degree, and barbarians and fighters just sort of got the short end of the stick.

Just like if you give every character Rage for free, it will impact how difficult HP attrition encounters will be.
How about THP? How about companions? Sure, not every class has Resistance like Rage, good point. But they sure do come with boatloads of extra HP. I wonder if that has any impact on HP attrition encounters...

On your last statement, in a HP attrition encounter, should the Sorc “kick rocks” because they choose the “wrong” class?
You are conflating things again.

A fighter or barbarian that gets Stunned is not doing anything wrong. If they move up and engage with minions or try to blitz the ulitharid or whatever, they are playing as they class is meant to be played. A mind blast, as an example, is a 60ft cone. It is hard to avoid that unless you're attacking from a great distance. There is very little a fighter or barbarian can do to prevent a monster from targeting them with a Mind Blast or Hold Person or Eyebite or Suggestion or Fear or etc etc etc etc etc for the umpteenth time.

Your sorcerer, on the other hand, with their lack of armor proficiencies and their small HD, should try to avoid melee combat. They should rely on frontliners to keep enemies away, instead of laughing at them vindictively when they get paralyzed and wagging their finger at them that they should have played a different class or walk around with a 14 AC. If you play a sorcerer and insist on being in melee and getting targeted by melee attacks, then expect to get knocked out.

If you play a frontliner and insist on... existing in the game, then expect to get stun-locked out of encounters. There's not much to do with your behavior to avoid this from happening. I don't know how else to explain this to you to avoid this merry-go-round.

No. Encounters should be varied. That’s good for the game. There should be challenges that present different dangers for the characters. Some will be better prepared for them than others. That okay, that’s by design.
So you keep saying, over and over and over again. But...

1. No one is saying encounters shouldn't be varied. That's you propping up a strawman.
2. No one is saying there shouldn't be different dangers for characters. That's you propping up a strawman.
3. People are commenting on the degree of those dangers and how they impact certain classes. You keep ignoring this to make these sweeping strawman comments.
4. Saying "that's by design" is not helpful or necessary, as we know the design. We are, in fact, commenting on the design.

[Skrum]

RSP I really feel like you're thinking sorcerers and wizards are just as weak to hp damage as barbs and fighters are to saves.

They obviously aren't. By any argument, stretch of the imagination, or convolution. And that's just their base PHB kits, nevermind what each of those classes can be optimized to.

This "the game contains multitudes" position just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[Zuras]

The degree to which the presence or absence of a Paladin in a Tier 3 party completely changes the challenge calculus of encounters seems like a clear indicator something is off with 5e’s design at those levels.

It would be far more obvious if D&D had mechanics for partial success/failure and effort accumulation for things beyond physical combat (mental HP, will scores, etc). By handling the entire category of fantasy mental/spiritual attacks with a binary save or suck mechanic, you deny a wide variety of mitigation strategies.

If every class had one hit point and AC was the only means of protection from physical attacks, easy access by wizards to heavy armor + the Shield spell would feel a lot more unfair.

[Skrum]

It would be far more obvious if D&D had mechanics for partial success/failure and effort accumulation for things beyond physical combat (mental HP, will scores, etc). By handling the entire category of fantasy mental/spiritual attacks with a binary save or suck mechanic, you deny a wide variety of mitigation strategies.


I've brainstormed before about having multiple hit point pools - probably two, physical and mental, but I could see breaking it up further into something like 1) health, 2) stamina, 3) moral, and 4) lucidity. All attacks, spells, and sources of damage would then attack one of those pools via "damage," and would have a rider effect that would only happen if the pool was depleted by that attack.

For example, hypnotic pattern might be "deal 4d6 lucidity damage to all within the area of effect. Reduce to zero: the target is caught in a dream-like state, unaware of their surroundings and unable to take actions. This persists until either the spell ends, the target takes any damage, or the target regains at least one point of lucidity. When this effect ends, the target regains 1 point of lucidity."

Not all effects would be inaction either; having your stamina depleted via poison for instance would have different effects based on the poison. It might knock you out (unconscious), inflict penalties like disadvantage on d20 rolls, or even cause death.

Not quite sure what it would all look like, but this would open the door to class or weapon-specific rider effects. I.e., a rogue reducing your health to zero with a dagger is not the same as the barbarian doing it with a greatsword.

Obviously this would be a huge shift in the game to the point where it wouldn't really resemble DnD any more, but I like the concept of truly varied attacks and defenses. I feel like that would actually capture the idea of class A is good at X but bad at Y, while class B is good at Y but bad at X.

[Witty Username]

Been meaning to circle back on this.

Barbs are already “tough bastards”. They have more HPs than anyone, while also having Rage, Str saves, Con saves and advantage on Dex saves. They can wear med armor and shields, or be naked and still have decent-to-good AC, if built that way (can still add a shield too).

Tough is covered I’d say.
--

I don’t know that “not tough” is something casters need to abide by though. I mean, we are all playing characters that are willing to regularly risk their life to adventure. None of these characters are particularly susceptible to cowardice, in that sense.


Barbarians are, literally, the frightened condition generally has the strongest impact on a barbarian as it will likely lose them rage and keep them from closing distance. And they have the weakest wisdom defenses of any class, which is what tends to resist frightened.

Cowardice is built into the barbarian.

But this is more about trend line, tough caster is a subset that can and probably should be viable. Meanwhile martial archetypes tend towards needing more, as a means of affecting the viability of the playstyle, and getting the hero archetypes in fiction. Batman for example has exceptional strength, significant skill, and great force of will. As well as Conan the barbarian as I understand, although I am less familiar with the source material. Meanwhile, while it is a thing, casters tend to have a bunch more Raslins. Weak of body but strong of mind, or cunning and calcuating.

I think we can do better for barbarian than, has the AC of a cleric.

[Dr.Samurai]

Cowardice is built into the barbarian.
Yep, same for the fighter.

This irks me quite a bit because it doesn't make a lot of sense. As these are the characters most likely to be running forward to fight the monsters face to face, in reach of their maws and tentacles and horns and poison and all the other horrific things monsters bring to bear.

Despite this bravery that is baked into the IDEA of these two classes, they are the most susceptible to being Frightened by these monsters and failing to move closer, or worse, they are forced to actively run away.

It's a testament to the power of D&D's brand recognition that it can make such a giant misstep with arguably the most popular fantasy trope, and still be as successful as it is. So instead of the non-warrior keeping their distance but still contributing, in D&D the warrior gets scared and stops in their tracks, and the caster is actually a switch-hitter that is tougher than the warrior and hits just as hard, but can also make their saving throws. So they just move in and attack the monster instead.

(In fairness to D&D though, barbarians used to get a morale bonus to Will saves while they were raging in 3.5. Thank god we moved away from that awful awful awful edition with all of its... rules and words, and moved to the far superior 5th edition. Where every barbarian and fighter we make is a cowardly lion in waiting.)

Meanwhile, while it is a thing, casters tend to have a bunch more Raslins. Weak of body but strong of mind, or cunning and calcuating.
D&D casters are more like Sword and Sorcery spellcasters; a physical and magical threat, and positively evil.

[Nagog]

I like the way you chose to tie abilities with conditions here.

Also, I misinterpreted (at first) the part about "2 DCs per ability--a lower one...". I agree on that point too.

And it gave me this idea to give players meaningful tactical choices around their weak saving throws:

Let's use mind flayers as an example: DC 15 or you're stunned. Not bad. If you have a -1 to INT saves, like our entire party right now who 3 out of 4 dumped INT (lol)...you've got about a 20% chance to succeed there. NOW it's bad lol. I've seen extreme cases where you literally can't pass a saving throw because the DC is higher than you can roll with modifiers (unless you toss a nat 20 for auto-success). This tends to take some joy & fairness out of the game, because Why Bother Rolling Dice if it's an auto-fail. So I'd be willing to allow players the choice to automatically accept a lesser condition than Stunned....say something like Poisoned or Dazed- and in exchange, have the DC for the Stunned condition (or whatever other nasty effect) lowered appreciably. The tradeoff here is, no matter how HIGH you roll, you're stuck with that lesser condition until the worse one would have ended. It's a little messy but with the right group of (friendly) players it would be easy to manage with ad hoc rulings.

I think you've hit on a good point here (if I'm understanding you correctly): staggered DCs for harder conditions would be a far better application than just a straight DC, and it's precedented in Drow Poison. Fail the DC by 5 or more and you gain the Unconscious/sleep effect on top of the regular poison.

To apply this to the Mind Flayer example: DC 15 Int Save against the Mind Blast. If you roll above 15, you're good! Half damage and no riding effect. If you fail because you rolled a 3, full damage and Stunned. Failed by rolling an 11? Full damage, but Slowed instead of Stunned. For something with multiple saves like the Mind Blast, say you failed with a 3 on the onset, so you're stunned. At the end of your next turn, you rolled a 13. Still not a success, but now you're no longer Stunned, just Slowed. On your next turn you roll again, and if you roll above a 15, you're freed completely. If you happen to roll under 5 again, the Stun doesn't return, you're just still stuck Slowed.

This could allow for something like a DC 20+ Saving Throw effect to not be a TPK formula for a non-optimized party, as even a lessened effect would still effect the encounter balance but not immediately decide the encounter one way or another on all targets fitting a specific category.



People talk about "spellcasters" this, spellcasters that...but what they mean is wizards. Wizards are the only ones who get native access to all the good spells and have enough slots and prep slots to actually utilize them. In fact, I'd say that if the wizard class simply did not exist, the martial/caster disparity would seem much less salient. That would have other consequences, so I'm not suggesting it. Not outright, anyway.


RSP I really feel like you're thinking sorcerers and wizards are just as weak to hp damage as barbs and fighters are to saves.

They obviously aren't. By any argument, stretch of the imagination, or convolution. And that's just their base PHB kits, nevermind what each of those classes can be optimized to.


I agree with this, but for my opinion it does need a bit of an asterisk. Wizards (and to a similar extent Sorcerers) are extremely powerful, but their power is multiplied many times over in White Space. Theoretically, a Wizard can have all of the perfect tools to resolve any situation with maximum efficiency at the cost of a few spell slots. Practically, however, most Wizards in-play won't have the spells in their spellbook to counter every possible situation at any given time, and if it's in their book but not prepared when the situation arrives, it may as well not be there.

TLDR: Wizards are powerful and in the top tier of classes, but they're also 5x more powerful in theory than they are in practice.


The degree to which the presence or absence of a Paladin in a Tier 3 party completely changes the challenge calculus of encounters seems like a clear indicator something is off with 5e’s design at those levels.

It would be far more obvious if D&D had mechanics for partial success/failure and effort accumulation for things beyond physical combat (mental HP, will scores, etc). By handling the entire category of fantasy mental/spiritual attacks with a binary save or suck mechanic, you deny a wide variety of mitigation strategies.

If every class had one hit point and AC was the only means of protection from physical attacks, easy access by wizards to heavy armor + the Shield spell would feel a lot more unfair.

IMO, Paladins are stronger than Wizards 9 times out of 10, and are either the only well designed martial class or they're massively overpowered. I think Baldur's Gate 3 has helped solidify that in my mind, as when millions of people play with the same impartial DM, Paladin is /the/ class to go for, even with how Wizards have been pretty thoroughly buffed with access to spell scrolls, alterations to spells, and the like that Wizards got. They just have so much to offer in any given situation, to the point that in late game many of the harder encounters are difficult because the enemies have specific defenses against Radiant damage.

[Amnestic]

Full damage, but Slowed instead of Stunned

Not really the point but it astounds me that Slowed as a 'condition' doesn't exist outside of the...well, Slow spell. Like it's the perfect thing to inflict on players and enemies alike as something which lets them keep playing but is also directly annoying to both martials (though rogues don't have as bad a time, I suppose) and spellcasters and...just reserved to a single spell? Okay then.

[Skrum]

Not really the point but it astounds me that Slowed as a 'condition' doesn't exist outside of the...well, Slow spell. Like it's the perfect thing to inflict on players and enemies alike as something which lets them keep playing but is also directly annoying to both martials (though rogues don't have as bad a time, I suppose) and spellcasters and...just reserved to a single spell? Okay then.

Agreed; I've used the slow effect for various homebrewed monster effects. I'm also a huge fan of the "mind whip," limiting a character to a single move, bonus action, or action. Both cases are the same idea; the character can still act, just not as efficiently as they'd like.

Even though I was complaining about getting feared, it is actually a pretty good condition from a design perspective. If a character has to pick out an alternate target because they suddenly can't approach a particular enemy, that's kinda cool - it just gets really crappy when there's only 1 enemy on the field, it's a giant dragon or similar, and the DC is crazy high. Now you're in effectively missing turns territory.

[Witty Username]

The caster/martial disparity is fundamentally caused by certain classes continuing to gain new features throughout the game. Removing wizard from the game wouldn’t change the disparity in any significant way.

I actually have a game I am playing in with a druid, bard, paladin, and had a monk/than a fighter due to gameplay issues/than a cleric due to continued gameplay issues. Player's words, that they felt overshadowed by the rest of the group.

[Nagog]

The caster/martial disparity is fundamentally caused by certain classes continuing to gain new features throughout the game. Removing wizard from the game wouldn’t change the disparity in any significant way.


I'm not sure what you mean here: every class continues to gain features throughout the game?

That said, after this discussion I'm inclined to think that changing things up and making Str saves a more common save with bigger effects (like the Slow effect that really hinders Casters) would improve the disparity by a WIDE margin.

Paladins would still be extremely and unequivocally OP though: Short of making skill checks more of a thing in combat I'm not sure how to tackle that beast without nerfing the Pally and leaving a lot of players disappointed.

(Though while I'm on the topic of Skills in Combat, my homebrewed Fighter Rework relies heavily on using Bonus Actions to make skill checks to effect targets on the battlefield, for example making a contested Intimidation vs. Insight to apply Frightened, etc. Shameless Plug Over)

[RSP]

RSP I really feel like you're thinking sorcerers and wizards are just as weak to hp damage as barbs and fighters are to saves.

They obviously aren't. By any argument, stretch of the imagination, or convolution. And that's just their base PHB kits, nevermind what each of those classes can be optimized to.

This "the game contains multitudes" position just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I think Sorc’s and Wizards are subjected to hp damage way more than Barbs and Fighters are to Int, Wis or Cha saves.

You can build either of those classes to mitigate the weaknesses though. But that’s not what being presented.



This irks me quite a bit because it doesn't make a lot of sense. As these are the characters most likely to be running forward to fight the monsters face to face, in reach of their maws and tentacles and horns and poison and all the other horrific things monsters bring to bear.

Despite this bravery that is baked into the IDEA of these two classes, they are the most susceptible to being Frightened by these monsters and failing to move closer, or worse, they are forced to actively run away.


Whether a PC is brave or not is an RP decision. Again, PCs, regardless of class tend to exhibit insane amounts of bravery: regularly wading into undead infested dungeons, taking on immortal liches, going after dragon’s hoards, whatever.

Where Fear comes in is, as far as I’m aware, magical in nature. Which is why it generally doesn’t care about how brave anyone role plays their PC. Just like saying your character doesn’t sleep shouldn’t make them autoimmune to the sleep spell.

Now, the game does provide ways to mitigate susceptibility to magical Fear, to include having higher Wisdom, taking feats, or being a Halfling. Probably missing some too.

But the point is role playing is different than being affected by Magic.

[Dr.Samurai]

The Frightful Presence ability of monsters in D&D is meant to represent that they are terrifying to behold, not that they have magical powers that make people afraid. The Fear spell would be something like that.

A dragon's Frightful Presence is meant to represent how everyone would go running and hiding when a dragon appears instead of closing in on the dragon and slinging arrows and spears.

The fighter and barbarian, in this example, are among all of the commoners and rabble that can't stand the presence of a dragon. There's no way to roleplay that except "the dragon terrified you when it arrived".

You can say you're being brave as that happens. That's literally the premise of a Monty Python skit though...

https://64.media.tumblr.com/d0f89270ae3970070821abefbaf65738/tumblr_ncm1njhLIP1tqou6wo3_500.gif

[RSP]

The Frightful Presence ability of monsters in D&D is meant to represent that they are terrifying to behold, not that they have magical powers that make people afraid. The Fear spell would be something like that.

A dragon's Frightful Presence is meant to represent how everyone would go running and hiding when a dragon appears instead of closing in on the dragon and slinging arrows and spears.


I’ve always felt it wasn’t normal fear. For instance, why would normal fear be selective? Why does the dragon choose which individuals are afflicted if it’s just the fear of seeing the beast? If that were the case, why wouldn’t anyone seeing the dragon be affected?

“Frightful Presence: Each creature of the dragon's choice that is within 120 ft. 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.”

Further, why would this fear only extend 120’? Why would seeing this dread creature at 119’ be scary, but not at 121’?

Also, it’s done as part of an Action: just seeing it isn’t an issue.

Seems to be more than normal fear, as you suggest.

[Skrum]

Sorc and wizard are subjected to more hit point damage...? What game are you playing? Not only are they insulated by range, but they have an entire arsenal of spells to protect them further. First level slots are literally for that purpose. They get defenses built into their class.

Are you equating a wizard taking the shield spell to a barbarian taking resilience: wis?

[TaiLiu]

The Frightful Presence ability of monsters in D&D is meant to represent that they are terrifying to behold, not that they have magical powers that make people afraid. The Fear spell would be something like that.

A dragon's Frightful Presence is meant to represent how everyone would go running and hiding when a dragon appears instead of closing in on the dragon and slinging arrows and spears.

The fighter and barbarian, in this example, are among all of the commoners and rabble that can't stand the presence of a dragon. There's no way to roleplay that except "the dragon terrified you when it arrived".

You can say you're being brave as that happens. That's literally the premise of a Monty Python skit though...

https://64.media.tumblr.com/d0f89270ae3970070821abefbaf65738/tumblr_ncm1njhLIP1tqou6wo3_500.gif
I agree and wonder what an appropriate solution would be. Making it a Strength check might help but doesn’t feel right. Letting classes like Fighters and Barbarians ignore fear effects might work but feels clunky and too specific.

[pothocboots]

I agree and wonder what an appropriate solution would be. Making it a Strength check might help but doesn’t feel right. Letting classes like Fighters and Barbarians ignore fear effects might work but feels clunky and too specific.

An idea I had is that you could have the dragon's frightful presence only inflict the frightened condition on a passed save instead of a failed one.
I don't fully like it as it implies bravery only comes from not understanding the threat, something counter to what I imagine many are looking for in their class fantasy.

It also requires an inverse bonus to the save DC with dragon age, or the wyrmling becomes the most terrifying age.

[Skrum]

I agree and wonder what an appropriate solution would be. Making it a Strength check might help but doesn’t feel right. Letting classes like Fighters and Barbarians ignore fear effects might work but feels clunky and too specific.

Indomitable should be a more central ability of the fighter, available earlier with more uses per rest. They just grit through it and decide nah, I actually passed.

Rage should come with more and more condition immunities as the barb gains levels. They should also have an Iron Heart Surge type of ability that lets them end conditions

Rogue should get a luck themed power, letting them reroll failed saves and checks (divine soul has a good model for this)

Ranger should have a better spell list that includes some defensive options

Monk should get proficiency in all saves WAY earlier, like 6-7

[RSP]

Sorc and wizard are subjected to more hit point damage...? What game are you playing? Not only are they insulated by range, but they have an entire arsenal of spells to protect them further. First level slots are literally for that purpose. They get defenses built into their class.

Are you equating a wizard taking the shield spell to a barbarian taking resilience: wis?

I imagine how often a PC is attacked is dependent on how the DM runs encounters, the PC’s play style, and the rest of the party.

But regardless, I’ve never seen a campaign where Barbs and/or Fighters are subjected to Wis, Int and/or Cha saves more than Sorc’s or Wizards are subjected to attacks and/or damage.

I don’t know why you think they are.

[JNAProductions]

I imagine how often a PC is attacked is dependent on how the DM runs encounters, the PC’s play style, and the rest of the party.

But regardless, I’ve never seen a campaign where Barbs and/or Fighters are subjected to Wis, Int and/or Cha saves more than Sorc’s or Wizards are subjected to attacks and/or damage.

I don’t know why you think they are.

A better comparison is how often do Wizards/Sorcerers have to deal with hitting 0 HP.
A failed mental save can be as bad as that. Any single instance of damage is unlikely to be that.

[RSP]

A better comparison is how often do Wizards/Sorcerers have to deal with hitting 0 HP.
A failed mental save can be as bad as that. Any single instance of damage is unlikely to be that.

It happens to my Sorc. It’s happened to the Wizard in our last campaign enough. Either PC dropped to zero more times than any PC has completely lost turns due to failed WIs/Int/Cha saves. And we even had a Barbarian in the last campaign: they did quite well.

[Dr.Samurai]

I’ve always felt it wasn’t normal fear. For instance, why would normal fear be selective? Why does the dragon choose which individuals are afflicted if it’s just the fear of seeing the beast? If that were the case, why wouldn’t anyone seeing the dragon be affected?

“Frightful Presence: Each creature of the dragon's choice that is within 120 ft. 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.”

Further, why would this fear only extend 120’? Why would seeing this dread creature at 119’ be scary, but not at 121’?

Also, it’s done as part of an Action: just seeing it isn’t an issue.

Seems to be more than normal fear, as you suggest.
It's a game and this is how they decided to codify these abilities. It's not actually that different than real life.

A dog standing around might not cause you to be afraid. But if it starts growling at you and barking loudly it might make you back away (requires an action). But if you're across the street, you don't really care (works out to a certain distance). Etc etc.

Remember, Crawford said the dragon's breath weapon is not magical. I'm confident the Frightful Presence is meant to be treated the same way.

But honestly, it doesn't really matter. Adventurers are "brave" relative to non-adventurers, sure. But within the group of "adventurers", fighters and barbarians are not brave. It doesn't matter if it's a magical ability or not. The wizard, as an example, can say "wow, every time a monster tries to scare us, it works on you". That's still not a great place to be for someone that wants to be play a stalwart warrior with nerves of spaghetti steel.

Sorc and wizard are subjected to more hit point damage...? What game are you playing? Not only are they insulated by range, but they have an entire arsenal of spells to protect them further. First level slots are literally for that purpose. They get defenses built into their class.

Are you equating a wizard taking the shield spell to a barbarian taking resilience: wis?
RSP said earlier that there is no "front line/back-line" dynamic in his games and he is currently playing a melee sorcerer. So I actually believe him that casters go down frequently in his games. I just don't think it's a common way to play.

Indomitable should be a more central ability of the fighter, available earlier with more uses per rest. They just grit through it and decide nah, I actually passed.

Rage should come with more and more condition immunities as the barb gains levels. They should also have an Iron Heart Surge type of ability that lets them end conditions

Rogue should get a luck themed power, letting them reroll failed saves and checks (divine soul has a good model for this)

Ranger should have a better spell list that includes some defensive options

Monk should get proficiency in all saves WAY earlier, like 6-7
Back to the basics :smallcool:

[RSP]

Remember, Crawford said the dragon's breath weapon is not magical. I'm confident the Frightful Presence is meant to be treated the same way.

Dragons are weird in that they’re “magical” non-“magic” beings. The fear they cause isn’t normal fear. The way their ability works it’s an effect they choose. Dragons can be afraid of other (even younger, smaller) dragons, for instance.



But honestly, it doesn't really matter. Adventurers are "brave" relative to non-adventurers, sure. But within the group of "adventurers", fighters and barbarians are not brave. It doesn't matter if it's a magical ability or not. The wizard, as an example, can say "wow, every time a monster tries to scare us, it works on you". That's still not a great place to be for someone that wants to be play a stalwart warrior with nerves of spaghetti steel.

They’re no more or less scared than the other adventures.

Supernatural abilities that effect the mind, might affect them more, due to how saves work, but that’s not the same thing, in my opinion, and goes back to the build choices point.

Barb has a subclass that protects against fear and charm. Fighters have Indomitable and extra ASIs for feats (if playing with them) or upping Wis.



RSP said earlier that there is no "front line/back-line" dynamic in his games and he is currently playing a melee sorcerer. So I actually believe him that casters go down frequently in his games. I just don't think it's a common way to play.

I’m not sure there’s necessarily a “common way to play”: every DM and every table will have variances in playstyle, type of game they’re playing, strategies, meta gaming vs non-meta gaming, etc.

This is why I keep saying the issue with “hard” conditions or saving throws isn’t a system problem, but a table one.

The monsters that have abilities that force saves are designed to be however effective they are against the 5e save system. Any upward change in mod against said saves will only result in those monster’s abilities being less effective, which will generally make those monsters less effective.

Mind Flayers, for instance, are meant to succeed, to a certain degree, with their abilities. Otherwise they’re rather impotent 15 AC, 71 HP bags of meat who just wasted probably their only action before the group just pummels them.