A weird thing about monsters

[Skrum]

No concerns huh? I guess wizards dont have to worry about being killed by a dragon's breath weapon, or knocked down and conventionally stabbed? An Ancient Red Dragon's breath weapon has a DC that a wizard probably cannot match without feats or ASIs, and deals more D6s of damage than they get hit dice. Statistically speaking, a failed save is death for most wizards who dont specifically build to survive that.

Death is the best status effect, and that cuts both ways.

Also, if youre getting 2 ASIs, youre only level 10 at best. NOTHING pre-10 is putting out such a high DC that you genuinely cannot match it.

Absorb elements. It's crazy, wizards and other spellcasters just get all these tools to cover their weaknesses. Does it make them invulnerable, no, but it lets them play the game.

I play at 10. Most games *in general* are at 10 or less. Most characters get 2 ASI's. That's the context.

[Amnestic]

No concerns huh? I guess wizards dont have to worry about being killed by a dragon's breath weapon, or knocked down and conventionally stabbed? An Ancient Red Dragon's breath weapon has a DC that a wizard probably cannot match without feats or ASIs, and deals more D6s of damage than they get hit dice. Statistically speaking, a failed save is death for most wizards who dont specifically build to survive that.

A wizard building to survive that is them picking up Absorb Elements over the last 20 levels. Not the greatest of investments. Certainly a lot more affordable and guaranteed to work, compared to both an ASI and the inherent swingability of the d20.

Though I would note that, an average 20th level wizard (Con 14) has more hit points (122) than the average damage of the failed save (91) even without any source of damage reduction or resistances. Hell, they have more even at a mediocre Con 12 (102).

As was pointed out last time the "HP damage vs. hard CC" conversation came up on these forums, a party member rectifying a drop to 0 is also eminently easier than rectifying a failed wisdom save - and again, is something they can guarantee. Fixing failed hard CC saves can be done depending on what it is, but even if it can typically has a far greater cost in resources than 0 hit points. It is entirely possible for a party to not have that fix available due to class selection.

[Keltest]

Absorb elements. It's crazy, wizards and other spellcasters just get all these tools to cover their weaknesses. Does it make them invulnerable, no, but it lets them play the game.

I play at 10. Most games *in general* are at 10 or less. Most characters get 2 ASI's. That's the context.

Ok, if youre going to play that game, Freedom of Movement. And unlike absorb elements, that doesnt even give the consolation prize of half damage.

[Witty Username]

I think that you and I have very different views of what agency means. Personally I find it solely limited to players abilities to decide their actions in game rather than meta game constructs.

A quick thing to reiterate, I was attempting to sum up points from the video I saw, not necessarily my own opinions.

I am not a big fan of how saves shake out, but player desicion making is not one I can comment on much, since I have found alot of players don't really think in those terms for passive defenses.

[Sindeloke]

Ok, if youre going to play that game, Freedom of Movement. And unlike absorb elements, that doesnt even give the consolation prize of half damage.

Freedom of Movement which 1) cannot be cast by fighters, barbarians, or rogues and 2) defends against the same thing as Dexterity and Strength saves, the ones fighters, barbarians, and rogues are generally better at, in contrast to Absorb Elements, which was proposed as a caster solution to the Dexterity saves that they're usually bad at?

I have toyed with giving Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian and Fighter + half proficiency bonus added to AC as a baseline.

I've been running a campaign in which there are only two available armors: Light (culturally flavored to taste), which grants 11+1/2 PB+Dex, and Heavy (culturally flavored to taste), which grants 12+PB+Dex. This is pretty much the same scaling as saves, and is having the same issue as we get to higher levels - the paladin and fighter are falling behind the curve and having to spend resources to have the same defense chance as they did without resources at lower levels - but it's noteworthy that the fighter and paladin themselves are the ones with the resources to spend. They chose to take up tank roles, and they have Shield of Faith and Evasive Footwork built in to allow them to do so. They aren't reliant on someone else having chosen to build to enable that role. So it still hits quite different to a barbarian who is supposed to stay in melee but doesn't necessarily come with all the tools it needs to do so in the face of fear effects, for example.

(Worth noting that we also changed Evasive Footwork to just work like Defensive Flourish.)

[Skrum]

Ok, if youre going to play that game, Freedom of Movement. And unlike absorb elements, that doesnt even give the consolation prize of half damage.

Good call

When do fighters, rogues, and barbs get to cast freedom of movement?

Oh that's right, never

[Keltest]

Good call

When do fighters, rogues, and barbs get to cast freedom of movement?

Oh that's right, never

Good thing the basic unit of d&d is the party then, not the character.

[Amnestic]

Good thing the basic unit of d&d is the party then, not the character.

Do you think a removal of all wizard's defensive spells (eg. shield, absorb elements, mage armour) with the reasoning "the basic unit of D&D is the party, not the character" is an acceptable reasoning

[Skrum]

Good thing the basic unit of d&d is the party then, not the character.

This is exactly my point. High level resources need to be spent to allow certain classes to function against tough enemies. That *is the reason* I say the system could use some tuning.

But you've taken the position that the system is perfect in every way, and any possible imbalance is actually "working as intended."

[Keltest]

This is exactly my point. High level resources need to be spent to allow certain classes to function against tough enemies. That *is the reason* I say the system could use some tuning.

But you've taken the position that the system is perfect in every way, and any possible imbalance is actually "working as intended."

Yes, because the whole point of tough enemies is to get you to spend resources. Like, that's literally the game. More power to you if you want to do nothing but cleave through orcs and kobolds at level 20, but that's not how the game was intended.

[Sindeloke]

A quick thing to reiterate, I was attempting to sum up points from the video I saw, not necessarily my own opinions.

I am not a big fan of how saves shake out, but player desicion making is not one I can comment on much, since I have found alot of players don't really think in those terms for passive defenses.

To the point of the thread itself, if the discussion is meant to be about monster scaling and how it doesn't match the advertised design, and the video is just some context for why, I think the answer has been covered in bits and pieces throughout the thread:

One, the original design intent was to mix CRs a lot more than in previous editions. So in theory if you're rolling 6 saves in a turn against a 24, 22, and 4 DC 12s, you're roughly rolling against DC 16, and your baseline +11 is good for the same 80% success rate as your +5 was against DC 11 at level 1. Whether that actually happens in practice, or whether it's reasonable to treat the DC 12 effects as equally relevant to the DC 24 one, are questions that probably didn't get asked, partly because high level play was never tested with any vigor.

Two, they always intended the game to account for magic items. They say that they aren't necessary in the same way that they say that feats aren't necessary or that the game doesn't need a 2 short rest:1 long rest ratio. IE, they have a marketing imperative to pretend that D&D is a system that can do Anything™, but in reality it is designed for a certain kind of play and that play includes powerful magic items that increase your numbers and grant blanket immunities.

Three, the guidelines in the DMG aren't the ones they make monsters with, and never were, and they've admitted it, and people have back-engineered the actual formula, and it's very strange that those guidelines were ever put there, but generally speaking, ignoring them will always improve any discussion of monster design.

[GloatingSwine]

Good thing the basic unit of d&d is the party then, not the character.

The party is not a defined unit with fixed properties, because it can be made of any number of characters in any combination of classes.

And 5e tells us that the game should also function if the party finds no magic items ever.

One, the original design intent was to mix CRs a lot more than in previous editions. So in theory if you're rolling 6 saves in a turn against a 24, 22, and 4 DC 12s, you're roughly rolling against DC 16, and your baseline +11 is good for the same 80% success rate as your +5 was against DC 11 at level 1. Whether that actually happens in practice, or whether it's reasonable to treat the DC 12 effects as equally relevant to the DC 24 one, are questions that probably didn't get asked, partly because high level play was never tested with any vigor.

If you're rolling against a 24, a 22, and four 12s if you can't reliably beat the 24 the other five don't matter. And if you can they still don't because you'll smash the 12s.

[Sindeloke]

Well, yes, that's why I said "Whether that actually happens in practice, or whether it's reasonable to treat the DC 12 effects as equally relevant to the DC 24 one, are questions that probably didn't get asked."

I'm just trying to extrapolate what WotC was thinking. I'm not suggesting that that thinking led to functional conclusions.

[GloatingSwine]

This all comes about because they were thinking different things when they designed the characters and skills system (relatively stable DCs throughout their career, slowish progression of proficiency compared to previous editions) and monsters and things they do. And as you identified they didn't design their own monsters with the framework they said they did, but they did design the characters that way, hence the mismatch between how saves progress and how save DCs progress.

[Slipjig]

A Lich is a CR 21 creature. If a barbarian has made it all the way to that point without doing ANYTHING to invest in protection against wisdom saves, thats because he doesnt want to, not because he can't.

A barbarian gets 5 ASIs. Even if youre playing in a featless game, thats enough to bump up your wisdom from 10 to 20 if its that bad of a problem for you. With feats, the options become significantly stronger and cheaper. And thats just the options available to the barbarian by themselves. Throw in teamwork and the solutions are plentiful.

This is an intended inherent weakness of the Barbarian class. This is a party-based game, so the question to be asking isn't "why is barbarian bad at this?", it's, "why didn't the casters buff you pre-fight? Why didn't somebody cast Counterspell? Failing that, can I at least get a Dispel Magic over here?!?" Every class is supposed to have built-in weaknesses that the party helps compensate for.

I think part of the problem is that casters (especially Wizards) can mostly negate their intended class weaknesses with a one-level dip or a subclass or race choice, and it's led to the expectation that because Wizards are good at everything, EVERYBODY should be good at everything.

[Skrum]

This is an intended inherent weakness of the Barbarian class. This is a party-based game, so the question to be asking isn't "why is barbarian bad at this?", it's, "why didn't the casters buff you pre-fight? Why didn't somebody cast Counterspell? Failing that, can I at least get a Dispel Magic over here?!?" Every class is supposed to have built-in weaknesses that the party helps compensate for.

I think part of the problem is that casters (especially Wizards) can mostly negate their intended class weaknesses with a one-level dip or a subclass or race choice, and it's led to the expectation that because Wizards are good at everything, EVERYBODY should be good at everything.

Tbc, I'm not pushing for barbs to even be good at wisdom saves - I just don't think they should be abysmal. And it shouldn't cost an ASI to get a little better than abysmal.

Weaknesses are fine. A barb is never going to be a ranged threat, for instance. But specifically for wisdom saves (which matter more and more as the levels go up), it begins to flirt with "why did we bring this guy at all."

[KorvinStarmast]

This is an intended inherent weakness of the Barbarian class. This is a party-based game, so the question to be asking isn't "why is barbarian bad at this?", it's, "why didn't the casters buff you pre-fight? Why didn't somebody cast Counterspell? Failing that, can I at least get a Dispel Magic over here?!?" Every class is supposed to have built-in weaknesses that the party helps compensate for.

I think part of the problem is that casters (especially Wizards) can mostly negate their intended class weaknesses with a one-level dip or a subclass or race choice, and it's led to the expectation that because Wizards are good at everything, EVERYBODY should be good at everything.

+10 for this post.

[Witty Username]

I don't mind weaknesses, I am not sure why cowardice needs to be a barbarian one. That is my two cents, this was a real dumb argument last time it came up.

Mages have a bunch of weaknesses they cannot overcome, hp being a big one, at the mercy of daily resources is another. Armor is something pretty easily gotten but it will only get a character so far.

[Ignimortis]

Good thing the basic unit of d&d is the party then, not the character.

Except it isn't. Or if it is, D&D has been pretty bad at it in the two most popular editions. A game where the basic unit is the party, design-wise, would look more like 4e or PF2 (the latter especially being a game where a single character is borderline incompetent, and difficulty is tuned to the party actually playing together and shoring up each other's weaknesses). Meanwhile both 3e and 5e have the ability to make a character who is, for the most part, self-sufficient, and works in a party not because it is required for base competence, but because it allows them to take on threats that are far beyond their assumed ability.

Furthermore, excusing the basic numerical issues with "you can plug them up with party resources later on" means you're just shifting the treadmill from where it's most logical (base progression) to party interplay, but only with specific party setups. This leads to an outcome that basically reads like "at low levels, you don't need to really work together, your base numbers will hold up more or less, but at high levels, you NEED support spells to have a chance of making defenses work (offense still works just fine without that, though)".

I would reiterate that last point - offense does not need those measures. Just from a +1 weapon, maxing out your attack stat (which you are heavily incentivized to do and most likely only takes you 2 ASIs to do anyways), and proficiency bonus - you get +12 to-hit by level 20. You hit a Balor on a 7+ and an Ancient Red on a 10+. These are not terrible numbers. Back at level 1 with +5 to-hit, you hit an AC 13 orc on an 8+ and an AC 15 goblin on a 10+. There's even a moment in your career where you've faced off against a roper at level 4, with a to-hit of +6 competing with an AC of 20 - only landing a hit on 14+ on a die! And even if you lose your magic sword for a non-magic one, you're still having an easier time with a freaking dragon at +4CR than that CR5 roper at level 4 or 5, offense-wise. So Bounded Accuracy works out for attacks and does really grant you improvement over time against level-appropriate fights, slow that it might be.

So clearly attack rolls are not subject to this philosophy. Why should defensives be? Could it be, perhaps, that someone messed up the math either here or there? Wouldn't be the first or the last time, really.

[Blatant Beast]

This leads to an outcome that basically reads like "at low levels, you don't need to really work together, your base numbers will hold up more or less, but at high levels, you NEED support spells to have a chance of making defenses work (offense still works just fine without that, though)".

That sure sounds like D&D, in every edition.
If at 1st level, you are fighting disorganized Kobolds, you can play loose.
AT any level, facing organized opposition, such as Tucker's Kobolds, means you need to coordinate...else the bastards eat your donkeys.

If the system's swingy-ness is something you do not like, one can swap the d20 for 2d10 or 1d12+4, or other combination with a tighter probability curve.

A Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma dump stated Barbarian is basically Lenny from the Steinbeck novel, of Mice and Men. Of course the mental game is going to be a challenge for this character.

[Ignimortis]

That sure sounds like D&D, in every edition.
If at 1st level, you are fighting disorganized Kobolds, you can play loose.
AT any level, facing organized opposition, such as Tucker's Kobolds, means you need to coordinate...else the bastards eat your donkeys.

Except not really. 3e-wise, at the very least, your saving throws (if WBL is followed and you get the basics which are assumed by system math to be present, i.e. Cloak of Resistance +5 and +stat items) improved in a manner that generally means you are noticeably better off against most on-level DCs and still have a decent-ish chance of passing the others, much so for your "good" saves and mildly so for "bad" ones. That does not include getting specific class features or multiclassing which tends to improve saves more.

Again, even a non-focused 3e character gets circa +23 to 25 in their good save at level 20 and +17 or so in their bad ones. This is enough to pass 95% of DCs they will face with a 4 or more on a good save, and with a 10-11 or more on a bad one. A focused character, i.e. the equivalent of Rogue with DEX 20 and DEX save proficiency, boasts something along the lines of +32 for their good (Reflex) save, meaning that even a high-CR dragon with a DC38 breath only gets them on a 5 or less, and they otherwise autopass on-level Reflex saves on a 2 or higher (or always, if they have a means to not treat a nat1 as an autofail). This is not "high optimization", this is basically what you get by following WBL. An optimized character, to the same extent as someone who's dumped 3 ASIs into improving a save (3/5 of total budget of feats/ASIs), WILL autopass an on-level default DC with that save, regardless of whether it's good or bad initiatlly.

A focused 5e character gets +11, maybe +12 with a Cloak of Protection, vs a regular DC of 20 to 24. They fail their saves on an 7-8 or less, more than a third of the time (and, again, worse than they were doing at low levels with no magic items and non-maxed stats). A non-focused 5e character (NOT a stat-dumper, just someone who didn't get to stat 20 AND spent a feat on proficiency) is way worse. There is no need for hyperbole here - a stat 12 proficient character (+7) or a stat 16 non-proficient (+3) character are going to fail more than half saves against DC20, and barely stand a chance against a DC24 one.

It's not about organized opposition or whatever. The scaling is such that you're steadily falling behind on EVERY save regardless of commonly available investment (i.e. ASIs and feats). Hell, feats aren't even part of the core game, they're an optional rule - so the problem is even more evident, because you can't shore up your defenses to any reasonable level even if you dump all the ASIs you get into one particular save you're not proficient with.

A Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma dump stated Barbarian is basically Lenny from the Steinbeck novel, of Mice and Men. Of course the mental game is going to be a challenge for this character.

See, this is the problem. We're not talking about someone with a -1 to a save. We're talking about a reasonable character, who might have even spent most of their ASIs on shoring up their stats, and gotten very little out of it. They might have a 16 WIS or an 18 DEX and that is still bad in regards to saves.

[Blatant Beast]

See, this is the problem. We're not talking about someone with a -1 to a save. We're talking about a reasonable character, who might have even spent most of their ASIs on shoring up their stats, and gotten very little out of it. They might have a 16 WIS or an 18 DEX and that is still bad in regards to saves.

I played a Fighter, that had a curse on their magic sword, that would cause the PC to enter into Enemies Abound style berserker state, if I rolled an 18, 19, or 20 on the D20.

The Wisdom Saving Throw DC was 18. My Fighter has a Wisdom of 14.
I had this sword from just after reaching level 8 to level 16.

According to my notes, I rolled over 20 of these Saving Throws over that period, (23 looking at the session notes), and failed only two of them.

Resilient: Wisdom was not taken until 12th level.

Quite a few of those successes were due to plain old luck, either on the original die roll, or using Indomitable re-rolls. Quite a few of those success were enabled by help from friends.

The same Fighter PC also succumbed to a Banshee’s Wail, twice, despite having Advantage on Constitution Saving Throws at the time, and a Constitution Score of 16.

When you are rolling hot you are a god, when not then you are a fool, unless you and your friends have teamwork. This isn’t a new phenomenon, for me…it feels like D&D. Your mileage may vary.

[Skrum]

See, this is the problem. We're not talking about someone with a -1 to a save. We're talking about a reasonable character, who might have even spent most of their ASIs on shoring up their stats, and gotten very little out of it. They might have a 16 WIS or an 18 DEX and that is still bad in regards to saves.

Agree with your whole post, but I just wanted to add on this point: trying to improve an off stat just for the save boost...it's rough. Ideally, you're playing roll for stats and rolled really well. Point buy or merely average rolls, and you're looking at sacrificing core stats for extremely marginal improvements for a single saving throw.

Gonna put a 10 in Con or Dex as a barb, just so you can have a 14 in Wis? C'mon. It flat-out doesn't make sense to do so; better to just hope you don't get targeted, or that a teammate can dig you out.

I played a Fighter, that had a curse on their magic sword, that would cause the PC to enter into Enemies Abound style berserker state, if I rolled an 18, 19, or 20 on the D20.

The Wisdom Saving Throw DC was 18. My Fighter has a Wisdom of 14.
I had this sword from just after reaching level 8 to level 16.

According to my notes, I rolled over 20 of these Saving Throws over that period, (23 looking at the session notes), and failed only two of them.

Resilient: Wisdom was not taken until 12th level.

Quite a few of those successes were due to plain old luck, either on the original die roll, or using Indomitable re-rolls. Quite a few of those success were enabled by help from friends.

The same Fighter PC also succumbed to a Banshee’s Wail, twice, despite having Advantage on Constitution Saving Throws at the time, and a Constitution Score of 16.

When you are rolling hot you are a god, when not then you are a fool, unless you and your friends have teamwork. This isn’t a new phenomenon, for me…it feels like D&D. Your mileage may vary.

Ok so I assuming you've given all pertinent info, like if you had any save boosting items - I'm assuming your save was a +2

DC 18. 25% chance of success before Resil: Wisdom. 45-50% chance after. 43% and 69% chance if Indomitable is factored.

I mean a huge factor here is obviously how much were you being boosted by allies. If Bless was frequently up for instance, that would be a help. But over 23 rolls? You got lucky lol. Not sure what else to conclude from this.

[Dark.Revenant]

Also, if youre getting 2 ASIs, youre only level 10 at best. NOTHING pre-10 is putting out such a high DC that you genuinely cannot match it.

I've hit DC 20+ save-or-sucks before level 11 in virtually every campaign I've ever played in that had gotten to at least level 5. Things are definitely approaching DC 30 by level 20, as well.

Then again, I've seen some heinous ****. One campaign had me, on multiple occasions, rolling close to a dozen consecutive high-DC Constitution saves. The worst case of this was a fight where not even a +11 w/ Bardic Inspiration (d12) & Diamond Soul re-rolls prevented me from getting stunned for half of the battle. That sort of thing tends to happen when you're hit with nine consecutive DC-20 save-or-stunned-until-you-pass-a-repeat-save-at-the-end-of-your-turn attacks. Most of the other characters had only a +1 to +3 on their Con saves and were effectively stun-locked for the entire battle. That was truly Fun for them, I bet.

Anyway, point is, Monk and Paladin are the only martial characters I've played or ran for that don't feel wimpy at higher levels, and the reason is basically purely because of Aura of Protection and Diamond Soul. Having actual competence in something that normally just takes away your ability to play is freeing and makes you feel like a badass. I almost always take Resilient eventually, whenever I play a character that's not a Monk, and it's just not the same.

[Blatant Beast]

I absolutely got lucky.
The game is about the joys of gambling, you know the odds are not in your favor, you do everything you can to make the odds be in your favor, and then you roll the dice and see what happens.

Even with that luck, the group was prepared. We had strategies and contingency plans in case my Fighter went crazy.

As inconvenient as I found that curse, as much as a player, I found it punishing at times, it did bring more flavor and excitement in, and encouraged teamwork…

[Blatant Beast]

I've hit DC 20+ save-or-sucks before level 11 in virtually every campaign I've ever played in that had gotten to at least level 5. Things are definitely approaching DC 30 by level 20, as well.

Then again, I've seen some heinous ****. One campaign had me, on multiple occasions, rolling close to a dozen consecutive high-DC Constitution saves. The worst case of this was a fight where not even a +11 w/ Bardic Inspiration (d12) & Diamond Soul re-rolls prevented me from getting stunned for half of the battle. That sort of thing tends to happen when you're hit with nine consecutive DC-20 save-or-stunned-until-you-pass-a-repeat-save-at-the-end-of-your-turn attacks. Most of the other characters had only a +1 to +3 on their Con saves and were effectively stun-locked for the entire battle. That was truly Fun for them, I bet.

Anyway, point is, Monk and Paladin are the only martial characters I've played or ran for that don't feel wimpy at higher levels, and the reason is basically purely because of Aura of Protection and Diamond Soul. Having actual competence in something that normally just takes away your ability to play is freeing and makes you feel like a badass. I almost always take Resilient eventually, whenever I play a character that's not a Monk, and it's just not the same.

I have to wonder how much of this a non virtuous cycle.

I can’t imagine a DM wakes up in the morning, has a cup of coffee and thinks to themselves: “I am going to spam 9 consecutive DC20 Save vs Stun Saving Throws at everyone next session”………unless Aura of Protection had completely trivialized some prior encounter of theirs.

[Skrum]

I have to wonder how much of this a non virtuous cycle.

I can’t imagine a DM wakes up in the morning, has a cup of coffee and thinks to themselves: “I am going to spam 9 consecutive DC20 Save vs Stun Saving Throws at everyone next session”………unless Aura of Protection had completely trivialized some prior encounter of theirs.

This definitely happens at the table I play at. We're pretty well optimized, cap level 10, with quite a bit of access to magic items (book and homebrewed).

The problem is aura of protection. A paladin's saves are so outrageously above everyone else's that it ruins the curve. If everyone had two saves in the +8ish range, and then the other 4 were -1 to +2, it would be very solid to not let saves stray above a 15 or so. Good save you have 65% percent, low save 25-35%. That works.

But then paladin comes along and has +12 in their good saves and +4 to +9 in the others. On top of having 22, 23, 24 AC - or even higher, if they dipped to get shield. Can't be hit, can't be affected by spells. Like that's the all the defenses. That's when the DM feels they have no choice but to make monsters with +11 to hit and DC 20-something effects.

[Slipjig]

This definitely happens at the table I play at. We're pretty well optimized, cap level 10, with quite a bit of access to magic items (book and homebrewed).

The problem is aura of protection. A paladin's saves are so outrageously above everyone else's that it ruins the curve. If everyone had two saves in the +8ish range, and then the other 4 were -1 to +2, it would be very solid to not let saves stray above a 15 or so. Good save you have 65% percent, low save 25-35%. That works.

But then paladin comes along and has +12 in their good saves and +4 to +9 in the others. On top of having 22, 23, 24 AC - or even higher, if they dipped to get shield. Can't be hit, can't be affected by spells. Like that's the all the defenses. That's when the DM feels they have no choice but to make monsters with +11 to hit and DC 20-something effects.

In your example, doesn't the saving throw part of this problem apply to the whole party if there is a paladin present? If the entire party is super-resilient, dialing up the difficulty should be fine (assuming the party stays within the aura).

The party is not a defined unit with fixed properties, because it can be made of any number of characters in any combination of classes.

Well... yes? Some party compositions are simply better than others. And if every player builds their character in a vacuum you can end up with an ineffective party. Because it's 5e, they'll probably still be okay at most tables (Skrum's being an obvious exception), but they'll underperform vs. a party that was designed/recruited to complement each other.

[Segev]

As you grow in level, you are supposed to have other ways of layering defenses than just increasing your save bonus. Emma the Level three Enchantress is still a threat to a level ten PC who hasn't got Wisdom Save proficiency (and events many who do), but mlst have additional means of shaking off enchantment effects, from Charm immunities to extra tries at the save to mind-protecting spells and items.

[KorvinStarmast]

About parties:
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
(At least that's how it is supposed to work; some parties put the fun into dysfunctional).

Good thing the basic unit of d&d is the party then, not the character.

Except it isn't.

Yes it is.

Or if it is, D&D has been pretty bad at it

That would be a case of the archer, not the arrow, being flawed.
(Not gonna comment on anything 3.x...)