A weird thing about monsters

[KorvinStarmast]

Does this match up with what people have observed using these systems?

No. As you go higher in level, your TEAM also has resources to mitigate save short comings. Things like Bardic inspiration, paladin auras, spells like Heroes Feast or Freedom of Movement, and so on. (Monk's save boost has already been mentioned). For possession, prot from evil and good at level 1 is kinda nice.

With Tasha's coming out, though, a whole bunch of saves show up against INT; who has INT save proficiency? Wizards and Rogues IIRC druids. That changed the landscape a little bit. I found the "you have six saves and you are only proficiency in two" structure to be bad when I began the edition. I have gotten used to it but asm still not a huge fan. The original game had all saves become more makeable as you increased in level, and Spell Save DC wasn't a thing until WotC showed up.
I am not sure I would mind boing back to Reflex, Fortitude, and Will just for the KISS principle.

Saves don't really work like this because DCs scale beyond what most characters can reasonably resist.

Yes. Higher level play needs to be more dangerous, and we have found that in Tier 3 and Tier 4 it often is depending on what we are up against. Going up against casters at a high level can be brutal. That's not a bad thing. Why should high level play be a cake walk?
Monsters Higher than CR 22 are not very common in the MM, which is what the game is based on. Some of the later stuff (MToF) is the usual power creep at work ...

I think the quote was something like, 'success and failure should be determined by the player's cleverness, not what's on their character sheet'

Try using teamwork. The basic unit of D&D is The Party. The YHoutubers are treating the PC as a single player avatar in a video game.

I think that saves do kinda fail at this

Given that the devs were talking about Ability Checks, you tossed out a non sequitur.

3.5 character gets decked out in expected magic gear but the poor 5e guy can't even scrounge up a Cloak of Protection :(

My players found one of those in a Tier 1 adventure, Ghosts of Saltmarsh. The devs drop plenty of goodies in the published adventures, so I am guessing that the intent is for magic items to be in the game. Just what magic items will vary.

Blame the devs for saying "if you don't include magic items in your game, that's fine, it's not gonna break". Which is a lie if your game continues after level 5 to 6 or so.

Not sure if you paraphrased that correctly, they were signaling the end of WBL forced power creep. One of the nice things about Xanathar's was the explanation of the hundred items, and distribution, that was expected to drop in a 1-20 adventure for a four person party.

But even a Cloak of Protection, like, +2 (which does not exist RAW

Indeed. you cannot make a PC invulnerable. My Champion just hit level 17. He has a RoP, Cloak of Prot, +1 Shield, +1 Half Plate, Dex of 16 and Medium armor master. His AC is 25. He still gets hit. We work as a team to slow the enemy down, break up groups, or inflict debuffs to mitigate damage; you can't eliminate it.

I don't mind people (especially me) having weaknesses but saves tend to outright remove a character from participation.

Yes. There are some saves (like Finger of Death) that kill the PC. But at Tiers 3 and4 you can expect a Raise Dead or similar spell to exist. If the PARTY works together, a lot of "death" becomes a short term thing. Granted, Disintegrate can end the character.

The highest claim here is banshee and demilich, with both have reduce hp to 0 attacks, saves are the only defense available.

Yes. Messing with a demilich can get you killed. (Banshee at low level can be downright scary. The party I run as DM in my brother's world ran into one in an old abandoned tower and a few of them went into death saves based on her ability. It was a nasty encounter, to be sure).

[Theodoxus]

For some reason, AC would make a LOT more sense if, say, it added your proficiency bonus for martial classes (and only them). But it doesn't.

It seems like it would need some pretty intricate wording to work as I think you're asking it to. I'm not against the idea, but I think it could go a couple of different ways, depending on how complicated you want to make it (and how future proof you want it to be).

If the game remains static, and there's no new classes added, it'd be rather simple to state: If you're playing a Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger, you can add your PB to your AC while wearing armor. If you multiclass with any class not listed, you immediately lose that benefit. (I suppose you could create a feat that removes the MC limitation, since at least then it's a decision point.)

Future proofing might be: If your class (not subclass) provides the Extra Attack feature, you can add you PB... the rest remaining the same.

I was originally going to include Rogue, but I think they're in a good position defensively as is. Obviously, Monks don't wear armor so wouldn't apply. Barbarians get a choice - unarmored, they're easier to hit, and thus more likely to be, creating a natural taunt and using their DR to survive. Armored, they're harder to hit, and can more reliably use Reckless Attack, generating a slightly higher miss rate with their better AC.

Of course, you could take away the armor limitation in the ability, but I think Monks would become far too defensive...

Another option I thought of was MCing out of a martial class would divide the PB bonus in half. You still get some benefit, but not as good. We don't want to kill ALL the sorcadins, right? ;)

[KorvinStarmast]

It seems like it would need some pretty intricate wording to work as I think you're asking it to. I'm not against the idea, but I think it could go a couple of different ways, depending on how complicated you want to make it (and how future proof you want it to be).

I have toyed with giving Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian and Fighter + half proficiency bonus added to AC as a baseline. (We discussed adding PB and that was a bit too strong at low levels).

If the game remains static, and there's no new classes added, it'd be rather simple to state: If you're playing a Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger, you can add your PB to your AC while wearing armor.

I did it globally, wearing armor or not. 1/2 PB.

Future proofing might be: If your class (not subclass) provides the Extra Attack feature, you can add you PB... the rest remaining the same.

Interesting idea.

I was originally going to include Rogue, but I think they're in a good position defensively as is.

Obviously, Monks don't wear armor so wouldn't apply. Barbarians get a choice - unarmored, they're easier to hit, and thus more likely to be, creating a natural taunt and using their DR to survive.
Armored, they're harder to hit, and can more reliably use Reckless Attack, generating a slightly higher miss rate with their better AC.

I would not include rogues.

[Blatant Beast]

In regards to the comment that Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues do not have Wisdom Save Throw Proficiency:

Fighters have the Indomitable power, (which appears to be getting a buff in 1D&D) and the Samurai Subclass exists, which adds Proficiency in Wisdom saving throws, at some point.

Rogues also receive Proficiency in Wisdom Saving Throws at 15th level.

Berserker Barbarians receive Mindless Rage at 6th level. When Olaf shows you their “Metal Face”, they can not be charmed.

Zealot Barbarians receive a Saving Throw Failure Re-roll option at 6th level, and receive Zealous Presence at 10th level, which buffs the attack and Saving Throws of 10 creatures for a turn.

There is also, many a good reason why the Lucky Feat appears on most late game builds.

I will say, I am sympathetic to the notion that all Saving Throws for PCs should receive some Advancement…the tricky part is in the details.

I have used a Houserule, in which a PCs ‘off saving throws’ would receive a bonus equal to their Proficiency Bonus divided by 3.

The change did not make much of a difference, in the feel of the game per the players. 5e, as a system is ‘swingy’, and designed so that die rolls have less pre-determined conclusions, and chance plays a larger role.

High Level play in 3e could almost be ran without dice…a PC couldn’t fail at certain things, and couldn’t succeed at others. 5e, does not escape this issue, but it suffers from it to a much lesser.

(Edit, many other posts were uploaded, by the time I finished this…)

[Theodoxus]

I wouldn't mind a return to the Fortitude/Reflex/Willpower saves of yore. Especially if it makes it easier to justify improving saves as you level.

With three, it'd be easy to go Full/Half/Third PB bonus. Follow 4th Ed's example, having a choice of 2 stats to generate the save: Con/Str for Fort; Dex/Int for Ref; Cha/Wis for Will. Resilient could then boost your 1/3 to Full as a full feat, or 1/2 to Full as a half feat.

If you're really into keeping folks from min-maxing, you could, instead of picking the better of the two stats for the feat, take the average. This would encourage more well rounded stat distribution.

[Telok]

I don't want people to do anything. They have the option. They can weigh the merit of taking that option versus taking another option based on the value it brings to their specific character in their specific group. And if they don't take it, thats their choice, and their vulnerability that they have decided it is acceptable to live with. If your character is weak to wisdom saves, then buff their wisdom save or quit complaining about it.

But players don't get a choice that their characters will fail more saves as the levels increase against save-or-lose effects that become ever more common as levels go up. You're saying that's great and good and right, because they can spend 2 or 3 asi and 1 or 2 item attunements in order for one of their two off-class "big three" saves to at best maintain the same general rate of success that it had at first level. And that's assuming they play a class with a primary stat that matches one of the big three saves. Or we're back to "someone has to play the healer if we're over 5th/11th level" game design, except its save buffing instead of healing. That's what you're saying.

Remember players don't get a choice that their characters will fail more saves as the levels increase against save-or-lose effects that become ever more common as levels go up. Because that's the way the monsters and game math are written. But you say its all great since they have the option to spend large parts of their character choices on not getting worse at one save.

[Keltest]

But players don't get a choice that their characters will fail more saves as the levels increase against save-or-lose effects that become ever more common as levels go up. You're saying that's great and good and right, because they can spend 2 or 3 asi and 1 or 2 item attunements in order for one of their two off-class "big three" saves to at best maintain the same general rate of success that it had at first level. And that's assuming they play a class with a primary stat that matches one of the big three saves. Or we're back to "someone has to play the healer if we're over 5th/11th level" game design, except its save buffing instead of healing. That's what you're saying.

Remember players don't get a choice that their characters will fail more saves as the levels increase against save-or-lose effects that become ever more common as levels go up. Because that's the way the monsters and game math are written. But you say its all great since they have the option to spend large parts of their character choices on not getting worse at one save.

They arent getting worse. Lets stop with that. Youre fighting stronger monsters. That is not the same thing. You can invest, as a player, to get stronger in those areas too. The degree to which depends a little on the rules youre allowing, but you can get stronger in them.

[Blatant Beast]

Remember players don't get a choice that their characters will fail more saves as the levels increase against save-or-lose effects that become ever more common as levels go up..

Sure you do, you retire. Adventuring is Hazardous.
One might be the best ordinance defuser in the world, but if you never retire, eventually you will be blown up.

5e, as a whole has de-emphasized Save or Suck options, compared to other editions, and honestly most of the worst ones are in the hands of players.

The current tech for monsters is most maluses they inflict typically end at the End or Start of the targets or Inflictors turn.

Many current maluses, are designed to end, if someone spends an action…such as the icy restraints of Rime’s Binding Ice.

Most DMs, I know, almost never use the Banishment spell on PCs. The increasing prevalence of metal dice, means it is dangerous to do so….players sometimes Rage throw stuff! 😉

Meanwhile Players frequently use Banishment, Forcecage, and Telekinesis to mess with things.

[Ignimortis]

It seems like it would need some pretty intricate wording to work as I think you're asking it to. I'm not against the idea, but I think it could go a couple of different ways, depending on how complicated you want to make it (and how future proof you want it to be).

I wouldn't mind a return to the Fortitude/Reflex/Willpower saves of yore. Especially if it makes it easier to justify improving saves as you level.

With three, it'd be easy to go Full/Half/Third PB bonus. Follow 4th Ed's example, having a choice of 2 stats to generate the save: Con/Str for Fort; Dex/Int for Ref; Cha/Wis for Will. Resilient could then boost your 1/3 to Full as a full feat, or 1/2 to Full as a half feat.

If you're really into keeping folks from min-maxing, you could, instead of picking the better of the two stats for the feat, take the average. This would encourage more well rounded stat distribution.

If it were up to me, really up to me and I had to work with 5e as a base, I'd return saves to Fort/Ref/Will (it is a good model and works for basically everything, I see no reason to ditch it other than to reduce the amount of derived statistics), make proficiency bonus equal half your level (always round down for everything further on) and split proficiency into tiers of Untrained (+stat only), Basic (+1/2 PB), Trained (+3/4 PB), Expert (+PB).

Then split up weapon attacks and spell attacks into different proficiencies (possibly with spell attacks vs Save DC replacing saving throws?), and add "defense proficiency" to all classes, with pure casters getting either untrained or basic defense prof, and martials getting either trained (monk supplements that with WIS and ends up quite tanky indirectly, but it's more MAD, barb with CON (maybe barb gets basic, even, to really play into "I just tank hits, it's fine"), rogue just doesn't want to be targeted often and will have to play off active defenses and reactions) or expert (Fighter deserves something, dammit) defense prof. Skills are probably gonna be an issue, because they really need another step past Expert for PB x2.

Saves therefore go, per class: either one Expert, one Trained, one Untrained, or one Expert and two Basic, or three Trained (slightly better total, not as great in anything - maybe not the best idea?). Diamond Soul punches you up to all Expert and really seals the deal on high-level Monk tankiness, or something. There are feats (feats are uncoupled from ASIs in this theoretical hack) that allow you to bump one save one rank up, but perhaps it can only be taken once.

The funny thing is, if you drop all the dull +X magic items, the general math seems to generally work out. Maybe some synergies need nerfs and some higher-level enemies need a few buffs (or armor could stand to lose a couple points of base AC), but in a hack of that depth, I'd have to figure that out anyways.

[Telok]

They arent getting worse. Lets stop with that. Youre fighting stronger monsters. That is not the same thing.

You're saying monster save dcs don't go up? I thought the math was pretty simple; of con/dex/wis a character is proficient in one save that will increase by level, because of the character increasing in level you will face higher save dcs from higher level monsters, therefore a character will fail more and more saves against stronger effects as they increase in level. Or are you saying that players can choose for their characters in an adventure like OotA to never face monsters with higher save dcs than they faced at first level?

I mean, "fight monsters, level up, fight bigger monsters" is kind of core to d&d gameplay. I'm pretty sure WotC hasn't put out any adventures where characters level up more than once or twice and don't ever fight any monsters with higher crs & dcs. So I'm back to understanding you as saying "characters failing saves more as they level up is good and right core game play". With an addendum that if you spend half your character's asi and an item attunement slot or two, then you can be only slightly worse at making saves than when you started, instead of utterly pathetic. And a new addendum that says if the gm runs the game totally contrary to expectations and intended use then there won't be any problems because your 12th level fighters are still facing cr 1/4 kobolds and such.

[Keltest]

Yes, an aboleth's save DC does not go up with the party's level. Nor does a dragon's (of a given type and age.)

[Skrum]

Yes, an aboleth's save DC does not go up with the party's level. Nor does a dragon's (of a given type and age.)

In Keltest's games, the party only faces a single monster for the entire game. Level 1: basilisk. Level 5: basilisk. Level 10: basilisk. Level 15: basilisk.

I can see why you aren't aware of the problem with saving throws!

[Nagog]

In Short,
-Saves are busted because DCs are expected to increase over time but saves are not, removing one of the goals of increased player agency without being inhibited by needing to significantly plan out a character
- The math of the game is fundamentally off because attack bonuses and damage values of monsters increase by CR, but not PC AC values, leading to a feeling of characters getting weaker as they level rather than stronger
- the lack of need for mechanical bonuses from other sources leading to looser game design with multiple areas that are easy to exploit

I disagree with these, but this isn't the point of the thread and yet has been discussed to death so...

But the thing I am more interested in, Is this nugget. Its a blog from 2018 (so definitely not new information), but the idea it posits is interesting. It is essentially a list of observations comparing the DMG monster guidelines and Monster Manuel statblocks and noting some weird stuff, in short:
- Monsters tend to have lower HP and expected damage across the board than the DMG would have us believe
- Monsters tend to have higher attack values then what the DMG would have us believe
- Monster HP, AC, Damage and Attack bonuses have mild correlation. The DMG would have us believe high attack bonuses would be balanced by lower damage and vice versa. but in practice there is little to suggest that in the MM. High AC monsters have comparable HP to low AC monsters and High Attack bonus monsters have comparable damage to Low Attack Bonus monsters.
- Of particular personal validation, Resistances and Immunity have no correlation to a monsters HP to a given CR, which makes sense as vulnerability does not according to the DMG, despite being the same thing from a game perspective presented differently

Does this match up with what people have observed using these systems? What are your opinions on any of this?

I think there are a lot of factors that go into calculating CR, but a TON of them aren't easy to quantify. Take for example the Rakshasa: Having immunity to any spell under 6th level is a huge CR weight, particularly for calculating what level of party should be facing one. But take away that ability and they're easily 5 or 6 CR lower, but putting a whole block of text about how to balance something like that for homebrew purposes is far more work than it's worth.

[Keltest]

In Keltest's games, the party only faces a single monster for the entire game. Level 1: basilisk. Level 5: basilisk. Level 10: basilisk. Level 15: basilisk.

I can see why you aren't aware of the problem with saving throws!

Im aware of what you claim is the problem, I just disagree that its a problem. There are things you the player get better at. There are things the monsters get better at as CR goes up. These two things are not always directly opposing each other.

[Ignimortis]

Im aware of what you claim is the problem, I just disagree that its a problem. There are things you the player get better at. There are things the monsters get better at as CR goes up. These two things are not always directly opposing each other.

I'd say that enemy ability save DC and player saving throws are always directly opposing each other.

[Keltest]

I'd say that enemy ability save DC and player saving throws are always directly opposing each other.

Yeah, but players dont always get better at the specific save they use, the same as how players dont always get better at AC, or hit points, or run speed, or...

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, but players dont always get better at the specific save they use, the same as how players dont always get better at AC, or hit points, or run speed, or...

That's not the contention though.

The contention is that players always get worse at their saves. All their saves. They're running in six red queen's races at the same time and losing all of them.

[Brookshw]

-Saves are busted because DCs are expected to increase over time but saves are not, removing one of the goals of increased player agency without being inhibited by needing to significantly plan out a character

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.

[stoutstien]

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.

Would be nice wouldn't it? Unfortunately they have been steadily walking backwards from that aspect since launch.

[Theodoxus]

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.

interesting. So, when a DM throws a creature at the party that has an effect that negates a character's ability to act, say, a save or suck that knocks them unconscious, you're saying that said player should have no meta knowledge that such a creature exists, that the character should not prepare any resistances to the effect, and just suck it up if the party comes across such a creature? Because you can't decide any actions when they're removed by such an effect.

Seems to me, agency must needs include the ability to know what weaknesses you have and how best to shore them up. Especially as you move out of heroic mode into superheroic in the last tier and a half of play.

Of course, it would help if Fighters, et al, had the ability to shift their focus as readily as Wizards can. If you're about to fight an ancient red dragon in a day or two, sure would be handy to be able to boost your Dex save (swapping out Con in the interim) as easily as a Wizard can just swap out for more impactful spells (certainly dropping Fireball and Meteor Swarm for more cold and/or force damage, right?)

Nah, can't do that though. Fighter's just gotta suck it up and hope maybe in their long career they decided to take Shield Master to help their pitiful Dex save instead. Wait, that's metagaming... shoot.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're really into keeping folks from min-maxing, you could, instead of picking the better of the two stats for the feat, take the average. This would encourage more well rounded stat distribution.

I liked what 13th Age did, conceptually, but we didn't get to play much so I didn't get to see what happened over time.

The contention is that players always get worse at their saves. All their saves. They're running in six red queen's races at the same time and losing all of them.

But they don't; they only get worse at four of them. (Monks excepted) (Which I suspect was the point you were making?)

[Blatant Beast]

If Bob the Fighter has three day to prepare to face the Red Dragon on the 5th level of Delicious in Dungeon's compound, that sounds like a shopping trip to me.

-The easiest thing Bob can do, is acquire the services of hirelings...they act as cover, and laborers only make 2 sp per day. If Bob has a posse, they have a +2 bonus to Dexterity saves, from the cover. Granted, the 'cover' is only going to last one round...but hey, if the dragon starts the combat off with their breath weapon, it was money well spent.

In the White room, (with black curtains), that apparently all discussions regarding the Wizard class must take place in, the assumption inherent in the discussion is the Wizard has all the spells in their spellbook and an infinite capacity to prepare them all.

Reality is a bit more limiting than that.

High Level Psi Warriors, can give their party Psionic Half Cover. High Level Rune Knights can reflect physical attacks, give Advantage or Disadvantage on Saving Throws, and a host of other options before considering the gear and feats.

[GloatingSwine]

But they don't; they only get worse at four of them. (Monks excepted) (Which I suspect was the point you were making?)

As has been pointed out several times in the thread though save DCs of monsters increase at a higher rate than even the supposed strong saves.

Which means that the projected chance of success of players making any kind of save goes down over time.

It’s a red queen’s race, you need to run as fast as you can to try and stay in the same place. But you’re doomed and can’t.

Because they designed a system where saves didn’t change much over the range of levels and then forgot they’d done that when they wrote the monster stats. (Along with all the other design principles they said they were working from, like negative correlation between ac and hitpoints)

[Keltest]

As has been pointed out several times in the thread though save DCs of monsters increase at a higher rate than even the supposed strong saves.

Which means that the projected chance of success of players making any kind of save goes down over time.

It’s a red queen’s race, you need to run as fast as you can to try and stay in the same place. But you’re doomed and can’t.

Because they designed a system where saves didn’t change much over the range of levels and then forgot they’d done that when they wrote the monster stats. (Along with all the other design principles they said they were working from, like negative correlation between ac and hitpoints)

I mean people have been saying it, but I dont recall seeing any actual lists or charts posted. Beyond the fact that as has been pointed out repeatedly, old monsters dont just go away either.

[stoutstien]

As has been pointed out several times in the thread though save DCs of monsters increase at a higher rate than even the supposed strong saves.

Which means that the projected chance of success of players making any kind of save goes down over time.

It’s a red queen’s race, you need to run as fast as you can to try and stay in the same place. But you’re doomed and can’t.

Because they designed a system where saves didn’t change much over the range of levels and then forgot they’d done that when they wrote the monster stats. (Along with all the other design principles they said they were working from, like negative correlation between ac and hitpoints)

DND has had strong treadmill tendencies since 3.x. 5e went a long way to dial it back but it didn't remove it completely. Hard to not have it creep in with such a broad PC progression of 20 levels and jumping from local hero to world changers. (It's doable but very difficult)

[Skrum]

Im aware of what you claim is the problem, I just disagree that its a problem. There are things you the player get better at. There are things the monsters get better at as CR goes up. These two things are not always directly opposing each other.

My *very specific* complaint is that my fun is negatively impacted when my character gets locked out of turns for rounds on end - adding up to an hour or more of RL time.

Certain classes, namely ones that don't get wisdom save proficiency or have any other resource to draw upon in order to have a semi-decent chance of making of wisdom save, are especially likely to suffer this.

Far from feeling like there's a class-agnostic solution to this, I feel that the "option" is extremely weak. Resilient: Wis costs way too much and does way too little. Ditto for stat points; I should not have to suffer significant penalty to my main proficiency(s) in order to get +5% to a core save.

In the context of a "bounded accuracy" game, I think this is a real shortcoming in the system. I do not find a 10 or 15% chance of success to be sufficiently bounded.

[Keltest]

My *very specific* complaint is that my fun is negatively impacted when my character gets locked out of turns for rounds on end - adding up to an hour or more of RL time.

Certain classes, namely ones that don't get wisdom save proficiency or have any other resource to draw upon in order to have a semi-decent chance of making of wisdom save, are especially likely to suffer this.

Far from feeling like there's a class-agnostic solution to this, I feel that the "option" is extremely weak. Resilient: Wis costs way too much and does way too little. Ditto for stat points; I should not have to suffer significant penalty to my main proficiency(s) in order to get +5% to a core save.

In the context of a "bounded accuracy" game, I think this is a real shortcoming in the system. I do not find a 10 or 15% chance of success to be sufficiently bounded.

And I disagree with you completely. Resilient is fine. If it does "way too little" then you clearly dont value being able to avoid wis targeting saves very much. Your two premises are, quite simply, contradictory.

[Brookshw]

Would be nice wouldn't it? Unfortunately they have been steadily walking backwards from that aspect since launch.

They can do what they want I guess, but its not a meaning of the word as has traditionally been used.

interesting. So, when a DM throws a creature at the party that has an effect that negates a character's ability to act, say, a save or suck that knocks them unconscious, you're saying that said player should have no meta knowledge that such a creature exists, that the character should not prepare any resistances to the effect, and just suck it up if the party comes across such a creature? Because you can't decide any actions when they're removed by such an effect.

No player is entitled to know what they're going to go up against, that you're taking thr position that unless players get to know what they're up against to prepare for it they lack agency is baffling. Hard pass.

[Skrum]

And I disagree with you completely. Resilient is fine. If it does "way too little" then you clearly dont value being able to avoid wis targeting saves very much. Your two premises are, quite simply, contradictory.

Spending 1 of my 2 ASI's for a +3 or +4 to wisdom - sacrificing at a minimum 2 points to my main stat - yah man, that's not reasonable. Not when full casters can just sink all their points into their main stat with no particular concerns.

[Keltest]

Spending 1 of my 2 ASI's for a +3 or +4 to wisdom - sacrificing at a minimum 2 points to my main stat - yah man, that's not reasonable. Not when full casters can just sink all their points into their main stat with no particular concerns.

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.