A weird thing about monsters

[Skrum]

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).

If we all stay bunched up, sure. But that's usually not possible or desirable - ranged enemies, AoE, etc.

[Sorinth]

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.

Yeah I think this is a case of the DM overreacting to previously failed encounters (Possibly even from a different campaign) and learning the wrong lessons on how to make the encounter(s) challenging.

[Tendril]

I feel like saves would be more reasonable if PC's had proficiency in all saves by default, and had expertise in their good saves rather than just proficiency. Then you'd have something closer to actual bounded accuracy for saves. Would make Aura of Protection a little problematic though.

[Segev]

I feel like saves would be more reasonable if PC's had proficiency in all saves by default, and had expertise in their good saves rather than just proficiency. Then you'd have something closer to actual bounded accuracy for saves. Would make Aura of Protection a little problematic though.

Bounded accuracy means that lower-end things still are relevant. What you describe is the opposite of that.

[GloatingSwine]

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.

The point is that you can’t assume any particular ability available to the party when designing monsters for a table-agnostic design space like the Monster Manual.

The inflation of save DCs on monsters in excess of proficient saves at high stats is not justified by the existence of Paladins.

And whilst I don’t think they did design it that way for that reason (I think they did it because they didn’t think very hard at all about how they’d designed saves) people have brought it up.

[Keltest]

The point is that you can’t assume any particular ability available to the party when designing monsters for a table-agnostic design space like the Monster Manual.

The inflation of save DCs on monsters in excess of proficient saves at high stats is not justified by the existence of Paladins.

And whilst I don’t think they did design it that way for that reason (I think they did it because they didn’t think very hard at all about how they’d designed saves) people have brought it up.

True, but there are enough abilities across enough classes that creating a team that genuinely has no shot of passing a save by level 20 is so unlikely it would basically have to be a deliberate act.

[Tendril]

Bounded accuracy means that lower-end things still are relevant. What you describe is the opposite of that.

You'll still be able to fail in your weak saves, so it's not like weaker enemies totally lose relevance. But yeah, I see the problem. Don't know if it's avoidable if you want PC saves to keep up with higher save DC's as things stand right now though.

[KorvinStarmast]

True, but there are enough abilities across enough classes that creating a team that genuinely has no shot of passing a save by level 20 is so unlikely it would basically have to be a deliberate act.

or simply bad party compositio.
We had a thread a few years ago about party optimization ... but even simple stuff like the four core classes i the basic rules (2018 basic rules) allow boosts to saves.
Example: the bless spell offers a 1d4 bonus to saving throws. It is a first level spell. That's "+2.5" on average.

[Keltest]

or simply bad party compositio.
We had a thread a few years ago about party optimization ...

I mean sure, you can make a meme party of all fighters and barbarians, but at that point like I said, youre doing it on purpose.

[Amnestic]

Sounds like people want a return to the heady days of 4e with explicit roles and requirements to have them in the party.

[Keltest]

Sounds like people want a return to the heady days of 4e with explicit roles and requirements to have them in the party.

That is definitely not what I said. Its not a problem if your group doesnt have a cleric. The game im in right now doesnt have a cleric. We're sure getting an understanding of why people have clerics in the group, but we don't need one. Its making certain things harder and some things easier (because we have more people who are good at those things).

[Telok]

Ah, so it is that the game has gone back to "you need a cleric in the party for heals in order for it to be fun". Its just been pushed back to level 8-9-10 plus, expanded to cleric druid pally bard, and revolves around status effects.

Well that explains why, after about 10th level, our party of fighter barbarian ranger warlock sorcerer cleric started skipping sessions every time the cleric player couldn't make it. We only thought the melee guys sitting out hour long fights was funny the first time or two, not when it was a regular thing every other fight.

[GloatingSwine]

True, but there are enough abilities across enough classes that creating a team that genuinely has no shot of passing a save by level 20 is so unlikely it would basically have to be a deliberate act.

However it’s quite easy to build a party that is worse at all their saves at high levels than they were at low levels. Even the ones their characters are supposed to be good at.

[Keltest]

Ah, so it is that the game has gone back to "you need a cleric in the party for heals in order for it to be fun". Its just been pushed back to level 8-9-10 plus, expanded to cleric druid pally bard, and revolves around status effects.

Well that explains why, after about 10th level, our party of fighter barbarian ranger warlock sorcerer cleric started skipping sessions every time the cleric player couldn't make it. We only thought the melee guys sitting out hour long fights was funny the first time or two, not when it was a regular thing every other fight.

Its fascinating how you somehow manage to interpret "no" as "yes".

[Skrum]

Bounded accuracy means that lower-end things still are relevant. What you describe is the opposite of that.

Some classes have to have their wisdom saves locked at +0ish so DC 10 saving throws from CR 1 enemies remain "relevant?"

I think there's a lot of problems with that (starting with *which classes* draw the short end of that stick), but frankly, even if a barb's wisdom save went from +2 at level 1 (proficiency and 10 wisdom) to +7 at level 17 (proficiency, 10 wisdom, cloak of protection), that seems entirely fine. Are they very likely to resist a Quasit's scare? Yes. But they're level 17!!!!! They should not be afraid of a quasit!!!

To the larger point about bounded accuracy, I think the best version of bounded accuracy means that most tasks (against level-relevant threats) are in the 25%-75% range. That's the sweet spot. Large enough range to inform good and bad tactics, but staying well away from 3e's "always fail, always succeed" dynamic. It should be hard to break out of those ranges, and to that point, making a save that allows you to continue to play your character should not stray below that mark.

[Slipjig]

It should be hard to break out of those ranges, and to that point, making a save that allows you to continue to play your character should not stray below that mark.

Are you saying it should never drop below 25% WITHOUT external help/magic items? Or are we assuming a least a minimal level of party support/magic items (Bless, Enhanced Ability, X of Protection, etc.)?

While I agree it FEELS wrong for a Barb to be vulnerable to fear, it's important to remember that Fear effects generally aren't a "This is a scary monster, so I'm Frightened" thing. It's generally a "there's a magical effect attempting to trigger a specific emotional response" thing. The level 17 Barb isn't actually afraid of the Quasit, the Quasit is triggering a magical fear response. And if "weak against mind-effecting magic" is part of your class, it makes sense that even the low-level versions might still be able to effect you, and you have almost no chance (without external support) against a boss monster that target that weakness.

Levelling up doesn't always mean we outgrowing our weaknesses. We still expect an ice elemental to be vulnerable to fire, no matter how many hit dice it has.

[Sindeloke]

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.

-1 to a save is also hardly Lenny. 8 Intelligence is "I got a C- in geometry." 8 Wisdom is "I had to put an airtag on my keys." The degree to which people will act like barely below average is the same as cringing, drooling imbecile in this playerbase is absolutely wild. Wolves have INT 3 and are capable of incredibly sophisticated hunting tactics.

Now I can see where, if you come at the situation with the idea that 8 INT is "I literally can't read and can barely even speak" and not "I got an 840 on the SAT", it makes sense to say "oh obviously a person with 8 INT shouldn't be able to see through an illusion most of the time" but. That is a wrong idea. 8 INT is still a problem-solving, tool-using, clothes-wearing, capable human being. In real life, that guy probably fixes your car, or bakes your weekend pastry, or runs the coffee shop who's wi-fi you're using right now. Even if we outscored him on the SAT, he still knows lots of things about his profession that you and I have no concept of, and could absolutely baffle us with the little tips and tricks and skills he's picked up for navigating that profession. So, if that profession is "killing dragons," it is pretty reasonable that he should recognize when something about a dragon is slightly off, and thus probably shouldn't fail his save against Illusory Dragon every single time.

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.

I think the intent of Aura was that paladins are sufficiently MAD that they're usually only offering +2 or so.

Which, if there were more ways to get a similar effect, or if saves were more balanced, would probably be true. I imagine 90% of paladins who go high CHA are doing it primarily because Aura is such a unique and uniquely potent tool that it's difficult to justify not optimizing it. If Aura were less special, you might not see that same pressure.

[Skrum]

Are you saying it should never drop below 25% WITHOUT external help/magic items? Or are we assuming a least a minimal level of party support/magic items (Bless, Enhanced Ability, X of Protection, etc.)?

I think each class should, entirely within their own power and without spending any particular build resource (ASI or the like) should be in that range against level-appropriate threats. Maybe certain extremely powerful enemies should push that a bit higher - like a dragon's breath weapon or a lich's spells should perhaps rightfully have high DC's. But each class should feel like a competent adventurer.

If a whole party decides they want to stack saves (the cleric is always concentrating on bless, everyone stands in the paladin's aura, and the artificer always saves their reaction for Flash of Genius), well obviously they're not gonna fail many saves. But even in that case, I think those abilities are ideally tuned such that 75% is something of a soft ceiling.

What I think the fix here is? All characters are proficient in all saves. And then save-boosting abilities (flash of genius, aura of protection) are nerfed. That way even if saves are stacked, the upper bound still doesn't reach "just don't roll a 1" level.

While I agree it FEELS wrong for a Barb to be vulnerable to fear, it's important to remember that Fear effects generally aren't a "This is a scary monster, so I'm Frightened" thing. It's generally a "there's a magical effect attempting to trigger a specific emotional response" thing. The level 17 Barb isn't actually afraid of the Quasit, the Quasit is triggering a magical fear response. And if "weak against mind-effecting magic" is part of your class, it makes sense that even the low-level versions might still be able to effect you, and you have almost no chance (without external support) against a boss monster that target that weakness.

Levelling up doesn't always mean we outgrowing our weaknesses. We still expect an ice elemental to be vulnerable to fire, no matter how many hit dice it has.

True enough, but I can tell you that in the moment, failing that save to a fear effect and not getting to move or having to drop your weapon and run away, like that just sucks. It's about the opposite of heroic, and it's frustrating to get hit like that.

[Ignimortis]

I feel like saves would be more reasonable if PC's had proficiency in all saves by default, and had expertise in their good saves rather than just proficiency. Then you'd have something closer to actual bounded accuracy for saves. Would make Aura of Protection a little problematic though.

Decent basic math fix. Works just fine. Aura of Protection now scales as +1/2 PB extra on top, all problems with it avoided. +9 in a bad save at level 17 is hardly anything to write home about, it's still a "bad' save, you just fail it on a 10 or less rather than a 13 or less.

Bounded accuracy means that lower-end things still are relevant. What you describe is the opposite of that.

And they are, for the vast majority of levelling. A level 12 character has just +4 to their save in a stat where they have +0 statmod. That hardly puts them out of range of lower-end things.

Unless, of course, bounded accuracy is actually meant to be "you should have a relatively high chance to fail at things you're supposed to be good at even against foes that are 7 levels below you", and then sure, having a good save at +13 does mean you are basically immune to CR4 or 5s DC 14 abilities targeting that save. But I don't see that as a bad thing, because AC and to-hit already work that way. At level 12 or so, you can have a character who's running around with like 23 AC and potentially can get more at a moment's notice, which means that an average +7 to-hit CR4 or 5 enemy can barely manage to land a swing on a 16+. And vice versa, a level 12 character can be swinging around at +10 to-hit, landing hits on most CR4 or CR5 foes on a 5 or less.

I think each class should, entirely within their own power and without spending any particular build resource (ASI or the like) should be in that range against level-appropriate threats.

Bingo.

[Theodoxus]

To the larger point about bounded accuracy, I think the best version of bounded accuracy means that most tasks (against level-relevant threats) are in the 25%-75% range. That's the sweet spot. Large enough range to inform good and bad tactics, but staying well away from 3e's "always fail, always succeed" dynamic. It should be hard to break out of those ranges, and to that point, making a save that allows you to continue to play your character should not stray below that mark.

Seems like the easiest way to accomplish that, would be for saves to be PB agnostic, and wholly dependent on your stats. Thus, a CR1 critter might have a save DC of 12. A CR25 critter would likewise have a save DC of 12.

Then again, maybe we borrow from the other thread about skills and have all DCs be static. Roll 10 or less, you fail. Roll 11-14, you fail but only for a round (for status effects). Roll 15-20, you succeed. Roll 21+, you succeed spectacularly - maybe gaining immunity to any status effects from that specific creature, or granting a temporary boon to your party members saves equal to the amount over 20 you rolled.

Not sure what to do about saves vs damage. 10 or less double damage seems really harsh. Even 1.5X damage is pretty deadly...

[Telok]

Its fascinating how you somehow manage to interpret "no" as "yes".

Non sequitur. I fail to inderstand what you're talking about. Context?

Unrelated to Kel:
It looks like monster save dcs scale linear about 8 points from 11s at cr 1/4 to 19s at cr 16+. Pc on-class saves will scale 4-7 points over those levels. Investing two of your four asi and one of three item slots (if you can get the right item) can scale one off-class save by 8 points. Looks like con saves are mostly poison but some are petrify/paralysis. Str and dex are basically ignorable since hp scale well enough. But the big majority of the mental saves are suck/lose types.

[Blatant Beast]

I mean sure, you can make a meme party of all fighters and barbarians, but at that point like I said, youre doing it on purpose.

Dying because one did not have a Paladin, or a cleric that prepared the Bless spell is not a reasonable design goal.

Class leveled hirelings and magic item shops are not as forefront in the D&D zeitgeist as in 1e or other earlier versions of the game.

Real life groups can’t put out the LFG sign of MMO’s and pull in the right membership.

In the example I gave of my real life Fighter PC, if one of my friends had not played an Artificer, my PC would have absolutely gone crazy more than they did.

If certain party roles and party archetypes are essential for success, then the PHB and DMG, really need well written sections explaining this to the millions of new players out there….as the current impression that WotC gives is “Play what you want”…..not “Play what you want, as long as you have a cleric and Paladin in Curse of Strahd”.

There is a huge difference between the two statements.

[Amnestic]

I've now codified my consumable idea from like two threads ago. If the game isn't going to make clear the soft requirement for a divine caster, then consumables gotta pick up the slack.

Cure-Somes
Consumable, Common

The Cure-Somes are a collection of fix-it's for various conditions, all grouped together under a single collective. A Cure-Some costs 50gp to purchase as standard and are available from any alchemist/apothecary from which you could purchase healing potions.

The conditions that Cure-Some cover are Blinded, Charmed, Deafened, Frightened, Incapacitated, Paralyzed, Poisoned, and Stunned. Each Cure-Some only covers one condition, chosen when you purchase it. Some examples of Cure-Somes might be Eye Drops, Smelling Salts, or an energising concoction that induces a surge of Adrenaline.

A more expensive Cure-All (also called a Remedy) cures all of the above at once, plus Petrification, can also be purchased; this costs 1000gp.

Applying a Cure-Some or a Cure-All to either yourself or another creature requires an Action.

50gp puts it at the same price as a healing potion (aka the thing that cures "being at 0 hit points") and the action cost to use it means that it's suitably costly on action economy.

[Ignimortis]

I've now codified my consumable idea from like two threads ago. If the game isn't going to make clear the soft requirement for a divine caster, then consumables gotta pick up the slack.


50gp puts it at the same price as a healing potion (aka the thing that cures "being at 0 hit points") and the action cost to use it means that it's suitably costly on action economy.

Remedies at 1000 gp are too pricey. The way I remember it, Esuna-analogues used to run maybe 4 times or 5 times the cost of Eye Drops or Echo Screens. Petrification is rare enough that you could run separate Gold Needles for 100 and a supply of like ten would last you a whole campaign. You could split them into "Common condition removers" (blinded, frightened, deafened, poisoned) running 50gp a pop and "Advanced condition removers" (Charmed, Incapacitated, Paralyzed, Stunned, Petrified) for 100 gp each, and then a cure-all/Remedy for 200 gp.

[Amnestic]

Remedies at 1000 gp are too pricey. The way I remember it, Esuna-analogues used to run maybe 4 times or 5 times the cost of Eye Drops or Echo Screens. Petrification is rare enough that you could run separate Gold Needles for 100 and a supply of like ten would last you a whole campaign. You could split them into "Common condition removers" (blinded, frightened, deafened, poisoned) running 50gp a pop and "Advanced condition removers" (Charmed, Incapacitated, Paralyzed, Stunned, Petrified) for 100 gp each, and then a cure-all/Remedy for 200 gp.

I pegged it at 1000 because I remembered Greater Restoration costing 500gp in diamond dust, so I thought all conditions+diamond dust cost+5th level slot equivalent=1k felt about right.

...turns out it's actually 100gp in dust for GR, so yeah, you're absolutely right, Remedy should go down to like 200 or 250 or something instead.

The core idea's the same though: A relatively inexpensive consumable item that cures conditions, and is restricted mostly by how many you end up investing in and action economy once you're at tier 3 onwards.

[Segev]

The idea — and how well this plays out is open to debate — is that your weak saves with weak stats will fail against higher-end monster abilities that target those saves. But you will have more non-save or save-influencing defenses, including more chances to try the save. Note that, while a particularly bad save could place you at a point where a particularly high DC is impossible (e.g. anything over 20 with a save bonus of +0 or lower), there are ways to defend against the common kinds of threats for most saves.

I think fighter types vs. mind whammies are the mlst vulnerable, and as thus is a game about parties, the fighter can expect magical buffs when needed, just as the wizard can expect the fighter to be seeking to spend his hp so the wizard doesn't have to.



What is of more interest to me in this there's is the discussion of monster design. When I was making bears to extend up from CRs 1-6, I noticed the guidelines for monster CR would give a lot less damage and a lot more hp, and that the bears are skewed heavily and don't always sum to the listed CR. I wonder, theRefore, why the DMG guidance is so skewed compared to monster stats as given. It often comes close when you average offensive and defensive CRs, but why give the DMG guidance such that you skew down and up and come to meet in the middle, rather than setting the values 'in the middle' to be what you tend to want them at?

[Sorinth]

What is of more interest to me in this there's is the discussion of monster design. When I was making bears to extend up from CRs 1-6, I noticed the guidelines for monster CR would give a lot less damage and a lot more hp, and that the bears are skewed heavily and don't always sum to the listed CR. I wonder, theRefore, why the DMG guidance is so skewed compared to monster stats as given. It often comes close when you average offensive and defensive CRs, but why give the DMG guidance such that you skew down and up and come to meet in the middle, rather than setting the values 'in the middle' to be what you tend to want them at?

My guess is that less damage more HP as a baseline means that you get less unexpected TPKs which for people new to creating their own monsters is probably a good thing/desirable. Since there is no perfect guidelines it makes sense to err a bit on the side of being undertuned then it does being overtuned since the worst case situation of an undertuned monster is a lot less of a problem then the worst case situation of an overtuned monster.

[Keltest]

What baffles me is people saying its "necessary" to have a cleric as if theyre exclusively fighting creatures with DC 21+ wis save effects. Theyre an incredible minority of monsters only intended to be fought by the highest level parties as boss monsters or other climactic fights. It is entirely possible (and even likely, based on the typical campaign level range) to go an entire campaign without seeing any of them.

[Ignimortis]

What baffles me is people saying its "necessary" to have a cleric as if theyre exclusively fighting creatures with DC 21+ wis save effects. Theyre an incredible minority of monsters only intended to be fought by the highest level parties as boss monsters or other climactic fights. It is entirely possible (and even likely, based on the typical campaign level range) to go an entire campaign without seeing any of them.

In any campaign that went past level 10 or so, I've regularly seen enemies with at least DC18 or higher DCs on their abilities, often when the players were not at +11 or even +10 in their strongest saves.

My experience of 5e is that GMs, as they grow more experienced, stop trying to use "bounded accuracy" in the "yeah I can just throw a bunch of low-level enemies at the party and they'll be about as dangerous as a high-level enemy", because that isn't true. The last times we've fought a bunch of noticeably lower-level enemies, the following happened:
1) Enemies: like a dozen CR3 wights against a level 13 or so party. Result: Wiped out in four incredibly boring but also incredibly safe turns. The party took maybe 20 damage between everyone.
2) Enemies: a whole bunch (maybe 20?) lower-level giants against a level 18 party. Result: the sorcerer mindcontrolled most of them through some magic item and set them to fight those who weren't controlled. The rest of the party fought the dragon that was leading them.
3) Enemies: six intellect devourers attacking a level 18 party from stealth. Result: two party members dead, survivors being a maxed-INT wizard and two monks. Nothing we've faced in this campaign was as dangerous, before or after. Blew a Wish to resurrect them, but it was still nasty.

None of those encounters were all that fun for at least one side.

[Telok]

3) Enemies: six intellect devourers attacking a level 18 party from stealth. Result: two party members dead, survivors being a maxed-INT wizard and two monks. Nothing we've faced in this campaign was as dangerous, before or after. Blew a Wish to resurrect them, but it was still nasty.

Heh. Reminds me of one fight, about 13th or 14th level. We opened a door and saw bunches of coffins in the part of the room we could see. Naturally they started to oprn and because of the plot we knew they were vampires of some sort. Three casters laid buffs on the fighter and then we closed & sealed the door to let him solo the room full of 20+ vamps. About six rounds later the barbarian got bored, ran around to a side door, and attacked from behind. The next round barby was KOed from failing saves and we had to go use a bunch of spells to rescue him. The fighter just kept solo mowing through the mob, functionally immune to everything in there from magic buffed saves with advantage and high AC with disadvantage. We just didn't have enough divine casters to make two warriors good vs the vamp's.