A weird thing about monsters

[Ignimortis]

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

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.

But even a Cloak of Protection, like, +2 (which does not exist RAW, but one of my GMs made one), doesn't bring your success rate back to 1st level values. The only way you're kinda improving over time if if your party has a Paladin, then suddenly you've got +4 or even +5 to all saves at level 20, and your best save is hovering at +16 or so...which means you're slightly over 1st level success rates.

[Theodoxus]

Ok, reading over the thread, I'm confused (shock, I know).

Is the issue that PCs have 4 (or 3, with a feat) bad saves, and thus it's easy for the DM to pick monsters that target bad saves and without magic (or a decently high level Paladin), the game is too hard/harsh/whatever?

Or is the issue that PCs have 4 (or 3, with a feat) bad saves, and thus the DM has to specifically curate encounters that only target good saves, so the PCs have a chance to participate/survive, and the DM is thus free to not give out protective magic / ensure a decently high level Paladin is around.

While I tend to not see RPGs as a 'someone must lose for someone else to win' type situation, I also don't tend to pull punches that much. I mean, maybe lower the expected damage a bit, maybe - but I don't purposefully not use Fireball if there are few/none Dex save proficiencies.

Then again, I'm pretty generous with magic items, both permanent and consumable; both silly and serious. But mostly, I expect the players to use their brains, come up with outside the box thinking if inside the box builds aren't working; or I expect them to lose. Not die, Mr. Bond, but lose. End up in the classic scenario of imprisoned or enslaved and think their way out of that. It certainly didn't have to go that way, if they'd been a bit more prudent. I don't tend to make encounters over the top - but rarely do I also make them binary. Win or Die. Though my players always seem to think so...

I guess in RPGs, there are a lot of things worse than death. Who wants to deal with a session or two breaking out of prison when death is the faster path...

[Witty Username]

Is the issue that PCs have 4 (or 3, with a feat) bad saves, and thus it's easy for the DM to pick monsters that target bad saves and without magic (or a decently high level Paladin), the game is too hard/harsh/whatever?

As a DM, this is the problem I am personally more concerned with.
I don't mind people (especially me) having weaknesses but saves tend to outright remove a character from participation.

And this can crop up more unexpectedly, I personally tend to have an good grip on good saves, but bad saves can be a bit squishy, not helped by everyone having different saves. It doesn't take much to over step mess up a combat, and non-damage effects aren't used in CRs with complicates things.

[Ignimortis]

Ok, reading over the thread, I'm confused (shock, I know).

Is the issue that PCs have 4 (or 3, with a feat) bad saves, and thus it's easy for the DM to pick monsters that target bad saves and without magic (or a decently high level Paladin), the game is too hard/harsh/whatever?

Or is the issue that PCs have 4 (or 3, with a feat) bad saves, and thus the DM has to specifically curate encounters that only target good saves, so the PCs have a chance to participate/survive, and the DM is thus free to not give out protective magic / ensure a decently high level Paladin is around.

While I tend to not see RPGs as a 'someone must lose for someone else to win' type situation, I also don't tend to pull punches that much. I mean, maybe lower the expected damage a bit, maybe - but I don't purposefully not use Fireball if there are few/none Dex save proficiencies.

The issue is that most characters never improve in saving throws at all (relative to their "fair" opponents) unless they have a paladin. It is quite literally easier to save against a low-level enemy at low level than it is to save against a high-level enemy at high level, even if both use your "good" save (proficient+dependent on your main stat).

As such, it becomes extremely easy for anyone to fail a single saving throw (potentially against a save-or-suck effect, which are still present in the game, but also in general) and there's almost no hope of success vs any save you aren't at least proficient with. Being removed from combat with a single roll you couldn't even feasibly succeed at kind of sucks.

[Theodoxus]

Would you consider adopting '1/2 PB' to currently nonproficient saves? Could go one of two ways:

1) All saves not listed as proficient for a class are granted 1/2 (rounded down) proficiency bonus. This is considerably stronger than 5Es base, but does nearly completely alleviate the problem.

2) Pick a strong (Con, Dex, Wis) and a weak (Cha, Int, Str) save you're not currently proficient in. Gain a 1/2 (rounded down) proficiency bonus to those saves. This route still gives the DM some leeway in choosing monsters that will be harder to resist, without being as gonzo as the standard saves we have now.

Regarding the Resilient feat and this change, I would allow it to either boost two half saves to full (in option 1, it would need to be a strong and weak save), or you could choose one nonproficient save in option 2 to get full, or both nonproficient saves to go to half (thus creating option 1).

ETA:

As such, it becomes extremely easy for anyone to fail a single saving throw (potentially against a save-or-suck effect, which are still present in the game, but also in general) and there's almost no hope of success vs any save you aren't at least proficient with. Being removed from combat with a single roll you couldn't even feasibly succeed at kind of sucks.

OTOH, as a DM, it definitely sucks when you're throwing out all kinds of effects from team monster and none stick... Maybe save or suck should only stick when the target on team PC is bloodied. Gives healers a reason to keep folks from yoyo-ing; lets DMs concentrate on big attacks until someone finally gets bloodied and then they try to use status effects on them. Heck, make that a blanket status all around. No more Monks trying to stunlock the big bad on the first round of combat. That'd be sweet - letting the bad guy actually do something nice... and you know it's not gonna be a save or die cuz you have HPs...

[Witty Username]

A brief note that saves don't as often use damage effects, and so there isn't a scaling resistance.

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

[Ignimortis]

Would you consider adopting '1/2 PB' to currently nonproficient saves? Could go one of two ways:

1) All saves not listed as proficient for a class are granted 1/2 (rounded down) proficiency bonus. This is considerably stronger than 5Es base, but does nearly completely alleviate the problem.

It really doesn't. +1 to +3 is miniscule.

2) Pick a strong (Con, Dex, Wis) and a weak (Cha, Int, Str) save you're not currently proficient in. Gain a 1/2 (rounded down) proficiency bonus to those saves. This route still gives the DM some leeway in choosing monsters that will be harder to resist, without being as gonzo as the standard saves we have now.

My point is that even standard saves are decidedly not gonzo without a paladin. My absolute best save-focused character was a Monk with 22 DEX and a +2 Cloak of Protection, who had +19 total to DEX saves with a paladin aura at +5. Vs an Ancient Red Dragon, that gave him a success against breath weapons on a 5 or more. Very slightly better than what an average level 3 character has to offer vs their typical on-level DEX save, and I was basically stacking several things to make this so. A regular level 20 character has a +11 vs DC24, which is far from the same success rate.

Again, 5e saving throws are bad because their success rates actively degenerate over levelling even in your good saves. +1 to +3 for bad saves will make them slightly less bad early on, but it'll fade into semi-irrelevance at higher levels again. DC24 doesn't care whether your bonus is +0 or +3, you're still not making the save without a nat 20. DC20 only marginally cares, letting you beat it on a roll of 17+, which, while being a fourfold improvement, is still highly unlikely.

ETA:

OTOH, as a DM, it definitely sucks when you're throwing out all kinds of effects from team monster and none stick... Maybe save or suck should only stick when the target on team PC is bloodied. Gives healers a reason to keep folks from yoyo-ing; lets DMs concentrate on big attacks until someone finally gets bloodied and then they try to use status effects on them. Heck, make that a blanket status all around. No more Monks trying to stunlock the big bad on the first round of combat. That'd be sweet - letting the bad guy actually do something nice... and you know it's not gonna be a save or die cuz you have HPs...

Bad guys get legendary resistances precisely because of this. WotC could not invent any other mechanic to deal with save-or-dies in a system where the typical save DC is gonna be 19+ at high levels, and most monsters only have maybe comparable CON saves, sometimes STR saves, but not, say, WIS saves which are the scariest and yet tend to hover around +9 or so even for CR20+ creatures.

[Darth Credence]

I do not see it as a problem. I do not think comparing the likelihood of saving against a low CR enemy at low levels to saving against high CR enemies at high levels is at all meaningful.

Would a high-level character be more likely to save against the low CR monsters than a low-level character in something they have worked to improve? Would the high-level be more likely than the low-level to save against a high CR monster in something they've worked to improve? Yes to both? Then as I see it, it works as intended.

Let's take a basilisk. DC12 con save to prevent starting to be petrified. If a level 1 bard with a con of 12 runs across one, they will have a 50% chance of making that saving throw. If they then spend a career adventuring and at no point do they ever attempt to improve their constitution, why would they be more likely to make that save when level 20? What has fundamentally changed for the bard - with respect to their ability to resist things that attack their constitution - in those 20 levels that means they should be more likely to resist? A fighter in the same situation would have a 60% shot at level 1, and if they do nothing to improve con other than just by being a fighter, gets that up to 80% at level 20. A class that actually has the ability as something important to their class (as demonstrated by it being their class save type) gets better over time, and is better than the bard that did nothing. It seems like a design feature, not a bug.

Or, let's look at something powerful, like an ancient dragon. How about green, so we stick with a con save. The bard is screwed - without something to help, they are going to fail that every time. The fighter at least has a shot, passing 10% of the time at level 1, and bringing that up to 30% of the time at level 20. Again, I think it's a feature that the person who works on a specific trait gets better while the other one just doesn't.

Finally, why should the fighter be at 60% likely to save against the dragon, just because they were 60% likely to save against the basilisk? Other than a thought about fairness of mechanics in games? One of those is a rather low-level creature, a terror of farmers and town guards to be sure, but ultimately a stepping stone to greatness for an adventurer. An ancient dragon is quite possibly the biggest, baddest thing anyone in the world will ever experience, depending on the campaign. Their big deal attacks should be harder to resist than the basilisk, for everyone. A higher-level character that improves that save should be better than a low-level one or one who doesn't, sure, but that's how it works already.

[Segev]

Bad guys get legendary resistances precisely because of this. WotC could not invent any other mechanic to deal with save-or-dies in a system where the typical save DC is gonna be 19+ at high levels, and most monsters only have maybe comparable CON saves, sometimes STR saves, but not, say, WIS saves which are the scariest and yet tend to hover around +9 or so even for CR20+ creatures.

I wonder if giving boss monsters a pool of "save points" that they can spend from when they fail a saving throw, which lets them raise the save by the amount spent, would be a better mechanic. Maybe even have them be limited to certain effects, like resistances are. "This monster has 30 save points it can spend to resist stunning and incapacitation. This other monster has twenty save points it can spend to resist certification, sleep, and charm effects. This third monster has 25 save points it can spend on saving throws versus areas of effect, and takes no damage when it would take half damage if it spends any save points on the effect."

This would give some sense of value in what you choose to use on it. Could even break it down further to save point pools that are individual to types of effect, so you can wear down its charm resistance or its certification resistance.

[Darth Credence]

This other monster has twenty save points it can spend to resist certification...

Truly helpful when trying to avoid the dreaded Microsoft engineers, trying to quantify all monsters by forcing them to take tests on Excel and Word.

[Theodoxus]

Truly helpful when trying to avoid the dreaded Microsoft engineers, trying to quantify all monsters by forcing them to take tests on Excel and Word.

Sounds like Segev might be one of those, given his post apparently autocorrected twice to Certification from petrification.

[Skrum]

Oh man we're talking about saves again.

Yeah, save scaling is bad. Knowing my barb, at level 10, has almost no meaningful chance to pass a save against suggestion, fear, dominate, or charm isn't very fun. Knowing the best I could do is spend 1 of 2 ASI's I have to raise their chance to pass by 20 percentage points makes me *not bother with that at all* - I'd rather be good-good at the thing I wanted to do when I picked barb than make it marginally more likely to pass a save when they arise. It'd be one thing if I could take a feat that was like "you are immune to fear and charm." Like that's really worth a consideration. But Resilient: Wis is "you're still very unlikely to save, but it's at least not at the system minimum." That's garbage. It's a non-answer.

To answer the OP a little more directly, I find that AC has the opposite problem of saves: it's pretty easy to make AC scale beyond system expectations, even without magic items. The shield spell is the biggest culprit here, but piecing together things like defensive fighting style, shield of faith, racial and subclass bonuses, etc., and a character can get AC that really changes combat and the incentives of the game. Magic items can certainly exacerbate things too of course, but since DM's have such control over items that's usually less of a factor.

All is to say, which I think the OP is getting at: bounded accuracy is a nice idea, and it's clearly present in the system, but it definitely needs some tuning. AC is too easy to go high with, and saves have been stamped into the ground.

[Ignimortis]

I do not see it as a problem. I do not think comparing the likelihood of saving against a low CR enemy at low levels to saving against high CR enemies at high levels is at all meaningful.

I don't see how it's not by far the most meaningful thing. If you do not at least stay level re: success rate while fighting "fair" encounters at various levels, that means your character is getting worse at things. And while an argument can be made that it's fair for the character to fall behind in things they do not invest into (a non-proficient save with a non-preferred stat), I would not understand why a proficient save coupled with a preferred stat (i.e. something that gains the most increases overall) does not only improve against "fair" enemies, but actually gets worse.

Would a high-level character be more likely to save against the low CR monsters than a low-level character in something they have worked to improve? Would the high-level be more likely than the low-level to save against a high CR monster in something they've worked to improve? Yes to both? Then as I see it, it works as intended.

These criteria are useless, because they are basically asking "do high levels have the capacity to get bigger numbers than lower levels? if yes, it works as it should". Of course they do, it's what levels are there for.

Finally, why should the fighter be at 60% likely to save against the dragon, just because they were 60% likely to save against the basilisk? Other than a thought about fairness of mechanics in games? One of those is a rather low-level creature, a terror of farmers and town guards to be sure, but ultimately a stepping stone to greatness for an adventurer. An ancient dragon is quite possibly the biggest, baddest thing anyone in the world will ever experience, depending on the campaign. Their big deal attacks should be harder to resist than the basilisk, for everyone. A higher-level character that improves that save should be better than a low-level one or one who doesn't, sure, but that's how it works already.

Because the level 20 character is basically a dragonslaying demigod who can, with their jolly band of three other people, quite positively slaughter a couple of somewhat lesser dragons (like adult ones) before breakfast. Meanwhile a basilisk is a terrifying beast for some Joe who basically picked up a sword, trained with it for a few months, then put on his grandpa's rusty chainmail and set off to have an adventure.

See what I mean? These are fluff descriptions one can twist in any direction they wish. Mechanically, this makes no sense, and that's what's important.

I wonder if giving boss monsters a pool of "save points" that they can spend from when they fail a saving throw, which lets them raise the save by the amount spent, would be a better mechanic. Maybe even have them be limited to certain effects, like resistances are. "This monster has 30 save points it can spend to resist stunning and incapacitation. This other monster has twenty save points it can spend to resist certification, sleep, and charm effects. This third monster has 25 save points it can spend on saving throws versus areas of effect, and takes no damage when it would take half damage if it spends any save points on the effect."

This would give some sense of value in what you choose to use on it. Could even break it down further to save point pools that are individual to types of effect, so you can wear down its charm resistance or its certification resistance.

Sounds slightly complex to use, but could work. What I used to do in my games is "every time an important enemy (generally CR+3 or higher) fails a saving throw, they get a +2 untyped bonus on saving throws until the end of the encounter, and may reroll against ongoing effects at the end of their turn". This way you still get some value out of a hard CC spell, but you don't instantly end the fight with just one casting.

Personally, if designing a system from the ground up, I'd crib from PF2's degrees of success for save-or-sucks. Paizo made a few blunders (mostly the fact that critical failures are sometimes so punishing, they had to inflate enemy stats and introduce a whole special trait to basically disallow critfails for CR+1 and higher enemies, and make them highly unlikely for anything that poses a threat) while designing that, but that doesn't mean it can't be a learning experience.

[tokek]

The issue is that most characters never improve in saving throws at all (relative to their "fair" opponents) unless they have a paladin. It is quite literally easier to save against a low-level enemy at low level than it is to save against a high-level enemy at high level, even if both use your "good" save (proficient+dependent on your main stat).

As such, it becomes extremely easy for anyone to fail a single saving throw (potentially against a save-or-suck effect, which are still present in the game, but also in general) and there's almost no hope of success vs any save you aren't at least proficient with. Being removed from combat with a single roll you couldn't even feasibly succeed at kind of sucks.

I think you are far too narrow in the party synergy that helps with saves.

Most obviously you also have Bards and Artificers.

Then you have a wide variety of spells which will help. Bless is pretty great, I rate Intellect Fortress a lot better than others seem to.

Combine that with something like Lucky Feat and actually you start to be quite hard to take out. The risk is still there but its far lower.

Then of course some classes just get good stuff. Not just Paladins - but Monks are extremely hard to take out with save or suck spells in high level play.

There are a variety of uncommon and rare magic items that help. A couple of those are artificer infusion options (which stacks with Flash of Genius)

Then finally there are racial choices. No you do not actually have to have that level 1 feat to be decent - you might wish you had something else in the higher tiers.

I find that a party that builds to be resilient to save or suck effects can be decently resilient to them at high levels. So the save scaling problem seems mostly to apply to characters and parties that don't try to address it - either because they are not optimisers or because they chose to optimise for other things.

[Darth Credence]

I don't see how it's not by far the most meaningful thing. If you do not at least stay level re: success rate while fighting "fair" encounters at various levels, that means your character is getting worse at things. And while an argument can be made that it's fair for the character to fall behind in things they do not invest into (a non-proficient save with a non-preferred stat), I would not understand why a proficient save coupled with a preferred stat (i.e. something that gains the most increases overall) does not only improve against "fair" enemies, but actually gets worse.

It does not mean your character is getting worse at things, at all. It means things get harder. The characters are clearly better - the fighter went from a 60% success rate to an 80% success rate against the basilisk. A wizard would get a similar increase for wisdom or intelligence saves. There is a big difference between getting worse and facing more difficult challenges.

These criteria are useless, because they are basically asking "do high levels have the capacity to get bigger numbers than lower levels? if yes, it works as it should". Of course they do, it's what levels are there for.

Yes, that's what levels are there for. That's my point. As one goes up in level, they get better at the same task if they work to get better at that task, as abstracted by the improvements associated with it.

Because the level 20 character is basically a dragonslaying demigod who can, with their jolly band of three other people, quite positively slaughter a couple of somewhat lesser dragons (like adult ones) before breakfast. Meanwhile a basilisk is a terrifying beast for some Joe who basically picked up a sword, trained with it for a few months, then put on his grandpa's rusty chainmail and set off to have an adventure.

See what I mean? These are fluff descriptions one can twist in any direction they wish. Mechanically, this makes no sense, and that's what's important.

Mechanically it makes perfect sense. A level 20 character is very, very good at what they are good at. They are no better at what they are not good at than they were when they started if they did not put any effort into getting better.

Should all level 20 characters be good at casting spells? I mean, they're dragon-slaying demigods, after all, so they should all be able to throw fireballs around at will right? Or, the casters get much better at casting, and the martials get much better at fighting, because that's what they concentrate on. Saying that everyone should improve all saves from how they started is really no different than saying all characters should improve their ability to cast spells above where they started, or all characters should improve the number of times they can attack per round from where they started. It's just more obviously ridiculous when we talk about those things that are specific to the class.

Well, saving throws are also specific to the class. A wizard gets more damage out of cantrips, access to higher-level spells, and more slots as they get better at magic. They also, by dint of being wizards, get better at resisting effects that target their wisdom or intelligence. A fighter gets more attacks per round, better stats, and the ability to surge for a bonus action as they go up in levels. They also become more resistant to things that target their strength and constitution. Those improvements to saves for both classes are every bit as much a feature of the classes as anything else, and the expected improvements for someone following that class.

Want better saves? Spend some training time to get them. A fighter gets 7 ASIs or feats over their career. A wizard gets 5. Those five would be enough for the wizard to become proficient in every save type, which would also bump their ability scores in everything not wis or int by 1, and have one left over. Or, if you are worried specifically about one falling behind, the fighter mentioned could get their ability to save against the green dragon breath up to 50%, and be better at that than a normal person is against a basilisk. But these are all choices that have to be made. If someone wants to change their game so that everyone just gets better at all saves, thus invalidating these kinds of choices, they certainly can, of course. But the idea that saves are broken because in a normal game, there is a cost to be able to save against a high CR creature as easily as against a low CR creature is just wrong to me.

[JackPhoenix]

Want better saves? Spend some training time to get them. A fighter gets 7 ASIs or feats over their career. A wizard gets 5. Those five would be enough for the wizard to become proficient in every save type, which would also bump their ability scores in everything not wis or int by 1, and have one left over.

They would be enough if you could take Resilient feat more than once.

[Skrum]

It does not mean your character is getting worse at things, at all. It means things get harder. The characters are clearly better - the fighter went from a 60% success rate to an 80% success rate against the basilisk. A wizard would get a similar increase for wisdom or intelligence saves. There is a big difference between getting worse and facing more difficult challenges.

I strongly disagree with you on this point. "Getting better at something" in the context of an RPG means becoming more likely to succeed against level appropriate threats.

A level 4 rogue could very reasonably have 18 dex and proficiency in thieves' tools. This would give them a +6 bonus to open a lock. A common lock has a DC of 15, giving the rogue a 60% chance to pick it.

Same rogue, now level 12. Their dex is now 20, and prof bonus is +4. They have a +9 with thieves' tools. But, they're in tough dungeons with advanced locks. The DC is 25. They have a 25% chance to succeed.

Yes their number went up. But not fast enough to keep up with the encounters. Relatively, they've become worse.

----------------

When it comes to mental saves, several classes start off bad and only get worse - there's no natural scaling, and the average DC goes up. They are regressing. The only real option is both not very good on the merits but it also carries a rather hideous opportunity cost (ASI's are a BIG DEAL!! Most play is sub 12; most characters get 2 ASI in their entire career).

This wouldn't be a problem if not for the fact that many mental saves are to resist effects that will remove the character from combat. You just don't get to play.

[JackPhoenix]

I strongly disagree with you on this point. "Getting better at something" in the context of an RPG means becoming more likely to succeed against level appropriate threats.

And here lies your problem. Common locks don't stop existing just because you're now level 12 and not level 1. They are, in fact, still common, while the special DC 25 locks are probably specific to one place.
Same with monsters. You don't start exclusively fighting ancient dragons just because you're level 20. Ancient dragons are (probably, depending on setting) still extremely rare. Sure, you can now fight one and not die in 6 seconds, but most of the stuff you'll be facing is the same stuff you've dealt with 10 levels ago, just more numerous. Instead of struggling to fight one giant, you can now deal with an entire small group at once.

[Skrum]

but most of the stuff you'll be facing is the same stuff you've dealt with 10 levels ago, just more numerous.

And therein lies *your* problem. No, I don't face the same stuff at level 10 as I did at level 4. And if we do, it's a "burn some resources to look cool."

Personally, I don't play DnD so I can look cool solely as a can crusher - I also want to feel like I actually belong there when the ancient dragon shows up.

[Keltest]

And therein lies *your* problem. No, I don't face the same stuff at level 10 as I did at level 4. And if we do, it's a "burn some resources to look cool."

Personally, I don't play DnD so I can look cool solely as a can crusher - I also want to feel like I actually belong there when the ancient dragon shows up.

I feel this point needs to be reiterated: If you have made it to the point where you are facing ancient dragons and your dex (or whatever) saves have not changed since level 1, that is because you made the choice not to spend any of your level up resources to improve it. Decisions have consequences, and should have consequences.

[Blatant Beast]

And therein lies *your* problem. No, I don't face the same stuff at level 10 as I did at level 4.

Which reveals what would seem to be a grave misconception of how 5e works, on your part. The DC scale for 5e is an absolute scale, while the challenge DC system for 3e was based off a relative scale, tied to PC capabilities, as 3e was unbound.

Quite simply, the Playground would appear to have a noticeable contingent of persons that seemingly play 5e, like it was 3e, and then wonder why the system does not match their expectations.

In terms of the original post, the reason why the Monster Manual entries do not match the DMG Guidelines, is that WotC does not use the guideline published in the DMG. I believe Chris Perkins, and other WotC employees have confirmed this via social media.

Mike Mearls, has basically stated that he regrets using CR in 5e, from a design perspective, (CR was used due to the small team and tight design schedule for 5e, it was a compromise), as seen here in this post from ENworld: https://www.enworld.org/threads/fixi...rating.702118/

CR is broke. But of course, CR was also Broke in 3e. AC, likewise, has had diminishing returns at high level in every edition of the game I have played going back to 1981.

In the 20th level campaign I run, the Champion Fighter always has Foresight on them from the Party Bard. That is Advantage for all Attack rolls, Ability Checks (including Initiative), and everything else has Disadvantage on Attack rolls against the Fighter…so it is a de facto AC boost as well.

Now sprinkle in Bless, Bardic Inspiration, Paladin’s Auras, Inspiration points and the whole panoply of options that are available through effective teamwork and resource sharing, and I would say a 5e character has a better chance at succeeding at 5e system high DC of 23, than a similarly leveled character in 3e had against something targeting their ‘bad save’.

[Telok]

I feel this point needs to be reiterated: If you have made it to the point where you are facing ancient dragons and your dex (or whatever) saves have not changed since level 1, that is because you made the choice not to spend any of your level up resources to improve it. Decisions have consequences, and should have consequences.

So you advocate a character spending 4/5 ASIs over 20 levels to go from a +2 con/dex/wis save to a +11 save so they can maintain parity with one of the big three saves going from DC 12 to DC 23 while they get relatively worse at the other 5 saves and don't increase their other core stats?

[Keltest]

So you advocate a character spending 4/5 ASIs over 20 levels to go from a +2 con/dex/wis save to a +11 save so they can maintain parity with one of the big three saves going from DC 12 to DC 23 while they get relatively worse at the other 5 saves and don't increase their other core stats?

I think if you DON'T do so, its because you elected not to in favor of some other character choice rather than because you were unable to do so. Even if youre going with just ASIs and not feats (which reduce the opportunity cost significantly), if you start with a 16 in your main stat, you can only put two ASIs in it. The other 2-3 have to go somewhere.

[Ignimortis]

Which reveals what would seem to be a grave misconception of how 5e works, on your part. The DC scale for 5e is an absolute scale, while the challenge DC system for 3e was based off a relative scale, tied to PC capabilities, as 3e was unbound.

Quite simply, the Playground would appear to have a noticeable contingent of persons that seemingly play 5e, like it was 3e, and then wonder why the system does not match their expectations.

In terms of the original post, the reason why the Monster Manual entries do not match the DMG Guidelines, is that WotC does not use the guideline published in the DMG. I believe Chris Perkins, and other WotC employees have confirmed this via social media.

Mike Mearls, has basically stated that he regrets using CR in 5e, from a design perspective, (CR was used due to the small team and tight design schedule for 5e, it was a compromise), as seen here in this post from ENworld: https://www.enworld.org/threads/fixi...rating.702118/

And his proposed replacement does not change anything about how fights assume that higher level characters fight higher level foes. If anything, it actually admits that using enemies of CR far below party level is meaningless, and the actual bound is somewhere circa party level - 7 for that enemy to even mean anything.

In the 20th level campaign I run, the Champion Fighter always has Foresight on them from the Party Bard. That is Advantage for all Attack rolls, Ability Checks (including Initiative), and everything else has Disadvantage on Attack rolls against the Fighter…so it is a de facto AC boost as well.

Now sprinkle in Bless, Bardic Inspiration, Paladin’s Auras, Inspiration points and the whole panoply of options that are available through effective teamwork and resource sharing, and I would say a 5e character has a better chance at succeeding at 5e system high DC of 23, than a similarly leveled character in 3e had against something targeting their ‘bad save’.

So you have a dedicated support character who spends most of their resources buffing other characters. Remove Bard from that equation and replace them, with, say, Rogue. You've just lost everything that wasn't Paladin's AoP and possibly Bless (although it is also likely that Bless isn't from Paladin, because they're gonna lose it once they get hit once or twice).

As for Inspiration points, I will concede on that - I have mostly played with GMs who did not award them even remotely often. As in, maybe once per five sessions something was deemed worthy of an Inspiration point.

And once we start pulling teamwork and party-wide optimization into the pool, well, a 3e support just slaps Mind Blank, Death Ward and Freedom of Movement onto the whole party, negating 80% of the conditions before you even have to roll a saving throw. This is not a contest of "how well spells can deflect harmful effects", because 3e wins every time. This is about a single character's capabilities to resist level-appropriate effects on their own merit.

I strongly disagree with you on this point. "Getting better at something" in the context of an RPG means becoming more likely to succeed against level appropriate threats.

*snip*

Yes their number went up. But not fast enough to keep up with the encounters. Relatively, they've become worse.

----------------

When it comes to mental saves, several classes start off bad and only get worse - there's no natural scaling, and the average DC goes up. They are regressing. The only real option is both not very good on the merits but it also carries a rather hideous opportunity cost (ASI's are a BIG DEAL!! Most play is sub 12; most characters get 2 ASI in their entire career).

This wouldn't be a problem if not for the fact that many mental saves are to resist effects that will remove the character from combat. You just don't get to play.

Yep on both points. Investing into Resilient barely even happens before you're level 12 unless you're a Fighter, and when you do, it's usually CON (for casters) or WIS (for anyone proficient in CON or non-casters). Furthermore, it still does not work nearly as well. All it does is give you a chance better than 5%.

I think you are far too narrow in the party synergy that helps with saves.

Most obviously you also have Bards and Artificers.

Then you have a wide variety of spells which will help. Bless is pretty great, I rate Intellect Fortress a lot better than others seem to.

Combine that with something like Lucky Feat and actually you start to be quite hard to take out. The risk is still there but its far lower.

Then of course some classes just get good stuff. Not just Paladins - but Monks are extremely hard to take out with save or suck spells in high level play.

There are a variety of uncommon and rare magic items that help. A couple of those are artificer infusion options (which stacks with Flash of Genius)

Then finally there are racial choices. No you do not actually have to have that level 1 feat to be decent - you might wish you had something else in the higher tiers.

I find that a party that builds to be resilient to save or suck effects can be decently resilient to them at high levels. So the save scaling problem seems mostly to apply to characters and parties that don't try to address it - either because they are not optimisers or because they chose to optimise for other things.

I will admit I've never seen an Artificer played at higher levels. Monks are good, I've played one, it's probably the only class besides Paladin that doesn't feel bad whenever you have to roll a saving throw, because you tend to have a 20%+ chance of succeeding and you can keep pushing with Diamond Soul (that part is important) and Stillness of Mind outright kills most common WIS save failures. On a monk with a Cloak of Protection, one can indeed avoid saving throw effects pretty well when you really want to.

As for racial choices, unless you're somehow getting Pureblooded Yuan-ti, I don't see how that's very relevant, especially if you don't play with all the stuff WotC has dumped race-wise over the years. If the setting has, like, PHB races and maybe one or two oddballs like Warforged - your only real option to improve saves is a Gnome, isn't it? I must add that I haven't played a human, variant or not, since 2017.

Magic items not being guaranteed (and even if they exist, not being guaranteed to be what you want to get), well, they're not very relevant here. Sure, a Cloak/Ring of Protection helps a bit. I've also once had a Robe of the Archmagi, but it was the wrong color for me, so it didn't work and I wasn't willing to drop two alignment rows for that.

In general, my experience is that saving throw effectiveness goes strictly downwards with levels. Improvement takes enough resources that it's a party-wide endeavour up to the point of someone having to play a specific character class.

And here lies your problem. Common locks don't stop existing just because you're now level 12 and not level 1. They are, in fact, still common, while the special DC 25 locks are probably specific to one place.
Same with monsters. You don't start exclusively fighting ancient dragons just because you're level 20. Ancient dragons are (probably, depending on setting) still extremely rare. Sure, you can now fight one and not die in 6 seconds, but most of the stuff you'll be facing is the same stuff you've dealt with 10 levels ago, just more numerous. Instead of struggling to fight one giant, you can now deal with an entire small group at once.

Things that you've been dealing 10 levels ago kind of stopped working as a threat. Even in 5e. Unless there's a couple dozen of them, and even then you throw a souped-up Fireball at them and continue on your merry way. It's the nature of a levelled game...frankly, it's the nature of any game with progression as steep as D&D tends to have, even if there are no defined levels. When you can tank an RPG with you face and ask for seconds, low-level threats kind of lose their relevance everywhere.

I feel this point needs to be reiterated: If you have made it to the point where you are facing ancient dragons and your dex (or whatever) saves have not changed since level 1, that is because you made the choice not to spend any of your level up resources to improve it. Decisions have consequences, and should have consequences.

And I have to reiterate in kind - if you have made several investments in that save (took Resilient specifically for it and put a couple more ASIs into it), you are STILL noticeably less likely to succeed on that save vs a level 20-24 creature than you were to succeed against a level 1-5 creature back at level 1. Regardless of your personal investment (unless you are a Paladin, Monk or a spellcaster who can buff their own saves in some meaningful way), you are falling behind level-appropriate threats. And if you are one of those, you're either capable of keeping up and maybe slightly improving (Paladin), you have no glaring weaknesses and can force things when it's really important (Monk), or have to spend resources and most often concentration to do that (spellcasters).

Decisions should have consequences, but when every decision results in you getting worse, just at different speeds, something isn't working out.

So you advocate a character spending 4/5 ASIs over 20 levels to go from a +2 con/dex/wis save to a +11 save so they can maintain parity with one of the big three saves going from DC 12 to DC 23 while they get relatively worse at the other 5 saves and don't increase their other core stats?

My point exactly. You put 2 ASIs into your core stat (which might or might not be an important save), and you're left with three. Even putting those ASIs into Resilient+two improvements increases your save by at best +9, and you're starting from +2 or lower at that point, so at best you're keeping pace in two saves out of six.

Besides, wasn't 5e designed without feats, including Resilient, in mind? So your best bet would just be to dump 3 ASIs and get a +3, and that's it. You're still pathetically behind.

[Telok]

I think if you DON'T do so, its because you elected not to in favor of some other character choice rather than because you were unable to do so. Even if youre going with just ASIs and not feats (which reduce the opportunity cost significantly), if you start with a 16 in your main stat, you can only put two ASIs in it. The other 2-3 have to go somewhere.

So you want people to spend 2 asi getting their core stat up, then another on resilient, then the remaining two on another stat in order to get worse more slowly in 2 of the big 3 saves and still does nothing for the last one that just never gets to improve. Otherwise the party requires one or more players to play specific classes to buff saves that the party is failing more often as they up in levels.

I thought we were fifteen or twenty years past the "we want to make someone play a specific because the party will suck without them." type of game design. Guess we just moved from making people play clerics to fix hit points to making people play paladins, bards, and artificers to fix save-or-lose.

[Witty Username]

Quite simply, the Playground would appear to have a noticeable contingent of persons that seemingly play 5e, like it was 3e, and then wonder why the system does not match their expectations.

It depends on which expectations.
-Magic items, seem to make the system math make more sense
- DCs for checks, busted for non-optimized groups since checks have different growth rates (optimized gets a bit wild though so I am not sure)
- monsters, frankly not all that different, goblins become trivial less quickly, but it doesn't take all that long still and CRs upper bound is a bit higher than advertised.

[Ignimortis]

So you want people to spend 2 asi getting their core stat up, then another on resilient, then the remaining two on another stat in order to get worse more slowly in 2 of the big 3 saves and still does nothing for the last one that just never gets to improve. Otherwise the party requires one or more players to play specific classes to buff saves that the party is failing more often as they up in levels.

I thought we were fifteen or twenty years past the "we want to make someone play a specific because the party will suck without them." type of game design. Guess we just moved from making people play clerics to fix hit points to making people play paladins, bards, and artificers to fix save-or-lose.

We really aren't. In fact, a lot of people claim that characters being somewhat self-sufficient as a baseline is bad, and point at PF2 as the superior design (PF2 being a game where a unit of effectiveness is a 4-man party, and a single character is rather ineffectual). However, even PF2 doesn't dunk on your basic defenses as hard as 5e does - you generally do keep pace with enemy abilities if you do the bare minimum (improve DEX/CON/WIS with ASIs and get Resistance bonuses from items, that is). For some classes that pace is "three steps behind", but at least you don't get relatively even worse.

It depends on which expectations.
-Magic items, seem to make the system math make more sense
- DCs for checks, busted for non-optimized groups since checks have different growth rates (optimized gets a bit wild though so I am not sure)
- monsters, frankly not all that different, goblins become trivial less quickly, but it doesn't take all that long still and CRs upper bound is a bit higher than advertised.

1) Personally find that to be true. In fact, magic items are required for the system to make even a shred of sense in regards to defenses, because let's just say that full plate (AC18) doesn't quite cut it against anything with an attack bonus of +12 or higher. An ancient red dragon misses a plate wearer on a nat1 only, which is both sad and hilarious. 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.
2) and 3) Pretty much.

[Keltest]

So you want people to spend 2 asi getting their core stat up, then another on resilient, then the remaining two on another stat in order to get worse more slowly in 2 of the big 3 saves and still does nothing for the last one that just never gets to improve. Otherwise the party requires one or more players to play specific classes to buff saves that the party is failing more often as they up in levels.

I thought we were fifteen or twenty years past the "we want to make someone play a specific because the party will suck without them." type of game design. Guess we just moved from making people play clerics to fix hit points to making people play paladins, bards, and artificers to fix save-or-lose.

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.

Also, youre totally ignoring the existence of feats and items to jump on the most hostile rule set possible for this sort of play. Resilient gives proficiency, flat out, for one ASI, and is a half feat to boot.

[Skrum]

Also, youre totally ignoring the existence of feats and items to jump on the most hostile rule set possible for this sort of play. Resilient gives proficiency, flat out, for one ASI, and is a half feat to boot.

A "half feat" that only boosts a score the character doesn't need (practically by definition).

Your complete refusal to recognize even the slightest problem or imbalance on this topic is incredible.

"Yah know, a few classes like fighter and barbarian and rogue have a pretty annoying weakness when it comes to mental saves"

"Pfft guess you shouldn't play those classes then"

[Keltest]

A "half feat" that only boosts a score the character doesn't need (practically by definition).

Your complete refusal to recognize even the slightest problem or imbalance on this topic is incredible.

"Yah know, a few classes like fighter and barbarian and rogue have a pretty annoying weakness when it comes to mental saves"

"Pfft guess you shouldn't play those classes then"

If they don't need it, theres no problem and they can pick a different feat then. If they do end up needing it, theres an option to obtain it. The "problem" only exists if you choose to have it exist.

This is complaining about being hungry but not wanting to walk to the pantry.