Ranger Beast Master: errata will add new features to your animal companion!

Pauln6 · Nov 17, 2018

So from the errata I think I have been treating animal companions correctly all along. If you command them to attack a foe, they probably continue to do so unless they have to change tack to protect themselves or their master. With no instructions their default action is to dodge.

Seems to cover some objections.

CapnZapp · Nov 18, 2018

happyhermit said:
Is "huge" even adequate to describe the amount of time wastage here? We are talking many seconds people!

Instead of Wotc designers forgetting things, I think it's a lot of people conveniently forgetting the myriad of ways high level players can help their saves: Bardic Inspiration, Inspiration, Indomitable, Paladins, Portent, Lucky, Bless, magic items, etc. Let alone things that grant proficiency like Resilient or Transmuter's stone.

So, for high level characters it doesn't come down to; "There is no way I could make this save". It's more; "I spent my resources (character building and in-game) on other things. And the party isn't prioritizing helping me make this save, probably rightly so because it isn't actually that important."

No that's a false representation.

It's not that you can know in advance which save to prop up.

And you can't prop up all your saves.

And the caster's in your group should not help you in the first place; spending resources to turn a 100% miss rate into maybe a 90% miss rate is just bad tactics.

So no.

If it were possible to put in reasonable effort to avoid the autofail state, I wouldnt be here bitching about it.

But it requires a significant effort, and for what? Just to turn a zero percent success rate into a small percent success rate? No thanks.

The game design should itself have made sure you would have at least a 1-in-20 shot at making every save in the game per default.

Stop trying to make this seem not important. You're trying to squirm out of the issue, which is that it's bad unsightly design to have to do that in the first place.

Objectively ugly design. A glaring stain on an otherwise simple structure.

CapnZapp · Nov 18, 2018

UngeheuerLich said:
I accept your argumentation why you personally think that it feels wrong to you.
And you think it is bad design. I can follow your argumentation fine and I do partially agree. But for all we know it was a design choice.

Yes but that doesn't make it better.

The design choice here was "let's not spend time polishing off high level play in the hopes noone notices"

Why do you feel it's important to point out that this was a choice?

Why not instead join me in condemning that as the bad design it is?

CapnZapp · Nov 18, 2018

OB1 said:
Here’s the thing, while some would call not being able to make a save bad design, I’d say that going into a combat relying on making a save with a 5-10% chance bad strategy. You might go your entire career without ever making a save you need a 20 to hit. Heck, even a 50% save chance means you have a 3% chance of failing it every round of a 5 round combat.

The point is, 5E saves effects, just like weapon attacks, are meant to hit. Mitigating that effect is a bonus, not the expected default. So if you are especially poor at something, you need to be more prepared to deal with the consequences, but you should also be ready to deal with those consequences even if you only need a 2 or 3 to make the save.

Aaaand again not the point.

Being asked to roll a 21 on a twenty-sided die is.

This isn't about tactics. Of course you will have weak saves. I am not complaining you will have weak saves.

Pauln6 · Nov 18, 2018

So is the issue basically that there isn't a side bar formally giving DMs the option to allow saves on a natural 20? Not really needed but I can see how some in organised play might like it.

I'm not sure I can get behind the notion that buffer classes should not spend resources to buff allies though. Some players love being self sufficient, some like being nova, and some like helping allies. All of these are possible with varying builds but suggesting the rules should support going nova while being self sufficient at the same time, that might stretch the game a bit too far especially since you can still buff on top. Paladin bonuses would be horrendous for DMs.

I suppose one way of evening out the curve is replacing save bonuses with the pc's own save bonus +1 or the Paladin's bonus, whichever is higher.

Stalker0 · Nov 18, 2018

Sorry capnzap you lost me on this argument.

The CR system says “if a party’s level is below the CR” they may have an exceptionally difficult time dealing with it”.

Now you and I have both pointed out that many monsters are over CRed especially at high levels. But we can’t have it both ways. In this scenario the CR is working correctly.

Quite simply, a party is not meant to have a reasonable time to fight GraZt. It should take special items, planning, some outside help, etc. So we can’t use the save dcs of such a creature to say the system is broken. Because...by definition of CR...this monster is supposed to be broken. Having unbeatable dcs just falls into that category

happyhermit · Nov 18, 2018

CapnZapp said:
No that's a false representation.

It's not that you can know in advance which save to prop up.

And you can't prop up all your saves.

And the caster's in your group should not help you in the first place; spending resources to turn a 100% miss rate into maybe a 90% miss rate is just bad tactics.

So no.

If it were possible to put in reasonable effort to avoid the autofail state, I wouldnt be here bitching about it.

But it requires a significant effort, and for what? Just to turn a zero percent success rate into a small percent success rate? No thanks.

The game design should itself have made sure you would have at least a 1-in-20 shot at making every save in the game per default.

Stop trying to make this seem not important. You're trying to squirm out of the issue, which is that it's bad unsightly design to have to do that in the first place.

Objectively ugly design. A glaring stain on an otherwise simple structure.

Now there's the Capn I know; mis-characterization, accusations, use of words like "Objectively" in an objectively incorrect way, general disdain for anyone who disagrees with them.

You can have knowledge in advance of which saves to prop up, even though many resources don't care which one they are used on. You can prop up all saves, particularly when you factor in non specific bonuses like Bless and Bardic Inspiration. The caster's in your group should help you if they deem it a high enough priority. A reasonable effort to avoid the autofail state, Bless alone covers most of that ground.

doctorbadwolf · Nov 18, 2018

CapnZapp said:
Or you can accept my argumentation "this feels very wrong, almost as if they forgot to plug a hole in the system".

I don't know if DC 23 is harsh. For a low- or mid-level character sure.

But what's so harsh about high level heroes fighting appropriate opponents. A CD 23 monster should sport a DC 23 save!

Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with epic threats forcing DC 23 saves (even taking bounded accuracy into account). The only thing that's wrong here is how WotC forgot that even the highest levelled hero would still have at least one save with no bonus, making the save just a huge waste of time.

Telling heroes "you cannot succeed" is no fun, and that kind of design is bad.

A single save isn’t success or failure on the task, because the task is winning the fight, surviving, escaping, saving someone, or something along those lines.

The fact that some abilities or hazards can’t be avoided without magic by characters that aren’t good at resisting that sort of effect, while other characters will have a decent chance, and a few character types will be quite likely to, is good design.

the game should not have been built to ensure that every save in the game has at least a 1 in 20 chance of success for every character.

doctorbadwolf · Nov 18, 2018

Stalker0 said:
Sorry capnzap you lost me on this argument.

The CR system says “if a party’s level is below the CR” they may have an exceptionally difficult time dealing with it”.

Now you and I have both pointed out that many monsters are over CRed especially at high levels. But we can’t have it both ways. In this scenario the CR is working correctly.

Quite simply, a party is not meant to have a reasonable time to fight GraZt. It should take special items, planning, some outside help, etc. So we can’t use the save dcs of such a creature to say the system is broken. Because...by definition of CR...this monster is supposed to be broken. Having unbeatable dcs just falls into that category

Not only that, but it’s only unbeatable for some characters. A gnome rogue is gonna have a reasonable chance of success on a 23 Int Save while her wizard sister will have a great chance, for instance. IMO, the Goliath Ranger with 10 int *should* automatically fail the save against an Epic level psychic effect that targets int while his gnome wizard friend breezes by it, IMO.

The Crimson Binome · Nov 18, 2018

Stalker0 said:
The CR system says “if a party’s level is below the CR” they may have an exceptionally difficult time dealing with it”.

It's not a matter of whether or not you can deal with the monster, because failing a saving throw is always a possibility, regardless. You can still deal with an ancient red dragon, even if you can't save against its breath weapon. Whether your evasion chance is 0% or 10% is more-or-less irrelevant to your chances of winning.

That doesn't excuse them asking for saving throws which are impossible, though, because that's an inelegant solution to the problem at hand. You should never tell a player to roll a die, if the outcome of the die roll is irrelevant because every outcome leads to an identical result. As a designer with control over every variable and every parameter of the game, you shouldn't allow for that situation to happen, let alone as the standard progression of the game unless players do something exceptional to mitigate it.

As the central design conceit of Bounded Accuracy, the designers don't expect you to raise any of your stats. If you do choose to raise a stat, then it's supposed to make you better at something. There's not supposed to be a minimum investment that's required of everyone before they can even participate in a die roll.