D&D 5E Saving Throws and non-proficiency

Flamestrike · Jul 12, 2019

FrogReaver said:
I've figured out the problem, you only consider games with feats whereas I enjoy games without feats.

DMing or playing, and why?

Monks are one of the best single target controllers for most of the game and get pretty good DPR as well. Thus they already compete with and due to their potent offensive ability combination they likely outdo the fighter whose sole contribution is DPR.

Monks are great, but they dont come close to Fighters in sustained DPR, and shockingly good spike damage with Action surge. Fighters bring the pain better than anyone (barring a Barbarian with really good dice!).

There is a reason they're the number 1 played class man.

They are only slightly ahead in DPR in featless games.

Featless games not featuring magic items (which benefit fighters the most), and with few short rests (or few encounters).

Then Monks are flat out better than them as they get the damage and control aspects.

Yet you dont see many Monks at tables compared to Fighters. Why is that?

All it takes is not being in a party with a bard/cleric or paladin. Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Druid and your out of luck on saves.

No feats, no cleric, no Bard and no Paladin. Check.

Any reason why the Wizard isnt using Counterspell to negate the incoming spell, polymorph to turn you into something immune to the effect you just wore, dispel magic or calm emotions to strip it off you, or the Druid isnt doing the same with restoration, and similar spells?

And in that party composition you also have the Wizard and Druid who are great with Wisdom saves (and later on the Rogue), the Wizard and Rogue that are great with Int saves and soforth so when a mass target save or suck hitting Wisdom or Int hits the party, several should still be up (i.e. the casters) to remove the effect from you.

Also, in this party featuring you (the Fighter) and a Rogue, Wizard and Druid, what happens when the party is hit with a mass target save or suck targeting... Con saves?

FrogReaver · Jul 12, 2019

Flamestrike said:
DMing or playing, and why?

playing

Monks are great, but they dont come close to Fighters in sustained DPR, and shockingly good spike damage with Action surge. Fighters bring the pain better than anyone (barring a Barbarian with really good dice!).

Actually run the numbers for a featless game. You'll be surprised how close things are.

There is a reason they're the number 1 played class man.

Yes. They are the most open class to various player concepts. Power has relatively little to do with it.

Featless games not featuring magic items (which benefit fighters the most), and with few short rests (or few encounters).

No one said anything about magic items not being present.

Yet you dont see many Monks at tables compared to Fighters. Why is that?

Because a lot of people don't like unarmored - non weapon wielding warriors in their medieval fantasy rpg - or at least don't like them as much as the armored warrior with a sword.

No feats, no cleric, no Bard and no Paladin. Check.

No feats right. Whether there is a bard or paladin or cleric present doesn't matter. The fighter shouldn't have to depend on allies to have a halfway decent saving throw.

Any reason why the Wizard isnt using Counterspell to negate the incoming spell, polymorph to turn you into something immune to the effect you just wore, dispel magic or calm emotions to strip it off you, or the Druid isnt doing the same with restoration, and similar spells?

Because he decided not to learn either of those spells? Again, the fighter shouldn't have to depend on allies to make get him out of having to make saves.

And in that party composition you also have the Wizard and Druid who are great with Wisdom saves (and later on the Rogue), the Wizard and Rogue that are great with Int saves and soforth so when a mass target save or suck hitting Wisdom or Int hits the party, several should still be up (i.e. the casters) to remove the effect from you.

They can do that too even if he isn't so sucktastic at saves. Takes nothing away from them other characters for characters to have better saves.

Also, in this party featuring you (the Fighter) and a Rogue, Wizard and Druid, what happens when the party is hit with a mass target save or suck targeting... Con saves?

Is there actually such an ability even in the game?

Flamestrike · Jul 12, 2019

FrogReaver said:
playing

Why do you prefer playing without feats?

Ignore everyone else at the table. Why do you personally not like having those options?

Actually run the numbers for a featless game. You'll be surprised how close things are.

I have. Are magic items also excluded as well, because again, Fighters get the most out of them than any other class.

No one said anything about magic items not being present.

Great, because Fighters generally get the best use out of magic items.

Because a lot of people don't like unarmored - non weapon wielding warriors in their medieval fantasy rpg - or at least don't like them as much as the armored warrior with a sword.

I doubt Monks are played less because they're banned more.

Athough I cant back that up with any hard facts.

And anyone that bans Monks as being 'out of place' with the genre, yet has no problems with Bronze age Britain and Ireland Druids and Bards being present with late Middle ages and Renaissance full plate wearing Paladins (and enlightenment period rapier using Swashbucklers) hanging out together in a world with teleportation magic, flying ships, and wizards that shoot lasers out of thier eyes, is probably not really getting it!

No feats right. Whether there is a bard or paladin or cleric present doesn't matter. The fighter shouldn't have to depend on allies to have a halfway decent saving throw.

The Wizard should need to depend on the Fighter and other meatshields to stop the monsters getting to him, but there you have it.

The game revolves around teamwork. That's the whole point. The Fighter depends on the Wizard for AoE effects and magic stuff. The Wizard God Modes by making encounters easier to end for the Fighter. The Cleric buffs people and acts as the Healing gimp. The Bard is the 5th wheel. The Rogue is the yo-yoing striker and skill guy. The Meatshields get in the monsters face and take the brunt of the attacks and wallop it back as hard as they can.

That's just how the game is generally played man. Its the same as it ever was.

Is there actually such an ability even in the game?

Sickening radiance and Stinking Cloud spring to mind. Also nothing like trolling the Rogues in the party with a Con based Green dragon breath. That's save or Suck for nothing more than the insane amounts of damage it can do on a failed save (and Wizards, Rogues and to a lesser extent Druids dont exactly have good HP)

Clouds of Poison are the most frequent Con based Area effects, and they usually come with a Poisoned condition along with them. Pretty sure most Cold based effects, paralysis, and so forth also target Con.

FrogReaver · Jul 12, 2019

Flamestrike said:
Why do you prefer playing without feats?

Ignore everyone else at the table. Why do you personally not like having those options?

1. I think the game is more balanced without feats

2. I like to optimize and there's a small handful of feat and class combinations that flat out make that combination better than anything else in a similar category. Thus, removing the means of optimizing to that degree I tend to find most classes are relatively on par with the others and everything becomes available to me as an option - whereas with those feats my optimizing self would not allow me to pick options that inferior.

3. The game plays better for me without feats

I have. Are magic items also excluded as well, because again, Fighters get the most out of them than any other class.

I didn't include them in the numbers I ran. I encourage you to take a fresh look at a featless game. There's a lot more freedom in fewer options. IMO not everything needs mechanically differentiated.

Great, because Fighters generally get the best use out of magic items.

I never look at the magic item lists so I couldn't say. I will take your word on it.

I doubt Monks are played less because they're banned more.

Athough I cant back that up with any hard facts.

And anyone that bans Monks as being 'out of place' with the genre, yet has no problems with Bronze age Britain and Ireland Druids and Bards being present with late Middle ages and Renaissance full plate wearing Paladins (and enlightenment period rapier using Swashbucklers) hanging out together in a world with teleportation magic, flying ships, and wizards that shoot lasers out of thier eyes, is probably not really getting it!

Huh? Are you actually reading what i'm saying. I never suggested that monks were banned. I suggested disliked.

The Wizard should need to depend on the Fighter and other meatshields to stop the monsters getting to him, but there you have it.

The wizard doesn't depend on the fighter to keep monsters from here. In most situations it's laughable how little a fighter can do to prevent anything from attacking the wizard that wants to. When that happens wizards have a spell for that

The game revolves around teamwork. That's the whole point. The Fighter depends on the Wizard for AoE effects and magic stuff.

Sure. It's a matter of degree. I'm not suggesting we remove the wizards ability to help the fighter. I'm suggesting the fighter should be individually better at saves than he is. The wizard can still help him even if he's a bit better at them than he is now.

The Wizard God Modes by making encounters easier to end for the Fighter.

That's an odd way to put it "God Modes". That already suggests an inherent fighter inferiority is present in your mind. No wonder you are opposed to letting the fighter make saves on his own.

The Cleric buffs people and acts as the Healing gimp. The Bard is the 5th wheel. The Rogue is the yo-yoing striker and skill guy. The Meatshields get in the monsters face and take the brunt of the attacks and wallop it back as hard as they can.

Ironically, Besides DM fiat the only classes that can keep a monster from approaching casters with any real degree of success are the spell caster types.

Sickening radiance and Stinking Cloud spring to mind. Also nothing like trolling the Rogues in the party with a Con based Green dragon breath. That's save or Suck for nothing more than the insane amounts of damage it can do on a failed save (and Wizards, Rogues and to a lesser extent Druids dont exactly have good HP)

I don't know what those do right off. Do you want to share?

As to damage based effects, healing of any kind resolves save or suck due to that issue. So it's really no where close to the same.

Clouds of Poison are the most frequent Con based Area effects, and they usually come with a Poisoned condition along with them. Pretty sure most Cold based effects, paralysis, and so forth also target Con.

Okay. So suppose there are ample con based save or suck effects. That simply means that fighters have something they suck at and wizards have something they suck at. That's fine. My argument is that neither should suck at those effects as much as they do. Not that they should be good at them, not that other characters shouldn't be able to help them, but that they should be a little better than they currently are. Why are you so against that?

Flamestrike · Jul 13, 2019

FrogReaver said:
1. I think the game is more balanced without feats

It's not.

Balance is in the hands of the DM, not in your use of feats or otherwise.

I ran a balanced game featuring a bonus feat at 1st for everyone, artifacts and legendary items galore, every PC with at least 1 stat above 20, multiple epic boons and so forth.

3. The game plays better for me without feats

Personal preference I guess.

If your personal preference extends to requesting the other players dont use feats, then its a problem.

I didn't include them in the numbers I ran. I encourage you to take a fresh look at a featless game. There's a lot more freedom in fewer options. IMO not everything needs mechanically differentiated.

Ive got them, I'll use them. Intrestingly feats (as already shown) are the Fighters greatest strength, and actually shore up the very problems your claiming exists.

If feats are allowed, Resilient (and Lucky) are allowed. They're common feats and go directly towards the issue we're talking about.

I never look at the magic item lists so I couldn't say. I will take your word on it.

The only stat boosting Item over 20 is Strength (benefiting Fighters, Paladins and Barbs). It benefits them doubly by also letting them spend ASI elsewhere.

Magic weapons help all melee PCs, but Fighters the most (more attacks = more chances to steal life/ deal fire damage/ cold damage/ hack off a limb or head etc). Even a + X to damage helps Fighters the most because they make the most attacks.

Magic armor and shields are generally non attunement items.

Misc items (boots of flying etc) allow Fighters to do stuff they couldnt normally do. They just save the Wizard from preparing fly that day.

Potions buff everyone more or less equally, but Str boost potions (see above) healing (obviously) heroism, speed, invulnerability etc all give the greatest boosts to fighters. The other potions give them additional abilities they dont already have (see boots).

Of course, with magic items comes Warlocks with +3 rods, +2 robes and a save or suck spell, so it also compounds the problem you're talking about as well.

Huh? Are you actually reading what i'm saying. I never suggested that monks were banned. I suggested disliked.

I find that hard to believe with the pro anime/ ninja wanna-be's and katana fan-boys out there.

The wizard doesn't depend on the fighter to keep monsters from here. In most situations it's laughable how little a fighter can do to prevent anything from attacking the wizard that wants to. When that happens wizards have a spell for that

Schroedingers wizard rides!

Sorry, but that doesnt meet my experiences in the game since BECMI. You need the meat shields as a Wizard, and the meatshield need the Wizard. The Rogue has his uses, and the Cleric his.

Now maybe you're running a game featuring 5 archery fighters or what ever, or a whole party of Bards (A boy Band!). While that could happen (and the DM should modifiy his encounters accordinly) it's disengenous to say that parties dont generally fall into the mixed bag of different classes, with each class having its own strengths and weaknesses and areas of speciality.

Ironically, Besides DM fiat the only classes that can keep a monster from approaching casters with any real degree of success are the spell caster types.

Your experiences differ from mine.

Okay. So suppose there are ample con based save or suck effects. That simply means that fighters have something they suck at and wizards have something they suck at. That's fine. My argument is that neither should suck at those effects as much as they do. Not that they should be good at them, not that other characters shouldn't be able to help them, but that they should be a little better than they currently are. Why are you so against that?

I really get the feeling you're complaining about a problem at a level of play (12th+) that you dont play in that often, if indeed at all.

Tony Vargas · Jul 13, 2019

Flamestrike said:
Again, I can tell you it's really not an issue.

Whether you experience an issue or not, the facts remain.

Garthanos · Jul 13, 2019

Flamestrike said:
Balance is in the hands of the DM, not in your use of feats or otherwise.

And that is basically saying no balance at all in 99 out of a hundred tables ... all the way to first edition.

FrogReaver · Jul 13, 2019

Flamestrike said:
It's not.

Balance is in the hands of the DM, not in your use of feats or otherwise.

It's quite rude to ask someone why they prefer something and then try to argue with them that the reasons they give for preferring it.

Personal preference I guess.

If your personal preference extends to requesting the other players dont use feats, then its a problem.

I prefer to have my character start with all 20's in all my stats. It's a problem if you request other players not have their characters start with 20 in all their stats. See how absurd that is?

If feats are allowed, Resilient (and Lucky) are allowed. They're common feats and go directly towards the issue we're talking about.

feats aren't allowed

I find that hard to believe with the pro anime/ ninja wanna-be's and katana fan-boys out there.

I didn't say everyone disliked them. Heck I didn't say they were flat out disliked either, simply their aesthetics are less appealing to many in D&D fantasy than a fighters.

Schroedingers wizard rides!

Sorry, but that doesnt meet my experiences in the game since BECMI. You need the meat shields as a Wizard, and the meatshield need the Wizard. The Rogue has his uses, and the Cleric his.

If you think the meatsheild is useful it's because the DM makes him so by focusing more enemies on him instead of the squishier party members. Mine does the same thing. It's a common way to play. But DM fiat doesn't override the mechanics, and the mechanics suggest that most enemies don't care one bit about running past the fighter's puny OA if they want to attack something else.

Now maybe you're running a game featuring 5 archery fighters or what ever, or a whole party of Bards (A boy Band!). While that could happen (and the DM should modifiy his encounters accordinly) it's disengenous to say that parties dont generally fall into the mixed bag of different classes, with each class having its own strengths and weaknesses and areas of speciality.

There's 11 classes. Parties are typically 4-5 members. There's hundreds maybe even thousands of party compositions.

Your experiences differ from mine.

So please tell me how a featless fighter or barbarian keeps any enemy focused on attacking him instead of the wizard?

Garthanos · Jul 13, 2019

The thing is that when characters have excessive divergence of frequently used abilities my experience is that it makes the DMs job much much more problematic you end up pampering somebody and playing enemies in bad tactics ways ... it is a lot more work instead of fun.

This happens even with beginning characters in old Stormbringer in spite of its interesting elements... The random character design could result in one persons weapon skill being 40 percentiles better than the character next to him.

Flamestrike · Jul 13, 2019

FrogReaver said:
It's quite rude to ask someone why they prefer something and then try to argue with them that the reasons they give for preferring it.

Ive just never known a game where balance rests in the hands of the players.

Barring a Pathfinder or 3.5 type game, where the difference between optimisation and non optimised PCs is so vast that those games require a gentlemans agreement at the campaigns start.

I prefer to have my character start with all 20's in all my stats. It's a problem if you request other players not have their characters start with 20 in all their stats. See how absurd that is?

No, that's a false analogy.

You preferring not to use a game mechanic (even an optional one) is fine. Demanding other players do so as well due to your own preferences, probably isnt. Demanding to be given 20's in all your stats isnt even the same ball park. There is a difference there, surely you can see it?

feats aren't allowed

I thought you said, you personally dont like feats as a player.

Any reason another player cant take feats?

If you think the meatsheild is useful it's because the DM makes him so by focusing more enemies on him instead of the squishier party members. Mine does the same thing. It's a common way to play. But DM fiat doesn't override the mechanics, and the mechanics suggest that most enemies don't care one bit about running past the fighter's puny OA if they want to attack something else.

That's not 'mechanics' man, nor is it 'DM fiat'. Its down to many Monsters wanting to deal with the Great Weapon Master action surging 6 foot tall superiority dice spamming dood in Full plate trying to carve his face in with a Greatsword thats on fire.

There's 11 classes. Parties are typically 4-5 members. There's hundreds maybe even thousands of party compositions.

Generally a meatshield, a cleric, a spellcaster, a trap guy/ skill monkey and a 5th wheel or backup.

It's literally the first thing every new player has asked me when they join for like 35 years of playing this game. 'What's in the party?' They want to know so they can create something to mesh with the party.

Not all players do this, despite my own anecdotal experience. But its common, and a default assumption of the game (heck; last edition they tried to codify it with different 'roles').

So please tell me how a featless fighter or barbarian keeps any enemy focused on attacking him instead of the wizard?

Standing in the doorway or hallway a of a dungeon while the Wizard stands 40' back is the best way.

But barbarians using reckless attack and posing a tempting target. Cavaliers by using their own protection abilities. The Protection fighting style. Tripping attack or menacing attack or pushing attack with a Battlemaster to keep the monster at bay. Booming blade on an Eldritch knight. Spirit guardians on an Ancestor Barbarian. Wolf totem making you a tempting target. Compelled duel for a Paladin, Crown oath for a Crown Paladin. Grabbing the creature on your turn. Knocking it prone on your turn. Not wanting to risk a free attack of opportinity from a raging greatsword monster that just clobbered it for 40 damamge.

And just being a big angry scary dude.

Again, I love how you're opposed to feats, when you identify that feats (namely Sentinel) is one other way to lock down a monster, which is something you seem to desire in your games.