D&D 5E Weak Saving Throws

[Stalker0]

Considering the bounded accuracy aspect of the rules, I'm thinking this is far less of an issue than you assume.

I did the math on this one, so to provide context.

If you start a Fighter out at Str 14 and fight an AC 16 opponent, each +2 to str increases his DPR (aka his offense) by roughly 20%.

So a Str 16 Fighter does 20% more offense than a Str 14, Str 18 does 20% more than Str 16, etc.

 

[Sadras]

Does everyone here sit and analyse DPR and save probabilities before choosing to play a certain class? Am I alone when I'd rather choose to play an archetype based on some inspirational idea I received rather than number play?

Don't get me wrong, numbers become important for everyone to have fun and feel productive at the table and perhaps for comparative reasons to a degree, but they shouldn't be the be all and end all, like they seem to be in this thread where people wont play a fighter unless strength has been capped out, and perhaps leaving them vulnerable to magic.

Bounded Accuracy and weaker monsters allows us to experiment more with dexterous, wise, intelligent and charismatic fighters and I for one am very happy about it.

 

[mach1.9pants]

If I ever got to play rather than DM I wouldn't care as long as my PC didn't totally suck. But I still find it interesting, the discussion.

 

[Nagol]

Does everyone here sit and analyse DPR and save probabilities before choosing to play a certain class? Am I alone when I'd rather choose to play an archetype based on some inspirational idea I received rather than number play?

Don't get me wrong, numbers become important for everyone to have fun and feel productive at the table and perhaps for comparative reasons to a degree, but they shouldn't be the be all and end all, like they seem to be in this thread where people wont play a fighter unless strength has been capped out, and perhaps leaving them vulnerable to magic.

Bounded Accuracy and weaker monsters allows us to experiment more with dexterous, wise, intelligent and charismatic fighters and I for one am very happy about it.

No., I do it before deciding to run a game engine. I almost always DM.

I want to understand how the engine drives -- what play it forces and the conceits it promotes to see if it meshes with the experience I want at the table.

I'm finding the way the game is set up, there will be less experimentation outside trope -- there is less room for it. The cost of investing off-script is quite high.

 

[Sadras]

I'm finding the way the game is set up, there will be less experimentation outside trope -- there is less room for it. The cost of investing off-script is quite high.

Fair enough. I might disagree with your statement to some level, given that I think that from what we have seen of the 5e monsters; that they are easy to hit (weak) and their own attacking bonuses are not unreasonable, which in my mind, allows the martial characters some leeway for experimentation.

 

[Manbearcat]

Does everyone here sit and analyse DPR and save probabilities before choosing to play a certain class? Am I alone when I'd rather choose to play an archetype based on some inspirational idea I received rather than number play?

Don't get me wrong, numbers become important for everyone to have fun and feel productive at the table and perhaps for comparative reasons to a degree, but they shouldn't be the be all and end all, like they seem to be in this thread where people wont play a fighter unless strength has been capped out, and perhaps leaving them vulnerable to magic.

Bounded Accuracy and weaker monsters allows us to experiment more with dexterous, wise, intelligent and charismatic fighters and I for one am very happy about it.

I don't do it before choosing to play a certain class. But I certainly do it before GMing a system so that my own expectations of play output coincide tightly with what the game engine actually produces (and hopefully transparently promises to produce).

That is even before considering whether or not I like what it produces and how it does so.

 

[Sadras]

I don't do it before choosing to play a certain class. But I certainly do it before GMing a system so that my own expectations of play output coincide tightly with what the game engine actually produces (and hopefully transparently promises to produce).

That is even before considering whether or not I like what it produces and how it does so.

Interesting how you and [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] do this exercise as DMs rather than players. Honestly I've never tested the system on this level. I would probably skim the classes a little, read up on fireball and magic missile (as good testers of how much magic damage the wizard could bring to the table), understand the hit point and healing system and read up on the play rules, but to analyse on an excel spreadsheet the DPR per class, level by level never entered my mind.

Should a problem come up with a certain class's damage output/power/spell, the group would address it at the table (usually) after the game and probably come to a solution (house rule) if we thought it required one. Perhaps doing this homework before the game eliminates this, but this is too much P.T. for me.
Another factor is that our group also levels at an incredibly slow pace, being level 10 or less, so I'm not driven to measuring damage output by level increases.

You definitely do a lot of homework on the system beforehand instead of discovery through play.

 

[Nagol]

Fair enough. I might disagree with your statement to some level, given that I think that from what we have seen of the 5e monsters; that they are easy to hit (weak) and their own attacking bonuses are not unreasonable, which in my mind, allows the martial characters some leeway for experimentation.

Characters get between 5 and 7 stat boosts.

As Stalker0 points out a couple of posts above, a +1 modifier on primary stat works out with a large bonus to effectiveness for martial characters so a player is highly incented to maximise that (2 stat bumps).

The magic system features hp thresholds, hp is generally good to have, and the same stat provides a saving throw that historically is most commonly faced (magic, poison, disease). So that stat is strongly incented to be bumped (2-4 stat bumps maximum).

Good saves need to be bumped to 20 if the PC is to hold his own in resistance. Rogues and Clerics are already covered here from their primary stat boost, above. Fighters are covered by the Con boost above, Wizards are strongly incented to boost Wisdom or face having no saving throw be at least 50% reliable.

Poor saves can never get as high as 50% reliability, but to have even a 25% chance of saving at high levels requires a +3 or 16 attribute. Players will either ignore the save and plan on failure with the occasional success becoming a pleasant surprise or will be incented to bump their poor saves as they can.

AC matters since the bounded accuracy affects incoming attacks too. For those not in heavy armour (Rogues, some Clerics, Wizards) Dex is an important part of the AC. It also happens to be one of the saves mentioned above and affects initiative. Rogues are covered by their primary stat boost above. Clerics and Wizards are incented to apply boosts here.

If the PCs get through that gauntlet of choice, any remaining bumps can be used off-trope.

We haven't seen very many finalised monsters. The only one I know of is the hobgoblin.

I would characterise a monster is easy to hit if the AC can be struck between 65-75% of the time by an optimised character or 30-40% by character with minimal combat ability. The range I suggest is actually greater than the range offered to low-level characters so let's look at both scenarios:

Minimal combat ability (+2 to-hit) 30-40% suggests a low AC is 15-17.
Maximum combat ability (+5 to-hit) 65-75% of the time suggests a low AC is 10-12.

The one example I am aware of (hobgoblin) is Challenge 1/2 and AC 18. AC 18 means the minimal combat character has a 25% chance of striking and a maximal combat character has a 40% chance of striking.

By 9th-level, the hobgoblin becomes easy to hit.

A minimal combat character will have +4 to strike and succeed in hitting the target 35% of the time.

An optimised character will have +9 to strike and now the hobgoblin approaches but is just outside the easy-to-strike category with a 60% chance of striking. If we consider only one strike a round landing sufficient, it enters the easy-to-hit category since the Fighter has a 84% chance of connecting with at least one of his two blows.

 

[Nagol]

Interesting how you and [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] do this exercise as DMs rather than players. Honestly I've never tested the system on this level. I would probably skim the classes a little, read up on fireball and magic missile (as good testers of how much magic damage the wizard could bring to the table), understand the hit point and healing system and read up on the play rules, but to analyse on an excel spreadsheet the DPR per class, level by level never entered my mind.

Should a problem come up with a certain class's damage output/power/spell, the group would address it at the table (usually) after the game and probably come to a solution (house rule) if we thought it required one. Perhaps doing this homework before the game eliminates this, but this is too much P.T. for me.
Another factor is that our group also levels at an incredibly slow pace, being level 10 or less, so I'm not driven to measuring damage output by level increases.

You definitely do a lot of homework on the system beforehand instead of discovery through play.

I run a lot of different systems. I started with Holmes Basic, went to 1e, then branched out from there. By the end of the '80s, I had run at least one campaign in Aftermath, CHAMPIONS, Star Trek, Vampire: the Masquerade, Danger International, Ars Magica, 2e, and Gamma World. I owned a least a dozen others and played in more still. I learned the value of understanding system expectations and how that influences table experience.

I pick the system that best matches my desired experience at the table. To do that, you have to grok the systems available.

 

[Obryn]

I do similar to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]. Math and design are important. They drive the play experience and stories that emerge at the table, so can't be ignored.

Now there are some other elements to 5e spellcasting that only look emergent during play - like concentration and flex casting. I don't think those can be mathed out so cleanly, so I'll need to rely on trusted opinions or see them in play.

Honestly, getting the math right is one of a designer's biggest jobs.