Search results

That's 10% (or 25%) each round. I assume that at least one of these encounters went a minimum of 10 rounds since the character was perma-banished. Meaning that, with a save every round the 10% guy has a 65% chance of making a successful save before the effect becomes permanent. And that's not...

It's far less common IME in 5e as well. Twice a campaign? I recall 3.x games where that sort of thing happened multiple times in the same session. Banishment is a bit of an outlier. The devs are already targeting it in the revision, so I would say this is more a case of an individual spell...

There's some truth to that, but I take issue with the fact that typically melee cannot actually perform the role of defender. Usually, this is actually performative on the part of the DM, who opts to have the monsters focus on the frontline rather provoking a single (often meaningless) OA, and...

You're overlooking all of the other ways that 3.x had to boost those numbers beyond the bounds of class, such as feats, magic items, etc. For the most part, those don't exist in 5e. In 3.x you could have a cloak of resistance +5 (for example), which added +5 to all of your saves. Now compare...

That's why I preferred daggers. Slightly less attacks, but they could be thrown or dual-wielded in melee equally well. Plus, magical daggers were not uncommon, IME.

That's an odd claim. BA doesn't eliminate the treadmill. In 5e, for example, DCs scale and so do proficient saves. At an equivalent rate, no less. That's a treadmill. All BA means is that, unlike 3e, your non-proficient saves will often have a better than 5% chance of success, because the gap...

If you want the math to not stay the same, have your high level party continue raiding the same type of goblin dens that they did at low levels. The math will be "different", though I'm not sure how satisfying an experience they'd find it.

What I was saying was 70% both ways. IOW, you have (at best) a 70% chance of saving with your best save. You have a 30% chance of saving with your worst save (IOW, a 70% chance of success for the attacker). Casters have the option to choose a wide variety of saves, but casters aren't the only...

You can get better, sure. IMO, it shouldn't be so much better that an enemy only has a 5% chance of landing an ability against that save. (Not counting very rare one-time enemies like gods, for whom that's fine since it's a one off.) Ideally, the numbers shouldn't normally skew so hard that...

You can be good at way more than 2/6. That's just what everyone gets. There's the feat that gives you an extra good save, as well as class features that do the same. Moreover, if you're a paladin (or simply near a paladin) your bonus could be as high as a +16. There are other bonuses (ring of...

IMO, if you went that route, you'd need to do the same for saving throws (have it just based on the ability score sans proficiency). Alternately, you could use the higher of the ability score or proficiency for both.

Perfectly predictable might be boring. On the other hand, too random is frustrating. You can't make real tactical decisions if things are too random. Personally, I think 5e finds a pretty good range between those two extremes.

I disagree. The monk has an excess of stun, and the monk isn't even considered a top tier class. Casters, by comparison, are generally constrained by concentration regarding such effects.

Given those two options, and no others, I would say the correct design choice is to tone down the powers. I'd rather have a decent ability that works a normal percentage of the time, than an absolutely OP ability that only works a tiny percentage of the time. The latter is in most cases simply...

They would've been level 13ish minions, so yes. That was kind of the beauty of how 4e scaled monsters.

Because (IMO) the way to fix the caster/martial divide isn't to give the casters all sorts of cool powers and then make it so that they can't ever stick the power at high levels. Let the casters have cool powers that actually work. Just make martials better than they currently are.

IMO, old school saves and spell resistance weren't great. They made sense in their context, particularly the way AD&D saves scaled. There were a lot of save or die effects, so having a high chance for successfully saving with a heavily invested character made sense. That said, heavy blanket...

I said that it didn't invoke any of the mechanical language that indicates a loud spell. I didn't say it doesn't list any sound. Just that it clearly isn't a loud spell as evidenced by the lack of mechanics associated with loud spells. A low roar is what my furnace makes when it turns on. You...

I've always run it that it makes a wooshing sound (like when a gas stove ignites). Which isn't soundless, but is hardly loud either. The armored guards falling over is still more than likely the primary consideration as to whether anyone hears anything (the same as sleep). In 5e we have several...

It actually doesn't have a loud bang. You can rule that it has a loud bang, but that's your own ruling. Even in Chromatic Dragons the spell description says nothing about Fireball being loud. Also, I'm pretty sure that guys in chainmail/plate holding weapons suddenly falling over could cause...