D&D 5E A Simple Solution to the Saving Throw and other Math Problems

[Uller]

The problem is outlined fairly well in the podcast from the other day: In the playtest session that was streamed (and available on YouTube), a party of 5th level characters is successfully ambushed by 4 ghouls. Since the ghouls get three attacks per round and each attack has a DC 12 con save to avoid paralyzation, before the party could react two of four PCs are taken out of the fight (and because the players were rolling poorly...dice had a role here). Mike Mearls and crew were somewhat taken aback by this and in the pod cast they mention that a 10th level party would have had the same trouble because there is no scaling of effects that require saves. So PC power scales via damage (given and taken) but not via ability to resist effects: a 3rd level monster with an effect that paralyzes or restrains a character is essentially _more_ powerful when attacking a higher level PC. They argue a 10th level fighter should not have the same fear of engaging a group of ghouls as a 3rd level one. So the proposed solutions seem to be give a scaling save bonus. I agree there needs to be a solution of some sort. PCs should get better at avoiding effects, not just better at taking damage (and ghouls shouldn't get three shots at paralyzation)

Edit: and higher level monsters should get better at imposing effects...presumably they do via higher ability scores but I'm not sure that is quite enough). I don't want to see the 4Eism of everyone gets better at everything drastically as level gets higher but some middle ground should work

 

[Dausuul]

I agree that effects need some form of scaling comparable to damage, but IMO saving throws are a poor way to handle that. You end up with a lot of low-probability, all-or-nothing events, where most of the time there's no effect and once in a while there's a disaster.

I would prefer to adapt a common mechanic from the spell system of older editions, where the spell's effects are reduced or negated against a foe with a certain number of Hit Dice. Just do the same thing with monster abilities. Ghoul paralysis just doesn't do as much to high-level PCs.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Where are the NPC/monster bonuses?

In this system, the Int 18 wizard will still have no trouble hitting a Dex 8 giant with a Dexterity-save spell.

Monsters and NPCs could get the same 1/4 level bonus.

 

[gotbrain]

I agree that effects need some form of scaling comparable to damage, but IMO saving throws are a poor way to handle that. You end up with a lot of low-probability, all-or-nothing events, where most of the time there's no effect and once in a while there's a disaster.

I would prefer to adapt a common mechanic from the spell system of older editions, where the spell's effects are reduced or negated against a foe with a certain number of Hit Dice. Just do the same thing with monster abilities. Ghoul paralysis just doesn't do as much to high-level PCs.

What happened to the idea of effects limited by HP threshold that was being discussed? Leave the saves the same but scale down the effect as PCs grow in level ( and HP). So under 25 HP would get 1 save and be paralyzed if they failed. Under 50 HP would get two saves , failing the first would stun, failing the second would then paralyze. Under 75 would get 3 a slow, stun and paralyze.

This would also solve one of my big pet peeves with D&D of all editions: PCs are always at full strength until the reach 0 HP. That injured high level might suffer the same effects as the full strength low level fighter.

 

[Falling Icicle]

What happened to the idea of effects limited by HP threshold that was being discussed? Leave the saves the same but scale down the effect as PCs grow in level ( and HP). So under 25 HP would get 1 save and be paralyzed if they failed. Under 50 HP would get two saves , failing the first would stun, failing the second would then paralyze. Under 75 would get 3 a slow, stun and paralyze.

This would also solve one of my big pet peeves with D&D of all editions: PCs are always at full strength until the reach 0 HP. That injured high level might suffer the same effects as the full strength low level fighter.

The HP threshold mechanic has its own severe problems. I'm glad that they've all but gotten rid of it.

That said, I think it might be worth considering bringing back the "bloodied" condition from 4e.

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem is outlined fairly well in the podcast from the other day: In the playtest session that was streamed (and available on YouTube), a party of 5th level characters is successfully ambushed by 4 ghouls. Since the ghouls get three attacks per round and each attack has a DC 12 con save to avoid paralyzation, before the party could react two of four PCs are taken out of the fight (and because the players were rolling poorly...dice had a role here). Mike Mearls and crew were somewhat taken aback by this and in the pod cast they mention that a 10th level party would have had the same trouble because there is no scaling of effects that require saves. ...

I can't believe they have been so shortsighted...

The problem with this encounter was that clearly it's ridiculous to have 3 attempts at paralization per round for each ghoul.

A paralization effect is after all very similar to a spell, even tho the success probability is small, what insane game designers would have a low-level monster cast 3 spells in a round?

 

[billd91]

The problem with this encounter was that clearly it's ridiculous to have 3 attempts at paralization per round for each ghoul.

A paralization effect is after all very similar to a spell, even tho the success probability is small, what insane game designers would have a low-level monster cast 3 spells in a round?

The insane game designers who brought us AD&D. I think the only edition since 1e that hasn't given ghouls 3 attempts to paralyze their prey in a round is 4th edition.

 

[DonAdam]

I'd rather just have spells get attack rolls that target ability scores--the full score instead of 10 + mod.

 

[Li Shenron]

The insane game designers who brought us AD&D. I think the only edition since 1e that hasn't given ghouls 3 attempts to paralyze their prey in a round is 4th edition.

Why then those designers in the podcast with 30+ years of experience in playing the game were so surprised that 2 of their PCs went down against 12 spells?

At least in 3.0 it was harder for a ghoul to get 3 attacks because they required a full-round action, so the ghoul would get them only when starting close or 5ft away from its target, which is very rare in the first round. In 5e there is no such restriction, the ghoul can move AND do 3 attacks each of which can paralyze. No wonder it worked in the surprise round.

The ST issue is separate from this scenario, here the problem is clearly in the multiple attacks with special save-or-suck effect attached.

 

[Rhenny]

The ghoul in the Againist the Slave Lords Bestiary is quite different from the original ghoul in the core bestiary.

It only gets one bite (no paralysis) and one claws attack (DC 11 Con vs. Paralysis) and both are +4 to hit. That is much more manageable. I wonder why Mearls didn't use it instead?