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

[Uller]

I've always been a huge fan of the ghoul since it was one that is scary to low and mid-level PCs yet can be destroyed without magic items. I think the one in the A1 Bestiary is very good. It gets two attacks and the second attack will have advantage if the first hits and the character fails it's save. If you run into a pack of them you have a good chance of getting paralyzed.

In 3e, the ghoul got 3 attacks and they all paralyzed. But what 3e had that Next does not is the idea of a "full attack" AND saves scaled up. Most of the timein that first round of combat the ghouls will likely only get one attack because it's either the surprise round (No full attacks) or it had to move. It took some doing to get a full attack for a monster in 3e...this was the fun of a pack of ghouls. Rush a PC with a bunch, he might avoid getting paralyzed and bring one down but then the full attacks kick in and it gets more likely to take the PC out of the fight.

 

[Dausuul]

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

I prefer the "number of Hit Dice" solution because it doesn't give an advantage to the fighter over the wizard, and it doesn't create weird scenarios where you bash somebody over the head and then cast charm person. And unlike hit point thresholds, Hit Die thresholds are a well established mechanic in D&D with a long tradition.

 

[billd91]

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.

It was harder to multiattack in 1e/2e if you played by the letter of the rules as well. But I have doubts that most groups did, in which case ghouls would have been attacking much like they were in the D&D Next play test. Of course, with surprise, ghouls would have been pretty dangerous in that edition as well - treating every segment of surprise essentially as a round for making attacks.

I notice also that level scaling of saves, like in 1e, isn't necessarily a panacea. The saving throw values for 5th level PCs in 1e/2e are quite similar to the DC 12 the PCs needed to make. And in that edition, they wouldn't have been able to make saves each round to try to throw off the paralysis effect like they can under D&D Next.

Overall, the D&D Next isn't that different from the AD&D ghoul (his attack value is even very close at +5 in the play test bestiary to the AD&D ghoul's THAC0 of 16). The newer ghoul has about 5 more hit points, does a couple points of damage more with his claws, but has lost a couple point of AC. So it's not like this ghoul is all that different from all predecessors. So what, exactly is the problem?

I think it's expectations. I think 3e ghouls spoiled the designers a little bit. Ghouls they were pretty weak opponents in that edition. Their hit points were fairly low considering the damage some PCs could do. Their attack bonuses were feeble (even compared to 1e) at +2 for the bite, +0 for claws. Their save DC for paralysis was the same, but about half the PCs you'd expect in the party had an extra +2 on their Fort saves over their Constitution modifiers to undermine the danger. I think they have built the ghoul they used in the podcast around 1e's model but still have their expectations based on the 3e weaker version and that's causing a disconnect. They probably need to think in 1e terms more with some of these issues.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]

I believe the real issue is that at higher levels in Next with flat saves the characters are still at he ghouls mercy. That was not the case in previous editions where saves have always effectively scaled.

Now I like that they remain scary as hell, as DM I just need to make sure that xp scales effectively to reflect the risk that remains and is level appropriate.

 

[billd91]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]

I believe the real issue is that at higher levels in Next with flat saves the characters are still at he ghouls mercy. That was not the case in previous editions where saves have always effectively scaled.

Now I like that they remain scary as hell, as DM I just need to make sure that xp scales effectively to reflect the risk that remains and is level appropriate.

I think that's an issue over the life of the PC. But I'm not sure it's actually an issue with the encounter in question. That's a shapshot in time. And, based on 1e assumptions, the saves with 1e's scaling would have been pretty close to the saves the PCs needed to achieve in D&D Next for this encounter. If they wanted an encounter with a similar deadliness (4 ghouls vs 5th level AD&D PCs = 4 ghouls vs 5th level D&D Next PCs), they certainly were in the ballpark.

If, however, they wanted an encounter against 1st level PCs to be that deadly and an encounter between 4 ghouls and a party of 5th level PCs to be less deadly, then maybe the problem at hand is truly scaling saves based on PC level.

 

[the Jester]

All of the discussion about saving throws has given me an idea. Give all characters a bonus equal to 1/4 their level to their ability bonuses, (i.e. +1 at 4th level, +2 at 8th, etc).

Every time there's an "everyone gets a bonus based on level" approach to 5e, it breaks or at least damages the whole idea of seriously reducing bonus inflation. Let's not.

While I appreciate the balanced scaling, an even more simple solution would be to add no bonus at all.

And here we have a winner, IMHO.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Every time there's an "everyone gets a bonus based on level" approach to 5e, it breaks or at least damages the whole idea of seriously reducing bonus inflation. Let's not.

How does this break or damage the idea of reducing bonus inflation? The maximum bonus of +5 is EXACTLY the same maximum bonus that a lot of the classes are getting right now. Bounded Accuracy is one of my favorite things about the new edition. I wouldn't propose anything if I thought it could ruin it.

 

[Li Shenron]

How does this break or damage the idea of reducing bonus inflation? The maximum bonus of +5 is EXACTLY the same maximum bonus that a lot of the classes are getting right now. Bounded Accuracy is one of my favorite things about the new edition. I wouldn't propose anything if I thought it could ruin it.

This is true, but OTOH attack rolls get that level-based bonus (max +5) while AC doesn't... I will be fine whether they scale ST in parallel with spells DC or not. I just want to point out that we have another area of the game where the two don't go up in parallel. I think it worked fine in previous editions, although there were lots of ways to boost your AC and these are gone in 5e... I haven't played 5e at high levels to check if this is a problem, someone else can chime in and let us know.

 

[Falling Icicle]

This is true, but OTOH attack rolls get that level-based bonus (max +5) while AC doesn't... I will be fine whether they scale ST in parallel with spells DC or not. I just want to point out that we have another area of the game where the two don't go up in parallel. I think it worked fine in previous editions, although there were lots of ways to boost your AC and these are gone in 5e... I haven't played 5e at high levels to check if this is a problem, someone else can chime in and let us know.

I think AC should scale at the same rate as attack bonus. To me, it's never made sense that characters only ever get better at attacking, but never get better at defending themselves. It seems that they're afraid of players getting really high ACs and becoming nearly invincible, which is a valid concern, but I blame the magic item bonus stacking for that problem.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think AC should scale at the same rate as attack bonus. To me, it's never made sense that characters only ever get better at attacking, but never get better at defending themselves. It seems that they're afraid of players getting really high ACs and becoming nearly invincible, which is a valid concern, but I blame the magic item bonus stacking for that problem.

This is why I would like to hear the experience of someone who playtested 5e at high levels, since I haven't had the chance to...

In previous editions, non-scaling AC worked, whether it makes sense or not, but in 5e it might be different due to less options to boost it. But at the same time the attack bonus is much, much more limited than before (just think 3e: +20 is the max by level, you can get up to +5 with a magic weapon and beyond +5 with stats etc.), so it is even possible that the situation is tilted in the other direction, with AC being generally better.