D&D (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[Clint_L]

But, by the same token, an Int 10 Barbarian didn't "dump stat" his Int. That's an average character. But, it's not that hard to get a 17 Save DC for a caster, even in fairly low levels levels. Certainly a 16 is very easy to carry off. A 20th level character shouldn't be subject to effects 80% of the time. A single Feeblemind spell and Mr. Barbarian has a serious, serious problem.

When we are talking about "dump stats" I assume that we all understand that we are talking about them in the context of player characters, i.e. where the players have "dumped" their lowest scores, typically the ones that are least useful to their character class and/or concept. In the context of heroic adventurers, 10s and 8s weak scores. I didn't think that needed clarification, but there it is.

Why shouldn't a 20th level character be severely vulnerable to something that targets their weakness? I just don't agree with that. They're not subject to all effects 80% of the time. There are plenty this hypothetical barbarian would be all but immune to. But yeah, that feeblemind spell is likely a big, big problem. And Ms. Wizard could be stuck in that web for ages unless someone helps her. I like that characters have significant weaknesses, and wouldn't even bother playing a game where they didn't. I get that others feel differently. But these limitations are not bugs, they are design features. Just not to everyone's taste.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you are Stunned and need to roll a 16 or higher to break out, it will take an average of 3 rounds to escape.

That's still pretty screwed. And you still want allies to come save you.

Note, this is for PCs. Monster weakness are fine.

And that is still a lot better than in editions before where you were stunned for 1 round per level. At level 20 that was 20 rounds.
Also auch spells usually take concentration. So you can get out with teammates help.
A spell that has no chance to stick also is no fun.

 

[Pauln6]

Wait, so we should boost all saves because one of the most powerful spells in the game, and one of the very few spells to require an intelligence save, punishes PCs who have put no points in intelligence, have no paladin, no Bless spell, no luck feat, and no other ways to improve saves?

Tell me you never played 1e without telling me you never played 1e. Save or die would have given you a heart attack. It won't break the game, so do it if you want, but we don't all need the default of the game to be on easy.

 

[Hussar]

When we are talking about "dump stats" I assume that we all understand that we are talking about them in the context of player characters, i.e. where the players have "dumped" their lowest scores, typically the ones that are least useful to their character class and/or concept. In the context of heroic adventurers, 10s and 8s weak scores. I didn't think that needed clarification, but there it is.

Why shouldn't a 20th level character be severely vulnerable to something that targets their weakness? I just don't agree with that. They're not subject to all effects 80% of the time. There are plenty this hypothetical barbarian would be all but immune to. But yeah, that feeblemind spell is likely a big, big problem. And Ms. Wizard could be stuck in that web for ages unless someone helps her. I like that characters have significant weaknesses, and wouldn't even bother playing a game where they didn't. I get that others feel differently. But these limitations are not bugs, they are design features. Just not to everyone's taste.

No. Ms Wizard is stuck until her next turn and she uses one of half a dozen spells that get her out of the web.

The barbarian has no such options.

Significant weakness shouldn’t mean almost certain death if it happens.

 

[Hussar]

Wait, so we should boost all saves because one of the most powerful spells in the game, and one of the very few spells to require an intelligence save, punishes PCs who have put no points in intelligence, have no paladin, no Bless spell, no luck feat, and no other ways to improve saves?

Tell me you never played 1e without telling me you never played 1e. Save or die would have given you a heart attack. It won't break the game, so do it if you want, but we don't all need the default of the game to be on easy.

lol. By the time you were double digit levels, you saved on a 2 vs anything. Between ALL your saves improving, magic items also boosted your saves.

Talk about people who have never played 1e.

 

[Parmandur]

But, by the same token, an Int 10 Barbarian didn't "dump stat" his Int. That's an average character. But, it's not that hard to get a 17 Save DC for a caster, even in fairly low levels levels. Certainly a 16 is very easy to carry off. A 20th level character shouldn't be subject to effects 80% of the time. A single Feeblemind spell and Mr. Barbarian has a serious, serious problem.

Yes, as demonstrated on Critical Role qith Grog Strongjaw, this can be great fun.

 

[Pauln6]

lol. By the time you were double digit levels, you saved on a 2 vs anything. Between ALL your saves improving, magic items also boosted your saves.

Talk about people who have never played 1e.

Fighters defo had good saves at very high levels but no, they were not that good - 10 vs magic at level 10 and capping at 8 - and I think it was only Rings of Protection that improved saves, taking up one of your two precious slots, so not as common as you think. Way better than this save, true but then most of your saves vs spells will be way better in 5e too.

 

[tetrasodium]

But, by the same token, an Int 10 Barbarian didn't "dump stat" his Int. That's an average character. But, it's not that hard to get a 17 Save DC for a caster, even in fairly low levels levels. Certainly a 16 is very easy to carry off. A 20th level character shouldn't be subject to effects 80% of the time. A single Feeblemind spell and Mr. Barbarian has a serious, serious problem.

Ten is not average for a PC barbarian... Nobody is tallking about an NPC commont commoner. Avg[15+2 14 13 12 10 8] =12.omething... That 10 is a dump stat because 5e got rid of the -2 that would bring the 8 down to 6 and set a new floor for dump stat

 

[CapnZapp]

Int save of +0 is a feature, not a bug.

No it definitely is a bug that you can have a level 20 character with literally zero chance of making a given save.

Even if you get to save a hundred times a second, you will still never beat a DC 21 saving throw if your bonus remains +0.

At level 20 you're supposed to feel powerful. But the cost of shoring up your bad saves in 5E is unreasonably high (you'd have to take three feats just to go from "hopeless" to "still really really bad" and that's just not a reasonable cost).

It's weird how bounded accuracy completely breaks down but at the low end here.

It's definitely a bug, and it should definitely have been fixed already. Claiming we don't need to fix it even after ten years is an insane amount of fanboyism. Can WotC do no wrong?

 

[Stalker0]

No it definitely is a bug that you can have a level 20 character with literally zero chance of making a given save.

Even if you get to save a hundred times a second, you will still never beat a DC 21 saving throw if your bonus remains +0.

At level 20 you're supposed to feel powerful. But the cost of shoring up your bad saves in 5E is unreasonably high (you'd have to take three feats just to go from "hopeless" to "still really really bad" and that's just not a reasonable cost).

It's weird how bounded accuracy completely breaks down but at the low end here.

It's definitely a bug, and it should definitely have been fixed already. Claiming we don't need to fix it even after ten years is an insane amount of fanboyism. Can WotC do no wrong?

I do agree that the save disparity gets too high at the highest levels, especially since save dcs can get high enough to not be savable