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

[CapnZapp]

given how well 5e is selling, you either get tweaks to it that remain compatible, or nothing. You will certainly not get a new edition. So far we always got new editions when the previous one was no longer selling well.

I don't think you are prepared to argue giving a character their proficiency bonus as a minimum for saves (just to give one example) breaks compatibility anywhere, even a little.

Assuming I'm correct we should be able to agree to drop your line of thought as quietly as possible.

 

[Pauln6]

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?

A problem for players to overcome is not necessarily a bug. This is not a scenario that is likely to come up very often and it should be for the otger players to have a strategy in mind if it happens, just like a cleric has healing spells or restoration spells handy for other scenarios. You are right that half proficiency rounded down to non trained saves would certainly not be unbalanced and would mitigate the problem, and I would be more in favour of that than the paladin providing full charisma bonus (which should also be halved) on top of trained saves, which has the opposite problem.

Similarly, you could have magic helms or potions of mental fortitude that could provide bonuses. The Barbarian in my group wears a Juggernaut Helm that protects against psychic attacks, for example.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

Nope. It is not. Sorry.

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.

Was your own decision to dump int.

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).

In your opinion.

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

Nope. It is fine.

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?

That is an ad hominem. And a fallacy on top. You mix up your preference with a design choice. Please stop doing ad hominem attacks.

That said, I could also live with bad saves increasing at a slow rate. It will still be a weakness. It is a different design choice which is also ok. But calling it a bug is oblivious to the math/design choice behind it.

Last point: if you want to call something a bug, it is the design of the abilities that take you completely out of the game. Spell DC for PCs have a maximum of 19 (20 for the new sorceror) without magical help. So every save is doable if you have a +0 bonus. DCs of 21 or higher are very rare and something exceptional. And even then, high level characters often have abilities to help them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't think you are prepared to argue giving a character their proficiency bonus as a minimum for saves (just to give one example) breaks compatibility anywhere, even a little.

Assuming I'm correct we should be able to agree to drop your line of thought as quietly as possible.

Giving everyone proficiency in all saves is goving everyone the monk 14 feature. Also every DC in the monsrer manual needs to be upgraded to account for your new math.

That said, if one is willing to change to DC = 8+2xprof bonus. And good saves = 2xprof bonus, bad saves =1 x prof bonus would work. But this is counter to the 5e design goal of having creatures be viable for a very wide range of levels. Exactly the math of 4e that was so problematic that here on ENworld some people advocated just dropping half level bonus from everything. Which is actually close to 5e's bounded accuracy.

So I really take 5e math over your math because I have played 4e by the book long enough to know that it is detrimental for the game (at least in my books).

 

[mamba]

I don't think you are prepared to argue giving a character their proficiency bonus as a minimum for saves (just to give one example) breaks compatibility anywhere, even a little.

if that is all you were talking about, no, I will not argue that.

I see no strong case for needing it either however, that certainly is a borderline change given how strong its impact would be.

In the post I replied to, this was not mentioned however and you talked vaguely about how fundamental changes should not have to wait another ten years, without giving any specifics…

 

[Umbran]

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?

Mod Note:
Hey.

If I were to ask you what was wrong with this post, would you be able to tell me? If yes, then you shouldn't have done it in the first place, and that's a problem. If not, that's also a real problem.

Accusing others of being emotional/irrational isn't an appropriate approach to discussion. Please don't do it.

 

[mellored]

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.

Oh for sure.

First time I played D&D (3.?), I wrote a 2 page Backstory, rolled initiative, rolled a save, and died. It wasn't fun and I didn't play again until 4e.

And I'm not suggesting a big change, or removing weakness. Just slightly more bounded accuracy.

Could be done any number of ways. + 1/2 proficiency bonus to saves. Capping ability modifiers. Combining stats to Fort, Ref, Will. Or whatever else.

 

[Clint_L]

Is it a bug that superman is vulnerable to kryptonite? That stuff just shuts him right down! Yet half of his stories involve kryptonite because having weaknesses, even extreme ones, makes things interesting.

I'm not finding that characters having notable weaknesses is harming our games. To the contrary, I find that it creates many memorable moments. When I look at high level play on shows like Critical Role, I don't see characters like Grog Strongjaw struggling to have a massive impact on battles.

You can build a character to be kind of good at everything, or you can build a character to be really great at a few things but very bad at some others - those are valid choices.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh for sure.

First time I played D&D (3.?), I wrote a 2 page Backstory, rolled initiative, rolled a save, and died. It wasn't fun and I didn't play again until 4e.

And I'm not suggesting a big change, or removing weakness. Just slightly more bounded accuracy.

Could be done any number of ways. + 1/2 proficiency bonus to saves. Capping ability modifiers. Combining stats to Fort, Ref, Will. Or whatever else.

How is ot more bounded if you add more bonuses to saves?
Note that saves have a base score of 8 instead of 10 to give a reasonable chance at level 1 to save.

I also think that changing to fort ref will makes it worse, as it is easier to have no weakness. Which in turn makes casters feel more pressure to increase their DCs. Which in turn does make it worse for everyone.

Capping ability scores to 18 would help. Not giving monsters casting stats of more than 20. Maybe mental stats should not go up to 30 for monsters, only physical stats.
Or just capping DCs at 20. And AC at 30.

I might also give a universal save bonus of +1 to all saves at level 10 or 11. Lets call it paragon bonus.

 

[mellored]

How is ot more bounded if you add more bonuses to saves?

+2 to +11 is more bounded than -1 to +11.
+0 to +9 would also work.

Note that saves have a base score of 8 instead of 10 to give a reasonable chance at level 1 to save.

Yea. I don't have any issues with low levels. The gap is -1 to +5. In fact I wouldn't mind it being a little bigger, but close enough.

It's the fact that your best save keeps going up, and your worst never change.

Especially since you only get 2 out of 6. Even taking resilience still leaves half your saves behind.