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

[Willie the Duck]

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.

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.

Firstly, I don't think anything has to be 'a bug,' but there are better and worse approaches, and things that do or don't cause issues. Regardless, I think these two points highlight my preference. For me, the 'depowers Superman' variety of Kryptonite helps the DC storytelling as is a good way to let other characters save the day. The 'kills Superman' variety hurts the DC storytelling because then there needs to be a convoluted way to save Superman each time his weakness is utilized. Translated to a game, that runs the same issue: do you want said PC to die (or the party have to drop everything to save them, etc.) whenever it comes up? At low levels in the old days, having your character summarily die was often less restricting than some other limiter like a curse or level drain because it just means you get to roll up a new one. At high-levels and modern D&D and other high-investment games where character creation takes a long time, losing a character simply to _______ showing up can have a 'cheap way to lose a character' feeling. I know in some other games like GURPS we often ruled out killing vulnerabilities simply because they ended up being weapons you give to the GM that they then don't feel like they can fire. That's why I prefer 5e's vulnerabilities to 3e's, in that they are rarely 'save-or-die,' so much as 'save or be relatively ineffective this fight.'

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Oh for sure.

Combining stats to Fort, Ref, Will. Or whatever else.

That would be my preference. For me, it's not love for 3e that makes me prefer it - it's the weird way that most Illusions wind up Int (Investigation) checks rather than INT saves (and yet INT save are now around to fight off mind controll?) and then how WIS and CHA saves can both represent "force of will". It just seems like a bit of messy design. I get why they went for it - it seemed at first to make ability checks cover more things, but I don't think it works well in practice.

Plus, it takes up less space on a character sheet!

 

[mellored]

That would be my preference. For me, it's not love for 3e that makes me prefer it - it's the weird way that most Illusions wind up Int (Investigation) checks rather than INT saves

I think there is a good chance they will switch to Int saves. They did it for grapple and counterspell.

I could go either way with the Fort, Ref, Will, which 4e also had. But really don't expect it to happen for 2024.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think there is a good chance they will switch to Int saves. They did it for grapple and counterspell.

I could go either way with the Fort, Ref, Will, which 4e also had. But really don't expect it to happen for 2024.

Nah, it won't happen for 2024 - but you're right that they'll probably streamline what spells save how, at the very least for a consistency pass.

 

[Pauln6]

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

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.

But by the same token, your villain DCs don't need to keep going up. I don't give the goblin shaman 20 wisdom just because the PCs are 18th level. In a bounded system, lower DC villains can still be a threat while higher DC villains can remain terrifying.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

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.

What about 2 good, 2 mediocre (half proficiency), 2 bad saves?

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Saves not scaling at all can get crazy with the kinds of abilities even extremely low CR creatures can have. For example, a pixie is CR 1/4, and it has Polymorph and Phantasmal Force, two spells that can end a fight for a character if they land. At level 1 they're an okay chunk of an encounter's XP budget, but by level 20 they're barely a rounding error, and they can still one-shot one of the party members if they get unlucky with their +0 or -1 saves, even against a DC 12. Also, you can summon 8 of them with a 4th level spell.

It's an extreme example, but monsters with saves can often threaten a high-level character in a way that the usual bricks really can't, which makes building encounters more difficult. A CR 2 Sea Hag can drop someone to 0 with a DC 11 Wis save, a CR 4 Banshee can do the same in an AoE as a DC 13 Con save, a CR 4 Ghost can possess anyone with a DC 13 Charisma save, or age them closer to death with a DC 8 Wis save. There's spells from level 1 that can stunlock you as well, I've seen a party ignore the high CR warrior enemies to go kill the low CR mage minions, since one good spell can mean your doom.

So, I'd say it's quite an issue with saves not scaling, and also the bonkers effects that failing one can do, even basic conditions like frightened can make certain characters useless. Makes the Resilient feat mandatory at high levels, and you can only take it once. And that's without even mentioning the DC 20+ monsters you'll actually be fighting by then.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think there is a good chance they will switch to Int saves. They did it for grapple and counterspell.

I could go either way with the Fort, Ref, Will, which 4e also had. But really don't expect it to happen for 2024.

At least fort, ref and wis in 4e was better than in 3e as it makes use of all stats.
And chances that one save is very bad is diminished.

I'd probably do it different though: give everything including spells 2 save options like grapple has.

Fireball can be save vs dex or fort.
Thunderwave can be str or con.
Illusions can be int or wis.
Fear can be cha or wis.
Charm can also be wis or cha.

And so on. Would be a happy middle ground between 5e and 4e and 3e.

 

[mellored]

What about 2 good, 2 mediocre (half proficiency), 2 bad saves?

Sure. If good was +10, Medium +5, and bad was +0.

Or something like that.

At least fort, ref and wis in 4e was better than in 3e as it makes use of all stats.
And chances that one save is very bad is diminished.

I'd probably do it different though: give everything including spells 2 save options like grapple has.

Fireball can be save vs dex or fort.
Thunderwave can be str or con.
Illusions can be int or wis.
Fear can be cha or wis.
Charm can also be wis or cha.

And so on. Would be a happy middle ground between 5e and 4e and 3e.

Interesting idea.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Sorry? Two precious slots? What edition are you talking about again?

Note magic armor, magic shields, cloaks of protection all boosted saving throws. I’m very sure there are more.