Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6919608" data-attributes="member: 12731">Thank you for at least/at last moving past the point where we have to discuss this is a problem. Your suggestion, capping saves at DC 20, is indeed a simple one. On ther other hand, I would be grateful if you stop questioning the premise for the discussion. Don't call it "ultra-high level". It's dismissive. If not outright false. You know I'm talking about essentially every double-digit level. At least one third of the game. Then: asking me how many times this has actually happened is first of all irrelevant. Secondly, it is insulting, since it insinuates that unless I meet some arbitrary quota of yours, the problem isn't large enough or even real. So, I'm asking you as respectfully as I can: stay the bleep out of the thread if all you're here for is to question its premise, m'kay?...Okay. That's better. Now then. To your questions.Q. Is this an actual problem at your table?A. YesQ. Second, what about monsters facing the PCs?A. What about them? I'm not talking about that.Q. if the problem is just that monsters who have saves of DC 21+ are un-fun for the player, then cap saves at DC 20A. Well, that's a simplistic description. The real problem is that DCs can and will be roughly twenty points higher than save bonuses. The real problem is that good game design would have made sure the target number you need to roll generally does not go outside something like the 4-16 range. It's strange to be asking "was bounded accuracy completely and utterly forgotten by the saving throw designer!?"Q. the solution to this problem is to reduce PC spellcaster accuracy - which is problematic - or calculate monster saving throws differently than player saving throwsA. Now you have lost me. What problem? I'm not talking about PC spellcasters. I'm not concerned about monster saves. Again, this is not about monsters facing the PCs.Q. the root problem: saves become harder and harder for most PCsA. Well, I would more call this a symptom of the root problem, rather than the root problem in itself. But yeah, we seem to be in agreement here. What I would call the root problem is how the designers did not stop saves from going from "very difficult" til "outright impossible". The root problem is how you are given six saves, but not any reasonable path to maintaining them. I'm quote okay with heroes having weak spots and achilles heels. But the save subsystem of 5E is more like achilles legs, or an achilles torso.---It is quite unacceptable to ask a player to either resign herself to having three out of six defenses where you basically face a zero percent success rate. Or, to completely divert any attempt at being actually best at anything just to patch those holes... and still have holes gaping wide.A save system where it's essentially up to pure chance if the monster decides to attack you where you can't defend yourself at all is a broken system. It's like you roll the dice, roll tails you keel over and die with nothing you can do about it, roll heads, you get your shot but still face a sizeable risk of failing.There simply is nothing heroic with such pathetic defenses. It suits D&D high level play extremely badly.---Finally, what do you think about the F/R/W suggestion?</blockquote>

Verification