Remathilis
Legend
Better idea, fix save-based scaling DCs to be EITHER Prof OR Ability score so that they don't require massive save scaling to stay relevant.
D&D General Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition
- Thread starter THEMNGMNT
- Start date
No,you are looking too narrowly at how it all fit together. 3.x had three depending on class and prc choices. Wiz/sorc maxed out at +6/6/12 while cleric had +12/6/12. It was extremely common for a prc to bump a bad save to a medium one or a good save into a great one
Hmm, continuing my "bring back spell resistance (SR)" thoughts.
Tell the caster when the monsters is using SR that it is "resisting the spell, do you want to push it through?"
They save no, keep the spell slot, no effect.
They say yes, roll SR, effect based on pass/fail, lose spell slot either way.
Tell the caster when the monsters is using SR that it is "resisting the spell, do you want to push it through?"
They save no, keep the spell slot, no effect.
They say yes, roll SR, effect based on pass/fail, lose spell slot either way.
I don't know if you are the in the majority.
I heard much whining and Stunning stuff not Stunning.
There no "Power Word Stun but not for Bosses" spell
We are talking about the monster side.
That's the issue.
Most monsters had 1 good save and tilted heavy that way.
Incenjucar
Legend
The more defenses the more spells/abilities you need. May as well bring back different AC values for bludgeon, slashing, and piercing while you're at it.
I can see a reason why players might want that in order to avoid an opportunity cost for choosing not to invest in intelligence but having a cost to guessing wrong against SR meant there was objective value to being able to make a skill check to remember if this kind of monster has SR or not just like it made casting something more reliable but SR no while the martials were closing into a solid round one choice . Needing to have spells prepared for both possibilities also made it harder to just recast the same spell repeatedly because vancian prep made that kind of choice in spell selection very sub optimal
In my mind, they would know the creature had SR based on the fact I asked whether to push through or not.
The choice would be, is it worth the risk that they cant beat that creature's SR, or guaranteed saving of spell slot if they felt it was to powerful and their chances were low.
Setting up a "hail mary" situation or waste of time...not sure yet, I just think its better than "Legendary resistance, it saves, next".
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
No, I am not saying a stun spell doesn't stun. I am saying the condition stun could be a condition where you can still do things. Maybe not all of them, or only for a price. Maybe you cannot do the fancy cool stuff, like reactions, bonus actions, casting non-cantrips and making multi-attacks, in 5E parlance.
Clearly, D&D fans these days also like their boss fights, for example, and don't like if they are turned anti-climatic due to a single bad roll, nor do they really like sitting around doing nothing. So the next edition is going to find a new compromise between those that must have save or suck and climatic scenes.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I like the idea of being able to sense the spell resistance and deciding what to do, but in the end, it is just another form of "saving throw" (or attack roll). Is there really a benefit from adding that extra layer? Why couldn't the enemy's defense or saving throw just be higher, isn't the end result the same?
The spell resistance warning could exist without spell resistance, you could have a general rule that if a monster has a "good" saving throw, the caster notices. (However "good" is determined, be it adding a proficiency bonus by CR, a special ability linked to it, or just having a modifier greater than a fixed value, or greater than the caster's saving throw DC bonus).
