D&D General Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition


log in or register to remove this ad

A hill giant had 16/6/10
An ogre had 6/0/1 or 12/2/2
The base skeleton had 0/1/2 or lots of other options depending on which skeleton you picked
A kobold had 2/1/-1

On and on and on. Good save bad save medium save was very much the norm and the trend continued as cr scaled to a higher percentage of SR yes monsters before using the monster manual behind the curtain spell resistance sidebar or a template that gave it
You are conflating 2 editions.

In third edition your hill giant has 12 hit die. And only has a plus for will save. A caster with a 18 in there casting stat has a base DC of 14 + the level of the spell that they.

That's terrible for the Hill Giant.

If you go to 5e that Hill Giants will save is not increasing at all because they are still at 10 wisdom with no level bonus. +0 vs DC 16+
 

Bounded accuracy makes that unnecessary. Especially with all the ways to make saves better.
Bounded accuracy actually made it worse because it justifies not increasing a monster's bonus from being high level due to the bounds of the bonuses but it justifies the casters DC increasing by level which creates the imbalance of the caster having a high DC but the monster having a low bonus.

Now if you are willing to say every monster of CR8 or greater it has Proficiency or Expertise in every saving throw and has a 15 of better in ever ability score then fine There's no problem.
 

Bounded accuracy actually made it worse because it justifies not increasing a monster's bonus from being high level due to the bounds of the bonuses but it justifies the casters DC increasing by level which creates the imbalance of the caster having a high DC but the monster having a low bonus.
Bounded accuracy means that the monsters' saves are not taking PC numbers into account. Just character class features.
Now if you are willing to say every monster of CR8 or greater it has Proficiency or Expertise in every saving throw and has a 15 of better in ever ability score then fine There's no problem.
I think that's excessive. 8 + 5(if the PC even has a 20) + 6(if the PC is 17th level) is still only a 19. Even a monster with a 0 will make that 10% of the time.
 

Bounded accuracy means that the monsters' saves are not taking PC numbers into account. Just character class features.
And that is the source of the problem and the entire point of the thread because...
I think that's excessive. 8 + 5(if the PC even has a 20) + 6(if the PC is 17th level) is still only a 19. Even a monster with a 0 will make that 10% of the time
Your boss monster is now only making a save vs a control spell 10% of the time.

This is why this thread exists
 

You are conflating 2 editions.
No we were talking about how good bad and medium saves worked on monsters in 3.5 when the monster manual literally had an entry about adding SR to monsters.
In third edition your hill giant has 12 hit die. And only has a plus for will save. A caster with a 18 in there casting stat has a base DC of 14 + the level of the spell that they.

That's terrible for the Hill Giant.
I liter linked to it and you quoted ihe link, all 3 saves are positive at +12/+3/+4 even with no template or class levels modifying them. It could also absolutely paste most arcane casters at range with a rock. At cr7 a hill giant was a dangerous boss for much lower level parties who didn't have the leeway to worry too much about the saves because the high hob& damage output was enough that it's trivial ability to break web's dc20 strength check was more important when simply not being humanoid while having 12hd made it immune most other a available level big time debuff/control spells
If you go to 5e that Hill Giants will save is not increasing at all because they are still at 10 wisdom with no level bonus. +0 vs DC 16+
I never suggested that the 5e model for monsters was good at anything.
 

Remove ads

Top