Ranger Beast Master: errata will add new features to your animal companion!

[The Crimson Binome]

Its an interesting point. I think the point is valid that there are certain monsters that some party members will struggle to save against. But that said, the effects are not so strong that a high level party cannot recover....often recover immediately.

I wouldn't classify a complete inability to even attempt a saving throw as "struggling"; it's a breakdown of the basic math. If a weak character had a 10% chance to resist an effect, then I would classify that as struggling, compared to someone else who had a 30% or 60% chance. Characters should have weaknesses, but if their chance ever becomes zero, then that's an issue.

All of this though is separate from the paladin argument. I do think the paladin bonus is one of the strongest bonuses in the game, and does feel a bit out of place with other bonuses the game of bounded accuracy provides.

There's no disagreement that the paladin aura can often come close to trivializing saving throws in the other direction, because it does stack with both high stats and proficiency. I'm just not sure how to fix it, without otherwise addressing the underlying math problems.

I mean, ideally, everyone would be proficient in every saving throw - that would reduce the disparity between good saves and bad saves to merely the difference in your stat modifiers, while keeping both within the success/fail range of at-level save DCs - and then the paladin aura could work like Bless or something.

 

[Pauln6]

I think it's fine if someone who wants good saves invests in feats or ASIs to get good saves, while others who don't mind risk taking to invest in other things. That's a design feature rather than a flaw.

I have played games around level 15 where 2/3 of the group failed a DC21 save. However, the consequence was that they took some damage and most made their saves after taking damage next round.

I think 5e has less of a problem than 3e or the treadmill of 4e that led to stereotypical stat builds.

Something akin to the Bard jack of all trades (Half proficiency rounded down) to saves might be workable but I don't think it's necessary.

 

[CapnZapp]

A lich, CR 21 spellcaster ... has spell DC of 20. So we are talking near top of the chain, and that's a DC 20. The DCs you are noting just don't happen that often.

Still feels like bad design to have Epic Heroes find out that they can't succeed even when they roll really well.

That this only happens rarely and at the tail end of the game is a lazy excuse.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Still feels like bad design to have Epic Heroes find out that they can't succeed even when they roll really well.

That this only happens rarely and at the tail end of the game is a lazy excuse.

No. But remembering that saving throws in 5e rather work as a duration mechanic instead of a prevention mechanic helps.
It is just that a few spells are single save or die type and don't really fit into the system.
Right now saving throws combine the 3e and the 4e approach.
If you have a problem with a 20 on a saving throw not be an auto save, juat add it back in. And bedore you call it oberony fallacy: I don't think it is not broken because you can change it. No. I think it is a feature that if you are hit on a dump stat, you ought to suffer forever.
On the other hand it would not hurt if the DMG had an optional rule to add it back in. One thing that could help you out might be success at a cost. So you could allow someone who throws a 20 and still not make the save to make it bit with some extra negative effect.

I also think the paladin aura should be charisma/2 rounded up. And I think you are overesetimating the effect of the aura. With 20 charisma it is just a little bit better than advantage for the average save. And on really hard saves it is still not terribly reliable if you didn't have an honest chance before.

 

[Savevsdeath]

That's not how the dying rules work. The DM isn't supposed to artificially invoke Instant Death, unless it's reasonably certain that the dying creature will receive no assistance. It's a fair call for monsters that you've just eradicated, but it's not a fair call for party members or pets.
That aura is a band-aid on the broken saving throw rules, where normal characters would otherwise fall off the bottom of the d20 roll. because making a DC 21 save would be impossible. It's not an elegant fix, by any means, but it's the only thing that keeps the promise of Bounded Accuracy alive.
Wisdom governs both Perception and Survival, which are the two most important aspects of exploration. I would say that a ranger contributes to exploration as well as a paladin contributes to socialization, except the ranger also has a lot of other class features that put them way out ahead. Rangers are amazing out of combat. It's possibly the one thing that they have, which puts them ahead of a fighter in any way.

I have no real point to put forth by saying this, but my level 5 Artificer is actually effectively the party 'Ranger' in the game i'm currently in - he has all the skills a ranger would normally be trained in via Backgrounds and race options, a decent enough Wis and is able to do any of the things the party Rogue would normally do as well. This makes me think - Maybe its time for D&D to evolve a Specialist class to cover all these Skill Monkey concepts under one Umbrella. Tangent i know, but consider how closely-related the actual classes are: they are specialized experts in certain esoteric spheres based mainly on niche areas (Nature stuff, thievery, mechanical tinkering/crafting) with some ways to also add extra damage per round to the party's arsenal (Sneak attack, Thunder cannons, whatever the ranger bonus damage ability is - sorry, nobody plays rangers often enough for me to remember offhand) and a few abilities to further focus them on their niche.

Anyone else think these could all be one class with some customizable parts?

 

[bedir than]

I have no real point to put forth by saying this, but my level 5 Artificer is actually effectively the party 'Ranger' in the game i'm currently in - he has all the skills a ranger would normally be trained in via Backgrounds and race options, a decent enough Wis and is able to do any of the things the party Rogue would normally do as well. This makes me think - Maybe its time for D&D to evolve a Specialist class to cover all these Skill Monkey concepts under one Umbrella. Tangent i know, but consider how closely-related the actual classes are: they are specialized experts in certain esoteric spheres based mainly on niche areas (Nature stuff, thievery, mechanical tinkering/crafting) with some ways to also add extra damage per round to the party's arsenal (Sneak attack, Thunder cannons, whatever the ranger bonus damage ability is - sorry, nobody plays rangers often enough for me to remember offhand) and a few abilities to further focus them on their niche.

Anyone else think these could all be one class with some customizable parts?

I'm making a Propagandist/Pamphleteer on the Rogue frame. I love the Scout on the Rogue frame too.

I think I default to the Rogue for any non-magical concept

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Anyone else think these could all be one class with some customizable parts?

As long as those "parts" are Expertise and Reliable Talent, you can use Rogue as your generic skillmonkey class. You can do a Ranger as a Rogue with Expertise in Nature and Survival, just as easily as an Artificer can be a Rogue with Expertise in the skills relevant to that.

You could also do it as a universal subclass, that any class could take to be a little more skillful. Or at least, you could, if they'd designed the classes to be a little more interchangeable.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think it is a feature that if you are hit on a dump stat, you ought to suffer forever.

I strongly disagree.

Not making sure that your level 17 hero always stands a chance of success (even if she needs to roll 20 to pull it off) feels like lazy, sloppy design.

Why ask a player to make a roll that is literally impossible?

Making sure the "bad" saves of characters always stay just ahead of the big bads save DCs, even by a little, is the elegant and obvious thing to do - and WotC failed or just didn't care.

Personally, I suspect they never even once statted up something like Graz'zt the Demon Prince. If they had, they would have seen instantly that a level 19 character (five levels below CR 24) absolutely needs a minimum of +3 on his worst saves, assuming baseline stats.

Remember, even his lowest and weakest spell still has the same DC of 23.

That is, I'm cool with the idea that a character can intentionally ignore a glaring weakness, to minmax a strength elsewhere. A character with a stat below 10; sure, I can accept that such a character would have to roll "21" on the most difficult rolls of the entire campaign.

But saves don't work that way in 5E. It is entirely unreasonable to mitigate all your bad saves.

You will have at least one save below +3 in 5th edition regardless of level.

It follows that good design makes sure no monster can trigger a DC 23 saving throw, at least not by default. (Again, if the monster started out in the evil temple of doom or simply cast a buff on himself, that would not be the default and so I wouldn't object).

But the current state, where every hero (short of a Paladin or Monty Haul character) always have at least one save where success is impossible is incredibly grating. Such bad design hurts my head.

Especially since solutions come easily and naturally. For example: use your proficiency bonus. Rolling "20" is always a success. See how easy it is?

Bottom line: there is no good reason why the current system wasn't fixed already before publication.

It probably wasn't fixed simply because WotC did not put enough care into high level issues. And since very few players ever experience it even once, they let this ugly flaw pass.

 

[Pauln6]

I think it's a design choice rather than bad design.
I have one player who has diligently plugged almost every weakness but is frustrated that he can't nova and another player who is a risk-taking glass canon. I think the game would be worse if they were both the same.

Have you run the fight against Grazzt to see how it plays? He's not meant to be a push over.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I strongly disagree.

Not making sure that your level 17 hero always stands a chance of success (even if she needs to roll 20 to pull it off) feels like lazy, sloppy design.

Why ask a player to make a roll that is literally impossible?

Making sure the "bad" saves of characters always stay just ahead of the big bads save DCs, even by a little, is the elegant and obvious thing to do - and WotC failed or just didn't care.

Personally, I suspect they never even once statted up something like Graz'zt the Demon Prince. If they had, they would have seen instantly that a level 19 character (five levels below CR 24) absolutely needs a minimum of +3 on his worst saves, assuming baseline stats.

Remember, even his lowest and weakest spell still has the same DC of 23.

That is, I'm cool with the idea that a character can intentionally ignore a glaring weakness, to minmax a strength elsewhere. A character with a stat below 10; sure, I can accept that such a character would have to roll "21" on the most difficult rolls of the entire campaign.

But saves don't work that way in 5E. It is entirely unreasonable to mitigate all your bad saves.

You will have at least one save below +3 in 5th edition regardless of level.

It follows that good design makes sure no monster can trigger a DC 23 saving throw, at least not by default. (Again, if the monster started out in the evil temple of doom or simply cast a buff on himself, that would not be the default and so I wouldn't object).

But the current state, where every hero (short of a Paladin or Monty Haul character) always have at least one save where success is impossible is incredibly grating. Such bad design hurts my head.

Especially since solutions come easily and naturally. For example: use your proficiency bonus. Rolling "20" is always a success. See how easy it is?

Bottom line: there is no good reason why the current system wasn't fixed already before publication.

It probably wasn't fixed simply because WotC did not put enough care into high level issues. And since very few players ever experience it even once, they let this ugly flaw pass.

Or you can accept that your argumentation also adds up to: I would have liked it differently.

That said, it would not have hurt to make 20 auto save because a 1 on an attack roll is also always a miss.

DC 23 is also very harsh and I could see epic boons being used to "fix" your problem.