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

[DEFCON 1]

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.

What do you mean "probably"?

We've known most if not all designers of D&D from the very beginning haven't wanted to deal with the headaches of trying to balance the "board game" part of high-level D&D math and combat with the narrative story of what being epic-level characters should entail.

While they threw players a bone by setting the game up such that that you could run standard "D&D combat" involving high-level PCs in the exact same fashion you'd run combats in the first couple tiers somewhat okay... I don't think any of them really want anyone to do that. At that level, I think that they think anything PCs should do be almost entirely narratively-focused, because the amount of ridiculous crap those PCs and monsters can do.

High-level play is like spell components or encumbrance... they knew going in that barely anyone ever actually used it, and even if they did those DMs had their own internal ways and means of running it from their historical past. So there was no point in putting together a comprehensive and balanced ruleset for it, because 95% of the DMs who would use it probably would poo-poo the ruleset given and just re-work it to their own specifications.

And quite frankly, I don't really blame them. At some point you reach a point of diminishing returns where trying to placate the DM who doesn't actually want to work on their own game for their own style of playing but just wants everything to work perfectly out of the box... is a fool's errand. Because no matter what they do or come up with, that DM has probably a 99% chance of not liking it anyway.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Sorry but this reads as a response to something I never said.

Keep in mind: I'm not asking that my character should have no weaknesses.

Of course he should.

But there should not be any common examples of characters that can't even beat the DC on rolling a 20.

All your example differences will still be valid. Just because you can make a save by rolling a 19, say, doesn't mean that character isn't incredibly vulnerable.

I am not saying "Graz'zt should be a pushover". Just because the game isn't borken and characters have a shot at making saves doesn't mean they instawin.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Or you can accept my argumentation "this feels very wrong, almost as if they forgot to plug a hole in the system".

I don't know if DC 23 is harsh. For a low- or mid-level character sure.

But what's so harsh about high level heroes fighting appropriate opponents. A CD 23 monster should sport a DC 23 save!

Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with epic threats forcing DC 23 saves (even taking bounded accuracy into account). The only thing that's wrong here is how WotC forgot that even the highest levelled hero would still have at least one save with no bonus, making the save just a huge waste of time.

Telling heroes "you cannot succeed" is no fun, and that kind of design is bad.

 

[CapnZapp]

snip

At least you aren't denying how crap their rule is. Other than that I really have nothing else to tell you.

 

[happyhermit]

...
Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with epic threats forcing DC 23 saves (even taking bounded accuracy into account). The only thing that's wrong here is how WotC forgot that even the highest levelled hero would still have at least one save with no bonus, making the save just a huge waste of time.

Telling heroes "you cannot succeed" is no fun, and that kind of design is bad.

Is "huge" even adequate to describe the amount of time wastage here? We are talking many seconds people!

Instead of Wotc designers forgetting things, I think it's a lot of people conveniently forgetting the myriad of ways high level players can help their saves: Bardic Inspiration, Inspiration, Indomitable, Paladins, Portent, Lucky, Bless, magic items, etc. Let alone things that grant proficiency like Resilient or Transmuter's stone.

So, for high level characters it doesn't come down to; "There is no way I could make this save". It's more; "I spent my resources (character building and in-game) on other things. And the party isn't prioritizing helping me make this save, probably rightly so because it isn't actually that important."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Or you can accept my argumentation "this feels very wrong, almost as if they forgot to plug a hole in the system".

I don't know if DC 23 is harsh. For a low- or mid-level character sure.

But what's so harsh about high level heroes fighting appropriate opponents. A CD 23 monster should sport a DC 23 save!

Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with epic threats forcing DC 23 saves (even taking bounded accuracy into account). The only thing that's wrong here is how WotC forgot that even the highest levelled hero would still have at least one save with no bonus, making the save just a huge waste of time.

Telling heroes "you cannot succeed" is no fun, and that kind of design is bad.

I accept your argumentation why you personally think that it feels wrong to you.
And you think it is bad design. I can follow your argumentation fine and I do partially agree. But for all we know it was a design choice.

 

[OB1]

Here’s the thing, while some would call not being able to make a save bad design, I’d say that going into a combat relying on making a save with a 5-10% chance bad strategy. You might go your entire career without ever making a save you need a 20 to hit. Heck, even a 50% save chance means you have a 3% chance of failing it every round of a 5 round combat.

The point is, 5E saves effects, just like weapon attacks, are meant to hit. Mitigating that effect is a bonus, not the expected default. So if you are especially poor at something, you need to be more prepared to deal with the consequences, but you should also be ready to deal with those consequences even if you only need a 2 or 3 to make the save.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At least you aren't denying how crap their rule is. Other than that I really have nothing else to tell you.

There are plenty of crap rules in 5E, but why should that bother me? I just change them as need be.

 

[Satyrn]

There are plenty of crap rules in 5E

I haven't found any yet.


But that's okay, because I haven't had any toilet-related encounters since running Rappan Athuk.

 

[Pauln6]

Here’s the thing, while some would call not being able to make a save bad design, I’d say that going into a combat relying on making a save with a 5-10% chance bad strategy. You might go your entire career without ever making a save you need a 20 to hit. Heck, even a 50% save chance means you have a 3% chance of failing it every round of a 5 round combat.

The point is, 5E saves effects, just like weapon attacks, are meant to hit. Mitigating that effect is a bonus, not the expected default. So if you are especially poor at something, you need to be more prepared to deal with the consequences, but you should also be ready to deal with those consequences even if you only need a 2 or 3 to make the save.

Yeah, while I do think a natural 20 should save and was surprised to discover RAW do not support that, I think that most monsters abilities are just designed to wear down hp a bit. It takes strategy as well as character builds to succeed more easily. Not every pc can or should shine in every scenario.

That said, applying half proficiency bonus to untrained saves would work fine as a patch for those with concerns: +1 to +3 on untrained saves is good enough IMO when you take into account other ways to improve saves.