D&D 5E Silly/Senseless Rules You Have Found

[Sadrik]

Both systems are better than nothing. But, neither system removes bad saves because quite frankly, there is only so many good ability scores to go around.

100% agreed. The save system is way awesome in 5e too, breaking it to the 6 stats was genius. Perhaps a slightly more consistent application of effects to the stats (minor) and fixing the 6 point separation of good saves (major). Other than those two things best version.

 

[Paraxis]

100% agreed. The save system is way awesome in 5e too, breaking it to the 6 stats was genius. Perhaps a slightly more consistent application of effects to the stats (minor) and fixing the 6 point separation of good saves (major). Other than those two things best version.

Well just so you know the idea is taken from another game Castles & Crusades, so they get the genius credit not Mearls and company.

I agree that the effects should be broken up a bit more, but the fact each class has one good save and one seldom used save makes it OK in my book.

The 6 point difference is only 30% on a d20, I don't think that is a a big deal. Being 30% better than someone else at making a save sounds good, but not game breaking.

 

[Sadrik]

The 6 point difference is only 30% on a d20, I don't think that is a a big deal. Being 30% better than someone else at making a save sounds good, but not game breaking.

Well it is the 30% plus other factors which makes it egregious.
8+Prof+Highest Stat vs. d20+Low Stat

Worst case (without magic items): DC19 vs d20-1
Typical case: DC19 vs d20+1

It is not auto-fail but it places the assumption on high level casters, while casting against a poor save, will successfully affect their targets. If this is an assumption that you like, change nothing. For me, I would like to have scaling go in on both the attack and defense side (another option is to remove level scaling on both sides- I like that one).

 

[Mr Fixit]

We have yet to see how "bad" saves will impact high-level play, but speaking for me personally, I don't like the idea of a legendary badass ultrahigh level character having certain saves that don't improve an inch from 1st level. They are in essence doubly penalised: no proficiency bonus and no (or low) ability modifier. I know you can spread some of those ability increases around, but frankly there's only so many points you can use. Resilient feat is a cool one, though. Still, I'd like to see at least some progress to bad saves. I don't think half-proficiency bonus would upset math too much.

 

[aramis erak]

Well it is the 30% plus other factors which makes it egregious.
8+Prof+Highest Stat vs. d20+Low Stat

Worst case (without magic items): DC19 vs d20-1
Typical case: DC19 vs d20+1

It is not auto-fail but it places the assumption on high level casters, while casting against a poor save, will successfully affect their targets. If this is an assumption that you like, change nothing. For me, I would like to have scaling go in on both the attack and defense side (another option is to remove level scaling on both sides- I like that one).

In organized play, or home play using arrays, at levels...

Non Barbarians

Level	Best Ability	Best Mod	Worst Ability	Worst Mod	PB	Best Save	Worst Save	Difference
1	17	3	8	-1	2	5	-1	6
4	19	4	8	-1	2	6	-1	7
5	19	4	8	-1	3	7	-1	8
8	20	5	8	-1	3	8	-1	9
9	20	5	8	-1	4	9	-1	10
12	20	5	8	-1	4	9	-1	10
13	20	5	8	-1	5	10	-1	11
16	20	5	8	-1	5	10	-1	11
17	20	5	8	-1	6	11	-1	12

Barbarians.

Level	Best Ability	Best Mod	Worst Ability	Worst Mod	PB	Best Save	Worst Save	Difference
1	17	3	8	-1	2	5	-1	6
4	19	4	8	-1	2	6	-1	7
5	19	4	8	-1	3	7	-1	8
8	21	5	8	-1	3	8	-1	9
9	21	5	8	-1	4	9	-1	10
12	23	6	8	-1	4	10	-1	11
13	23	6	8	-1	5	11	-1	12
16	24	7	8	-1	5	12	-1	13
17	24	7	8	-1	6	13	-1	14

In home play with random rolls, non barbarians:

Level	Best Ability	Best Mod	Worst Ability	Worst Mod	PB	Best Save	Worst Save	Difference
1	20	5	3	-3	2	7	-3	10
4	20	5	3	-3	2	7	-3	10
5	20	5	3	-3	3	8	-3	11
8	20	5	3	-3	3	8	-3	11
9	20	5	3	-3	4	9	-3	12
12	20	5	3	-3	4	9	-3	12
13	20	5	3	-3	5	10	-3	13
16	20	5	3	-3	5	10	-3	13
17	20	5	3	-3	6	11	-3	14

and barbarians:

Level	Best Ability	Best Mod	Worst Ability	Worst Mod	PB	Best Save	Worst Save	Difference
1	20	5	3	-3	2	7	-3	10
4	22	6	3	-3	2	8	-3	11
5	22	6	3	-3	3	9	-3	12
8	24	7	3	-3	3	10	-3	13
9	24	7	3	-3	4	11	-3	14
12	24	7	3	-3	4	11	-3	14
13	24	7	3	-3	5	12	-3	15
16	24	7	3	-3	5	12	-3	15
17	24	7	3	-3	6	13	-3	16

That looks like a pretty wide potential gap by 17th level. Keep in mind: Barbarians get Con and Str saves proficient, and can raise those two to 24 each...

 

[KarinsDad]

In organized play, or home play using arrays, at levels...

...

That looks like a pretty wide potential gap by 17th level. Keep in mind: Barbarians get Con and Str saves proficient, and can raise those two to 24 each...

While this is true for Barbarians, it's basically irrelevant that their best save is sometimes 14 or more higher than their worst without magic items since they have a special ability.

The important thing is that for the vast majority of PCs, the difference between their best and worse saves is generally 11 or 12 at level 17 without magic items and generally 12 to 16 with magic items.

Whereas the best save is often +12 or higher, 4 out of 6 saves are generally in the -1 to +3 range (even for Barbarians) at level 17.


Although WotC might claim that this is a feature, I find it extremely odd that after all of the issues that 4E had with NADs, that 5E designers didn't make the numbers somewhat closer.

 

[Zardnaar]

A few days ago I ran some numbers on Great Weapon Fighting style. I don't know if that's what devs intended, but your damage boost is noticeably smaller than with Dueling style, which seems...odd. For example, if you use a longsword in one hand, you'll dish out 6.5 damage on average (4.5 weapon + 2 Dueling style). If you wield it with two hands, you'll inflict 6.3 damage on average with GWF style. So, you don't get to use a shield, thus lowering your AC, AND you get lower damage to boot? That can't be right.

Great weapon fighting feat. Average damage wirth a rapier is 6.5 or 7 with a great sword with rerolls on 1 and 2s rolled or avg damage of 1d12 with a great axe.

 

[Xeterog]

....
That looks like a pretty wide potential gap by 17th level. Keep in mind: Barbarians get Con and Str saves proficient, and can raise those two to 24 each...

You do know that barbarians can't get above 20 in either STR or CON before level 20, right?

 

[Sadrik]

We have yet to see how "bad" saves will impact high-level play, but speaking for me personally, I don't like the idea of a legendary badass ultrahigh level character having certain saves that don't improve an inch from 1st level. They are in essence doubly penalised: no proficiency bonus and no (or low) ability modifier. I know you can spread some of those ability increases around, but frankly there's only so many points you can use. Resilient feat is a cool one, though. Still, I'd like to see at least some progress to bad saves. I don't think half-proficiency bonus would upset math too much.

An alternative is removing proficiency from the caster's DC. This would model 1e and 2e quite well. Caster's never increased their effectiveness to casting their spells. Instead, the higher level your opponent the more likely they were to resist your magic. This is also a very valid option. Keep good saves for classes still though you could easily remove that too.

So DC for spells would be 11 to 13 vs. d20-1 to d20+5. With the saves you have proficiency in you could have up to +11 which would give very 1e and 2e like numbers to saves.

 

[Chocolategravy]

I understand what you are saying, but in all honesty the bonus is just there to counter act the soft cover bonus of +2 to AC that most targets that are engaged in melee with your allies get.

Allies generally don't give partial cover. 5E doesn't base cover on squares like previous editions, it's based on the creatures themselves. While it's reasonable that a halfling could be hiding behind an ally as they are working together, it isn't really reasonable that someone being in a 5 foot cube beside an enemy in a 5 foot cube is going to have half their body being obstructed. The only time I'd rule there could be cover is if all three characters are in a straight line. If there is any angle at all then it is almost geometrically impossible for there to be cover unless there are some size differences going on.