Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6329070" data-attributes="member: 18">I'm sorry, ByronD, but you're either misunderstanding the discussion here, or intentionally re-framing it in a way which does not reflect what people are actually saying, or actually concerned about.Let's be explicit: no-one here is complaining that D&D has situations where a high chance of death or major set-back is an issue. No-one. So your bolded sentence appears to be nonsensical, or a really odd straw man.The two major issues being contended are:1) Do WEAK SAVING THROWS (specifically, not "danger of death or major setback" in a broader sense) fit well with "the genre".This is further complicated by:1a) Is the D&D genre distinct from the fantasy genre in general?and1b) If not, then does warriors having virtually no chance against mind-control magic fit the wider fantasy genre?2) Do WEAK SAVING THROWS (specifically, not "danger of death or major setback") benefit the game of D&D?I also find your injection of a racial element a bit strange. It's only white guys who resist wizard's spells, is it? What are you trying to imply there?As for "cynical", that's utter tripe, in this context, because the heroes can afford to be cynical as hell under the 5E system - but only against the saves they're proficient in and/or have a big stat bonus in. For example, a PC who is proficient in a save, and has a 20 stat in it is going to make that save at least 60% of the time against enemy casters, at any given level (barring magic items). So they can afford cynicism, by your logic.Whereas a character who is not proficient, and who doesn't have a meaningful stat bonus, is increasingly certain to fail.At L1, say, a Wis/Cha 11 Ftr will have a +0, and likely be up against opponents with a +5 or more (i.e. DC of 13). That's a significant differential, but there's still a large chance that he will make his save. He can afford a measure of cynicism, but not a huge measure.At L10, though, he is still on +0, most likely (perhaps +1). Whereas his opponent is now likely on +9 (i.e. DC17). The differential has increased. He is very likely to fail, with only a 20% chance of success (25% if we assume he bumped WIS/CHA).At level 17, the issue is even more extreme. It is very unlikely he has gone beyond +1 to those saves (it would require an expenditure of two further Feat/Stat boosts - for a total of three, to even get to +2 on both), but his opponent is now looking at at least +11 (assuming he is capped at 20 stat and no magic items are involved). So the DC to save is 19 (8 + 11). The Fighter has, assuming +1, to thus roll an 18 or great - a 15% chance. Even with the limited re-roll from indomitable, the chances of him being able to break out of the spell are very low.What is more likely is that someone else in the group will hit the caster and force the caster to make a Con save to maintain concentration on his spell, and said caster will probably not be proficient, and likely have only a moderate CON (let's say, +2, because that actually gives him HP, which is very useful). So he will have to make a check at DC10+ (10 for a hit of 20 damage or less - +1 DC for each 2 points thereafter).I think it's fair to say that if PCs are regularly seeing 20% or less chances to save against HARD CC (i.e. effects that keep you from taking ANY ACTION, or force you to act against your party), then the game experience will be extremely frustrating for them. There is nothing they can do to further their chances, beyond spending the 1 point of Inspiration they can have, which allows one further save attempt - but given how low the chances of that working are, that will probably just result in waste and further frustration.On top of all this, this is exact reverse of the way D&D, 1E, and 2E worked, which is worth noting. In all the "classic" editions, saves got easier. You claim this made people "cynical". I would say that's nonsense, having run 2E for years, including at higher levels. It made people more daring, but it did not make them cynical, because any failed save could result in bad problems.By your logic, too, casters will certainly become very cynical, because they can virtually guarantee that their opponents will fail their saves, if they use the right spells - note that I don't believe this, but it is the logical result of your argument. Apparently that cynicism isn't a problem? You seem to think Darth Vader is only an NPC, whereas in D&D, he's a PC, only he's probably dressed in white but otherwise identical in power.</blockquote>

Verification