D&D 5E Monsters struggling to hit players? Common?

[The Crimson Binome]

As a DM, I agree. It can be hard to hit PCs reliably, and without that, it's hard to really dent their massive piles of HP.

As a player, I strongly disagree. It's practically impossible to get your AC up to the point where you can actually rely on it.

 

[iserith]

I've been considering the idea of using the flanking rules, but having them give a to-hit bonus rather than advantage.

I know that's somewhat against the design philosophy of 5e, but I feel as though it may be an option which would make battlefield position important without it getting lost in the other options for advantage/disadvantage. I've also started to notice that using flank to determine advantage (and thus cancelling disadvantage) leads to some weird in-play behaviors.

The rough idea I have at the moment is +1 for flanking.

I'm debating whether to allow potential for a higher bonus if a large group completely surrounds a target. Ideally, I'd like for this to allow groups of lower-level foes to still remain relevant. I'm unsure on if the change makes a group of PCs too strong against big solo creatures, but -if so- that might allow for using tougher "boss" monsters.

I strongly suggest not using the optional flanking rules and instead making the areas in which the combat is occurring more interesting with terrain that does stuff (both bad and good). This will make battlefield position more important and instantly set your game apart from many DMs in my experience. In most games I play in, the place we're fighting may as well be an empty white room. In my games by contrast, the terrain itself is a friend, foe, or both as the battle unfolds! (Also, enforce cover.)

 

[Argyle King]

I strongly suggest not using the optional flanking rules and instead making the areas in which the combat is occurring more interesting with terrain that does stuff (both bad and good). This will make battlefield position more important and instantly set your game apart from many DMs in my experience. In most games I play in, the place we're fighting may as well be an empty white room. In my games by contrast, the terrain itself is a friend, foe, or both as the battle unfolds! (Also, enforce cover.)

Is there an argument against doing both?

 

[Shiroiken]

I've started to notice that monsters appear to struggle to land attacks on players, in some instances needing to roll extremely high to even touch a PC. In some cases, if a paladin, eldritch knight, or similar such characters are in a group, it appears that CR-appropriate creatures are often just praying for a critical so as to be able to do anything.

This is by design, and quite intentional. Surveys during the D&D Next open playtest revealed that players don't like to miss, but they don't like to be hit often either.

The solution is that PCs generally have higher defenses. Monsters on the other hand, often have lower defenses, higher HP, and deal quite a bit of damage per hit (as a percentage of PC HP). This means that the players will hit often taking awhile to defeat the enemy, but the attacks against them have more tension, since they're likely to be missed, but a hit can be a serious setback. All of this is designed to enhance the players fun.

 

[jgsugden]

If the AC is that high, it is the focus of the character. It should be hard to hit them if they focus on defense..

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Past 6th level or so the game becomes less about whether or not the players are hit, but how many blows they can survive. The issue isnt thst a CR 6 creature has trouble hitting players, but that you are expecting a CR 6 creature to represent a threat by itself. A party of characters can reasonably handle creatures at least a few CR higher, and past CR 8, monsters start having attack bonuses of 8+. CR 11 creatures or so it isnt unheard of to have attack bonuses 12 or above.

Player AC can be quite high if a player wishes it to be, but tends to peak to about 21 or so without major investment in defensive features. Sure, shield spells and magic armor are a thing, but for every shield spell cast, a damage spell or utility spell *isnt* cast, and as a DM you have direct control over access to magic items. Challenge your players in ways that arent just stab the monster until it dies. Are you players spending all their spell slots on shield? Great! Give them a puzzle that isnt easily handled without certain magic spells that arent combat related, that way they can still solve them, but will be thinking the whole time "man, maybe I should've saved a spell slot for detect magic, detect thoughts, or charm person".

 

[Argyle King]

My PCs are currently level 4 with ACs ranging from 14 (the sorcerer) to 20 (the BM fighter with plate and shield).

I haven't found to much problem in monsters hitting them.

Early on I would use more monsters that had stuff like pack tactics (Kobalds +4 to hit with advantage - challenged even the fighter).

As they go up in levels and monsters start getting +5 or more to hit - it's becoming even less of a concern.

Admittedly, my group isn't a very min-max bunch so maybe I'm just lucky. But I suspect if they were - I wouldn't have to try too hard to challenge them.

This is by design, and quite intentional. Surveys during the D&D Next open playtest revealed that players don't like to miss, but they don't like to be hit often either.

The solution is that PCs generally have higher defenses. Monsters on the other hand, often have lower defenses, higher HP, and deal quite a bit of damage per hit (as a percentage of PC HP). This means that the players will hit often taking awhile to defeat the enemy, but the attacks against them have more tension, since they're likely to be missed, but a hit can be a serious setback. All of this is designed to enhance the players fun.

It sounds as though things are working as intended then.

I'm unsure how I feel about using HP as a method of scaling monsters, but that's a tangent more related to some 4th Edition issues.

In your games, do things slow down once monsters start having a lot of HP?
[MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION]

I'm sorry if you keep getting pinged. I'm having some weird glitch which quotes you in everything.

 

[iserith]

Is there an argument against doing both?

The general argument against the optional flanking rules is that it's just too easy to get advantage.

 

[Argyle King]

My PCs are currently level 4 with ACs ranging from 14 (the sorcerer) to 20 (the BM fighter with plate and shield).

I haven't found to much problem in monsters hitting them.

Early on I would use more monsters that had stuff like pack tactics (Kobalds +4 to hit with advantage - challenged even the fighter).

As they go up in levels and monsters start getting +5 or more to hit - it's becoming even less of a concern.

Admittedly, my group isn't a very min-max bunch so maybe I'm just lucky. But I suspect if they were - I wouldn't have to try too hard to challenge them.

The general argument against the optional flanking rules is that it's just too easy to get advantage.

My idea was to replace the Advantage granted from flanking with just a +1 to attacks against a flanked opponent.

 

[robus]

I’ve not had trouble hitting PCs, if you’ve picked appropriate monsters for their level (definitely erring on the higher side). The biggest issue is staying power. With the amount of damage the PCs deal, monsters generally need max HP to put up a decent fight.