D&D 5E 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy

[Mistwell]

There is a faulty assumption here: Most PCs should have a +5 attribute by this point (although not all),

This I question.

Feats are popular, and the standard array has your best stat at 15, +2 for race, so max 17. I suspect most people are also not choosing Human (varient), and even if they are I am seeing more often two 16s rather than a 17, and a player who often likes feats so much that's why they chose human. So it's MINIMUM level 8 to get to a 20 stat for most players, and that's assuming they take zero feats, which I seriously doubt. I think the earliest people are typically getting a 20 in their primary stat is 12th level.

Who is really getting a 20 by 8th level? I guess maybe Fighter, who gets more ability score improvements than others?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Feats are popular, and the standard array has your best stat at 15, +2 for race, so max 17. I suspect most people are also not choosing Human (varient), and even if they are I am seeing more often two 16s rather than a 17, and a player who often likes feats so much that's why they chose human. So it's MINIMUM level 8 to get to a 20 stat for most players, and that's assuming they take zero feats, which I seriously doubt. I think the earliest people are typically getting a 20 in their primary stat is 12th level.

Heck, if you don't start with a race that grants a bonus to your class's favorite ability score, it could be a bit longer. I don't feel like my gnome wild sorcerer is weak, but it's gonna be a long climb to a 20 Cha for that little thing. Level 12, if I don't bugger about with feats.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This I question.

Feats are popular, and the standard array has your best stat at 15, +2 for race, so max 17. I suspect most people are also not choosing Human (varient), and even if they are I am seeing more often two 16s rather than a 17, and a player who often likes feats so much that's why they chose human. So it's MINIMUM level 8 to get to a 20 stat for most players, and that's assuming they take zero feats, which I seriously doubt. I think the earliest people are typically getting a 20 in their primary stat is 12th level.

Who is really getting a 20 by 8th level? I guess maybe Fighter, who gets more ability score improvements than others?

At the same time? Nearly everyone I hear actually talk about their characters either (a) is playing in a game with house-rules that enable access to feats separately from ASIs, or (b) shoots for a 20 as soon as humanly possible because the benefits are just that good, for your main stat.

Yes, I have seen a few people shrug it off and say that they'd rather have the feats. But the vast majority of people I see talking about it go for the ability scores. Then again, there also seems to be an unbelievable amount of DM antipathy for feats in the first place, so perhaps that is distorting the sample.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

I'm playing a 20th level character with maxed stats and a +3 weapon. I can state that I do not hit all the time. Using great weapon master is risky unless I get advantage, as one miss usually means less damage and two misses certainly does. In play, at least for us, it doesn't seem a problem

So you'll have a basic bonus of around +14 so hitting AC 15-16 on a roll of 2 95% of the time. At 9th level I'm seeing characters with +11 so AC 15 is getting hit 80% of the time. What I'm thinking is it's a lot of levels from 9th to 20th level and hitting AC 15 is almost automatic. The one saving grace is GWM and Sharpshooter are so tempting a player will always take them with the odds so good.

 

[Mistwell]

At the same time? Nearly everyone I hear actually talk about their characters either (a) is playing in a game with house-rules that enable access to feats separately from ASIs, or (b) shoots for a 20 as soon as humanly possible because the benefits are just that good, for your main stat.

Yes, I have seen a few people shrug it off and say that they'd rather have the feats. But the vast majority of people I see talking about it go for the ability scores. Then again, there also seems to be an unbelievable amount of DM antipathy for feats in the first place, so perhaps that is distorting the sample.

OK, that seems really odd to me. The survey results showed an overwhelming majority of games are using feats, and I've never even heard of anyone using 5e with a houserule that enables feats separate from ability score improvements (that's not even an option I am aware of in the DMG - no idea how you would balance such a big change). Are these really more common than they seem?

 

[jgsugden]

I'm guessing that over half of the games that get started do not use point buy as the default method, but instead roll. If the PCs have lousy stats, they tend to die and another set of rolls take place - the net effect of which is PCs with 18+ as starting attributes at level 1 in many games. Also, classes with extra ability bonuses as part of their progression (and the human variant race that gets the bonus feat) are popular. Regardless, most PCs are getting to 20 at 8 or 12 in many games I see or hear about. This may not be true across the board, but it is the trend I've seen at the game shops near me and in the games in which I've played or read...

 

[guachi]

I'm playing a 20th level character with maxed stats and a +3 weapon. I can state that I do not hit all the time. Using great weapon master is risky unless I get advantage, as one miss usually means less damage and two misses certainly does. In play, at least for us, it doesn't seem a problem

FWIW, because ACs never get too high, you are always better using the -5/+10 part of the feat vs. not using it at 20th level. It's a phenomenally good feat. Just the possible bonus action attack alone makes the feat worthwhile, let alone the -5/+10 part.

 

[DaveDash]

Hit points not AC is the scaling challenge mechanism. They are supposed to hit frequently.

I've seen this a lot, and it's not true. Yes, they are supposed to hit frequently, but AC does scale with CR.

Look at the monster building table in the DMG. It's assumed AC gets better with CR, but an equal CR creature is assumed to have a good hit percentage.

Character AC however doesnt really scale with level, and most monsters up to CR20 cap out around 21ish.

 

[DaveDash]

I'm playing a 20th level character with maxed stats and a +3 weapon. I can state that I do not hit all the time. Using great weapon master is risky unless I get advantage, as one miss usually means less damage and two misses certainly does. In play, at least for us, it doesn't seem a problem

I played a high level Fighter EK.

With bless on me and foresight from the Wizard, I never missed with Sharpshooter. I could also attack 9 times a round with haste, and that would be even more at level 20 (10 I think?), which would equate to +100 damage from SS and an action surge.

I also could do all this up close AND from 120ft away equally, and I had such a high AC (haste plus shield plus foresight) I was un-killable.

It totally broke the combat pillar of the game. I single handily forced an Ancient Red Dragon to retreat after 2 rounds (with no magic items).

 

[Lord Vangarel]

I played a high level Fighter EK.

With bless on me and foresight from the Wizard, I never missed with Sharpshooter. I could also attack 9 times a round with haste, and that would be even more at level 20 (10 I think?), which would equate to +100 damage from SS and an action surge.

I also could do all this up close AND from 120ft away equally, and I had such a high AC (haste plus shield plus foresight) I was un-killable.

It totally broke the combat pillar of the game. I single handily forced an Ancient Red Dragon to retreat after 2 rounds (with no magic items).

This is what I'm seeing only earlier starting around 8th level.

I dread to think what it will be like by higher levels. The fighter easily knocks out 60+ damage per round with GWM and even worse with Action Surge.