D&D 5E DMG - breaking bounded accuracy already?

[Selkirk]

That sounds like a lot more of an issue with your DM than the system. If your DM is creating boring scenarios, no amount of mechanics is going to help here. This isn't a mechanics problem. Why would a DM throw groups of 100 goblins at a 10th level party multiple times? Once? Sure, might be fun. Once in a while? Ok, gravy. But often enough that it becomes boring? That's a malfunction of the DM, not the system.

this is a valid point. mud and grime games can be fun. the problem is the ap's for 5e are high fantasy. so we have the rub of peasant farmers with swords in a high fantasy setting. if the ap's were mud and grime then you would have a functioning game. but, most people wouldn't want to play it . people play d&d to fight fantastical creatures not to struggle with orcs at high levels.

and the problem is that characters (much like the mobs) do very well against single high cr creatures...but struggle mightily against an even level cr creature with a mob. the math breaks down at every level...numbers not skill win the day.

Large mobs don't have to be a "lame meatgrinder". There are lots of great stories about a small group of warriors taking on a much larger group.

At level 1, 2 orcs are a challenge. At level 10, perhaps 20 orcs are a challenge. At level 20, perhaps 100 orcs are a challenge. (Those numbers are just spitballed, I haven't done the math.) The players get to really see how their characters have improved. There's nothing wrong with 2 orcs being a challenge at level 1, then 2 planar orcs being a challenge at level 10, and then 2 half-balrog orcs being a challenge at level 20, but it doesn't have quite the same feel to it.

As I said before, I wouldn't want mobs for every fight, but it's a nice option to have. You also have plenty of high CR monsters to choose from for the rest of the fights.

Whether it's one balrog or 200 kobolds, all fights are time sinks and resource drains, so not sure what your point is there. They both grant XP and treasure. And by the time the characters are high enough level to challenge either, the party has so many attacks and area spells that the kobold fight might be briefer than the balrog fight.

Tyranny of mobs? Well, depending on your level, the size of the mob will have to increase by a lot to pose any realistic threat. Are you saying that if a billion people rise up against a four man team, that group of adventurers should be able to laugh it off and ignore it because they're high level and therefore "special"? At a certain point, the sheer power level of the PCs should dissuade most mobs (non-armies) from going after them. RL riots are often dispersed with nothing more than tear gas. 20th level adventurers typically pack the equivalent of tactical nukes. Not a lot of mobs are going to want to tangle with them once they're on the receiving end of such power. However, you're party is not likely to conquer a nation on its own. If the king raises an army of 10,000 to take you on, you might be in trouble if they can pin you down.

Actually, your peasant farmers who struggled with kobolds are not off to slay the dragon because many, if not all of them, are now dead (kobolds are a fair bit tougher than commoners). Just how mindlessly suicidal are these theoretical peasants? "Hey, Bob, we only had 50% casualties repelling those kobolds; what say you we take on the dragon down the way and see if we can't make it 100%?"

the problem with mobs is not inherently that they exist...the problem is they are obvious timesinks/resource drains in the worst mmo ways. they don't present a challenge from a play perspective and offer nothing in the way of satisfaction when you win or lose. and the numbers don't have to be this high. try 20 ranged low level creatures with initiative vs a 10th level party in need of a short rest (maybe a random encounter). the numbers start swinging heavily towards the creatures if they are hitting and become real groaners if the party is missing.

and what makes these mobs interesting? nothing. from an immersion pov low level mobs should exist (because mechanically you can't just ignore them)..but the impact they can have heavily skews their importance. and d&d is a ttrpg not an mmo-grinding thru mobs is super lame and dull. but the math of the game makes the mob almost a necessity for a dm. again, single high cr creatures get mowed down (numbers win the day..the party as mini mob) so the dm needs mobs...

but what if high cr creatures could actually hold their own and didn't need mobs. and the players were powerful and weren't fighting mobs but instead were taking on powerful creatures in interesting fights...sort of sounds like d&d to me.

 

[the Jester]

if this is true then bounded accuracy doesn't really exist.

Actually- and I think this because the described scenario is true- I think what it means is that bounded accuracy works as intended.

The point isn't to make that farmer have an even chance against the ogre; it's to make that farmer have a chance of hitting the ogre. And so a ton of farmers working together have a chance against the ogre.

 

[Parmandur]

I think the "battle of Mogadishu" wins the thread.

Bounded accuracy is great; love that level 20 characters can be threatened.

 

[pemerton]

but what if high cr creatures could actually hold their own and didn't need mobs. and the players were powerful and weren't fighting mobs but instead were taking on powerful creatures in interesting fights...sort of sounds like d&d to me.

Sounds like you might want to look at 4e! In 4e you can also have high level PCs take on large numbers of orcs or goblins, but it has to be handled via minion or swarm rules.

 

[Geeknamese]

let's drop the rl analogies. they are rather pointless. my entire point is that adventurers are highly skilled in ways that commoners could never be. they are the elite(with skillsets and abilities that make them untouchable compared to a villager) but with bounded accuracy they are nothing more than stronger commoners.

i don't like mud and grime fantasy (d&d isn't built for that). 5e's design is purposefully very conservative . a limited trial balloon upon which an actual game can be built.

i suppose my biggest gripe with 5e is the lack of separation (it does occur but only at very high levels) between chars and minions. now going back to op ...i support the idea of tomes and increasing stat limits. but a better fix imo is to simply increase the proficiency bonuses.

You espouse of immersion but none of the logic and analogies really support that. The story comes first. As someone mentioned earlier, the enemies you face aren't sacks of exp or treasure for you to kill and level up. They're a part of the world you're playing in and if they're in your DM adventure, they're probably there for a reason. Immersion means that you are playing in a realistic world and realistic scenarios and it is not realistic that as you level up and gain in strength, lower level creatures disappear and you never encounter them again. Kobolds, goblins, orcs, etc. are common monsters that very normally terrorize the populace. They should be around and a threat for your whole career.

In regards to the discussion about numbers of mobs vs a heroic character. No matter how skilled you are, if you are surrounded by 20 pig farmers with pitchforks and spears, you will get hurt. That's immersive to me because it doesn't force me to suspend belief that a character can stroll through an army of a thousand trained warriors because his AC is +40.

Story comes first. This is the reason why I don't give our experience per encounter or have my players track their own experience. I basically take exp out of the equation and award it at the end of episodes or sessions. As a DM, I make sure that the players buy into the setting, campaign and story I'm running and I make sure they buy into the backgrounds, traits, ideals, bonds and flaws of their characters which oftentimes will not allow them to retreat from kobolds because they're not worth the exp.

 

[Celtavian]

ok we have to disagree on this point..if im 8th level and still fighting kobolds then something has gone terribly wrong. what's wrong with the fight? no xp, no treasure, no thrill and no satisfaction. low level mobs are just that low level mobs. there has to come a point, sooner rather than later, where the party gets separation from minions. if not then the party would do nearly as well playing kobolds rather than pc's.

and to not running..try the other side of the screen . our gm thought it was the most wonderful idea to have goblins/orcs ambush us at higher levels. our party would groan each time then we just started running from them because the fights were so boring/drawn out.

and if the heroes are just swords for hire where is the heroism. what makes the party special and capable of legendary deeds? their willingness to risk their life for money? i like the idea of heroic characters being able to do heroic things. characters are in adventures for money of course but mainly it's because they are the only ones capable of winning the day. the adventurers are hired by the farmers precisely because the farmers can't kill the ogre. if the only reason adventurers adventure is because the farmers are too scared (but the farmers could still do it) it turns the pc's into hirelings. and of course begs the question-why wouldn't the pc's hire mercenaries to do their own jobs(skimming some gold off the top of course ).

I don't think this is the case. Unless you're dealing with god-like power, most heroes, even seemingly high level beings, still fear orcs.

Take Lord of the Rings. Aragorn is 80 years old and has fought in countless battles, he still has to worry about orcs and other men in battle. Legolas is 500 years old. He is still worried about orcs.

Asking where is the heroism is strange. Do you ask a real life soldier where is the heroism because he fights only other men? Heroism has nothing to do with comparative strength between you and the enemy. Heroic deeds are based on what they accomplish and what they risk.

 

[MasterTrancer]

You espouse of immersion but none of the logic and analogies really support that. The story comes first. As someone mentioned earlier, the enemies you face aren't sacks of exp or treasure for you to kill and level up. They're a part of the world you're playing in and if they're in your DM adventure, they're probably there for a reason. Immersion means that you are playing in a realistic world and realistic scenarios and it is not realistic that as you level up and gain in strength, lower level creatures disappear and you never encounter them again. Kobolds, goblins, orcs, etc. are common monsters that very normally terrorize the populace. They should be around and a threat for your whole career.

In regards to the discussion about numbers of mobs vs a heroic character. No matter how skilled you are, if you are surrounded by 20 pig farmers with pitchforks and spears, you will get hurt. That's immersive to me because it doesn't force me to suspend belief that a character can stroll through an army of a thousand trained warriors because his AC is +40.

Story comes first. This is the reason why I don't give our experience per encounter or have my players track their own experience. I basically take exp out of the equation and award it at the end of episodes or sessions. As a DM, I make sure that the players buy into the setting, campaign and story I'm running and I make sure they buy into the backgrounds, traits, ideals, bonds and flaws of their characters which oftentimes will not allow them to retreat from kobolds because they're not worth the exp.

This! And all the above that mentioned that monsters should be there because of the story.

More, don't forget that high-level PCs should also be able to avoid large masses of monsters (teleport and fly being the obvious methods, but also pass wall underground), unless being built only for combat purposes.

 

[Celtavian]

Wasn't this one of the selling points of bounded accuracy? The retained "hittability" at high levels?

Yep. It is a little too easy in my experience. Too many creatures that gain advantage in close quarters.

I like bounded accuracy conceptually. Due to how it interacts with many other abilities, it is making armor too weak. It's too easy to hit. It makes creatures with advantage far more dangerous and powerful than those that strike without it including higher CR creatures. It weakens defensive builds making them less attractive than offense. I was hoping this edition would make offensive and defensive builds relatively equal. I don't know if I feel that is the case at the moment. It seems to be less and less the case as our group levels. Attack rolls seem to accelerate far quicker than defensive capabilities.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And, indeed, it's counterpart is that even a kobold remains a threat to a big bad PC of 20th level. Especially if he's got 7d6 poison on his scimitar.

A single kobold, not that much. A whole bunch of them SHOULD still be a threat to anyone. I like having a larger variety of things stay relatively useful for a broader level range. There is always the option not to use them of course. I prefer a game universe in which everything can meaningfully interact together, which includes adventurers of varying levels working together. If the game cannot deliver this then it has failed. 5E is succeeding thus far.

 

[ExploderWizard]

and the problem is that characters (much like the mobs) do very well against single high cr creatures...but struggle mightily against an even level cr creature with a mob. the math breaks down at every level...numbers not skill win the day.

Welcome to tactics 101.

Rule #1- try to arrange having a great numerical superiority.

A hero can stand against a number of foes that slaughter a normal man easily, but not aninfinite number of them. " You take the thousand on the right and I'll take the thousand on the left" doesn't work out very well, even in the movies. A large mob is a serious threat regardless of the individual level of ability of those that comprise it.