D&D 5E Monster to-hit still seems borked.

[B.T.]

Looking at a monster should, in general, give you some idea of its AC. A dragon covered in inch-thick scales? Probably around AC 20. A fat wizard? About AC 9.

 

[Rhenny]

Looking at a monster should, in general, give you some idea of its AC. A dragon covered in inch-thick scales? Probably around AC 20. A fat wizard? About AC 9.

Yes...I totally agree. If anything, Bounded Accuracy works for AC. I also believe it works well for ability/skill checks. It is easier for the DM to set a challenge level without a sliding scale. Picking a normal lock should always be the same. The DM can always make the lock more well made to increase its difficulty. Same for doors, etc. Also, if a PC improvises an action, it is much easier for a DM to decide is it easy, moderate, difficult, very difficult, nearly impossible with bounded accuracy (no need to consult a chart or add to the difficulty because of level, etc.).

In all of these cases, what the PCs "see" is what they get. It actually makes immersion in the game more complete by making DM description of the scene/monster more important. (and I'm not saying that description wasn't important in prior versions of D&D, just that now with bounded accuracy there is a simpler more direct correspondance between the numbers and the PC/player experience)

 

[fjw70]

Looking at a monster should, in general, give you some idea of its AC. A dragon covered in inch-thick scales? Probably around AC 20. A fat wizard? About AC 9.

The wizard could have a magically augmented AC which isn't visually observable. Quick reflexes and skill augmented AC aren't immediately observable either.

 

[B.T.]

He could.

 

[Rhenny]

The wizard could have a magically augmented AC which isn't visually observable. Quick reflexes and skill augmented AC aren't immediately observable either.

This is true, but with bounded accuracy there will be a specific ability, spell, or other condition that directly accounts for this bonus rather than an automatic increase based on level. That's the difference.

 

[fjw70]

This is true, but with bounded accuracy there will be a specific ability, spell, or other condition that directly accounts for this bonus rather than an automatic increase based on level. That's the difference.

That may or may be true. I haven't seen 5e monster building rules yet.

 

[Obryn]

This is true, but with bounded accuracy there will be a specific ability, spell, or other condition that directly accounts for this bonus rather than an automatic increase based on level. That's the difference.

If he has a higher level, there's a reason, too - abilities, spells, conditions, natural armor, agility, skill, luck, etc. It's rolled into the concept of "level."

-O

 

[Rhenny]

If he has a higher level, there's a reason, too - abilities, spells, conditions, natural armor, agility, skill, luck, etc. It's rolled into the concept of "level."

-O

True, but it is a level of abstraction that can be avoided just as easily so that everyone can say for sure...hey...he has an extra +4 because his carapace is especially hard, or he is trained in special dodge maneuvers. With the automatic level bonus, often we just take it on faith..yeah..he is just better.

 

[Obryn]

You see unnecessary abstraction, I see blessed and welcome mathematical clarity.

It's largely beside the point, though. I agree that bounded accuracy will largely obviate this sort of difference. I'd like to see AC bonuses baked into PC levels instead of the defacto wealth-by-level buy-your-AC thing they have going, though.

-O

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There migh be a module, where you just add some bonuses to AC based on level, and actually I am not against such a bonus, just as I am not against a bonus to "to-hit" by level. But this bonus needs to be individual for each class, not a strict function of level.
So a Fighter migt get +1 to AC once in a while, a monk too.
A wizard however should not, but some wizards may gain spells that augment AC, and that spell migt be "at-will" So a war wizard or an abjurer might get an at will spell, that increases AC by +1 per 5 levels. So if a player asks: why do you have a higher AC, you have an in game explanation: Magic!
The fighter, who gets +1 to AC per 3 levels also has: Skill at arms!
The rogue might get a dodge ability, where he can increase his AC by 4 1/5 levels per day, and can explain it: "I am just lucky"
You could also start differentiating hp by this: the fighter just has very high hp, the wizard a lot lower, but magic spells to protect him... (oh ok, that is old)

There is a second problem which will arise, if HP and AC are linear functions of level: the defensive power rises quadratic. So the game does not scale very well. (See early 4e) So one of those stats should be fixed. And in D&D it is traditionall AC which is fixed and HP rises. There are different games, where you increase an AC like stat (parry values etc) and hp remain more or less the same!

edit: sorry for the formatting... enworld seems quite buggy for me since the downtime