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

[UngeheuerLich]

i like the semi arbitrary things + stat cobinations. That is the way I would have liked 4e to be. Totally arbitrary things confuse players! If someone only has a leather armor, and does not look dexrous or like his hide is tough, he has much lower AC than a plate wearer. It is players having expections based on what they see... sometimes they should be surprised, but usually, you should be able to guess the enemy´s strength by in game clues.

4e does a very bad job there! You just don´t know how powerful someone is.

 

[Steely_Dan]

4e does a very bad job there! You just don´t know how powerful someone is.

You know what every monster's AC is as long as you what level it is.

 

[Stormonu]

. . . and you should be able to use either or both systems as a guide to building cool challenges for the PCs. You can go straight to the numbers, 4E style (gets my vote), or you can build up from components 3E style (looks like this will get your vote).

I think this is a tall order for the designers, but look forward to seeing it when published!

I'm hoping for both. If I'm world building, I want to put the monster together 3E style and then rate its CR/level. If I'm adventure planning, I want to know up front what stats I need to make it an appropriate challenge.

 

[Rhenny]

It's not a wash, though, on the table. It's only a wash in the pure mathematical sense. This is the same mistake the 4e designers made early on with Soldiers - "Yeah, they do less damage, but they are hard to hit so they have more rounds to do damage in!" (And thus, grind was born...)

On the table, it's a very different play experience, and tracking 40 orcs is much more labor-intensive than bookkeeping for 5 or 6. It also takes a lot longer, with a whole heck of a lot more die rolling.

-O

I agree with Obryn. As DM, I don't like to have PCs fight gangs or groups or hordes unless it is a special event. It should not be the default for challenging the party. Most of the fights I like to throw at my players are skirmishes, so unfortunately, with the lower "to hit" scores, they become cake walks for the players unless I throw much higher level monsters at them (or I modify the monsters by adding "to hit" and hit points). Generally, I'd like to be able to create a moderate level threat by throwing about equal numbers of equal level foes at the PCs. Perhaps PCs are too strong, and monsters are too weak. I like the idea of earlier versions where weaker monsters like kobolds were considered 1/2 or even 1/4 level. One Level 1 monsters should be a moderate challenge for 1 level 1 PC. If level parity were achieved, it would be much easier to plan and run encounters.

Also, when we have to throw too many opponents vs. the PCs, the game gets more swingy since each additional attack roll adds to the chance that one of the foes will score a critical hit, and with lots of foes, it is generally easier for the foes to focus fire and damage the lighter armored PCs (if they have the intelligence to do so).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You know what every monster's AC is as long as you what level it is.

Yes, and this is exactly why it is bad:

it should not be a metagame stat, that decides which AC someone has!

 

[slobo777]

Yes, and this is exactly why it is bad:

it should not be a metagame stat, that decides which AC someone has!

But the hitpoints are ok?

How about number of spells, or save bonuses?

The games numbers are pretty arbitrary in most cases, and the level system is a way to both build and gauge relative threat. You either end up assigning high armour class to high levels, or building creatures "logically", and end up putting the ones with high armour class in the higher levels (which may mean re-jigging some other part of the creature design that "doesn't fit" with the assigned level, such as number of hit dice)

In the alleged flattened maths of 5E, AC won't in fact be a major factor related to level. I don't think that's anything to do with level being "metagame" and AC somehow being a more real thing.

I'd like to take the chance to rant against some minor mis-use of English common in these discussions; Level is not a metagame stat. It's a game stat. As in, it is a number used in the game which has meaning in the game rules, and affects the outcome of the game. As such, the only difference with AC is that AC has some pretense of a relationship to character equipment and physical traits. Whereas level is more nebulous, related to concepts such as skill and threat. Being more nebulous or intangible does not in fact make something "meta"

A true metagame stat might be "the chance that our DM will actually use this creature, as written, in an adventure" . . .

I don't think the definition changes the terms of discussion here, just something that irks me

I guess when people call out level as a "metagame stat", what they are trying to say is that it is somehow OK to figure out the likely AC of an enemy (because it is encased in iron for example), but not to second-guess or figure out the relative level (because there is less to observe), or to use metagame logic to figure it out by assuming that the threat must match their characters. I don't necessarily agree, but I do see it would be annoying if you are trying to create an air of mystery around an encounter.

 

[Obryn]

Yes, and this is exactly why it is bad:

it should not be a metagame stat, that decides which AC someone has!

For D&D, I think this is a kind of weird line to draw, considering almost everything else is metagame-based, whether it's on levels or hit dice. Hit points, attack bonuses, saving throws, etc.

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

Nobody has had these arguments before. Nope, never have...

 

[slobo777]

Nobody has had these arguments before. Nope, never have...

But now we can have the discussion faster, on an optimised server

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yes, and this is exactly why it is bad:

it should not be a metagame stat, that decides which AC someone has!

I generally feel the same way, a creatures's AC should be determined by Dex and armour (natural or worn).