D&D 5E Monster Manual and Players Hand Book Power Levels

[eryndel]

And on topic, to the OP... you hit it on the head. If you wish, you can scale all the numbers for defense up as long as you scale all the numbers for offense up correspondingly. If the number on the sword, or the total bonus on the armor is giving you concern... it's not that hard to change it, as long as it's consistent on both sides.

If the point of your question is, "How can one like such a low-powered game", the firm limits on bonuses is actually a blessing for some. Speaking for myself, the epic nature of the combat deals more with the dynamics of the game (what each person can do) and the impact of the adversary. It really doesn't have to do with the raw mathematical bonuses. The math is a means to an end. In the end, the math roughly balances anyway. So, if it's not about the math... why bother with bounded accuracy? Because it increases the 'lifetime' of use for the monsters in my game. Where a group of orcs can be an interesting encounter on their own for a group of 12th level characters instead of having to apply character levels (as in 3rd edition, these are now 10th level Orc Barbarians, with a 12th level Orc Sorcerer), or by having additional tiers of orcs to keep track of (as in 4th, where you're no longer fighting Orc Peons, now you're fighting Orc Toughs).

Coupled with the fact that 5e provides characters with a lot more things to do (abilities nearly every level up), this system is a win for me. That's why I'm digging the power level.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would strongly caution against just increasing the bonuses for armor and weapons. There is more into bounded accuracy than that. Spells for example. Spell attack bonuses also would need to increase appropriately. So would spells like barkskin, items like bracers of defense, and class abilities like unarmored warrior. Also, class abilities like defensive fighting style and archery loose potency if you get rid of bounded accuracy.

 

[sgtscott658]

True as the DM it is my prerogative to scale things up or down. My main problem is 5E lacks that epic feel that 3.x had. Dont get me wrong, I think 5E is ok but I dont think it is the cats meow of all the D&D systems. Well at least it is not as horrible as 4E was so I can tolerate and deal with 5E more or less, just not grokking that epic feel with how the monsters are represented thus far.

And on topic, to the OP... you hit it on the head. If you wish, you can scale all the numbers for defense up as long as you scale all the numbers for offense up correspondingly. If the number on the sword, or the total bonus on the armor is giving you concern... it's not that hard to change it, as long as it's consistent on both sides.

If the point of your question is, "How can one like such a low-powered game", the firm limits on bonuses is actually a blessing for some. Speaking for myself, the epic nature of the combat deals more with the dynamics of the game (what each person can do) and the impact of the adversary. It really doesn't have to do with the raw mathematical bonuses. The math is a means to an end. In the end, the math roughly balances anyway. So, if it's not about the math... why bother with bounded accuracy? Because it increases the 'lifetime' of use for the monsters in my game. Where a group of orcs can be an interesting encounter on their own for a group of 12th level characters instead of having to apply character levels (as in 3rd edition, these are now 10th level Orc Barbarians, with a 12th level Orc Sorcerer), or by having additional tiers of orcs to keep track of (as in 4th, where you're no longer fighting Orc Peons, now you're fighting Orc Toughs).

Coupled with the fact that 5e provides characters with a lot more things to do (abilities nearly every level up), this system is a win for me. That's why I'm digging the power level.

 

[SilverfireSage]

True as the DM it is my prerogative to scale things up or down. My main problem is 5E lacks that epic feel that 3.x had. Dont get me wrong, I think 5E is ok but I dont think it is the cats meow of all the D&D systems. Well at least it is not as horrible as 4E was so I can tolerate and deal with 5E more or less, just not grokking that epic feel with how the monsters are represented thus far.

How is it any less epic to kill the Tarrasque when one has a 35 AC and the other has a 25? In both, you're killing the Tarrasque, and in my mind, the raw numbers shouldn't make a difference.


If you want to look at numbers though, you should note that the creatures in 5E do far more damage than the ones in 3.5. that should make it even more epic!

 

[Gadget]

It seems to me that the OP has 'But the dial goes to 11' syndrome. Just because the numbers in 3x were over-inflated, that does not mean it was 'moar epic'. There are other ways to measure epicness, namely abilities and such. Numbers like Hit Points attack bonus, and AC are very abstract representations in any edition. Things can feel epic or not with any numbers, depending on how these numbers relate to the rest of the system, IMHO.

 

[RangerWickett]

Ignore the numbers. When you're playing the game, the numbers should be invisible.

When you ride a rollercoaster, what you care about is the plunging fall, the rushing air on your face, the intense forces as you spin in tight curves and then leap at the tops of hills. You don't care about the mechanical structure of the trusses supporting the ride, or the gears used in the wheels, the joints connecting the cars, or the cushions keeping you from bruising the back of your head.

In an RPG, don't worry about the numbers. Pay attention to the story.

In 3rd edition, a 20th level fighter sallies forth against a horde of trolls and hacks through them over several rounds, not once getting hit (because his AC is so out of reach of the troll attack bonus). He strides out of battle gleaming and invincible.

In 5th edition, a 20th level fighter sallies forth against a horde of trolls and hacks through them over several rounds, and though he is clawed and gnawed and grappled and smashed by their warty flesh, he does not yield. He strides out of battle coated in blood and ichor, sullied but undefeated.

In 3e, he is tough because his numbers are high. Wow, that's boring. In 5e, he is tough because he is able to take on a dozen trolls even though they are slowly wearing him down. In my view, the later is way the **** more epic than the former.

 

[yakuba]

True as the DM it is my prerogative to scale things up or down. My main problem is 5E lacks that epic feel that 3.x had. Dont get me wrong, I think 5E is ok but I dont think it is the cats meow of all the D&D systems. Well at least it is not as horrible as 4E was so I can tolerate and deal with 5E more or less, just not grokking that epic feel with how the monsters are represented thus far.

I can definitely understand being put off by the lack of high modifiers in 5E. I do think that the monsters are tough enough relatives of the power levels of the players. It might not seem so at first glance. But it actually playing the game it's definitely not easy.

Slightly off-topic but I found this public though against the Tarrasque really amusing.regional motivation for this though was exactly the same thing questioning whether or not the 5e monsters were really tough enough.

http://youtu.be/8951Wqi7iJ0

 

[Warunsun]

Bounded Accuracy seems to be pretty nifty in my view. And I am looking forward to it. But I still think you are all crazy when you post stuff like 20th level characters will only have +2 swords and three or four other magic items. Every edition has had either +5 or +6 weapons available and encumbrance rules were created for a reason because loot happens and stacks up. While I am for Bounded Accuracy as it seems like a really smart move I can't imagine a D&D campaign without weapons of +3 (or higher). I guess this maybe easier to gauge once the Dungeon Master's Guide is out. Even without +5 weapons--loot happens. There will be magic abounding.

 

[Mercurius]

I would strongly caution against just increasing the bonuses for armor and weapons. There is more into bounded accuracy than that. Spells for example. Spell attack bonuses also would need to increase appropriately. So would spells like barkskin, items like bracers of defense, and class abilities like unarmored warrior. Also, class abilities like defensive fighting style and archery loose potency if you get rid of bounded accuracy.

True, true. That said, I think the tighter range of magic items--+1 to +3--allows for uber-items and artifacts that are +4, or even +5, and for that to really mean something. I don't know how the DMG will handle this, but for instance I could see having "Legendary Artifacts" like Excalibur or Stormbringer be +4, and "Divine Artifacts" like Mjolnir or Lugh's Spear could be +5, with that being a hard cap.

So something like this:
+1 minor magic items
+2 major magic items
+3 epic magic items
+4 legendary artifacts
+5 divine artifacts

 

[drjones]

True as the DM it is my prerogative to scale things up or down. My main problem is 5E lacks that epic feel that 3.x had. Dont get me wrong, I think 5E is ok but I dont think it is the cats meow of all the D&D systems. Well at least it is not as horrible as 4E was so I can tolerate and deal with 5E more or less, just not grokking that epic feel with how the monsters are represented thus far.

I would take you seriously if you had actually played much epic level 5e. But you haven't.