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

[CapnZapp]

The problem is with the -5/+10 mechanic. Just substitute it with +1 str for GWM and +1 dex for SS (and also remove SS's ability to negate disad when shooting in melee) and everything's golden.

GWM and SS without amendment are both broken. As this (and many other threads) have suggested.

I would argue there's nothing wrong with the -5/+10 mechanic.

Just the numbers!

Try lowering the "+10" part (perhaps to -5/+5) and you don't risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

By this I mean there are already lots of ways to increase your strength, but not so many ways to increase your damage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not real sure how you cast web on a dragon, especially in a huge lair with no anchor points. And the dragon can use his Legendary Resistance to ignore them until they collapse and disappear.

You can cast a Web on a dragon in midair, it just collapses after a round. Dragons have weak Dex saves (+6 for adult red), so they will frequently fail and burn a legendary resistance on your puny 2nd level spell slot. Once they've burned a couple, cast Maze and heal the party, ready some attacks, then resume combat. And that was just one example of a way you could play, not a tactical recommendation.

I'd love to run some simulated dragon combats with you in the circumstances we were in and see how you do. I think we run Legendary Resistance differently.

That sounds like fun! I'm up for it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

More recently he's apparently come around to the view that melee archtypes really are weaker than ranged archtypes in 5E, but he finds that objectionable--and that is where the social pressure might come in, since he says that you shouldn't be "forced" to play ranged strikers nor be forced to turn melee fighters into flying melee fighters with your Concentration slot.

Thanks, that helps me understand his perspective a bit more.

The concentration mechanic limited my fun by making a buff spell more effective than using my concentration slot for casting spells I want to use. I'm not opting into it. It was our most effective option. The melee martial is a main group damage dealer. To be able to use a concentration slot on a damage spell I wanted to use would have required me to make up the damage lost because the melee martial couldn't enter combat. I am not capable of doing so with my spell slots.

I think there's a tension here between what you "want to use" and what you fee like you have to use because it's "more effective." And this is pretty interesting because it's about gameplay goals.

I think there are a LOT of tables who feel like this choice is clear: you do what you want, because D&D for a lot of tables is primarily a game about doing what you WANT to do, not a game about winning by being effective. It's not primarily a challenge-based fun of skill and mastery, but more a social-based fun of creativity and sharing. When the two are in competition, you go with the latter - even if you die, it's adding to the fun story being told through the play. Effectiveness is a second-order consideration, clearly subordinate to having fun. Better to die a glorious and reckless death than to 100% the dungeon without taking damage by poking every inch with an 11-foot pole.

I know if my gnome sorcerer comes up against a dragon with Legendary Resistance, I'm not going to be at my most effective (my save-or-suck spells become largely a waste of a turn). I'll be spending my actions on saving throw cantrips to eat it up or maybe lobbing a chromatic orb or two (and ending with a SLEEP!). It'd probably be more effective to learn fly and pitch the paladin at 'em, but that's not the character I'm playing, that's not what I'd have fun doing, so it's not what I'm going to do.

Effectiveness is not a primary decider for me or any of the groups that I've been in. I think I'd rankle at a table where it was - where what gets the numbers big is more important than the kind of role I want to play. Not casting fly is always an option, even if it's a less effective option, because effectiveness doesn't determine my actions. It's a factor - I'd rather be a little effective than totally ineffective - but it's not the determining factor. I will do something less effective if it is more in character and will let me have more fun.

 

[Mephista]

How many pages was this on the right way or wrong way to play with your friends?

I really have to laugh, because this is all so strange to me. The root problem here, in my opinion, isn't that a wizard is limited by casting fly on a STR-based warrior. I think the real problem is that STR warriors don't have a lot of good ranged options. If they did? Then they'd have something to do with flying dragons when they come around, and the wizard could be having fun with a different Concentration spell, and everyone would be happy.

After that, if a caster wanted to put fly on the STR warrior anyways to make him faster, than that's a tactical choice then, and nothing approaching the feeling of an obligation that some people may feel.

The design flaw at the root of this crazy thing has nothing to do with Concentration, it has to do with the warrior. So, not only have we gone way off track by arguing about the Right Way to Play D&D With Your Friends, but the entire problem was misidentified in the first. The situation where a caster felt that casting fly on their friend was a necessity should never have come up in the first place. Buffing utility spells, like magic equipment, should be pure gravy when it happens, never a necessity or obligation.

--------------------------------------


For the record, I firmly oppose the idea that 5e has roles for any class, or set of classes. There's no "divine classes must heal!" or "arcane classes must buff!" or anything like that. In fact, I don't think there are divine or arcane classes anymore. So, there's no required "healer" or "buffer," even if we have a cleric and wizard in the party - certainly, I wouldn't expect a Tempest Domain or a Necromancer to have to have heals or utility buffs.

 

[Mephista]

I think there's a tension here between what you "want to use" and what you fee like you have to use because it's "more effective." And this is pretty interesting because it's about gameplay goals.

I dont' think that's it either. What I think is happening is that Celt sacrificed his Concentration spell so that a friend wouldn't be left out of the game. He sacrificed a bit of his fun so that someone else could have fun as well. Its not about optimal play here, its about plugging a hole that prevented someone from enjoying a significant number of battles in the game.

Someone was going to be left out of the fun, and Celt bit the bullet.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think there are a LOT of tables who feel like this choice is clear: you do what you want, because D&D for a lot of tables is primarily a game about doing what you WANT to do, not a game about winning by being effective. It's not primarily a challenge-based fun of skill and mastery, but more a social-based fun of creativity and sharing. When the two are in competition, you go with the latter - even if you die, it's adding to the fun story being told through the play. Effectiveness is a second-order consideration, clearly subordinate to having fun. Better to die a glorious and reckless death than to 100% the dungeon without taking damage by poking every inch with an 11-foot pole.

Furthermore, someone who claims that "my fun does come from effectively solving challenges" (I lean towards this view myself) has no grounds to claim that the mechanics of the game (concentration) is "limiting his fun", because solving the game within the constraints of the rules as written is the source of the fun! (My players are more the "glorious and reckless" sorts so I don't get to indulge this side of me very often unless I'm playing in someone else's game, which is why Celtavian's dragon challenge sounds like fun.)

So someone who claims that the game is limiting his fun by not enabling melee fighters to match ranged fighters must be speaking from an aesthetic standpoint, as in, "I think the game would be more fun if melee weapons were better." Which is fine. It's no different from the way I think the game is more fun with spell points than spell slots, so I've adopted the DMG variant--because it's nice when the physics of the game world reflect the reality you're interested in playing.

 

[Celtavian]

Thanks, that helps me understand his perspective a bit more.



I think there's a tension here between what you "want to use" and what you fee like you have to use because it's "more effective." And this is pretty interesting because it's about gameplay goals.

I think there are a LOT of tables who feel like this choice is clear: you do what you want, because D&D for a lot of tables is primarily a game about doing what you WANT to do, not a game about winning by being effective. It's not primarily a challenge-based fun of skill and mastery, but more a social-based fun of creativity and sharing. When the two are in competition, you go with the latter - even if you die, it's adding to the fun story being told through the play. Effectiveness is a second-order consideration, clearly subordinate to having fun. Better to die a glorious and reckless death than to 100% the dungeon without taking damage by poking every inch with an 11-foot pole.

I know if my gnome sorcerer comes up against a dragon with Legendary Resistance, I'm not going to be at my most effective (my save-or-suck spells become largely a waste of a turn). I'll be spending my actions on saving throw cantrips to eat it up or maybe lobbing a chromatic orb or two (and ending with a SLEEP!). It'd probably be more effective to learn fly and pitch the paladin at 'em, but that's not the character I'm playing, that's not what I'd have fun doing, so it's not what I'm going to do.

Effectiveness is not a primary decider for me or any of the groups that I've been in. I think I'd rankle at a table where it was - where what gets the numbers big is more important than the kind of role I want to play. Not casting fly is always an option, even if it's a less effective option, because effectiveness doesn't determine my actions. It's a factor - I'd rather be a little effective than totally ineffective - but it's not the determining factor. I will do something less effective if it is more in character and will let me have more fun.

This I can understand. I know you play at a different table than I do with a little different play-style and conventions

Our adventuring day is fewer, harder combats meant to use all our resources in one big combat to the death. XP budgets usually exceed the recommended amount. We play very deadly with the DM using as optimal as possible tactics for the NPCs. We had a bunch of these in Tyranny of Dragons against you know what.

I find it hard to believe that most people sitting around the table gaming with their buddies don't cast a buff spell on him to help him get into combat. You all must have some players in your group that like playing melee martials because they enjoy them. This particular edition of D&D punishes that choice more than past editions in terms of limiting buffs that allow the melee martial to get into combat. Given these people are your friends, you feel somewhat bad when you've fought five dragon battles in a row where they could do nearly nothing unless you cast fly on them. By the time we reached 10th or 12th level, I was happy the DM gave the bard a magic item that allowed a second concentration spell so he could cast fly while maintaining bless and I could do some other things. I figured people understood what I was talking about. I guess fewer people than I think have been in similar circumstances.

I have quite a few players that like playing melee martials be it a greatsword wielder, a barbarian, or a martial arts monk. We've always helped them get into battle against fliers. It never created this opportunity cost choice in 5E where casting fly prevents you from casting any other concentration spell. It was the first time I've ever dealt with a mechanic that made casting fly such an incredibly effective, yet limiting and boring option as a caster. I started to go out of my way to find spells without concentration at higher level because I knew if we ran into flying enemies, I needed to get fly on the melee martials (both of our main damage dealers) or we were screwed and probably going to die.

Here I was looking forward to trying out a fun looking spell like bigby's hand and I never really got to do it because I was casting fly. After I stopped having to cast fly, the DM threw a dragon flight of five young dragons at us. I had to cast protection form energy or we would have died. Five breath weapons even from young dragons was way too much to deal with even for a fighter. I can't remember if I ever did get to try bigby's hand. I did to get use wall of force finally. That was an effective spell. You can still do some nifty stuff with wall of force.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I find it hard to believe that most people sitting around the table gaming with their buddies don't cast a buff spell on him to help him get into combat. You all must have some players in your group that like playing melee martials because they enjoy them. This particular edition of D&D punishes that choice more than past editions in terms of limiting buffs that allow the melee martial to get into combat.

I would argue that it's primarily a matter of "The Tyranny of Dragons punishes that choice," since it is after all mostly about huge flying fire-breathing space hamsters. Er, I mean lizards.

For those who play Temple of Elemental Evil--does it have lots of flying foes with ranged attacks in it too?

Here I was looking forward to trying out a fun looking spell like bigby's hand and I never really got to do it because I was casting fly. After I stopped having to cast fly, the DM threw a dragon flight of five young dragons at us. I had to cast protection form energy or we would have died. Five breath weapons even from young dragons was way too much to deal with even for a fighter.

Out of curiosity, what happened to the three/four other PCs who didn't have Protection From Energy cast on them?

 

[Dausuul]

So, what happens when fighting a monster that does not have both a) a high fly speed and b) Legendary Resistance, which negates a lot of the tactics that could be used to force it to the ground?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, what happens when fighting a monster that does not have both a) a high fly speed and b) Legendary Resistance, which negates a lot of the tactics that could be used to force it to the ground?

Don't forget c) a ranged attack, without which it is not a threat to the party unless it closes to melee range.