D&D 5E 5th ed D&D general impressions from a new player and DM.

[fearsomepirate]

My own analysis of AC by tier (considering which monsters below to which tier) yielded roughly the following:

Tier 1: average AC 13
Tier 2: average AC 15
Tier 3: average AC 17
Tier 4: average AC 19

I don't have the spreadsheet anymore, but it included the MM, VGtM, and MToF, plus some extras from adventure modules and settings books.

If you consider, in their main "thing" PCs are typically +5, +7, +9, and +11 in their attack bonuses (discarding magic items and features) at each tier, respectively, (due to ASI and/or proficiency increase), this holds that an 8 or better is typically needed to hit, or 65%, across all tiers in 5E.

So, that is why I assume a 65% hit probability.

Seems accurate to me. Which also explains why, as more things come online, everybody is nearly always hitting.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Thanks. Just read through it.

Frankly, it sort of sucks I think and doesn't describe any kind of real play I've see or been part of.

Anyway, thanks for posting.

So, you just started playing 5e and are already an expert who can denigrate those who seek to help others improve their games.

Good luck to you.

 

[JimmyG]

So, you just started playing 5e and are already an expert who can denigrate those who seek to help others improve their games.

Good luck to you.

Yeah, I thanked the guy for trying. And what business of it is yours?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Seems accurate to me. Which also explains why, as more things come online, everybody is nearly always hitting.

Yeah, it has been about right IME playing levels 1-20.

One of the reasons why I like the idea of imposing disadvantage on attack rolls is it would change the 65% to about42%, which is more where I would like to see the average probability of hitting at personally.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think the AC of CR 20 monsters needs to be about 5 points higher. Also, we need to ditch the ability mod system entirely.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Of course that doesn't help if you have "the analyzer" who wants to treat every turn trying to analyze every possibility. Especially when it always ends with them spending 10 minutes staring at the miniatures and then throwing up their hands and saying "I guess I'll just ..." and then taking the most obvious solution.

I've got one of those. If he's a wizard, he studies the board for 10 minutes before casting Ray of Frost again. Then you've got the players who simply will not let anyone else take their turn if he deems their choice of action to be sub-optimal.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hey, I found the excel file! It's attached if anyone wants to check it out.

I used over 2000 monsters and the ranged I used for the tiers, you can change them and see what the average work out to.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks. Just read through it.

Frankly, it sort of sucks

Rude.

I think and doesn't describe any kind of real play I've see or been part of.

Anyway, thanks for posting.

Not surprising that it wouldn’t resemble play you’ve been a part of, given that you’re new to 5e.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Hey, I found the excel file! It's attached if anyone wants to check it out.

I used over 2000 monsters and the ranged I used for the tiers, you can change them and see what the average work out to.

I enjoy being the beneficiary of the kind of cracked mind that does this. Thanks!

 

[DND_Reborn]

I enjoy being the beneficiary of the kind of cracked mind that does this. Thanks!

No problem. I am glad you like it, can use it, etc. But, I worked off of the excel file compiled by another poster, just extracting the info I wanted (did the same for HP as well as AC, which is what I used for contriving the houserules I did).