D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[payn]

IMO no monster with a CR of 20 or higher should have less then a 21 AC and by 30 we should be talking 28+ for AC.

Why?

 

[overgeeked]

I think it started out a mention of how bounded accuracy handcuffs the gm with monsters incapable of rising to the challenge of challenging optimized pcs because they are all designed for an absurd thought experiment involving villagers & a dragon. From there it got stuck in (dis)proving if the selling point of bounded accuracy was working as designed (and terrible) or only a problem because of a bad gm.

The simple solution is to mechanically ignore, or account for, the power gaming. The AC for monsters is set at the high stat from the standard array, progressing at 4 and 8, and needing to roll an 8 or better on the d20. So just make that true regardless of what the PCs do. Whatever shenanigans they do, they always need an 8 or better on a d20 to-hit. Or set rhe highest bonus PC to an 8+ and the rest just miss more.

You can do the same with damage. Ignore it. It’s supposed to take 2-3 hits per PC to end an encounter. So however much damage they do, it still takes that many hits. Account for things like sneak attack and crits (each counts as 2 hits) and spell usage (say 1 hit per spell level), and you’re good. You crit fish for 9,000,000 damage? Okay. That’s still only 2 hits.

Same with social skill mind control. Just crank the DCs up so that it’s impossible for max stat and expertise to have any effect at all.

The player spends a few hundred dollars on books and dozens of hours pouring over those books to find the best possible builds and synergies…or more accurately barely buys or reads the PHB and copy & pastes a build from someone online…and it’s all for naught with some easy fixes.

It’s not hard to neuter power gaming, it’s just pointlessly tedious to have to. The game’s already easy mode. Why bother making it even easier? What do you gain? The knowledge that you can’t lose? The default of the game is already 90% of the way there. Why push for that last 10%? How utterly boring. What’s the point of playing a game you can’t lose?

 

[Maxperson]

I agree then. The bounded accuracy is too tightly bound.

20pt swing on ACs over 20 levels should be fine. that would in 3e/4e/5e terms mean between AC 10 and AC 30
in 2e and 1e terms that was AC 10 and -10 (with a few exceptions up to a -12)

the problem is that AC doesn't scale with level it scales with equipment for PCs and monster ACs as low as 17 or 18 can be seen at extreme levels.

Useing the SRD MM1 we have
Tarrasqu CR30 25 AC +19 to hit
Ancient Red Drag CR24 22 AC +17 to hit
Ancient Blue Drag CR 23 22 AC +16 to hit
Lich CR 21 17 AC (22 with shield) +12 to hit (with spell attacks)
Ancient Black Drag CR 21 22AC +15 to hit
Pitfiend CR20 19AC +14 to hit

so of the highest (evil) 6 monsters the BEST AC is 25 and the worst is 17... and only 1 of those (the AC19) is ONLY a CR20 the rest are higher.

IMO no monster with a CR of 20 or higher should have less then a 21 AC and by 30 we should be talking 28+ for AC.

I don't think a full 20 point swing is warranted. That seems more unbounded than bounded. For one thing, while AC technically starts at 10, almost nothing you face and almost no PC will ever have an AC that low, even at level 1.

Looking at CR 1 monsters we have these ACs.

1) Animated Armor: 18
2) Brass Dragon Wyrmling: 16
3) Brown Bear: 11
4) Copper Dragon Wyrmling: 16
5) Death Dog: 12
6) Dire Wolf: 14
7) Dryad: 11(16 with barkskin)
8) Duergar: 16
9) Ghoul: 12
10) Giant Eagle: 13
11) Giant Hyena: 12
12) Giant Octopus: 11
13) Giant Spider: 14
14) Giant Toad: 11
15) Giant Vulture: 10
16) Harpy: 11
17) Hypogryph: 11
18) Imp: 13
19) Lion: 12
20) Quasit: 13
21) Specter: 12
22) Spy: 12
23) Swarm of Quippers: 13
24) Tiger: 12

So it seems like 12-13 is average and that's with ACs bounded lower due to bounded accuracy. So the floor is not really 10, but rather 12-13, which puts the 20 higher at 32-33. If you take out all the animals you're never going to fight and include the orcs and such that are lower CR, ACs at low level are probably around 14-15.

The bonus to hit you should get over 20 level should be +10. By level 20 you'll have +10 for level, +4-5 for primary stat, +2 or so for items, and probably a few other pluses along the way. You'll be swinging/casting at about +16 to +20. Maybe even higher depending on spells and such.

I started off disagreeing, but looking at these numbers, a 30 AC at the upper end would be just about right. You'd need a 10-14 to hit, which seems reasonable to me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why?

IMO no monster with a CR of 20 or higher should have less then a 21 AC and by 30 we should be talking 28+ for AC.

just reposting what you are asking why to for context...

I feel that way because it is a show of how much of a challenge the monster is... I am sure you can argue for an exception here or there "this monster has a low AC but like 3x the HP and can't be hurt by non magic damages" type things but over all as PCs grow so too should the threats.

Example: My 1st level non power gamed combat character has +2 prof +2 stat (talk about not power gamed that is a 15) for a total +4... by level 17 (I actually think 15 might be more reasonable for 20+ CRs but that is becuse the cr system is so bad) you most likely have that at least up to a +4 stat and you have a +6 prof... so +10 you most likely have some magic bonus but I wont calculate that for the non power gamed one... so 4-10
my 1st level power gamed combat character has +2 prof and +5 stat for a total of +7. at level 17 my prof has gone up to +6 and I have at least +2 from magic and most likely have broken cap (book, class or belt) and have +6+ for stat... so +14 this leads to a range of 7-14

this is bounded (what I call tight bounded) accuracy. it means that the AC you can face at level 1 (lets say a 14) you can still face at 17.

IMO I want that to have more spread. I want there to still be bound ( I never want +33/+33/+28/+23I saw from 3e again) just not as tight... I would say if that non power gamed character had +15 instead of +10, and that power gamed one ended at +17 or 18 instead of +14 you could easily have all the CR 17+ have ac of 20 or higher (with some carve out exceptions)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think a full 20 point swing is warranted. That seems more unbounded than bounded. For one thing, while AC technically starts at 10, almost nothing you face and almost no PC will ever have an AC that low, even at level 1.

yeah I meant for possible, I agree few if anyPC/mosnter should be the base 10 (and both TSR and WotC editions show this)

Looking at CR 1 monsters we have these ACs.

1) Animated Armor: 18
2) Brass Dragon Wyrmling: 16
3) Brown Bear: 11
4) Copper Dragon Wyrmling: 16
5) Death Dog: 12
6) Dire Wolf: 14
7) Dryad: 11(16 with barkskin)
8) Duergar: 16
9) Ghoul: 12
10) Giant Eagle: 13
11) Giant Hyena: 12
12) Giant Octopus: 11
13) Giant Spider: 14
14) Giant Toad: 11
15) Giant Vulture: 10
16) Harpy: 11
17) Hypogryph: 11
18) Imp: 13
19) Lion: 12
20) Quasit: 13
21) Specter: 12
22) Spy: 12
23) Swarm of Quippers: 13
24) Tiger: 12

this is brilliant thank you for doing this out.

So it seems like 12-13 is average and that's with ACs bounded lower due to bounded accuracy. So the floor is not really 10, but rather 12-13, which puts the 20 higher at 32-33. If you take out all the animals you're never going to fight and include the orcs and such that are lower CR, ACs at low level are probably around 14-15.

right again my cap of 30 idea still stands... that 20pt swing is possible but it should be real hard to have either extreme (10 or 30)

The bonus to hit you should get over 20 level should be +10. By level 20 you'll have +10 for level, +4-5 for primary stat, +2 or so for items, and probably a few other pluses along the way. You'll be swinging/casting at about +16 to +20. Maybe even higher depending on spells and such.

I started off disagreeing, but looking at these numbers, a 30 AC at the upper end would be just about right. You'd need a 10-14 to hit, which seems reasonable to me.

yeah I like your math to be honest.

 

[Mort]

I agree then. The bounded accuracy is too tightly bound.

20pt swing on ACs over 20 levels should be fine. that would in 3e/4e/5e terms mean between AC 10 and AC 30
in 2e and 1e terms that was AC 10 and -10 (with a few exceptions up to a -12)

the problem is that AC doesn't scale with level it scales with equipment for PCs and monster ACs as low as 17 or 18 can be seen at extreme levels.

Useing the SRD MM1 we have
Tarrasqu CR30 25 AC +19 to hit
Ancient Red Drag CR24 22 AC +17 to hit
Ancient Blue Drag CR 23 22 AC +16 to hit
Lich CR 21 17 AC (22 with shield) +12 to hit (with spell attacks)
Ancient Black Drag CR 21 22AC +15 to hit
Pitfiend CR20 19AC +14 to hit

so of the highest (evil) 6 monsters the BEST AC is 25 and the worst is 17... and only 1 of those (the AC19) is ONLY a CR20 the rest are higher.

IMO no monster with a CR of 20 or higher should have less then a 21 AC and by 30 we should be talking 28+ for AC.

The problem, IMO, is, in high level play, casters have SO MANY options that AC is barely a speedbump for them - as in high AC, they can go with several other solutions.

Martials, on the other hand - even in high level play, have to hit. And if you ramp up ACs to make them hit less, you're tilting things even further toward casters.

You could give high level martials ways to hit more accurately, or things to do other than damage (though there is HUGE disagreement there) but then, why not just keep the ACs relatively low? Which, If I recall correctly, was a conscious 5e design choice to avoid constant missing on martials part.

 

[Oofta]

In France and Germany on the other hand, peasant rebellions were a serious concern, so feudal lords tried to prevent peasant from having access to weapon that could be used against them. I think England is the outlier here.

I often wonder both in Homebrew and in WotC setting what the standing armies really are. I mean how often do you need soldiers? do you have a career field where there are just soldiers that make there lives being combat ready? if so how many? you need to still have farmers and fishermen and hunters, and they can fill out ranks in an emergency but what %?

I love the "calling your banners" from Game of thrones/A song of ice and fire. They have it were each lord has a very small standing army and somewhere between a few hundred to maybe a thousand or two men they can call up as reserves, but each lord answers to a bigger lord who can call on that army plus there own, and those bigger lord can be called on by the crown that doesn't have it's own standing army (although I see that last part as a flaw).

We can only imagine what a world would be like if there were real dragons, what I reject is this idea that no nation anywhere would arm and train their citizens. England has a ton of coastline and there was a long history of being raided, it makes sense that they would want most people to have an ability to defend themselves. Meanwhile France had relatively fewer threats from the outside.

So it really depends on campaign world assumptions. Is a nation constantly under threat from outside forces from dragons to invading armies of ogres? Then there are a lot of external threats, just like merry old England. That dragon been asleep for centuries, so long that only a few elves remember the threat? Then you potentially go a different direction. I don't think there is one answer here. Some nations will be more concerned with threats from dragons, some will be more concerned with threats from within.

There's a great deal of variation on armies depending on the country and time period. Some armies were largely conscripts, others were almost solely mercenaries as people were given the option to pay a special tax instead of fighting. The latter was how I justified my current group's initial scenarios, they were in a city state that gave people the option to fight or pay and they were put together as special forces team because of their unique abilities.

When it comes to dragons or other large threats, I can easily see mercenary groups dedicated to fighting them. It's one of the things I'm thinking of pitching for my next campaign when the current one ends. I think the whole area of defenses and armies is one area most people don't think about much, and it doesn't necessarily have to be about mass army combat in a world with as many dangerous monsters as D&D assumes as the default.

 

[payn]

just reposting what you are asking why to for context...

I feel that way because it is a show of how much of a challenge the monster is... I am sure you can argue for an exception here or there "this monster has a low AC but like 3x the HP and can't be hurt by non magic damages" type things but over all as PCs grow so too should the threats.

Example: My 1st level non power gamed combat character has +2 prof +2 stat (talk about not power gamed that is a 15) for a total +4... by level 17 (I actually think 15 might be more reasonable for 20+ CRs but that is becuse the cr system is so bad) you most likely have that at least up to a +4 stat and you have a +6 prof... so +10 you most likely have some magic bonus but I wont calculate that for the non power gamed one... so 4-10
my 1st level power gamed combat character has +2 prof and +5 stat for a total of +7. at level 17 my prof has gone up to +6 and I have at least +2 from magic and most likely have broken cap (book, class or belt) and have +6+ for stat... so +14 this leads to a range of 7-14

this is bounded (what I call tight bounded) accuracy. it means that the AC you can face at level 1 (lets say a 14) you can still face at 17.

IMO I want that to have more spread. I want there to still be bound ( I never want +33/+33/+28/+23I saw from 3e again) just not as tight... I would say if that non power gamed character had +15 instead of +10, and that power gamed one ended at +17 or 18 instead of +14 you could easily have all the CR 17+ have ac of 20 or higher (with some carve out exceptions)

Gotcha. I think that is understandable, but also old school thinking. Something isn't tougher, stronger, higher-level so its harder to hit, its harder to kill that represents that. AC is no longer the indication something is more challenging. It's ability to deliver and take hits is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The problem, IMO, is, in high level play, casters have SO MANY options that AC is barely a speedbump for them - as in high AC, they can go with several other solutions.

Martials, on the other hand - even in high level play, have to hit. And if you ramp up ACs to make them hit less, you're tilting things even further toward casters.

my answer to that is hit all casters with the nerf bat... infact throw them out of the nerf tree and hit every branch on the way down... but it isn't going to happen.

You could give high level martials ways to hit more accurately, or things to do other than damage

I would love that

 

[tetrasodium]

just reposting what you are asking why to for context...

I feel that way because it is a show of how much of a challenge the monster is... I am sure you can argue for an exception here or there "this monster has a low AC but like 3x the HP and can't be hurt by non magic damages" type things but over all as PCs grow so too should the threats.

Example: My 1st level non power gamed combat character has +2 prof +2 stat (talk about not power gamed that is a 15) for a total +4... by level 17 (I actually think 15 might be more reasonable for 20+ CRs but that is becuse the cr system is so bad) you most likely have that at least up to a +4 stat and you have a +6 prof... so +10 you most likely have some magic bonus but I wont calculate that for the non power gamed one... so 4-10
my 1st level power gamed combat character has +2 prof and +5 stat for a total of +7. at level 17 my prof has gone up to +6 and I have at least +2 from magic and most likely have broken cap (book, class or belt) and have +6+ for stat... so +14 this leads to a range of 7-14

this is bounded (what I call tight bounded) accuracy. it means that the AC you can face at level 1 (lets say a 14) you can still face at 17.

IMO I want that to have more spread. I want there to still be bound ( I never want +33/+33/+28/+23I saw from 3e again) just not as tight... I would say if that non power gamed character had +15 instead of +10, and that power gamed one ended at +17 or 18 instead of +14 you could easily have all the CR 17+ have ac of 20 or higher (with some carve out exceptions)

This is good math. I've long since just made my own monsters as needed to provide a challenge for my group of 5 & adopted a variation on the PF2MAP rule but applied on monster side tohit & ac. Coincidentally needing to roll 12-14 on the d20 with the first or second attack depending on if I'm making a hard or easy to hit monster tends to be the range I aim for.