D&D 5E Drawbacks to Increasing Monster AC Across the Board?

[dave2008]

@dave2008 just so you know I really don't care about anything in 2024 D&D. I don't say that to be rude, but just so you don't continue to waste your time. If you feel it is relevant for others, then no worries, but as you were responding to me, I just wanted that clarified.

Sure. I am also exclusively playing/DMing 2014 5e (well at least our homebrew version of it). So my comments are not about caring about 2024 D&D. They are about making your 2014 game better, if that is a thing that interest you.

The 2024 combat encounter guidelines (and monsters for that matter) are better than the 2014 versions and they are drag and drop replacements for the same parts of a 2014 game. You keep playing 2014 D&D, just better.

Now, how useful that upgrade will be is dependent on how you play 2014 D&D. For example, I stopped using the 2014 encounter guidelines about 6-12 months into 5e (back in 2015) and I am not going back. So the 2024 rules, though better than 2014, don't mean much to me as - I don't need them! Similarly, if I want interesting monsters then I homebrew them myself. If that isn't important then it doesn't really matter which book I get them from!

Personally, I don't consider either of these parts (monsters and encounter rules) as 2014 or 2024. They are just 5e. I mean the 2024 monsters are not any more different than the 2014 MM than the 2014 MM is to Volos, or VRGtR, or Fizban's etc.

 

[Stalker0]

Trouble is all the other questionable numbers in the %chance columns including the green "regular" one that would not involve (dis)advantage.

Figuring out your assumptions is important because the math doesn't align logically. For example: a 65% chance of a 65% chance is 42%, you have a 42% pegged as 12.5... then just below that you have a 3.5% dealing 17 damage ... You also have 12.5% dealing 0 damage and 36% dealing 25 damage. There is no
consistency or logic there

To deal 12.5 damage, the character must hit (not crit) with one of its attacks, and miss with the other.

So that's .6 (hit) * .35 (miss) * 2 (because it can be A hits/B misses or A misses/B hits. That's .42 = 42%.

Its simply the math, you say there is no consistency....I mean its just the math of to hit probabilities. Now I was using average damage rather than the full spread shown above, but its still just the basic simple probabilities. Nothing illogical about it.

 

[tetrasodium]

To deal 12.5 damage, the character must hit (not crit) with one of its attacks, and miss with the other.

So that's .6 (hit) * .35 (miss) * 2 (because it can be A hits/B misses or A misses/B hits. That's .42 = 42%.

Its simply the math, you say there is no consistency....I mean its just the math of to hit probabilities. Now I was using average damage rather than the full spread shown above, but its still just the basic simple probabilities. Nothing illogical about it.

Ynobody can inadvertently try so hard to avoid answering the simple question of how you selected the SIX "% chance" values by mistake. There are almost certainly additional problems with how you generated the damage values from those SIX values as well but you have presented a wall of "confusion" when questioned.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am....so confused.

65% is a commonly quoted number in monster math discussions, and its been used heavily in discussions on this thread. That's why I used it, no more no less. If you think the 65% on a hit is not accurate, that the normal to hit rate is a big deviation from that....fair enough, what to hit value do you think is more suitable for the average?

And the first row....is just the % chance that the two attacks would miss and deal 0 damage, rounded to 2 percentage places. Again, no more, no less. It is absolutely a circumstance that will happen if you attack a creature with two attacks, yes sometimes you completely miss. How is that a distraction?

View attachment 405425

I'm wondering where it comes from. I don't recall WotC mentioning it.

I know the average AC in 5.0 is 14.5 in the MM.

Hit rates higher than that in practice it's what makes the -5/+10 feats so good.

I know 65% is used in online white room theory crafting which is a pointless assumption imho.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm wondering where it comes from. I don't recall WotC mentioning it.

I know the average AC in 5.0 is 14.5 in the MM.

Hit rates higher than that in practice it's what makes the -5/+10 feats so good.

I know 65% is used in online white room theory crafting which is a pointless assumption imho.

I'm not going to do any math on verifying this through the cobwebs but It's been a long time since I remember anyone feeling the need to explain it beyond it being a solid rule of thumb with 5e that generally works out pretty close in actual play, but I think that it was some combination of either mearls/crawford saying "we designed 5e so that..." or this+encounter guidelines & standard array/optimized pointbuy PCs causing folks like treantmonk pack tactics & so on to settle on it

Spoiler: creating quick monster stats DMG274

Aaannnnd it looks like someone already did the math on that to get confirming results for Google to fint

The Fundamental Math of DnD 5e Character Optimization

Analysis of the fundamental math behind DnD 5e

rpgbot.net

 

[ezo]

Yep, it's long been established 65% +/-5% was the goal for 5E's design, the idea being roughly 2/3rds success rate; enough to make you think failure is possible, but not so much as you feel you will fail more often than not (which apparently some people don't like).