D&D 4E 4E vs 5E: Monsters and bounded accuracy

[Ilbranteloth]

I didn't say that PCs in 5E were too weak for the tasks expected of them. I said that the tasks expected of them are somewhat underwhelming, relative to the tasks expected of PCs in 3E and 4E.

I've been running in the same campaign world since 1e, and the tasks themselves haven't really changed much. That is, the types and numbers of monsters haven't changed to any great amount. I'm sure I've tweaked numbers here and there, so it might be four ogres instead of three, but the general approach and feel has been pretty much the same.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Goblins, orcs and other monsters are much more effective in groups, combined with bounded accuracy, makes them more effective against higher level characters. It's the same dynamics that makes a lot of people complain that the single Boss isn't as effective anymore.

OK, that is the flip side, true. A mob may be terrible vulnerable to being auto-killed by an AE, but their offensive potential can be overwhelming in its own right.

I guess that does strike a balance of sorts. Though one that might get a tad swingy.

The minion approach seemed to be designed to have the hundreds of goblins (a la Peter Jackson's Hobbit) attacking at once, and the heroes mowing through them.

Minions hit even better than low-CR critters under BA - hundreds of them, if able to attack en masse, say with a volley of ranged weapons, would be crazy. No, they're meant to model a minor threat, but still a threat. Filling out encounters featuring standards or an elite - or to make a solo a bit more challenging. In theory, an all-minion baseline combat would be vs 20 at heroic up to 30 at epic.

For hundreds, swarm mechanics worked well.

That's a different and perhaps cinematic approach, but usually feels more like waves of just mindless combat rather than an interesting tactical situation that makes the PCs work to find a way to survive/win.

That's often been the danger. Once you get a large enough horde, for instance, rolling individually for them becomes impractical, so you might break out the math and figure out their % chance of hitting, their average damage, and just start shoveling damage onto the party. Potentially deadly, but also potentially dull.

After reading all of this, I find myself wishing that single attacks scaled and that attacking multiple creatures was a maneuver, like in one of the playtests. Outside of Great Weapon Mastery, attacks don't really go above 13 damage or so without magic weapons.

One mechanic I keep coming back to in these theoretical exercises as an alternative to traditional multi-attacking is multiple attack rolls, but one damage roll, one die per 'hit,' plus bonuses per enemy hit. Keep some of the drama and dealing with multiple lesser foes potential of multiple attacks, but without the multiplication of static bonuses.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But again, if you use the System Shock rules, that standard 59 hp ogre becomes a 30hp ogre, provided you can deal that much damage in a single hit. Sure they get a saving throw, but it's a DC 15 saving throw and an ogre has a +3 to Constitution saves. It's a rule that I think covers most of what you're looking for, but keeps it from being automatic. If it fails, it has a 30% chance of dying outright, and another 20% chance of being stunned which means the rest of the party will be able to finish it off quite easily.

It's something, at least. It's a lot like the lingering wounds option, in that it uses an extra level of complexity to handle something that just resolved itself naturally under previous rulesets. People who want damage to represent physical injury aren't exactly happy with that implementation, either, but it's something.

It doesn't change the fact that a PC in 5E (or really, any individual creature) is far weaker under Bounded Accuracy than they've been under previous rulesets, but it goes part of the way toward addressing one aspect of that weakness. I'll definitely add it to my list of options to consider, for the next game I run.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It's something, at least. It's a lot like the lingering wounds option, in that it uses an extra level of complexity to handle something that just resolved itself naturally under previous rulesets. People who want damage to represent physical injury aren't exactly happy with that implementation, either, but it's something.

It doesn't change the fact that a PC in 5E (or really, any individual creature) is far weaker under Bounded Accuracy than they've been under previous rulesets, but it goes part of the way toward addressing one aspect of that weakness. I'll definitely add it to my list of options to consider, for the next game I run.

I can't stand the lingering injuries option in the DMG because it has the same problem as all other systems that use a table like that. Statistically speaking, every PC will eventually be missing an eye, foot and arm.

I use a relatively simple system.

Critical Hit
When you roll a natural 20 on an attack roll, you score a critical hit, and you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal.
In addition, the target must make a Constitution saving throw (DC 10 + attack modifier). Failure indicates they are staggered. The target can make another Constitution saving throw at the end of its turn to end the condition on a success.
If the target fails their saving throw by more than 5, they are staggered and injured.

Staggered
· You can’t take bonus actions or reactions
· You have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks.

Injured
You are staggered (recovered normally) and suffer 1 level of exhaustion. Injuries often leave scars.
You make one death save daily to recover from the injury.
3 Successes: Regain one level of exhaustion
3 Failures: Lose one level of exhaustion.
The first time this failure would cause death, it causes a permanent effect instead (such as reduction in speed, a penalty to attacks with that arm, etc.) instead.
You die if you fail another three deadly condition saving throws.

It uses existing mechanics, maintains an abstract approach to damage, provides a short-term effect that's meaningful in the existing combat (important when you score a critical hit against a monster), and a potential for a long term effect that has significant consequences.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

For hundreds, swarm mechanics worked well.

That's probably what I was thinking of, and I still use those for large groups.

That's often been the danger. Once you get a large enough horde, for instance, rolling individually for them becomes impractical, so you might break out the math and figure out their % chance of hitting, their average damage, and just start shoveling damage onto the party. Potentially deadly, but also potentially dull.

One mechanic I keep coming back to in these theoretical exercises as an alternative to traditional multi-attacking is multiple attack rolls, but one damage roll, one die per 'hit,' plus bonuses per enemy hit. Keep some of the drama and dealing with multiple lesser foes potential of multiple attacks, but without the multiplication of static bonuses.

That's an interesting mechanic. I'll have to think through that a bit. Because of the way I handle monsters, I don't often have very large groups, but then I think of less than 20-30 as not a very large group because I have a lot of dice :>)

I think you've been playing for as long as me, so you probably do too.

That mechanic sounds a lot like an alternate minion approach. It allows the "minions" to have a normal hit point range, but you apply the damage rolled to each of the hits, right? Or do you divide the damage like a sleep spell?

It also sounds a little close to the Mob mechanic which initially sounded good to me, but gets deadly really, really quickly. As I suppose it should. But it was too deadly with too few rolls for my taste.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It doesn't change the fact that a PC in 5E (or really, any individual creature) is far weaker under Bounded Accuracy than they've been under previous rulesets

It's relative. Under BA, a +16 gives you a shot at a 'nearly impossible' check. In 3e, you might've needed a bonus in the 40s or something.

Yeah, BA does make numbers tell heavily, and that does have thematic consequences. But you could always stat out a lot of lesser critters differently than just a mob of identical stats. 5e doesn't give you any advice for converting from individuals to mobs like 3e, for instance, but it does at least have examples of swarms...

I can't stand the lingering injuries option in the DMG because it has the same problem as all other systems that use a table like that. Statistically speaking, every PC will eventually be missing an eye, foot and arm.

Lovely if you're planning to place the Eye of Vecna, or want to cyberpunk out your Eberron campaign a bit.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sneak Attack is the biggest one. Really it seems to be a design decision. Rogues specialize in the precise shot that does significant damage, and the fighters can do decent damage, but spread it among multiple targets where needed.

You mean

but spread it among multiple attacks, needed or not

Point here being: fighters do fearsome amounts of damage. Just not all in one shot.

This makes them less good at "oneshotting" Ogres. Just killing them in a single round wasn't accepted as equivalent.

 

[Uchawi]

Armor or weapons or any tool for that matter being impacted by skill (learned or natural talent) makes perfect sense to me. In addition, all editions of D&D had static armor values, but editions like 3E or 4E allowed you to use special material to add more bonuses. It also makes sense to me for attacks, saves, or skills to be available for every class. Only casters can dabble in all three types by spell selection or cantrips in 5E. Other classes are limited which makes no sense. In the end it depends on what type of complexity you want.

From a game perspective how big of gap you want to represent (skill, materials, etc.) will vary depending on whether you prefer a simple or complex game. In reference to hit points, it can't represent everything, if you want detail in other parts of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Armor or weapons or any tool for that matter being impacted by skill (learned or natural talent) makes perfect sense to me. In addition, all editions of D&D had static armor values, but editions like 3E or 4E allowed you to use special material to add more bonuses.

They also let skill affect your AC. In 3e you could take the Combat Expertise feat and trade attack bonus for AC. In 4e level added to all your defenses, powers & feats could give you an AC bonus, and the like.

But, in general, it seems like defensive scaling in D&D has been more in the form of gaining hps.

 

[The_Gneech]

The bigger problem I have with the MM is that they don't have any templates. Templates for skeletons and zombies are the obvious ones. It's fairly easy to reverse engineer it, but why not present them as a template to start?

Basically, because CR is calculated differently in 5E than in older editions. In 3E/4E you could assume "+2 to hit and +10 hp = +1 CR" (or however the math worked out, it's been a long time since I looked at the specifics) and it would be close enough for getting on with. In 5E, a change like that would crank a kobold's CR way up, but wouldn't even register on a troll. So you can't just put an "advanced" template on a beastie, you kinda have to refigure everything if you want a good handle on it.

Which... kinda defeats the point of simple templates.

They do have some "template-like" stuff in the tables on p. 280-282 of the DMG, tho.

-The Gneech