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

[robus]

Ok. How's this?
If your monsters are one trick ponies... it isn't the fault of the monster design or stat block.
Try using more varied actions than the ones listed in the statblock.
Zombies don't simply make slam attacks. Some grapple, some shove, some slam. Now you have a horde of undead bringing down the heroes and nibbling away a la the walking dead.

Zombies without a bite attack seems like an oversight in the stat block IMHO. I want my zombies to grapple, like you say, and then bite their juicy grappled victims

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Zombies without a bite attack seems like an oversight in the stat block IMHO. I want my zombies to grapple, like you say, and then bite their juicy grappled victims

Something that I've questioned for humanoid creatures in general, is how the heck they use a bite attack without grappling first. In most cases I have them grapple first (or make it part of their claw attack) and then the bite is a bonus action if their claw attack is successful.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You could narrate multiple attacks against the same target as a single attack that does more damage the more you hit.

That's a different narrative, though. The narrative is established procedurally, with each action having a defined meaning as it occurs. If we don't know what happens until the end of the character's turn, then the player doesn't know whether the enemy is still up after the first attack, and it creates complications.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah, the problem I have with this is it doesn't make sense to me. At least not how the game is designed. Plate Armor should be a particular AC, that is, plate armor on a 17th level character shouldn't provide greater protection than that on a 1st level character.

Adding some measure of skill can make some sense, but it's very difficult to scale that well.

What's wrong with, as a very basic example, adding proficiency bonus to AC? It represents skill making you harder to hit, in the exact same way that skill makes it easier for you to hit. Plate armor would always have a constant AC... once you adjust for skill level.

The treadmill problem was poor design on the part of DMs and adventure writers, who insisted that you only use near-same-level enemies. It actually works pretty well if you include enemies that are much higher or lower level than the PCs, and it obviates the need for excessive HP scaling. Instead of the level 1 boss having AC18 and 23hp, and the level 20 boss having AC 20 and 800hp; you can give the level 1 boss AC18 and 23hp, and the level 20 boss AC37 and 95hp.

It means that a low-level character probably won't hurt a high-level enemy, but if they do hit then the damage is worth tracking. I find that significantly preferable to the current situation, where a low-level character can fairly easily hit a high-level enemy, but that enemy has so many HP that the hit doesn't have any meaningful effect.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

sorry everyone, just posting here so that hopefully this thread will not be flagged as having unread posts since the last time I saw it.

It's really annoying that because someone doesn't want to see me disagree with their posts I click the little "go to first new post" button and get taken to posts I've already read, and only figure out what is happening because I happen to look on the complete other side of the screen from where my attention is naturally drawn when browsing the forum to see the name of who made the last post.

 

[Satyrn]

sorry everyone, just posting here so that hopefully this thread will not be flagged as having unread posts since the last time I saw it.

It's really annoying that because someone doesn't want to see me disagree with their posts I click the little "go to first new post" button and get taken to posts I've already read, and only figure out what is happening because I happen to look on the complete other side of the screen from where my attention is naturally drawn when browsing the forum to see the name of who made the last post.

Laughing, 'cause your frustration matches mine. I'd hoped that the recent forum rollback had gone far enough back to undo it. But nope.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That's if you scale HP and damage, then you would eventually get to the point where you have enough damage to one-shot a lower-level tough enemy.

For whatever reason, they didn't really do that. They went with scaling HP primarily, and then minor scaling of attack bonuses and damage and numbers of attacks. I guess it kind of gets there, if you consider three attacks (with power attack balancing out the higher attack bonus) to count as one-shotting. It's still dead in one turn, at least.

If they'd gone with AC scaling, though, then they wouldn't have needed to give the ogre nearly as many HP in the first place. Instead of it having AC 11 and 59hp, they could have given it AC 19 and 29hp, and a high-level PC with +20 to hit would be able to drop it quickly in 1-2 attacks.

I guess that's just a matter of preference, though. In terms of game balance and flow, it doesn't really matter whether you hit it six times for damage, or only three times for damage because the other three attacks failed to hurt it. It's just a weird mental image that you need to actually hit with so many attacks before something will fall down.

I sort of answered this already, but I think I understand your point better.

You're talking about a high level character being able to one-shot a lower level character.

So to begin with, the mechanics are human(oid) centric. So a one-shot killing blow is something you can measure best against that standard. Such as the commoner NPC. So there are a lot of monsters, traps, and even a critical hit from another 1st level character that can one-shot pretty much any person in the world except for those with more extensive combat training (that is, a character of higher than 1st level).

As characters get to be higher levels, there are two primary mechanics in play for increasing martial damage:

Scaling damage, like the rogue's sneak attack, and additional attacks, like the fighter. The barbarian and Ranger (Hunter) have a bit of both. Rogues have a higher chance of a one-shot kill. But the fighter-types have a better overall chance in combat.

I would recommend adding the System Shock rule (DMG pg273) which gives you a 30% chance of a one-shot kill if you do at least half their hit point maximum in a single shot.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I do have mechanics for one-shot kills, and I think it largely addresses your concern, because it works best against targets of lower level than you.

Called Shot: You attack with disadvantage. If you already have disadvantage, you cannot attempt a called shot. If your attack hits, the target gets a saving throw with a DC of 8 + your attack modifier. Many of the called shots allow the target to make an opportunity attack against you if your called shot fails.

· Sever.* You can attempt to decapitate your target, or amputate a limb. The target must make a Dexterity or Constitution saving throw (their choice).
There is no special effect unless they fail their saving throw by 10 or more, in which case the limb is severed, throat slit, etc. If your attack is a critical hit, they only have to fail their save by 5 or more to lose the limb.
Certain creatures are more susceptible to this attack, such as hydras, ropers, and most creatures with tentacles, in which case the attack is successful if they fail their saving throw.

The most important warning I can give about any rules like this is that if you have the option for doing it, so does the monster. So at some point, this will happen to a PC. It's just a matter of simple math. If the chance is 1%, then along the course of several sessions you'll roll that 1 in 100 chance. So you want it to be hard, and you want it to be something that most monsters won't attempt because they have better options.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You could narrate multiple attacks against the same target as a single attack that does more damage the more you hit.

That's similar to what a D&D attack roll has traditionally represented: series of swings, one of which may actually get through.

In 1e it was a desperately-needed rationalization for characters getting 1 attack per 1-minute round. In subsequent editions with 10 or 6 second rounds, it was still assumed (3e came right out and said it, for instance), but a character with a lot of attacks/round could start seeming reasonable at 1 swing per attack roll. Then there were ranged attacks consuming 1 piece of ammunition per attack roll, so presumably not following the same logic (1e archers were unrealistically slow, 3e crossbowmen surprisingly fast).

What I can't adjust, without doing more work than just playing an older edition, is the concept of bounded accuracy and how it applies to monsters.

In 4E, rather than use the same stats forever, you might adjust the monster for use at higher levels. An ogre could go from solo for a low level party (think of the cave troll in the "Fellowship of the Ring" movie), to elite, standard, and eventually minion for the high level characters taking down the Storm Giant King.

Not that there's no difference between the two approaches, but they are really very similar in what they're representing. In 4e, 'the same monster' can have different secondary roles, making it more suitable to games run at a higher or lower tier, and thus different stats, but it could still be quite literally the same monster (ie, even the exact same individual), if the DM is a stickler about doing the write-ups, even with the exact same exp value. 5e BA just lets the same stats fill different functions at different levels, by pushing scaling to hps/damage instead of attack/defense.

So, what approach do you like best, and why?

I don't find either to be ideal. They're both essentially compromises required by sticking to traditional class/level advancement.

I understand the notion of bounded accuracy. Is supports a very stable "rules represent reality" approach to game design: an Orc is an Orc is an Orc.

It could - if any other rules in D&D had ever "represented reality." Like, oh, hps... ;P

 

[Ilbranteloth]

What's wrong with, as a very basic example, adding proficiency bonus to AC? It represents skill making you harder to hit, in the exact same way that skill makes it easier for you to hit. Plate armor would always have a constant AC... once you adjust for skill level.

The treadmill problem was poor design on the part of DMs and adventure writers, who insisted that you only use near-same-level enemies. It actually works pretty well if you include enemies that are much higher or lower level than the PCs, and it obviates the need for excessive HP scaling. Instead of the level 1 boss having AC18 and 23hp, and the level 20 boss having AC 20 and 800hp; you can give the level 1 boss AC18 and 23hp, and the level 20 boss AC37 and 95hp.

It means that a low-level character probably won't hurt a high-level enemy, but if they do hit then the damage is worth tracking. I find that significantly preferable to the current situation, where a low-level character can fairly easily hit a high-level enemy, but that enemy has so many HP that the hit doesn't have any meaningful effect.

Yes, that is a definite possibility, it's really all about working out the math. It's not really a question (for me) as to whether the math works, but what it represents.

But assuming the math works out to the same (that is, it takes 10 rounds to complete the combat either way, for example), then all you've really done is increased the number of misses in the combat. The hits feel better, but they happen less frequently. If that's what you prefer there isn't really a problem with that. I think most people would prefer to hit more frequently, though.

If you want the lower level character to be able to kill the boss faster, then it's not really about the AC/hit point mechanic, but how many hit points the creature has. You can address that in either system.

For those of us who have played the game a long time, the more static AC with a growing pool of hit points feels like D&D. Of course, I'll admit that for those who started with 4e it probably doesn't feel like D&D.

But with the AC system working the way it is, you have a pretty good idea that in most cases you'll have a harder chance of even hitting a group of knights in plate than a group of bandits in leather. It means something. There's still a variability, but for the most part they will be somewhere between an 11 and a 16, not including magic. Most likely on the lower end of that range. The knights will be 18, not including magic. That means something, since regardless of how you're handling AC and hit points, you can't kill something you don't hit.

If the range is 11 to 30 for leather armor, and 18 to 35 for the plate armor, then there's still a range, but the variable is so great you really have no idea what you're getting into. Because now that 1st level character can't hit that level 20 creature. This is exactly the sort of thing that bounded accuracy is designed to alleviate.

Imagine the town guard. If there are creatures that an under level 5 town guard, backed up with 0-1st level militia can't defend against because they can't even hit it, then the town no longer exists. Because the things that have 37 AC can just wander in without any risk whatsoever.

Also, one of the biggest choices for affecting the scaling is Resistance. By providing resistance, you don't need as high a number of hit points, but it still favors the higher level characters since they are more likely to have something that bypasses the resistance.

So I much prefer the current system.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That's similar to what a D&D attack roll has traditionally represented: series of swings, one of which may actually get through.

In 1e it was a desperately-needed rationalization for characters getting 1 attack per 1-minute round. In subsequent editions with 10 or 6 second rounds, it was still assumed (3e came right out and said it, for instance), but a character with a lot of attacks/round could start seeming reasonable at 1 swing per attack roll. Then there were ranged attacks consuming 1 piece of ammunition per attack roll, so presumably not following the same logic (1e archers were unrealistically slow, 3e crossbowmen surprisingly fast).

Except that ranged attacks had more attacks per round. Not necessarily enough to cover an entire minute round, but they did get more.

But I agree, most people that I know who learned the game later on (usually 3e or later) equate the attack roll as the one swing you make in that round.