D&D 5E 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy

[Sacrosanct]

Having fought high level flying and mobile creatures with a melee character in the group I can tell you with absolute confidence that a bow will NOT do the job on a str based character. Not even close. Not even in the same league.

IMO, that's a good thing. If you're gonna focus so tightly on one specialty, you shouldn't also be as good or better than everyone else at another. That the choice you make when you (general you) narrowly focus on a specialty.

It's not like you were forced to sit there with your thumb up your bum. You still had options to do, just not nearly as good as your chosen specialty

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Having fought high level flying and mobile creatures with a melee character in the group I can tell you with absolute confidence that a bow will NOT do the job on a str based character. Not even close. Not even in the same league.

Cranking some math just for fun:

Assume a 12th level Paladin of Devotion with Str 18, Dex 12 and Cha 20 and a longbow (+5 to hit). The foe can be an adult red dragon (AC 19). DPR against that AC with bog-standard everything is 4.3, which may not sound like much but hey! it's better than zero. If he casts Magic Weapon on himself to get a +2 bow that goes up to DPR 5.65. If he also uses Sacred Weapon it goes to 8.9. If he's willing to also invest in Sharpshooter that goes up to DPR 13.65--that's kind of a questionable return on investment for a feat, but it is an option, and would allow him to inflict 40.95 points of damage on the dragon while it is still closing, as well as punish it if it chooses to hold the range open.

Compare to DPR 42.2 (59.95 with Sacred Weapon) if he can actually get it into melee range and smite with his three 3rd level spell slots (7d8+4=36.5 damage per hit).

To provide some context:

A Warlock with Hex and Cha 20 would be doing 22.65 DPR, a Sorlock would be doing 45.3, an Int 20 Evoker with Magic Missile V would be doing 52.5, a Dex 20 archer would be doing 19.2, a Sharpshooter archer with Dex 20 would be doing 24.08, a Sharpshooter with Dex 18 would be doing 20.1, an action surging Dex 20 Sharpshooter would be doing 48.15, and a Cha 20 Scorching Ray Gold Dragon Sorc would be doing 41.7 if not for the pesky way red dragons are immune to fire.

So the bog-standard Paladin with a longbow is pretty much futile, but by investing in Sharpshooter he can do damage about half that of a specialized archer in spite of his Dex 12. Whether that's more attractive than just sticking purely to melee will be a campaign-dependent decision that has a lot to do with how much you enjoy being a generalist.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I think that getting rid of the multi-buffs is a great thing. But there was no logical requirement that the mechanics are so restrictive as they are. It could be possible to cast other spells, or cast some sub-set of other spells.

So you don't know how it works then. You can cast other spells as long as they are not also concentration ones.

 

[Psikerlord#]

So you don't know how it works then. You can cast other spells as long as they are not also concentration ones.

I think a better alternative would have been one concentration spell per target. Then at least you could fly the melee, guy, blur yourself, and hold person one enemy all at once. But what you could not do is invisible, fly and silence yourself. This may make a good feat actually. Something like, one concentration spell per target, plus maybe a small bonus on concentration checks.

 

[DaveDash]

IMO, that's a good thing. If you're gonna focus so tightly on one specialty, you shouldn't also be as good or better than everyone else at another. That the choice you make when you (general you) narrowly focus on a specialty.

It's not like you were forced to sit there with your thumb up your bum. You still had options to do, just not nearly as good as your chosen specialty

I agree that's a good thing. Crossbow Expert breaks that however creating a character that can be almost as good as melee as melee characters, and pretty awesome at range.

That's why I have huge issues with the design of this feat.

 

[Dausuul]

Here's a suggestion: Remove the hard limit on Concentration spells. Instead, when you cast a Concentration spell, you must use a spell slot 2 levels higher for each Concentration spell you're already sustaining.

 

[Celtavian]

Having fought high level flying and mobile creatures with a melee character in the group I can tell you with absolute confidence that a bow will NOT do the job on a str based character. Not even close. Not even in the same league.

Sometimes I feel like we're the only ones replying on these threads that played a high level game with an average sized party of four or five characters.

I feel like I have to find out how each person is playing to know why they are responding the way they are. These problems don't exist in extremely large parties that have a bunch of casters to spread the concentration around, spread the damage around, provide damage from multiple sources, and the like. The same problems don't exist in parties that allow a large number of magic items that provide the needed buffs or some variation of them that works. Or groups with lots of ranged firepowers that destroy everything they fight from long range and cover. You almost need to start every post with a profile of the person's group composition, size, and house rules to see if their opinion is valid dealing with the problems of your particular party.

 

[Celtavian]

IMO, that's a good thing. If you're gonna focus so tightly on one specialty, you shouldn't also be as good or better than everyone else at another. That the choice you make when you (general you) narrowly focus on a specialty.

It's not like you were forced to sit there with your thumb up your bum. You still had options to do, just not nearly as good as your chosen specialty

You are a mess. On the one hand you don't want a guy too good at many things. Then you don't think the party should cast a buff on a guy to help him do what he does well, even though this weakens the party when the guy that does something really well can't do it and he forms 20 to 25% of your party including one of the prime damage dealers.

Makes zero sense.

 

[Celtavian]

I think that the Concentration "only one such spell" mechanic went too far overboard in the "get rid of 3E multi-buff".

Agreed. I'm really surprised this problem with buffing martials with fly didn't come up during the playtest. Did 5E really intend to make melee martials this much of a liability to a party of casters so that ranged strikers reigned supreme?

Dragons are intelligent. I think that it makes total sense for a Dragon to send every single one of his henchmen at whomever is casting a Fly spell and just kill that PC (and I don't mean make him unconscious, kill him). That prevents the tactic of the flying melee PC and the Dragon now rules the sky again. Even if the Dragon has to come down and kill the caster itself. Fly down, kill the PC, fly back up all in the same round.

So far in all of these posts about super tough encounters because the PCs are super optimized, I have not once heard how the DM kicked the snot out of the party with a tough encounter run intelligently. I just hear how great the party is because they work as a team, control the battlefield, have these really optimized PCs, etc. I haven't read where the DM has one monster hold off the PC fighter by dodging, how a group of monsters gang tackle the melee guy with multiple shoves and grapples, how the NPCs cast wall spells to split up the party, or come in at them from multiple directions, or force the PCs to come through a choke point, or cast Darkness with area effect spells. The DM has a ton of options to challenge the PCs.


The problem that I have as a DM is that the players are playing PCs that they are constantly improving. The players are learning how to get better tactics and synergize their spells and abilities to the point that they become a very effective team. The monsters, on the other hand, typically only get one shot at it and do not get "opportunities to improve".

There are only two ways that I see to overcome this. Throw tougher foes at the PCs. Or. Pre-plan encounters with specific tactics, environments, and foes that make problems for the PCs. The former is easier to do. The latter takes a lot more effort and I must admit that I do not always have the time to put in that level of thought and effort.

Agreed. That's how it works. That's why life as a DM is such a careful line. Don't want to create encounters to counter everything the players do. Don't want to do let them continue using the same tactics creating repetitious battles. Make them think outside the box on occasion.

 

[Celtavian]

Dragon speeds are too slow. Eagle speeds are slow too, but eagles are not intended to be epic encounters so I won't worry about them.

I am leaving toward ruling that dragons can fly at the MM speed in their first round of flight then accelerate to triple that number with the second round. The 80' can be explained as launching and flapping like mad to get aloft. Then the really scary 240' (because dragons should be really scary and they are infused with magic) sustained speed starts on the second round if flight.

Maybe I'll rethink that after I've slept on the idea and reduce it to 160'. Either way, dragons should be exceptionally fast flyers because they should be exceptional at everything.

I would give them a combat speed and a travel speed. The fastest they can fly would not necessarily be their combat speed.