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

[jgsugden]

All I can say on this: I've run three delves of 6 encounters with 1 short rest in the middle for PCS of 15th, 17th and 20th level. All PCS were able to choose 1 item from the dm (non artifact) and as much mundane equipment as they could carry. I think dumped magic item cards on the table to simulate the random items they'd have found over their pc's level growth. One easy, two medium, one hard, and rwo deadly (one at deadly target exactly, the final battle at deadly +33%). Experienced players playing point buy based pc's that they built for the delve after getting a short paragraph description of the challenge ahead. Common power builds were represented. Dangerous terrain (volcano, platforms floating in space, and trapped dungeon). Net result: 1 TPK (a bit of bad luck - flying pc goes down on oa from hidden enemy while flying over a hazard... died with failed save at end of turn), one ended up with multiple fatalities, and one ended up with pc's breezing through without any real close calls. All three were a blast.

In my experience: If you play the game as the guidelines suggest, it is a fun game with reasonable challenges. If you try to find the fringe exploites, get too much treasure, or otherwise step off the golden path, the game loses something.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So you'd rather a TPK then than buff your main damage dealer? With many fights I have ran if the Bard didn't cast fly on the Paladin, it would be a TPK.

Hiding is a bit extreme, but he'd rather the group succeeds than fails, and he's had plenty of moments to shine in other combats, or in the social/exploration pillar of the game.

It really makes me wonder though if DMs are pushing their players at all letting them get away with tactics like forcing their melees to use bows in Dragon fights. I'd gladly TPK a group that did that so hard with no remorse, mercy, or plot armour.
We're not playing Dungeons and Cuddle Time, after all.

And Darwin would smile. And a new group would be formed that had some ranged firepower.

Edit: or even just a group that was more willing to use their melee firepower intelligently. Taunt it (perhaps shooting arrows as part of the taunt) until it's so mad that it follows you into a constricted space where you can hit it. Not only does that sound like a fun adventure, it's also following in the time-honored tradition of mythical tricksters like Heracles and Theseus. In fact, didn't the dwarves in Desolation of Smaug​ try something like this?

 

[DaveDash]

And Darwin would smile. And a new group would be formed that had some ranged firepower.

That seems to depend entirely on whether or not someone wants to play that concept.

If no one wants to play the ranged damage dealer, then what?

Plot armour.

Not my cup of tea at all. Darwin can't smile if he doesn't exist.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That seems to depend entirely on whether or not someone wants to play that concept.

If no one wants to play the ranged damage dealer, then what?

Then they die again, or get smarter. Quoting my edit above that you probably didn't see yet:

Edit: or even just a group that was more willing to use their melee firepower intelligently. Taunt it (perhaps shooting arrows as part of the taunt) until it's so mad that it follows you into a constricted space where you can hit it. Not only does that sound like a fun adventure, it's also following in the time-honored tradition of mythical tricksters like Heracles and Theseus. In fact, didn't the dwarves in Desolation of Smaug​ try something like this?

It seems unlikely that no one would ever want to play a ranged damage dealer, though. Really?

It's unclear what you mean by "Darwin can't smile if he doesn't exist." Are you saying that you wouldn't​ TPK the party after all?

 

[DaveDash]

Then they die again, or get smarter. Quoting my edit above that you probably didn't see yet:



It seems unlikely that no one would ever want to play a ranged damage dealer, though. Really?

It's unclear what you mean by "Darwin can't smile if he doesn't exist." Are you saying that you wouldn't​ TPK the party after all?

Sorry not being clear.

It seems like some people have issue with Celtivans arguments because they're attached to the idea of a concept. They have a concept in mind and they're damn well sticking to it, even if its not the most optimal group structure around.

So even after a TPK, based on this "concept" mindset, if no one wanted to play a ranged DPR class these groups simply wouldn't use one.

That only leaves the DM the option of plot armour. I guess that's how some groups like to roll, living out their concepts in the game, and the DM accommodating to that.
That's not how I play nor anyone else I know. The first question always is "So whose playing what? What do we need?" to construct a group that doesn't require plot armour to survive.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

So you'd rather a TPK then than buff your main damage dealer? With many fights I have ran if the Bard didn't cast fly on the Paladin, it would be a TPK.

Hiding is a bit extreme, but he'd rather the group succeeds than fails, and he's had plenty of moments to shine in other combats, or in the social/exploration pillar of the game.

It really makes me wonder though if DMs are pushing their players at all letting them get away with tactics like forcing their melees to use bows in Dragon fights. I'd gladly TPK a group that did that so hard with no remorse, mercy, or plot armour.
We're not playing Dungeons and Cuddle Time, after all.

I wouldn't base our entire strategy on buff spells. If the difference between a win and a TPK is the use of one very specific spell, maybe you need to rethink your plan.

In truth I would actually gladly cast the fly spell (if I had it memorized) on our melee fighter, but I wouldn't keep back from trying to do some damage myself. If I lose concentration, so be it. I don't do DPR calculations when I play, so I would naturally assume that the more actions you bring to bear each round, the better.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, not every class can do everything - warlocks, for instance, are currently not built for anything remotely approaching being a healer/party buffer. But everyone can do a lot of things, and trying to assign roles (even just labeling them arcane or divine or whatever) is restrictive on what they can do.

This only holds true if you're making a DEX-based warrior who can effectively use a bow. STR-based warriors, like the entire Barbarian class or the default style Paladin, don't really have good ranged options. Can you make super effective ranged Barbarians? Super effective ranged paladins? If not, then I personally consider that a flaw in the game design. There's no choice involved. Unless you're saying to never play those classes, which is not a choice at all.

Well, a barbarian's whole theme is around a raging smash monster, so of course most things are around strength. But you can use an eagle totem or other options there to grant you flying, and many abilities also affect ranged weapons. Most barbarians are going to have a good DEX anyway. And for paladin's, they have a lot options via spells and abilities to keep your group alive. Everyone has options of feats (unless your table doesn't use them), so even the most melee paladin can choose magic initiate with eldritch blast and spell sniper; a STR based melee focuses specialty who can still be somewhat effective at long ranges.

But again, it comes down to your choices. If you want something super effective at range, you choose a caster like a warlock, a ranger, or an archer fighter. What you're essentially saying is that you want to be able to choose a STR based melee specialty class/concept, and be super effective at the things that class/build isn't specialized in. Seems you want your cake and eat it too. We all have choices as to what we want to focus on, and the game does a pretty good job giving us those choices, including fighters.

I'm not adverse to a homebrew rule change of barbarian or paladin that focuses on ranged. Say, replace bonus rage damage to DEX based instead of STR based, and replace Divine Smite to apply to ranged weapons instead of melee weapons, but you shouldn't have both IMO. Otherwise you end up with an uber class that everyone and their grandma's dog would be complaining is too OP.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sorry not being clear.

It seems like some people have issue with Celtivans arguments because they're attached to the idea of a concept. They have a concept in mind and they're damn well sticking to it, even if its not the most optimal group structure around.

So even after a TPK, based on this "concept" mindset, if no one wanted to play a ranged DPR class these groups simply wouldn't use one.

That only leaves the DM the option of plot armour. I guess that's how some groups like to roll, living out their concepts in the game, and the DM accommodating to that.
That's not how I play nor anyone else I know. The first question always is "So whose playing what? What do we need?" to construct a group that doesn't require plot armour to survive.

I don't think that's the DM's only option. Other options that come to mind include:

1.) Play Elemental Evil instead of Tyranny of Dragons,
2.) Revel in killing the PCs over and over; laugh maniacally each time they restart at level 1.
3.) Let the Evoker be a hermit whose Discovery is "I know the formula for Winged Boots!"
4.) Give the players some tactical advice between sessions, as one D&D player to another, about baiting dragons into enclosed spaces. (If you do it right, it even gives you advantage to attack them!) Or relay the advice through an NPC in-character.

#4 sounds fun actually. #2 sounds fun too, but in a completely different way reminiscent of 80s arcade games. When the players finally beat a dragon it will be such a rush!

P.S. Edge of Tomorrow trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw61gCe2oqI

 

[Psikerlord#]

This I can understand. I know you play at a different table than I do with a little different play-style and conventions

Our adventuring day is fewer, harder combats meant to use all our resources in one big combat to the death. XP budgets usually exceed the recommended amount. We play very deadly with the DM using as optimal as possible tactics for the NPCs. We had a bunch of these in Tyranny of Dragons against you know what.

I find it hard to believe that most people sitting around the table gaming with their buddies don't cast a buff spell on him to help him get into combat. You all must have some players in your group that like playing melee martials because they enjoy them. This particular edition of D&D punishes that choice more than past editions in terms of limiting buffs that allow the melee martial to get into combat. Given these people are your friends, you feel somewhat bad when you've fought five dragon battles in a row where they could do nearly nothing unless you cast fly on them. By the time we reached 10th or 12th level, I was happy the DM gave the bard a magic item that allowed a second concentration spell so he could cast fly while maintaining bless and I could do some other things. I figured people understood what I was talking about. I guess fewer people than I think have been in similar circumstances.

I have quite a few players that like playing melee martials be it a greatsword wielder, a barbarian, or a martial arts monk. We've always helped them get into battle against fliers. It never created this opportunity cost choice in 5E where casting fly prevents you from casting any other concentration spell. It was the first time I've ever dealt with a mechanic that made casting fly such an incredibly effective, yet limiting and boring option as a caster. I started to go out of my way to find spells without concentration at higher level because I knew if we ran into flying enemies, I needed to get fly on the melee martials (both of our main damage dealers) or we were screwed and probably going to die.

Here I was looking forward to trying out a fun looking spell like bigby's hand and I never really got to do it because I was casting fly. After I stopped having to cast fly, the DM threw a dragon flight of five young dragons at us. I had to cast protection form energy or we would have died. Five breath weapons even from young dragons was way too much to deal with even for a fighter. I can't remember if I ever did get to try bigby's hand. I did to get use wall of force finally. That was an effective spell. You can still do some nifty stuff with wall of force.

Yeah I think a feat allowing multiple concentration spells but with a limit of one concentration spell per target. I dont think it would be OP on the basis that you still have to make checks when taking damage.

 

[Psikerlord#]

That is an amusing answer as that made the fight different than anything we had dealt with in the past. So I'll give two answers.

Wizard:
In 5E, he hid in the Inn where were ambushed to make sure he didn't get his concentration broken by damage. He occasionally launched a spell running back and forth from a window. A wizard and some cultists went inside the building. We had to fight them to keep concentration on and stay alive.

In 3E, the wizard would have buffed the party with mass fly and other buffs to protect himself from energy damage and engaged the dragons in combat with the martials.

Cleric:
We used a 5th level slot to cast fly on the cleric, paladin, and fighter.

In 5E, the cleric tried to stay within one move of healing range but away from two martials so he wouldn't be hit by the breath weapon. He spent most of the battle trying to maneuver to heal. I believe cast protection from energy on himself just in case. If the cleric died and we had no healing, we probably going to die.

In 3E, the cleric would have buffed himself. He healed as needed and attacked. No worries about losing spells due to concentration and able to buff himself quite well.

Paladin:

In 5E, the paladin flew up and attacked unloading smites on the target. He had shield mastery, so he had a good chance of avoiding breath weapon damage. He fought the dragons while flying. Not sure if he buffed himself. I think he cast a spell that allowed smiting. They're all concentration spells, so he doesn't use any concentration buffs in case he wants to cast smiting spells in conjunction with using spell slots to divine smite.

In 3E, he would smite and buff himself. Paladin has been a badass in nearly every edition.

GWM fighter:

In 5E, he attacked the creature unloading everything he had. Battlemaster dice, Action Surge, and the like. He kept on swinging.

In 3E, fighter swings at creature.

Not a huge amount has changed for the fighter except he can nova with Action Surge.

Bard:

In 5E, he hid in the Inn to prevent from losing concentration. I don't think he even risked casting out a window. We did not want to lose the 5th level fly and the bless.

In 3E, buffed everyone up. Tried to stay in range to give his song bonuses.


That was how we all spent our time. Yay concentration.

Hmm yeah I would not play 5e as a caster if it meant hiding in buildings to maintain concentration. Just not fun enough. If you play this way, the caster player has no fun for the whole combat. Instead if the melee guy just uses his bow, he is still effective enough, and everyone still contributes and has fun. Maybe warcaster feat and resilience feat might have solved this issue.