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

[Jeff Albertson]

You were definitely one of the posters I had in mind as similar, "even if not identical"!

Yeah, you both come across as the most egregious s.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Yep.

I don't tailor campaigns to players. Ever.

Their fate is COMPLETELY in their own hands, and the dice.

When my guys hit level 20, which will be in the next 2 months, it will be a great achievement, our first ever D&D campaign to reach level 20. And one they made on their own backs.

Your'e a disingenuous douche.

 

[Celtavian]

It's never really been an issue. Thrown weapons do more than enough damage to keep me lee characters in the game and there are so many ways to reduce something's speed to zero that you can knock things out of the sky fairly reliably.

No. It isn't really that easy unless you have a character specifically built for it.

No. Thrown weapons don't do more than enough damage. They do not keep up with the dragon's DPR unless party is way too large for the challenge. What size is you party using thrown weapons? I'd like to know. We know for a fact the DPR or thrown weapons for a five person party with two str-based martials is insufficient to match the DPR or an adult dragon in its lair.

Why don't you explain all these ways to knock an adult dragon out of sky or reduce its speed to zero. Let's hear it. I've seen this posted before. Let's see how you do it. I would like to hear these tactics and assess them for myself.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't think it's controversial to say that D&D 5e wasn't built to give people who seek success in massively unbalanced encounters a satisfying experience. That doesn't seem to be among its design goals. It's not an asymmetric skirmish game. It doesn't bill itself that way. If it was meant to be played that way, you'd see different rules in place. If that's what you're seeking out of the game, you'll have to expect that you're going to have a distorted experience relative to a group whose changes are less significant.

That might be a little bit controversial. In any case, I'll controvert it.

FWIW, whether or not it is a design goal, 5E does pretty well in this niche, partly because "balanced" is so oddly defined. (150,000 XP of Tarrasque is orders of magnitude easier than 150,000 XP of hobgoblins or drow!) Asymmetrical skirmishing is rarer than unbalanced encounters but still well-supported due to Stealth rules and movement rules which let an inferior but high-quality force take on and gradually degrade a more powerful force (PCs = Special Ops). The main thing 5E is missing for this scenario is abstract rules for defeating an enemy in detail, which means that it's kind of up to the DM to either eyeball it ("there are only 20 hobgoblins in and around the command tent, but if an alarm is sounded, 2d10 more will arrive each round until all 300 are present") or to make up his own rules. But that is more an omission than a conflict: 5E still does asymmetrical skirmishes quite well.

Of course that doesn't mean that all 5E characters will do equally well as asymmetrical skirmishers. Rangers for example are fantastic in that role; paladins not so much. (No AoE, melee-oriented, trouble with stealth = problematic.)

 

[Celtavian]

"Unique" was probably not the best choice of words (though I might say EVERY table is unique, certainly looking to D&D for challenge-fun isn't unique). But if you're significantly twisting the game to get that experience, you are playing in a way that is going to produce a much different play experience from most other tables. Even folks who pursue challenge-based gameplay out of D&D don't do it the same way. For instance, some make dungeon survival the challenge rather than lopsided combats.



Everyone plays the game their way, but the scope of house rule can be different from table to table. What I'm kind of getting at is that when you make pretty significant tweaks to the game - like laughing off encounter guidelines so you have a more binary challenge experience - you have to expect that to change your play experience relative to a group who does not. It then sort of introduces a caveat whenever you talk about your experience that someone who doesn't tweak the game like that doesn't have. You can talk about multiple concurrent buffs being necessary in your experience, but your experience is wildly out of whack fights, it's a bit of a "well, yeah," kind of moment. Clearly the game wasn't meant to do what you do with it - break one significant rule and you'll probably have to break others! This is why in my talk about dragonfights, I add the caveat of "well, we had dragon allies and high-damage dragon-slaying weapons when we went up against big ones," because I can be reasonably confident that this isn't a lot of tables' experience.

That doesn't mean the rule has a problem in and of itself.

It doesn't mean dragons are weak just because my party of 6th level characters took down a party of 5 dragons including two adults. It just means we found the encounter a little on the easy side. But you know, two dragonlances and three adult dragons helped us out, so well, yeah, that would be our experience.

I don't think it's controversial to say that D&D 5e wasn't built to give people who seek success in massively unbalanced encounters a satisfying experience. That doesn't seem to be among its design goals. It's not an asymmetric skirmish game. It doesn't bill itself that way. If it was meant to be played that way, you'd see different rules in place. If that's what you're seeking out of the game, you'll have to expect that you're going to have a distorted experience relative to a group whose changes are less significant.

That's not a problem, but it does sort of mean when you say "ranged is OP," or "concentration is too limiting," that this isn't always an issue with the game, it may have become an issue because of the ways you're altering the game. When you're trying to kill a single creature 5 CR's above your level on a regular basis, yeah, that makes sense that that would be your experience - the damage output it has in melee is high and it's defenses require a huuuuuuuuuuuge bonus to hit that only buffs can provide.

Wow. So much wrong here.

We don't have any problems the way we run encounters. IME, we don't get challenged much if we don't run encounters in that fashion. That is in no way valid.

Ranged is more powerful than melee martial. This isn't even something that is disputable. In this game with mobility as it is, being able to deliver damage from range and move behind full cover is more powerful than having to enter into melee combat to deliver similar damage. We have a ranged power group right now. It has been quite easy in most fights. Very hard for the opponent to evade damage once the ranged archer gets Sharpshooter eliminating anything less than full cover.

Concentration isn't an issue with the game. I never even said it was. I said it was no fun. It isn't. Being locked into a single spell as the most effective way to get a melee martial into combat isn't fun for me. Giving a party member a single buff and losing access to all concentration spells (25% or so of your list) isn't fun. I never said we couldn't win because of concentration, which means nothing "wrong" with the system. I did say it wasn't a very fun option.

You're making so many assumptions that continuing to respond to questions I've answered many, many times means you're missing the answers and basing your responses on false assumptions. You play in a game so outside the standard that it's extremely hard for you to accept that my experience is not unusual at all and has been shared by many, many others on this board. It is your experience that is extremely unusual. Most groups don't run with powerful dragon allies and dragon lances. I would even go so far as to say that probably 99% of groups don't.

I have no idea what you're trying to convince me of. Your posts indicate you have missed what has been posted such as empirical proof of the superiority of ranged attacking in 5E and the concentration mechanic creating narrow solutions to combat problems in games where easy access to dragon mounts and dragon lances don't exist.

I'll be back to look at the list of ways to reduce adult dragon movement to zero. As far as the rest, I've discussed all this stuff in other threads many, many times. I've proven the math on GWF and Sharpshooter and how ranged attacking vastly overshadows other forms of combat. How str-based ranged weapons are ineffective against dragons due to deficient DPR. How concentration creates a narrow solution to a combat problem that can lead to repetitious play. This has all been proven beyond dispute. Others accept these as the new paradigm, some of us use house rules to change the game to suit our preferences. It is what it is.

Now get me that list of easy methods for reducing the speed of adult dragons to zero, so they fall out of the sky without being in melee combat requiring fly.

 

[vandaexpress]

Wow. So much wrong here.

Ranged is more powerful than melee martial. This isn't even something that is disputable.

Dude. You're preaching things as being absolute truth, throwing around words like undisputable, no empirical evidence, and DPR when you're failing to account for all tactics available to enemies and party members. Whenever someone calls you on this and presents you with evidence to the contrary, you throw a hissy fit and default to a "well you just don't understand the game, my position is infallible, such badwrongfun" argument that doesn't hold water--as neither arrogance or bluster make for convincing arguments. I seem to recall that, according to you, I am the least-informed poster on these boards and I don't understand the basic principles of D&D rules. You rely on hyperbole not only in your point of views (my position is "indisputable") but also when you verbally abuse and put down those who disagree and, dare I say, prove you wrong.

Case in point, the above statement about ranged being "more powerful" than melee and it not being disputable. Yeah. If your DM is a moron, I guess I could see that being the case.

I'll humor you, though.

Range is laughably easy to shut down because it relies on LoS against a distant foe. Assuming the archer is hanging back, all you have to do is kill their LoS with first level spells like fog cloud or silent image positioned near their target to block view. Or a sleet storm in between the caster and the archer, archer can't see through, has to move through difficult terrain and make dex saves or become prone, so repositioning takes forever. The blocking LoS doesn't do much against melee combatants, since they can just run through the fog or the illusion and whack the caster, but archers have to waste rounds disbelieving the illusion or running around to restore LoS. Generally, he's forced to waste rounds repositioning himself closer to the melee if he wants to take any shots, at which point he's easy to pick off. Heaven help you if you're fighting a high level caster or anyone capable of erecting barriers to block your ability to move, like wall of stone or wall of ice, which is, incidentally, a lair action for the white dragon, cutting off not only your LoS, but often your ability to reposition to a more favorable position from the rest of your party. This is to say nothing of spells that force disadvantage on ranged attacks like wall of water or the like.

Concentration isn't an issue with the game. I never even said it was. I said it was no fun. It isn't. Being locked into a single spell as the most effective way to get a melee martial into combat isn't fun for me.

If you're using fly or haste over and over again, you would be completely boned against any DM wanting to challenge the party. All he would have to do is hammer you with enough damage to kill your conc, and your fighters are SOL, falling from whatever height or losing a turn from the loss of haste. Or hit you with a sleet storm and box you off from escaping it, or simply casting dispel magic or countering your spells. If you're casting your spells immediately before combat, the monsters hear the verbal component and will prepare themselves accordingly for impending combat and alert guards to chomp at your casters from the rear.

You play in a game so outside the standard that you offer nothing with these posts. You completely miss the point and start on a tangent about things I didn't even claim.

I disagree, he brings many valid points to the table that are relevant to the discussion, even if you don't understand how. Additionally, he's civil about it.

First, you would never beat that encounter at level 6 without the help you had. And that is exactly what Dave is talking about when he says plot armor. Your DM gave you the ability to win that encounter. You do not have that ability as part of your class abilities.

Ranged is far more powerful than melee martial. I could put you in a campaign by the help you had and prove this easily. In fact, you would not even beat an adult dragon in its lair in a five person party at 6th level without heavy ranged firepower. I can 100% guarantee this. And even with ranged firepower, you would probably lose. You don't even have enough hit points to withstand the breath weapon once.

Ah. Here we go again with the absolutes like "never" and "100% guarantee".

The unfortunate truth is, you can't 100% guarantee , dude. Let me pull my own example:

I had a party of that level take on an adult white dragon in its lair w/ lair actions in Hoard of the Dragon Queen. They didn't rely on heavy ranged firepower, because I used the above tactics to remove that aspect of combat from play. I playtested the encounter 6 times before running it and yeah, they lost, TPK, about 4 out of the 6 times I tested it, in nearly all cases, the ranged DPR wasn't able to play much of a role because the dragon shut them down using the tactics I detailed above. So was it deadly? Yeah, but not a 100% guarantee of a loss by a long shot. Anyway, they were able to emerge victorious. Here's how it went:

The two stealthiest members of the party (bard and ranger) got a surprise round after they used pass without trace, bless, and bardic inspiration to sneak up on the dragon through a side tunnel, yes, they beat its insanely high passive perception, thanks to bless and a bit of luck. They got an opening volley on the dragon then retreated back into the tunnel to avoid its breath weapon while the rest of the party charged in through another entrance, separated so as to prevent them from being wiped out with a single breath.

Unfortunately, the retreat of the ranged artillery into the tunnel made it trivially easy to remove them from the rest of the fight thanks to the lair action for wall of ice blocking where the tunnel connected back into the lair, forcing them to go around the long way, then they got hit by frightful presence and were unable to approach it for most of the combat, they were literally stuck, frightened, in that tunnel for three rounds or so with no Line of Sight and no way to contribute to the rest of the party. When they finally made it close to the other entrance into the lair, the ice wall moved, once again blocking them from entering.

The rest of the party, a barbarian, paladin, and sorcerer fought the dragon for most of the combat. It remained on the ceiling of the lair and used its breath weapon, frightful presence, and legendary actions to reposition and whack people with its tail, occasionally swooping down to melee before returning to the ceiling. The Barbarian was able to land melee hits on the dragon using a greatsword and high jumps because, per the written module and map, the ceiling was 30ft high and the dragon occupied a 15x15' cube, meaning the barbarian could, according to the rules for High Jumping, hit it with a high jump on a running start thanks to his character height (a 7 foot reghed barbarian) and high strength score (18). Granted, it was only one hit per round, but he was able to hit pretty consistently, dealing significant damage with Hazirawn, the weapon awarded by the module earlier in the dungeon. When the dragon was moving around too much, he fell back on throwing his +1 spear or javelins.

Being a ranged threat, the dragon prioritized the sorcerer and bitch-slapped him at every opportunity, knocking him out early and resulting in the sorc contributing fairly middling damage overall due to the dragon's legendary resistance, he got brought back by lay on hands, then was knocked out and killed by the dragon.

The dwarven paladin readied an action to climb onto the white dragon's back when it used its tail attack on him (using the rules for Climb onto a Bigger Creature found on p271 in the DMG), crawled up, attacked the dragon twice with advantage, hit twice, including one critical, converted both hits into smites, burning both 2nd level slots, rolled well, and seriously injured the dragon. He was knocked off by the wing buffet and knocked out, but he probably did far more damage than anyone else in that encounter. Using a melee weapon.

The majority of the damage the dragon took was from the melee'ers. The breath weapon was pretty scary, but the party scattered and got lucky on a few saves. One character was killed, the rest survived. They knocked the dragon down to 40hp and then, per the module description, it fled. I feel pretty confident in saying that they could have killed it if it kept fighting.

In fact, overall it's not uncommon for this dragon to get killed by the party at this level, from what I've read online of other people's playthroughs of the module.

You have zero empirical evidence to support your assertions. I could prove wrong 99% of what you're stating if you were running anywhere close to the actual rule set.

Ah, here we go again. My favorite part is "I could prove wrong 99% of what you're stating". Dude, that doesn't even make sense. Are you saying that he's made 100 points and you could dispute 99 of them? What are you even talking about here?

I'm a extremely unhappy I wasted my time talking to someone that doesn't even play 5E with any semblance of the rule set provided with the base books.

It's gonna be okay, bro. Let's just calm down and hug it out, okay?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Heaven help you if you're fighting a high level caster or anyone capable of erecting barriers to block your ability to move, like wall of stone or wall of ice, which is, incidentally, a lair action for the white dragon, cutting off not only your LoS, but often your ability to reposition to a more favorable position from the rest of your party. This is to say nothing of spells that force disadvantage on ranged attacks like wall of water or the like.

Nitpick: the white dragon's Wall of Ice isn't a very significant barrier. It's small, and if you can't move around it in one round you'll just shoot it to pieces. It has AC 5 and 30 HP and fire vulnerability, so either shoot it with Sharpshooter (I know, I know, how do you "snipe" a wall of ice?) or hit it with a Firebolt for double damage.

One more nitpick:

The two stealthiest members of the party (bard and ranger) got a surprise round after they used pass without trace, bless, and bardic inspiration to sneak up on the dragon through a side tunnel, yes, they beat its insanely high passive perception, thanks to bless and a bit of luck.

Bless boosts attack rolls and saving throws. It doesn't boost ability checks.

 

[vandaexpress]

Nitpick: the white dragon's Wall of Ice isn't a very significant barrier. It's small, and if you can't move around it in one round you'll just shoot it to pieces. It has AC 5 and 30 HP and fire vulnerability, so either shoot it with Sharpshooter (I know, I know, how do you "snipe" a wall of ice?) or hit it with a Firebolt for double damage.

Right. PCs don't know that. They just see a wall of ice. Even so, at that level, with hunter's mark and sharpshooter, they're still going to have to waste their round to get through the wall of ice since their average damage output isn't high enough to take it down with a single arrow. The dragon lair was huge and the sorc was on the opposite side of the lair from the ranger and bard, thus the wall was far out of range for him, even with Fire bolt's excellent casting range.

And at higher levels where they can shoot through the wall of ice, casters have access to better tools for countering range. An illusionist just creates the image of an adamantine wall, uses a bonus action for illusory reality to make it real for one minute, then drops conc for something else. Range characters are a lot easier to deal with when you see how many ways there are to break LoS, even without a physical obstruction. There are a zillion spells that provide heavy obscurement which will block LoS and effectively remove the ranged attacker's ability to effectively contribute in combat. And when you don't have spells, there are plenty of physical obstructions on most battlefields, just try to have as many enemies as possible end their turn without providing LoS to the archer and you'll see his effectiveness drop significantly.

Your point is taken, though. It's possible for the archer to simply shoot down many walls, but even so, that's a round they're spending not damaging your monster, and it's far easier to do this to a ranged attacker than a melee'er in most cases, since IMC ranged characters tend to stay away from the thick of things, generally popping out 15 ft from cover, shooting off some arrows or a cantrip before retreating back behind cover. This frequently makes them more easily isolated by these kinds of terrain/battlefield/visibility control effects.

 

[cmad1977]

I'm so angry after reading this thread. Clearly you are all playing 5e WRONG! It's been proven! Empirically! DPR! Concentration!!

Seriously though... Wading through this drivel you guys have argued about sapped about 2 PTs of my intelligence score. More fool I.

 

[vandaexpress]

Nitpick: the white dragon's Wall of Ice isn't a very significant barrier. It's small, and if you can't move around it in one round you'll just shoot it to pieces. It has AC 5 and 30 HP and fire vulnerability, so either shoot it with Sharpshooter (I know, I know, how do you "snipe" a wall of ice?) or hit it with a Firebolt for double damage.

Bless boosts attack rolls and saving throws. It doesn't boost ability checks.

My bad. I checked again, it was just the bardic inspiration, players re-rolling with their own inspiration, and pass without trace.

Edit: Scratch that, the Bard had taken the guidance cantrip as a loremaster feature and was using that to bolster her own check. I mixed them up. Thanks for catching that.