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

[Celtavian]

Maybe people try to play a character who acts like a real person with their own goals. Buffing the melee every time seems like playing everquest.

Not saying a caster wouldn't or shouldn't but why can't that character want to use their ONLY concentration to try to live? To be honest the combat sounds too easy if casters are so safe they can give up any defense.

I think 5e has made single BBEG fights different from before. Much easier unless the CR is insane. So buffing the fighter because "its only one enemy" makes more sense I guess.

This is the only edition of D&D where buffing the fighter meant you eliminated a 25 to 35% of your spell list, so the fights have to be easier. Older editions built balance knowing you would be stacking buffs and magic items. This edition has to build encounters with the idea that one concentration slot will limit buffing and thus power.

 

[Celtavian]

When it comes down to it, there's only two real issues that Celtavian has highlighted, neither of which are wrong for what was experienced... but also neither of which require something "to be done" on WotC's part.

A lot of dragon encounters made Celtavian feel the best course of action for their group was for him to use his one concentration spell to buff the fighter, and thus he was stuck not having the capability of using any other buffs. Okay. Sound reasoning, sound strategy for the situation they found themselves in. That really isn't debatable. Yeah, there were possibly other things that could have happened up until that point that might have mitigated the situation, but since the party just never found themselves that opportunity, it was what it was.

The second issue though is whether this makes the concentration mechanic a problem to the point where WotC needs to do something about it. That's where I think the real disagreements are coming from in the thread-- people seem to be reacting to Celtavian's problem as though he thinks that what occurred in his campaign is a real problem that has to be "fixed" by the designers, as opposed to just individual tables making their own house rules to lessen the issue if they feel like it's necessary (like KarinsDad has done). People are addressing his game as though to suggest that his was an outlier situation and thus can't be used as "proof" that the mechanic is bad, and that it doesn't warrant WotC producing errata to change the mechanic officially.

But here's the thing... I don't think Celtavian is commenting on all of this in an effort to actually get the rule changed officially in errata. I think he's just pointing out what happened in his game and how the concentration mechanic is not a foolproof rule and does have issues. Thus allowing everyone to just think about it and have to decide whether something might eventually be done in their own game. So there's no real point in anyone arguing with Celtavian about how what he did might have been "wrong" or "not necessary"... because 1) the game's already over so nothing can be changed... and 2) he's not using his experience as proof to call for official changes in the rules, so what does it matter if what happened to him won't happen to a lot of other tables?

Just take Celtavian's situation for what it is... a place where the concentration mechanic does potentially run up against a wall, and then keep your eyes open in your own game so that you don't suffer the same fate.

You are correct, sir. I have given you xp.

I have been stating my experience playing to 16th level in Tyranny of Dragons. Some of the problems we faced with the concentration mechanic. Some of the pitfalls with feats like GWM and Sharpshooter with Bounded Accuracy. I used to deal with Power Attack by controlling AC. I feel like I break the game in this edition if I make AC too high. Sure, it stops the archer or GWM from using the feat, but it also causes the caster using a hit spell to hit less often and do less damage. I've been slow about raising AC to limit the effectiveness of said feats, so I don't hurt other classes that need to hit every round consistently to do well like the rogue or casters.

like Dave Dash and his group, we're taking our time figuring out what we like and don't like and what changes we can make to get to where we want the game to be without breaking it or making it harder than it needs to be. One of the big pluses of 5E is the simplicity and balance. I don't want o skew either of those two in either direction.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you allow levels beyond 20, that could be one of the powers: "Level 23, Effortless casting: choose up to (spell casting modifier) spells of 5th level or less. These spells no longer require concentration for you."

Edit: actually, I like Dausuul's suggestion better. "Level 23: Effortless casting. When you cast a spell requiring concentration, you can do so without disrupting concentration on any of your existing spells. This increases the cost of the new spell by 2 spell levels per spell you are already concentrating on." So adding Greater Invisibility to your Fly spell costs a 3rd level slot for Fly and a 6th level slot for Greater Invisibility; if you then add Expeditious Retreat that costs a 5th level slot. Then a Hold Person III on top would be 9th level.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is pretty accurate for dragon fights. Legendary resistance, concentration, dragon mobility, character durability, and the like combine to create this type of situation in dragon fights.

Now that I'm playing a different module with fewer dragons, not as many of these problems are cropping. Against large groups of small mobs, casters are shining the brightest with battlefield control with spells like flaming sphere and big AOE damage with fireball. We took on a large group of humanoids. The wizard made a 15,000 xp budget fight at level 7 possible. We had a hard fight, but we won. They had one mage to support them. 5E definitely brought back caster power. I'm so grateful. It feels like D&D again.

Though the wizard was banished. That swayed the fight in the enemies favor until we could take down the banisher.

5E also introduced hireling power/minion power, because of Bounded Accuracy. My three PCs beat a 100,000+ XP encounter (I forget the exact number but my reconstruction says 109,200) at level 3, because they were able to 1.) prepare the ground and attack with surprise, 2.) recruit 18 soldiers to help them. Also 3.) the enemies were melee-heavy (11 umber hulks, 8 neogis manning 2 ballistas, and an 8th level neogi wizard) while the soldiers and PCs were mostly ranged (10 longbows). I thought they were going to die but they didn't.

So yeah, casters are powerful, but so are guys with high Persuasion.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The first major module WotC made was a module with a ton of dragon fights. Sort of forces you to analyze the mechanics in terms of dragon fights as that was what we did often. Nearly every other encounter was a major dragon fight. It required the same tactics. The melee, str-based martial's weaknesses stood out like a sore thumb in those fights. The casters could not stand up to even a couple of rounds of the dragon hammering on them. So you sort of wanted to get the melee martials into the fight if only to get the dragon attacking them.

Conversely, the dragon then wants to engage with the casters, not with the melee martials. Since dragons have high intelligence and a high movement rate (and, in many cases, lots of spells), they should have a high chance of getting what they want unless prevented.

I generally make unintelligent monsters attack whatever is in front of them, but I don't play dragons that way unless they are white dragons.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

So now we're on to personal attacks? It probably makes no sense to you because you keep making up these arguments in your head that no one is making. Not once did I say you shouldn't cast a buff on a guy to help him. I said you shouldn't if you feel like "you're stuck doing it" or that you'll face "repercussions" if you don't. Those are your words as to why you do it. I also said that if a player wants a certain build, it's up to them to try to make that happen and not expect other players to always do what they want in order for that to happen.

This has been pointed out to you very clearly by more than just me, so at this point I have to question the intellectual honesty of your arguments here. You can't blame us for replying to the words you actually say if they aren't what you really meant. And attacking me personally certainly isn't going to convince me to change my mind.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've got to admit I find the whole "I'm not going to buff you because I want to play my character the way I want" attitude incredibly foreign and bizarre.
.

I don't think that's the argument people are making. I think people (like myself) are making the argument, "I don't want to be forced to buff the other player all the time when I want to do other things." and "A player shouldn't expect that another player will constantly spend their resources on them at the detriment of that other player's fun. If a player wants a build a certain way, it's that players responsibility to make sure that happens themself." And the big one: "If someone feels 'stuck' or will face 'repercussions' if they don't always do what player A wants, then player A has some issues."

I swear, sometimes reading Celtavian's posts, it's almost like he's got Stockholm syndrome or something going on. He keeps using phrases like "I'm stuck doing this for this other player" and "I'll face repercussions if I don't do it" and "I would rather do other things but I have to do this for player A for him/her to be effective all the time", but then instead of blaming the player, he blames the game and us, and says we don't play with "real friends" like he does.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't think that's the argument people are making. I think people (like myself) are making the argument, "I don't want to be forced to buff the other player all the time when I want to do other things." and "A player shouldn't expect that another player will constantly spend their resources on them at the detriment of that other player's fun. If a player wants a build a certain way, it's that players responsibility to make sure that happens themself." And the big one: "If someone feels 'stuck' or will face 'repercussions' if they don't always do what player A wants, then player A has some issues."

I swear, sometimes reading Celtavian's posts, it's almost like he's got Stockholm syndrome or something going on. He keeps using phrases like "I'm stuck doing this for this other player" and "I'll face repercussions if I don't do it" and "I would rather do other things but I have to do this for player A for him/her to be effective all the time", but then instead of blaming the player, he blames the game and us, and says we don't play with "real friends" like he does.

Here's what you wrote:

Sounds like your player doesn't just want to be the GWF concept, but wants "GWF who can fly", and I'd tell that player that sorry, that concept doesn't really exist in the game unless he wants to multi-class to a caster and get that spell himself. I.e., building a character concept that is dependent on your other players doing exactly what you want is pretty poor form. And a bit selfish.

It's not you being selfish for feeling bad because you have to cast fly on him every combat and not using any of your other spells. It's the other player being selfish. D&D, since day 1, has been a team sport by default. Sometimes your PC will be in a situation where they aren't all that useful and another player gets to shine. Demanding to be the #1 guy all the time is childish and selfish.

No one was saying anyone was "forced." You started that interpretation. You seemed to interpret what I posted as some kind of "forced" situation, when nothing of the kind of was stated. I consider it selfish play to not buff martials that need fly to get into combat.

I recall now why I had you on ignore for so long. You start ridiculous arguments by making assumptions and applying your interpretation which is usually wrong.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No one was saying anyone was "forced." You started that interpretation. You seemed to interpret what I posted as some kind of "forced" situation, when nothing of the kind of was stated.

Yes you did. I even requoted them for you yesterday. You said you were "stuck doing it" even though you didn't want to. And that you'd face "repercussions" if you didn't. And there was no way you could just tell them "no". Those are actual arguments you made. That sure sounds like you were presenting yourself as being forced to do something. I mean, I can only go by what words actually mean. Maybe you have some special dictionary I don't have.

I recall now why I had you on ignore for so long. You start ridiculous arguments by making assumptions and applying your interpretation which is usually wrong.

Holy bejesus, the irony with this statement. Just too much...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know how to explain any better than I have. I know all the guys I game with for over twenty years, since we were in our teens. Maybe that is a rare circumstance hard for some to understand. It's as natural to help each other at this point even in a game as walking is. Maybe this is hard to understand for people that don't have the same situation. Telling me I should let him suffer the consequences of his character choice or other such things isn't going to change how any of us do things. I guess some just don't understand when a group has that type of long-term unspoken situation. I have to shrug at trying to further explain. It doesn't appear to be getting through to some.

But you see - you are suffering the consequences of his character choice instead (finding your Concentration slot dedicated to him). Every character choice has consequences that someone is going to have to suffer. By helping him not to suffer his, you are suffering them, as well as your own. So no wonder you feel underpowered - you're compensating for other members of your party!

Most of the players I've played with, including me, are happy to suffer those consequences themselves. I don't expect my gnome wild sorcerer to be crazy effective against creatures that are immune - I'm happy to have to think about my strategy a little more and use some under-used actions and some creative terrain usage, etc. It's not maximum effectiveness for me, but being at maximum effectiveness the whole time isn't a prerequisite for a fun night. I'm not going to gripe about how monster immunities are an awful design decision in 5e because I am not very effective sometimes. It's to be expected. I'm happy to suffer the consequence of my action (because that is part of the role I'm playing - he's gonna be useless if he can't be tricksy).

Now, it's fine that you want to suffer the consequences of his character choice (lawd knows I've played helpful healers and the like), but you shouldn't then translate that into an issue with the Concentration mechanic itself - you're using it to make your party melee damage machine into a ranged melee damage machine, and that's hardly a waste of a Concentration slot! The fact that you can't ALSO buff the party within an inch of trackability isn't a flaw in the system, it's pretty much the system working as intended - you're turning up the party's damage potential as your One Ongoing Magical Effect, just as my gnome denies enemies actions as his One Ongoing Magical Effect. Flight isn't a required thing, it's a bonus thing that you GET to do, to enhance your party's damage output.

The central miscommunication seems to be that you are seeing a bottleneck that you are opting into, that is unique to your situation, and expanding that to an issue with the mechanic in general. It should hopefully be pretty clear by now that there's a LOT of tables who don't feel obligated to fly their melee machines, and so don't feel that bottleneck. Also, it'd hopefully be clear that your flying melee machine is a good use of Concentration, because of the enhancements it brings your party damage.