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

[the Jester]

And, why only one attack on the ready? You don't lose your multiple attacks on a ready action - you gain those multiple attacks any time you take an attack action.

Actually... you only get your extra attacks when you take the attack action on your turn. See the description of Extra Attack under the various classes that get it.

EDIT: Severly ninja'd. Aargh.

 

[the Jester]

Ready action is also whack. It should obviously give your whole action, not just a single attack. Not allowing such nerfs all multiattack PCs. We allow multiattack on ready action and we also allow simply delaying your initiative to later in the round. Makes more sense and more balanced.

Why do you think it is 'obvious' that you should get multiple attacks on a readied action? I'd say it's 'obvious' that you should only get one. I'd also dispute the notion that allowing you to delay or ready a multiattack is less balanced, not more. But that's probably a matter of playstyle preference.

 

[KarinsDad]

After a couple of near TPKs with mind flayers and the like, my group has figured out which spells they need to save for which encounters.

But the problem comes in when they have their third or fourth encounter in the same day with mind flayers. Those higher level "save our bacon" spells start running out. The tough part of figuring out how to challenge an efficient party is figuring out how to throw new problems at them where the old solutions are not quite the best responses.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.)

I think that if you have to regularly shatter the encounter guidelines, your experience is going to be significantly different from a group following the RAW more closely. It might be fine - BETTER, even, for your group. But it's no longer easily comparable and something you find in your experience (like, say, "warlocks are weak") isn't something that's going to be true about the game in general.

5e accommodates a certain level of X-vs.-1 combat - that's kind of what legendary creatures are for - but it does so within certain guidelines (CR, XP, Encounters/Day), and if you break 'em, you can't claim a problem you experience as systemic. You're outside the system!

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.

I'm merely pointing out that by running encounters in that fashion, you distort your gameplay experience when compared to someone who runs them more closely to the rules, and so your experience isn't the experience of the rules, they're the experience of your own group's tweak on the rules. That isn't to say that it's a problem, it's just to say that you can't imagine that you can determine what is true about the game itself when you're playing a tweaked version of it.

Ranged is more powerful than melee martial. This isn't even something that is disputable.
...
Concentration isn't an issue with the game. I never even said it was. I said it was no fun. It isn't.
...
empirical proof of the superiority of ranged attacking in 5E and the concentration mechanic creating narrow solutions to combat problems

See, all this? It's hugely relative, particular to your group's playstyle, and hardly The Truth About D&D. The fact that you keep claiming it's objective is where you keep hitting hiccups. In a game where you're regularly fighting creatures of ridiculously higher CR's, maybe all this is true, but the fact remains that that's a different sort of game than the game that D&D was designed to be.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think that if you have to regularly shatter the encounter guidelines, your experience is going to be significantly different from a group following the RAW more closely. It might be fine - BETTER, even, for your group. But it's no longer easily comparable and something you find in your experience (like, say, "warlocks are weak") isn't something that's going to be true about the game in general.

Right, and I agree with the above. Does that mean I misunderstood your point originally? Quote:

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.

I took this as a statement that massively unbalanced encounters will be an unsatisfying experience in 5E, and I find them satisfying. Was I misunderstanding your point?

Forgive me for snipping the rest of your post but I think the above is the crux of my confusion. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

86.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[DaveDash]

I prefer to just remove that mechanic and give +1 Str and Dex respectively. But your solution also works.

Ready action is also whack. It should obviously give your whole action, not just a single attack. Not allowing such nerfs all multiattack PCs. We allow multiattack on ready action and we also allow simply delaying your initiative to later in the round. Makes more sense and more balanced.

No it really shouldn't.

They're trying to avoid the stupidity of 3e readied actions where combat became a Mexican stanf-off.

 

[sithramir]

Tasha's hideous laughter drops speed to 0. 1st level spell.

Color spray also works. (Edit: I meant hypnotic pattern)

Lower level spells but subject to legendary resistance I guess but not all dragons have that.

Web works depending on room shape and can be argued to work the first round (making them start to fall) without an anchor but I'd rule it shouldn't.

Just a few more options to halt flyers

 

[DaveDash]

Dude. DUDE. DUDE. Acting like only one module or series of modules represents 'true D&D' and that the experiences of others are so inapplicable to True D&D that they aren't even allowed to contribute to the thread- as if you got to decide that!- is just ridiculous. I notice that you're getting a lot of push back from a ton of posters, and at least a couple seem to find your posting style insulting. Until this post, I was kind of laughing it off- but dude. DUDE. DUDE! You are so out of line here. I'm sorry, but "I'm right, and you can't talk back" is not helping engender good discussion; it's making you come across as one of those "My way is right, and even if everyone else in the world disagrees, THEY ARE WRONG!!" kinds of guys. This is a discussion forum, not a "Celtavian gets to talk and you can post if you agree" forum.

That's not really what's happening at all.

There's a bunch of posters spouting conjecture based on theory crafting, and a small set having played through a lot of this saying "Hmm no I don't think so".

I'm still waiting to hear examples of high level combat from other posters.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Why do you think it is 'obvious' that you should get multiple attacks on a readied action? I'd say it's 'obvious' that you should only get one. I'd also dispute the notion that allowing you to delay or ready a multiattack is less balanced, not more. But that's probably a matter of playstyle preference.

Obvious for balance reasons - otherwise multiattack PCs are significantly disad by taking this action vs other PCs such as rogues or casters. How would delay unbalance the game? It is been present in dnd for the last few editions, from memory, and works perfectly well at our table so far.