D&D 5E Aren't High Level Monster ACs too low even for a flat math system?

[Dausuul]

Looking at the thread on Attack Bonuses I see high level characters can easily have a +17 attack bonus.

Where by "easily," you mean "using an artifact." I don't think a guy packing the equivalent of the Hand of Vecna is a very good standard.

A more reasonable top-end attack bonus would be +13. That's assuming a level 18+ fighter with Strength 20, wielding a +3 weapon. I agree this makes Asmodeus still a bit too easy to hit, but an AC in the 20-22 range should do fine. 25 is overkill.

 

[zoroaster100]

I'll accept your math Dausuul, since I was only using the numbers I saw in the Attack Bonus thread and didn't do my own calculation. But if you assume a +13 attack for high level characters, then Asmodeus at AC 17 and huge red dragon at AC 15 are still to easy to hit, in my opinion. Maybe not by a huge amount, but I think the top tier monsters need some kind of AC boost.

 

[Klaus]

I read over the monsters in the new Playtest Packet Bestiary. I was struck by the low armor classes of even the most powerful monsters there. I understand with relatively flat math that ACs have to stay fairly low. But surely Asmodeus or a huge red dragon should be at least occasionally missed in combat? And surely their AC should be more than what a first level character can achieve?

It seems a high level character can easily achieve +5 from class, +1 magic, +4 ability score modifier (or higher), and +1 from a buff spell. That's +11 or more. That means they are going to hit Asmodeus on a 6 or higher, possibly less. And if they have advantage they'll roll twice each round. That means even the most powerful monsters are going to be trivially easy to hit for high level characters, if the packet represents the final character/monster math.

Sidenote: Asmodeus has an aura that grants disadvantage to enemies looking at him (they can avert their eyes, but then he's got total concealment).

 

[Zoombaba]

Should a fighter with a Strength 20, and magic weapons be the gold standard upon which the ACs rest though? Is a Rogue with Dex 20, but a Str 13 (or 14-15) going to hit as often? I'm not a math guy, so I really don't know.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree that the bounds of bounded accuracy for AC could be stretched a few points (up to 25). Often when I make encounters, I give some of the foes better armor to boost their AC, and that makes them more challenging.

I think I'm more worried about the constraints on saving throw bonuses for many of the monsters (or that the PCs spellcasting DCs are too large). Most of the monsters in the package (even the big ones) don't gain more than +1, +2, +3 to saves of all kinds. That means that as it works now, a 10th level wizard with DC 17 spells can pretty much walk all over the monsters (even when some monsters have advantage vs. magic).

 

[keterys]

Should a fighter with a Strength 20, and magic weapons be the gold standard upon which the ACs rest though? Is a Rogue with Dex 20, but a Str 13 (or 14-15) going to hit as often? I'm not a math guy, so I really don't know.

It is safe to assume that all PCs having their primary stat at 20 at level 20. Similarly, it's safe to assume that such a character has a +3 weapon. Even if you start at a 13 rolled, you can still get there post-racial, class, and stat bumps.

It's reasonable not to assume it has strength gauntlets, but you can also probably assume that a PC going up against Asmodeus is under some sort of bonus from a potion of heroism or a bless spell or _something_.

At the end of the day, ACs need to go up. Even if they should be careful not to overdo it.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'd rather see more hit points than better armor. A monster (A) with high hit points and moderate armor can be an equivalent challenge to a monster (B) with moderate hit points and high armor when fighting a high level party. However, when facing an army monster B might be invulnerable because he can't be hit, while monster A would be vulnerable to a large enough group. I thus prefer monster A.

Same for characters. I don't want even a high level fighter to take on an army of 10,00 all by himself and win.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd rather see more hit points than better armor. A monster (A) with high hit points and moderate armor can be an equivalent challenge to a monster (B) with moderate hit points and high armor when fighting a high level party. However, when facing an army monster B might be invulnerable because he can't be hit, while monster A would be vulnerable to a large enough group. I thus prefer monster A.

Same for characters. I don't want even a high level fighter to take on an army of 10,00 all by himself and win.

Each has its place. Your (B) is exactly what I want for a gigantic red dragon. Well, that, or your (A) but with damage reduction. It's scales are good enough that 1,000 normal archers aren't good enough. You need to have carefully placed shots that bypass it's naturally thick armor, which is either your (A), or it's damage reduction. I think some monsters (and potentially some NPCs) should definitely be "but even large numbers of creatures can't even hurt it!"

In my opinion, there's a place for both types of monsters, and it's a mistake to not utilize them as the fiction (or "flavor text" or whatever) calls for it. Again, just my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[hbarsquared]

My first thought when any of these packets get released and we see things that seem out of place (had the packet been the actual commercial release), is to assume that there's a good chance it's there purely to spark conversation and make us look long and hard at those things.

Putting alignment restrictions on the paladin and monk? It gets us talking (whether in favor or against). If they never brought it up at any point, how many of us would respond unprompted in the survey with our opinions whether they should have it? Probably not many.

How many 9th level spells are getting playtested right now by people in the public playtest? I would imagine not many. So they'll do anything they can do to get us to play them-- including putting Ancient Red Dragons and Asmodeus into the packet and make them seemingly inconsequential to actually hit. But while we're railing against their ACs... we also are unconsciously coming to conclusions about some of the spells while we're at it. And if any of those make us go "Whoa! Wait a second!"... that'll bear itself out in the surveys too.

I think in many ways... designing playtest packets are like playing Clue. When you make an Accusation, you sometimes deliberately include the item which you've already deduced is the murder weapon... purely so that you force the others to show you Suspects and Locations which you do not yet know are responsible and you need information on.

What he said. Can't XP you. :-(

I sincerely hope they're approaching playtests this way: it makes sense. They want to test high level abilities, and the easiest way to gauge their effects is to make them more successful more often.

With that said, the designers have also mentioned that they want the ancient red dragon to be taken down by a 100 militiamen. I think as long as the difficulty of a high-level monster is reflected in their hit points, it still works out.

Maybe yes, the Ancient Red and Asmodeous should be harder to hit. But honestly, maybe not?

What's more fun?

Encounter with Low-AC Asmodeous:

• Miss 20% of the time
• Do cool stuff for 8 rounds
• Asmodeous has lots of hit point
• Combat lasts for 10 rounds

Or an encounter with High-AC Asmodeous:

• Miss 50% of the time
• Do cool stuff for only 5 rounds
• But Asmodeous has 30% fewer hit points
• Combat still lasts for 10 rounds

Which combat is more memorable? More fun?

 

[keterys]

Encounter with Low-AC Asmodeous:

• Miss 20% of the time
• Do cool stuff for 8 rounds
• Asmodeous has lots of hit point
• Combat lasts for 10 rounds

Strangely, we currently have -
Encounter with Low-AC Asmodeus:
* Miss 20% of the time
* Do cool stuff for 1 round
* Combat is over

I'm okay increasing both sides of the equation, to be honest.