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

[zoroaster100]

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).

I agree this is even a greater concern, which I hadn't focused on before. I remember this was a problem with 3rd edition, that at higher levels save DCs became ridiculously high for min-maxed spell casters, and with the return of "save or die" spells in DNDNext, this could present a serious problem. It seems the monsters should have save bonuses at least as high as around their AC(-10) to stay competitive against save or die spells.

 

[Weather Report]

Similarly, it's safe to assume that such a character has a +3 weapon.

Actually, it's not, in 5th Ed, magic items are not assumed or required, that would be a campaign/DM choice.

So, we're looking at +10 for the top-end (+5 for Str/Dex, +5 for Attack Bonus).

 

[keterys]

Yeahh... if we're talking 20th level fighting Asmodeus, we're talking about PCs with bonuses from something. It doesn't have to be a +3 weapon (even though every high level weapon is +3 at the moment) - maybe they have out a frost brand, which is only +1, but gives fire resistance. Fight against Asmodeus is a _really_ good time to pull out a potion of heroism. That's +2. Or a Pale Green Prism for another +1. Prayer or Bless for another +1. Or Divine Power potentially, for +4.

There's _lots_ of places to get bonuses, so handwaving to +3 is more than reasonable.

You can see what it would look like without it, but it'd be a pretty silly exercise when normal treasure guidance has them getting _much_ better gear several levels earlier. The kind of people who do treasure-less games don't usually run 20th level fights against Asmodeus. Just saying.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's _lots_ of places to get bonuses, so handwaving to +3 is more than reasonable.

And this is exactly why 4E presumed the "magic weapon" advancement it did when it came to how they advanced the math and the monsters. They knew magic items (and power bonuses) were going to be handed out more often than not... and they wanted to make sure that encounters did take them into account. It's also why (despite critics declaring otherwise) I felt the need to add the Expertise feats to "balance the math" weren't actually necessary... because those 3 points to attack gained at each tier were more than made up from all the other bonuses PCs got from powers, combat advantage etc.

In order to keep the math in a good place... it's imperative to check it against both ends of the attack bonus spectrum-- the highest possible attack bonus based upon stats, weapons, spells, magic items etc. as well as the lowest possible attack bonus based upon the same criteria. When you do that... and you find out just how wide the disparity is between the two... you can more accurately determine where creatures should fall.

Should EVERY possible character and NPC be able to hit a monster of a certain level? Then the lowest possible attack bonus and AC of the monster has to reflect that. Then compare that AC to the highest possible attack bonus and see just how easy it is for those PCs to hit. If their attacks become basically automatic... then it's time to either reduce the bonuses in the game that got that PC there... or give a few more bonuses to the low end PCs, and then also raise the monster's ACs a few points.

Speaking personally... I would not want to see a gap of more than 10 points between highest-possible and lowest possible attack bonus if at all manageable (not including bonuses gained from Artifacts.) You keep that swing, and I think you're probably going to do pretty good.

 

[Klaus]

AC-wise, I think it's reasonable to assume that a 1st-level Fighter (*the* combat class) will have a +4 (+3 ability, +1 class) and a 20th-level Fighter will have a +10 (+5 ability, +5 class), with something like Unerring Attacker providing an average of +3 to an attack roll here and there. This means that, throughout his career, a Fighter can reliably (50% of the time) hit something with AC ranging from 14 to 20 (and occasionally, up to 23, with the right class feature).

Anything on top of that (magic weapons, buffing spells, magic items) simply make a character *better*, but should not be assumed. Asmodeus, with his AC 19, would be reliably hit by a 20th-level Fighter. But Asmodeus grants disadvantage to attack rolls, so his effective AC hovers around 24, which is slightly out of "reliable" range (and a 1st-level character can hit the King of Hell only once in a blue moon, and deal negligible damage). The presence of a magic weapon or a cleric's blessing would push it back into reliable (which is the only real way to beat Asmodeus, because otherwise he kills you before you whittle down his hp).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Anything on top of that (magic weapons, buffing spells, magic items) simply make a character *better*, but should not be assumed.

I agree, they shouldn't be assumed to be used in a normal combat... but the designers also cannot ignore the possibility. So they should be very cognizant as they add all kinds of magic weapons, buffing spells, combat skills and magic items into the game that these bonuses do not all stack with each other and the regular attack bonuses such that a PC can "push Misses off the Hit table" (to adapt a WoWism).

That's why I definite hope there are many CharOpers playtesting the game as we go along, because they will be the ones that will find the potential breaks and loopholes-- and thus allow the designers to remove or power down items or change up bonus types such that those possible maxes can get cut to a reasonable level.

 

[RangerWickett]

Please, please don't let magic weapons stack with magic buff spells stack with magic ioun stones.

The limit should be +5 from stat +5 from level +5 from magic. Then you can get advantage if you want more. That should be IT. (Ideally, instead of +5 magic, it'd be +3 permanent magic, +2 temporary buff, or something similar.)

 

[Dausuul]

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.

I agree. Many big monsters should be susceptible to being pulled down by a swarm of low-level foes (e.g., giants). However, there should also be monsters that can rampage through armies, while still being subject to defeat by heroes (e.g., dragons). I think DR of one type or another is the best solution here.

 

[Dausuul]

And this is exactly why 4E presumed the "magic weapon" advancement it did when it came to how they advanced the math and the monsters. They knew magic items (and power bonuses) were going to be handed out more often than not... and they wanted to make sure that encounters did take them into account. It's also why (despite critics declaring otherwise) I felt the need to add the Expertise feats to "balance the math" weren't actually necessary... because those 3 points to attack gained at each tier were more than made up from all the other bonuses PCs got from powers, combat advantage etc.

In order to keep the math in a good place... it's imperative to check it against both ends of the attack bonus spectrum-- the highest possible attack bonus based upon stats, weapons, spells, magic items etc. as well as the lowest possible attack bonus based upon the same criteria. When you do that... and you find out just how wide the disparity is between the two... you can more accurately determine where creatures should fall.

Should EVERY possible character and NPC be able to hit a monster of a certain level? Then the lowest possible attack bonus and AC of the monster has to reflect that. Then compare that AC to the highest possible attack bonus and see just how easy it is for those PCs to hit. If their attacks become basically automatic... then it's time to either reduce the bonuses in the game that got that PC there... or give a few more bonuses to the low end PCs, and then also raise the monster's ACs a few points.

Speaking personally... I would not want to see a gap of more than 10 points between highest-possible and lowest possible attack bonus if at all manageable (not including bonuses gained from Artifacts.) You keep that swing, and I think you're probably going to do pretty good.

Lowest possible, or lowest reasonable? I mean, let's say your 20th-level character is a wizard with a Strength of 3 and a mundane weapon. That's -4 to hit. Even at Asmodeus's current AC, this character will only hit on a 20, and then only because natural 20 always hits. But it'd be silly to treat this character as a melee combatant worthy of consideration at that level.

For melee, I'd say the low end worth thinking about should be a rogue, with 18 Dexterity, using a +1 dagger. That's +8 to hit at 20th level. Yes, I am presuming a magic weapon, but it's a pretty weak magic weapon; if your campaign is so magic-poor that you haven't even got a +1 dagger as a 20th-level character, I'd expect you to compensate by pumping your Dexterity as high as it will go.

 

[keterys]

Your range should probably be +10 minimal, +13 expected, +17 max we should care about, ~23 true max. That's not a bad range and if they fix one item (belt of strength) you drop 4 points off the very top range.

And I agree that none of the bonuses should stack, frankly. That's not the case at the moment. If they did, then the statement that magic weapons are truly "just bonuses" could be true. Instead it's a naive sentiment.

Anyhow, his AC is currently 17. 19 actually might be reasonable. 22 is probably as high as it should possibly go for him. The absolute max AC (say a dragon who doesn't have the disadvantage trick) should probably be 25 at most.