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

[zoroaster100]

I was concerned reading through the spell list that I saw no restriction on stacking different buffs. While the original spell list could account for this by limiting the number of spells that provide bonuses of a certain type, the game designers should count on there being future supplements with more spells and magic items that grant bonuses. Maybe the solution is simply having a maximum amount of bonus you can get from all spells and magic items combined (a magic bonus limit), say +5, so that the bounded accuracy can be preserved and you can know the maximum bonus for anyone will be +5 class, +5 ability modifier, +5 magic (all sources).

 

[Dausuul]

I was concerned reading through the spell list that I saw no restriction on stacking different buffs. While the original spell list could account for this by limiting the number of spells that provide bonuses of a certain type, the game designers should count on there being future supplements with more spells and magic items that grant bonuses. Maybe the solution is simply having a maximum amount of bonus you can get from all spells and magic items combined (a magic bonus limit), say +5, so that the bounded accuracy can be preserved and you can know the maximum bonus for anyone will be +5 class, +5 ability modifier, +5 magic (all sources).

All buff spells that grant attack roll bonuses (as opposed to advantage) require concentration. The only way to stack them is to have a separate caster for each spell. If you're working that hard to boost your attack rolls, I think it's okay to let it work.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Aye, that makes sense. You've got a cabal of wizards supporting the hero facing the demon, he should be buffed pretty good.

Rogues with 18 dex at level 20? I'm sorry, but even if you're not even trying, you can get 20 by 20. That should be the target. End game monsters should only be beatable with people who take their training (in-game and out of game) seriously. The system mastery level shouldn't be too difficult.

I'm fine with balancing the game around having +1 weapons but 20 in their attack stat at level 20, don't forget rogues will be attacking with their dex and not their strength, and if they are, they deserve to fail!!! None of this "protect players" from mechanically bad choices nonsense. It's not that difficult to know you should pump your attack stat, nor expect even n00b players to understand that, even if they don't min-max they should at level have 18 by level 20. But don't balance the high end monster AC around that, balance it against the 20 stat because with bumps and point buy, really, everyone should have it who doesn't have a very good reason to not have it. Or if they don't, that's too bad, they'll just hit a little less often, no big deal either.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with those who said 2d6 + 4 should be the default recommended die rolling method, after the current 15 max-per-stat point buy. The adjust the enemies AC up or down.

I don't want a game where casual joe blow is expected to win against a huge red dragon, because the "math fairy made it so". You should have to have lots of luck, planning, buffs, and very good training, practice, and planning. If you don't, let the characters die. A game where it's too easy to kill of end bosses (and balancing them vs casual gamers is a sure way to do that), is a huge FAIL in my book. Keep the tough monsters, tough, and account for EVERY bonus that's in the game to be used and stacked, where possible, when doing the AC and HP adjustments.

 

[Gargoyle]

For most monsters, the only thing that would be worse than AC that is too low is AC that is too high. Above all I don't want games that drag out or for players to feel like they must max out their character's main combat stat just to survive. I'd rather have people hit too often. Next fight, I just adjust the HP and AC if it was too easy.

I do think Gorgoroth has a good point about "end bosses". Huge red dragons, archdevils, etc, these are the exceptions to the rule, and aren't what I'm talking about above. They do need to be tough, even against min/maxed characters. I sort of miss the "solo" designation and would like to see something similar; at least an elite status perhaps, and maybe a template for tougher fights? I want more out of a monster manual than a list of monsters.

 

[Dausuul]

Aye, that makes sense. You've got a cabal of wizards supporting the hero facing the demon, he should be buffed pretty good.

Rogues with 18 dex at level 20? I'm sorry, but even if you're not even trying, you can get 20 by 20. That should be the target. End game monsters should only be beatable with people who take their training (in-game and out of game) seriously. The system mastery level shouldn't be too difficult.

Well, you can also think of it as "20th-level rogue with 20 Dex in a campaign with few to no magic items." Remember that we are talking about the far low end of what the designers should take into consideration. Such a rogue should struggle to hit Asmodeus, but it shouldn't be a "natural 20 or go home" situation. If Asmodeus has an AC of 22, that rogue needs a 14 to hit (35% accuracy), which I think is appropriate.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with Gargoyle. AC too high does sap some of the satisfaction out of the game. I started playing Next and Pathfinder back to back, and our group kind of laughed a bit when it took us 4 or 5 rounds to kill 6 kobolds in Pathfinder because our party was not all maxed for attack bonuses.

I really would love for WoTC to just come up with a great standard to apply to any monster that would make it elite or solo. DMs can do it themselves, but standardizing it would really be helpful.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think a question that's just as important here is how often we would like player characters to hit. I think around 75% is a good "max", around 50-70% the target and below 50% unusual. There is nothing more boring in a combat than often missing multiple times in a row because the target is so hard to hit.

 

[keterys]

Sounds about right. And comparing those %s to the numbers given earlier, my suggestion of Asmodeus being 19 or so, 22 max fits pretty well. It also reinforces another comment made that the monsters will get +2 to +5 added at some point.

Of course, something will also need to be done about the save system, where casters gain +5 to save DCs while no one gains bonuses to saving throws. We'll see what happens there, I guess.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I was really thinking lowest possible with each class's default attacks-- so we'd be looking at the wizard using INT and his spells, rather than STR and a weapon. So yeah, lowest "reasonable" is probably more accurate a designation. The idea was what a person who was not purposely trying to gimp himself would possibly have on the lowest end of the scale-- someone who didn't put any thought into how he designed his character.

So we're not looking at the attack bonus swing between fully-max and fully-min... but between fully-max and vanilla build. THAT swing between highs and lows is where I think it shouldn't be more than like 10 to 12 points.

And if a player purposely builds his PC to be actively WORSE than your prototypical, no-thought vanilla build... then yeah, his attacks don't have to register on the chart.

 

[zoroaster100]

I should be just as difficult, on average, to affect a creature with a spell that requires a save, as for the spellcaster to hit with a spell that requires a spell attack roll.