D&D 5E Drawbacks to Increasing Monster AC Across the Board?

[Horwath]

Barbie might have said it, but it was never true & neither was any of this hand wringing used to justify approaching a multi player team game like a single player experience with your own supporting cast. You and @Horwath have justified ignoring the extreme timesink each player can force on everyone else at the table by approaching their multiattack turn as 5e's & 5.5's RAI☆ encourages using a couple key points.

Firstly is the idea that basic elementary school math is too much work now that we do all carry a calculator around with us at all times(android IOS) like many math teachers once asked about in the past, but inflating individual player turn lengths by minutes with ~70% hitrate across all attacks is not even effective at avoiding that. Players still need to roll a d20, & add prof+attrib+mods to the roll, the only change is that instead of adding the first second third or fourth BaN+attrib+mods number from the sheet beside the weapon it's the same numbers added to the d20 each time. If avoiding first grade math was truly the goal, 5e's not even the best example of that... We have an official 2e sheet to thank for demonstrating how far from that goal 5e fell
View attachment 404790
The math was already calculated for d20 rolls at level up or similar & players just needed to glance at the d20+sheet.

time sink can easily be eliminated by DM telling what AC of the monsters are.

then you can have your own table on your sheet.

if you suck at math, I believe that is your duty to do so.

you can have:
to hit AC of 10 you need 5 on your d20,
to hit AC of 20 you need 15 on your d20,
with everything inbetween written also.

then you just look at your d20 for target roll, or a crit range, that is usually 20 so it's not that complicated.

Secondly is the faulty combination of not making progress during a turn & the idea that without a 70% hitrate across all attacks in the chain it would cause combat to be a slog. This is faulty because 5e's hit point inflation is the (bad) bandaid fix used to plaster over sone of the problems caused by making all attacks in the chain have such a reliable hitrate making it strange to claim that without the problem created by the hitrate we would have combat be a slog because the bandaid created to hide that problem would be too noticeable, but that fails to admit that it was never how it worked in the past. Back when d&d had the iterative attack penalty (base/-5/-10/-15) it already avoided the endless combat problem because the first attack for a full BaB PC was almost certain to hit & gear+the buffs that come from cross player reciprocity would frequently push later attacks into being fairly reliable against monsters with HP pools tuned to not need too much more than the reliable attacks. I mentioned PC's who had full BaB progression but not partial BaB ones, those PCs tended to have other options like flanking bonuses their own buffs touch attacks & various spells to make up the difference or contribute in other ways. The high hitrate of 5e wasn't done to "speed up" combat with HP sink monsters, it was done to feed into 5e's step1:give the players what they want->step2:see step1 mindset where the very idea that other players exist at the table was a problem for the GM to solve

player fun is what keeps the game selling, so you want to give players what they want.

☆ It's obviously RAI to pump the GM for lifechecks move around & dither about dragging out the turn of multiattack players because 5.5 had the chance to do something about that & instead made it explicit that such behavior was allowed rather than simply being an undefined grey area the GM could say no to.

As I said, you should keep to 4 basic states of monsters: fresh, bruised, bloodied and near death.
that will make everyones lives easier.

 

[tetrasodium]

time sink can easily be eliminated by DM telling what AC of the monsters are.

then you can have your own table on your sheet.

if you suck at math, I believe that is your duty to do so.

you can have:
to hit AC of 10 you need 5 on your d20,
to hit AC of 20 you need 15 on your d20,
with everything inbetween written also.

then you just look at your d20 for target roll, or a crit range, that is usually 20 so it's not that complicated.

player fun is what keeps the game selling, so you want to give players what they want.

As I said, you should keep to 4 basic states of monsters: fresh, bruised, bloodied and near death.
that will make everyones lives easier.

You obviously haven't been following along. The timesink isn't from determining if an attack hits, that comes in the form of pumping the GM to learn if the damage of sale d attack KILLS juggling weapons and shuffling about the map multiple times because 5.5 explicitly defines all of the required components for that as now being allowed rather than their prior state of being undefined either way.

 

[Stalker0]

Firstly is the idea that basic elementary school math is too much work now that we do all carry a calculator around with us at all times(android IOS) like many math teachers once asked about in the past, but inflating individual player turn lengths by minutes with ~70% hitrate across all attacks is not even effective at avoiding that. Players still need to roll a d20, & add prof+attrib+mods to the roll, the only change is that instead of adding the first second third or fourth BaN+attrib+mods number from the sheet beside the weapon it's the same numbers added to the d20 each time. If avoiding first grade math was truly the goal, 5e's not even the best example of that... We have an official 2e sheet to thank for demonstrating how far from that goal 5e fell
View attachment 404790
The math was already calculated for d20 rolls at level up or similar & players just needed to glance at the d20+sheet.

prof+attrib+mods is already handled in 95% of attack rolls. Its a single number on your character sheet, and the only thing that players have to adjust is whether they roll two dice (adv/dis) or one.

Its a single addition between two numbers (number on the die and number on the sheet). Its still math, and there are still people that struggle with it in real time, but its pretty straightforward. You could absolutely make a chart for yourself like you have noted in the picture of various ACs and what die roll is needed to hit it.

Having to adjust all follow up attacks by 5 each time does two things:

1) Its more math. How much more depends on your math proficiency, some people don't care, others its a major thing to remember.
2) Its makes die rolls positional, in that you have to assign a die to each attack value. So that means you roll a die, get the number, determine if its hit, than rinse and repeat.

With the result being the same, you can roll the dice either all together or in rapid session, as they have all have the same value and so it doesn't matter which dice is what (there are a few exceptions to this, as some monsters have reactions and things, but you pretty quickly find that out early in a combat, and then for the rest can just roll together).


So....yeah its just faster and simplier. It is in theory, and it is in practice (having DMed 3.5/4/5e all to high levels I can very confidently say that determining how much a player hits and how much damage they do is simpler in 5e than 3e. Comparing to 4e its roughly on par depending on the class powers....sometimes a bit easier sometimes a bit harder).

 

[tetrasodium]

prof+attrib+mods is already handled in 95% of attack rolls. Its a single number on your character sheet, and the only thing that players have to adjust is whether they roll two dice (adv/dis) or one.

Its a single addition between two numbers (number on the die and number on the sheet). Its still math, and there are still people that struggle with it in real time, but its pretty straightforward. You could absolutely make a chart for yourself like you have noted in the picture of various ACs and what die roll is needed to hit it.

Having to adjust all follow up attacks by 5 each time does two things:

1) Its more math. How much more depends on your math proficiency, some people don't care, others its a major thing to remember.
2) Its makes die rolls positional, in that you have to assign a die to each attack value. So that means you roll a die, get the number, determine if its hit, than rinse and repeat.

With the result being the same, you can roll the dice either all together or in rapid session, as they have all have the same value and so it doesn't matter which dice is what (there are a few exceptions to this, as some monsters have reactions and things, but you pretty quickly find that out early in a combat, and then for the rest can just roll together).


So....yeah its just faster and simplier. It is in theory, and it is in practice (having DMed 3.5/4/5e all to high levels I can very confidently say that determining how much a player hits and how much damage they do is simpler in 5e than 3e. Comparing to 4e its roughly on par depending on the class powers....sometimes a bit easier sometimes a bit harder).

You are claiming that there is a higher volume of math needed during a player's turn with the iterative attack penalty... the only way for that to be true is if you are talking about a house rule or failed so badly at reading the printed rules that you have players refusing a single d20 roll across more than one attack rather than using a unique d20 roll for every attack. Yes the 5e character sheet & monster statblock have a section for the one value added to all attacks, the same was true in 3.x for the iterative attack bonus x/y/z chain. The end result is an identical amount of first grade math during a player's turn for an equal number of attacks.

 

[^Dagon^]

I also find that monster AC's are off too low but I try not to change that, Instead I fall back on what we have always done, which is max out monster hit points. Players still feel that they are hitting the opposition but the monsters survive slightly longer and are capable of dealing some damage back, both of which make for a more interesting encounter.

Monsters in 5e already have lots of hps. This is the simplest solution but also the worst one.

 

[Stalker0]

You are claiming that there is a higher volume of math needed during a player's turn with the iterative attack penalty... the only way for that to be true is if you are talking about a house rule or failed so badly at reading the printed rules that you have players refusing a single d20 roll across more than one attack rather than using a unique d20 roll for every attack. Yes the 5e character sheet & monster statblock have a section for the one value added to all attacks, the same was true in 3.x for the iterative attack bonus x/y/z chain. The end result is an identical amount of first grade math during a player's turn for an equal number of attacks.

I am happy to continue the debate, but you can leave the snark to the side.

You are assessing that rolling 4 attacks and adding a different number to each one has the same amount of mental impact as rolling 4 attacks and adding the same number each and every time. That is....simply not true for people that are not great at math. And again I don't speak from theory, I have run the last 3 editions and had some of the same players in all of them. I have ones that aren't fast at math. They struggle far less in 5e's system than 3e's....its as simple as that.

Beyond that, I think rolling 4 attacks that all have a reasonable chance of success is far preferable in feeling to 4 attacks where the first one is a gimme, and the last one an afterthought. 5e's system is not only simplier....I think its straight up better in terms of feel.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

If your monsters are performing poorly, either because they're too easy to hit or they don't last long enough, don't increase their Hit Points or Armor Class, instead increase their Attack Bonus.

Increasing Hit Points makes combat last longer; which could be a solution but it can also increase the amount of time spent on the Slog portion of combat. Increasing Armor Class reduces the chance of hitting; which could be a solution but it can also reduce the amount of time before we get into the Slog.

Increasing Attack Bonus makes combat more challenging without affecting the time spent in Slog. We could also practice the Turn. The Turn is a narrative device and ideally every combat encounter should have one. The Turn is when something about the combat encounter changes. Maybe reinforcements arrive, or maybe the combat environment changes, or the enemies start using different tactics.

Now I'm sure everyone here is a master of the Turn and you use it without even thinking about it.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

You are claiming that there is a higher volume of math needed during a player's turn with the iterative attack penalty... the only way for that to be true is if you are talking about a house rule or failed so badly at reading the printed rules that you have players refusing a single d20 roll across more than one attack rather than using a unique d20 roll for every attack. Yes the 5e character sheet & monster statblock have a section for the one value added to all attacks, the same was true in 3.x for the iterative attack bonus x/y/z chain. The end result is an identical amount of first grade math during a player's turn for an equal number of attacks.

There is a difference between "I wouldn't find this complexity burdensome" and "this isn't adding complexity." In this case, you are adding complexity in the math and in the rules. You, and many others, may not find that to be an issue but some may. This is because of the complexity's affect on any given player's experience varies by player.

Lets look at the attack bonus chain you lay out. Let's just use proficiency bonus on the first attack, and a cumulative penalty of -1 to that per subsequent attack. This about as simple as one could get. Not likely to be balanced but will do for demonstration purposes. So the options for a player is to memorize the four numbers based on their PB. If their PB is 4, those numbers would be 4, 3, 2, and 1. Or do this math each time. Which would be, 4, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3. This is in contrast to memorizing one number, 4 in this case, that is printed on their character sheet. We can imagine the process a player's brain will take during the attack.

The player will roll, and announce the result. They will say "I rolled an 18!" They then have several things to process. Each will be processed in an instant, but they must all be processed to get the right answer. What attack is it in the turn. What is the adjustment to the PB according to the governing rule. What is the PB+that adjustment. And, finally, what is the total of 18 + PB - adjustment. Where they subtract the adjustment for iterative attacks is irrelevant here, as the number of steps doesnt change.

For comparison, we can take the current 5e's method;

The player will roll, and announce the result. They will say "I rolled an 18!" They than have several things to process. What is my PB? What is 18 + my PB. Again each of these steps might be processed instantly, but both must be processed to achieve the answer.

We can do a simple count of steps and see what process is more "complex." This is very obvious. Even in the case of full memorization, we are still adding complexity. Because in those cases you must recall each memorized item and process the math. Each step still happening instantly, but happening none-the-less.

You may not find that complexity burdensome. But that isn't the same as the complexity not being there. Complexity is added, both mathematically and rule-wise, You can only mitigate some of that with rule phrasing. If a prospective player was poor at math and/or poor at memorization, this process might not be dead simple. There might be a difference between the two in both difficulty and time taken to solve. In this case the added complexity could very well negatively impact their experience.

You may think the gameplay is worth this cost in complexity. That it's a net benefit. You may even believe that it's not close. And that's fine. But to claim the complexity is not there is definately odd, to say the least.

 

[tetrasodium]

There is a difference between "I wouldn't find this complexity burdensome" and "this isn't adding complexity." In this case, you are adding complexity in the math and in the rules. You, and many others, may not find that to be an issue but some may. This is because of the complexity's affect on any given player's experience varies by player.

Lets look at the attack bonus chain you lay out. Let's just use proficiency bonus on the first attack, and a cumulative penalty of -1 to that per subsequent attack. This about as simple as one could get. Not likely to be balanced but will do for demonstration purposes. So the options for a player is to memorize the four numbers based on their PB. If their PB is 4, those numbers would be 4, 3, 2, and 1. Or do this math each time. Which would be, 4, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3. This is in contrast to memorizing one number, 4 in this case, that is printed on their character sheet. We can imagine the process a player's brain will take during the attack.

The player will roll, and announce the result. They will say "I rolled an 18!" They then have several things to process. Each will be processed in an instant, but they must all be processed to get the right answer. What attack is it in the turn. What is the adjustment to the PB according to the governing rule. What is the PB+that adjustment. And, finally, what is the total of 18 + PB - adjustment. Where they subtract the adjustment for iterative attacks is irrelevant here, as the number of steps doesnt change.

For comparison, we can take the current 5e's method;

The player will roll, and announce the result. They will say "I rolled an 18!" They than have several things to process. What is my PB? What is 18 + my PB. Again each of these steps might be processed instantly, but both must be processed to achieve the answer.

We can do a simple count of steps and see what process is more "complex." This is very obvious. Even in the case of full memorization, we are still adding complexity. Because in those cases you must recall each memorized item and process the math. Each step still happening instantly, but happening none-the-less.

You may not find that complexity burdensome. But that isn't the same as the complexity not being there. Complexity is added, both mathematically and rule-wise, You can only mitigate some of that with rule phrasing. If a prospective player was poor at math and/or poor at memorization, this process might not be dead simple. There might be a difference between the two in both difficulty and time taken to solve. In this case the added complexity could very well negatively impact their experience.

You may think the gameplay is worth this cost in complexity. That it's a net benefit. You may even believe that it's not close. And that's fine. But to claim the complexity is not there is definately odd, to say the least.

I think that you need to explain how anyone capable of playing d&d without "hey guys my 5 y/o is going to be playing with us so I'm going to be helping them with their sheet" is capable of finding "that was my first or attack so I added the first number and this is my second attack so I add the second number, next will be my third attack so I will add the third number" burdensome complexity.

Also bear in mind that this whole tangent began because I took issue with the tyranny of fun style statement "hitting 70% of the time for 15 damage is more fun than hitting 35% of the time for 30 damage" by asking fun for who and pointing out that the rest of the table is sitting around doing nothing while all those "fun" attacks are burning time rather than focusing on the meaningful rolls and quickly skipping past the failures so others at the table can have "fun" too back in post 53. L