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

[Horwath]

Correct. The attack roll is binary. You hit or you miss. It really is (and should be) that simple. I have never even been a fan of the critical hit on natural 20 and so have for a long time now moved to critical damage.

not really a binary as you have a critical hit, so it's atleast trinary,
I just granulated it more.

when we played 3E we had a house rule that roll of of "1" is -5 on the dice and roll of "20" is 25 on the dice, so no instant failures or success by roll alone.

The nat 20 makes no sense for critical hits, frankly speaking. In AD&D days when we began using them the caveat was a 20 is critical if you hit with a 16 or lower. If you only hit with 19 or 20, having half your hits be critical is nonsense IMO.


This is too convoluted for my tastes but I can appreciate the design.


Nope. You miss, you miss. Period. Not my thing but hey have at it for your game.


The reward is you hit. Isn't that enough???

little convoluted but works if you add option for fixed damage.

I.E:
greatsword, slashing 12 damage, graze mastery,

if you hit AC: 12 damage
if you miss AC by 5 or less(graze Mastery if you have it), 6 damage and no on hit riders,
if you beat AC by 5 or more; 18 damage,
if you beat AC by 10 or more; 24 damage,
if you beat AC by 15 or more: 30 damage,
if you beat AC by 20 or more: 36 damage,
if you roll nat 20, add +6 damage,(this can be also removed if used variant that roll of 20 is treated as 25)

now, it's maybe faster as you do not roll for damage, you just checks the table after the DM says by how much did you beat AC.

this is just using crit mechanics and spreading the bonus damage out a little.

 

[ezo]

not really a binary as you have a critical hit, so it's atleast trinary,

Originally, binary, as there were no critical hits in the game. And binary it should be IMO: hit or miss.

I suppose you could argue with the nat 1 and nat 20 you have more than hit or miss, adding always miss and always hit.

I just granulated it more.

Which is not to my taste but if it works for you great!

when we played 3E we had a house rule that roll of of "1" is -5 on the dice and roll of "20" is 25 on the dice, so no instant failures or success by roll alone.

Nice idea!

little convoluted but works if you add option for fixed damage.

I.E:
greatsword, slashing 12 damage, graze mastery,

if you hit AC: 12 damage
if you miss AC by 5 or less(graze Mastery if you have it), 6 damage and no on hit riders,
if you beat AC by 5 or more; 18 damage,
if you beat AC by 10 or more; 24 damage,
if you beat AC by 15 or more: 30 damage,
if you beat AC by 20 or more: 36 damage,
if you roll nat 20, add +6 damage,(this can be also removed if used variant that roll of 20 is treated as 25)

now, it's maybe faster as you do not roll for damage, you just checks the table after the DM says by how much did you beat AC.

this is just using crit mechanics and spreading the bonus damage out a little.

I would say more than a "little convoluted" but individual preferences differ.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with convoluted if that is what appeals to you, it just doesn't to me.

The above seems to imply you favor variable attack and fixed damage, while I favor fixed attack and variable damage. I am 95% to the point of abandoning the attack roll entirely and just rolling damage each turn. Such concepts have been explored for a while now and adapted by some rpg systems.

 

[Horwath]

I am 95% to the point of abandoning the attack roll entirely and just rolling damage each turn. Such concepts have been explored for a while now and adapted by some rpg systems.

I like this idea also, no need to have 2 "attacks rolls" for the same thing, it's either variable attack and fixed damage where armor improves AC and maybe some damage reduction vs auto hit where is damage against armors damage reduction.

 

[ezo]

auto hit where is damage against armors damage reduction.

This is the direction I am leaning, personally. I really liked some of the concepts in Nimble 5E, for example, but now it has moved on to full-blown Nimble 2 I am not as much of a fan.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Back to this stuff again...

I am in the rare camp of lowering monster HP and increasing AC. As it is, in 5E you might as well get rid of the attack roll and just roll damage. While the 65% rate concept is nice, it should be the peak, not the base. Because as it is, the peak is closer to 85-90% IME. At that point, "hitting" is boring and missing becomes the fun part IMO.

I don't want the slog to continue, which increasing AC would do, but by lowering monster HP that counters that issue. While 35% is certainly too low for some people, I think a base around 45-50, with a peak around 65% is best personally.

Well the 65% baee assumes no magic items. So it makes sense to adjust things if you use magic items at least.

We don’t use magic items in our game and at level 15 we have around a 50% base hit rate on CR appropriate solos.

5e really does work better with no magic items IMO.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

They do take longer indeed and this was a plus in my games. Longer combats, more tactics (if you have players that like such things). When I say longer I mean more rounds but they do not take really long in time because I run combats very fast. Each participant has 10 seconds to decide his action, else he loses his turn and that holds true for the DM too. I am not talking about performing the action, just deciding on it. This time limit makes combats much more alive.

We limit the whole thing, decision to resolution, to 30 seconds per participant. It has made our games so much more fun.

I heard Mike Mearls talking about the game he is working on recently aand he also expressed the positive impact RL time constraints can have on game play. His players said the didn’t have time to pick the 100% ideal path/ plan, but they had much more fun playing at a faster pace the stressing about select the best course of action

 

[ezo]

Well the 65% baee assumes no magic items. So it makes sense to adjust things if you use magic items at least.

We don’t use magic items in our game and at level 15 we have around a 50% base hit rate on CR appropriate solos.

5e really does work better with no magic items IMO.

Oh, I know the whole no-magic items thing, but IME most games use them, and even spells like bless, plus all the ways to gain advantage, skew the odds to much higher than 65% in play.

I'm not sure how at 15th level your only about 50% since you're probably +9-10 and average AC in tier 3 is 17, even at tier 4 it is only 19 (depeneding on how you break things down). So, 9 or better to hit is 60% still...

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

This is the direction I am leaning, personally. I really liked some of the concepts in Nimble 5E, for example, but now it has moved on to full-blown Nimble 2 I am not as much of a fan.

I believe the MCDM game is using damage only, not to hit rolls.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Oh, I know the whole no-magic items thing, but IME most games use them, and even spells like bless, plus all the ways to gain advantage, skew the odds to much higher than 65% in play.

I'm not sure how at 15th level your only about 50% since you're probably +9-10 and average AC in tier 3 is 17, even at tier 4 it is only 19 (depeneding on how you break things down). So, 9 or better to hit is 60% still...

Notice I said a CR appropriate solo which is in the CR 24-26 range. So your are looking at AC in the 20-22 range (against our typical +10 to hit).

 

[ezo]

Notice I said a CR appropriate solo which is in the CR 24-26 range. So your are looking at AC in the 20-22 range (against our typical +10 to hit).

LOL I don't know how many PCs you have in your group, but in my games at level 15 CR appropriate solos are like CR 19-20. At 24-26 you'd be dead, dead, dead.