Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kupursk" data-source="post: 7562476" data-attributes="member: 6986037">I did mention something about that in a few previous posts. Again, I'm not really &quot;experienced&quot; with 5e, most of my assessments are from reading the rules and my former experience with D&amp;D, so I could be wrong.But actually it seems to me you'd miss more in 5e than in 2e. Most ACs weren't super-high in 2e either. AC values are lower in 5e indeed, but to-hit values are MUCH lower in 5e compared to 2e. Mostly in 2e after a certain level warrior-types would never miss attacks except on a natural 1. I'm guessing 5e doesn't get to that point? Unless maybe against really low AC enemies?Which is not to say &quot;never missing&quot; was good game design. I think it was mostly an unintended consequence just slapping a standardized math progression to the class, which got wonky at high levels. Up to a certain point the balance of to-hit and AC in 2e was fine, and the system itself kind of had the same idea of Bounded Accuracy although they never named it, it just &quot;was.&quot; But at very high levels it did get wonky, that's why I usually house-rule a slower THAC0 progession after level 10-ish when playing 2e.3e however was an entirely different beast... with the system expecting you to stack tons of magic items, monster AC could hit insane values like 50+ at high levels.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kupursk, post: 7562476, member: 6986037"] I did mention something about that in a few previous posts. Again, I'm not really "experienced" with 5e, most of my assessments are from reading the rules and my former experience with D&D, so I could be wrong. But actually it seems to me you'd miss more in 5e than in 2e. Most ACs weren't super-high in 2e either. AC values are lower in 5e indeed, but to-hit values are MUCH lower in 5e compared to 2e. Mostly in 2e after a certain level warrior-types would never miss attacks except on a natural 1. I'm guessing 5e doesn't get to that point? Unless maybe against really low AC enemies? Which is not to say "never missing" was good game design. I think it was mostly an unintended consequence just slapping a standardized math progression to the class, which got wonky at high levels. Up to a certain point the balance of to-hit and AC in 2e was fine, and the system itself kind of had the same idea of Bounded Accuracy although they never named it, it just "was." But at very high levels it did get wonky, that's why I usually house-rule a slower THAC0 progession after level 10-ish when playing 2e. 3e however was an entirely different beast... with the system expecting you to stack tons of magic items, monster AC could hit insane values like 50+ at high levels. [/QUOTE]

Verification