D&D 5E How much magic do you have in your game?

[DND_Reborn]

Well IMO, there are several issues with your opinion. However, it ultimately comes down to a different viewpoint or opinion and I don't think we are going to agree on this so I will stop here.

I've presented my thoughts, you disagree. That is all there is to it. I do have one question: Why do you call the gnoll hunters longbow attack a "homebrew" movement penalty? That is straight out of VGtM.

Sure, I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I value your feedback and discussion, as always, and respect your view even if I don't agree with it.

Oh, honestly I wasn't even aware of that--I thought maybe it was something you used in your game.

the introduction of bounded accuracy didn't prompt the hp of monsters to go higher than their previous iterations in the last two editions preceding this one.

Sure, like I said they change some monsters (including more HP) to reflect what they want those monsters to represent in 5E (and 3E/ 4E as well). My point is, and continues to be, if you increase AC (which strains bounded accuracy and its design principle) you can decrease HP (remove bloat) and still have very good balance compared to the lower AC/higher HP motto of 5E.

FWIW, since AD&D, PCs have seen HP bloat as well due to no longer capping HD at name level (9-11ish). Compared to AD&D, we have likewise seen (in general) a reduction of AC comparatively for PCs due to weaker magic items. It wasn't hard in AD&D to get the equivalent 5E AC of 22 or higher, and by high levels (13+) you could easily be looking at an equal AC of 25-30.

This all ties back to the mindset of 5E development: we want more hits and less whiffs! Let's have attacks succeed 65-70% of the time, and compensate with more HP (bloat). Since they didn't want the treadmill effect but wanted more hits, the answer was bounded accuracy. I'll close with this (because then I have to leave for work LOL) that this is not my preferred mindset and I like hitting less and making the game faster to play. I don't mind the concept of BA, but think it would have been better served by a limit closer to 40 in theory instead of the ideal 30 limit. shrug.

Now, back to the actual topic of the thread....

 

[dave2008]

Sure, like I said they change some monsters (including more HP) to reflect what they want those monsters to represent in 5E (and 3E/ 4E as well). My point is, and continues to be, if you increase AC (which strains bounded accuracy and its design principle) you can decrease HP (remove bloat) and still have very good balance compared to the lower AC/higher HP motto of 5E.

5e could have been designed with BA and little to no HP bloat. I personally think the HP inflation in 5e (relative to 1e) has more to do with the tradition of 3e and 4e than the need for BA. You of course disagree.

However, whether you believe 5e has HP bloat because of BA or not, my point is simply that BA doesn't require HP bloat. It requires a certain balance between AC, damage, attack bonus, and HP to achieve a certain design goal. The balance of these factors can be modified to achieve different design goals.

You can remove HP in 5e without requiring a higher AC. Without any other modifications it would result in a swinger game where death was fast and furious. which some my like. Or, this could be mitigating by reducing damage. So you could get a similar feel to 5e now by both reducing HP and damage, without touching AC and attack bonuses at all.

 

[tetrasodium]

@dave2008 has a point however; whether 5e suffers from hp bloat has little to do with bounded accuracy*. Hp bloat has been a thing for the last 20 years (since 2e AD&D really), the fact that you haven't experienced 3rd or 4th editions doesn't change that.

*except in the lower range of creatures; orcs and goblins and kobolds don't have just 4 or 5 hp anymore. Upper level creatures now have less hp than their 3e counterparts however, so bounded accuracy does have an impact on hp in an attempt to "flatten en curve", but not in straight hp bloat.

And as stated earlier, the "bag of hp" syndrome of 5e has less to do with the fact that monsters have a lot of hp, and more with the fact that they don't have much (in terms of abilities) outside their hp. A flaw I wished they addressed, but not one attributable to bounded accuracy.

INot as much of a point as is being made out as it is in contradiction of simple math or related to some other topic. I think that may have you have a bit of a misunderstanding on what is being discussed when people talk about hp bloat in 5e where both sides stand there playing I hit you you hit me with a high hit rate till it finally ends. Someone can prefer the result of each just as two people could point at a filet mignon & a rib eye cap then list all the reasons one is better than the other or why they would rather eat one over the other. No matter how that meat preference falls one being six ounces and the other being 8 ounces is a matter of fact that will never change based on observer. It's fine if you dave or anyone else prefers the 5e method vrs the 3.5 method or vice versa, but where 5e falls mathematically on the scale is a fact

Spoiler: monsters

rust monster cr3 27hp 18ac | 5e cr1/2 27 hp ac14. That's 4AC less & 2.5cr drop difference
ogre cr3 29hp ac16 | 5e | 5e CR2 59hp 11ac. 5e has a 20 point bump in hp & drops the ac by 4.
Ogre zombie cr3 55hp ac15 | 5e cr2 85 HP ac8. 5e has another 30 point hp bump and drops the AC by seven this time
troll cr5 63hp 16ac | 5e cr5 84hp 15. The 5e version has an extra 21 hp & a point lower ac.
goblin cr1/3 5ho 15ac | 5e has cr1 21 hp ac15. That gives the 5e version an extra 6 hp
bugbear cr 2 16ho 17ac | 5e has cr1 hp27 ac 16. That gives 5e an extra 9 hp with hp dropping by a point.
hobgobin cr 1/2 6hp 15ac | 5e has cr1/2 11hp 18 ac. an extra 5 hit points & 3ac making it one of the very extreme few monsters like that
zombie cr1/2 16hp 11 ac | 5e has cr 1/4 22hp ac8. 22 is six points higher than 16 & 8 is four points lower than11
human warrior skeleton cr1/3 6hp 15ac | 5e has cr 1/4 13hp 13ac. 13 is widely accepted as being more than 6 & less than 15.
ghoul cr1 13hp 14ac |5e has cr1 22hp 12 ac. Again 22 is more than 13 while 12 is less than 14
ghast cr3 29hp 17 ac | 5e has cr2 36hp 13 ac. that gives 5e a 19hp bump & 4 point ac drop provided we all agree to stick to the same base10 math that d&d uses.
hill giant cr7 102hp 20ac | 5e has cr5 105hp 13 ac. The hit points re virtually identical but given the capabilities of a party fighting cr5 & cr7 creatures those numbers are rather different.. The 5e version has a 7 point drop in ac to ensure the lower level party can slog through rockemsockem robots.
fire giant cr10 142hp 23ac | 5e has cr9 162hp 18acIn 5e the hp jump by 20 points & ac drops by 5.
gelatinous cube cr3 54hp ac3 | 5e has cr 2 ac6 & 84hp. The difference between ac3 &6 even at low levels is still pretty much a certain hit but a 30 point jump in hp is significant even at higher levels.
trog cr1 13hp 15ac | 5e has cr1/2 13hp 11 ac giving it the same hp but a 4 point ac drop
mummy cr5 55hp 20 ac |5e has cr3 58 hp & ac11. an extra 3 hp & nine point ac drop for 5e.
lich cr13 74hp 23ac 5e has cr21 135 hp & 17 ac. That gives 5e a sixty one point hp jump and reduces ac by six.
beholder cr13 93hp 26ac | 5e has cr13 180hp ac18. 5e has an eighty seven point jump in hp & 8 point drop in ac.
displacer beast cr4 51hp 16ac | 5e has cr3 85hp 13 ac. Thats a 34hp bump and 3 point ac drop going to 5e.

Someone can prefer either style, but barring typos or human error with the calculator the math & raw numbers are simple facts.

 

[CleverNickName]

Cantrips are easily the most powerful form of magic. Unlimited spellcasting is already extremely powerful. Add to that: spells that constantly and reliably grant Advantage, spells that deal dozens of points of damage, at range, without material components, that automatically scale with level...

Seriously, it's no contest.

The next big power spike in spells comes at 3rd level, when heavy-hitters like Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Fly, Counterspell, etc. come on line. But since the poll didn't allow multiple-choice votes, I voted in order of appearance.

 

[dave2008]

INot as much of a point as is being made out as it is in contradiction of simple math or related to some other topic. I think that may have you have a bit of a misunderstanding on what is being discussed when people talk about hp bloat in 5e where both sides stand there playing I hit you you hit me with a high hit rate till it finally ends. Someone can prefer the result of each just as two people could point at a filet mignon & a rib eye cap then list all the reasons one is better than the other or why they would rather eat one over the other. No matter how that meat preference falls one being six ounces and the other being 8 ounces is a matter of fact that will never change based on observer. It's fine if you dave or anyone else prefers the 5e method vrs the 3.5 method or vice versa, but where 5e falls mathematically on the scale is a fact

Spoiler: monsters

rust monster cr3 27hp 18ac | 5e cr1/2 27 hp ac14. That's 4AC less & 2.5cr drop difference
ogre cr3 29hp ac16 | 5e | 5e CR2 59hp 11ac. 5e has a 20 point bump in hp & drops the ac by 4.
Ogre zombie cr3 55hp ac15 | 5e cr2 85 HP ac8. 5e has another 30 point hp bump and drops the AC by seven this time
troll cr5 63hp 16ac | 5e cr5 84hp 15. The 5e version has an extra 21 hp & a point lower ac.
goblin cr1/3 5ho 15ac | 5e has cr1 21 hp ac15. That gives the 5e version an extra 6 hp
bugbear cr 2 16ho 17ac | 5e has cr1 hp27 ac 16. That gives 5e an extra 9 hp with hp dropping by a point.
hobgobin cr 1/2 6hp 15ac | 5e has cr1/2 11hp 18 ac. an extra 5 hit points & 3ac making it one of the very extreme few monsters like that
zombie cr1/2 16hp 11 ac | 5e has cr 1/4 22hp ac8. 22 is six points higher than 16 & 8 is four points lower than11
human warrior skeleton cr1/3 6hp 15ac | 5e has cr 1/4 13hp 13ac. 13 is widely accepted as being more than 6 & less than 15.
ghoul cr1 13hp 14ac |5e has cr1 22hp 12 ac. Again 22 is more than 13 while 12 is less than 14
ghast cr3 29hp 17 ac | 5e has cr2 36hp 13 ac. that gives 5e a 19hp bump & 4 point ac drop provided we all agree to stick to the same base10 math that d&d uses.
hill giant cr7 102hp 20ac | 5e has cr5 105hp 13 ac. The hit points re virtually identical but given the capabilities of a party fighting cr5 & cr7 creatures those numbers are rather different.. The 5e version has a 7 point drop in ac to ensure the lower level party can slog through rockemsockem robots.
fire giant cr10 142hp 23ac | 5e has cr9 162hp 18acIn 5e the hp jump by 20 points & ac drops by 5.
gelatinous cube cr3 54hp ac3 | 5e has cr 2 ac6 & 84hp. The difference between ac3 &6 even at low levels is still pretty much a certain hit but a 30 point jump in hp is significant even at higher levels.
trog cr1 13hp 15ac | 5e has cr1/2 13hp 11 ac giving it the same hp but a 4 point ac drop
mummy cr5 55hp 20 ac |5e has cr3 58 hp & ac11. an extra 3 hp & nine point ac drop for 5e.
lich cr13 74hp 23ac 5e has cr21 135 hp & 17 ac. That gives 5e a sixty one point hp jump and reduces ac by six.
beholder cr13 93hp 26ac | 5e has cr13 180hp ac18. 5e has an eighty seven point jump in hp & 8 point drop in ac.
displacer beast cr4 51hp 16ac | 5e has cr3 85hp 13 ac. Thats a 34hp bump and 3 point ac drop going to 5e.

Someone can prefer either style, but barring typos or human error with the calculator the math & raw numbers are simple facts.

I just want to be clear, I never disputed the facts of the math, I dispute the conclusions you draw from the math.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I personally think the HP inflation in 5e (relative to 1e) has more to do with the tradition of 3e and 4e than the need for BA. You of course disagree.

Not being as familiar with 3E and 4E, you could well be correct and I freely acknowledge that. But I have to judge from what I know and am familiar with--I have nothing else to compare it to.

You can remove HP in 5e without requiring a higher AC. Without any other modifications it would result in a swinger game where death was fast and furious. which some my like. Or, this could be mitigating by reducing damage. So you could get a similar feel to 5e now by both reducing HP and damage, without touching AC and attack bonuses at all.

I agree with you, but the bold part is key. Changing HP without changing AC would result in a different feel for the game (than what I am trying to achieve, anyway). I could also just double damage for everything (but the result is the same as halving HP...). If I reduce both HP and damage, it wouldn't help any since the ratio would be the same (if I reduced them evenly, of course...).

Anyway, if WotC wants to have more hitting (thinking this is more "exciting"--it isn't, IMO) but stop the treadmill effect (implementing BA), something had to happen to make tougher creatures harder to defeat. Their response: increased HP, which turns combat into slugfests. They didn't want to change damage, because it would represent changing what had been a fairly consistent standard through editions. A longsword, for instance, has been 1d8 nearly from the beginning. A fireball does d6s worth of damage, and magic missiles are d4s, etc.

How much of an increase was the HP "bloat"? As you say, by comparison to 3E and 4E, maybe not that much (you would know better than I as I've explained), but by comparison to 1E and even most of 2E, it is a LOT! Consider an ancient red dragon in 2E (AC 31, HP 103.5) versus 5E (AC 22, 546 HP). The AC is nearly 10 points less (so even goblins can hit it with a decent chance...) but it has over 5 times the HP!

FWIW, my design intent was: Make hitting special so it means something.

It is too common , too easy, and too boring. "Oh, look, I hit again. And again, oh, and one more time..." yawn Every time a PC hits, the player has to roll damage and I, as DM, have to track the HP decrease. Monsters that used to go down in a single hit now take two or three. Larger combats, especially, end up taking up too much game time. We used average damage for a lot of things, and it helped speed the game up, but didn't help making hitting more exciting.

I can do this by decreasing bonuses, or by increasing AC to make it more difficult. I chose to increase AC as a uniform bump is easiest to implement. Alternatively, to preserve some aspect of Bounded Accuracy, I could impose disadvantage on all attack rolls--mathematically it works out to nearly the same thing and was something I considered for a long time.

But, if hitting is more difficult, creatures deal less damage per round, and combat takes longer. To compensate, I decrease HP, also uniformly, by halving it across the board for monsters. PCs no longer get CON bonuses each level and stop getting HD at 10th level, gaining only a small increase per level afterwards based on their HD.

A cascading effect resulted in necessary changes to save proficiencies (all creatures are proficient in all saves, saves already proficient gain advantage).

A nice bug was magic became more powerful in some ways, more like it was in AD&D.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Cantrips are easily the most powerful form of magic. Unlimited spellcasting is already extremely powerful. Add to that: spells that constantly and reliably grant Advantage, spells that deal dozens of points of damage, at range, without material components, that automatically scale with level...

Seriously, it's no contest.

The next big power spike in spells comes at 3rd level, when heavy-hitters like Lightning Bolt, Fireball, Fly, Counterspell, etc. come on line. But since the poll didn't allow multiple-choice votes, I voted in order of appearance.

To be fair, a cantrip only does “dozens” of damage at levels where the fighter is also doing dozens of damage.

Stuff like mending is great, but mid-high level spells are in a whole other ballpark.

 

[dave2008]

Anyway, if WotC wants to have more hitting (thinking this is more "exciting"--it isn't, IMO) but stop the treadmill effect (implementing BA), something had to happen to make tougher creatures harder to defeat. Their response: increased HP, which turns combat into slugfests.

I don't now how much 5e you have played, but that hasn't been my experience and based on most comments on these forums, others as well. Most people claim 5e monsters a too easy, the fall to quickly, and they are not a slug fest. Obviously you experience could be different, but that is not the consensus.

They didn't want to change damage, because it would represent changing what had been a fairly consistent standard through editions. A longsword, for instance, has been 1d8 nearly from the beginning. A fireball does d6s worth of damage, and magic missiles are d4s, etc.

Of course 4e was different. In 4e martial characters had basic attacks which scaled similar to cantrips in 5e. So your sword still did 1d8, but ad level 10 (or something) it did 2d8. This represented your increased skill. You also learned martial exploits which also increase damage and/or added cool effects (push, stun, trip, etc.). They could have done something similar in 5e. In fact, we allow martial characters to double their attack damage instead of using an extra attack.

How much of an increase was the HP "bloat"? As you say, by comparison to 3E and 4E, maybe not that much (you would know better than I as I've explained), but by comparison to 1E and even most of 2E, it is a LOT! Consider an ancient red dragon in 2E (AC 31, HP 103.5) versus 5E (AC 22, 546 HP). The AC is nearly 10 points less (so even goblins can hit it with a decent chance...) but it has over 5 times the HP!

I don't disagree but the in 3e the same dragon has 527 HP (and of course they go up to 660 HP because there are more age categories) and in 4e it has 1,390 HP! So you can see why people who came from 4e find the idea the 5e has HP bloat a little odd.

FWIW, my design intent was: Make hitting special so it means something.

It is too common , too easy, and too boring. "Oh, look, I hit again. And again, oh, and one more time..." yawn Every time a PC hits, the player has to roll damage and I, as DM, have to track the HP decrease.

I agree the hit roll comes up good bit more often. If that is not what you want, RAW 5e is not tuned to your preferences and that is OK. WotC believes most people prefer to hit more and find missing frustrating. The sales of this edition seem to agree. My own experience at least partially agrees.

My old group (we've played together since HS) didn't seem to notice a difference, or a least didn't complain or praise the more frequent hitting.

However, my new group (my sons and their friends that I taught 4e too) definitely noticed the change and much preferred the more frequent hitting in 5e vs 4e. They hated missing 4e and I guess the basically still do in 5e, but it happens less often now.

Monsters that used to go down in a single hit now take two or three. Larger combats, especially, end up taking up too much game time. We used average damage for a lot of things, and it helped speed the game up, but didn't help making hitting more exciting.

We don't have any issue with monsters dropping quickly, but I agree the excite meet has shifted a bit from just hitting so seeing how much damage you do and whether or not you take the beast down with said damage.

I can do this by decreasing bonuses, or by increasing AC to make it more difficult. I chose to increase AC as a uniform bump is easiest to implement. Alternatively, to preserve some aspect of Bounded Accuracy, I could impose disadvantage on all attack rolls--mathematically it works out to nearly the same thing and was something I considered for a long time.

Since your old school, why not cap bonuses a bit. In 1e attribute bonuses capped at +3. why don't you make a 16 the max stat? Also, what I find in 5e is that since magic items are not required, you can remove the attack bonus from magic items if you want. That can be as much as a +5 difference in your attack bonus.

I have also found adding +1 AC per tier for monsters works for some and still allows PCs to have all of their RAW bonuses.

I personally hear more about monsters having to few hit points (some use max HP since 5e monsters fall so quickly) so I don't normally recommend reducing monster HP, but you could do that if your experience is different.

But, if hitting is more difficult, creatures deal less damage per round, and combat takes longer. To compensate, I decrease HP, also uniformly, by halving it across the board for monsters.

I prefer to leave the monster HP the same but increase monster damage. Either use max damage or flat increase per tier or CR. I has the bonus of effectively reducing character HP, without having to actually reduce character HP

PCs no longer get CON bonuses each level and stop getting HD at 10th level, gaining only a small increase per level afterwards based on their HD.

Sounds like your trying to make 5e look more like 1e, which is completely fine. I think 5e is extremely malleable. We have several house rules to HP, HD, and rest and recovery that make the game more like we want to play.

We've thought about removing HD and CON bonus after 10th level, but with our other house rules it would probably make PCs to squishy for high level monsters.

 

[tetrasodium]

I just want to be clear, I never disputed the facts of the math, I dispute the conclusions you draw from the math.

Take the zombie 22 is more than 16 11 is more than 8. There is no room for dispute there with some other conclusion at that point and you seem to be agreeing.

But does 5e have HP bloat? Compared to 1e & 2e, mostly yes. Compared to 3e and 4e, mostly no. In fact compared to 4e it has hit point contraction. 5e monsters in general have fewer hit points than 4e monsters and 5e PCs do more damage than their 4e counterparts.

The words "Compared to 3e and 4e, mostly" as used are in contradiction of the math. 4th edition was such a different system that comprises are difficult between it and any other edition, but 3rd has a huge amount of similarity. earlier in the thread you said that you barely remember and never played 3rd making the certainty of your "conclusion" about how it falls in comparison to 5e with hp inflation bit curious when the math is simply the reverse

 

[dave2008]

Take the zombie 22 is more than 16 11 is more than 8. There is no room for dispute there with some other conclusion at that point and you seem to be agreeing.

Ya, that has nothing to do with magic item design which was the discussion I was referring too.

However, I would argue an increase in HP =/= bloat. I fully concede that some HP increase, but that isn't the same as "bloat" That is the conclusion I am saying is wrong, not that 22 is greater than 16.

The words "Compared to 3e and 4e, mostly" as used are in contradiction of the math. 4th edition was such a different system that comprises are difficult between it and any other edition, but 3rd has a huge amount of similarity. earlier in the thread you said that you barely remember and never played 3rd making the certainty of your "conclusion" about how it falls in comparison to 5e with hp inflation bit curious when the math is simply the reverse

Ok, some math for you, red dragons:

3.5e ancient red dragon: 527 HP
3.5e GW red dragon (the most powerful): 660 HP
4e ancient red dragon (the most powerful): 1,390 HP
5e ancient red dragon (the most powerful): 546 HP

5e has the least HP for its most powerful dragon. That is HP contraction, the math supports my assessment.

EDIT: Since you mentioned Zombies

3,5e Medium zombie: 16 - 29 HP
4e Medium zombie: 40-71 HP
5e Medium zombie: 22

Hmm, seems like less HP escalation and more like cherry picking on your part

PS. I will agree right now that some 3e monsters have less HP than their 5e equivalents. But I will also emphatically state that does not mean the increase in HP is "bloat."