Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 8180925" data-attributes="member: 83242">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. 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.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.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.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.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.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 HPSounds 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.</blockquote>

Verification