yes having a few hard to hit ACs would be the point... at level 17+ a bonus to hit can be a 20 (if it's str maybe higher) stat +6 and it can be as high as +3 magic but lets call it +1...so +12 you hit a 20 on an 8 and a 30 on a 18 and that is not min max
That said, I do think there is room for improvement. I thought the official write up of the quickling was really sloppy. They totally missed the mark for hard to hit and easy to kill if you do hit. They were simplified down to pointlessness for me.
If you want to expand the AC range to the point where every level 1 character needs a natural 20 to hit, you have gone too far. Just play a game without bounded accuracy instead.
In general, I've not found magic items to break BA much, since they only go up to +3. However, one huge problem is +x shields, since they get to stack with magic armor, so I simply never use them. I overall agree that it's better to use smaller bonuses with more interesting abilities than just "moar power."
One other thing I would add to this is the lack of "Treat rolls <X as X" effects for a system using bounded accuracy. There are a few like Reliable Talent, Divine Portent, GWF, etc. but it seems like a really easy way to alter the numbers without changing the maximum. I know the advantage/disadvantage system does this to some extent already. It's one of the better things about 5e, but the cancelling and redundant nature of the system only lets you build it out so far. As an example, the Belt of the Olympian letting you treat all athletics die rolls of 1-6 as 7 wouldn't break anything. And if you demand a failure chance we can do 2-6 as 7 so that natural 1s are most likely still failures and halflings can make use of their Lucky trait.
As for +X weapons, the +X to attack rolls being treated as an expanded crit range works. For damage I just change their dice size. So d6 -> d8, d8 ->10, 2d6/1d12 -> 2d8, etc.
Low AC is a feature of 5e. When our forst time 5e DM started with adding 2 AC to many monsters, because with his 3e gut fealing it felt to low, combata just bogged down and were quite unfun.
Admittedly it was low to mid level, so I guess, removing +x weapons is not the worst idea. I'd really hesitate to mess with AC too much. Or you need to severely cut down HP.
Maybe cut down HP and don't lower AC. But increase damage output. I'd rather use larger numbers of foes.
do people not understand that this is not an answer to a complaint... like if it was a feature to my group why would I complain?
yes having a few hard to hit ACs would be the point... at level 17+ a bonus to hit can be a 20 (if it's str maybe higher) stat +6 and it can be as high as +3 magic but lets call it +1...so +12 you hit a 20 on an 8 and a 30 on a 18 and that is not min max
of course you can change things
would every level 1 character need a 20 to hit everyone or only the absolut hight of AC?
if that same to hit was a 16 stat +2 prof and no magic you get +5 at first level meaning you already hit a 20 on a 15+ to start
I do agree that AC20 as a general cap for monsters is sometimes too low. Lolth had AC-10 in 1e and low hp, so why doesn't she have AC25 in 5e? But there is more focus on damage dealing than hitting or missing in 5e. So the answer is that she has a lower AC bcause she has higher hp. It's justifiable to ask if that misses the point of Lolth as she was written originally.
At low levels a 75% miss chance is pretty high though, especially if the monster is hitting you more easily and is doing more damage. I think it's important not to try and do a side by side comparison with 1e, which was low damage, low hp. Even a 40% chance to miss is quite high against something with a lot of hit points.
Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength are appallingly written for a bounded system. They should just really add +2 and +4 respectively and just increase the ability cap to gigantic levels. The benefit to having giant strength should be to lift heavy objects and push larger monsters rather than break bounded accuracy.
I do also think that changing expoertise to + half your ability score bonus and treat rolls of 2-4 as 5 would fulfil the brief at lower levels and cap skills in your main stat at a more manageable level IMO, while preserving expertise as cool for skills with secondary stats.
I do agree that AC20 as a general cap for monsters is sometimes too low. Lolth had AC-10 in 1e and low hp, so why doesn't she have AC25 in 5e? But there is more focus on damage dealing than hitting or missing in 5e. So the answer is that she has a lower AC bcause she has higher hp. It's justifiable to ask if that misses the point of Lolth as she was written originally.
At low levels a 75% miss chance is pretty high though, especially if the monster is hitting you more easily and is doing more damage. I think it's important not to try and do a side by side comparison with 1e, which was low damage, low hp. Even a 40% chance to miss is quite high against something with a lot of hit points.
Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Girdles of Giant Strength are appallingly written for a bounded system. They should just really add +2 and +4 respectively and just increase the ability cap to gigantic levels. The benefit to having giant strength should be to lift heavy objects and push larger monsters rather than break bounded accuracy.
I do also think that changing expoertise to + half your ability score bonus and treat rolls of 2-4 as 5 would fulfil the brief at lower levels and cap skills in your main stat at a more manageable level IMO, while preserving expertise as cool for skills with secondary stats.
Low AC, high hp is very reliable, high AC, low hp is very volatile.
I think, there is a golden middle, but they have not found it already.
I'd say, maybe something of thw order prof bonus/2 more AC seems reasonable in exchange for 20% hp.
The low AC of monsters is a feature, not a bug. It's not fun for players to keep missing and AC30 would be really difficult to hit. There is also potential for DMs to 'enhance' monsters by upping dex, adding potions or spell effects, lair effects, parrying, and legendary actions.
That said, I do think there is room for improvement. I thought the official write up of the quickling was really sloppy. They totally missed the mark for hard to hit and easy to kill if you do hit. They were simplified down to pointlessness for me.
If you want to expand the AC range to the point where every level 1 character needs a natural 20 to hit, you have gone too far. Just play a game without bounded accuracy instead.
Look at the dmg pg274 chart, here are a few points on it (I'm not doing this 30+times.)
cr1: 50-70hp ac13
cr5: 131-135hp 15ac
cr10: 106-220hp 17ac
cr15: 226-280hp 18ac
cr20: 356-400hp 19ac
cr25: :581-625hp 19ac
xr30: 806-850hp 19ac
Compare that to a hypothetical fighter at the same levels
L1: 15str(+2) +2 prof, hits cr1 monsters on a roll of nine(9+2+2=13)
L5: 17str(+3) +3 prof, hits cr5 monsters on a roll of ten or eleven (11+3+3 or 10+3+3+1)
L10: 20str+5) +4 prof, hits cr10 monsters on a roll of seven or eight (8+5+4=17 or 7+5+4+1=17)
hits cr15 monsters on a roll of eight+ or seven+ ( 8+5+5=18 or 7+5+5+1=18
hits cr20 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
hits cr25 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
hits cr30 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
L15: 20str(+5) +5 prof, hits cr15 monsters on a roll of eight+ or seven+ or six+ (8+5+5=18 or 7+5+5+1=18 or 6+5+5+2=18)
hits cr20 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5=19 or 8+5+5+1=19)
hits cr25 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5+1=19 or 8+5+5+2=19)
hits cr30 on a roll on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5+1=19 or 8+5+5+2=19)
L20 20str(+5) +6prof, hits cr20 monster on a roll of eight+ or seven+ or si+x (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19)
hits cr25 monster on a roll of eight or seven or six+ (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19
hits cr30 monster on a roll of eight or seven or six+ (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19)
This is completely broken. Removal of full/-5/-10 iterative/multi attack penalties made all attacks almost guaranteed & required monster hp values to explode because now every attack is almost guaranteed to hit & require time where everyone is bored watching bob roll damage on an almost guaranteed attack multiple times per round rather than once probably for certain then maybe be excited about more if luck is good/great depending on level to CR spread.
"It just ain't the same thing.... I belong in the other place"
"This is the other place.."
Tactics Strategy & good or bad luck no longer play a part in combat because it's just an illusion draped over what the twilight zone once described as fitting for "the other place"
Look at the dmg pg274 chart, here are a few points on it (I'm not doing this 30+times.)
cr1: 50-70hp ac13
cr5: 131-135hp 15ac
cr10: 106-220hp 17ac
cr15: 226-280hp 18ac
cr20: 356-400hp 19ac
cr25: :581-625hp 19ac
xr30: 806-850hp 19ac
Compare that to a hypothetical fighter at the same levels
L1: 15str(+2) +2 prof, hits cr1 monsters on a roll of nine(9+2+2=13)
L5: 17str(+3) +3 prof, hits cr5 monsters on a roll of ten or eleven (11+3+3 or 10+3+3+1)
L10: 20str+5) +4 prof, hits cr10 monsters on a roll of seven or eight (8+5+4=17 or 7+5+4+1=17)
hits cr15 monsters on a roll of eight+ or seven+ ( 8+5+5=18 or 7+5+5+1=18
hits cr20 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
hits cr25 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
hits cr30 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ or seven+ (9+4+5+1=19 or 8+4+5+2=19)
L15: 20str(+5) +5 prof, hits cr15 monsters on a roll of eight+ or seven+ or six+ (8+5+5=18 or 7+5+5+1=18 or 6+5+5+2=18)
hits cr20 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5=19 or 8+5+5+1=19)
hits cr25 monster on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5+1=19 or 8+5+5+2=19)
hits cr30 on a roll on a roll of nine+ or eight+ (9+5+5+1=19 or 8+5+5+2=19)
L20 20str(+5) +6prof, hits cr20 monster on a roll of eight+ or seven+ or si+x (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19)
hits cr25 monster on a roll of eight or seven or six+ (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19
hits cr30 monster on a roll of eight or seven or six+ (8+6+5=19 or 7+6+5+1=19 or 6+6+5+2=19)
This is completely broken. Removal of full/-5/-10 iterative/multi attack penalties made all attacks almost guaranteed & required monster hp values to explode because now every attack is almost guaranteed to hit & require time where everyone is bored watching bob roll damage on an almost guaranteed attack multiple times per round rather than once probably for certain then maybe be excited about more if luck is good/great depending on level to CR spread.
"It just ain't the same thing.... I belong in the other place"
"This is the other place.."
Tactics Strategy & good or bad luck no longer play a part in combat because it's just an illusion draped over what the twilight zone once described as fitting for "the other place"
Fighter damage is balanced by hitting more often. If you make it harder to hit, their damage dips compared to spells and to paladins who can boost damage significantly when they actually do hit. People complain about fighter damage appearing lacklustre as it is, even though it is top tier if you count damage that actually matters rather than overkill.
The game can never be perfectly balanced and I do think that there should be more top tier monsters with AC above 20. I couldn't understand why Quicklings weren't treated as if they are under a permanent haste spell.
Fighter damage is balanced by hitting more often. If you make it harder to hit, their damage dips compared to spells and to paladins who can boost damage significantly when they actually do hit. People complain about fighter damage appearing lacklustre as it is, even though it is top tier if you count damage that actually matters rather than overkill.
The game can never be perfectly balanced and I do think that there should be more top tier monsters with AC above 20. I couldn't understand why Quicklings weren't treated as if they are under a permanent haste spell.
Yes it does but that's an oversimplification that avoids the point without addressing how deep the problem runs beyond that. Those fewer attacking options however are balanced by thing's like not adding attrib or adding fewer attrib mod instances to attacks that rest more on individual attack /save that become more unreliable. It does not end there though because monster hp is jacked dramatically to compensate for everyone hitting every time with near certainty& things like dr/sr were removed alongside things like crit range & crit multipliers on weapons so that the gm can no longer target a monster to (dis)favor a pc trying to deal many smaller attacks fewer big attacks or nukes over group enhancing/monster degrading abilities.
There is a bigger problem caused by having every attack treated the same though... That math swings both ways & now a large number of monsters are either almost totally harmless or rocks fall levels of deadly in ways that a gm is going to be hard pressed to adjust for large groups like they could by giving pcs better armor to make those later attacks much harder without totally defanging a monster as 5e causes.
From there it loops back to the twilight zone as noted because the gm lacks tools to adjust things in favor of the group they have if that group is stuck in the other place with Mister Valentine. This might work great for a very specific number of players of very specific class/archetype split at very specific levels but d&d is not in any way limited to that & the gm attempting to force it would be considered unreasonable.
+5) +4 prof, hits cr10 monsters on a roll of seven or eight (8+5+4=17 or 7+5+4+1=17)
