Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fearsomepirate" data-source="post: 8195656" data-attributes="member: 7021420">Yes, several.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The book-keeping is tedious. Once the rogue is rolling 9 dice at every strike, and the paladin is regularly rolling 7 dice on a smite, and the wizard is rolling 8-10 dice on some spells...yeah, it does in fact cause a problem. It slows the game down. The book-keeping for several monsters with hundreds of hit points each is tedious, too. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Certain plausible-sounding things from past games are now impossible. The CR of a monster an Assassin Rogue can actually assassinate is surprisingly low (an 10th-level rogue has about a 50% chance to kill a CR 2 ogre). CR 1 & 2 monsters will last longer than it seems like they should against high-level parties. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">NPCs aren't viable opponents. In 5e design, PCs typically have a much higher DPR/HP than monsters, typically somewhere between 50% and 100% of their HP in damage per round, depending on their powers & resources. And since the hit chance is so high, this means a party of 4 will turn most NPCs into paste by focus-firing in the first round, unless you contrive something to ensure this doesn't happen.</li> </ol>Basically, the HP and damage slopes both need to be shallower, and the AC slope needs to be a little steeper. We don't need to go back to ACs in the 40s and to-hit bonuses in the 30s; I just feel 5e overcorrected. At high level, players typically have to-hit bonuses between 11 and 14. It's absurd for a monster facing them to have an AC of 16.</blockquote>

Verification