D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[GMforPowergamers]

Did you skip 3e? Because going to 20d10+high Con bonus was introduced with 3e, long before bounded accuracy.

no but I am not complaining about 3e right now (I think that is the worst Edition of D&D and could fill pages with complaints) but I think 5e made a mistake useing that chasie...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm split on this. I like the concept, since I felt that 3e and from what I hear 4e had too much number inflation, but I think they bounded it too much. We start at +2 and get 4 more pluses over 20 levels. They should have started at +1 and added 9 more over 20 levels for a total of +10.

Starting at +1 is a bad Idea, because it is not significant enough. But I think that would have been the right direction.
I'd start at +3 and then add 6 or even 7 over the levels.

 

[Vaalingrade]

no but I am not complaining about 3e right now (I think that is the worst Edition of D&D and could fill pages with complaints) but I think 5e made a mistake useing that chasie...

It's the second best of the ones I've played, assuming PF doesn't count. But then I've only played the 3 editions... not that pre-3e appeals to me anyway.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm split on this. I like the concept, since I felt that 3e and from what I hear 4e had too much number inflation, but I think they bounded it too much. We start at +2 and get 4 more pluses over 20 levels. They should have started at +1 and added 9 more over 20 levels for a total of +10.

funny thing that is the 4e modle 1/2 level so +1 at 2nd level and +10 at 20th... but with 'prof is +2' so you start at +2 and end at +12

I think they should have made it prof is 1/2 level min 1, and not prof gets +1 at 5,11,&17 (like cantrip scaleing)

so a 13 Dex 15 Con 12 Wis barbarian that is prof in con saves would start off at +1 Dex saves. +3 Con saves +1 Wis saves and end up with (assuming 1 stat increase to con only) at 20th with +4 dex saves +14 Con saves + 4 Wis saves...

an argument could be made to 'keep numbers lower' to make it 1/3 level so that con would be +9 con saves

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's basically 4e's way of doing it, only they went to +15 for 30 levels and had to patch in an extra +1 when it turned out players lagged behind monsters.

just to let those not in the know you upped ALL 6 stats by 1 at 11 and 21, and twice during each 10 level set you got 2 +2s to add to your stats... then you added half level and a set mod for prof +2. later for attacks they added "expertise" feats that added +1 to hit that scaled to +2 at 11th and +3 at 21st. I personally didn't think they were needed but many did.

 

[dave2008]

^^^This guy ogres.

Here are some ogres for you:

• Ogre Collector (standard, CR 2)
• Ogre Skirmisher (standard, CR 2)
• Ogre Warhulk (standard, CR 4)
• Ogre Wrathbringer (standard, CR 3)

 

[Vaalingrade]

just to let those not in the know you upped ALL 6 stats by 1 at 11 and 21, and twice during each 10 level set you got 2 +2s to add to your stats... then you added half level and a set mod for prof +2. later for attacks they added "expertise" feats that added +1 to hit that scaled to +2 at 11th and +3 at 21st. I personally didn't think they were needed but many did.

If you didn't fight tactically the way the game expected and used positioning and flanking and combat adavantage, then it fixed a lot of the whiff you get.

 

[Maxperson]

That's basically 4e's way of doing it, only they went to +15 for 30 levels and had to patch in an extra +1 when it turned out players lagged behind monsters.

Yeah. I disliked 4e as an edition, but it did do some things that I liked

 

[Maxperson]

Starting at +1 is a bad Idea, because it is not significant enough. But I think that would have been the right direction.
I'd start at +3 and then add 6 or even 7 over the levels.

+1 worked for 4 editions and with the low ACs of 5e monsters would do just fine. Heck, you could just lower CR 1 and lower monster ACs by 1 and it would work out to be exactly the same as it is now.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's the second best of the ones I've played, assuming PF doesn't count. But then I've only played the 3 editions... not that pre-3e appeals to me anyway.

I have atleast for small throw away games played basic, 1e,2e, 2e with all splat add ons, 3e,3.5, 4e. 4e+essentials, 5e, 5e+tasha add ons, and at least 3 retro clones based on the 3e engine... of all of them 3.0 is the worst (IMO) with 3.5 being a close second... 4e was the best 2e was the second best and 5e (with tasha's add ons) is the third best... and I keep hopeing 6e/5.5/anniversary edition will be more 4e and less 3e. (all of this i IMO, I don't know why i have to add this but please don't start edition wars based on my feelings)