Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4756058" data-attributes="member: 2011">Actually, I said that they should be closer to 50/50 than they currently are.PC AC at first level is typically 14 to 20 without any feats with same level monsters hitting on a 6 to 16. Right in the middle of the chart, slightly on the high side.PC AC at 30th level is typically 41 to 47 without any feats with same level monsters hitting on a 4 to 14. Slightly on the low side of the chart.This is good because there are a few ways to bump AC up by a few points (e.g. just taking Leather Armor to replace Cloth takes these to 8 to 16 and 6 to 14), but (and this is the important point) players do not HAVE to bump up their AC with feats if they do not want to and the AC defense is still viable.So the question becomes, why is a 2 AC drop good and a 4 to 7 NAD drop also good? Or put another way, why are attacks against AC approximately the same curve and NAD ones shifted so significantly?Ditto for to hit.Why is it fun to hit a same level foe only on a 15 when the PC used to hit a same level foe on a 12?1) I do think that the PC's additional abilities do a LOT. The Epic encounters are not that challenging. They are long, but they are not challenging. PCs almost always have some rabbit they can pull out of their hat for any given situation. But with the increased number of hit points at Epic level, it seems reasonable to adjust the PC to hit math in order to drill through monster hit points faster.2) I think they can be a lot of fun. But, I do think that they are longer than they need be (well out of the sweet spot) and I think a lot of that is because PCs do not hit as often and monsters hit too often.The bottom line here is that PCs do get so many options at higher levels. My contention is that the monsters should have stronger attacks and slightly more options to compensate for that. Even something as simple as increasing recharge rate would help quite a bit.I think the math should work right out of the box. I think the new feats are there because the math does not work right out of the box. I think the low number of monster options (to help the DM) and the weak high level monster attacks allow the opposing POV supporters to think it is balanced. I don't think it is.Like I said before, the foundation should be the math first and then the potency of monster attacks should be determined. Not the other way around.Not only are they more difficult to get rid of, they are also more difficult to do bookkeeping on. Lose lose.</blockquote>

Verification