D&D 5E (2014) Some thoughts after more time with the game...

[I'm A Banana]

It's been a little while now since I first started playing 5th Edition. As such, I felt like it was a good idea to re-evaluate some of my old opinions, and also to reach out to the community and get some feedback on a few issues which have come up during play.

Cool.

The first thing that comes to mind when I sit and give further thought to the experience I've gained is that monster AC values seem extremely low. The campaign I'm currently in has just reached level 8, and there are times when most of the party is capable of hitting with single-digit rolls. I don't think that by itself is necessarily bad, but it does sometimes seem odd when compared to the difficult that the party's adversaries have when it comes to hitting some of the party. Now that we're gaining more magic items, this disparity is beginning to quickly grow.

A brief example: The party barbarian is currently rolling +9 to hit (5 from maxed out strength; 3 from proficiency; +1 from a magic weapon.) Most of the enemies we face seem to have AC ranging from 12-15. So that means, the barbarian is, in some cases, relying on rolling a 3 to hit; sometimes needing a 6 against a tougher foe. If he has advantage, rolling tends to be little more than a formality.

In contrast, my character has 19 AC. I'm wearing full plate, and I have the defensive fighting style (I'm a multiclass fighter/wizard.) I didn't have any magic items at the time I started typing this, but I was just now informed that the party gained some magic items from the most recent loot. From the brief details I was given, I'm guessing my AC will jump somewhere into the 20s from magic plate and a ring of protection.

While there are times when combat does still feel dangerous, there are also times when the contrast between what the DM is needing to roll versus what the players are needing to roll seems a bit odd. I think I still need a closer look at the numbers before gauging if this is even a problem at all. If nothing else, it has created a weird sense of 5E combat. Some encounters will be unbelievably lopsided in favor of the players; others will drop a PC early and easily, but it's typically one or the other with little room in between. I don't have a solid grasp of what (if anything) that means yet, but it then leads to noticing other things...
...
Is AC intentionally that low? If so, does giving a creature better armor significantly change the assumptions of the game or the challenge of an encounter?

Yeah, that's pretty much intentional. AC's are flat across levels, so an AC 12 is an AC 12 at any level. HP scales instead. Hitting a critter is not a key part of creature difficulty, except in a few (high-AC) cases. Giving a creature armor doesn't change the assumptions of the game, it just requires a more limited selection of tools to overcome.

One of those other things is that +N items still seem to be a problem. I love the idea of bounded accuracy, but I am unsure if adding extra boosts of a strictly numerical value risks making the game unbalanced in some situations. Looking back at my own character, I notice that my AC will be 20-something; on top of that, I can cast Shield and make myself harder to hit. Is that atypical or normal for the game? Thinking upon it further, I realize that I put most of that together by accident; I was simply trying to recreate my Skyrim character who was a heavily armored necromancer.

It very likely could be that the group I'm in is doing something wrong with the stacking rules. Does a cloak of protection stack with a ring of protection? Does all of that stack with magic armor?

I think you're doing OK. Heavy armor makes you hard to hit at all levels. That's fine - there's ways to hurt you that don't rely on piercing your AC, and monsters out there with solid to-hit rolls, too.

Another thing I've noticed is that, with the AC of enemies being so low, ranged attacks seem to be much better than engaging in melee. While melee based classes can produce large quantities of damage via multiple attacks, the same thing can be done by arming my skeletal minions with crossbows and having them focus fire, and I can cover most of the battlefield that way rather than only the space right in front of me. I'm also starting to notice that spells such as Witch Bolt cast at higher spell slots reliably hit for a relatively high amount of damage; at range, and with continuing effects. Again, I'm not sure there's even a real problem there; I'm not even suggesting there necessarily is; just an observation of how the game I'm currently in seems to play out.

I think the observation is correct, and my sense is that it's not really a problem. You're a competent, heroic adventurer! All else being equal, ranged is a better idea than melee (it's up to lighting conditions and terrain to make that not true - not every encounter is in a bare 20 x 20 field).

Speaking of spells, there have also been a few situations which have come up that I'd like to get outside opinions on. The polymorph spell is on the verge of becoming a powerful weapon in our campaign, but in a somewhat unusual way. With the way the spell is worded, a creature reverts back to their normal form if their morphed form is killed. During part of the campaign, a creature had been polymorphed into a small animal and then fed to one of their allies. Eating the polymorphed creature caused it to be killed and revert back to normal form inside of the other creature; which then caused the eating creature to explode/be ripped apart. This has opened up talk of other ideas such as the party using polymorph on themselves and crawling inside of a foe for insta-kills. I'd be interested to get outside opinions on this situation.
...
Does Polymorph Salad work as a tactic? What are you're thoughts on that situation, and how might you handle it differently?

Hahaha, that's hilarious. I wouldn't make that ruling myself - I'd rule that as the creature reverts, they're vomited up. But still, pretty funny! Glad no one tried to be a suppository.

Also, when it comes to spells and multiclassing, how is a multiclass cleric praying for spells supposed to work? It appears as though someone could be a level 1 cleric and have 19 levels in a different spellcasting class, but still pray for spells for any level he has spell slots for -which would be all of them. While you'd have less cleric spells per day that you could prepare, you could just pick whatever you feel is best and still greatly boost the power of a character overall. For example, a cleric/wizard could use their handful of cleric spells per day to choose healing spells or something else lacking from their typical list. Is that how it's supposed to work? I don't feel that's necessarily broken; you're still limited by the number of spell slots and how many spells you can prepare per day per class, but it seems like a net gain for very little sacrifice.

You determine which spells you know and can prepare for each class individually. Depending on your Wisdom, you'd be able to prepare 1-5 spells of 1st level from the cleric spell list. You could use those spells in a high-level slot, though.

Does giving a lot of magic items to the party unbalance the game?

Are there particular items which you've noticed are problematic?

A lot of magic items would probably unbalance the game - every magic item is a power-up.

 

[SteveC]

It has been my experience that bounded accuracy can be a real problem in the game. It's something I didn't ask for, but it's there as a critical part of 5E, so I have to live with it. What you've experienced is something that's a real issue. If it's "working as intended" it's not something you notice, but as you've seen with the EK character, it's very easy to go off the rails.

Because bounded accuracy is baked into the system, small shifts in accuracy or AC have a big effect on the game, much more than you might think. A few boosts in accuracy make targets trivial to hit, and exacerbate issues with the -5/+10 damage feats. A high AC, which is very easy for some types of characters to get, has a similar effect in the other direction: you're just missed most of the time, and stronger monsters don't necessarily make up for this.

So high AC becomes a really good thing, too good a thing if you're not facing opponents with powers that target saves. If you're facing "humanoid" opponents, it's the only thing you need. 5E removed attacks against Reflexes/Fortitude and Willpower and replaced them with saves. This removed a lot of options for the DM to deal with high AC characters since there's no "touch AC" component or other attacks any more.

I've seen a character with a high AC change the tone of a campaign where everyone else is racing to keep pace. Characters with lower ACs that can't wear heavy armor struggle to stay effective in a hand to hand fight, which moves them to ranged roles. That may not be something they want to do, but if your rogue is brutalized in hand to hand while the paladin is largely unfazed by it, you go to ranged combat to stay alive. Or switch characters.

The typical response to a high AC by the GM is to bring in monsters that have saving throw attacks, and that typically means magical creatures. That's not something everyone wants in their games but you're stuck doing it.

What to do about it?

I haven't run very much 5E, but I have helped a DM with it. What I did was to have them take a look at monsters and adjust them for what their true attack bonus should be. If you look at big, strong monsters, their attacks don't always reflect what their raw proficiency bonus + stat bonus should be. That has helped a little bit. I have also worked with my groups and the DM to restrict stacking a bit to keep ACs toned down a bit. We also introduced a "touch AC" mechanic back into the game for some attacks.

We've considered changing the base AC mechanic to reflect a proficiency bonus for characters who aren't wearing heavy armor, but that's a work in progress.

To be honest, this is one of the things that's kept my group from adopting 5E since there doesn't seem to be an easy fix for it.

 

[Rhenny]

Again, high AC is only one defense. A fighter with AC 21 or 22 can still be brought down by spells and other area of effect attacks (i.e. acid spit and breath weapons). At lower levels and mid levels, the ankheg is one of my favorite creatures because it can spit and do damage to the higher AC PCs. Spellcasters at any level can pose a threat to the AC 21 or 22 PC even with just magic missile. Heat metal is also a great one against the armored PC. I'm not saying that the DM should go out of his way to give enemies a way to endanger the high AC PC, but if it happens once in a while, even when the high AC PC is not threatened, he/she will know that he can be threatened given the right situation.

With 5e, if your DM is not using larger number of foes to threaten the PCs, that will also make the combats less difficult. Imagine engaging some melee foes while 3 enemy spellcasters wait behind to fire magic missiles all at the front line fighter. Try encountering 4 or 5 magma mephits (or similar foes) who all breath fire the first chance they get.

The DM has a lot of control over how threatening and dangerous the game can be.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think bounded accuracy is great, but it got taken too far...

in 2e there was a 20ish point swing from AC 10 to -10, and I say 20ish instead of 20 because some big dragons and gods had -12...

5e has about half of that... almost nothing has an AC 10, and almost nothing has better then a 20, even gods and demon lords cap out at 23... meaning a 16 attack stat and +2 prof you don't need a nat 20 to hit anything in the game...

So what? An ancient red dragon has an AC of only 22. That means your 1st level character with a 16 stat and +2 prof will just kick its butt then right?

It means that 1st level characters CAN kill such a creature but it would take an army of them to do so and most of them would be killed. That is something I always liked about the old editions. Big scary monsters can be killed by armies but the cost in lives to do so is terrible. Heroes are needed not because they are the only ones who can hit something the size of a building, but because they can TAKE a hit from that building and bring it down with only a few guys.

If the DM enjoys handing out plentiful powerful magic items, especially protective ones, then he/she should be prepared to put in the effort to up the challenge of the opposition.

 

[Staffan]

I think low monster AC is part of an intended strategy to make combats more "bloody." One of the main criticisms against 4e was that fights took forever, because monsters were generally pretty hard to hit. A 4e monster would generally have AC level+14 (give or take a few points), and the PC would have an attack bonus of level*0.85 +4 (that's 0.5 for general level progression, 0.2 for items, and 0.15 for stat increases - adding the Expertise feats increases it to 0.95). So, in general you have about a 50% chance of hitting in 4e. In addition, you would often fight things a level or two above you, which made the problem worse.

This criticism was heard, loud and clear, in the design of 5e. As a result, monster ACs are lower so PCs get to hit more often - and they are kept low-ish even at higher levels, so players feel that they actually become more competent (as opposed to less competent as in 4e, where monster AC was raised faster than level). As compensation, high-level monsters have butt-loads of hit points.

You can see the results of this thinking in other parts of the game as well. You mostly can't stack multiple AC-increasing abilities at once (like Draconic Resilience, Unarmored Defense of either type, or mage armor). Magic armor is one step rarer than corresponding magic weaponry (as opposed to 3e, where magic armor was cheaper than magic weapons).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think bounded accuracy is great, but it got taken too far...

in 2e there was a 20ish point swing from AC 10 to -10, and I say 20ish instead of 20 because some big dragons and gods had -12...

5e has about half of that... almost nothing has an AC 10, and almost nothing has better then a 20, even gods and demon lords cap out at 23... meaning a 16 attack stat and +2 prof you don't need a nat 20 to hit anything in the game...

For a bit of accuracy: the 5th edition monster manual has AC ratings on monsters ranging from 5 (various fungi) to 25 (Tarrasque), and might even have lower than AC 5 as I didn't read every last monster, I just went to the ones I know have very low AC. And I know that a higher AC is possible despite no examples, especially when involving hypothetical combinations of magic items, spells, and class features.

The difference is not how wide the AC range is, but rather in that 5th edition does not do what 2e does in making it so extremely easy and common to have the "maximum" AC that certain monsters were required to actually cheat - the rules state in plain language that no AC better that -10 is possible - and have the AC -12 you mention in order to have those monsters feel actually different from the norm.

 

[bedir than]

Again, high AC is only one defense. A fighter with AC 21 or 22 can still be brought down by spells and other area of effect attacks (i.e. acid spit and breath weapons). At lower levels and mid levels, the ankheg is one of my favorite creatures because it can spit and do damage to the higher AC PCs. Spellcasters at any level can pose a threat to the AC 21 or 22 PC even with just magic missile. Heat metal is also a great one against the armored PC. I'm not saying that the DM should go out of his way to give enemies a way to endanger the high AC PC, but if it happens once in a while, even when the high AC PC is not threatened, he/she will know that he can be threatened given the right situation.

With 5e, if your DM is not using larger number of foes to threaten the PCs, that will also make the combats less difficult. Imagine engaging some melee foes while 3 enemy spellcasters wait behind to fire magic missiles all at the front line fighter. Try encountering 4 or 5 magma mephits (or similar foes) who all breath fire the first chance they get.

The DM has a lot of control over how threatening and dangerous the game can be.

I had a mini-session with the party's 3rd level Barbarian and 2nd level Bard. They encountered one each of a smoke, steam and mud mephit. It challenged them so much. They had a lot of fun. Trying to work their way around the various mudpits and geysers during the fight as well.
One of their dogs died, which broke the Bard up. But they won, and they bragged to the rest of the party.

 

[Celtavian]

A ring of protection and cloak of protection and magic armor all stack. This has been clarified by The Sage. Both the cloak and ring are attunement items. If you choose to attune to those two out of your possible three, you will have to forgo other magic items at a later time. There are only a couple of clear rules for stacking:
1. The same spell doesn't stack.
2. Advantage and disadvantage do not stack.
3. AC calculations like the barbarian or draconic sorcerer don't stack.


Magic items do stack as far as I know even if they provide the same bonuses with obvious exceptions like wearing two suits of armor. They do exactly what they say they do and other magic items don't change that.

 

[Celtavian]

It very likely could be that the group I'm in is doing something wrong with the stacking rules. Does a cloak of protection stack with a ring of protection? Does all of that stack with magic armor?

Yes. These items do stack. You can get insane AC with magic items.

Also, when it comes to spells and multiclassing, how is a multiclass cleric praying for spells supposed to work? It appears as though someone could be a level 1 cleric and have 19 levels in a different spellcasting class, but still pray for spells for any level he has spell slots for -which would be all of them. While you'd have less cleric spells per day that you could prepare, you could just pick whatever you feel is best and still greatly boost the power of a character overall. For example, a cleric/wizard could use their handful of cleric spells per day to choose healing spells or something else lacking from their typical list. Is that how it's supposed to work? I don't feel that's necessarily broken; you're still limited by the number of spell slots and how many spells you can prepare per day per class, but it seems like a net gain for very little sacrifice.

Reread the multiclass spellcaster rules. It doesn't work like this. You can still only prepare the highest level spell you can cast for the class level. If you're a 3rd level cleric, the highest level cleric spell you can prepare is 2nd. If you're a 9th level wizard, the highest level wizard spell you can prepare is 5th. So a 3rd level cleric/9th level wizard could prepare up to 2nd level cleric spells and 5th level wizard spells.

Is AC intentionally that low? If so, does giving a creature better armor significantly change the assumptions of the game or the challenge of an encounter?

Yes and Yes. Default game is no magic or feats. Add magic or feats to the game and you'll have to do some tweaking, especially at higher level. It depends. If you have magic items in the game and raise the monster's AC by a relatively equal amount, I don't think you need to modify the CR. If you are playing the default game and raise the monster's AC, you might raise it's CR depending on how much the AC goes up. You'll have to eyeball any changes.

Does giving a lot of magic items to the party unbalance the game?

A lot of magic items in 5E skews things heavily in favor of the players. It makes Damage Resistance against weapons nearly worthless. It seems quite a few creature CRs are based on damage resistance. If the party has a bunch of magic weapons, it makes those creatures quite easy to defeat.

Are there particular items which you've noticed are problematic?

Anything that raises AC, chance to hit, and saving throws of powers and spells.

Does Polymorph Salad work as a tactic? What are you're thoughts on that situation, and how might you handle it differently?

Very circumstantial.

Any other thoughts or opinions are welcome

I'm told I'm the only one that finds 5E easy in terms of lethality at the higher levels. Low levels can be a be up and down as far as lethality goes. The higher level you are, the easier the game gets. Be wary of the -5/+10 feats. They are balanced at lower levels, but very easy to exploit at higher levels.

Try adding a hit point recovery method to your higher level creatures to make solo enemies more dangerous. If they can't recover hit points, they don't have much of a chance against creatures that can. I've started adding in healing powers to monsters. One problem with that is chill touch kills hit point recovery for anything. Healing can work for a few rounds, which helps make a fight a bit more dangerous.

Mainly, accept that 5E is a game that is meant to be played fast and loose. Combats are supposed to be fast and monsters relatively easy to kill. The days of diverse, interesting combat with tons of rules slowing things down is gone. Fast, simple combat is the current D&D model. Not sure how much I enjoy fast and simple, but I know I don't like multiple hour Pathfinder combats any longer. Wish there was some happy medium, but there isn't.

 

[Shiroiken]

Having run to level 8, I've found BA to work just fine. You're probably having more issues because the DM has unbalanced his game by giving out too many bonus AC items. The DM needs to up the difficulty (especially by using tactics and a variety of monsters), and start offering some Attunment magic items that don't give AC to tempt players away from AC boosts.