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

[Benz74]

With the way the [Polymorph] 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.

DM could house rule that a killed creature doesn't revert back to normal form, or reverts back to normal form after 48 hours (or 1d6 days, or 1 month, or whatever)... It makes the idea less appealing if the target of polymorph gets digested before reverting back to normal form.

 

[Argyle King]

There's an analysis of creature defenses on Wizard's board that hasn't been brought over to ENWorld yet, though ti only covers the Monster Manual. http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4162596

It shows at CR 8 (since you're 8th level), average AC is 16-17. It very well be that your DM has been running you against is mostly AC 12-15, but that's not a representation of the monsters at your CR.

You gave two PCs, whom I assume are your among your table's best at hitting and high defenses. A PC specializing generally will reach above general monsters in their specialty. I'd hate the thought that a PC trying to be very defensive just reached average monster AC.

So let's swap these two. What's the barbarian's AC, and what is your character's attack? (Weapon or spell attack, whichever is better, considering you are a fighter/wizard.)

Compare the barb's AC vs. 16-17 average monster AC. Well, it sounds he uses reckless attack and would grant advantage, so he actually easier to hit than that.

And how does your attack work out against AC 16-17?

I don't have the character sheet with me at the moment.

Offhand, I believe I'm at either +8 or +9 to hit.

I have a belt of Giant Strength, so I'm at +5 from STR.
I think proficiency is +3 right now.

I'm using a trident for my weapon. The damage is a bit low from it (an area where I lag behind other party members), but I like that it's both versatile and a weapon I can throw. It's also what I bonded with as an arcane knight (away from books, so I'm fuzzy on class names.) I liked the idea of being able to throw a weapon and summon it back. At this point, most of my spells are better though.

From leveling up, stat boosts, and feats, my INT is at max 20.
Proficiency is the same, so I'm at +8 on magic attack rolls.

DEX is my low stat. I'm wearing +1 Mithral Plate (came from random treasure rolling after fighting a dragon.) I believe that puts my AC at 19. I have the defensive fighting style which puts me at 20.
One of the magic items also gained from the recent hoard was a ring of protection. If I use it, I'll be at 21; 26 when I use shield; potentially 28 if I'm also Hasted.

It seems like some of that shouldn't stack...?

 

[BryonD]

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

Yep.

I'm retooling the entire system to spread the range. We will see how it goes.
I'm still fully in the "kudos to WotC" camp because the system is so completely open to revision.
5E by RAW would have multiple severe issues (to me). But while my 3E/5E hybrid is clearly distinct from 5E, it looks like a 3E version of 5E far more than the other way around. And it wasn't hard at all to implement. That is the sign of a good core system.

 

[MerricB]

There's an analysis of creature defenses on Wizard's board that hasn't been brought over to ENWorld yet, though ti only covers the Monster Manual. http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4162596

Oh, cool - didn't know about that one.

I've transferred it over: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...emy-A-mini-guide-to-monster-stats-(by-raleel)

Cheers!

 

[AtomicPope]

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?

What most gamers don't understand, but game designers/math heads do, is AC calculates damage. Let me explain... if you're only hitting 50% of the time you calculate your damage output by dividing your average damage dice total in half. Make sense? In your description you talk about how a Barbarian always hits, even if he needs to roll a '6' on the D20. When you look at damage output that's how a Barbarian scales against a Fighter or Paladin. The Fighters gets more attacks (hits less often but with higher attack output his damage increases) while a Paladin Smites (increases damage when he hits and when it does the most damage like during a Crit).

Bounded Accurancy translates the PC damage output by increasing their damage through increased success. In other words, more hits means more damage per turn. Right now my 15th Level Warlock is +14 to hit with his Eldritch Blast. He does a reliable 40pts damage per round because he rarely misses. In two more levels that damage increase drastically due to an additional attack and Foresight (Advantage on all attacks). When you look at the dice, it's a simple 1D10+1D6+5 damage that hasn't changed since level one. When I was lower level I had a hard time hitting Goblins and Hobgoblins, especially when they had cover. After several levels my number of attacks increased, my hit bonus increased, and I have the Spell Sniper Feat to ignore Cover; all of it translates to more damage even though the dice are the same. All of this assumes Bounded Accuracy - a monster AC that increases more slowly than PC attack bonuses increase. When you change the AC and Defenses of a monster, the PC damage changes. If the monsters had a 25 AC and special defenses like Blur, then my damage would drop to around 14pts per round hitting maybe one time in three attacks.

Bounded Accuracy works both ways.

In our campaign we've been fighting with Devils and Hobgoblins since level one. There are NPCs that grant +1D4 bonuses to hit like using the "Bless" spell or a Hobgoblin's leadership. Sprinkle in Goblins and Imps to use the Help Action and the low CR monsters now have Advantage on a +5+1D4 bonus to hit. They can reliably hit our PCs since our AC sits around 18 for non-Tanks and around 22 for Tanks. This allows us to be heroes and fight against hordes like in the Battle of the Hornburg (Helm's Deep), while still making them a credible threat. That means if we charged out into the ranks we'd die a horrible death. However, using terrain and cover it reduces the total number of incoming attacks and lets us grind it out heroically. All of this is possible because Bounded Accuracy works both ways, and the DM must be conscious of the magic items they hand out to ensure it stays that way.

 

[Argyle King]

I actually like the idea of bounded accuracy. The other rpg I primarily play (GURPS) doesn't have levels at all. I prefer that. While I highly enjoyed DnD 3.5, i remember the range of numbers being problematic.

I understand a lot of the 5e concepts, but there are a few areas I'm still unsure about. I'm curious to see how things play out over the next few levels.