D&D 5E (2014) The high-level play I'm hoping for.

[The Human Target]

3rd had an entire book of gods for people to deicide.

4th has heaps if high level "normal" monsters, and its very easy to make/upgrade lower level monsters.

Its not edition based.

If you don't want to gank Pelor, bring it up with your DM.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why would a rogue see more AC growth than another class?
Leather armor and a 20 Dex (max) is AC 16.
Plate mail and shield is AC 20.

Growth. The rogue will boost Dex. The fighter might, but if they're wearing heavy armor that won't cause AC growth. And another PC might start with and retain low AC for their entire career.

Actually with unpredictable, or wider-ranging ACs, attack bonuses mean MUCH MORE.
A +6 to hit is consistently hitting the low AC wizard, while the same bonus consistently misses the better armored fighter.
The "Attack bonus treadmill" of 4e (and 3e to a lesser extent) meant pretty much rolls of 9+ always hit, every monster, from level 1 to level 30.

I'm actually a fan of predictability. I don't like the idea of a monster that might never miss the wizard and always hit the fighter. (I'm convinced that's why wizards love invisibility so much in some editions. Alas invisibility is something hard to balance, and cannot play with the same rules as everyone else.)

Monster attack bonuses are too low in the playtest Bestiary. This is a known issue.
When the MM comes out, I expect monster attack bonuses to get better as the level of the monster goes up.

Did WotC give up on bounded accuracy? Is PC AC expected to increase, or not? That's important when picking monster attack bonuses. If AC is expected to remain static, then I would expect all monsters to get a small attack bonus, rather than a scaling one.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Why would a rogue see more AC growth than another class?
Leather armor and a 20 Dex (max) is AC 16.
Plate mail and shield is AC 20.

Plate armor is also 5000 gold and way outside of the budget of a low level character. The equivalent light armor is a mithral shirt, so that brings the Rogue up to AC 18. It's unfair to give one party thousands of more gp when doing a comparison.

And the difference between the Rogue and Fighter is now 2 points, which is caused by the shield alone. Just the plate and the mithral shirt both come down to the same value. If a Rogue ever picks up shield proficiency (pretty easy to do) he can also get that +2 AC bonus.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Plate armor is also 5000 gold and way outside of the budget of a low level character. The equivalent light armor is a mithral shirt, so that brings the Rogue up to AC 18. It's unfair to give one party thousands of more gp when doing a comparison.

Okay, so the fighter has a 19 and the max-dex rogue a 16. Lose the shield and its 17/16.
Seems fine to me.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Growth. The rogue will boost Dex. The fighter might, but if they're wearing heavy armor that won't cause AC growth. And another PC might start with and retain low AC for their entire career.

Abilities are hard-capped at 20. The rogue cannot keep boosting Dex to get higher and higher AC.
All classes get the same amount of ability score increases, and have the same expectation of magic armor.
I dont see any problem.

I'm actually a fan of predictability. I don't like the idea of a monster that might never miss the wizard and always hit the fighter.

I guess I'm more of a smulationist. A wizard with no defensive spells in place should be much easter to hit (to me) than a fighter in full armor and a shield.

Did WotC give up on bounded accuracy? Is PC AC expected to increase, or not?

No and Slightly. Your AC never gets better by leveling up. Dex can increase it, as can better armor and magic, but that's it.

If AC is expected to remain static, then I would expect all monsters to get a small attack bonus, rather than a scaling one.

I expect a slow scaling attack bonus, perhaps 1/5. I think something like a Balor or Death Knight should have a very good chance of hitting a well-armored high level character, and it should nearly auto-hit a poorly armored low level one.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Okay, so the fighter has a 19 and the max-dex rogue a 16. Lose the shield and its 17/16.
Seems fine to me.

So now you're giving the Fighter a 500 gp splint mail (or 750 banded mail) while still keeping the Rogue at a 10 gp leather? I'm all for comparisons but let's at least make it reasonable.

At low level the Fighter might have chain mail, which gives AC 16 (18 with a shield). Note that this reduces your speed as well. The Rogue meanwhile can have AC 16 with no reduction to speed.
If the fighter wants a horse and decent weapons he'll have to settle for ring mail, which gives AC 14 (16 with a shield) and still reduces speed.

These are the numbers that are accurate for starting level characters. You may conclude from that whatever you want, I don't care either way, but at least the numbers are accurate instead of comparing a 500/750 gp armor with a 10 gp one.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's only edition war when you make it into one.

You keep using that indefensible logic every time you take another gratuitous shot across the bow at 4th edition (read as every thread you start and most of your posts).

Tell you what. I have a science experiment for you. Go out in the street and punch a random passerby in the face. When the police officer has you cuffed against the car, just tell him "but its not a fight/assault because he didn't hit me back and make it into one." I'm sure he'll be moved by your reasoning and immediately release you.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

You keep using that indefensible logic every time you take another gratuitous shot across the bow at 4th edition (read as every thread you start and most of your posts).

Tell you what. I have a science experiment for you. Go out in the street and punch a random passerby in the face. When the police officer has you cuffed against the car, just tell him "but its not a fight/assault because he didn't hit me back and make it into one." I'm sure he'll be moved by your reasoning and immediately release you.

Because it's the truth! Everytime someone mentions what they don't like about a previous edition in relation to a current or future one is not edition warring. All that is is a lame ass excuse for people to get a discussion closed because it is talking about their preferred edition in a negative. All I can tell you is just get over it. It is only an edition war issue when the other side calls it one. Previous editions have to get mentioned when discussing these things whether it's in a positive or a negative. I have stated my bad experiences with 4th edition becuase that is the edition that gave me the most amd I don't want the current one to become anything like it. Now if you can't have a discussion without 'you' or anyone else turning it into an edition war issue then how about you just not contribute to the discussion.

 

[the Jester]

Because it's the truth! Everytime someone mentions what they don't like about a previous edition in relation to a current or future one is not edition warring. All that is is a lame ass excuse for people to get a discussion closed because it is talking about their preferred edition in a negative. All I can tell you is just get over it. It is only an edition war issue when the other side calls it one.

When you take a pot shot at an edition, even if it's just a drive by, it is indeed edition warring, even if nobody fires back. Instead of defending those pot shots, it might be more constructive to figure out, in the future, how to make your point without taking such shots. It really is possible to have civil discussion without sniping at one game or another. We do it here all the time.

Back on topic, another thing I would really like to see as an option for high level play, either in the core rules or as a module, is a combination of domain management and mass combat rules- stuff that enables the old school "run a duchy" style of game. I'd love naval and siege warfare rules, too.

 

[Sadras]

Back on topic, another thing I would really like to see as an option for high level play, either in the core rules or as a module, is a combination of domain management and mass combat rules- stuff that enables the old school "run a duchy" style of game. I'd love naval and siege warfare rules, too.

Yes, then the DM's guide or supplementary book would be worth its weight in diamonds