D&D 5E The highest AC in the bestiary is 18

[Ellington]

Does anyone else have a slight problem with this? I know it may be a bit meta gamey, but if a player happens to know this trivial detail rolling becomes a lot less exciting. A level 1 fighter with 16 strength will hit on any roll of 13 or higher, no matter what the enemy is. Even he's at a disadvantage, the lowest percentage chance he can have to hit an enemy' with his attack is roughly 40%. Hell, what's the point of natural 20s always hitting if adventurers will always hit on a roll of 18 or higher?

I'm all for the more bounded math of Next, but I think this needs some serious work.

 

[the Jester]

YES. IMHO there are a few monsters that really ought to have ACs in the low to mid 20s (though only a few).

Asmodeus, for instance.

 

[jodyjohnson]

This packet is kind of in a holding pattern for us. The math revision was slated for the September packet, and that is not very far away.

If I were to run it, Asmodeus gets a set of Mithril Chain +1 (or whatever the top light armor is) and a Ring of Protection +1 at the very least.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think we should call it the Howard.

Seriously, the red dragon had a -1 AC, Bahamut a -3. I don't think the designers have moved to a position where attacks can reach beyond 20 yet. Maybe they never will, so 18 is a legitimately hard to hit AC on an unmodified d20 roll.

I'm fully with you though about the To Hit bonuses starting too high and the Ability Modifiers being way, way too large for a single d20 boundary. I understand it's simpler to have unified mechanics, but that doesn't mean they necessarily function in every situation.