That's not really a fair representation though, at least of 5e in general.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1114899That's not really a fair representation though, at least of 5e in general.

I was replying to a post that said you miss more at high level. IME PCs hit more often at high level, though not to the extent of always hitting on a 2, because typical monster AC caps around 19 as per the DMG table.

That's what I get for skimming!

Then I agree, you don't really miss anymore at high level.

The scaling comes from higher hit points and damage.

Quote from: S'mon;1114924I was replying to a post that said you miss more at high level. IME PCs hit more often at high level, though not to the extent of always hitting on a 2, because typical monster AC caps around 19 as per the DMG table.

I think the comparison is that compared to earlier editions of D&D, low level characters hit more often while high level characters hit less often. If so, this is the intended effect of bounded accuracy, so it's a feature rather than a bug. If you don't like bounded accuracy, you may not see it that way, but that's how 5e was made.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114929I think the comparison is that compared to earlier editions of D&D, low level characters hit more often while high level characters hit less often.

Yes, and that's true - compared to 1e 2e and I think 3e, 5e PCs hit more at low level (typically roll of 8+, eg level 1-3 +5 to hit vs AC 13) and less at high level (typically 5+, eg at level 17-20 it's typically +14 to hit vs AC 19). 5e to-hit probability is very similar to 4e though. I think in 4e it tends towards 8+ at all levels vs similar level opponents.

Quote from: S'mon;1114934Yes, and that's true - compared to 1e 2e and I think 3e, 5e PCs hit more at low level (typically roll of 8+, eg level 1-3 +5 to hit vs AC 13) and less at high level (typically 5+, eg at level 17-20 it's typically +14 to hit vs AC 19). 5e to-hit probability is very similar to 4e though. I think in 4e it tends towards 8+ at all levels vs similar level opponents.

Well, I will admit that I try not to think of 4e when I speak of earlier editions of D&D as it really never felt the same to me.

For a more sensible comparison than post-20th level outlier characters: the median AC for creatures up to CR4 is 13; a few monsters reach AC 19 or 20, and as low as 8 is not uncommon (zombies and oozes). At CRs above 20, I don't see any standard monsters above AC 25, with the median around 20 and the bottom around 17. Even with only normal increases to ability scores, it is not unreasonable that a 17th-20th level character (specializing in weapon attacks) will have increased from at most 16 (assuming point buy) to 20, and likely obtained a weapon with a bonus, and of course gain +4 in proficiency from levels. More significantly, high level characters will have other features contributing to chance to hit through advantage and usually get more attacks, while the characters who do not specialize in weapons probably tend to try to hit less. So for level equivalent targets, there's a swing in favor of hitting at higher levels, but it's only slight; high level parties may meet large numbers of lower CR opponents and enjoy hitting easily what was previously challenging.

The more significant feature is that no class becomes massively more effective than another; to challenge fighters in early editions was to freeze out clerics or thieves as high levels resulted in very different combat bonuses. My 17th level rogue has a bonus of +14 (proficiency +6, dexterity +5, bow +3) and often attacks with advantage (from hiding); my 19th level druid lags S'mon's barbarian by only +1 (belt of storm giant strength, proficiency and weapon).

Quote from: rawma;1114984So for level equivalent targets, there's a swing in favor of hitting at higher levels, but it's only slight; high level parties may meet large numbers of lower CR opponents and enjoy hitting easily what was previously challenging.

Not very likely. Because as AC is actually quite hard to increase, large amounts of mooks with any kind of coordination are almost always better then singular elites. The game heavily discourages taking on any amount of large groups of enemies.

Quote from: rawma;1114984For a more sensible comparison than post-20th level outlier characters: the median AC for creatures up to CR4 is 13; a few monsters reach AC 19 or 20, and as low as 8 is not uncommon (zombies and oozes). At CRs above 20, I don't see any standard monsters above AC 25, with the median around 20 and the bottom around 17. Even with only normal increases to ability scores, it is not unreasonable that a 17th-20th level character (specializing in weapon attacks) will have increased from at most 16 (assuming point buy) to 20, and likely obtained a weapon with a bonus, and of course gain +4 in proficiency from levels. More significantly, high level characters will have other features contributing to chance to hit through advantage and usually get more attacks, while the characters who do not specialize in weapons probably tend to try to hit less. So for level equivalent targets, there's a swing in favor of hitting at higher levels, but it's only slight; high level parties may meet large numbers of lower CR opponents and enjoy hitting easily what was previously challenging.

The more significant feature is that no class becomes massively more effective than another; to challenge fighters in early editions was to freeze out clerics or thieves as high levels resulted in very different combat bonuses. My 17th level rogue has a bonus of +14 (proficiency +6, dexterity +5, bow +3) and often attacks with advantage (from hiding); my 19th level druid lags S'mon's barbarian by only +1 (belt of storm giant strength, proficiency and weapon).

Yeah, this is exactly right. As I said, you typically go from needing an 8+ at low level to a 5+ at high level, though it's not too uncommon for high level PCs to be hitting on a 2+. The difference between Tier I and Tier IV is only about 3 or 4 points, about the same as the Proficiency bonus increase. It is noticeable in play, but very unlike earlier editions.

Re mooks - this is extremely swingy IME, I see high level PCs with AC 18 and high level PCs with AC 24. With a typical mook attacking at +4 (+2 Prof, +2 stat) they can be hitting on anything from a 14 to a 20. A PC hit only on a 20 is highly mook-resistant, and if they can impose Disad on enemy attacks they are effectively immune. If hit on a 14 and not Resistant they won't last long.

I find that in mook-heavy campaigns the players tend to seek to maximise AC, whereas in my Pathfinder-converted campaigns with small numbers of high CR monsters some players don't worry about AC and just focus on damage. For the Barbarian it can even make sense to delibersately keep AC low to seem like an enticing target, then just soak the damage.

Edit: I don't see any of this as a problem with 5e; IME it works well and gives some reasonable choices to players. The potential mook threat makes 5e more resemble most heroic fiction, compared to editions like 3e where weak enemies are no threat at all.

While so far it has not come up in actual play. One of  my early concerns was just how high can AC be jacked vs how high To hit can. And using various buffs and class combo tricks its possible to crank AC up really high.

Some quick ones.
A Cleric, Fighter or Paladin decked out in +3 magic armour & shield, and a +1 ring & cloak can hit AC 29. 30 for a Fighter or Paladin taking the defensive style. 32 if a cleric, or paladin (or a fighter with Magic Initiate) and Shield of Faith casts it on them or self. A maxed out level 20 Barbarian can potentially hit an AC of 27 unarmoured with a +3 shield. Then 29 with the ring and cloak, and 31 with Shield of Faith.

The generally low magic item acquisition rate and unlikelyness of getting everything to come together makes this relatively unlikely to happen unless PCs or foes are really prepping intensely.

Meanwhile to hit maxes at something like 6 prof + 5 stat + up to a +3 weapon = +14 on a roll.

So did we get to the center of this Tootsie-Pop yet?

I believe that people are generally enamored with D&D as an investment in gaming, as opposed to it being "the best system ever". Which is fine. But 52+ pages of debating what "bad" about it... I mean, you know, what's been said that hasn't been said already?

I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

Not even a little. I got disillusioned early in the "playtest" and had resolved to develop my own system shortly after the finished product turned up. I'm now 99% done with mechanics and playtesting them and 90% through writing my own system so I'm not going to reverse course on that now.

Where this discussion has been enlightening for me is in highlighting the areas of 5e people are dissatisfied with and that I handled differently. That suggests areas I should be pushing when it comes time to actually promote my game in earnest.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

It would be the equivalent of me budging on liking the taste of Melons because other people like them. I still think that 5e, as it stands, could have been better even for the people that like 5e (which I don't). I still stand by 5e being a lucky flash in the pan propelled by just the right timing of internet fame than any innate quality.  D&D 6e won't be as lucky.

Quote from: Omega;1115047While so far it has not come up in actual play. One of  my early concerns was just how high can AC be jacked vs how high To hit can. And using various buffs and class combo tricks its possible to crank AC up really high.

Yes, this is definitely an issue. To deal with this I cap AC at 30, which is the same as the AC -10 cap in 1e.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm in the same place I was before with 5E:  It's got warts, but it is convenient and easy to run, while stretching it into something I can enjoy doing.  If I want to run something much different than D&D, then I want to move away from D&D entirely.  Certainly, my homebrew system (for which I finally got to do a play test recently) is radically different than any D&D game.  My issues with 3.*/PF/4E are that they take too much work to get them to behave at the table the way I want (even though I can).  With earlier D&D, I'm handicapped by just never quite liking some of the locations of the game boundaries (class functions, level limits, access to things, etc.)  I can appreciate them as good games, but they don't quite work the way I want at the table.  I'd need to rebuild them from the ground up, as we have discussed before.  That's too much work for "Steve's D&D Heartbreaker".

It's funny, but I ran the 5E play test for months when it started.  The players were having a fairly good time with it.  However, I didn't like some of the changes they made mid-stream and thus dropped out.  (Rather, I kept running our campaign using the play test materials, but stopped updating with the WotC changes.)  The final piece is not exactly the choices I would have made, but again, less hassle.