Why are monster attack bonuses so high?

Maybe this has been explained before, but I'm wondering why monster attack bonuses are so high compared to PCs. A goblin with a bow is +5 to hit, the equivalent of a 1st level fighter with an 18 dexterity. The goblin only has a 13 dexterity, so that means his attack bonus is +4, the equivalent of a 13th level fighter!

Even humans in the bestiary have very high attack bonuses. A Human Warrior is +4 to hit with his spear with a 12 strength. So his attack bonus is equivalent to that of a 9th level fighter. Heck, even a Human Commoner is +3 to hit, with no stat bonus, so they fight as well as 9th level fighters too!

I've only played 4E in a couple of demo games, but a look in the 4E Monster Manual shows me that these attack bonuses are a carryover from 4E.

The oddity became particularly apparent when a Human Warrior joined my group's party as a follower. Even with his paltry 12 strength he hits as often as the PCs.

So what is up with the inequity here? Why are monsters treated so different from PCs? 
Because when they used a similar matrix, monsters were too weak and lacked accuracy. I am much happier with monsters NOT following PCs creations rules if it means they are more balanced somehow.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

two guesses.

1) It's a play-test & they aren't really concerned with testing the actual monster mechanics.

2) Most monsters aren't sticking around for more than a few rounds of the fight.  so they want them to hit once/twice before they become looted corpses.
Your +5 goblin archer?  Sure, he hits like a 9th lv fighter.  But he drops just like a 1st lv one.... 
Yeah I was thinking the same thing... the problem with this approach is that some DMs like to have PCs, NPCs and Monsters on the same 'playing field'... these are the sort of DMs that like to customize monsters as you could in 3.5.

I happen to be one of those DMs, plus its difficult to tweak monsters/NPCs when their isn't a unified mechanic between the two. And what if you want to change the weapon an NPC/Monster is using if a logical 'Base Attack Bonus' is not displayed in the Stat Block.


My best guess is they could solve this problem by tweaking AC instead. Monsters won't need such a high To Hit if AC is lower.

 - - -

its actually one of the reasons I've given up on the playtest (at least as an 'on-going' campaign) and gone back to 3.5... because creating monsters/NPCs is just not structured enough for my style.
It's a side effect of Bounded Accuracy. Since players get the bulk of their AC at level 1, the monsters need the majority of their attack bonus at level 1 if they are to maintain proper accuracy across levels. If monsters followed the same attack progression as players, then hitting reasonably at high levels would mean hitting too infrequently at low levels.

The metagame is not the game.

Illogical rules used to keep a broken system from being swingy.
That's my guess.
I think it's ridiculous how high low level monsters' bonuses are. 18 is supposed to be a really good armor class, but many level 1 creatures can hit that on a 13. They should only get their Strength or Dex modifier and an attack bonus on par with that PCs of that level get.
I've only played 4E in a couple of demo games, but a look in the 4E Monster Manual shows me that these attack bonuses are a carryover from 4E.

Not a bit of it, no.  5e and 4e are prettymuch polar opposites.  Level was all-important (to attack rolls, that is) in 4e, the exact opposite of 5e's 'bounded accuracy' in which stats are all-important and level only matters when it comes to hps.  In 3e, monsters were more like PCs with ungodly powerful race and no class to start - just add class levels to improve them.  That would /also/ be starkly at odds with bounded accuracy.  

So what is up with the inequity here? Why are monsters treated so different from PCs? 

As in 1e, monsters simply use different rules than PCs, getting arbitrary numbers based on whatever seems right to whoever's designing the monster.

Or, to put it another way:  "Bounded accuracy."

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

In my games low level monsters are hitting way too much. It is okay for a fighter with good armor and shield to go through a combat and not get hit. At low level, getting hit even once it pretty serious, and it shouldn't be happening 50% of the time.

I run a game for three second level PCs (plus the above mentioned Human Warrior henchman). The rogue is AC 16 and the fighter is AC 17. They should not be being hit by nearly every other attack. Orcs will wipe the floor with them and I can't really use them as opponents. Goblins will have them for lunch. I've been testing with a homebrew game in a "classic" sort of feel and not being able to "safely" use these opponents is a problem.
I've only played 4E in a couple of demo games, but a look in the 4E Monster Manual shows me that these attack bonuses are a carryover from 4E.

Not a bit of it, no.  5e and 4e are prettymuch polar opposites.  Level was all-important (to attack rolls, that is) in 4e, the exact opposite of 5e's 'bounded accuracy' in which stats are all-important and level only matters when it comes to hps.  In 3e, monsters were more like PCs with ungodly powerful race and no class to start - just add class levels to improve them.  That would /also/ be starkly at odds with bounded accuracy.  

So what is up with the inequity here? Why are monsters treated so different from PCs? 

As in 1e, monsters simply use different rules than PCs, getting arbitrary numbers based on whatever seems right to whoever's designing the monster.

Or, to put it another way:  "Bounded accuracy."




I mean the attack bonuses for orcs seem to come from 4E. They are +5 in there as well. I don't know much more about 4E aside from orcs' attack bonuses. :-)

In 1st edition, attack bonus numbers aren't arbitrary, they are tied to HD. A commoner would have 0HD and a +0 attack bonus. An orc with 1HD would have +1. I am okay with treating monsters differently from PCs (like 1st edition's HD vs. class levels) but it just makes no sense as it stands. Common townsfolk attack with the same chance to hit as a 9th level fighter!

In my games low level monsters are hitting way too much. It is okay for a fighter with good armor and shield to go through a combat and not get hit. At low level, getting hit even once it pretty serious, and it shouldn't be happening 50% of the time.

I run a game for three second level PCs (plus the above mentioned Human Warrior henchman). The rogue is AC 16 and the fighter is AC 17. They should not be being hit by nearly every other attack. Orcs will wipe the floor with them and I can't really use them as opponents. Goblins will have them for lunch. I've been testing with a homebrew game in a "classic" sort of feel and not being able to "safely" use these opponents is a problem.




The true problem is that your players are playing a rogue and a fighter instead of a trickster and Warbringer cleric. The rogue and fighter are so superfluous as to be unnecessary in the current playtest (I wish I could say I'm being tongue in cheek here and the tip is a little past my teeth but ultimately there it is).

The monster to hit did go from too low to about right (some monsters are a little too good with pack attack and the like). 
I'm also good with bounded accuracy and understand how that works. Just make the scale vaguely the same for PCs vs. monsters so that the world makes some degreee of sense. I know D&D is not a simulation, but it does create problems not having this somewhat in parallel.

Mott, the Human Warrior, has joined the party now. I'd like to make him a henchman and have him gain levels, so I thought when they hit 3rd, I'd make him a 1st level fighter. Well, it turns out he gets much worse in terms of chance to hit if I do that. It makes no sense.
Part of the benefit of Bounded Accuracy is that armor and AC were supposed to mean something - you knew that the guy in plate would have AC ~18, and would be X hard to hit. The problem with current monster math is that armor and AC stop meaning that thing - you are not X hard to hit, even though you're wearing plate, because the enemy has artificially increased its attack bonus.

The metagame is not the game.

two guesses.

1) It's a play-test & they aren't really concerned with testing the actual monster mechanics.

2) Most monsters aren't sticking around for more than a few rounds of the fight.  so they want them to hit once/twice before they become looted corpses.
Your +5 goblin archer?  Sure, he hits like a 9th lv fighter.  But he drops just like a 1st lv one.... 




What he/she said; I think a blanket +2 works.
I mean the attack bonuses for orcs seem to come from 4E. They are +5 in there as well. I don't know much more about 4E aside from orcs' attack bonuses. :-)

Coincidence.

Now, orcs having "Savage Demise," that comes from 4e...

In 1st edition, attack bonus numbers aren't arbitrary, they are tied to HD. A commoner would have 0HD and a +0 attack bonus. An orc with 1HD would have +1. I am okay with treating monsters differently from PCs (like 1st edition's HD vs. class levels) but it just makes no sense as it stands. Common townsfolk attack with the same chance to hit as a 9th level fighter!

Nod.  That's the point of "bounded accuracy" in 5e:  level doesn't make much difference in your chance to hit, and AC doesn't vary much, so any monster or PC can participate in any fight and have a non-trivial chance of hitting something.  That does mean that level is more about becoming indestructible than about becoming skilled - if you over-analyze it and conflate a game-design concept into a world-building concept.

But, yes, in 1e monsters' place on the attack matrix was based on HD, and 4e also went that route, basing it on level.  In 1e, though, HD were prettymuch arbitrary, themselves.  A very 'powerful' 'high level' monster could have relatively low HD, for instance, or a high HD monster could have quite low AC.



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!


What he/she said; I think a blanket +2 works.



Smile Yeah, I need a pillow too I think.

I just thought this core stuff would have been worked out by now. For the sake of my vision of the game, I hope this part of it isn't.
Nod




Oh, the revolting "nod", how I picture a very unattractive person nodding with self-satisfaction...gross.
Part of the benefit of Bounded Accuracy is that armor and AC were supposed to mean something - you knew that the guy in plate would have AC ~18, and would be X hard to hit. The problem with current monster math is that armor and AC stop meaning that thing - you are not X hard to hit, even though you're wearing plate, because the enemy has artificially increased its attack bonus.

If you're in Plate, your AC is better than if you're in an inferior heavy armor.  What the attacker's arbitrary attack bonus may be isn't the issue - that he has a harder time hitting you than he would havce if you hadn't upgraded to Plate, is.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The flip side of things is that despite monster attack bonuses being higher than there's a naturalistic reason for, it's not hard for PCs to get their AC high enough that monsters have a pitifully small chance to hit them with attacks vs. AC. In extreme cases, with multiple magic items, some characters are just flat-out immune to attacks vs. AC, but even with far less than that you can get to a place where the majority of monsters need to roll extremely high to hit with their attacks.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I think AC18 is too high as a base.  I want to playtest the version where you get half your max dex bonus to AC as standard and only get your full dex to AC if you spend an action to dodge and then only against one target.  This way heavier armours need not be a massively higher AC but grant the benefit of working against multiple attackers.  Bucklers can grant +1 AC only if you use your reaction, heavier shields +1 but a higher bonus if you use your reaction - and all shield bonuses to AC could also boosted by fighter expertise dice.

So the average rogue with Dex 16 would have AC12 against all attackers or AC15 against one target if they use their reaction to dodge.
The average fighter in studded leather with a buckler and Dex 14 might have AC13 against all targets or AC15 if using reaction plus 1d6 if using expertise.
The average chain clad fighter with a heavy shield would have AC16 against all targets or AC17 using his reaction plus 1d6 if using expertise.
The average plate-clad fighter with a tower shield would have AC18 against all targets or AC21 using his reaction plus 1d6 if using expertise but would be encumbered.

I would think that this version would work better with the PCs starting with Con score to hit points though.
Under Bounded Accuracy, one cannot discuss 'to hit' bonus without addressing Hit Point output. A quick peruse through the bestiary and I notice the minions (i.e. goblin, humans, dark priests) have +5 but only do 1d6 damage. This means that they are always a threat but not enough to drop you in one blow unless you are an unprepared 1st level Wizard.

Monsters can be built under different rules because their function in the game varies so much. Monsters do not drive the story, Player characters do. Monsters do not get the array of abilities players do, so they get +2 extra to hit instead of Deadly Strike and feats.

Don't mistake me, played HERO System for a decade so I appreciate rules uniformity. But not for D&D. Hit Point abstraction is an elegant mechanic and one I have learned to enjoy more as well as create great stories through it. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

It was explained that the monster equivalent to weapon attack bonuses and spellcasting bonuses was high because the adventuring party maxed out their armor class and the monsters couldn't hit them. So rather than address the high armor class of the characters, they just added monster attack bonuses.

It really doesn't matter if you make starting armor too expensive. The DM will eventually give a monster such as a Dominated Fighter, a good armor and the party will pillage it.

Yeah isnt this just bounded accuracy at work and trying to keep low level foes a bit of a threat even as the PC levels up? I mean in any case d6 damage or whatever is not much, death by a thousand cuts at higher levels vs commoners etc.

Which i actually like. I prefer this to 8th level, yep, immunity to all creatures below 3rd level... I mean you are practically immune anyway in 5e even with BA. You would need wave after wave of commoners to bring down an 8th level PC, doing 1d6 here and there, chipping away as they are slaughtered.
It is so funny...

when monsters didn´t hit well, PCs had an arbitrary +2 to hit starting at level one. Monsters lagged behind.
When PCs got their attack bonus reduced by 2, monster attackbonuses went up by 3-4...

I really don´t like that and I hope, monster attack at low level will be decreased again. I don´t believel goböin´s need to hit that good to matter. As long as their attack bonus is high enough to hit AC 20 once in a while there is no problem. I don´t even have a problem if there is a point, if you are equipped with plate and shield and maybe some magic, where a goblin just can´t hit you anymore.

On the other hand, I like the pack attack rule. I would even like it to be a rule for everyone. I could be some kind of flanking bonus. If you overwhelm your enemy, you get an extra bonus to hit. Solo monsters can have abilities to negate that bonus however. (Like in previous editions, where some monster´s could not be flanked)
As long as their attack bonus is high enough to hit AC 20 once in a while there is no problem.

Right, +5 vs AC 20 will hit once in a while. Still difficult as you hit only 30% of the time, but much easier than with the pityful +1 a Goblin would get otherwise. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Part of the benefit of Bounded Accuracy is that armor and AC were supposed to mean something - you knew that the guy in plate would have AC ~18, and would be X hard to hit. The problem with current monster math is that armor and AC stop meaning that thing - you are not X hard to hit, even though you're wearing plate, because the enemy has artificially increased its attack bonus.




Armor stopped meaning a thing when they decided for crit autoconfirm. In fact, boosting low level monsters accuracy will result in less TPKs in the long run, because it teaches players to start relying on damage resistance and hit points, and not AC, as early as possible.
If you're otherwise immune to attacks vs. AC, being crit is not scary. "Almost complete immunity to the attacks of a wide swath of monsters" is a pretty far cry from "stopped meaning a thing".
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
If you're otherwise immune to attacks vs. AC, being crit is not scary. "Almost complete immunity to the attacks of a wide swath of monsters" is a pretty far cry from "stopped meaning a thing".




...he said and then TPKd on the first encounter in the Mud Tombs.


 
1) Monster crit damage is quite high; proof: average PC builds' hps vs average monster crit damage

2) Eventually in a campaign, a challenging encounter will roll two natural 20s soon enough; proof: math

In that moment the AC party will be down 1-2 members facing uphill battle. The resistance party will crush through the monsters even after two natural 20s and live happily ever after.

 
I think were misinterpreting  Bounded Accuracy. Nowhere does it say that Accuracy remains the same. The progression has been flattened quite a bit yes, but its not a stalemate.

Ultimately the problem is with AC, if the designers feel monster accuracy is poor, then lower the AC bonus a little and incorporate rules/guidelines that explains why a PC shouldn't start with plate. Things like shields should 'break' bounded accuracy because the player is giving up offense to be exceptionally hard to hit.

In any case, when I playtest, I lower the to hit bonuses from monsters to something reasonable and the game still functions. PCs don't need to get hit every round.

Fact is, there is no reasons why monsters / NPCs need to work on an entirely different matrix then PCs. Yes they can be simpler. But to make Attack Bonus completely random, arbitrary and different is folly and difficult for the DM to gauge encounters and have NPCs join the party. Ultimately it makes the game feel like a game rather then a living world where the people (NPCs) are comparable.

This was the strength of 3.5. Yes it was difficult to make NPCs and this obviously needed tunning. BUT, everything felt like it belonged, every ability felt 'real' and all the math was shown so their were no surprises and no 'cheating'. You could build an NPC or Monster from the ground up and felt like he was legit.
Well, in isolation a single monster with a high attack bonus is fine.  Fighting solos or a small # of monsters are going to go in the PCs favor.  Its when you have multiple monsters and start outnumbering the party that things get out of hand quickly.

Throw in 8 goblins who will hit AC 18 (the highest you can get at early levels with chainmail and shield) with a 13, or 35%.  Thats 2-3 hits a round on average.  That number of hits with d6 damage can drop a level 1 fighter in a round, let along any other character with less hit points and AC.  Throw in advantage scenarios (like goblins going first in initiative or from hiding) and there is more damage coming at the party, and extra chances to crit when you can roll 16x and take the best 8.  8 goblins should be a medium encounter based on the XP for a 1st level party of 4 characters (based solely on their xp value).  Even at level 2 the PCs don't have enough hit points if they face this kind of encounter.  If you get max hp every level instead of rolling for it, this may be different, but we have not experienced that in our playtest.

With bounded accuracy if you roll enough dice the monsters can hit any AC target.  I like that concept.  PCs won't take on armies and think they're immune.  But when you have a big bonus as well you will hit more often and you end up with a party that is going back to town to rest every other encounter (and creating the 5 minute workday issue mentioned in another thread) or TPK.  As combat is faster in Next it encourages PCs to use their spells and other resources so they can stand up to this kind of threat.  When they are expended, the thought of another encounter makes PCs retreat to regain their spells.

If they are going to do something with the monsters in the next packet I'd like to see them drop the large bonuses down to a +1 or +2 for low hit dice/ xp monsters and steadily increase them.  This way high level monsters are more of a threat.

My group is finding that the current version of the playtest is about mitigating damage with HP than avoiding hits with AC.  As it stands, low levels are more dangerous for the party until they get more hit points...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
If they are going to do something with the monsters in the next packet I'd like to see them drop the large bonuses down to a +1 or +2 for low hit dice/ xp monsters and steadily increase them.  This way high level monsters are more of a threat.



Exactly. It worked very well for D&D in the past, why not do it that way?

Right now, the monster attack bonuses run a narrow range of +5 to +8. Another weird effect of this is that balors only hit 15% more often than goblins vs. the same AC.

Though I agree with the bounded accuracy concept, I hope that its bounds are expanded by a bit, on both ends. 
If you're otherwise immune to attacks vs. AC, being crit is not scary.

I've never been a fan of the old "you can only be hit on a 20, so you take double damage from every attack" rule. When given the option, I avoided implementing the critical hit rule in 2E.

The metagame is not the game.

I think that WotC has to look at each monster independently and decide how good is it in combat and then assign the appropriate to hit bonus. There are some monsters I think should be less accurate (goblins, kobolds, giant centipedes, rats, dire rats, etc.), but there are also other monsters that should be more accurate and terrifying (troll, dragon, etc.).

Generally, monsters that PCs could face as solos or small group/pair monsters can be more accurate, while wee little monsters that often show up in larger groups should be less accurate.

I don't necessarily think that the "to hit bonuses" should be determined like PCs "to hit bonuses", but I'd like it to be closer than it is now.

I do, however, like how lower level monsters can hurt higher level PCs. I've always liked to discourage higher level PCs from stirring up a hornets nest, but that is an issue of style/gameplay. I also like that lower level PCs will actually fear most encounters, again...just personal preference.

I think when all is said and done, it will be easy for DMs to turn dials on the monsters to achieve the playstyle/feel they desire for their campaigns. That's something D&DNext should strive for...enable the DM to make the game he or she really wants to play.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Maybe this has been explained before, but I'm wondering why monster attack bonuses are so high compared to PCs. A goblin with a bow is +5 to hit, the equivalent of a 1st level fighter with an 18 dexterity. The goblin only has a 13 dexterity, so that means his attack bonus is +4, the equivalent of a 13th level fighter!



  Lazy developers are lazy.  Instead of making symetric rules for PC and NPC they're just making stuff up as they go along for the NPCs.  +5 is an 18 stat and a +1 bonus which isn't all that unusual for level 1 PCs anyway.

Right now, the monster attack bonuses run a narrow range of +5 to +8. Another weird effect of this is that balors only hit 15% more often than goblins vs. the same AC.



  When they're fighting the Balor many in the party should have an AC in the 20s, with 25 not being very hard to get at all, so the Balor will be hitting them 2x or 3x as often as the goblin.  Unless of course they have a 28 AC, which is entirely possible, then the Balor and Goblin will both only be hitting 5% of the time.  Capping at +8 to hit isn't going to work.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

I think that WotC has to look at each monster independently and decide how good is it in combat and then assign the appropriate to hit bonus. There are some monsters I think should be less accurate (goblins, kobolds, giant centipedes, rats, dire rats, etc.), but there are also other monsters that should be more accurate and terrifying (troll, dragon, etc.).

Generally, monsters that PCs could face as solos or small group/pair monsters can be more accurate, while wee little monsters that often show up in larger groups should be less accurate.

I don't necessarily think that the "to hit bonuses" should be determined like PCs "to hit bonuses", but I'd like it to be closer than it is now.

I do, however, like how lower level monsters can hurt higher level PCs. I've always liked to discourage higher level PCs from stirring up a hornets nest, but that is an issue of style/gameplay. I also like that lower level PCs will actually fear most encounters, again...just personal preference.

I think when all is said and done, it will be easy for DMs to turn dials on the monsters to achieve the playstyle/feel they desire for their campaigns. That's something D&DNext should strive for...enable the DM to make the game he or she really wants to play.

again, isolating 'to hit' from HP damage output cannot be done in D&D. goblins only do 1d6 damage, and they do that often. That tells me they are looking at each monster independently. If they were doing 4d6 then a +1 'to hit' would be more appropiate.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Maybe this has been explained before, but I'm wondering why monster attack bonuses are so high compared to PCs. A goblin with a bow is +5 to hit, the equivalent of a 1st level fighter with an 18 dexterity. The goblin only has a 13 dexterity, so that means his attack bonus is +4, the equivalent of a 13th level fighter!



  Lazy developers are lazy.  Instead of making symetric rules for PC and NPC they're just making stuff up as they go along for the NPCs.  +5 is an 18 stat and a +1 bonus which isn't all that unusual for level 1 PCs anyway.

Right now, the monster attack bonuses run a narrow range of +5 to +8. Another weird effect of this is that balors only hit 15% more often than goblins vs. the same AC.



  When they're fighting the Balor many in the party should have an AC in the 20s, with 25 not being very hard to get at all, so the Balor will be hitting them 2x or 3x as often as the goblin.  Unless of course they have a 28 AC, which is entirely possible, then the Balor and Goblin will both only be hitting 5% of the time.  Capping at +8 to hit isn't going to work.

it is not lazy developement. they understand the role of the monsters is not the role of PCs so they simplify the math by increasing how often they hit but lower the damage. I have read many of your posts and I suggest that you start looking at the bigger picture rather than focus narrowly on one aspect of the game. 'to hit' and HP damage output MUST be looked at together, so to does AC and total HP. they work in tandem and until you grasp that you dont' grasp the abstact nature of D&D storytelling.

Lets look at the goblin/balor comparison you make. even if the 'to hit' were the same what kind of HP damage is the balor doing in comparison? the answer is no comparision...

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

'to hit' and HP damage output MUST be looked at together, so to does AC and total HP. they work in tandem and until you grasp that you dont' grasp the abstact nature of D&D storytelling.



I originally opened this topic in the context low level opponents, including goblins, orcs, human warriors, and even human commoners. Their damage output is determined by their weapon, not some arbitrary assignment.

Removing the idea of considering "how skilled at combat is this opponent?" from determining their to hit bonus is moving too far from reality for my taste. These gears, wheels, and cogs are all part of creating what feels like a living, breathing world, not just some game we play on a table.
the problem is the d20 and AC.

The d20 is swing as heck but AC values START at 10. If monster attack is too low, the dice becomes way more important that the monster. If the monster attack is too high, then the monsters' attacks don't make sense in contrast to the PCs.

D20: blessing and curse.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

'to hit' and HP damage output MUST be looked at together, so to does AC and total HP. they work in tandem and until you grasp that you dont' grasp the abstact nature of D&D storytelling.



I originally opened this topic in the context low level opponents, including goblins, orcs, human warriors, and even human commoners. Their damage output is determined by their weapon, not some arbitrary assignment.

Removing the idea of considering "how skilled at combat is this opponent?" from determining their to hit bonus is moving too far from reality for my taste. These gears, wheels, and cogs are all part of creating what feels like a living, breathing world, not just some game we play on a table.

Drow does 1d8 damage with a short sword. Why? Because the game designers understand the synergy between all of these factor of 'to hit' and damage.

The world becomes a living, breathing world because of the interaction between players and the DM. Yes, the rules when consistent can help. But making monsters the same as PCs in how they get bonuses is a burden I would rather not see for D&D. DMs need simplistic rules to manage the story effectively, especially when they are controlling hordes of these low level monsters. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

The game is designed oddly. Monsters basically have a high bonus to hit for 1st level, but never really get any better. Most level 10 monsters are still swinging at +5 or +6 to hit.

On the flip side of the problem, PC AC can be higher than that of Asmodeus, lord of hell, at level 1.

Do they need to thin out the PC AC range?  Make Plate armour AC16 and scrunch up the other ACs?