And in this corner, 100 rock throwing peasants!

AC has a lot of issues right now and I think that's because D&DNext is trying to elevate a theory of play(Bounded Accuracy) into an actual rule of the game.

100 rock throwing peasants shouldn't be able to near auto-defeat an 18th level monster as an example. Yet if you match up 100 Human Commoners against an Automaton, guess what? The Automaton will be lucky to kill even 20% of them and will die almost certainly in the 5th round if not by the 6th. It might explain why monsters are afraid of villagers wielding pitchforks and torches, but....

NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)


Hence why we need DR or magic weapons to hit stuff.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Army's should be scary

Pitchfork mobs should be as to take down a lot

100 common ore with rocks should not kill asmodus

This needs work

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

AC has a lot of issues right now and I think that's because D&DNext is trying to elevate a theory of play(Bounded Accuracy) into an actual rule of the game.

100 rock throwing peasants shouldn't be able to near auto-defeat an 18th level monster as an example. Yet if you match up 100 Human Commoners against an Automaton, guess what? The Automaton will be lucky to kill even 20% of them and will die almost certainly in the 5th round if not by the 6th. It might explain why monsters are afraid of villagers wielding pitchforks and torches, but....



This is one (of many) reasons why I wish they would keep minor scaling in the game.

Nothing too serious mind you.  Maybe that level 18 Automoton has a +9 to attack rolls and AC or something.  This way commoners go from being able to hit it to not being able to hit it.   
I think if AC scaled from 10-25 it would work bettyer

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I don't see an issue.

100 vs 1 should win. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I dont think there is an issue, the game shouldnt be some kind of simulation engine to model the real world.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

This is the problem the FASERIP version of Marvel Super Heroes had. Aunt May could take down Galactus if she got lucky enough. 100 commoners with rocks SHOULD be a force, but should not be able to take down supernatural beings like Demons. Truly, the easiest answer for this is making certain types of monsters only take damage from magic weapons and/or special metals.
I just generally loathe the "the world is made of numbers" approach to RPGs.

That said, 100-commoners-with-rocks defeating any kind of major threat is... contrary to most of the genre.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Army should be dangerous.

A hundred peole could beat the hell out of a polar bear, doesn't mean they are.... 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I think if AC scaled from 10-25 it would work bettyer



I think 30 should be the top top top end of AC for a level 20 creature or player.  10 base, 10 from armor/shield (or +5 from ability score and +5 from armor/shield), and 10 from skill.

I think a +20 should be the the maximum attack bonus bonus for monsters +10 from ability score and +10 from skill.

For PCs I think a +15 should be the max attack bonus, but also include a d12 proficiency die*.  +10 from skill, +5 from ability, +1d12 from the proficiency die.

*The proficiency die is just the 5e skill die renamed.  It applies to all ability checks for skills you have proficiency with as well as all ability checks for attacks with weapons you have proficiency with.
 
Army should be dangerous.

A hundred peole could beat the hell out of a polar bear, doesn't mean they are.... 



In real life, sure.  However DND is supposed to reflect (at least in part) a branch of fantasy fiction where a single epic hero can single-handedly defeat entire armies.  Indeed in Chainmail, you could have a single hero be a (fairly strong) single military unit that could and did do just that.

-Polaris
Hence why we need DR or magic weapons to hit stuff.


Armour in general needs to do DR, and AC be a skill based damage avoidance mechanic, rather than based on how heavy the armour is.

Because 100 peasents with rocks should have a hell of a hard time to actually hurt a basic human Knight in plate.  That's not to say it's impossible (Concussions are still possible) but it would be harder to do so that it is in D&D.
In real life, sure.  However DND is supposed to reflect (at least in part) a branch of fantasy fiction where a single epic hero can single-handedly defeat entire armies.


A single high-level hero can defeat an army.  He just cannot do it unscathed.  And he can't do it if the army operateswithout any sort of morale or human emotion.

Yes, a mob of 100 people can take doesn an 18th level fighter.  But if that mob knows that only a third-of them will survive that attack, chances are sufficient numbers of them will flee so that theywon't actually have 100 people facing the 18th level fighter... they'll only have about 60.  And since they all know that some of their cowardly compatriots will flee, that makes it in their interest to flee before the fighter mows them down.  Which is why a rabble is easily broken.

If you only analyze a battle as a conflict of numbers, then all sorts of silly results happen.

That said, the easiest answer is to introduce the following rule.

Rabble Rules
Any NPC who lacks martial training does not automatically hit a target with more than 50 times the NPC's hit points unless attacking with advantage and both d20 rolls score a natural 20.

Done.
In real life, sure.  However DND is supposed to reflect (at least in part) a branch of fantasy fiction where a single epic hero can single-handedly defeat entire armies.


A single high-level hero can defeat an army.  He just cannot do it unscathed.  And he can't do it if the army operateswithout any sort of morale or human emotion.

Yes, a mob of 100 people can take doesn an 18th level fighter.  But if that mob knows that only a third-of them will survive that attack, chances are sufficient numbers of them will flee so that theywon't actually have 100 people facing the 18th level fighter... they'll only have about 60.  And since they all know that some of their cowardly compatriots will flee, that makes it in their interest to flee before the fighter mows them down.  Which is why a rabble is easily broken.

If you only analyze a battle as a conflict of numbers, then all sorts of silly results happen.

That said, the easiest answer is to introduce the following rule.

Rabble Rules
Any NPC who lacks martial training does not automatically hit a target with more than 50 times the NPC's hit points unless attacking with advantage and both d20 rolls score a natural 20.

Done.



Sorry but no.  If you are making special rules ad-hoc in order to simulate what all prior versions of DND did naturally, then it's a problem.  An 18th+ level fighter (or any PC) should be able to IGNORE foes past a certain point in an epic tale.  This is what Character grow and aspire to become.  This is what bounded accuracy fails at.

-Polaris
AC has a lot of issues right now and I think that's because D&DNext is trying to elevate a theory of play(Bounded Accuracy) into an actual rule of the game.

100 rock throwing peasants shouldn't be able to near auto-defeat an 18th level monster as an example. Yet if you match up 100 Human Commoners against an Automaton, guess what? The Automaton will be lucky to kill even 20% of them and will die almost certainly in the 5th round if not by the 6th. It might explain why monsters are afraid of villagers wielding pitchforks and torches, but....



I would never roll this scenario.  It is not practical.  It is vacuum maths. 

The story would go, An Automaton destroyed this village.  And then the players would say "Damn"...or the story would go, the villiagers were able to somehow stop this Automaton and now it lies in the bottow of the lake.  And then the players would say..."Damn"

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Low Level PC Armor Class: 15 to 17
High Level PC Armor Class: 22 to 23

Low Level PC Attack: +4 to +5
High Level PC Attack: +13 to +17

Armor Class mostly increases in one way. Better equipment.
Attack Bonuses increase with level and equipment.

At all levels, enemies can hit PCs with as little as a +5 bonus.
At low levels, PCs can occasionally hit AC 19, but at high levels, PCs almost always hit AC 19.

Bounded Accuracy does not work if you apply it in both directions. Stick to making monsters being a threat at all levels. Don't make all monsters appropriate encounters at all levels.
I dont see a huge problem with this. 100 vs 1 doesn't take into consideration the ABILTIES of a high level creature. Sure, the commoners will beat the enemy in a vaccuum. Most combats arent in a vaccuum versus a tofu blck though. What if the enemy doesnt play ball, and drops a metor on the village, or flies, or is invisible? Chances are its both smart and powerful.

If you do see a problem, tack on some DR. Suddenly, low damage attacks, even in large quantities, do nothing. Not rocket science. Although, I HATED the DR/whatever rules. Such a clunky mechanic.  
Army should be dangerous.

A hundred peole could beat the hell out of a polar bear, doesn't mean they are.... 



In real life, sure.  However DND is supposed to reflect (at least in part) a branch of fantasy fiction where a single epic hero can single-handedly defeat entire armies.  Indeed in Chainmail, you could have a single hero be a (fairly strong) single military unit that could and did do just that.

-Polaris



1. Says who? I would never even consider such in a game. 
2. Were talking about peasents killing monsters not players.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

I actually consider this a reasonable explanation for how villages full of commoners can actually survive in your typical monster-haunted D&D setting; by banding together in close-knit communities of significant numbers, peasants can protect themselves from wandering monsters. Some of them, at least. Flying, fire-breathing dragons of a certain age will still toast any land-bound humanoid village. That doesn't even factor in damage resistance or a "parry" mechanic for monsters.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

This sort of example reminds me of the 1st level Wizard defeating the 21st level Minion with Cloud of Daggers.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I actually consider this a reasonable explanation for how villages full of commoners can actually survive in your typical monster-haunted D&D setting; by banding together in close-knit communities of significant numbers, peasants can protect themselves from wandering monsters. Some of them, at least. Flying, fire-breathing dragons of a certain age will still toast any land-bound humanoid village.

This. So much this.

I actually consider this a reasonable explanation for how villages full of commoners can actually survive in your typical monster-haunted D&D setting; by banding together in close-knit communities of significant numbers, peasants can protect themselves from wandering monsters. Some of them, at least. Flying, fire-breathing dragons of a certain age will still toast any land-bound humanoid village. That doesn't even factor in damage resistance or a "parry" mechanic for monsters.



Considering how in medeival times knights could go and slaughter villages full of people (and sometimes did) it shows how wrong that kind of thinking is.  Without weapons meant to deal with plate armor, it was basically impossible for untrained peasants to do anything to a knight.  
Considering how in medeival times knights could go and slaughter villages full of people (and sometimes did) it shows how wrong that kind of thinking is.  Without weapons meant to deal with plate armor, it was basically impossible for untrained peasants to do anything to a knight.

What history books have you been reading, wherein a lone knight laid waste to an entire village?

I don't see an issue.

100 vs 1 should win. 



100 ants vs. a guy in powered armor packing a flamethrower? Yeah, team bug has this one in the bag...
AC has a lot of issues right now and I think that's because D&DNext is trying to elevate a theory of play(Bounded Accuracy) into an actual rule of the game.

100 rock throwing peasants shouldn't be able to near auto-defeat an 18th level monster as an example. Yet if you match up 100 Human Commoners against an Automaton, guess what? The Automaton will be lucky to kill even 20% of them and will die almost certainly in the 5th round if not by the 6th. It might explain why monsters are afraid of villagers wielding pitchforks and torches, but....



I would never roll this scenario.  It is not practical.  It is vacuum maths. 

The story would go, An Automaton destroyed this village.  And then the players would say "Damn"...or the story would go, the villiagers were able to somehow stop this Automaton and now it lies in the bottow of the lake.  And then the players would say..."Damn"



Except the scenario, at least mathematically, is the villagers always win. And they win fast. The only reason the Automaton kills even that many is for one simple reason:
I'm assuming the villagers are complete idiots. They put themselves in position where they don't get their additional bonuses to hit and where the Automaton gets to attack 4 each round. If the villagers scatter themselves about, that then drops to 1 per round. They keep swarming it, they register an extra 2-5 hits per round depending on how Advantage works. Yes, the Automaton could easily be in the position where an 18th level monster only kills 6 or peasants if both the peasants and the Automaton do their best possible actions.

This is not to say that I wouldn't expect occasionally odd results from a large group against a single or few monsters. But it should be because, "Hey, I got this odd result based on the large group eventually rolling enough 20s.", not "It is nearly impossible for an Automaton to defeat 100 poorly played human commoners."
I dont see a huge problem with this. 100 vs 1 doesn't take into consideration the ABILTIES of a high level creature. Sure, the commoners will beat the enemy in a vaccuum. Most combats arent in a vaccuum versus a tofu blck though. What if the enemy doesnt play ball, and drops a metor on the village, or flies, or is invisible? Chances are its both smart and powerful.

If you do see a problem, tack on some DR. Suddenly, low damage attacks, even in large quantities, do nothing. Not rocket science. Although, I HATED the DR/whatever rules. Such a clunky mechanic.  



A lot of 5e would have to be scrapped or rewritten if they introduced DR on a large scale. (i.e. it's typical standard, rather than a distinctive feature of a few particular enemies.)
That's because we have things like 2wf has a second attack that is an unmodified die (rarely if every above 1d6). And a lot of manuevers that do martial damage die damage without backing it up with anything.
It's already obnoxious and probably needs adjusting because it's plinking 200+ HP enemies with 1d6 damage increments.
Of course, we're in the playtest phase, so if they're going to scrap/rewrite something, now's the time.    
Considering how in medeival times knights could go and slaughter villages full of people (and sometimes did) it shows how wrong that kind of thinking is.  Without weapons meant to deal with plate armor, it was basically impossible for untrained peasants to do anything to a knight.

What history books have you been reading, wherein a lone knight laid waste to an entire village?




seriously, I'd take 20 guys with baseball bats over one guy with full plate and a sword . . .

wouldn't 100 commoners get 5 critical hits per round in older systems? that will deal some hurt. 

This example does a much better job of illustrating that armor is best simulated through DR systems, not AC, but I don't really see it ruining bounded accuracy for me. 
Army should be dangerous.

A hundred peole could beat the hell out of a polar bear, doesn't mean they are.... 



In real life, sure.  However DND is supposed to reflect (at least in part) a branch of fantasy fiction where a single epic hero can single-handedly defeat entire armies.  Indeed in Chainmail, you could have a single hero be a (fairly strong) single military unit that could and did do just that.

-Polaris



1. Says who? I would never even consider such in a game. 
2. Were talking about peasents killing monsters not players.



I would. That's part of the fun of being high level. Or is there some rule against getting to be the badass hero that everyone tells tales of? As for the second point, we're not actually talking about either specifically, we're talking about a large group of weak actors taking on a single much more powerful entity. Whether it's a monster or player, on either side, it doesn't matter.
If you are making special rules ad-hoc in order to simulate what all prior versions of DND did naturally, then it's a problem.  An 18th+ level fighter (or any PC) should be able to IGNORE foes past a certain point in an epic tale.  This is what Character grow and aspire to become.  This is what bounded accuracy fails at.


Natural 20 auto-hit in every edition of which I am aware.  The problem existed in 3rd edition, 2d edition and 1st edition.  It has nothing to do with bounded accuracy because in all situations a natural 20 still worked.  So 100 soldiers shooting arrows (4.5 hp mean on a hit) at a 100 hp fighter meant 22.5 hp damage every round.  Even with the fighter attacking twice a round, he'd be dead in five rounds and at the cost of about 9 soldiers.

If your problem is with a rabble taking out a high-level fighter, the problem isn't bounded accuracy.  The problem is D&D.
I don't see an issue.

100 vs 1 should win. 



An Automaton is supposed to be worth more XP(and therefore presumably more dangerous) than a Balor or Pit Fiend...
I actually consider this a reasonable explanation for how villages full of commoners can actually survive in your typical monster-haunted D&D setting; by banding together in close-knit communities of significant numbers, peasants can protect themselves from wandering monsters. Some of them, at least. Flying, fire-breathing dragons of a certain age will still toast any land-bound humanoid village. That doesn't even factor in damage resistance or a "parry" mechanic for monsters.



Considering how in medeival times knights could go and slaughter villages full of people (and sometimes did) it shows how wrong that kind of thinking is.  Without weapons meant to deal with plate armor, it was basically impossible for untrained peasants to do anything to a knight.  



In medieval times a fullplated knight(very rare due to cost of armour) was worth 3-5 men-at-arms and maybe 10-15 peasants with pitchforks and clubs.

Yes, formation of 20+ full plated knight was awe inspiring, but single knight was relative easy picking for enraged mob.


Considering how in medeival times knights could go and slaughter villages full of people (and sometimes did) it shows how wrong that kind of thinking is.  Without weapons meant to deal with plate armor, it was basically impossible for untrained peasants to do anything to a knight.

What history books have you been reading, wherein a lone knight laid waste to an entire village?




seriously, I'd take 20 guys with baseball bats over one guy with full plate and a sword . . .

wouldn't 100 commoners get 5 critical hits per round in older systems? that will deal some hurt. 

This example does a much better job of illustrating that armor is best simulated through DR systems, not AC, but I don't really see it ruining bounded accuracy for me. 



You'd lose. In the real world. Seriously, I'm not even kidding. Go talk to a member of The Order of the Seven Hearts. A knight in plate armor will not even be phased by a baseball bat. People these days don't realize what plate armor could protect people from.

Not only that, unless those bats are metal, a high quaility arming sword is cutting right through them. Since knights were expected to spend entire days on the field fighting in their armor, he won't get tired either. Those 20 mooks are dead. They don't stand a chance in hell.
With enough rocks that monster should die.      If you don't like that then make that monster immune to non-magical weapons or something.  

I like the fact that AC isn't based on monster level anymore.      If I want to make a high HP monster with a very low AC I can.   

For example, the giant slug king shouldn't be that hard to hit.   I'll give him 300 hit points and AC 16 and be done with it.    If the giant slug crawls into the village and dies that's his problem. 



Oh course we are missing the part where most high level creatures have AOE actions that auto kill commoners and after 3 rounds the commoners will route and run away, fearing their lives.

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!

If you are making special rules ad-hoc in order to simulate what all prior versions of DND did naturally, then it's a problem.  An 18th+ level fighter (or any PC) should be able to IGNORE foes past a certain point in an epic tale.  This is what Character grow and aspire to become.  This is what bounded accuracy fails at.


Natural 20 auto-hit in every edition of which I am aware.  The problem existed in 3rd edition, 2d edition and 1st edition.  It has nothing to do with bounded accuracy because in all situations a natural 20 still worked.  So 100 soldiers shooting arrows (4.5 hp mean on a hit) at a 100 hp fighter meant 22.5 hp damage every round.  Even with the fighter attacking twice a round, he'd be dead in five rounds and at the cost of about 9 soldiers.

If your problem is with a rabble taking out a high-level fighter, the problem isn't bounded accuracy.  The problem is D&D.



Thankfully the 3e epic level handbook had a variant that a natural 20 counted as a total roll of 30 before modifiers, and a natural roll of 1 counted as a total roll of -10 before modifiers. The sidebar that has this variant deals with exactly this problem, saying that at epic level, you really should be more like legendary heroes.

With enough rocks that monster should die.      If you don't like that then make that monster immune to non-magical weapons or something.



That's a value judgment, one that I heartily disagree with. If you want an RPG that does that, there are plenty out there. I prefer my high fantasy and epic heroes though, thanks.
Considering how in medeival times knights could go and slaughter villages full of people (and sometimes did) it shows how wrong that kind of thinking is.  Without weapons meant to deal with plate armor, it was basically impossible for untrained peasants to do anything to a knight.

What history books have you been reading, wherein a lone knight laid waste to an entire village?




The truth was it was extremely dangerous or knights to enter other lord's villages, as it was common they woudl get pulled off their horses and killed by only a few peasents, and they're woudl be no reprucussions. You have to rememebr thta knights we're supported by militias. Of course they we're safe in their own lord's villages for fear of retalliation.

Knights we're designed for certain fighting style, that made thme extremely succeptible to other fighting styles. If you suprise a knight you pretty much killed him.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

If you are making special rules ad-hoc in order to simulate what all prior versions of DND did naturally, then it's a problem.  An 18th+ level fighter (or any PC) should be able to IGNORE foes past a certain point in an epic tale.  This is what Character grow and aspire to become.  This is what bounded accuracy fails at.


Natural 20 auto-hit in every edition of which I am aware.  The problem existed in 3rd edition, 2d edition and 1st edition.  It has nothing to do with bounded accuracy because in all situations a natural 20 still worked.  So 100 soldiers shooting arrows (4.5 hp mean on a hit) at a 100 hp fighter meant 22.5 hp damage every round.  Even with the fighter attacking twice a round, he'd be dead in five rounds and at the cost of about 9 soldiers.

If your problem is with a rabble taking out a high-level fighter, the problem isn't bounded accuracy.  The problem is D&D.



No, that's an artifact of declaring that a natural 20 is always a hit, which one would expect to create some issues and logic can easily be used to say, "Hey, I'm going to ignore a 5% auto-hit chance as being silly with 100 peasants". Doesn't work the same way when the rabble are hitting at a very high rate of success(comparatively).

Also, the high-level Fighter in previous editions actually had quite a few options for defeating those soldiers. 1st/2nd editions, a Fighter could easily get 8 attacks a round against sufficently low level opponents. 1st edition Fighters might not even be hittable if their AC was high enough. 3rd edition, an enlarged spiked chain fighter could generate a lot of OAs or potentially DR. And in 4e, there are a number of ways to get enough DR by Paragon, maybe even Heroic, that the soldiers simply won't do enough damage.

These also aren't soldiers. These are the flat out normal commoners.
"100 ants vs. a guy in powered armor packing a flamethrower? Yeah, team bug has this one in the bag..."

"Owe owe... These damn bugs got in my armor"


I kid I kid

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

AC has a lot of issues right now and I think that's because D&DNext is trying to elevate a theory of play(Bounded Accuracy) into an actual rule of the game.

100 rock throwing peasants shouldn't be able to near auto-defeat an 18th level monster as an example. Yet if you match up 100 Human Commoners against an Automaton, guess what? The Automaton will be lucky to kill even 20% of them and will die almost certainly in the 5th round if not by the 6th. It might explain why monsters are afraid of villagers wielding pitchforks and torches, but....



I would never roll this scenario.  It is not practical.  It is vacuum maths. 

The story would go, An Automaton destroyed this village.  And then the players would say "Damn"...or the story would go, the villiagers were able to somehow stop this Automaton and now it lies in the bottow of the lake.  And then the players would say..."Damn"



Except the scenario, at least mathematically, is the villagers always win. And they win fast. The only reason the Automaton kills even that many is for one simple reason:
I'm assuming the villagers are complete idiots. They put themselves in position where they don't get their additional bonuses to hit and where the Automaton gets to attack 4 each round. If the villagers scatter themselves about, that then drops to 1 per round. They keep swarming it, they register an extra 2-5 hits per round depending on how Advantage works. Yes, the Automaton could easily be in the position where an 18th level monster only kills 6 or peasants if both the peasants and the Automaton do their best possible actions.

This is not to say that I wouldn't expect occasionally odd results from a large group against a single or few monsters. But it should be because, "Hey, I got this odd result based on the large group eventually rolling enough 20s.", not "It is nearly impossible for an Automaton to defeat 100 poorly played human commoners."



I think it would be fairly accurate to say I fear a swarm of bees more than I fear a single small insect.

I am not doubting the maths.  All I want is a level of bazaare intrigue.  Maths rarely help with that.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

"100 ants vs. a guy in powered armor packing a flamethrower? Yeah, team bug has this one in the bag..." "Owe owe... These damn bugs got in my armor" I kid I kid



Hence the self-contained part. I know you're kidding, but in the spirit of the debate, we can scale up to napalm dropped from an F-22 Raptor. Go Team Bug!
Sign In to post comments