Am I the only one who thinks that monsters hit too often?

I think the monsters in this iteration of the bestiary score damaging hits on PCs too often--especially low-level monsters.

It just doesn't feel right for a 1st level beastie like a goblin or a human warrior to injure a PC in mail and carrying a shield only slightly less than half the time (i.e. a roll of 12+). 

Worse yet, just a few levels later, even a PC in full plate can't expect any better protection from his armour.  Not even spending 5,000gp, and accepting the speed penalty and disadvantage on certain checks buys you a decent level of safety in this game at this point, and that bothers me. 

I just think heavy armour should make someone a bit safer from most monsters.  Especially the low-level ones.  All I want is to see maybe a 1-2 point reduction in the attack bonus of many (most?) monsters and I'll be happy.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I agree. I think they need both a lower attack bonus and a higher armor class. It feels like characters' defenses and offenses hardly accomplish anything as long as both sides roll higher than ten.
I agree. I think they need both a lower attack bonus and a higher armor class. It feels like characters' defenses and offenses hardly accomplish anything as long as both sides roll higher than ten.



I just want equal level PC and equal level Monster to be nearly equivalent so that it is easier to plan encounters.   Both 3/3.5 and 4e started making it easier to evaluate monster power.  That has to be part of D&DNext.   I kind of like 3/3.5 with challenge ratings for really weak opponents that were 1/8 or 1/4 or 1/2.

We've been playing both D&DNext and 3.5/Pathfinder over the past few weeks, and it seems like the sweet spot for PC to hit, damage, and AC, and monster to hit, damage and AC lies somewhere in the middle of these two systems.   D&DNext makes hitting and killing too easy, and 3.5/Pathfinder makes hitting and killing a bit too difficult.

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

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

 

 

Next has a decent system for determining the difficulty of an encounter, but not so much an individual monster (the levels given often don't match up to their actual challenge). I do like that it is calculated per player per level instead of assuming a party of four, which required way too much math to plan encounters in 3.5 and Pathfinder.

If the monsters would just work off of the same mechanics that players do (hit dice, stats, attack bonus, feats), then it would not only be much easier to gaige a monster's difficulty level, but it would be much easier to create new ones as well. I don't know why they seem to think monsters should have their own separate mechanics.
For starters, what was the AC on your people?
For starters, what was the AC on your people?


As I stated above--the PC in question was wearing mail & carrying a shield, so AC 17.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

Monsters hitting is fine.  They just need to go back to starting hit points more akin to the first playtest packet.
Starting hit points are fine, we don't need inflated level 1 characters. I'd rather have their starting armor choice actually matter.
In my group, there haven been any issues of monsters hitting too often. It just hasn't been the case.
Starting hit points are fine, we don't need inflated level 1 characters. I'd rather have their starting armor choice actually matter.



We had way more fun when we had more starting hit points and my past experience of 30+ years of D&D is that single digit hit points have never been fine.

I don't agree. I think they are hitting with a probability that I find very reasonable. And I know, mathematically speaking, that plate male increases your AC quite a bit...

I think some monsters attack bonus might be too low, high level monsters tend to only have +8, and PC can reach upto around 23 AC

I don't agree. I think they are hitting with a probability that I find very reasonable. And I know, mathematically speaking, that plate male increases your AC quite a bit...





I concur.


Carl
I don't have any problems with dragons, etc. having a +10 or so to hit--that makes sense, but I absolutely do not think those level 1 beasties--goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, human warriors, etc.--need to be running around with +4/+5 to hit.  It's too much. 

Wearing the armour and suffering the penalties it imposes on your wallet, speed, and ability checks just isn't worth the trouble if it's not going to offer you a reasonable rate of protection.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I don't have any problems with dragons, etc. having a +10 or so to hit--that makes sense, but I absolutely do not think those level 1 beasties--goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, human warriors, etc.--need to be running around with +4/+5 to hit.  It's too much. 

Wearing the armour and suffering the penalties it imposes on your wallet, speed, and ability checks just isn't worth the trouble if it's not going to offer you a reasonable rate of protection.



Although I kinda agree with you - I also campaigned for the current increase in their attacks.

I can easily see their attacks dropping back a couple of points.


But I disagree they hit too often.

If they want to roll back their attacks, they need to also roll back the PCs armor.

Make Plate AC 16.  Make no armor AC 8. 

They they won't have the +4 or +5 - but they will still be able to hit the players.

Why should the players hit 65% of the time - and not their opponents?

Carl
Because the NPCs are not protagonists. When the Players hit at 65%+, the mobs need to hit around 50%. I think most of the issue is in the starting PC HP and the swing in a lot of the monster damage (big die, small modifier).

I don't agree. I think they are hitting with a probability that I find very reasonable. And I know, mathematically speaking, that plate male increases your AC quite a bit...





I concur.


Carl



I third this sentiment.
I'd rather have their starting armor choice actually matter.

I agree. Choices should matter, or else they're just a waste of time and complexity.

The metagame is not the game.
Does anyone choose an armor with lower AC than they have prof in? I cant really see the choice with the minimal penalties to not always go for the highest AC possible (not talking shield).


@jonathan
So the real question of this topic should be: why dont PCs hit 15% better than protagonists?
 My answer: Because level 5s can already beat level 15 monsters so it would just make combat even more one sided.
Because the NPCs are not protagonists. When the Players hit at 65%+, the mobs need to hit around 50%. I think most of the issue is in the starting PC HP and the swing in a lot of the monster damage (big die, small modifier).



I agree.  And the monsters DO hit around 50% of the time now.


At best.


They were hitting far far less often than that before.


You are speaking of monsters with a +4 or a +5 to hit.  That means that they hit 50% of the time against AC 15 or 16. 

Any character capable of wearing heavy armor will have an AC of 14 to 16.  Some will be as high as 17 or 18.
Any character likely to wear medium armor will probably have an AC of 15 to 16.  Some will be as high as 17 or 18.
Monks and Barbarians will typically have an AC of 15 to 16.

So the only characters who ought to be getting hit more often than 50% of the time are the squishy mages (who ought to have a 14 Dex to give them an AC of 14 with mage armor) and Lightbringer clerics (who are the real losers in the AC department with the worst ACs in the entire game).

So I really think the monster hit chances are pretty much exactly where they should be.


Caveat:  Despite this - I would actually prefer they hit more often, but for less damage so that they get to the same averaged damage per round, but do so in a less swingy way.  But this is a personal preference as I think the net effect of monster damage is pretty close to what it should be (although a few individual monsters need tweaking in my opinion).


Carl
I feel that the 50% hit rate should be somewhere in the light armor range, with no armor being greater than 50% and heavy armor being less than 50%. It doesn't feel like an effective strategy to wear hevy armor and still get hit half of the time.

But I would support more hits, less damage. I'd rather have combat quickened by the round taking less time to adjudicate, not having fewer rounds of combat with everything going down in one or two hits.
I feel that the 50% hit rate should be somewhere in the light armor range, with no armor being greater than 50% and heavy armor being less than 50%. It doesn't feel like an effective strategy to wear hevy armor and still get hit half of the time.

But I would support more hits, less damage. I'd rather have combat quickened by the round taking less time to adjudicate, not having fewer rounds of combat with everything going down in one or two hits.



Well- that is because of the insistance that wearing armor other than heavy must be a viable option.

Heavy armor should be far and away better than either light or medium.

I'm talking four or five points better then medium - at least


And then come with significant penalties to Dexterity and movement.

Let them walk around like tanks - but be noisy and slow when they do it.  Make medium armor the default because most players don't want to mess with the hassle of heavy armor.

But right now, for most characters, the AC you get with light, medium and heavy armors is only a point or two different.  Armor is more a style choice than a real mechanical choice.


Carl
I feel that the 50% hit rate should be somewhere in the light armor range, with no armor being greater than 50% and heavy armor being less than 50%. It doesn't feel like an effective strategy to wear hevy armor and still get hit half of the time.

But I would support more hits, less damage. I'd rather have combat quickened by the round taking less time to adjudicate, not having fewer rounds of combat with everything going down in one or two hits.



Well- that is because of the insistance that wearing armor other than heavy must be a viable option.

Heavy armor should be far and away better than either light or medium.

I'm talking four or five points better then medium - at least


And then come with significant penalties to Dexterity and movement.

Let them walk around like tanks - but be noisy and slow when they do it.  Make medium armor the default because most players don't want to mess with the hassle of heavy armor.

But right now, for most characters, the AC you get with light, medium and heavy armors is only a point or two different.  Armor is more a style choice than a real mechanical choice.


Carl



That's why I think the three categories aren't enough, individual armors should have different penalties from each other. And add the tower shield for serious tanks.
I think a 50% hit rate for low-level monsters is much too high.

That 5,000gp pricetag and loss of speed and penalty to skill/ability checks really should buy me some decent security against attack from all but the toughest beasties.  For that kind of investment, I think I should be entitled to expect something more on the order of a 25% hit rate from the monsters to which the current edition of the beastiary grants a +4/+5 to-hit bonus.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I think a 50% hit rate for low-level monsters is much too high.

That 5,000gp pricetag and loss of speed and penalty to skill/ability checks really should buy me some decent security against attack from all but the toughest beasties.  For that kind of investment, I think I should be entitled to expect something more on the order of a 25% hit rate from the monsters to which the current edition of the beastiary grants a +4/+5 to-hit bonus.



I kind of agree with you here.  There should be some low level monsters (kobolds, goblins, rats, giant centipedes, etc.) that have +1 or +2 to hit scores.  On the other end though, I think some of the more fearsome foes (even at 8th-12th level) should have +8, +9 or +10 to hit scores, especially if they only make a single attack.   Multi-attack creatures can drop down a little.   WotC can still use bounded accuracy and spread the numbers out just a bit more.

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

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

 

 

I think a 50% hit rate for low-level monsters is much too high.

That 5,000gp pricetag and loss of speed and penalty to skill/ability checks really should buy me some decent security against attack from all but the toughest beasties.  For that kind of investment, I think I should be entitled to expect something more on the order of a 25% hit rate from the monsters to which the current edition of the beastiary grants a +4/+5 to-hit bonus.



And if you are wearing plate the monsters do have a greatly reduced hit rate.  They are hitting you around 35% of the time.    If you add a shield that drops to 30%. 

But the real issue here is that you are spending 5000 gold pieces for a +1 to your AC.  It is those specific high-priced armors that are the issue.  They are ludicrously priced for the benefit they grant.

Carl
I think a 50% hit rate for low-level monsters is much too high.

That 5,000gp pricetag and loss of speed and penalty to skill/ability checks really should buy me some decent security against attack from all but the toughest beasties.  For that kind of investment, I think I should be entitled to expect something more on the order of a 25% hit rate from the monsters to which the current edition of the beastiary grants a +4/+5 to-hit bonus.



And if you are wearing plate the monsters do have a greatly reduced hit rate.  They are hitting you around 35% of the time.    If you add a shield that drops to 30%. 

But the real issue here is that you are spending 5000 gold pieces for a +1 to your AC.  It is those specific high-priced armors that are the issue.  They are ludicrously priced for the benefit they grant.

Carl



I find the idea of non-magical armor costing so much stupid at best, I want to play a hero not a orphan who cant even aford armor. I exspect to have the best of non-magical gear out of the gate
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
I think a 50% hit rate for low-level monsters is much too high.

That 5,000gp pricetag and loss of speed and penalty to skill/ability checks really should buy me some decent security against attack from all but the toughest beasties.  For that kind of investment, I think I should be entitled to expect something more on the order of a 25% hit rate from the monsters to which the current edition of the beastiary grants a +4/+5 to-hit bonus.



And if you are wearing plate the monsters do have a greatly reduced hit rate.  They are hitting you around 35% of the time.    If you add a shield that drops to 30%. 

But the real issue here is that you are spending 5000 gold pieces for a +1 to your AC.  It is those specific high-priced armors that are the issue.  They are ludicrously priced for the benefit they grant.

Carl



I find the idea of non-magical armor costing so much stupid at best, I want to play a hero not a orphan who cant even aford armor. I exspect to have the best of non-magical gear out of the gate





On the other hand, I find that attitude incomprehensible and illogical and would reject it as pointlessly shortsighted game design.




Carl
I think a 50% hit rate for low-level monsters is much too high.

That 5,000gp pricetag and loss of speed and penalty to skill/ability checks really should buy me some decent security against attack from all but the toughest beasties.  For that kind of investment, I think I should be entitled to expect something more on the order of a 25% hit rate from the monsters to which the current edition of the beastiary grants a +4/+5 to-hit bonus.



And if you are wearing plate the monsters do have a greatly reduced hit rate.  They are hitting you around 35% of the time.    If you add a shield that drops to 30%. 

But the real issue here is that you are spending 5000 gold pieces for a +1 to your AC.  It is those specific high-priced armors that are the issue.  They are ludicrously priced for the benefit they grant.

Carl



I find the idea of non-magical armor costing so much stupid at best, I want to play a hero not a orphan who cant even aford armor. I exspect to have the best of non-magical gear out of the gate





On the other hand, I find that attitude incomprehensible and illogical and would reject it as pointlessly shortsighted game design.

Carl



one of the things about being a hero is not wearing raggs, or having to count coppers to see if you have enough money for food.

it is also annoying for book keeping if I have to jump armor 3 times because you gained money, MAGIC armor is fine, but a level 1 PC should have enough money to get his ideal armor type (assuing there is no in-between stuff like masterwork) his ideal weapon, and all the other mundane gear he wants.

if I was in a advering party and had a palidan want to join who did not have plate I dont think I would want him, anymore then a rogue who needed to borrow money to buy a dagger

it also screws up balance because some classes will not have to wait to be in their ideal armor, while others will. puting a tax on classes who want armor in the uppper end of their bracket (both because higher end armor cost too much you have to buy some crappy stuff to get you by). while a rogue is getting a magical dagger the palidan is still saving up for his mundaine armor.

it also means that the designers cant know what armor people are wearing at what level. this means they cant know what hit to give creatures.
it also means the defenders might not be able to do their jobs because they wont have the AC they need. "sorry you got killed mr Rogue but I only have 15 AC I cant take many hits untill I get good armor"
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Decent armor - absolutely.

The best armor one day one - absolutly not.


It should always be possile to find something better.  There ought to be some super special armor above and beyone even the best on the current list - it is just so rare they don't even both to list it.

The armor table should be open ended.

And if you don't think so - just draw a line through the top armors on the list and you have what you think you need.


Carl
Decent armor - absolutely.

The best armor one day one - absolutly not.


It should always be possile to find something better.  There ought to be some super special armor above and beyone even the best on the current list - it is just so rare they don't even both to list it.

The armor table should be open ended.

And if you don't think so - just draw a line through the top armors on the list and you have what you think you need.


Carl



magical armors yes, but it should be a given that you can afford any mundane armor you want on day 1, meaning plate for palidans (for example)

it should also not be skewed, if a palidan has to pay 5kg for his ideal armor everyone should as well. meaning if every catigory had something that cost 5kg (and was only a little better, so it was a perk) at the top I would not have a problem.

what I dont want is to wear hide on a plaidan because I cant aford plate, then be far behind anyone else on gold (therefor good items) later because I have to pay to get plate while everyone else got what they wanted on day 1.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Decent armor - absolutely.

The best armor one day one - absolutly not.


It should always be possile to find something better.  There ought to be some super special armor above and beyone even the best on the current list - it is just so rare they don't even both to list it.

The armor table should be open ended.

And if you don't think so - just draw a line through the top armors on the list and you have what you think you need.


Carl



magical armors yes, but it should be a given that you can afford any mundane armor you want on day 1, meaning plate for palidans (for example)

it should also not be skewed, if a palidan has to pay 5kg for his ideal armor everyone should as well. meaning if every catigory had something that cost 5kg (and was only a little better, so it was a perk) at the top I would not have a problem.

what I dont want is to wear hide on a plaidan because I cant aford plate, then be far behind anyone else on gold (therefor good items) later because I have to pay to get plate while everyone else got what they wanted on day 1.




Umm...

They DO all have a 5000 gp option.  So I guess that solves your problem.


They also all have a 500 gp option for that matter.


Carl
magical armors yes, but it should be a given that you can afford any mundane armor you want on day 1, meaning plate for palidans (for example).

I disagree. Plate is supposed to be a big deal, so it should be expensive and appropriately powerful. It's not like every level 1 is some destined hero, or something.

Er, unless you are some epic hero already, at level 1. If that's the case, I suggest breaking out the re-skinning rules to turn chainmail into something appropriately plate-looking. Or just start with the plate, and forgo future upgrades; it's not like you'd be that overpowered compared to the rogue in leather.

On a design note, you're kind of expected to start with your main stat in the ~18 range, so the upgrade for the paladin going into plate should roughly coincide with the rogue maxing out her Dex bonus. They don't want to be too overbearing in their design, because that seemed to put some people off before, but the generalities of it are there.
The metagame is not the game.
Decent armor - absolutely.

The best armor one day one - absolutly not.


It should always be possile to find something better.  There ought to be some super special armor above and beyone even the best on the current list - it is just so rare they don't even both to list it.

The armor table should be open ended.

And if you don't think so - just draw a line through the top armors on the list and you have what you think you need.


Carl



magical armors yes, but it should be a given that you can afford any mundane armor you want on day 1, meaning plate for palidans (for example)

it should also not be skewed, if a palidan has to pay 5kg for his ideal armor everyone should as well. meaning if every catigory had something that cost 5kg (and was only a little better, so it was a perk) at the top I would not have a problem.

what I dont want is to wear hide on a plaidan because I cant aford plate, then be far behind anyone else on gold (therefor good items) later because I have to pay to get plate while everyone else got what they wanted on day 1.



Chain gives 16 AC for 75g
Scale gives 14AC+2 Dex for 50g
Leather gives 11AC+5 Dex for 10g

So yea your Paladin will be paying a little more, but he wont be behind the curve on the AC line, and the light armor users need a 20 at level 1 to match your AC

The only ones who can go above 16 without a shield or AC feat is CON/DEX Barbs and WIS/DEX Monks, who if Human, might have 18/16 on the point buy system and will manage to get 17 AC, Mountain Dwarves in heavy/medium armor, Wizards with Mage Armor and 20 Dex or AC spells, etc
You forgot a shield for the Barbarian and two weapon defence for the monk for an AC of 18. To get an 18 and 16 in those stats just require rolls or point buys of two scores 15. These will rise when the statistics are increased to give an AC of 21. 

For me the problem is that when you take stats in to account, heavy and medium armour offers penalties without an increase in survivability. The better armour in light catergory seems to be just +1 or +2 armour (made from an  appropriate magic material) that you can buy. Whilst heavy armour 
is just an example of real world armour (apart from Mithral plate that gain you +5 move rather than +2 AC it does for light armour). 


 
I noticed several CR 1 monsters have 5 to hit. Only one of the four PCs in my group could accomplish this at level 1 (human cleric with 20 STR). On the other hand monster AC on low level is usually lower than the PCs.
plus 5 to hit for CR1 monsters is WAY too high. I like plus 2 to hit for CR1 monsters such as golins and having it slowely advance to.... oh, say a plus 10 for the really REALLY powerful monsters.

I also think that the armor tables need to be re-worked some. I like the idea of Plate being the best that can be made. Their are some in-between ones that could be of great usefulness.

Plate shirt/cuirass can be worn by itself or over chain mail to give added protection. This combo was the lower of the 2 types of plate armor in 2nd edition. (If I remember right you had Plate Mail (combo armor) and Full Plate armors.)  I would like have Full Plate return as base AC of 19, change Plate to Plate Mail with a base AC of 17 and reduce the other Heavy  armor types by 1 in AC. Make full Plate 5000 GP and Plate Mail 2000 GP.

I am going to tweak the armor listings and try them out. Once I have a listings I am happy with, I can post it if anyone wants to see it.

Here is an example of An 1854 cuirass with helm worn by the French Cuirassiers from Wikipedia.
.
what I dont want is to wear hide on a plaidan because I cant aford plate, then be far behind anyone else on gold (therefor good items) later because I have to pay to get plate while everyone else got what they wanted on day 1.


Because everyone else got a lower AC on day one, you should get a higher AC on day 1, otherwise its not being equal and fair?

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

Because everyone else got a lower AC on day one, you should get a higher AC on day 1, otherwise its not being equal and fair?

Being able to wear plate armor is a distinguishing class feature, like bardic music or wizard spellcasting. It's really kind of lame when your character concept (especially the visual) cannot be realized right out of the gate.

The metagame is not the game.
Because everyone else got a lower AC on day one, you should get a higher AC on day 1, otherwise its not being equal and fair?

Being able to wear plate armor is a distinguishing class feature, like bardic music or wizard spellcasting. It's really kind of lame when your character concept (especially the visual) cannot be realized right out of the gate.




this, I already payed for the right to wear plate by being a palidan, it is a class feature that I have instead of a wizard's spell casting or the rogue's sneakiness. it would be no different then having the wizard's spellbook cost 5kg.

requiring some classes to pay gold to use class features and some not to is a bad idea for many reasons.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Well you can afford the cheaper heavy armors like chain mail and a shield, which will most likely net you more AC than your avarage light armor player.

I don't agree with the "they can wear it so it's a class requirement" arguement. A mage can use a wide array of high level spell scrolls or magic wands at level 1. Don't think that entitles them to start the game off with one.

HOWEVER! I do see your point and I can see it being fixed by creating your own starter class equipment packages & background packages together with your DM, which the playtest encourages! Rather than just going with the 'buy system'.

Addition: Also consider the new system seems more designed around lower numbers than before, so lower AC & Ab scores all around. ('cept for those nasty level 1 critters with their +5 AB!)