D&D 5E Aren't High Level Monster ACs too low even for a flat math system?

[zoroaster100]

I read over the monsters in the new Playtest Packet Bestiary. I was struck by the low armor classes of even the most powerful monsters there. I understand with relatively flat math that ACs have to stay fairly low. But surely Asmodeus or a huge red dragon should be at least occasionally missed in combat? And surely their AC should be more than what a first level character can achieve?

It seems a high level character can easily achieve +5 from class, +1 magic, +4 ability score modifier (or higher), and +1 from a buff spell. That's +11 or more. That means they are going to hit Asmodeus on a 6 or higher, possibly less. And if they have advantage they'll roll twice each round. That means even the most powerful monsters are going to be trivially easy to hit for high level characters, if the packet represents the final character/monster math.

 

[RangerWickett]

I feel like a dragon's scales should be as tough to penetrate as magic plate armor. So that the highest possible AC ought to be somewhere around 25.

 

[MortalPlague]

I completely agree here. I love the flat math, but I do want to see some scaling for higher level monsters. Especially dragons and high tier demons / devils.

I don't think 25 is out of the ball park, though I'd probably put the cap around 22.

 

[zoroaster100]

Looking at the thread on Attack Bonuses I see high level characters can easily have a +17 attack bonus. So I think certainly having 17 as the highest monster AC in the game is too low. There should at least be some archdevils, demon princes, and powerful dragons who a high level character has a chance to miss. On the other hand it should not be impossible for a non-maximized character of the appropriate level to hit those creatures. But AC 15 for a huge red dragon seems ridiculous when a first level PC can easily have a higher AC than that and can easily hit an AC like that.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Agreed. It feels like they've not spent a lot of time thinking about the monsters yet.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Agreed. It feels like they've not spent a lot of time thinking about the monsters yet.

True enough. Or maybe more to the point... since they know they can easily raise AC a few points whenever they want... what they are really testing right now is all of the PC's special abilities. The more we hit, the more those abilities get used, and the more info we gather about how they feel. We will then pass that info on to them, and they can make changes to the PC abilities as need be.

Then when the time comes to finely tune the monsters for the last series packets, they can bump ACs 2 to 5 points just to confirm that everything still works fine.

 

[zoroaster100]

True enough. Or maybe more to the point... since they know they can easily raise AC a few points whenever they want... what they are really testing right now is all of the PC's special abilities. The more we hit, the more those abilities get used, and the more info we gather about how they feel. We will then pass that info on to them, and they can make changes to the PC abilities as need be.

Then when the time comes to finely tune the monsters for the last series packets, they can bump ACs 2 to 5 points just to confirm that everything still works fine.

Fair point. I'm hoping that is the case. The test adventures do say that they are not really testing the characters versus the monsters at this point with this playtest packet.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Fair point. I'm hoping that is the case. The test adventures do say that they are not really testing the characters versus the monsters at this point with this playtest packet.

My first thought when any of these packets get released and we see things that seem out of place (had the packet been the actual commercial release), is to assume that there's a good chance it's there purely to spark conversation and make us look long and hard at those things.

Putting alignment restrictions on the paladin and monk? It gets us talking (whether in favor or against). If they never brought it up at any point, how many of us would respond unprompted in the survey with our opinions whether they should have it? Probably not many.

How many 9th level spells are getting playtested right now by people in the public playtest? I would imagine not many. So they'll do anything they can do to get us to play them-- including putting Ancient Red Dragons and Asmodeus into the packet and make them seemingly inconsequential to actually hit. But while we're railing against their ACs... we also are unconsciously coming to conclusions about some of the spells while we're at it. And if any of those make us go "Whoa! Wait a second!"... that'll bear itself out in the surveys too.

I think in many ways... designing playtest packets are like playing Clue. When you make an Accusation, you sometimes deliberately include the item which you've already deduced is the murder weapon... purely so that you force the others to show you Suspects and Locations which you do not yet know are responsible and you need information on.

 

[the Jester]

Agreed. Even a high-level, optimized pc should have a reasonably hard time hitting Asmodeus- I'd like his AC to be around 25.

 

[Weather Report]

Yeah, ACs seem a bit conservative at the moment (dragons, etc), I also think To Hit is too high for some monsters (rats, etc), but as Defcon 1 mentioned, they can easily bump those numbers up or down a bit (I already have), later down the line.