Parties vs CR at half their level

[Dr.Samurai]

I probably shouldn't post this just yet because I'm at work and could likely make a more cohesive post if I just wait until I get home. But it's been rattling in my head for some time now and I'm curious what all the fine folks with more game insight think, and if you have any examples.

Not to call him out but PhoenixPhyre has mentioned across several threads now the fact that parties should be facing enemies at somewhere around half their CR. In fact, because of the way CR is impacted by multiple enemies, it could even be lower than this to "challenge" the party.

I think PP is on to something here, in that I think when people discuss certain features, abilities, etc. we sometimes reflexively assume monsters of CR equal to the party, even though those instances will be fewer and far(er) between.

So I was wondering if there are examples that people can think of where this might be the case. One that came to mind for me and sort of started this train of thought is the Berserker's Intimidating Presence ability. It is charisma based, which often gets complained about because the DC will be "low". However, if you take into consideration the lower CR creatures, who may not have significant Wisdom saving throws, this feature can actually see use in combat.

Another more recent example that came to mind is the Assassin's Death Strike ability. At the level you get it, you can realistically take out a tier 2 and maybe even tier 3 enemy in a Surprise round, which is significant (especially as an at-will ability).

Now, I know people will chime in "the problem with Intimidating Presence is it requires an Action, and xyz is immune to Frightened" and "the problem with Death Strike is that it requires Surprise and winning Initiative".

I get that. But assuming you gain Surprise over your enemy, you're not aiming for 300hp with a +13 con save. You're aiming at 160hp, with a +3 con save. That's a far more successful ability, again, assuming the setup in the first place.

Same with Intimidating Presence. At higher levels, sure a lot of things can't be Frightened, and Wisdom saves are very high. But enemies that are lower than you in CR may not have those advantages.

Do other features come to mind that at first glance seem not so great when you're assuming BBEG encounters, but may actually be useful more generally against medium/hard encounters (which will likely be majority of game play)?

EDIT: I am adding PhoenixPhyre's comment here to make sure I don't misrepresent what he has said previously on this.


I should be very clear here. When I say that the median encounter is a group of CR ~ 1/2 level monsters, what I mean is the system baseline assumption and guidelines suggest that this is the median encounter. Specifically, this was calibrated by finding the expected value for a "group encounter" using Xanathar's encounter-building gudelines at each level. And it was roughly 1/2 level, starting a little higher (~60% of level) and decreasing with level. IIRC (it's been a while since I did that math), it ended up with a level 20 party facing a "normal diet" of ~CR 10.5-ish monsters. It would skew lower depending exactly where you did the cut-off for total number of monsters. I believe I cut it off at 2x party size just for convenience.

The key point there is that CR = level is just a bad expectation for the sorts of things the system expects you to face most of the time. In fact, 1x CR = level is actually the least probable encounter by the guidelines--group encounters skew much lower and solo encounters (a separate table) skew much higher (CR = level + 3-4).

There is a completely different, also quite reasonable argument that the system baseline is too low for most "real" parties. It's very true that the system's baseline is calibrated very conservatively around "not TPK'ing low-op parties unexpectedly"--it errs on the side of caution in many cases. Which is basically exactly what I'd expect from guidelines aimed at mostly new DMs. Experienced DMs are expected (and this has been explicitly said by the devs) to deviate from those guidelines or ignore them entirely; whatever makes their party's experience better based on experience with that particular party. I'd say that for most parties I've dealt with personally, the key factors in difficulty are

a) presence of combined arms enemies. A group of melee-only brutes gets massacred or kited to death. A group of ranged-only guys get disrupted as soon as the party gets close. But a mixed force, especially if you throw some enemies with control capabilities in there hits way above their "aggregate XP value".
b) number of foes. I've done some really high CR solo fights. They've always been underwhelming. This is totally personal experience, but when a level 9 party massacres an ithillich (CR 21) in her lair, even with some "cheats" (effectively 2 HP bars due to plot reasons) and their only casualty was one due to Power Word: Kill...yeah.
c) exact party composition. I've had two different parties take the same fight very differently.

CR, writ large, has very little real correlation with encounter difficulty IMX. It does give an ok (not great, but ok) idea of whether that individual monster is likely to murderize a single target if it catches it alone and manages to hit with everything. And a much weaker signal of whether the monster will survive a few rounds of fire and get to do its "special thing" (if it has one). But for encounter building? Yeah, I don't use it at all these days.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Opportunity Attacks, depending on your build and your DM. In our games they're basically flea bites.

[Zhorn]

A big challenge when having the CR vs party level discussion comes down to playstyle assumption, and what that encounter represents for that party.

Often the issue is the encounter is taken in isolation, a fully healed party with all their resources facing a single encounter with the expectation of that lone encounter carrying all the weight of challenging the party, with the potential for character death being a realistic threat. Those assumptions are what lead folks to viewing low CR monsters as useless and irrelevant because of action economy and nova potential. And even if they get off a couple of hits, if a rest to full is always in easy reach then the encounter served no purpose.

Working instead with the assumption of a long adventuring day with multiple encounters between short rests, short rests only happening a couple of times a day, reasonably spaced out, and the party not being able to count on a predicable resource requirement or recovery timeframe; lower CR creatures come back into play as reasonable encounters for filling up an adventuring day.
Something only needs enough health/defense to not being resourceless-OTK'd so it can be relevant to the adventuring day. CR=Half level fits that bill. Even lower can be of use if given the modicum of tactical use.
The goal of such encounters is to:
Spend resources
Take some damage (or other setback) if they opt to play it cheap
Give the players some victories with the sense of being powerful and reliably doing cool stuff

My party of five is on the cusp of lv17, and I'm still finding opportunities to throw in CR 1 creatures into encounters.
Sometimes they get to do impressive heroic feats
Other times it lets them goof around
But it always gets them to either spends some feature uses and spell slots, or takes some damage or face a complication, either case feeding into the attrition of the adventuring day.
And importantly breaks up the day so that the players don't feel they are on a whole levelling treadmill. Some threats are strong, some are easy, others were strong a few months back but are easy now.

[LudicSavant]

The thing is, as soon as anyone starts making decent choices in build and in play, even with the weaker classes, you can start trouncing several Deadly+ encounters a day.

These encounters could be many weaker creatures, or fewer big ones -- a strong PC should be prepared for a wide variety of encounter types, not just "level = cr" or "level = half CR."

For a single target damage dealer role I'm usually primarily concerned about how they do against things of a CR *higher than* their level. AoE or defenses are usually more important for group encounters.

[J-H]

Opportunity Attacks, depending on your build and your DM. In our games they're basically flea bites.
Varies by level, class, and gear. At low levels, 1d8+3 is a lot more impactful than at 19th level. They can also be CC opportunities (monk, Crusher, Concentration checks, etc.).


The thing is, as soon as anyone starts making decent choices in build and in play, even with the weaker classes, you can start trouncing several Deadly+ encounters a day.

These encounters could be many weaker creatures, or fewer big ones -- a strong PC should be prepared for a wide variety of encounter types, not just "level = cr" or "level = half CR."

For a single target damage dealer role I'm usually primarily concerned about how they do against things of a CR *higher than* their level. AoE or defenses are usually more important for group encounters.
Generally accurate, although you can't assume every group is tactically optimized. Especially with newer players, they may be spending the first 5-10 sessions learning how to do things like identify when to use spells and when to use cantrips.

Low CR creatures make an even bigger difference if they are used to support higher CR enemies, or if there's terrain involved.

[Amnestic]

I'm away from my books at the moment, but has anyone skimmed any of the published adventures to see how they skew for CR vs. level across the encounters? I'm aware that typical adventures skew on the 'easy' side (to allow for low-Op/no-Op parties to still have a chance at completing it) but it'd give an idea of how WotC "intend" encounters to be built.

[kazaryu]

It makes sense to me that, if you're using the vanilla encounter balancing system, it makes sense to use lower CR creatures, since they're generally worth fewer EXP and thus you can put more of them in a fight. which can in many cases make the fight far more dangerous than having 1 or 2 really dangerous enemies. In fact thats how i tend to design fights when im looking to actually challenge my party. most of the time if they're only fighting 1 or 2 dudes its because its a fight that isn't meant to be super dangerous...whether thats because i never intended the fight to be super dangerous, or because the party did something clever to make a fight easier.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm away from my books at the moment, but has anyone skimmed any of the published adventures to see how they skew for CR vs. level across the encounters? I'm aware that typical adventures skew on the 'easy' side (to allow for low-Op/no-Op parties to still have a chance at completing it) but it'd give an idea of how WotC "intend" encounters to be built.

Sooo, the books vary a bit, depending on the adventure. For example, Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation, and Against the Giants usually have high CR challenges that can exceed the party's level due to the nature of their adventure. Meanwhile, Princes of the Apocalypse and Out of the Abyss kind of depend on party choice since you can kind of choose where you want to go first in the adventure.

[Unoriginal]

I'm away from my books at the moment, but has anyone skimmed any of the published adventures to see how they skew for CR vs. level across the encounters? I'm aware that typical adventures skew on the 'easy' side (to allow for low-Op/no-Op parties to still have a chance at completing it) but it'd give an idea of how WotC "intend" encounters to be built.

For the most part, WotC does not calibrate their encounters to match CR, one way or another.

Also it is not true that the adventures typically skew toward the "easy" side. Most module go from "one encounter that is manageable, but careful to not attract another encounter at the same time" to "plainly unfair".

Even the modules that aren't known to be butcherfests, like Dragon Heist or Wilds Beyond the Witchlight, have encounters like "one Intellect Devourer and several mooks vs lvl 2 characters" or "of course you can try attacking the Hag when you're lvl 3".

[Composer99]

I probably shouldn't post this just yet because I'm at work and could likely make a more cohesive post if I just wait until I get home. But it's been rattling in my head for some time now and I'm curious what all the fine folks with more game insight think, and if you have any examples.

Not to call him out but PhoenixPhyre has mentioned across several threads now the fact that parties should be facing enemies at somewhere around half their CR. In fact, because of the way CR is impacted by multiple enemies, it could even be lower than this to "challenge" the party.

I think PP is on to something here, in that I think when people discuss certain features, abilities, etc. we sometimes reflexively assume monsters of CR equal to the party, even though those instances will be fewer and far(er) between.

So I was wondering if there are examples that people can think of where this might be the case. One that came to mind for me and sort of started this train of thought is the Berserker's Intimidating Presence ability. It is charisma based, which often gets complained about because the DC will be "low". However, if you take into consideration the lower CR creatures, who may not have significant Wisdom saving throws, this feature can actually see use in combat.

Another more recent example that came to mind is the Assassin's Death Strike ability. At the level you get it, you can realistically take out a tier 2 and maybe even tier 3 enemy in a Surprise round, which is significant (especially as an at-will ability).

Now, I know people will chime in "the problem with Intimidating Presence is it requires an Action, and xyz is immune to Frightened" and "the problem with Death Strike is that it requires Surprise and winning Initiative".

I get that. But assuming you gain Surprise over your enemy, you're not aiming for 300hp with a +13 con save. You're aiming at 160hp, with a +3 con save. That's a far more successful ability, again, assuming the setup in the first place.

Same with Intimidating Presence. At higher levels, sure a lot of things can't be Frightened, and Wisdom saves are very high. But enemies that are lower than you in CR may not have those advantages.

Do other features come to mind that at first glance seem not so great when you're assuming BBEG encounters, but may actually be useful more generally against medium/hard encounters (which will likely be majority of game play)?

Generally, I think there are too many assumptions built in to assume PP's conclusions hold good, outside of published adventures (which as far as I am aware do tend to skew towards lower-difficulty encounters). I'm running Rise of Tiamat right now, and any combat encounter I've thrown together has invariably been more challenging than the ones published in the work itself.

Perhaps most importantly, I suspect that most tables aren't playing the game with the kind of "classical" attrition play that the DMG assumes - and if they are, it's probably challenge-oriented tables that, as LudicSavant notes, are probably playing high-op enough that Medium/Hard is not a suitable encounter metric. Other tables probably aren't spending table time on combat unless it's a combat worth spending table time on. I feel reasonably confident that a snapshot of most tables would show fewer rounds of combat per adventuring day that are consistently higher-difficulty than the DMG expects. Both of those are necessarily going to push "low-value" options out of play.

-----

Just one specific item:

I think the problem with Intimidating Presence, specifically, it that it's not just that you're using your action to frighten a single enemy, it's also that when it actually matters whether you're using an action or not, it's almost always - or maybe just always - simply a better choice to deal damage. I would expect that's even more true when you're facing opponents whose individual CR is below the party's average level: you can probably kill an opponent outright with the same action you used to frighten them, and killing an opponent is almost always going to be a better use of your action than "soft" control like the frightened condition, in that the dead enemy is completely incapable of taking actions while a frightened one may be penalised in certain ways but is stlll taking actions and potentially contributing to incoming damage or other harms faced by the party (especially if they have anything they can do that doesn't rely on attack rolls or getting into melee with the player characters). Also, there is a pretty good chance that one of your party members has a better control option available anyway, especially by the time you actually get Intimidating Presence at 10th level.

You could maybe argue the point that Intimidating Presence can be useful when you need to "soft control" someone you don't want to kill, but you can also just reduce them to 0 hit points and knock them out, which is still more effective because of removing their actions entirely.

The best use case of Intimidating Presence is probably actually during social interaction, which is fine in and of itself but feels misleading given the way the feature is worded.


I'm away from my books at the moment, but has anyone skimmed any of the published adventures to see how they skew for CR vs. level across the encounters? I'm aware that typical adventures skew on the 'easy' side (to allow for low-Op/no-Op parties to still have a chance at completing it) but it'd give an idea of how WotC "intend" encounters to be built.

Can't speak to other products for now, but I know the final dungeon of Rise of Tiamat has a lot of enemies whose CR is quite a bit below that of the party - they were fighting many of those enemies at the start of Hoard of the Dragon Queen, even. (It also has five dragons, one of each colour, whose age is up to the DM to choose.)

[Chronos]

The biggest problem with hordes of easy monsters is that they have very different impact on different classes. For casters, pretty much any horde that fits onto the battlemap and into the XP budget can be taken out with a single spell. But not so for martials. So you need at least a significant number of your encounters to be a single or small number of big enemies, or the martials will never get a chance to do anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I should be very clear here. When I say that the median encounter is a group of CR ~ 1/2 level monsters, what I mean is the system baseline assumption and guidelines suggest that this is the median encounter. Specifically, this was calibrated by finding the expected value for a "group encounter" using Xanathar's encounter-building gudelines at each level. And it was roughly 1/2 level, starting a little higher (~60% of level) and decreasing with level. IIRC (it's been a while since I did that math), it ended up with a level 20 party facing a "normal diet" of ~CR 10.5-ish monsters. It would skew lower depending exactly where you did the cut-off for total number of monsters. I believe I cut it off at 2x party size just for convenience.

The key point there is that CR = level is just a bad expectation for the sorts of things the system expects you to face most of the time. In fact, 1x CR = level is actually the least probable encounter by the guidelines--group encounters skew much lower and solo encounters (a separate table) skew much higher (CR = level + 3-4).

There is a completely different, also quite reasonable argument that the system baseline is too low for most "real" parties. It's very true that the system's baseline is calibrated very conservatively around "not TPK'ing low-op parties unexpectedly"--it errs on the side of caution in many cases. Which is basically exactly what I'd expect from guidelines aimed at mostly new DMs. Experienced DMs are expected (and this has been explicitly said by the devs) to deviate from those guidelines or ignore them entirely; whatever makes their party's experience better based on experience with that particular party. I'd say that for most parties I've dealt with personally, the key factors in difficulty are

a) presence of combined arms enemies. A group of melee-only brutes gets massacred or kited to death. A group of ranged-only guys get disrupted as soon as the party gets close. But a mixed force, especially if you throw some enemies with control capabilities in there hits way above their "aggregate XP value".
b) number of foes. I've done some really high CR solo fights. They've always been underwhelming. This is totally personal experience, but when a level 9 party massacres an ithillich (CR 21) in her lair, even with some "cheats" (effectively 2 HP bars due to plot reasons) and their only casualty was one due to Power Word: Kill...yeah.
c) exact party composition. I've had two different parties take the same fight very differently.

CR, writ large, has very little real correlation with encounter difficulty IMX. It does give an ok (not great, but ok) idea of whether that individual monster is likely to murderize a single target if it catches it alone and manages to hit with everything. And a much weaker signal of whether the monster will survive a few rounds of fire and get to do its "special thing" (if it has one). But for encounter building? Yeah, I don't use it at all these days.

[Yakk]

Monster # = PC # generating a medium encounter happens at:

L1: 25 XP (CR 1/8) (ratio: 8)
L2: 50 XP (CR 1/4) (ratio: 8)
L3: 75 XP (CR 3/8) (ratio: 8)
L4: 125 XP (CR 5/8) (ratio: 6.4)
L5: 250 XP (CR 1.2) (ratio: 4.2)
L7: 375 XP (CR 1.7) (ratio: 4.1)
L11: 800 XP (CR 3.25) (ratio: 3.4)
L14: 1250 XP (CR 4.25) (ratio: 3.3)
L17: 1950 XP (CR 5.25) (ratio: 3.2)
L20: 2850 XP (CR 6.9) (ratio: 2.9)

Setting ML = CR*3+1 for CR>=1, and ML of 1 2 3 for 1/8 1/4 and 1/2, we get:

L1: 25 XP (ML 1)
L2: 50 XP (ML 2)
L3: 75 XP (ML 3)
L4: 125 XP (ML 4)
L5: 250 XP (ML 5)
L7: 375 XP (ML 6)
L11: 800 XP (ML 11)
L14: 1250 XP (ML 14)
L17: 1950 XP (ML 17)
L20: 2850 XP (ML 21)

which is close to 1:1 as we can hope with a simple formula.

XP of monsters of these CR is double that of the previous entry:
0.75 CR or ML 3.5
1.5 CR or ML 5.5
2.5 CR or ML 8.5
4.2 CR or ML 13.5
6.2 CR or ML 19.5
9 CR or ML 28
13 CR or ML 40
18 CR or ML 55

The general ratio is 1.5x ML. Double XP is the difference between Medium and Deadly at most levels.

So equal numbers of monsters of even ML = PCL is a medium encounter. (CR=~(PCL-1)/3)
Equal numbers of monsters of ML=~ PCL * 1.5 is a deadly encounter. (CR=~(PCL-1)/2)

1 monster of ML=~ PCL*3+1 is a medium encounter for 4-5 PCs. (CR=~PCL)
1 monster of ML=~ PCL*4.5+1.5 is a deadly encounter for 4-5 PCs. (CR=~PCL*1.5)

[Witty Username]

It is kinda weird how much Xanathar's expects groups and the DMG seems to actively discurage groups.

Like say at level 1, the dmg suggests a CR 1 creature is a medium encounter, for a level 1 party of 4, but Xanathar's doesn't even include that as a possibility. Meanwhile Xanathar's suggests one 1/4 Cr monser per party member, but at a party of 4 that reaches a deadly encounter and at 7+ overtakes that threshold (and not by a small amount, 25% over from 7-10).

It seems like they fundamentally disagree on encounter design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It is kinda weird how much Xanathar's expects groups and the DMG seems to actively discurage groups.

Like say at level 1, the dmg suggests a CR 1 creature is a medium encounter, for a level 1 party of 4, but Xanathar's doesn't even include that as a possibility. Meanwhile Xanathar's suggests one 1/4 Cr monser per party member, but at a party of 4 that reaches a deadly encounter and at 7+ overtakes that threshold (and not by a small amount, 25% over from 7-10).

It seems like they fundamentally disagree on encounter design.

Maybe they learned something? For I'll say that Xanathar's guidance is way better than the DMG on this

[stoutstien]

It is kinda weird how much Xanathar's expects groups and the DMG seems to actively discurage groups.

Like say at level 1, the dmg suggests a CR 1 creature is a medium encounter, for a level 1 party of 4, but Xanathar's doesn't even include that as a possibility. Meanwhile Xanathar's suggests one 1/4 Cr monser per party member, but at a party of 4 that reaches a deadly encounter and at 7+ overtakes that threshold (and not by a small amount, 25% over from 7-10).

It seems like they fundamentally disagree on encounter design.


Maybe they learned something? For I'll say that Xanathar's guidance is way better than the DMG on this

Makes sense when you look at both sections as suggestions based on feedback rather than bottom up design goals/outlines. They would change as content was added and the edition got more table time so the weak points were easier to identify.

[da newt]

The size of the party (including summons, pets, mounts, familiars, etc) and the number of foes makes a HUGE difference in difficulty. IMO the group action economy / hit point pool drives this more than the CR/level. Bigger parties are much more capable (a party of 6 is ~2x as strong as a party of 4) and single foes (even w/ legendary boosts) are much easier to deal with.

A CR 4 baddie vs a party of 4 level 4 PCs is not very challenging for the team (but might go badly for one PC) and if its a party of 6 PCs, it's not much of a challenge at all. 4 CR 2 baddies vs 4 level 4 PCs is more of a challenge.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The size of the party (including summons, pets, mounts, familiars, etc) and the number of foes makes a HUGE difference in difficulty. IMO the group action economy / hit point pool drives this more than the CR/level. Bigger parties are much more capable (a party of 6 is ~2x as strong as a party of 4) and single foes (even w/ legendary boosts) are much easier to deal with.

A CR 4 baddie vs a party of 4 level 4 PCs is not very challenging for the team (but might go badly for one PC) and if its a party of 6 PCs, it's not much of a challenge at all. 4 CR 2 baddies vs 4 level 4 PCs is more of a challenge.

Yeah. I've always found solo mode monsters to be way less of a challenge than the numbers suggest. The sweet spot for me is between 1x and 1.5x the number of PCs and allies.

[Unoriginal]

A CR 4 baddie vs a party of 4 level 4 PCs is not very challenging for the team (but might go badly for one PC) and if its a party of 6 PCs, it's not much of a challenge at all. 4 CR 2 baddies vs 4 level 4 PCs is more of a challenge.

That is reflected exactly in the DMG encounter building/XP budget guidelines.

1 CR 4 NPC vs 4 lvl 4 PCs is a Medium encounter, 1 CR 4 NPC vs 6 lvl X PC is a below-Easy encounter, and 2 CR 4 NPCs vs 4 lvl 4 PCs is a Deadly encounter.

[Dr.Samurai]

Another feature that comes to mind, in the spirit of the OP, is the saving throw DCs of magic items.

And this could be more a commentary on saving throws in general, but the medium DC of 15 seems plenty enough to have a chance at succeeding against enemies, especially if you're not considering enemies of CR=Level most of the time.

Something like a Rope of Entanglement is pretty powerful, even if the DC might not appear impressive at first glance.

My current fighter is using a giant slaying sword and even though it's a Strength save for Giants, the DC 15 has resulted in giants being knocked prone.

[Skrum]

Most monsters have bad saves. No proficiencies, relying only on their attributes, and no ability score above a 16. DC 14, that's gonna succeed over half the time as long as the player is even slightly strategic/aware (this frankly feeds into caster supremacy; monster AC and especially hit points keep going up and up and up but saves improve only marginally).

But to the topic at hand - I generally don't find low CR enemies to be all that impactful. Their chance to hit and damage is so low that even in large packs, their DPR adds up to like 15. Maybe. That's just not a threat to even a level 6-7 party. And that's before someone just wipes them out with a single spell. Fireball is an ever popular choice, but spirit guardians is "ok garbage time this, we don't need to roll."

I'll mix them into larger encounters just to balance action econ a little, or throw them at the players to let them feel cool and powerful, but I've yet to make a truly challenging horde-style encounter....except when the players are sub 5 actually. Level 4 and less and these encounters are still viable. Level 5, not so much.

[Unoriginal]

this frankly feeds into caster supremacy; monster AC and especially hit points keep going up and up and up but saves improve only marginally

AC really doesn't do that. See the difference between the AC of a CR 5 Knight and a CR 22 Demon Prince, for example

And HPs are something both casters and martials have to deal with.

It's true that monster saves where they don't have profiviency in only improve marginally, but that's not the cases for the ones with proficiency. And that's not getting into the whole Legendary "lolnope" perk.

[Witty Username]

AC really doesn't do that. See the difference between the AC of a CR 5 Knight and a CR 22 Demon Prince, for example


Which book is Demon Prince in? I tried searching for it online and got Orcus.

[Unoriginal]

Which book is Demon Prince in? I tried searching for it online and got Orcus.

I wasn't thinking of a specific Demon Prince, just the general range, but Orcus is a good example:

CR 26, AC 20, saves DEX +10, CON +15, WIS +13.

For his part, Juiblex goes:

CR 23, AC 18, saves DEX +7, WIS +12

[Skrum]

I wasn't thinking of a specific Demon Prince, just the general range, but Orcus is a good example:

CR 26, AC 20, saves DEX +10, CON +15, WIS +13.

For his part, Juiblex goes:

CR 23, AC 18, saves DEX +7, WIS +12

That sounds extraordinarily low for a CR 20+ threat. I would expect the martial characters to be working with a +14ish, so...yeah. That's just not a well-designed stat block.

Also, the knight is wildly out of place in the AC dept (in that they have way more AC than most NPCs, especially for their level)

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, remember though that Juibilex regenerates HP every turn round, and is immune to nonmagical damage, and resistant to common energy damages. In addition, characters are likely to be poisoned while fighting him due to his aura and legendary actions, or restrained due to his lair action. So attacks are likely to be made at Disadvantage vs his AC.

So it's not quite a 1x1 comparison.

[Envyus]

That sounds extraordinarily low for a CR 20+ threat. I would expect the martial characters to be working with a +14ish, so...yeah. That's just not a well-designed stat block.

Also, the knight is wildly out of place in the AC dept (in that they have way more AC than most NPCs, especially for their level)

They have Plate Armour which gives them 18. Hobgoblins also have 18 from having Chain + a shield.

AC just doesn’t go super high in 5e. An 18 is a good AC for pretty much the whole game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That sounds extraordinarily low for a CR 20+ threat. I would expect the martial characters to be working with a +14ish, so...yeah. That's just not a well-designed stat block.

Also, the knight is wildly out of place in the AC dept (in that they have way more AC than most NPCs, especially for their level)

You would. The game does not. The game expects people at level 20 to have 10 or 11 attack bonus (either a +4 stat with +6 proficiency or a +5 stat with +6 proficiency). It absolutely does not expect a +3 weapon. And getting above a +14 requires extra shenanigans, especially for non-archers (archery fighting style is an outlier).

The knight is a couple AC above the expected point. Yes. But not that much of an outlier. Monster AC has a high range, but really low 20s is the max, and only for CR 20+ threats...which are 1x/campaign threats. NOT expected to be fought regularly.

[Unoriginal]

They have Plate Armour which gives them 18. Hobgoblins also have 18 from having Chain + a shield.

AC just doesn’t go super high in 5e. An 18 is a good AC for pretty much the whole game.

Very true.


Monster AC has a high range, but really low 20s is the max, and only for CR 20+ threats...which are 1x/campaign threats. NOT expected to be fought regularly.

To emphasis that point:

Descent into Avernus has *several* CR 20+ NPCs around, but you're not expected to fight more than one.

Included in the module are (among other big threats):

Baphomet: CR 23, AC 22

Bel: CR 25, AC 19

Kostchtchie: CR 25, AC 16

Tiamat: CR 30, AC 25

Yeenoghu: CR 25, AC 20

Zariel: CR 26, AC 21



So yeah, the idea that it becomes more and more difficult to hit with attacks at higher CR while saving throws stay manageable is simply not accurate.

[JNAProductions]

That sounds extraordinarily low for a CR 20+ threat. I would expect the martial characters to be working with a +14ish, so...yeah. That's just not a well-designed stat block.

Also, the knight is wildly out of place in the AC dept (in that they have way more AC than most NPCs, especially for their level)

How often do your martials get +3 Weapons?

[Skrum]

How often do your martials get +3 Weapons?

Never played to that high of a level.

At the current table (the highest level characters are 12, but most are in the 8-10 range), +1 weapons are essentially assumed. Many have extra damage dice, like +1d6 per hit or +2d6 on the first attack per action. A few characters have "legendary" weapons with a +2 enhancement.

[Unoriginal]

Never played to that high of a level.

At the current table (the highest level characters are 12, but most are in the 8-10 range), +1 weapons are essentially assumed. Many have extra damage dice, like +1d6 per hit or +2d6 on the first attack per action. A few characters have "legendary" weapons with a +2 enhancement.

Are the majority of the enemies you fight with ~ AC 20?

[Dr.Samurai]

Very true.



To emphasis that point:

Descent into Avernus has *several* CR 20+ NPCs around, but you're not expected to fight more than one.

Included in the module are (among other big threats):

Baphomet: CR 23, AC 22

Bel: CR 25, AC 19

Kostchtchie: CR 25, AC 16

Tiamat: CR 30, AC 25

Yeenoghu: CR 25, AC 20

Zariel: CR 26, AC 21


But these all have ways to mitigate attacks. I think if higher level foes like this ALSO had much higher ACs, they'd be too tough. Because they're imposing Disadvantage or resistant or keeping you from attacking them, etc. Tiamat has very few, if any, abilities to mitigate straight attack rolls against her, and she happens to have an AC of 25.

So yeah, the idea that it becomes more and more difficult to hit with attacks at higher CR while saving throws stay manageable is simply not accurate.
But higher ACs are more common as levels go up. It's just that the system is bound within a certain range.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Never played to that high of a level.

At the current table (the highest level characters are 12, but most are in the 8-10 range), +1 weapons are essentially assumed. Many have extra damage dice, like +1d6 per hit or +2d6 on the first attack per action. A few characters have "legendary" weapons with a +2 enhancement.

As usual, this is evidence that you're playing the game well outside the system expectations. That's not wrong, it just means that your experience is not representative. So things that would "fix" problems you're encountering...would utterly break those who are playing within the system expectations. And that you should probably temper your expectations of the system itself with this knowledge.

The game itself never assumes any +X to anything from items. And expects the entire party to be doing ~3x a simple rogue's damage. And expects most fights to be against a large number of low (relative) CR monsters, and there to be multiple such fights per day. And assumes that an AC of 18 is perfectly fine through endgame for a melee PC. And that non-melee PCs can be as low as 15 (mage armor and +2 DEX).

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm playing in Against the Giants.

Firstly, the game gives you a legendary weapon right off the bat (assuming you find it, it is hidden). It's +1 and giant's bane, so also 2d6 damage vs giants. Also got a Frostbrand, so 1d6 cold damage. Also found a Flame Tongue short sword, so another +2d6 fire damage. Etc. I don't believe this is the DM stacking these items in the game, I believe they're in the module.

Also, I can say AC 18 is not "perfectly fine". It's serviceable, but it can go higher.

[Skrum]

Are the majority of the enemies you fight with ~ AC 20?

No; mooks are usually in the 15 or 16, bosses are around 18, and a particularly high AC enemy will be 20ish. But a lot of enemies will have other defenses, like mirror image (or similar; DM's reflavor stuff all the time) to mitigate incoming damage.

But - our table is mostly playing around level 8-10. The geared martials have a +9 or +10 to hit. If we played at level 15, I would expect
1) almost all characters to have 20 in their main stat
2) many characters to have a net +2 from magical enhancements, either from a weapon or a ring or similar

Which would make their attack bonus be in the +12 range. I would not expect the high end of AC to remain at 18.

Honestly I'm not talking about anything all that different - I think a good benchmark (from a system perspective) is dedicated attackers hitting about 70% of the time. So if a level 15 character has roughly +11 to hit (5 from stat, 5 from proficiency, +1 from a weapon. Martials *have to* have a magic weapon. This is non-negotiable, regardless of what "system expectations" are), the average AC should be around 18. Mooks would be maybe 2 lower, and tough bosses should be higher, say 22 (especially if you're playing with flanking).

This is basically within the suggested ranges of the monster stats by CR from the DMG.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No; mooks are usually in the 15 or 16, bosses are around 18, and a particularly high AC enemy will be 20ish. But a lot of enemies will have other defenses, like mirror image (or similar; DM's reflavor stuff all the time) to mitigate incoming damage.

But - our table is mostly playing around level 8-10. The geared martials have a +9 or +10 to hit. If we played at level 15, I would expect
1) almost all characters to have 20 in their main stat
2) many characters to have a net +2 from magical enhancements, either from a weapon or a ring or similar

Which would make their attack bonus be in the +12 range. I would not expect the high end of AC to remain at 18.

Honestly I'm not talking about anything all that different - I think a good benchmark (from a system perspective) is dedicated attackers hitting about 70% of the time. So if a level 15 character has roughly +11 to hit (5 from stat, 5 from proficiency, +1 from a weapon. Martials *have to* have a magic weapon. This is non-negotiable, regardless of what "system expectations" are), the average AC should be around 18. Mooks would be maybe 2 lower, and tough bosses should be 2-3 higher.

This is within the suggested ranges of the monster stats by CR from the DMG.

No, martials do not need +X weapons. Or magic weapons at all unless they're fighting things that regularly have resistance. Which is a much smaller subset than it seems--it's basically fiends and incorporeal undead. You can do whole campaigns where resistance to non-magical attacks just doesn't come up at all. And there are tons of magic weapons that don't provide +X to attack.

[Dr.Samurai]

It really depends on the campaign. Giants don't have B/P/S resistance but they have a bunch of hit points and deal a lot of damage. And I don't know how I'd be keeping up without Waythe or Great Weapon Master. Happy to have an edge (hehe) against them.

[Skrum]

No, martials do not need +X weapons. Or magic weapons at all unless they're fighting things that regularly have resistance. Which is a much smaller subset than it seems--it's basically fiends and incorporeal undead. You can do whole campaigns where resistance to non-magical attacks just doesn't come up at all. And there are tons of magic weapons that don't provide +X to attack.

I strongly disagree. I think martials need +X weapons, and further, they need +dX weapons. If they don't have them, the gap between what a fighter is supposed to do and what a caster can do with (summon anything but especially woodland creatures, animate objects, polymorph, etc) becomes so lopsided there's no real reason to play a rogue, fighter, barb, ranger, or monk at all. They simply can't keep up, even at things they're supposed to be good at.

[Unoriginal]

I strongly disagree. I think martials need +X weapons, and further, they need +dX weapons. If they don't have them, the gap between what a fighter is supposed to do and what a caster can do with (summon anything but especially woodland creatures, animate objects, polymorph, etc) becomes so lopsided there's no real reason to play a rogue, fighter, barb, ranger, or monk at all. They simply can't keep up, even at things they're supposed to be good at.

The maths have been done on that ad nauseam, in standard 5e the Fighter's damage is better even without magic weapons.



This is basically within the suggested ranges of the monster stats by CR from the DMG.

Why did you declare that AC kept getting up as CR increased, to the point that those who relied on attacks had a noticeably harder time than those relying on saving throws, then?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The maths have been done on that ad nauseam, in standard 5e the Fighter's damage is better even without magic weapons.

Yeah. @Skrum...again, your particular optimization environment has led you to have expectations that simply do not hold for many, if not most, games other than your own.

Heck, I acknowledge that my particular playstyle doesn't hold for a lot of games. In my games:

-- martials do just fine--narrative power rarely depends on the class abilities but much more on the actual character and player.
-- combats range all across the spectrum, but CR >> level fights are very rare.
-- people may or may not get +X weapons--I'm trying to phase those out entirely in favor of weapons that do other things or give +2X damage (ie a +1 weapon-equivalent that gives +0 to hit but +2 to damage).
-- "difficulty" is not a sought-after thing.
-- I don't police the adventuring day at all--I build according to what's there fictionally and let the chips fall where they may, yet they usually get 1 or more short rests and I've yet (in 10 years of multiple tables per week) to have a TPK or even a near-TPK.
-- I've had like...10? character deaths (many more at 0 HP, but only a few actually dead-dead) across hundreds of characters, with several of those happening to the same character (so the number of unique characters who have died is much smaller, probably like 4-5). And only 2 of those weren't simply revivified--one level 2 paladin who thought he could solo a dire yeti (that they had no need to fight at all and he could have run from) and one level 9-ish who managed to fail 3 saving throws in a row (despite not having a particularly low stat!) against a mind flayer and then get a crit brain extraction, while also blocking the path so the rest of the party couldn't really extract him!

But I've done crap tons of math around monster numbers and encounter building, working from the actual system and actual monsters. And am currently, in fact, in the process of recalibrating all of the SRD monsters for a slightly different (and more bounded) variant of the system. For the record--the average monster is within a small amount of the book value for AC, ATK, and save DC. But the variance is huge in both directions! For every Knight (CR 3, AC 18, deviation +3), there's a black pudding (expected AC 14, actual AC 9, deviation -5).

As for hit percentages, the following makes the hit % stay constant[1] at 70% (65% hit, 5% crit) vs the DMG numbers for CR = level:

Start with attack stat +3. Increase it at 4 and 8. Never increase it again. No +X weapons. No starting with an 18 main stat. And if you don't increase at 8 (or in fact don't ever hit +5), you're only 5% behind constantly. So if you start at +4 main stat and never put an ASI into your main stat, you will be ahead of expectation until level 4, then equal until level 9 (see note 1) and then 5% behind from level 10 on. Expected AC grows exactly with proficiency, other than those two bonuses.

[1] except level 9, where proficiency bumps up but expected AC hasn't until CR 10. There it's 70%/5%.

[Skrum]

Why did you declare that AC kept getting up as CR increased, to the point that those who relied on attacks had a noticeably harder time than those relying on saving throws, then?

Because it does go up. Slowly, but it goes up. Meanwhile, a creature's bad saves are essentially the same from level 1 to level 20. But a spellcaster's DC will go up (prof, ability score, and magic items).

[Skrum]

-- I've had like...10? character deaths (many more at 0 HP, but only a few actually dead-dead) across hundreds of characters, with several of those happening to the same character (so the number of unique characters who have died is much smaller, probably like 4-5). And only 2 of those weren't simply revivified--one level 2 paladin who thought he could solo a dire yeti (that they had no need to fight at all and he could have run from) and one level 9-ish who managed to fail 3 saving throws in a row (despite not having a particularly low stat!) against a mind flayer and then get a crit brain extraction, while also blocking the path so the rest of the party couldn't really extract him!

Too few deaths for my taste, but whatever you and your table finds fun.

TBC, I don't play at some meatgrinder of a table. I've personally had 2 characters perma-die, and there's been maybe 9ish perma-deaths total? Similarly, hundreds of games and definitely in the triple digits of characters. Revivify comes up quite frequently though; there's probably been 20-25 total deaths overall.



But I've done crap tons of math around monster numbers and encounter building, working from the actual system and actual monsters. And am currently, in fact, in the process of recalibrating all of the SRD monsters for a slightly different (and more bounded) variant of the system. For the record--the average monster is within a small amount of the book value for AC, ATK, and save DC. But the variance is huge in both directions! For every Knight (CR 3, AC 18, deviation +3), there's a black pudding (expected AC 14, actual AC 9, deviation -5).

As for hit percentages, the following makes the hit % stay constant[1] at 70% (65% hit, 5% crit) vs the DMG numbers for CR = level:

Start with attack stat +3. Increase it at 4 and 8. Never increase it again. No +X weapons. No starting with an 18 main stat. And if you don't increase at 8 (or in fact don't ever hit +5), you're only 5% behind constantly. So if you start at +4 main stat and never put an ASI into your main stat, you will be ahead of expectation until level 4, then equal until level 9 (see note 1) and then 5% behind from level 10 on. Expected AC grows exactly with proficiency, other than those two bonuses.

[1] except level 9, where proficiency bumps up but expected AC hasn't until CR 10. There it's 70%/5%.

Is that not what I said? That sounds very close to what I said.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is that not what I said? That sounds very close to what I said.

Except you expect everyone to have +1 or better weapons. Which just isn't the case. Ever.

[Dr.Samurai]

I honestly think this myth that 5e "doesn't require magic weapons" is another one of those things that is technically true but not actually true across game tables and so it's just a false advertisement like "5e solved the magic item problem" when in reality every module you play throws magic weapons at you like they're going out of style, and the homebrew games I play in and the PBPs I play in have magic weapons as well. Of the +x variety.

Yeah yeah, it's not "required". Baphomet was mentioned earlier. Go ahead and fight Baphomet without a magic weapon lol. He's immune to all your damage but don't worry. The game doesn't assume that you, as a fighter, can deal damage to monsters. It assumes that your spellcaster friend or monk buddy will do it.

At some point, the game's "expectations" are meaningless because they aren't followed.

[Unoriginal]

I honestly think this myth that 5e "doesn't require magic weapons" is another one of those things that is technically true but not actually true across game tables and so it's just a false advertisement like "5e solved the magic item problem" when in reality every module you play throws magic weapons at you like they're going out of style, and the homebrew games I play in and the PBPs I play in have magic weapons as well. Of the +x variety.

Yeah yeah, it's not "required". Baphomet was mentioned earlier. Go ahead and fight Baphomet without a magic weapon lol. He's immune to all your damage but don't worry. The game doesn't assume that you, as a fighter, can deal damage to monsters. It assumes that your spellcaster friend or monk buddy will do it.

At some point, the game's "expectations" are meaningless because they aren't followed.

Required means required.

If it's nice to have, but NOT indispensable, then it is not required, it's just a nice bonus.

You mentioned you were playing Against the Giants. Yes, you got a bunch of magic weapons (because it's adapted from an earlier edition without many changes for the loot, if I might add), but 1) by your own admission your group got *one* +X weapon out of the few you found, and finding it was *not* a given.

Ergo, the adventure think you will be fine without it.

Fine does not mean "can't be better", it means "sufficient", "acceptable" or "working as intended but without additional perks".

Furthermore, I'll point out that most giants have relatively low AC compared to their HP totals and damage bonuses, and also that casters have troubles handling Giants most of the time.

So all in all the system's expectations are perfectly respected. The module is just generous, but none of those weapons are indispensable or needed to not make it hellish.

Now it's true that Baphomet and a few other non-material-plane bigwigs are immune to nonmagic B/P/S. That is acknowledged. But most modules do not have one of those creatures.

So again, the expectations are respected.

So no, it is NOT a myth.

[Dr.Samurai]

Required means required.

If it's nice to have, but NOT indispensable, then it is not required, it's just a nice bonus.
Then you are wrong. Because your premise assumes that people will play the game into high levels without magic weapons. You are either technically right, or you are wrong. Because I HIGHLY doubt that many tables operate into later levels without dispensing magic weapons, because it's a trope and it's fun.

Hence the myth.

You mentioned you were playing Against the Giants. Yes, you got a bunch of magic weapons (because it's adapted from an earlier edition without many changes for the loot, if I might add), but 1) by your own admission your group got *one* +X weapon out of the few you found, and finding it was *not* a given.

Ergo, the adventure think you will be fine without it.
I was listing the powerful stuff. This is not intended to be a gotcha, as your points stands based on what I provided. But looking through our Loot discord channel, we've also found a +2 Mace, a +1 Shortsword, a +1 Flail, and a +2 Dagger. We also have a +2 javelin and I think a +1 javelin but those were found before I started the Loot channel so they're not listed there.


Fine does not mean "can't be better", it means "sufficient", "acceptable" or "working as intended but without additional perks".
It means "the math adds up and can people can make this point online", but it doesn't mean "this is how the game is played".

Furthermore, I'll point out that most giants have relatively low AC compared to their HP totals and damage bonuses, and also that casters have troubles handling Giants most of the time.
Do they? Giant saving throws are pretty bad; poor mental saves and poor dex saves. Casters can't do something with that? No blindsight or darkvision.

Low AC is fine but high damage output and high HP is not fine.

So all in all the system's expectations are perfectly respected. The module is just generous, but none of those weapons are indispensable or needed to not make it hellish.
Many modules are "just generous". Many homebrew games are "just generous". That's the point.

The weapon adds an additional +8 damage on average, which is an extra 24-32 damage per turn, which is significant against hill giants and frost giants and ogres. I mean... I know, I've been playing through the module. This is also my first experience with Great Weapon Master and I'm honestly having trouble imagining slogging through this module wielding a longsword and dealing 1d8+6 damage.

So no, it is NOT a myth.
More accurate to say its relevance is a myth.

[Skrum]

I say "required" in the sense that
1) monsters that are resistant to nonmagical weapons aren't a majority of enemies, but they're certainly common enough I would never consider going on a level 6+ adventure without magic weapons. If dumping int is irresponsible, not having a magic weapon is complete malpractice

2) I think full spellcasters begin to put noticeable distance between themselves and the non-full casters in mid t2. Nothing approaching strictly better, and the other classes can still contribute, but the overall success of many encounters begins to hinge more and more on what the full casters are doing. If the non-fullcasting classes *didn't* have magic items of notable power (both weapons and armor), I think that gap would become a chasm, and it would become extremely noticeable that clerics and druids are running the show and fighters and barbs (and company) are simply playing a different, lessor game.

===========

Just to put a little context on what "magic items" mean at the table I play at, here's what my fighter/warlock is currently attuned to. His items are quite good overall and work really well with his build/personality, but there are several legendary items around that are stronger than these items. My item set is notable though in the level of synergy between them; most characters have a more random collection than this. That said -

1) Goredancer's Swiftboots
Boots of Speed that activate with an interaction and can cast Thunderstep 1/LR

2) Goredancer's Spear
Spear +1 and +1d6 lightning damage per hit
Returning: This weapon returns to the wielder after each attack made with it.

Gladiator's Flourish (Prof Bonus / LR): When you reduce a foe to 0 hit points, if you are proficient in Performance or Intimidation, you may make a grand display of their defeat. A foe within 45 feet of you must make a DC 15 Charisma saving throw of be frightened of you until the end of your next turn.

Lightning Toss (1 / LR): You may replace an attack you make with this weapon with a thrown weapon attack at a target within 120 feet of you. When you throw the spear, it becomes a five foot wide bolt of lightning that strikes all creatures in a line from you and your target, forcing them to make DC 15 Dex save or take 5d6 lightning damage. The target, if struck by your attack takes 4d6 lightning damage + the weapon's regular damage.

3) Conduit Conductor
Glove, requires attunement by an Artificer, Wizard, or character already attuned to an item that deals thunder or lightning damage.

Power Conduit: Choose a spellcasting class you have levels in. Your spell attack and spell save DC is increased by 1 for spells from that class. Additionally, while the gloved hand is empty, this glove can be used as a spellcasting focus for the chosen class.

Electric Enhancer: Weapons you wield that deal lightning or thunder damage gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage. If you have Arcane Armor in Guardian model from the Armorer Artificer subclass, you can incorporate this glove into your armor and use it as a Thunder Gauntlet.

Unstable Invention (PB / LR): Whenever you cast a spell or make an attack that would deal Thunder or Lightning damage, you may attempt to overcharge it. Roll a d6.

On 1, you and all creatures within 10 feet of you take [[2d8]] lightning damage and you regain a use of this ability.
On 2, nothing unique occurs and you regain a use of this ability.
On 3-6, the spell deals an additional [[2d8]] lightning damage to each target that fails its saving throw or is hit by the attack.

[Unoriginal]

Then you are wrong. Because your premise assumes that people will play the game into high levels without magic weapons.

My premise absolutely does not do that.

"Fuel is required for a car to function" is a true statement.

"Passenger seats are required for a car to function" is not a true statement.

Saying "passenger seats are not required for a car to function" does not assume that people will drive cars without passenger seats.



I was listing the powerful stuff. This is not intended to be a gotcha, as your points stands based on what I provided. But looking through our Loot discord channel, we've also found a +2 Mace, a +1 Shortsword, a +1 Flail, and a +2 Dagger. We also have a +2 javelin and I think a +1 javelin but those were found before I started the Loot channel so they're not listed there.[/QUOTE

Fair enough, but see my "adapted from a previous edition without much thoughts given about the loot" point. Later adventures are generally far less generous, even when they're adapted from a previous edition.

[QUOTE=Dr.Samurai;25909694]
It means "the math adds up and can people can make this point online", but it doesn't mean "this is how the game is played".

I made claim was made about how the game was played.



Do they? Giant saving throws are pretty bad; poor mental saves and poor dex saves. Casters can't do something with that? No blindsight or darkvision.

Casters can do some things with that, yes, but that severely limits their arsenal, and even then what they can do it rarely "dealing with the problem permanently".

I'm not saying casters can't deal with Giants, just that they will struggle most of the time without at a couple martials to do at-will HP damage.



Many modules are "just generous". Many homebrew games are "just generous". That's the point.

That is the point indeed.

"When I go buy his groceries, Mr Johnson always gives me $5 more than the amount required" does not change that it is not a requirement.

[Rukelnikov]

The proposition that the game doesn't expect PCs to have magic weaponry is plain false.

The DMG recommends giving magic items when starting above T1 (pg 38) its little compared to what they are expected to have if they were playing normally (only mitigated if the players are allowed to choose IMO). Xanathar's expands on that, and gives a list of expected magic items by tier if rolling on tables (which is what the system assumes in the DMG), and it adds up to 2 major items during T1 and 6 more each tier after that.

So IDK where the "game doesn't expect PCs to have magic items" started, but its clearly not that way in the books at least.

[JNAProductions]

The proposition that the game doesn't expect PCs to have magic weaponry is plain false.

The DMG recommends giving magic items when starting above T1 (pg 38) its little compared to what they are expected to have if they were playing normally (only mitigated if the players are allowed to choose IMO). Xanathar's expands on that, and gives a list of expected magic items by tier if rolling on tables (which is what the system assumes in the DMG), and it adds up to 2 major items during T1 and 6 more each tier after that.

So IDK where the "game doesn't expect PCs to have magic items" started, but its clearly not that way in the books at least.

Doesn’t REQUIRE.

Not expect. Require.

And even with magic items in play, it certainly doesn’t mandate they be +X to-hit or anything like that.

[Dr.Samurai]

My premise absolutely does not do that.

"Fuel is required for a car to function" is a true statement.

"Passenger seats are required for a car to function" is not a true statement.

Saying "passenger seats are not required for a car to function" does not assume that people will drive cars without passenger seats.
It's more like saying "Cars do not require 87 octane fuel to function" when virtually everyone purchases 87 octane fuel to run their cars. Yeah, you're right. They don't need 87 octane. But hey, look at everyone running their cars on 87 octane fuel!

Fair enough, but see my "adapted from a previous edition without much thoughts given about the loot" point. Later adventures are generally far less generous, even when they're adapted from a previous edition.
This may be the case, I don't know enough to say one way or the other. All I know is that my character has received a sentient weapon or shield in the last three modules I've played in so far. I just played in someone's homebrew one-shot that they're selling on DMsGuild and received a +3 legendary quarterstaff as part of the loot. Another homebrew game allows for us to choose magic items to start with (at higher levels).

I'm in Curse of Strahd and we're finding powerful magic items as well before we fight the titular character. So... these have been my experiences. I can't even think of a game where magic items weren't a thing.

Casters can do some things with that, yes, but that severely limits their arsenal, and even then what they can do it rarely "dealing with the problem permanently".

I'm not saying casters can't deal with Giants, just that they will struggle most of the time without at a couple martials to do at-will HP damage.
I think we agree on this point, but I also think the reverse is true. My party is not optimized. The level 13 druid in our party is just as likely to use a cantrip as he is to cast Animal Friendship on a dire polar bear in the middle of combat or cast an actual leveled spell. If I was a fighter with a regular sword, it would be that much harder to take down the enemies (double that if I wasn't using Great Weapon Master, but that's a different topic).

So I very much feel like I need the magic weapon (and GWM) to have an impact. I can't rely on the casters to eradicate everything or deal a bunch of AoE damage. Our monk is great but the giants often resist his Stuns. He deals better damage now with his +2 dagger and he commented on that as well.

That is the point indeed.

"When I go buy his groceries, Mr Johnson always gives me $5 more than the amount required" does not change that it is not a requirement.
Yes, I know. Tipping is a great example actually. It's not required, but it's a societal norm. It calls into question the value in saying "it's not required". Both the United States and Europe can say "tipping is not required", and yet when you ask "how much should I leave?" you'll get very different answers in either country.

It's not obvious to me what the value is in saying "5E doesn't require magic weapons" when it's been my experience that magic weapons are an eventuality, if not thrown at your feet the second the game starts.

[Witty Username]

I wasn't thinking of a specific Demon Prince, just the general range, but Orcus is a good example:

CR 26, AC 20, saves DEX +10, CON +15, WIS +13.

For his part, Juiblex goes:

CR 23, AC 18, saves DEX +7, WIS +12
Huh, the stat block I saw had an AC 26, must have been modified.

[Rukelnikov]

Doesn’t REQUIRE.

Not expect. Require.

And even with magic items in play, it certainly doesn’t mandate they be +X to-hit or anything like that.

What does require mean? The game doesn't require an around 60% chance to hit from the PCs, it will work with only 40% or sometimes less, I know because that's how most tough fights in my group go.

And while it doesn't mandate the items to be weapons with a +x to hit, those items have about 17% (1/6) chance of being rolled.

[Witty Username]

I don't know about this AC doesn't generally increase, I don't think I have seen a single enemy past CR 10 with an AC of 8, for example.

[Unoriginal]

What does require mean?

It means "X cannot be done without Y".


I don't know about this AC doesn't generally increase, I don't think I have seen a single enemy past CR 10 with an AC of 8, for example.

There are few enemies below CR 10 with AC 8 too.

The AC of any fight-ready NPC will generally be between 12 and 20, with a few outliers below or above.

I'm fairly certain the average AC is 17 overall.

Point is, it is actually *easier* for the PCs to hit Orcus, Demon Prince of Undeath, at the level where you're the most likely to fight Orcus, than it is for the PCs to hit a single Knight at the level where you're the most likely to fight a single Knight.

Why? Because hitting AC 20 when you have +10 to hit is easier than hitting AC 18 when you have +6 to hit.

No one is saying that higher CR enemies don't tend to have higher ACs than lower CR ones, but "higher ACs" in 5e means "19-20ish". And there are quite a few lower CR enemies who also have ACs in that range.

So it is incorrect to say that the AC of NPCs keeps increasing with CR to the point where it becomes harder for the attack-rolls-relying PCs to hit them.

[Rukelnikov]

It means "X cannot be done without Y".

Then it's a pretty pointless statement since the game requires little to nothing in order to be playable.

[Unoriginal]

Then it's a pretty pointless statement since the game requires little to nothing in order to be playable.

"All of the 5e's classes are playable without magic items" is not a pointless statement when:

1) This has not always been the case through the editions.

2) Some people insist that not all of 5e's classes are playable without magic items.

Believe me, if I could spend the rest of my life without having to reiterate that statement or its variations, it would be awesome.

[Rukelnikov]

"All of the 5e's classes are playable without magic items" is not a pointless statement when:

1) This has not always been the case through the editions.

2) Some people insist that not all of 5e's classes are playable without magic items.

Believe me, if I could spend the rest of my life without having to reiterate that statement or its variations, it would be awesome.

A wizard is playable without a spellbook, they won't be able to change their selection, but they can still use their current one, doesn't mean its the way its intended to be played. Similarly with weapon users, they can be played without magic weaponry, but that's not what the game expects.

[Unoriginal]

A wizard is playable without a spellbook, they won't be able to change their selection, but they can still use their current one, doesn't mean its the way its intended to be played. Similarly with weapon users, they can be played without magic weaponry, but that's not what the game expects.

Indeed.

However, a Wizard without a spellbook is much more impacted than a Fighter without magic weapon, since without a spellbook the Wizard is not only stuck with their current spell selection, they cannot learn new spells as they level up either.

Regardless, 5e expects you to be able to purchase a spellbook or a magic weapon for the equivalent of 50gp or so once you find somewhere to acquire them, if wanted.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well then forego the weapon on the fighter; you're not required to wield a weapon. Fighters are proficient with their unarmed strikes. So wizard without a spellbook and fighter without a weapon, dealing 1+str to the monsters :smallcool:.

[Rukelnikov]

Indeed.

However, a Wizard without a spellbook is much more impacted than a Fighter without magic weapon, since without a spellbook the Wizard is not only stuck with their current spell selection, they cannot learn new spells as they level up either.

Regardless, 5e expects you to be able to purchase a spellbook or a magic weapon for the equivalent of 50gp or so once you find somewhere to acquire them, if wanted.

And that's my point, the game expects martials to have magic weapons past a certain lvl, which is at some point during T2 going by loot tables and recommended starting equipment when creating PCs above lvl 1, and IDK why many people act as if that wasn't the case.

[Unoriginal]

And that's my point, the game expects martials to have magic weapons past a certain lvl, which is at some point during T2 going by loot tables and recommended starting equipment when creating PCs above lvl 1, and IDK why many people act as if that wasn't the case.

No one here acted as if the game doesn't expect you to get magic weapons.

The claim that was rejected was that you *need* magic weapons, or more precisely the claim that you need +X weapons in order to keep up with increasing monster ACs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No one here acted as if the game doesn't expect you to get magic weapons.

The claim that was rejected was that you *need* magic weapons, or more precisely the claim that you need +X weapons in order to keep up with increasing monster ACs.

Right. Magic weapons are allowed, they're just not required. And +X weapons (specifically the +X to attack) are never required.

We actually have word of dev, directly in the rules text about what they expect (a sidebar which is suspiciously gone from D&D Beyond's copy, but is in the physical one):



The D&D game is built on the assumption that magic items appear sporadically and that they are always a boon, unless an item bears a curse. Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items, which means that having magic items always makes a character more powerful or versatile than a generic character of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are they necessary? No.

Magic items can go from nice to necessary in the rare group that has no spellcasters, no monk, and no NPCs capable of casting magic weapon. Having no magic makes it extremely difficult for a party to overcome monsters that have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In such a game, you'll want to be generous with magic weapons or else avoid using such monsters.


That's as crystal clear as you can get.

[Unoriginal]

Well then forego the weapon on the fighter; you're not required to wield a weapon. Fighters are proficient with their unarmed strikes. So wizard without a spellbook and fighter without a weapon, dealing 1+str to the monsters :smallcool:.

Because the Unarmed Fighting Style does not exist. Nor foes the Tavern Brawler feat, for that matter.

Also, nevermind how tests show that with 0 tool, the naked Fighter performs better than the naked Wizard a majority of the time, even without boosted unarmed damage.

Your caster supremacy mindset is trully saddening, Dr.Samurai.

I will stop resding this thread from now on.

[Dr.Samurai]

Your caster supremacy mindset is trully saddening, Dr.Samurai.

I will stop resding this thread from now on.
I am truly baffled how you're taking what I'm saying as caster supremacy as 1. my issue is simply that this "truism" about magic weapons is overstated and sort of pointless in my mind (nothing to do with casters) and 2. if I look at this through a caster/martial lens I feel like your position is not in favor of martials.

I'm not trying to upset you, I genuinely don't know how you're reading this into my comments.

My position is that every game I've been in has magical weapons in it, and so I don't see the utility in insisting that the game doesn't require you to have magic weapons. It almost feels like a comment meant to punish martial characters, like it's a courtesy or a favor to them to let them play with magic weapons because they're not actually needed. When in reality... I don't know of anyone that doesn't think magic weapons are cool and won't include them in their game.

I am sharing my current experience in Against the Giants because we fight *a lot* of giants at a time, and there's a lot of hit points to churn through and a lot of incoming damage to deal with. So enemies have to go down asap. And if I didn't have this legendary weapon along with GWM (another oft-maligned martial tool) I don't know that we could play through the game they way we're doing now. We have a moon druid that only wildshapes to evacuate us if the fight is going against us, and hyper-focuses on the dire wolves and polar bears and leopard cats that the giants keep. Like... he rarely casts a leveled attack spell against the mobs of giants. We have a sharpshooter ranger and my GWM fighter. We are the ones clearing the giants, because of our accuracy and damage (Archery being an outlier as PP said).

The idea that I should be doing much less damage by default because casters are going to make up for it seems like I'm supposed to be playing a "caster's game", and rely on them to make up the difference. But if your allies aren't optimized or trying to maximize the combat efficiency of every action they take, then it falls on me. And you can say "that's your table experience" and you'd be right, it is. But then it seems to me like the default position or the "table normal" position being put forth is "martials don't need magic weapons because casters will do the heavy lifting and martials will be fine with their base weapon damage + strength".

And that may be technically true in theory-world, but it's not true for me at my table, nor do I want the choice of having a magic weapon to rest on whether or not there's a caster in my party. I mean... do casters *require* every higher level spell slot and spell learned in order to play the game? Or can they make do without? It doesn't matter either way because regardless they WILL get higher and more powerful spells as they level. So why this fixation on martials not "requiring" magic weapons?

I'm sorry if my posts are coming across with a different meaning; I enjoy reading your comments and this is the second time you've rage-quit and accused me of caster supremacy and I'm just as confused about it as the first time it happened. But if this helps clear it up, I'm not speaking to the theory math. I agree with both you and PP that it's not "required". But the game is played by people, and people determine what is ACTUALLY required to play the game, because their level of enjoyment matters. And in that sense, magic weapons are fun, and breaking away from your tier 1 potential is fun, and that's why, in my experience, magic weapons have been in every D&D game I've played. And that's why I don't see the point in saying they're not required. What 5E did with magic items is not a good thing in my opinion, by making people feel bad for including them, or like you have to be super duper careful or you're going to throw off the hyper-calibrated design of the game. It's stale and boring and counter to the spirit of the game. All in my opinion.

[Amnestic]

Whether the game 'requires' magical weapons or 'expects' them or whatever, I've not either DM'd or played in a single game where they weren't relatively prevalent once you get into tier 2, usually starting before then. Maybe I've just been extremely lucky in that regard and all the stingy other DMs are doing other stuff.

Magic shops are less prevalent, especially depending on the game, but the weapons still end up in loot hoards aplenty.

[Rukelnikov]

Right. Magic weapons are allowed, they're just not required. And +X weapons (specifically the +X to attack) are never required.

We actually have word of dev, directly in the rules text about what they expect (a sidebar which is suspiciously gone from D&D Beyond's copy, but is in the physical one):

That's as crystal clear as you can get.

They are stating themselves then, that magic weapons are not needed as long as the party can bypass resistance to nonmagical damage, and if they can't then they indeed become a necessity.

[Skrum]

They are stating themselves then, that magic weapons are not needed as long as the party can bypass resistance to nonmagical damage, and if they can't then they indeed become a necessity.

I don't see how this can possible be true. Like what does the game even look like - no feats, no magic items . The fighter is doing weapon damage + str, the barb is doing weapon damage + str + 2 at advantage, the druid summons 8 wolves, and the cleric casts spirit guardians. Like did the developers even play that game.

Does the game "function?" Sure. As long as the players who pick one of several classes are OK with contributing far less than other party members.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They are stating themselves then, that magic weapons are not needed as long as the party can bypass resistance to nonmagical damage, and if they can't then they indeed become a necessity.

As long as one person in the party can bypass it. That's the important part.

You only need items if NO ONE can AND the DM decides to use those monsters. Both have to be true. And that set is...vanishing.

[Slipjig]

As long as one person in the party can bypass it. That's the important part.

You only need items if NO ONE can AND the DM decides to use those monsters. Both have to be true. And that set is...vanishing.

That's fine... so long as the DM has calibrated this encounter as a solo fight, the one character is a major damage dealer, and that the rest of your players are happy twiddling their thumbs for an hour+ while one player has a solo encounter.

And that's worse when the players who can't deal damage are martials. Casters can probably find non-damage ways to contribute, but a Fighter or Barbs will have a much harder time doing so (Rogues can probably get up to Rogue shenanigans).

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't see how this can possible be true. Like what does the game even look like - no feats, no magic items . The fighter is doing weapon damage + str, the barb is doing weapon damage + str + 2 at advantage, the druid summons 8 wolves, and the cleric casts spirit guardians. Like did the developers even play that game.

Does the game "function?" Sure. As long as the players who pick one of several classes are OK with contributing far less than other party members.
This is exactly what it feels like.

No feats. No magic items. Don't max your attacking ability score. Rely on your spellcaster allies to rough up the monsters and protect your from debilitating saving throw effects.

The game doesn't require magic weapons, but it sure seems to require spellcasting characters...

[tKUUNK]

Just chiming in to note that Skrum wasn't making a ridiculous assumption by expecting that a martial character in D&D winds up with a magic weapon. Especially in the context of a tier 3 or tier 4 party. The estimate of a +14 attack bonus at tier 4 is on the high side but only by a hair. Heck, with a +1 weapon (+12 attack) plus Bless (which sure, don't assume anyone's concentrating on Bless at that level) you're looking at +14.5 at tier 4. High likelihood you've maxxed your main attack stat by then.

Paladins (and Rangers using the Optional Class Feature spell list) can access Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon. So right there, that's 1/3 of martial classes which have access to at least a +1 magic weapon (with potential for +2 and a 2d4 elemental rider when upcast).

Kensei Monks can make their own magic weapons up to +3 at level 11+. yeah sure, that's just one subclass. Eldritch Knight can learn Magic Weapon if desired. Arcane Trickster could, but to be fair I think that's just a ridiculous observation.

Barbarian may be the only martial class with no class feature or subclass option which can make a magic weapon.

I've yet to see a game of Dungeons & Dragons without at least one actual magic weapon by party level 8. So in my circles, Skrum is on-target.

[Amechra]

OK, so...

When the developers said you don't need magic items, they weren't being 100% literal. They were saying that to reassure the people who were scared that 5e was going to be like 3e and 4e, where high level characters would light up like a Christmas tree under Detect Magic. If 5e had been designed like 3e and 4e, the math would assume that you'd have +1/+2/+3 weapons/armor at the start of Tier 2/3/4 and a 22 in your best stat by mid levels as a baseline.

Instead, the math is calibrated so that a party that only wants cool magic items that do wacky stuff (instead of boring stat increasers) can do that without the DM ripping their hair out trying to balance everything. And this extends to magic weapons — you could give the party Fighter an appropriate Weapon of Warning and they'd never need to upgrade past that, pretty much regardless of what kinds of enemies the DM wants to throw at the party.

...

It's also important to keep in mind that optimization talk tends to undervalue teamwork, or treat stuff like the Wizard casting Magic Weapon on the Fighter's sword like it's the Fighter getting a handout from the Wizard. Which, yes, you could look at it that way... or you could look at it as the Fighter being really good at taking buffs, allowing the Wizard to turn a spell slot into damage far more efficiently than they could by themselves.

As a bit of a tangent, I feel like one of the problems with 5e that created caster supremacy issues is that it nerfed non-personal buffs super hard. Using a spell slot to cast Fireball and using the same spell slot to turn your friend's Fighter into a battlefield god both have similar end results (you dealt a bunch of damage to a bunch of enemies), but one of those things also makes the Fighter feel awesome. Honestly, the fact that 5e didn't really have a way to play a hyperbard-style character really disappointed me when I started playing 5e. I miss having the option of just plopping down an Inspire Courage that gave the rest of the party +lots to attack and damage and then checking out mentally for the rest of the fight other than doing some healing or whatever.

[Dr.Samurai]

OK, so...

When the developers said you don't need magic items, they weren't being 100% literal. They were saying that to reassure the people who were scared that 5e was going to be like 3e and 4e, where high level characters would light up like a Christmas tree under Detect Magic. If 5e had been designed like 3e and 4e, the math would assume that you'd have +1/+2/+3 weapons/armor at the start of Tier 2/3/4 and a 22 in your best stat by mid levels as a baseline.

Instead, the math is calibrated so that a party that only wants cool magic items that do wacky stuff (instead of boring stat increasers) can do that without the DM ripping their hair out trying to balance everything. And this extends to magic weapons — you could give the party Fighter an appropriate Weapon of Warning and they'd never need to upgrade past that, pretty much regardless of what kinds of enemies the DM wants to throw at the party.

I agree with this. But also I don't think it's so overpowering to have magic weapons that increase to-hit or damage. We often talk about how ridiculous casters can be if a player chooses to optimize, and they can overshadow other party members in the game. I have a different experience in my group; my teammates are generally not focused on maximizing actions and efficiency. As a fighter, a strong weapon helps make up that difference, in the same way the game assumes a caster will make up the difference for lack of a magic weapon. Obviously the general "YMMV" applies here.

It's also important to keep in mind that optimization talk tends to undervalue teamwork, or treat stuff like the Wizard casting Magic Weapon on the Fighter's sword like it's the Fighter getting a handout from the Wizard. Which, yes, you could look at it that way... or you could look at it as the Fighter being really good at taking buffs, allowing the Wizard to turn a spell slot into damage far more efficiently than they could by themselves.
It's a good point. In my experience, I've received Bless regularly when there's someone that can cast it, and on occasion I've been the recipient of Haste. That's... about it. Also, with the exception of Bless, buff spells are not the first thing my groups think of when it comes time to cast a spell on their turn.

I would also say that, for me at least, there is a difference between a caster buffing what a warrior can already do, and a caster basically gating the warrior's efficiency behind a spell. There's such anxiety over a warrior getting a magic weapon (which I find irritating) but it's fine if the wizard makes it a +1 weapon (which I also find irritating lol). Again, it's a caster's game. This piece of equipment is fine if a wizard learns this spell, preps it, and casts it and concentrates on it. But as a thing that the fighter is rewarded with, it's bad. I think this sums it up nicely:

https://i.imgflip.com/86o1zr.jpg


As a bit of a tangent, I feel like one of the problems with 5e that created caster supremacy issues is that it nerfed non-personal buffs super hard. Using a spell slot to cast Fireball and using the same spell slot to turn your friend's Fighter into a battlefield god both have similar end results (you dealt a bunch of damage to a bunch of enemies), but one of those things also makes the Fighter feel awesome. Honestly, the fact that 5e didn't really have a way to play a hyperbard-style character really disappointed me when I started playing 5e. I miss having the option of just plopping down an Inspire Courage that gave the rest of the party +lots to attack and damage and then checking out mentally for the rest of the fight other than doing some healing or whatever.
I agree. As I said, it rarely comes up in our games that someone wants to buff a martial. I was about to get knocked out so the druid was like "I'll polymorph the enemy". I was like "can you polymorph me instead" and it was the first time he had ever considered that. (Which is fine, I'm not knocking him. We learn new things all the time. Just saying it's not the first thing on their mind.)

[Skrum]

I have mixed feelings about buff spells.

If I'm the person getting the buff, I only find it satisfying if my character is generally effective (and then the buff makes me better). If my character is kind of anemic/underpowered, and then I get a buff that makes me effective, that doesn't feel very good at all - it's like the caster is deigning to allow me to participate. Granted, the latter situation doesn't happen often, but in general I need to feel like my character and build choices are leading to meaningful contributions.

If I'm the person casting the buff... Depends on the encounter. Holding concentration so other people can be better, well sometimes that's very rewarding , other times it's "why does the correct play involve me casting a spell and then hiding in the other room for the duration of the combat." IMO, magic weapon and most of the variants are *hard* in this territory. Not a particularly fun or memorable buff, and it still takes concentration, your action, etc.

Good buffs: bless, haste, aura of life, circle of power, holy weapon

Bad buffs: magic weapon, elemental weapon, protection from e and g, shield of faith, enhance ability, protection from energy

[Witty Username]

5e may have gone too hard nerfing support spells. I have sympathy for it given 3.5 had buffs so good, but it also led to the cut out the middle man mindset, which gets into that Codzilla thing that everyone was mad at for a bit. Stacking defenses is less of a thing, and some of the range personal spells are gone, but it does seem to have cost the game in other areas.

[KorvinStarmast]

The claim that was rejected was that you *need* magic weapons, or more precisely the claim that you need +X weapons in order to keep up with increasing monster ACs. Bounded accuracy handles that. But you can still do 0 damage to a werewolf if you lack a silvered weapon.

Right. Magic weapons are allowed, they're just not required.
We actually have word of dev, directly in the rules text about what they expect (a sidebar which is suspiciously gone from D&D Beyond's copy, but is in the physical one):
That's as crystal clear as you can get. And they should have put that into the DMG in the first place. That's useful info for a DM there.

No feats. No magic items. Don't max your attacking ability score. Rely on your spellcaster allies to rough up the monsters and protect your from debilitating saving throw effects.

The game doesn't require magic weapons, but it sure seems to require spellcasting characters... The game expects that magic will be a part of the game. Look at the basic rules and the four core party roles:
Fighter/Champion (Mundane)
Rogue/Thief (Mundane through level 13)
Cleric/Life
Wizard/Evoker

[Dr.Samurai]

Unoriginal, PhoenixPhyre, and others have explained the difference between "expect" and "require" already though. The game doesn't require a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. It also doesn't require magic weapons. But if the former arrangement doesn't allow for the latter, then you DO need magic weapons.

My point is... virtually every game has magic weapons. So this is a point being made that doesn't really need to be made.

And frankly... the teamwork stuff seems very one-sided. Given how easy it is for a caster to get any of armor proficiency, weapon proficiency, extra attack, temporary hit points, armor buffs, and the list goes on.

It doesn't seem like a big "teamwork" thing to give casters literally everything, and then turn around and remind martials "don't expect stuff like a magic weapon, it's a team game".