There's something about 5e that I'm just not getting. This isn't to say that I couldn't sit down and play it or even DM it without a lengthy tutorial, as if I were a total newbie to D&D. What I mean is that the heart of the system is opaque to me. When I look at characters and then look at monsters, I'm not exactly sure what's there that tells me how they would fare against each other.

For example, when I play Labyrinth Lord, THAC0 gives me a fixed reference point by which to determine how characters would measure up against a given monster. Granted, it's determined by two different factors (level for characters, hit dice for monsters), but those different factors point to a single numerical value that's the same for both PC and monster: what it takes for them to hit AC 0. So if I see that Fred the fighter has THAC0 19 while the zombie he's up against has THAC0 18, I known instantly that, all else being equal, Fred's up against a slightly superior opponent. In fact, even if I had two opponents whose stats were otherwise identical, their respective THAC0 would tell me right away who's more likely to walk away once the fight's over. Say Fred is up against another fighter, Barney, and they each have the exact same abilities, the exact same armor (and so the exact same AC), the exact same current hit points, etc, but Fred is 1st level while Barney is 9th level, so Fred's THAC0 is 19 while Barney's is 13, I know from that single comparison that Fred has a serious problem. Pretty much everything having to do with how well a given character or monster will do in a fight is determined by, or plays some role in, its or its opponent's ability to land a hit. Once I know that, the rest is just details.

So what at the mathematical heart of 5e that I can look to to make a similar assessment? I'm looking now at the stat block for a skeleton and it tells me a bunch of things (a lot more, in fact, than what's given in a Labyrinth Lord monster stat block), but much of what I'm seeing doesn't automatically tell me whether the skeleton is or isn't a match for (e.g.) a 1st level fighter. I see AC, hit points, even a full array of ability scores. But as I pointed out with Fred and Barney, those can be identical between two opponents and yet one still be no match for the other. So what can I look to in its stat block that tells me right off the bat whether or not a 1st level fighter, all else being equal, is more or less evenly matched against the skeleton? What, if anything, is the point around which everything else revolves, like THAC0 is for the earlier editions?

We haven't played 5e in a bit since our game died, but I'd look at three things- proficiency bonus, hit points and damage.

Hopefully someone will come along with a better answer

Challenge Rating (CR) -although it's opaque and very subjective.

Quote from: aspiringlich;864083There's something about 5e that I'm just not getting. This isn't to say that I couldn't sit down and play it or even DM it without a lengthy tutorial, as if I were a total newbie to D&D. What I mean is that the heart of the system is opaque to me. When I look at characters and then look at monsters, I'm not exactly sure what's there that tells me how they would fare against each other.

The CR value what you need to use. It is a rating to show you, the referee, at what character level the monster will be a challenge for. To be precise the average character level of a party of four. The CR sums up the to hit bonus, number of hit points, the number of attacks, the damage done, and special abilities.

How it is a just a loose guidepost as the most monsters you have in an encounter the more synergies results. And vice versa for a PC party with more than four characters.

The DMG contains guidelines on how to compute the CR of the monsters.

D&D 5e monsters don't have as many factors as 3.5 but more than classic D&D.

Quote from: aspiringlich;864083For example, when I play Labyrinth Lord, THAC0 gives me a fixed reference point by which to determine how characters would measure up against a given monster. Granted, it's determined by two different factors (level for characters, hit dice for monsters), but those different factors point to a single numerical value that's the same for both PC and monster: what it takes for them to hit AC 0.

In general 5e high level monsters will have way more hit points, and do more damage but their to hit bonus and armor class won't be dramatically higher. So using AC and a to hit bonus is not a good guide to monster effectiveness. You should look at hit points, number of attacks, and damage done as your primary reference if you don't trust the CR system.

This emphasis on types of attacks and damage instead of to hit bonus is labeled as Bounded Accuracy by the Wizard's Team. This also applies to saving throws.

Quote from: aspiringlich;864083Pretty much everything having to do with how well a given character or monster will do in a fight is determined by, or plays some role in, its or its opponent's ability to land a hit. Once I know that, the rest is just details.

Because of Bounded Accuracy that not a valid yardstick for 5e. Even high level monsters will miss AC 10. And even low level character will get to hit the highest level creatures. Again number of attacks, hit points, and damage dealt is the primary different between low and high level in 5e.

High level in 5e means you only hit slightly more often but are able to make more attacks in more ways dealing more damage.

Quote from: aspiringlich;864083So what at the mathematical heart of 5e that I can look to to make a similar assessment?

It is in the 5e DMG in the third section. But it not a hard and fast math formula.

OK, that's all very helpful, thanks. I kept hearing that expression "bounded accuracy" being used without ever really understanding what they were talking about, but I think I'm getting it now.

What I'm also getting is that 5e goes about as far as you can go in the direction of hit point abstraction without actually getting rid of AC and "to hit" rolls altogether.

Quote from: aspiringlich;864103OK, that's all very helpful, thanks. I kept hearing that expression "bounded accuracy" being used without ever really understanding what they were talking about, but I think I'm getting it now.

What I'm also getting is that 5e goes about as far as you can go in the direction of hit point abstraction without actually getting rid of AC and "to hit" rolls altogether.

AC and to hit rolls are now bundled together. HP is the attrition point. Exhaust your opponent till they kiel over, either from exhaustion, wounds near the end or however you want to envision the odd way 5e abstracts HP.

AC is the To Hit target. One of the things we are liking about 5e is how that one system there speeds along combat.

But as was noted above. The CR of a monster is the better factor. But take note that home-grown monsters can end up with some pretty wonky CRs if you arent careful. So can trying to calculate CRs for critters not listed like ones ported from older editions.

CR, as mentioned. However, those extra abilities, man.  We played 4 level ones taking on 4 wolves (which I think are CR 1/4, so it was dead on, as far as CR vs. our levels). However, the things knock you prone if you miss a save versus the maneuver. They surprised us (yep--ALL of us). Pair of them hit one of our party and put him straight into death saves, thanks to a crit by one doggie. My PC ended up prone the first round.  However, thanks to the simple bounce back (spend 1/2 move to stand, without getting opportunity attacked). My PC managed to get back up. Between my DEX fighter and the grappling Barbarian (the guy is all about bar fighting and improvised weapons), we managed to finally win the battle, despite half our party being knocked out (the cleric got felled, as well). Lost a PC, but the GM hand-waved the death with a dream sequence involving the PC's deity {I'm a dick--I'd have left the character dead}).

Was been an "appropriate" battle, though, according to CR. The Crit was the wildcard in the affair.  However, I like the fact that it wasn't a given. We thought we were going to team wipe, but the fighters saved the day (thanks to Second Wind). We had a sort of epic moment when Barbarian grappled the last pup, and my rogue-ish warrior ran him through with a well-placed rapier to the heart.

At the risk of going on and on, that and the previous battle pretty much sold me on 5E as a system. The fights were fun. We were able to fight tactically, thanks to being able to partial move, attack, then finish move. The first fight we engaged in, my fighter (who is the face of the group, thanks to his high CHA), was able to bounce in and out of a cornfield, picking off Goblins with well-placed bow shots, then darting for cover. Fun stuff that I've porting into my Microlite campaign. When that campaign reboots (as they eventually do), I'm bringing everyone over to 5E. (my only real issue is 18 skills is still too many for me, so I'll likely explore some options for that, which, I am told, are in the DM's guide--I'm waiting to get a used copy of that, though--I'm a cheapskate).

Quote from: cranebump;864210At the risk of going on and on, that and the previous battle pretty much sold me on 5E as a system.

I had a similar experience with my players and a zombie fight. The damn things wouldn't stay down.

I've been playing Pathfinder these past few months and I've noticed that critical hits and failures make a big difference. What looks to be an easy fight can suddenly turn into a near-TPK battle. A sword gets stuck in a tree or dropped, a monster that should do 4-5 points of damage suddenly does 12 and knocks you silly for 1d4 rounds... If one PC goes down early all bets are off. Then there are niggling details that can be annoying and affect a fight too. My character has some riding skill but he still fails to dismount smoothly half the time in combat, lands on his ass and has to spend a round standing up again and yanking out his sword. Doesn't sound like much, but that's an extra round of the bad guys getting off shots at the start.

When there are only four PCs in the party there's little room for error.

Quote from: RunningLaser;864089We haven't played 5e in a bit since our game died, but I'd look at three things- proficiency bonus, hit points and damage.

Hopefully someone will come along with a better answer

Yeah - the MM stupidly doesn't list Prof bonus (you can derive it from CR) but Attack Bonus, Save DC, hit points and damage per round will tell you a lot. Attack Bonus is I'd say just as reliable as THAC0 - a +3 means a weak monster, a +10 means very nasty.

Quote from: Doughdee222;864236Then there are niggling details that can be annoying and affect a fight too. My character has some riding skill but he still fails to dismount smoothly half the time in combat, lands on his ass and has to spend a round standing up again and yanking out his sword. Doesn't sound like much, but that's an extra round of the bad guys getting off shots at the start.

When there are only four PCs in the party there's little room for error.

How?

How is this happening? How is your mount being targeted by a lot of forced movement? How are you exposing yourself to being knocked prone so often?

Are you charging headlong into melee — and staying! — while everyone is Shoving and casting Thunderwave gratuitously? Where is your strafing and kiting tactics? How is this happening so frequently at the start of combat? Does your GM know the rules?

Mounting and Dismounting
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can’t mount it if you don’t have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.

If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.

If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it.
(D&D 5e Basic, August 2014. p. 77.)

-------------

To dismount it either costs: a) at will, half your movement, b) conditional (mount knocked prone), your reaction. Full stop. There is no save to dismount.

There is no mount DEX save unless either: a) your mount is moved against its will, b) you are knocked prone while mounted. Full stop. Those are "fall off the mount" saves, nothing else.

Quote from: Opaopajr;864278How?

How is this happening?

Pathfinder...

Not all, but most of our combats tend to be of the ambushed-on-the-road variety. And I'm a Paladin with heavy armor and a low Dex. Maybe we're doing it wrong, but my friends seem to be well convinced it's the way the rules are.

Quote from: Doughdee222;864287Not all, but most of our combats tend to be of the ambushed-on-the-road variety. And I'm a Paladin with heavy armor and a low Dex. Maybe we're doing it wrong, but my friends seem to be well convinced it's the way the rules are.

Low DEX matters in ambushes, yes. But not just any attack on you will cause a check. It is explicitly while mounted a) effect moves your mount against its will, or b) you become prone.

Those effects are not commonplace — such as failed CON save vs. Thunderwave, Shoved, Grappled moved, Wolf's "Bite," etc. — and are often exceedingly close range.

Unless your GM is ignoring Hiding checks vs. passive Perception — and ignoring distance as a factor while wandering along an open road in the wilderness — it is extremely unlikely that everyone in the party is completely surprised within melee distance while on the open road.

Further Heavy Armor has zero effect on this entire issue. Paladins are proficient in Heavy Armor, thus the lack of Armor Proficiency is a non-issue. The only possible reason that could be misconstrued as a factor is your Paladin potentially having low STR, but that too is wrong.

Why Armor Proficiency, and its lack (because you'd have bigger problems), is not a factor:

Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.
(D&D 5e Basic .pdf, August 2014. p.44.)

Here in bold is its only penalty if you don't meet its STR threshold:

Heavy Armor. Heavier armor interferes with the wearer’s ability to move quickly, stealthily, and freely. If the Armor table shows “Str 13” or “Str 15” in the Strength column for an armor type, the armor reduces the wearer’s speed by 10 feet unless the wearer has a Strength score equal to or higher than the listed score.
(D&D 5e Basic .pdf, August 2014. p.44.)

That only leaves me with the last logical conclusion, that your friends are doing it wrong and yet are convinced by other game assumptions that they are otherwise.

I am sorry, but it sounds like you may have to try to teach your friends to unlearn irrelevant rules from other systems. I've mentioned before that many 3e-isms had to be unlearned to grasp 5e. Unfortunately your table is a good example of this phenomenon.

I wish your table the best to enjoy 5e once you decide to try out its own rules (especially since your character is being unfairly penalized).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;864285Pathfinder...

I fear that you are very much right on this one. And the sad thing is the 5e game will catch hell for it after unnecessary unsatisfying experiences. Hate to be that rules lawyer, but giving a game its fair RAW shake before house rules editing or migrated assumed rules from another game is so important.

Quote from: cranebump;864210We played 4 level ones taking on 4 wolves (which I think are CR 1/4, so it was dead on, as far as CR vs. our levels).

Whatever that means -- which is worth knowing, even if only to know that it's something very vague -- if you're tossing dice, then the point of tossing dice is to get different results each time. The most it can reliably mean is something averaged over many samples, not a prediction of what will happen in a single sample.