For eg, a epic level fighter on nwn2(3e) would easily have a base attack bonus above 30 on nwn2 and multiple attacks per round, so he is mostly likely to hit even an ancient red dragon(AC = 39). And missing would't be a problem since he has a lot of attacks per round.
Now on 5e, the bonus to hit are much smaller and the low level focus make missing extremely common.
Hmm, I don't think it's actually that different between 3.5e and 5e once you're high level. AC is universally lower in 5e compared to 3.5e. Recall also, in 3.5e your subsequent attacks each take a -5 penalty (i.e. a lvl 20 Fighter BAB is 20/15/10/5)
A 3.5e lvl 20 fighter with +(35/30/25/20) AB vs. 39 AC = hit chance of 85% / 60%/ 35% / 10%
A 5e lvl 20 fighter with +14 AB (x4) attack vs 22 AC (Ancient Red Dragon) = 65% / 65% / 65% / 65%
Despite all the talk about bound accuracy, all it's really done at upper levels is change the
meta of character optimization. Whereas in 3.5e, martials stacked AB and AC to infinity, in 5e your AB/AC bonuses are more "bounded", but you simply find ways to ensure advantage as much as possible. Now in BG3, things are out of wack because getting advantage is
too easy to get. But that's more Larian's issue, not D&D 5e.
Everything is just more scaled down in 5e. The real consequence of that is a group of lower level enemies can pose more of a threat in 5e than 3.5e, since they might still have a realistic chance to hit you, etc.
Larian, instead of giving hidden bonus or making the RNG more akin to a Bell curve, not a flat distribution, decided to lower AC and implement a high HP bloat in the second D&D edition with the highest HP bloat. 5e only loses to 4e on hp bloat. It only makes all spells fells worthless and the combat extremely slow.
While I
do not love Larian's solution - what they have done IS essentially flatten RNG with a "Curve". They simply gave us easy access to the advantage/disadvantage system, which applies a more extreme curve.
I do not agree with this solution due to the side effects of such a change (i.e. it messes up tons of ability and classes), but reducing RNG does seems to be exactly where their mind is (they just did a subpar job implementing it).
People have exaggerated how much they've adjusted AC/HP (let's use Goblins for example). Are their slightly HP higher than what they should be in the MM? Yes, but it's well within the range of other CR 1/4 monsters in the game. Instead of Goblins, we could've gotten any of these CR 1/4 monsters:
- Albino Dwarf Warriors (Tomb of Annihilation) - 30 hp, 13 ac
- Kenkus (Monster Manual) - 13 hp, 13 ac
- Giant Frog (Monster Manual) - 18 hp, 11 ac
- Ash Zombie (Lost Mines of Phandelver) - 22 hp, 8 ac
- Abyssal Wretch (Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes) - 18 hp, 11 ac
- Blink Dog (Monster Manual) - 22 hp, 13 ac
There is more, but the point is, facing enemies with 12-15ish HP isn't game breaking.
Spells are not balanced only around 7hp Goblin campaigns. Their AC also isn't horrendously low (aside from the few 8s and 9s we see on the new spellcaster goblins) - since the base Goblin AC is 12. They only get to 15 if they are actively armored (+1) and using a shield (+2). Spellcaster Goblins are 100% Larian's creation (not in the monster manual).
Or could just made the game a higher level. Lets be real. We are adventuring into the underdark on chapter 1, on BG2 you only enter in underdark on chapter 5 and the game starts at higher level. The companions also looks too accomplished for a lv 1 char. If the game started at lv 5, fighters would have 2 attacks per round. And missing often a much smaller of a problem.
There are merits to this idea, but I don't think Larian will go for it since starting at level 5 will be a daunting task for people new to D&D and 5e.
Having to commit to 5 levels without playing when you can multi-class will cause tons of problems for new players who barely know what each class does.
