You don't think that being able to action surge twice per short rest and unleashing six to seven attacks in one round when you do so is suitably epic? On top of whatever subclass abilities you have?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You don't think that being able to action surge twice per short rest and unleashing six to seven attacks in one round when you do so is suitably epic? On top of whatever subclass abilities you have?
No, I don't. A 17th level wizard can destroy a small army in one turn. A 17th level fighter shouldn't be able to do it in one turn, but he should be fully capable of destroying the same small army, just up close and personal.
I don't mind the whole "Quadratic Wizards" thing - it makes perfect sense for flavour - but then part of balancing casters vs martials becomes relatively high lethality at the lower levels, so that jumping the mage meatgrinder is more of an accomplishment. With DnD, and video/tabletop games in general, the latest trend has been towards approachable and casual play. This isn't a bad thing, but it throws a bit of a spanner at the "different classes dominate at different levels" approach. Players generally dislike being killed, and unless your group is pretty dedicated, few campaigns make it above level 12 in my experience. Playing a high level caster in 3.5 felt awesome but instead of just succeeding in their role, they surpassed even fighters and rogues at things those classes were dedicated to doing. That sucks. I think balancing versatility and specialization are tough things for game designers in general.
It's nice that bounded accuracy makes magic items less mandatory. This makes finding them an exciting moment in lower-magic campaigns. It also reduces (some) of the arbitrary scaling between monsters, though parts remain. Lore-wise, why is a minotaur CR 3 but a vampire is CR 13? I get that the game needs different bad guys at different levels but they're both similarly fearsome in the mythology they derive from.
As for OPs question, I don't think such items break the game if they're introduced sparsely. D&D is cooperative so your fighter having 23 Str benefits everyone, and a bit of unbalance makes PCs different and forces players to adapt. Fireball and Lightning Bolt are OP for their spell level, too, but 5e isn't a fragile machine that depends on precarious balance. Fun adventures can handle being rough around the edges.
I don't mind the whole "Quadratic Wizards" thing - it makes perfect sense for flavour - but then part of balancing casters vs martials becomes relatively high lethality at the lower levels, so that jumping the mage meatgrinder is more of an accomplishment.
I don't object to the power of high level casters. I would just upgrade high level monsters and martial classes to match.
But the problem with 4e is that it did not feel epic not because of the bonuses, but because you were so bund by the goddamn grid and board games and power cards that were associated. This means that while you could feel epic in BECMI going to level 36. in AD&D going to level 20, in 3e going to 20 (and beyond), there was no way you could do that in 4e because there was no way you could rule a fight riding on dragons across the sky or in astral skiffs against dragon-riding githyankis or using the weird physics of the abyss or some of the planes.
I'm curious as to why not. My experience differs a fair bit - I've DMed a group all the way to 30th level and beyond that hardly ever fought on the ground after mid paragon. And they were plane hopping several times a level in epic tier.
Plane-hopping is not the same things as fighting in 3d across the backs of dragons, and flying in 4e was best called hopping. The rules of 4e are mostly 2d and poorly support 3d and flying, and I'm not mentioning fighting in any direction such as in the astral plane. But we are deviating from the subject of the thread here.
Granted it's off topic, I just couldn't wrap my head around your assertion (and still can't) that you couldn't do combats in 3D. No probs though.
I am very curious about the community's opinion on bounded accuracy in 5E. Do you (or your DM) think that items which increase stats break the game? Are you limiting this in your campaings? Not allowing Headbands of Intellect, or Belts of Giant Strength, etc...
My current DM does feel that these items break the game, and ruin things due to the design of the game. I, personally, do not think the game is unbalanced by these items, and see no issue.
So, what do YOU think?
Thanks for your opinions, ~Mad
If someone's willing to trade an attunement slot for an item that gives them an attribute value they could otherwise get with ASI's then no problem. The sort of character that would want the item will probably outgrow it by about level 8 or 12 anyway. So Headbands of Intellect, Gauntlets of Ogre power won't impact the game that much in the long run. Something like a belt of Storm Giant Strength though increases the capabilities of anyone that hits things for a living by better than a +3 weapon. And it stacks with aforesaid +3 weapon.
I've been running an epic 5e game and every character has got 30 in one ability and you might be surprised how much extra oomph that +5 to certain important checks is. It changes the character of the game (which in fairness it's supposed to) and makes it a bit harder to challenge the Adventurers. It's not impossible but a DM that hands out a Belt of Frost Giant Strength at 10th level better know what they're letting themselves in for or they'll risk marginalising everything else apart from that one magic item. Your DM might have thought it through and come to the conclusion that he doesn't want the hassle of having to deal with that.
Going back tothe OPs question about Headband of intellect and belt of hill giant strength
The "improve a stat to 19" items IMO are not broken if used in the middle of a campaign.
A headband of intellect can eitther be used to
Increase the stat of a character that needs intelligence as a primary stat (wizard or Artificer)
Increase the stat of a character that does not need intelligence asa primary stat
In case 1. A low lovel wizard or artificer should already have a +3 to int, in which case it is similar to a +1 item, it might mean they take a feat like warcaster at 4 and an ASI at 8 (dumping the headband) rather than the other way round but after low levels the item is of little use at they will want 20 Int.
In case 2 you would be doing something like giving the Cleric who dumped int the abilty to know much more about religion and Arcana, or giving the monk gauntlets of ogre power so they can grapple it would be a major improvement to some secondary property but I don't think it breaks things
Where they can be an issue is where players are allowed to start with a magic item of their choice. No Paladin would dump strength unless they were going for a dex build and even then they would know they would making compremises (e.g. no heavy armor or very little movement). No barbarian would start with 8 con but if they can choose to start with such an item 27 point buy becomse 36 point buy . While the DM can ramp up the difficulty of the monsters it is very likely that the party would have very different levels of power which isn't fun for them.
There's a lot of monster CRs beyond the level range of PCs. The way players stack their primary stats, they will usually maximize it pretty early anyway. Few items offer the ability to surpass the cap, and there's a lot of depth tactically that can make gear checks secondary.
Since there's nothing preventing DMs from customizing monster numbers, run away stat variations primarily impact variation between players, not the challenge the DM can provide for the players. You could have a gauntlet of giant strength on the player, and bracers of defense on the dragon. You could throw a legendary action on a goblin. Even inside the bounds of the published material, you can twist and contort the situation to adjust for difficulty.
The simple question is whether the DM wants to adjust the challenge, or ration the PCs.
Thanks for all the thoughts, information, and opinions... It seems many feel the bounded accuracy is a good thing, and those items, while NOT truly game breaking do push the limits... I guess I see the point, just was hoping to understand more my DM's point and feelings... I do miss the feeling of a true hero, and getting higher Str for a fighter, only seems comparable to the things spell casters get, but I could be wrong. :) Thanks all! ~Mad
Bounded accuracy is a good thing overall but it does make the balance of the game harder later on as the PCs gain more proficiency and power.
Trying to balance the game past level 12 is kind of fool's errand IMO. It can quickly become rocket tag at that point and high level spells just break it for everything.
Martials do good consistent damage in later levels but damage hardly matters at that point when spells can solve issues without even doing damage.
The main thing I would suggest: Do not hand out a lot of magic items. Hand out a lot of disposable magic items. Items that give a bonus 1-2 times before its gone. If they enjoy the effect it gives a lot and you felt you can handle the way it interacts with the game then allow them to seek a permanent magic item that can do that.
Its a much easier way to give out goodies but temper it with running it in your game...which will always be different than others.
Ramping up the difficulty can work but be careful. If it ends up too much it either ends in TPK or you pull back the reigns. Do it too much and people start to notice you are pulling punches. If the group is ok with that then its hunky dory but if not then it can create a bad atmosphere.
Basically it boils down to: Be careful what you hand out and think about the balance implications. Ask a friend DM or discord/these forums if they feel its too much. Perspective is free so use it!
I don't mind the whole "Quadratic Wizards" thing - it makes perfect sense for flavour - but then part of balancing casters vs martials becomes relatively high lethality at the lower levels, so that jumping the mage meatgrinder is more of an accomplishment.
I don't object to the power of high level casters. I would just upgrade high level monsters and martial classes to match.
Monsters, yes. But in-universe it just doesn't make sense to me that the strongest warriors should be inherently matched against the strongest mages in the world, because magic breaks natural law by definition, whereas mundane warriors are exactly that. Hence, linear vs quadratic. Magic should be hard to master because it's predicated on mental traits or everyone should be able to do it, which isn't the case for most D&D or fantasy is general. It's incredibly easy to kill someone with a spear or blade but just about any >2 Str shmuck can pick one up.
Monsters, yes. But in-universe it just doesn't make sense to me that the strongest warriors should be inherently matched against the strongest mages in the world, because magic breaks natural law by definition, whereas mundane warriors are exactly that.
Go look at some anime/wuxia/etc warriors. Or read real-world mythology.
Only, at that level, all warriors are somehow magical, if only because of the magic weapon they wield and the magic armor they wear. It's one of the reasons for me not liking the FR, while it was true in the previous editions by a large amount, it was also up to the DM to rebalance things at least a bit ...
I don't like wizard-centricity in games, it's not really fair to other players.
I understand that sentiment, I'm not saying it should be impossible. To have any RPG where Sword-and-Sorcery type campaigns are feasible you can't have casters being absolute gods, though I think bounded accuracy affects them less because they have more tools to compensate for their dump stats. Wizards, Clerics and Druids have nova + extreme versatility (ignoring the technical "infinite HP" problem with capstone Wild Shape, I think a Moon Druid as a mammoth is only slightly inferior to a level 20 Champion Fighter, but don't quote me on that) whereas Fighters depend more on consistent damage output, as do Barbarians to a lesser extent. If you ask me which of those two models is "stronger" overall I would say casters in 5e still win out, yet I tend to play martials in RPGs myself, because I like the simplicity and underdog quality they often have.
Magic items bridge the gap, as they should. I don't even mind the AD&D rules where only fighters could use all types of magic weapons, though that likely wouldn't fly today. But how available they are (and how much they bridge that gap) is more up to the DMs discretion than RAW, balance-wise. In 4e they compensated martials by giving them special abilities that kinda felt like spells, whereas you basically had to introduce weapons with certain modifiers at certain levels for 3.5. Bounded accuracy gives a bit more freedom in how you steer your game without introducing extra complexity. Ironically, it seems a more high magic 5e setting that OP was discussing benefits martials proportionally more than casters in this respect.
Go look at some anime/wuxia/etc warriors. Or read real-world mythology.
Barbarian rages aside, I don't want martials to resemble anime characters whatsoever. This is coming from a guy who wouldn't mind if 6e brought back race-as-class, so that's just my preference. I don't think everyone else is invalid or playing the game the wrong way.
High level wizards outclassing high level martial characters is not a design flaw exactly in that it was absolutely intentional.
5e is attempting to bring in modern concepts of game balance and mash them together with the nostalgia of completely unbalanced early edition concepts, basically that your power is a reward for 1) surviving low levels where you are frail and mostly useless and 2) running a character that is more complex than making basic attacks ad infinitum. They snuck in some pretty good stuff in 5e martial capstones, but true martial-caster equality would upset more of the targeted audience than it would appease. Fourth edition did this and people hate it with the power of 1000 burning suns.
High level wizards outclassing high level martial characters is not a design flaw exactly in that it was absolutely intentional.
5e is attempting to bring in modern concepts of game balance and mash them together with the nostalgia of completely unbalanced early edition concepts, basically that your power is a reward for 1) surviving low levels where you are frail and mostly useless and 2) running a character that is more complex than making basic attacks ad infinitum. They snuck in some pretty good stuff in 5e martial capstones, but true martial-caster equality would upset more of the targeted audience than it would appease. Fourth edition did this and people hate it with the power of 1000 burning suns.
Something can be both intentional and a flaw, and people's dislike of 4e, as far as I can tell, was based on how they achieved martial-caster equality, not on the fact that it was there.
Bounded accuracy makes it exceptionally difficult to award a lot of magic items that increase armor class, to hit or saves. In the past, there was a much wider range of Armor Class and To Hit for monsters. In the past, you would quickly progress to the point where a goblin would be no threat to you (5% change of hitting). Cut to 5E and and now those goblins on average have a (15% chance at hitting a level 20). Magic bonus capped at +3 for armor and most DM's are loathe to award that +3 save until level 18+. Why?
The designers have explained that the reason for bounded accuracy resulting in low level monsters still being a possible threat in groups at higher levels is intentional so that they don't become completely irrelevant in a few levels as they did in prior editions. They go down faster at higher character levels, and hit less frequently, but they can't be ignored completely.
I see this as one of the biggest improvements of 5e personally, because it means monster stat blocks can stay static and still relevant in a different way as the game progresses while the characters do feel like they are improving relative to what they fought before. It also means you can just use monsters under CR 1 as mooks without needing special rules because they will probably be one shot by anything a level 10 character does. Monsters in the single digit CR range stay relevant in groups so the characters can fight the same monsters a level or two later and have a comparison for how they have improved instead of needing to fight level appropriate versions of the same monsters.
Low bonuses and reduced stacking of bonuses plus attunement really makes it so individual magic items, even those with only a +1 or +2, have a reason to be considered special instead of one small part of a whole outfit of magic items.
I see this as one of the biggest improvements of 5e personally, because it means monster stat blocks can stay static and still relevant in a different way as the game progresses while the characters do feel like they are improving relative to what they fought before.
I'm not going to be able to keep my players occupied with lizard folk for a level 9 party. It would be beyond a waste of time for the players at that point. They would kill them in 2 rounds, if that. I have to use outside monster manuals and create my homebrew to keep the campaign going in a number of scenarios. It could be that bounded accuracy is the excuse why the monster manuals and other manuals lack stronger versions of the mobs to allow you to use them into mid levels without going into ridiculous numbers that just become fireball fodder.
The concept has its merits, but the designers have to understand that feats, ASI and magic items are core to the game. They flubbed up on their monster design ignoring those for CR. A lot of monsters if you take away 1 to 2 CR you get a better example of their actual toughness from 10 to 15, in some cases its more.
I'm not going to be able to keep my players occupied with lizard folk for a level 9 party. It would be beyond a waste of time for the players at that point. They would kill them in 2 rounds, if that.
You certainly can keep a level 9 party occupied with 16xLizardfolk, though it will be spectacularly annoying to run and they're a bad choice because they don't have good ranged attacks (a medium encounter of 32xGoblin is quite a bit more dangerous. If you really want to kill the party, use 64xBandit and then add a racial option such as Halfling).
However, a much more playable option would be to just add easy swarm rules so you can just treat a horde of orcs as one monster.
You don't think that being able to action surge twice per short rest and unleashing six to seven attacks in one round when you do so is suitably epic? On top of whatever subclass abilities you have?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, I don't. A 17th level wizard can destroy a small army in one turn. A 17th level fighter shouldn't be able to do it in one turn, but he should be fully capable of destroying the same small army, just up close and personal.
I don't mind the whole "Quadratic Wizards" thing - it makes perfect sense for flavour - but then part of balancing casters vs martials becomes relatively high lethality at the lower levels, so that jumping the mage meatgrinder is more of an accomplishment. With DnD, and video/tabletop games in general, the latest trend has been towards approachable and casual play. This isn't a bad thing, but it throws a bit of a spanner at the "different classes dominate at different levels" approach. Players generally dislike being killed, and unless your group is pretty dedicated, few campaigns make it above level 12 in my experience. Playing a high level caster in 3.5 felt awesome but instead of just succeeding in their role, they surpassed even fighters and rogues at things those classes were dedicated to doing. That sucks. I think balancing versatility and specialization are tough things for game designers in general.
It's nice that bounded accuracy makes magic items less mandatory. This makes finding them an exciting moment in lower-magic campaigns. It also reduces (some) of the arbitrary scaling between monsters, though parts remain. Lore-wise, why is a minotaur CR 3 but a vampire is CR 13? I get that the game needs different bad guys at different levels but they're both similarly fearsome in the mythology they derive from.
As for OPs question, I don't think such items break the game if they're introduced sparsely. D&D is cooperative so your fighter having 23 Str benefits everyone, and a bit of unbalance makes PCs different and forces players to adapt. Fireball and Lightning Bolt are OP for their spell level, too, but 5e isn't a fragile machine that depends on precarious balance. Fun adventures can handle being rough around the edges.
I don't object to the power of high level casters. I would just upgrade high level monsters and martial classes to match.
I'm curious as to why not. My experience differs a fair bit - I've DMed a group all the way to 30th level and beyond that hardly ever fought on the ground after mid paragon. And they were plane hopping several times a level in epic tier.
Granted it's off topic, I just couldn't wrap my head around your assertion (and still can't) that you couldn't do combats in 3D. No probs though.
Let's keep things on the topic of bounded accuracy in the 5th edition of D&D and not get off topic into discussing the failings of previous editions
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If someone's willing to trade an attunement slot for an item that gives them an attribute value they could otherwise get with ASI's then no problem. The sort of character that would want the item will probably outgrow it by about level 8 or 12 anyway. So Headbands of Intellect, Gauntlets of Ogre power won't impact the game that much in the long run. Something like a belt of Storm Giant Strength though increases the capabilities of anyone that hits things for a living by better than a +3 weapon. And it stacks with aforesaid +3 weapon.
I've been running an epic 5e game and every character has got 30 in one ability and you might be surprised how much extra oomph that +5 to certain important checks is. It changes the character of the game (which in fairness it's supposed to) and makes it a bit harder to challenge the Adventurers. It's not impossible but a DM that hands out a Belt of Frost Giant Strength at 10th level better know what they're letting themselves in for or they'll risk marginalising everything else apart from that one magic item. Your DM might have thought it through and come to the conclusion that he doesn't want the hassle of having to deal with that.
Going back tothe OPs question about Headband of intellect and belt of hill giant strength
The "improve a stat to 19" items IMO are not broken if used in the middle of a campaign.
A headband of intellect can eitther be used to
In case 1. A low lovel wizard or artificer should already have a +3 to int, in which case it is similar to a +1 item, it might mean they take a feat like warcaster at 4 and an ASI at 8 (dumping the headband) rather than the other way round but after low levels the item is of little use at they will want 20 Int.
In case 2 you would be doing something like giving the Cleric who dumped int the abilty to know much more about religion and Arcana, or giving the monk gauntlets of ogre power so they can grapple it would be a major improvement to some secondary property but I don't think it breaks things
Where they can be an issue is where players are allowed to start with a magic item of their choice. No Paladin would dump strength unless they were going for a dex build and even then they would know they would making compremises (e.g. no heavy armor or very little movement). No barbarian would start with 8 con but if they can choose to start with such an item 27 point buy becomse 36 point buy . While the DM can ramp up the difficulty of the monsters it is very likely that the party would have very different levels of power which isn't fun for them.
There's a lot of monster CRs beyond the level range of PCs. The way players stack their primary stats, they will usually maximize it pretty early anyway. Few items offer the ability to surpass the cap, and there's a lot of depth tactically that can make gear checks secondary.
Since there's nothing preventing DMs from customizing monster numbers, run away stat variations primarily impact variation between players, not the challenge the DM can provide for the players. You could have a gauntlet of giant strength on the player, and bracers of defense on the dragon. You could throw a legendary action on a goblin. Even inside the bounds of the published material, you can twist and contort the situation to adjust for difficulty.
The simple question is whether the DM wants to adjust the challenge, or ration the PCs.
Thanks for all the thoughts, information, and opinions...
It seems many feel the bounded accuracy is a good thing, and those items, while NOT truly game breaking do push the limits...
I guess I see the point, just was hoping to understand more my DM's point and feelings... I do miss the feeling of a true hero, and getting higher Str for a fighter, only seems comparable to the things spell casters get, but I could be wrong. :)
Thanks all!
~Mad
Bounded accuracy is a good thing overall but it does make the balance of the game harder later on as the PCs gain more proficiency and power.
Trying to balance the game past level 12 is kind of fool's errand IMO. It can quickly become rocket tag at that point and high level spells just break it for everything.
Martials do good consistent damage in later levels but damage hardly matters at that point when spells can solve issues without even doing damage.
The main thing I would suggest: Do not hand out a lot of magic items. Hand out a lot of disposable magic items. Items that give a bonus 1-2 times before its gone. If they enjoy the effect it gives a lot and you felt you can handle the way it interacts with the game then allow them to seek a permanent magic item that can do that.
Its a much easier way to give out goodies but temper it with running it in your game...which will always be different than others.
Ramping up the difficulty can work but be careful. If it ends up too much it either ends in TPK or you pull back the reigns. Do it too much and people start to notice you are pulling punches. If the group is ok with that then its hunky dory but if not then it can create a bad atmosphere.
Basically it boils down to: Be careful what you hand out and think about the balance implications. Ask a friend DM or discord/these forums if they feel its too much. Perspective is free so use it!
Monsters, yes. But in-universe it just doesn't make sense to me that the strongest warriors should be inherently matched against the strongest mages in the world, because magic breaks natural law by definition, whereas mundane warriors are exactly that. Hence, linear vs quadratic. Magic should be hard to master because it's predicated on mental traits or everyone should be able to do it, which isn't the case for most D&D or fantasy is general. It's incredibly easy to kill someone with a spear or blade but just about any >2 Str shmuck can pick one up.
Go look at some anime/wuxia/etc warriors. Or read real-world mythology.
I understand that sentiment, I'm not saying it should be impossible. To have any RPG where Sword-and-Sorcery type campaigns are feasible you can't have casters being absolute gods, though I think bounded accuracy affects them less because they have more tools to compensate for their dump stats. Wizards, Clerics and Druids have nova + extreme versatility (ignoring the technical "infinite HP" problem with capstone Wild Shape, I think a Moon Druid as a mammoth is only slightly inferior to a level 20 Champion Fighter, but don't quote me on that) whereas Fighters depend more on consistent damage output, as do Barbarians to a lesser extent. If you ask me which of those two models is "stronger" overall I would say casters in 5e still win out, yet I tend to play martials in RPGs myself, because I like the simplicity and underdog quality they often have.
Magic items bridge the gap, as they should. I don't even mind the AD&D rules where only fighters could use all types of magic weapons, though that likely wouldn't fly today. But how available they are (and how much they bridge that gap) is more up to the DMs discretion than RAW, balance-wise. In 4e they compensated martials by giving them special abilities that kinda felt like spells, whereas you basically had to introduce weapons with certain modifiers at certain levels for 3.5. Bounded accuracy gives a bit more freedom in how you steer your game without introducing extra complexity. Ironically, it seems a more high magic 5e setting that OP was discussing benefits martials proportionally more than casters in this respect.
Barbarian rages aside, I don't want martials to resemble anime characters whatsoever. This is coming from a guy who wouldn't mind if 6e brought back race-as-class, so that's just my preference. I don't think everyone else is invalid or playing the game the wrong way.
High level wizards outclassing high level martial characters is not a design flaw exactly in that it was absolutely intentional.
5e is attempting to bring in modern concepts of game balance and mash them together with the nostalgia of completely unbalanced early edition concepts, basically that your power is a reward for 1) surviving low levels where you are frail and mostly useless and 2) running a character that is more complex than making basic attacks ad infinitum. They snuck in some pretty good stuff in 5e martial capstones, but true martial-caster equality would upset more of the targeted audience than it would appease. Fourth edition did this and people hate it with the power of 1000 burning suns.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Something can be both intentional and a flaw, and people's dislike of 4e, as far as I can tell, was based on how they achieved martial-caster equality, not on the fact that it was there.
The designers have explained that the reason for bounded accuracy resulting in low level monsters still being a possible threat in groups at higher levels is intentional so that they don't become completely irrelevant in a few levels as they did in prior editions. They go down faster at higher character levels, and hit less frequently, but they can't be ignored completely.
I see this as one of the biggest improvements of 5e personally, because it means monster stat blocks can stay static and still relevant in a different way as the game progresses while the characters do feel like they are improving relative to what they fought before. It also means you can just use monsters under CR 1 as mooks without needing special rules because they will probably be one shot by anything a level 10 character does. Monsters in the single digit CR range stay relevant in groups so the characters can fight the same monsters a level or two later and have a comparison for how they have improved instead of needing to fight level appropriate versions of the same monsters.
Low bonuses and reduced stacking of bonuses plus attunement really makes it so individual magic items, even those with only a +1 or +2, have a reason to be considered special instead of one small part of a whole outfit of magic items.
I'm not going to be able to keep my players occupied with lizard folk for a level 9 party. It would be beyond a waste of time for the players at that point. They would kill them in 2 rounds, if that. I have to use outside monster manuals and create my homebrew to keep the campaign going in a number of scenarios. It could be that bounded accuracy is the excuse why the monster manuals and other manuals lack stronger versions of the mobs to allow you to use them into mid levels without going into ridiculous numbers that just become fireball fodder.
The concept has its merits, but the designers have to understand that feats, ASI and magic items are core to the game. They flubbed up on their monster design ignoring those for CR. A lot of monsters if you take away 1 to 2 CR you get a better example of their actual toughness from 10 to 15, in some cases its more.
You certainly can keep a level 9 party occupied with 16xLizardfolk, though it will be spectacularly annoying to run and they're a bad choice because they don't have good ranged attacks (a medium encounter of 32xGoblin is quite a bit more dangerous. If you really want to kill the party, use 64xBandit and then add a racial option such as Halfling).
However, a much more playable option would be to just add easy swarm rules so you can just treat a horde of orcs as one monster.