D&D 5E Anyone else hoping that the next campaign book WotC releases is 15th to 20th levels?

[CapnZapp]

As an addendum, here are a few bazillion more posts on the subject, so nobody thinks this is only my beef...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356372
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?482926
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?476352

Hopefully the complaints will trickle up to WotC management and we will get a "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" product a few years down the line, which isn't a new edition, just 5th edition that works for the higher levels.

Where I mean "higher levels" in all possible contexts, not just one obvious one. Higher levels of play expertise by the players. Higher levels of intricate monster design.

 

[Uchawi]

@ uchawi - Why is it a problem that there is an astronomical (+12, or +60%) gap on some saves? Why shouldn't a fighter who dedicated her entire life training in the physical be much better at those types of saves than ones of the mental variety? She chose not to improve in those areas throughout her career, focusing on other things instead, and has consequences at level 20 because of it.

It just feels out of place when considering to hit stays within a tighter bound within the system. Add to that the high level character should not have an Achilles heel because the system did not address the character just being tougher overall once you reach a certain level. Skill specialization probably suffers from the same effect.

I admit it comes down to preference since I equate to hit, saves and skills being something a high level character would progress at overall, even at a slow pace, versus nothing at all.

 

[OB1]

I admit it comes down to preference since I equate to hit, saves and skills being something a high level character would progress at overall, even at a slow pace, versus nothing at all.

I get that some people have this preference. For me, it doesn't make sense that someone gets better at something they don't work on. I think to truly optimize a level 20 character in 5e you need to think about things like saves and other defenses at the highest tier of play or risk getting locked out against legendary foes. A 20 STR or DEX with GWM and Sharpshooter don't matter a lick if you are held, banished or disintegrated in the first round of combat. That's what I think capnzapp has stumbled upon. That the current optimized level 20 build theories could be flawed if they don't account for the need to make saves at high levels and you are not truly optimized if you aren't building to protect against that.
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] I certainly don't think you are the only one with this beef, but I do believe you are in the minority, especially when it comes to the issue of saves.

That said, I do think there is need for an Advanced Players Handbook that can add a layer of complexity on top of the existing system and is meant for veteran players. I would guess we will get that book next fall, along with a Tier 3 to Tier 4 AP.

I'm still in the early stages of Tier 3 in the homebrew campaign I run, and I would enjoy having some additional support for those tiers sooner rather than later, but if I don't get it through WotC I'll just muddle through it myself, ask for the excellent advice of the regulars on these boards, and then do better the next time around.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've always thought that only looking at a high-level character's chance to make a saving throw was only looking at part of the picture, since a high-level character is usually played in a high-level party, and high-level parties have numerous ways to mitigate the negatives of a party member failing a saving throw outside of just making the saving throw itself less likely to fail.

So it seems more a preference thing than a universally unpalatable mechanic.

 

[slightlyprime]

I would love a high level adventure. Level 10-20 adventure in Dark sun, where for lvls 17-20 you focus on getting close to a sorcerer king and killing them. A sorcer king is easily a threat by themselves for most level 20 parties and a sorcer king would have the resources to makeit hard for the party to even get to them.
Also many people might play it if it is the first dark sun campaign as you get people who love dark sun and those who like high level play.

 

[Parmandur]

Wizards has supported high level play...with the DMG and MM; basically, anybody playing a campaign that long is a DIY type, based on data they claim to have. I see no reason to disbelieve that, or expect them to make campaigns in a can for people who do not buy cans...

 

[MonkeyWrench]

Wizards has supported high level play...with the DMG and MM; basically, anybody playing a campaign that long is a DIY type, based on data they claim to have. I see no reason to disbelieve that, or expect them to make campaigns in a can for people who do not buy cans...

The page and a half of epic level options in the DMG barely counts as support, and there are very few monsters in the MM that can stand up to even a halfway optimized party that uses feats/MCing/artifacts/epic boons/UA material. At 20th level my group took out Orcus (from OotA) in 2 rounds - very anticlimactic, especially considering the lead up to the fight involved visiting the Far Realm and time travel.

Yes, I would prefer a 100% DIY game, but I do not have the time for that anymore. If they are going to make a game with levels 1-20, they should support all 20 of those levels. Right now only 1-10 has any real support and it's frustrating.

 

[Caliburn101]

I threw 300 Gnolls and an Ogre Magi at a party of 5 11th level characters who were themselves defending a fortress with NPC help...

... they nearly died.

That encounter with Orcus should have been under circumstances he controlled (check his Int score for a guide on how devious to go...) and with him surrounded by many, many undead and demons.

I will have Orcus in my game in the not too distant future, and the party will be 17th+. I guarantee you they will feel they have been in a fight!

Just don't go strictly with the CR rules - use them as a very loose guide and encounter build yourself - you'll get better results. The CR system is the weakest part of 5th Ed. by far.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The page and a half of epic level options in the DMG barely counts as support

In an objective sense, it is there, so it does count.

In a subjective sense, what "barely counts" to you is "everything needed" to me.

...and there are very few monsters in the MM that can stand up to even a halfway optimized party that uses feats/MCing/artifacts/epic boons/UA material.

I don't think tuning the game's default to assume a particular level, other than the minimum possible level, of optimization makes sense from an accessibility standpoint - it would only serve as an arbitrary "must be this tall to ride", while tuning the game to not expect optimization and hope that those folks that like to optimize will either A) enjoy that doing so actually makes their character beat the tar out of things instead of feeling like they had to squeeze out all that performance just to get by; B) choose to optimize their enjoyment by tailoring their character building choices to the challenge level of the game, instead of over-shooting what they consider a fun challenge by aiming for peak performance without other considerations; or C) be willing and able to crank up the opposition their characters face to achieve the level of challenge they want, but would otherwise deny themselves by choosing to optimize their character for peak performance even when they don't want that to mean out-performing their opposition.

I also don't think it is fair to say "My group used all these optional rules and playtest materials in our campaign" and consider it a fault in the game, that had no idea whether you would actually be using any of that stuff or not and didn't want to force you to, that things didn't pan out exactly how you think they should have.

 

[nswanson27]

In an objective sense, it is there, so it does count.

In a subjective sense, what "barely counts" to you is "everything needed" to me.
I don't think tuning the game's default to assume a particular level, other than the minimum possible level, of optimization makes sense from an accessibility standpoint - it would only serve as an arbitrary "must be this tall to ride", while tuning the game to not expect optimization and hope that those folks that like to optimize will either A) enjoy that doing so actually makes their character beat the tar out of things instead of feeling like they had to squeeze out all that performance just to get by; B) choose to optimize their enjoyment by tailoring their character building choices to the challenge level of the game, instead of over-shooting what they consider a fun challenge by aiming for peak performance without other considerations; or C) be willing and able to crank up the opposition their characters face to achieve the level of challenge they want, but would otherwise deny themselves by choosing to optimize their character for peak performance even when they don't want that to mean out-performing their opposition.

I also don't think it is fair to say "My group used all these optional rules and playtest materials in our campaign" and consider it a fault in the game, that had no idea whether you would actually be using any of that stuff or not and didn't want to force you to, that things didn't pan out exactly how you think they should have.

I agree the UA material should be suspect, but for everything else - I think this is exactly the point. On one hand, you say what's in the DMG is "everything needed", but on the other hand, you say he was doing it wrong. This is precisely the problem. How was he supposed to know that? Where's the guidance beyond learning the hard way? Is it really fair to say what's available is actually sufficient? BTW, he said "halfway optimized" - you seem to assume that he said "fully optimized".