D&D 5E Have you experienced very high-level (18+) play in 5e? Tell me about it!

[valarmorgulis]

Isn't it pretty likely that any attacks will be with advantage? 20th level characters have a lot of ways of getting advantage after all. One should assume at least a +1 weapon, and I wouldn't be surprised about a +2 or +3 considering the level. Although it would help if more people posted about their high-level characters.

+5 ability mod +6 prof +1 weapon = 40% chance without advantage, 65% with advantage. Is that math correct?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you don't assume the +3 weapon (and you shouldn't) AC 25 means only a 35% chance to hit, a 58% chance with advantage and just a 12% chance with disadvantage.

If you can't assume someone has a +3 weapon by level 20, then why do +3 weapons exist? What's the point of having something in the game if you probably won't find it, even if you take a character all the way to level 20?

As for Save-or-Die, if players make the choice to "dump" stats and to not (in games with feats) take resilient to shore up poor saving throws, I think its legitimate that they can get one shot by the right foe.

Resilient helps, if you're using feats, but only for one stat. And it's not a reasonable choice to expect someone to spend that on Charisma saves, given how few of those exist relative to Dexterity and Wisdom saves.

And even if they do throw three stat boosts into something like Charisma, that's only a total of +3 to those saves, of which you might face only a handful over the life of a character. Statistically speaking, it's highly likely the the character's fate would be identical, regardless of whether their Charisma is 8 or 14. There's less than a one-in-six chance that those three stat boosts will affect the outcome of your Charisma save. You can't blame a character for "dumping" a stat when they receive such a ridiculously small benefit from investing such a ridiculously large amount of resources into it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Isn't it pretty likely that any attacks will be with advantage? 20th level characters have a lot of ways of getting advantage after all. One should assume at least a +1 weapon, and I wouldn't be surprised about a +2 or +3 considering the level. Although it would help if more people posted about their high-level characters.

+5 ability mod +6 prof +1 weapon = 40% chance without advantage, 65% with advantage. Is that math correct?

I've actually found avoiding +X weapons is the way to go. Weapons that add an extra one D6 damage (of a specific type), or that have other interesting abilities.

Id also rather be wielding 'Alachiel, Elven Holy great sword' that deals an extra d6 radiant damage, casts protection from evil three times per day, and has the finesse quality.'

It's a trick I've learnt from my own high-level campaigns. Avoid plus X items. It helps ensure bounded accuracy remains relevant even at high levels, plus these kind of items are more interesting than a +2 or three sword.

 

[werecorpse]

I'm interested in hearing about high level play experiences as I have plenty of high level 3e and pathfinder stuff to run but found that not enjoyable to run at high level.

I'm also interested to hear about what sort of magic items work well to not damage the play experience, or better yet which enhance it.

I'm hearing that +X ac items can have a negative impact and that a way to improve non proficient saves would be helpful. So how about a shield or boots that added to Dex saves, armor that added to con saves etc?

I get that adding to damage for a weapon doesn't unduly effect BA.

Any other things that have become apparent?

 

[dave2008]

If you can't assume someone has a +3 weapon by level 20, then why do +3 weapons exist? What's the point of having something in the game if you probably won't find it, even if you take a character all the way to level 20?

Well, 5e was designed to be used without magic items, that is why. I don't think it is in the DMG, but monsters really should be adjusted by the DM for the magic that is being provided to PCs. If you give the PCs magic weapons and armor, the Monsters need to be adjusted if you want them to keep pace. It is common sense, but I do wish it was explicit in the DMG (it may be, I haven't read it cover to cover)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, 5e was designed to be used without magic items, that is why. I don't think it is in the DMG, but monsters really should be adjusted by the DM for the magic that is being provided to PCs. If you give the PCs magic weapons and armor, the Monsters need to be adjusted if you want them to keep pace.

That's a common misconception, but 5E wasn't designed to be used without magic items; it was designed to be used regardless of magic items. And for the most part, it succeeds - you can play from 1 to 20, and regardless of whether you have no magic items or every item in the book, the game is still playable. Barring a couple of oversights with things like AC for dinosaurs, you can generally fight anything that's remotely level-appropriate without ever falling off either edge of the d20; you very rarely get to a point where magic items would make you succeed on a 1, or where the lack of a magic item means you need a 20 to succeed.

That doesn't mean they expect you to not have magic items. They're just saying that, if you don't have magic items, then you can still play the game and the math doesn't catastrophically fail. And if you do have magic items, then you can still play the game and the math doesn't catastrophically fail. If you have magic items, the game will be easier than if you don't, and if you (the DM) feel the need to keep things balanced then that's on you.

 

[valarmorgulis]

I'm trying to design monsters that would work well in most play groups. And my guess is that by 20th level most players have some pretty impressive magical items, simply because players like getting them and DMs like handing them out. I think it's safe to assume that most characters of that level have at least a +2 weapon and +2 armor.

Although I do think adding abilities to weapons and armor are far more interesting than simple numerical bonuses, not that you can't do both.

 

[dave2008]

That's a common misconception, but 5E wasn't designed to be used without magic items; it was designed to be used regardless of magic items. And for the most part, it succeeds - you can play from 1 to 20, and regardless of whether you have no magic items or every item in the book, the game is still playable. Barring a couple of oversights with things like AC for dinosaurs, you can generally fight anything that's remotely level-appropriate without ever falling off either edge of the d20; you very rarely get to a point where magic items would make you succeed on a 1, or where the lack of a magic item means you need a 20 to succeed.

That doesn't mean they expect you to not have magic items. They're just saying that, if you don't have magic items, then you can still play the game and the math doesn't catastrophically fail. And if you do have magic items, then you can still play the game and the math doesn't catastrophically fail. If you have magic items, the game will be easier than if you don't, and if you (the DM) feel the need to keep things balanced then that's on you.

I agree, and my statement is still correct. They are not mutually exclusive. Designed to play without magic items fits within the parameters of "regardless." I did not intended to imply that it was designed to be playable solely without magic items - that would be a very odd interpretation.

 

[jayoungr]

Soon after 5E was released, the Tome Show podcast did some high-level play sessions, with a level 20 party against some of the toughest monsters in the monster manual. They released both audio and video versions of the fights:

Audio:
Tarrasque Takedown, Part 1 (ends in a TPK, IIRC)
Tarrasque Takedown, Part 2
Tarrasque Takedown Wrap-Up
Tiamat Takedown
Tiamat Takedown Wrap-Up


Video:
Tarrasque Takedown (edited highlights)
Tarrasque Takedown (FULL, part 1)
Tarrasque Takedown (FULL, part 2)
Tiamat Takedown (edited highlights)
Tiamat Takedown (FULL)

 

[OB1]

If you can't assume someone has a +3 weapon by level 20, then why do +3 weapons exist? What's the point of having something in the game if you probably won't find it, even if you take a character all the way to level 20?

Resilient helps, if you're using feats, but only for one stat. And it's not a reasonable choice to expect someone to spend that on Charisma saves, given how few of those exist relative to Dexterity and Wisdom saves.

+3 Weapons exist to make the game easier. It's the same reason there are multiple difficulty levels to choose from when playing a video game. If your DM hands them out to everyone, it's like giving the players an easy button. And that's what they are intended to do. If your DM always rolls for treasure randomly, a typical 4 member party won't see a single +3 weapon in a campaign, and if they do, it likely won't be of their preferred type.

You can take Resilient multiple times allowing you to cover all saves. For a Fighter or Thief, you would even still be able to get to 20 in your main stat while doing so (even though you don't need to do so to be effective at level 20 and in fact, focusing on getting to 20 in your attack stat may be a trap given the way 5e is balanced). If you choose not to, then you shouldn't complain about the consequences when you fail a save or die/suck save. It was your choice to pick DPR over defense, and that choice had a consequence. That's true player agency.