D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?

[Uchawi]

Probably not a design flaw, but a flawed assumption of what people expect from a high fantasy game; especially D&D. Removing feats, options and/or magic items goes counter to that train of thought.

 

[Helldritch]

That is why we have every single options of the PHB and the DMG in our games.
It makes for intersting games with a lot of diversity.

On the other hand, those that say that the game isn't up to their expectations are not so far off the tracks. They should've put mecanism to implement or boost monsters when such and such are used. You use feats? Do this and that. You use positioning? Do this not that.

It would've avoided a lot of hurted feelings and ego.

 

[JeffB]

I'd be curious - has anyone rolled up 4 level 16 character using point buy or array, no feats no magic items and tried a few fights? Perhaps an entire session using standard (6-8 encounters 1-2 short rests) guidelines?

I would still expect a fair amount of variation based on DM strategy and player competence and class mix, not to mention dice randomness.

But I suspect that many groups have higher than standard stats, more than 4 PCs, feats and magic items out the wazoo while getting a long rest every 2-3 fights.

For our part-No feats. All humans who started as default array..champion fighter, war cleric, and rogue/thief. They had +1 main weapons weapons and armor. These were the last sessions of my Kids group before they went off to college last week. 17/18 yo. Casual players. But I made the encounter areas pretty epic because it was our last game.

I ran the encounters pretty tough, but not like a complete bastard.

One thing that was different than normal, was I used Mearls' initiative. Not sure I think would have made much difference with standard initiative. Monsters still got in their reactions and lair/legendary actions as normal.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Intelligence scores are part of the stats, too. Throwing an Int 18 monster into a fight with the same preparation and using the same tactical acumen as a Int 5 hill giant is the DM modifying the monster to be an easy encounter just as certainly as if the DM substituted Str 7 for the hill giant's Str 21.

This is so critically important, and it seems so many people often forget it, but look at the combat encounter as their DPR stats vs the party DPR stats. Intelligence doesn't affect DPR, but can be a huge swing in the outcome of a battle. The DM absolutely needs to factor in a mobs intelligence and wisdom when running them. Failure to do so is failure on the DM's part. Obviously the environment is equally if not just as important, but if an INT 18 monster is aware that there are PCs in the area, it absolutely should be taking proper actions based on what a genius would do before the encounter with it even starts. Maybe that means demon summoning, or laying out traps, or calling in reinforcements. Some people would say that is the DM being a jerk and being unfair, and it's totally not. It's the DM being 100% fair, by running everything objectively.

 

[Helldritch]

"Master, adventurers are storming the lower levels of our dungeon what should we do?" Asks the imp to his lich master.
"Nothing!" replies the lich. "We shall wait for them here. I am the BBEG of this dungeon! I need no one to protect me!"

a few moments later.

"Master, the group of adventurer is now resting. They decided to stop when they saw the door of your throne room. What should we do?" asks the imp again.
"Nothing!" replies the lich. "We shall wait for them here. I am the BBEG of this dungeon! I need no one to protect me!"
"Could we at least hide your phylactery somewhere else. Under your throne isn't really safe with these adventurers..."
"Silence worm! I shall not cower before mere mortals! I am the most powerful lich that ever walked the earth! We shall wait for them!"

In the morning.
"Wow, that lich was easy. Fortunately we took a nap before going in. Ho! Here's its phylactery.I knew it was a brilliant idea to take the investigator's feat..."

Change the lich for whatever monster/enemy you like. Many games are run just like that. Intelligent monsters should be, well... intelligent? They should take action when the players' actions are discovered.

 

[DaveDash]

I'd be curious - has anyone rolled up 4 level 16 character using point buy or array, no feats no magic items and tried a few fights? Perhaps an entire session using standard (6-8 encounters 1-2 short rests) guidelines?

I would still expect a fair amount of variation based on DM strategy and player competence and class mix, not to mention dice randomness.

But I suspect that many groups have higher than standard stats, more than 4 PCs, feats and magic items out the wazoo while getting a long rest every 2-3 fights.

Yeah we ran an 'arena' style game early on in 5e to test it out, where we did have rest mechanics included. No magic items, point buy, but we did include feats.

We still wiped the floor with most encounters at higher level, especially with feats like Sharpshooter. It certainly would be interesting to see how we would fare without feats.

 

[CapnZapp]

Got to go to workl, but consider this.

What if the creature was statted up "decently" by WotC per your view, and then we discovered for many groups (cause they vary remember?) the creature/encounter is too hard.

Thats the only thing we differ on..I think. The basic framework is good enough for me, and a decent "middle ground" effort from WotC.

I'll call you if that ever happens.

Meaning I really don't think the argument "it's okay to have weak monsters because what if they were made too strong" holds up to scrutiny.

 

[CapnZapp]

Any impact of a high ability score (such as Intelligence, or Charisma, or Dexterity) needs to be reflected in the stat block.

Monster designers don't get to create a weak-ass monster and then justify a high CR by changing its Int from 11 to 22, leaving "the rest" up to the DM to fix.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[SkidAce]

I'll call you if that ever happens.

Meaning I really don't think the argument "it's okay to have weak monsters because what if they were made too strong" holds up to scrutiny.

I stated I believe that the monsters are in the middle. And that they vary from weak to strong because of group variance and play style.

If you were to paraphrase my meaning "Its okay to have average monsters because what if they were made to strong" would be closer.

So the argument is valid, we just don't agree that Wotc took the middle ground. You feel they jacked it all up on the weak side.

Fair enough.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Any impact of a high ability score (such as Intelligence, or Charisma, or Dexterity) needs to be reflected in the stat block.

That is impossible because there is no way the writers of that stat block can predict every environment or scenario in which that monster may be encountered where a high intelligence can be a huge factor, let alone translate that into an ability in a statblock (how it plans for a battle, how it uses the environment, how it reacts to how combat is going, etc). And how do you suggest they put that in the statblock? Give me some examples of what a statblock would look like for the (in)famous marilith example that reflects her genius intelligence and all of the impacts during combat that may entail?