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

[Ninja-radish]

5E isn't even viable at low levels; it's way too easy. I haven't played high levels, but I imagine it's a complete joke above 10th level.

 

[Oofta]

5E isn't even viable at low levels; it's way too easy. I haven't played high levels, but I imagine it's a complete joke above 10th level.

You do know there's this guy called a DM that has quite a bit of control over difficulty, right? That you could say "Please Mr DM could we have more of a challenge next time?" in a bad fake cockney accent.

Last time I ran a game, most of the party was bloody, various people were unconscious at various times and several hundred points of healing was doled out. I'll have to ask my players some time if it's "way too easy" at 15th level.

 

[Manbearcat]

Come on. I did use the word 'tangibly.' There is no in-game effect she has for her troops, unlike a lot of other military leader types in the MM and VGTM. If they had just described her as a brute or shock trooper in this edition, it would be much less of an issue.

Oh and spare me the INT score argument. WotC themselves admit it has no effect on CR unless it increases damage somehow. I call bull on anyone who claims they know how to properly differentiate tactics between a 14 INT creature and a 17 INT creature; usually such people have an over-inflated sense of their own INT score...

The sales prove that having over-simplified monsters and CR guidelines that don't really work was a good move? Come on, man, there's some serious logic issues with that. I tend to think 5e is doing really well for lots of other reasons myself; making monsters into bag-o-hp and not providing all the relevant info in their stat blocks (a nightmare editing issue for spell-using monsters) are not amongst them.

It seems like it would definitely behoove WotC to create a Monster Manual "augmentation/" supplement for 5e; a book of Effects/Riders, Actions, Reactions, Bonus Actions (etc) that are created for various genre of opponents and are siloed into "CR pools" which then tells GMs what adding this does to CR and xp. My guess is that would sell like hot-cakes. FREX, a demonic "leader" like a marilith could exhort nearby mooks to frenzy; a certain number of very CR restricted, demonic melee bad guys get to act out of turn and charge enemy forces with a standard Attack Action + Shove rider...but then they "accidentally" get cut down by the whirling blades of the Marilith. Something like that interfaces complexly with the action economy (so is daunting to attempt to balance, certainly on the fly), but creates genre-coherent effects that dynamically change the battlefield/combat.

A book like this (and the effects therein) offloads some of the cognitive workload of GMs onto system. Systemization of effects is certainly a boon for new GMs as it makes the whole ordeal less daunting. Its certainly a boon for long-time GMs who wish to apportion their overall cognitive differently (spending elsewhere the mental overhead that must be devoted to creating genre-coherent, balanced monster effects that invest combat with dynamism). And those GMs who don't wish to use those effects (and a Monster Supplement where they are contained) can trivially ignore them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It seems like it would definitely behoove WotC to create a Monster Manual "augmentation/" supplement for 5e; a ...

Sounds good.

My guess is that would sell like hot-cakes. .

But good rarely sells to D&Ders...
;P

It was the level 35 solo version of Lollth, not the 25th level version.

The pre-errata optimized lockdown orbizard build (Sounds like the kind of thing you're alluding two) in an optimized party whiteroom experiment, might pull off something of the kind (not sure what kind of cheese would gaurantee the needed hit, but natural 20s happen), but those errata dropped fairly early... before MM3, I think. And MM3 solos generally had action preservation of some sort.
(Anyone wondering: Lolth is on the cover of the MM3)

Either you missed the errata, then (which was every bit as broken at much lower level), or are mis-remebering which version you used, now (the 30th you guessed splits the difference and punching above you weight class and rolling over a level+1 solo is a lot more plausible than a level+10.) Maybe even both.

But I agree. A lot of it depends on circumstances, attrition, tactics. Just like 5E.

Not just like - tactics had more mechanical depth, and attrition wasn't about reigning in class imbalance, and less critical to encounter difficulty.

And, with 'chircumstances,' that's getting more into rewards for system mastery and/or suitability for CaW, than high level play issues.

5e, like 4e, did address the numeric issues 3e had at high levels with attacks & checks, but that's only part of why D&D breaks down at high levels. Magic items were another factor - 4e factored items in, and 5e factors them out which can also work if you stick to it. But the biggest factor with high (& low - outside the sweet spot) level play is class progressions. 4e normalized those, but 5e reverted for classic feel, so brought back those issues.

BA has arguably introduced some new ones, as well...

 

[Tony Vargas]

5E isn't even viable at low levels; it's way too easy. I haven't played high levels, but I imagine it's a complete joke above 10th level.

It can be unpredictably deadly at very low level, but, as in the classic game it evokes, there's a 'sweet spot' where you get the best play experience most readily. And, it's broader, now, than back in the day, IMHO, 3-12 or therebouts, rather than 3e's 1-6 or 1e's 3-8.

The guidelines say that a monster with a CR equal to party level is a medium encounter for a group of 4. So a viable one but not serious threat to the group.

Yep, much like it was in 3e, or like a same-level Solo vs the assumed party of 5 in 4e.

A higher CR, of course, would present a greater challenge - and for a party of 3-5, there's not even the added complication of the multiplier.

Part of the point of BA was to be able to use 'the same monster' instead of having secondary roles like minion or elite. So, in that sense all CR 1+ creatures are 'solos' for a low enough level party, and, for a slightly tougher party 'elite,' while CR 1- can be like minions to a higher level party...

 

[Jester David]

It seems like it would definitely behoove WotC to create a Monster Manual "augmentation/" supplement for 5e; a book of Effects/Riders, Actions, Reactions, Bonus Actions (etc) that are created for various genre of opponents and are siloed into "CR pools" which then tells GMs what adding this does to CR and xp. My guess is that would sell like hot-cakes.

Probably
The catch being WotC doesn't make many books anymore, so something like that won't be coming soon. My guess is a magic item book in 2018 and psionics in 2019. So the earliest for something like that would be 2020.

It's really the kind of product that might work better as a series of En5ider articles or a 3rd Party product.

 

[CapnZapp]

Come on. I did use the word 'tangibly.' There is no in-game effect she has for her troops, unlike a lot of other military leader types in the MM and VGTM. If they had just described her as a brute or shock trooper in this edition, it would be much less of an issue.

Yep.

Oh and spare me the INT score argument. WotC themselves admit it has no effect on CR unless it increases damage somehow. I call bull on anyone who claims they know how to properly differentiate tactics between a 14 INT creature and a 17 INT creature; usually such people have an over-inflated sense of their own INT score...

Don't mind Sacrosanct - he's the lazy designer's dream customer. Instead of properly designing a high level creature with actual powers and abilities, he's content if the designer just gives it a high INT score.

To him, a high monster INT means "it's okay for me to do all the designer's work; this monster can be just a sad sack of hit points for what I care, the INT score means I get to give it all kinds of moves and shakes myself".

The sales prove that having over-simplified monsters and CR guidelines that don't really work was a good move? Come on, man, there's some serious logic issues with that. I tend to think 5e is doing really well for lots of other reasons myself; making monsters into bag-o-hp and not providing all the relevant info in their stat blocks (a nightmare editing issue for spell-using monsters) are not amongst them.

A good example of apologists at work. Nothing will deter them from viewing any argument in the brightest light possible. It's always us bad DMs fault. Never the company designers, who we pay money.

Probably the richest argument of them all is "that's how 1st edition worked".

As if it wasn't a hundred percent natural to expect, nay demand, quality improvement each time a product is iterated upon. :/

The facts are: 5th edition monster design is much simplified compared to mostly 3e, which is very very good. But they did throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to high-level design - 5e is perhaps the least well equipped edition to handle high level heroes.

Never before have heroes gotten so many goodies, while monsters are woefully underequipped to give said heroes a worthy challenge, especially solo.

Why anyone can't just accept these as facts (while still loving the edition overall), so we can move on to putting pressure on WotC to fix this, or at least not get away with it for the next edition, I'll probably never understand...

 

[CapnZapp]

5e is great for a bunch of reasons, and I doubt I could play a previous version without importing some 5e "hacks." Having said that, the game officially goes to level 20, and with the wisdom of 40 years and 4 editions preceding it, I wish it worked better out of the box at those levels. Instead, in a lot of ways, it works less well than some previous editions.

Another well put post.

 

[CapnZapp]

5E isn't even viable at low levels; it's way too easy. I haven't played high levels, but I imagine it's a complete joke above 10th level.

You could say it's "broken" at first level, because all notions of balance and fairness are thrown out the window - the second your DM rolls a 20 on a monster attack, you're probably dead, and there's almost nothing you can do about it.

But if you (non-jokingly) think it's too easy at low levels, I really can't help you - that's where the game actually works.

And by works, I specifically mean that it's easy fun and straight-forward to truly challenge the players. And by challenge, I mean in combat. (Since that's where 99% of the design and balance effort is put. Out of combat you could easily argue the game works just as well - or not - at level 1 as at level 20)

Also at low levels, the world around the heroes can still threaten them, meaning you don't necessarily need to pull out fantastical monsters or nasty spellcasters. (Which, as we're discussing here, gets in short supply as you level up)

Low-level heroes do not yet have so many hit points and so many tricks (and so many sleeves!) that it starts to become a real problem, yet they have enough hit points and enough tricks that they usually can rebound from a set-back: getting critted doesn't necessarily mean death, your buddies can help you out when you fail an important save, and so on.

The first thing is good for us DMs. The second thing is good for players, who obviously like it when failure only/mostly happens when you did something rash/stupid/in character rather than just having bad dice luck.

 

[CapnZapp]

You do know there's this guy called a DM that has quite a bit of control over difficulty, right? That you could say "Please Mr DM could we have more of a challenge next time?" in a bad fake cockney accent.

Last time I ran a game, most of the party was bloody, various people were unconscious at various times and several hundred points of healing was doled out. I'll have to ask my players some time if it's "way too easy" at 15th level.

A good fun reply, but just to be serious for a sec:

You do know nobody has had the complaint "the high level game is too easy when we play with Oofta as DM"

Right?

It's the out-of-the-box experience (monsters, adventure supplements) that's under scrutiny here. Because that's the only thing we share. That's the only thing we can discuss together.

Just saying, so you don't start thinking "last time I ran a game, most of the party was bloody" is a good argument against the complaints made in this thread, or even a relevant one.

It's just a shared anecdote. I thank you for it.