D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[Minigiant]

In my opinion there a few ways of determining if the game has a problem.

Objective issues. For examples look at 4e's math. The math was off and that lead to a patch that involved a feat tax to correct PC bonuses. Both the original bad math and a feat tax to fix it were objective problems. As is CR in, well, every edition that has it. CR doesn't work and never has. There are too many variables between monster abilities, PC abilities, and player abilities for a CR number to be accurate except by coincidence.

Another way to see if the game itself has problems is to look at what it is trying to accomplish. If the game is trying to accomplish gothic horror, but all you can really do with it is Scary Movie, the game is having problems.

If someone comes here(or any other place) saying, "I have a problem with X, therefore X is a problem," they have already failed to prove the problem exists as a whole and needs to be fixed. They need to come here and leave themself out of it, showing just how the game objectively fails or fails to achieve its goal(s). Or they can say, "I have a problem with X, because it fails to achieve goal Y and here's why I'm saying that."

Exactly.

That's why I say "High level 5e is objectively broken because casters have too many spell slots and this reduces the number of playstyles that high levels can run to 2 because 1)the DM has to burn down a lot of spells slots in unrealistic ways in order to create a challenge and 2) in order to burn though all those spell slots, he DM must make the caster look at all their complex spells and lengthen their turn dramatically"

I said this over and over.

Then people say "High level is fine. I run it."

Then when you learn their player turns and monster turns take foooooooooooeeevvveeeeer and the DM is always metagaming way to sneak in 8 combats to burn through 16 spell slots on 2-3 casters each everydaaaaaaaaay

I say "Do you realize that very long turns and the need to metagame in filler fights on archmages and high priests all the time might cause people to not play high levels?"

"Well that's D&D. Go play some other game. It's annoying but I like it. You can't please everyone."

 

[Maxperson]

Pintos exploding wasn’t a myth though. Regardless, faulty analogy or not, I think I made my point.

No. It's like Teslas catching fire. Are they catching fire? Yes. It's not a myth. Are they catching fire at a rate far lower than the gas cars out there? Also yes. Also not a myth. The myth was the misperception.

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly.

That's why I say "High level 5e is objectively broken because casters have too many spell slots and this reduces the number of playstyles that high levels can run to 2 because 1)the DM has to burn down a lot of spells slots in unrealistic ways in order to create a challenge and 2) in order to burn though all those spell slots, he DM must make the caster look at all their complex spells and lengthen their turn dramatically"

But that's an opinion, not objectivity. 4e had actual game math to back it up. You have your feeling that the game is broken due to more slots for spellcasters. I didn't find that to break the game.

The one and only issue I had that specifically pertained to high level 5e games was the lack of a sufficient number of high level monsters. The majority are just some variation of dragon, giant or extra planar being. Lack of high level diversity was a stinker, but still not a problem with high level play itself.

Then when you learn their player turns and monster turns take foooooooooooeeevvveeeeer and the DM is always metagaming way to sneak in 8 combats to burn through 16 spell slots on 2-3 casters each everydaaaaaaaaay

High level combats have pretty much always taken a lot of time. Time isn't broken in my opinion. It may be something you don't prefer, but long fights don't equate broken high level play.

 

[Minigiant]

High level combats have pretty much always taken a lot of time. Time isn't broken in my opinion. It may be something you don't prefer, but long fights don't equate broken high level play.

Long play makes people not want to play because it takes forever to get to the rewards and events.

 

[Maxperson]

Long play makes people not want to play because it takes forever to get to the rewards and events.

Some people. Some. And some people feel like a short fight robs them of challenge and/or fun. Some. This is a preference thing, not a problem with high level play.

 

[Minigiant]

Some people. Some. And some people feel like a short fight robs them of challenge and/or fun. Some. This is a preference thing, not a problem with high level play.

It's a turn length issue not fight length issue.

High level 4e had long fights but short turns because the math was off. Fix the math and high level 4e is fast, action packed, and you get to the rewards and story beats. You can start at high level and get to the cool stuff easy.

High level 5e (and 3e) had short fights but long turns. You can only shorten the turn by adding variants which many refuse. So you never get to the rewards and beats. Making high level PCs and monsters are long processes AND running them takes forever.

This is why lack of support and poor examples given Is such a problem. You have nothing but high level dragons giants and fiends that can't do anything to high level characters and high level casters who take forever to run as a DM just like the high level players.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a turn length issue not fight length issue.

Same non-objective issue. Some will have issues with that and some won't. It's not a game problem.

High level 4e had long fights but short turns because the math was off. Fix the math and high level 4e is fast, action packed, and you get to the rewards and story beats. You can start at high level and get to the cool stuff easy.

Okay, but again this is preference. Some liked 4e fights and some didn't. You're confusing preference and what you personally find enjoyable with a game flaw. Those aren't the same thing.

High level 5e (and 3e) had short fights but long turns. You can only shorten the turn by adding variants which many refuse. So you never get to the rewards and beats. Making high level PCs and monsters are long processes AND running them takes forever.

Both have long fights and long turns. Well, both had potentially long turns. If you know what you are doing when it gets to your turn, both are reasonably quick.

This is why lack of support and poor examples given Is such a problem. You have nothing but high level dragons giants and fiends that can't do anything to high level characters and high level casters who take forever to run as a DM just like the high level players.

The problem(and that was also personal and not game) was with lack of diversity.

 

[Lucas Yew]

1. Real life issues and obvious probability, especially when combined with "You must start play at 1st (character) Level" mantra. As in, the longer it takes to reach higher levels, the more likely RL interrupts your ascension unto said tiers.

2. Mechanical absence of sensible balance seems like a mere secondary reason, but it's still there. Especially when certain abilities (usually spells often decried as broken such as Wish, Simulacrum, etc.) throw jarring questions on how the in-game world still functions like a forced facsimile of RL "medieval" hodgepodge world despite such powers actively exploited now and then.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem(and that was also personal and not game) was with lack of diversity.

That's a game problem if the game owners and the industry wants D&D to be the entry point to TTRPGs.

That essentially is the core issue.

TTRPGS rely on a big moneyed company to bring new fans in in order for the industry to survive.
Currently that's D&D and the IP holder is WOTC.
IF D&D is narrow, it can't bring and keep new fans in the industry.
So D&D has to support multiple styles of high level play.
Don't like WOTC, fine. Someone and somegame else can be the moneygrubbing RPG corpo.
But somebody has to be the moneygrubbing corpo and that game should to support multiple styles of high level.

Someone say to do it.
The industry leader should at least do an average job and some other companies should do better jobs.

 

[Lucas Yew]

1. Real life issues and obvious probability, especially when combined with "You must start play at 1st (character) Level" mantra. As in, the longer it takes to reach higher levels, the more likely RL interrupts your ascension unto said tiers.

2. Mechanical absence of sensible balance seems like a mere secondary reason, but it's still there. Especially when certain abilities (usually spells often decried as broken such as Wish, Simulacrum, etc.) throw jarring questions on how the in-game world still functions like a forced facsimile of RL "medieval" hodgepodge world despite such powers actively exploited now and then.

3. When no one is THAT super as in my #2, there are better systems that handle such situations (BRP, GURPS, Savage Worlds, etc.). On the contrary, when everyone of similar levels function as supers fair and square, I can easily imagine it becomes a nightmare for the GM to run logistics for the constant butterfly effect (especially when the players and their adversaries try their best to milk out as much benefit as they can from those superpowers)...