Tell Me About Your Experiences With High Level 5E

[Reynard]

If the way it spits out difficulty is by CR, I'd say you need to be in the 150% range so more CR26-26 if you want a challenge assuming the party has feats and MC as well as have some magic items.

I'm sure that's true but it really probably isn't worth the trouble. I don't imagine there will be time in a 4 hour convention slot to be able to do much at that level, let alone have enough encounters to combat nova mentality.

I'll try it again one day when I get a group up there organically.

 

[S'mon]

Or, of course, you could hope and expect that WotC finally does it right.

This was after all the FIFTH attempt.

I thought post-MM3 4e did solo monsters fine. I was certainly able to build stuff with those numbers that worked fine up in the high 20s. We played to 29th, when they killed Orcus - Orcus himself didn't work well since I was using a boosted version of 4e MM Orcus rather than design from scratch, but overall the game was fine if you like 3 hour fights.

5e, I think solo fights work better than 1e-2e-3e so I'm not seeing a big problem. They don't work as well as in 4e but 5e is a much less fight-centric game and there are very few 3-hour battles.

 

[CapnZapp]

There's too much variation in group ability and power level to get it "right".

No, that is the old chestnut that only serves to hide the sad state of 5E high level monsters.

What that argument really says is "getting it right is an unattainable ideal, so there's no use even trying". Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?

We deserve better. Our wallets deserve more from professional designers.

In any case, no monster in 5E is actually labeled a "solo".

Again, that they capitulated without even trying to support a very frequent and popular trope, is not helping your case...

 

[Oofta]

No, that is the old chestnut that only serves to hide the sad state of 5E high level monsters.

What that argument really says is "getting it right is an unattainable ideal, so there's no use even trying". Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?

We deserve better. Our wallets deserve more from professional designers.


Again, that they capitulated without even trying to support a very frequent and popular trope, is not helping your case...

I've run games for multiple groups. Even with the same options, there's a big difference based on the group. So no, there can't be one blanket rule that covers all groups.

Consider some of the variations:

• magic items
• feats and multi-classing
• mix of classes, party tactics
• number of PCs - larger groups are much more effective
• DM/monster tactics such as having dragons flying around using hit-an-run tactics or landing and slugging it out in melee
• Lair actions and Legendary actions
• Number of encounters between rests (is this 1 encounter and done or the 8th encounter since a long rest?)

D&D is not a board game, there are too many options for the CR calculation to fit your personal table. All I can relate is my own personal experience. I've challenged groups of all levels. It hasn't always been with the encounters that I thought would be a challenge, but party tactics and luck play a big part. Yes, that included singleton monsters at higher levels, although it did require me to think about the environment and tactics that made sense for the monster.

So saying "it can't be done" is simply untrue. I've done it. From what I've seen from other posters so have many others. If a DM can't do it, I don't blame the rules, I think the DM should take responsibility for how they run their game.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've run games for multiple groups. Even with the same options, there's a big difference based on the group. So no, there can't be one blanket rule that covers all groups.

Consider some of the variations:

• magic items
• feats and multi-classing
• mix of classes, party tactics
• number of PCs - larger groups are much more effective
• DM/monster tactics such as having dragons flying around using hit-an-run tactics or landing and slugging it out in melee
• Lair actions and Legendary actions
• Number of encounters between rests (is this 1 encounter and done or the 8th encounter since a long rest?)

D&D is not a board game, there are too many options for the CR calculation to fit your personal table. All I can relate is my own personal experience. I've challenged groups of all levels. It hasn't always been with the encounters that I thought would be a challenge, but party tactics and luck play a big part. Yes, that included singleton monsters at higher levels, although it did require me to think about the environment and tactics that made sense for the monster.

So saying "it can't be done" is simply untrue. I've done it. From what I've seen from other posters so have many others. If a DM can't do it, I don't blame the rules, I think the DM should take responsibility for how they run their game.

Maybe not for new DMs. I started a spin off thread but a few tricks I know these days I did not know 20 years ago.

Otherwise yeah encounters are more of an art form, 4E tried to regulate them and make all the monsters similar but had the side effect of the treadmill and a lot of monsters of similar level having very similar defences. Ultimately it was boring.

There things in 5E I do not like, I don't call the designers lazy. Its mostly a few leftovers who have not gotten over their preferred D&D died and very little of that playstyle carried over (a lot of concepts did though).

Its like in Magic the Gathering and why they make bad card when they could design everything as good. Its part of what appeals to the games and the various groups that play the game (Timmy, Johny, Spike).

The monsters are designed for ability scores of 16, no feats, no multiclassing for new players. For old salts its a bit on the easy side.

 

[Oofta]

Maybe not for new DMs. I started a spin off thread but a few tricks I know these days I did not know 20 years ago.

Otherwise yeah encounters are more of an art form, 4E tried to regulate them and make all the monsters similar but had the side effect of the treadmill and a lot of monsters of similar level having very similar defences. Ultimately it was boring.

There things in 5E I do not like, I don't call the designers lazy. Its mostly a few leftovers who have not gotten over their preferred D&D died and very little of that playstyle carried over (a lot of concepts did though).

Its like in Magic the Gathering and why they make bad card when they could design everything as good. Its part of what appeals to the games and the various groups that play the game (Timmy, Johny, Spike).

The monsters are designed for ability scores of 16, no feats, no multiclassing for new players. For old salts its a bit on the easy side.

Hopefully new judges aren't jumping in to high level campaigns. If they are, I agree that the rules in the DMG for balancing encounters don't work for most groups. I'll also agree that the rules aren't perfect (no game can be). For example I think the multiplier effect is overstated and I ignore it when calculating threat level.

I just think it's a huge leap from "the calculations don't work for my game" to "high level monsters are sad and pathetic so there's no way to challenge a high level group".

 

[CapnZapp]

I've run games for multiple groups. Even with the same options, there's a big difference based on the group. So no, there can't be one blanket rule that covers all groups.

There not only must be one default set of assumptions, there most certainly is.

I just wish it set the bar higher.

 

[S'mon]

I think high level monsters in 5e work better than in 1e - and I enjoyed ultra high level 1e. 3e/PF is the only edition where I don't enjoy high level. Does a CR 20 monster challenge a typical level 20 party in 5e? No, but I don't think that matters. 5e just isn't built around balanced encounters, the encounter building system is a joke and can be safely ignored. For running the game 0e-1e-2e style, 5e works excellently - generally better than those systems did.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hopefully new judges aren't jumping in to high level campaigns. If they are, I agree that the rules in the DMG for balancing encounters don't work for most groups. I'll also agree that the rules aren't perfect (no game can be). For example I think the multiplier effect is overstated and I ignore it when calculating threat level.

I just think it's a huge leap from "the calculations don't work for my game" to "high level monsters are sad and pathetic so there's no way to challenge a high level group".

I think the multiplier thing only works when the CR is equal to or higher than the party.