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

If you'd like to see some other players' experience with high-level 5E, you may be interested in these recordings from the Tome Show podcast. Soon after 5E was released, they 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)

Tobold said:

I think it is you who has trouble with reading comprehension.

Click to expand...

Serious irony warning...

Can't you see the 6 pages full of posts saying high-level 5E needs modification to keep it challenging and can't be played right out of the box?

Click to expand...

YOU were the one to make the claim that I was the only one who said it was fine. That's objectively false, because we can point to other people saying the same thing. YOU are the one to ignore many posts in this thread that didn't say what you wanted them to say by your claim that there were only two responses (there weren't). I never said the game was perfect, or that no one said high level was fine as long as you make modifications. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Afraid that's you. In fact, you contradicted yourself in that post, by saying there were only two answers (either it's broken, or it's doable but needs modification), but then immediately followed that by saying people were giving you a third (the game is perfect so move on). You can't have it both ways. You can't say there were only two answers and then accuse people of saying a third in the same breath. Especially when that third never actually happened, but there were in fact other "answers" that you pointedly ignored.

Even you basically admitted it, by saying anybody who was trying to play the game following the rules as written was a "bad DM". I can only assume you received serious mental scars during the edition wars, which is why you feel you have to lash out against anybody daring to even suggest that 5E isn't perfect. Me, I just wanted to know what to do if I wanted to play a high-level adventure. Now I know I have to increase challenge because the encounter guides as written don't work.

Click to expand...

Some advice. If you have to resort to a personal attack on me that is not true at all (I have no scars), then it's a huge sign that your argument is weak. In this case, you made a strawman immediately followed by an ad hominem.

Strawman: Me saying "anybody who was trying to play the game following the rules as written was a "bad DM". I never said that, or remotely implied that. What I did say, was that if RAW doesn't fit what you want as a group, you are a lazy DM for not putting in the time or effort to tailor the game to your table's needs. And that is very much true. The game, right out of the box, is hardly ever exactly what people want for their preference. It certainly isn't for me. But it's the DM's job to know their group and use the tools provided to tailor the game to those preferences. It's been that way since day 1. I get the impression that you don't think of the rules as a toolbox, which is what they are. Everyone modifies parts of the game to fit their needs, or they decide it's too much work and play a game they like better.

Ad Hominem: Accusing me of having edition war scars that have nothing to do with the topic.

I'm not "lashing out" at anybody. But if you're going to make outright false claims, prepare to be called out on them.

Tobold said:

... Can't you see the 6 pages full of posts saying high-level 5E needs modification to keep it challenging and can't be played right out of the box? ...

Click to expand...

Tobold said:

What I see is a whole thread of people giving me one of two answers: Either "high level play isn't viable in 5E" or "high level play is viable under the condition that you completely change the challenge ratings of the monsters". The "some people" who think it works just fine appear to be just you ...

Click to expand...

Here are a few examples from this thread of viewpoints that don't really fit into those two options; (edited out names because I thought it might be less annoying to everyone quoted). I see a lot of people talking about adjusting for the individual party, and about strategy/tactics/terrain/leveraging NPC abilities, and even quite a few talking about creating custom monsters (without indicating they ignore CR guidelines when doing so) because there are few options and/or using lower CR monsters can be a slog, but not saying that "completely changing the CR of monsters is necessary". If you factor out the myriad of posts by CapnZapp and a couple side discussions, these posts make up a large part of this thread, perhaps even the majority.

I recently finished up a 5e Age of Worms campaign that went to level 20. The PCs were flush with magic items, used feats and multiclassing, the Champion had GWM and foresight, and they were challenged regularly.
The fights are more difficult, sure, but they need to fit with the story rather than just be a group of high level monsters.

Click to expand...

Pretty viable.

Click to expand...

However, to answer the OP, perfectly viable. It is assumed that by the time you reach level 20 or so, you know how to run an RPG, and you have a good idea of what kind of players you are playing with. That means the DM needs to put in the work to tailor the adventure around that group to keep things interesting. Some tables are optimizers and thus need encounters modified around that. Some tables are RPers with little combat, so that's not an issue, etc, etc. Expecting the books, RAW, to keep every table challenged and engaged is lazy DMing. The rules are the framework, not meant to do everything for you.

Click to expand...

Ran my last campaign from 3-20, with several sessions at 20. Worked great. I created some new monsters and NPCs (and buffed some others). I put more thought into environments and lairs than I had at lower levels. Really, with the right environmental challenges and lair effects, you can challenge 20th-level characters with monsters and NPCs straight from the book. Actually, the main thing I took away from it was that I want to put more thought into environments and lair effects at the lower levels, too. It's a great opportunity to exercise some creativity, and it makes encounters unique and memorable.

Click to expand...

The big problem with high levels is that there are no threatening monsters to fight. When you're level 5, you can fight a couple of level 8 monsters and it will be a tough but quick and dynamic encounter. When you're level 19, a tough encounter means fighting half a dozen level 15 monsters, which is a tedious slog through mountains of HP. Between that and the attrition model, it can get pretty boring after a while.

Click to expand...

To the OP.
Yes it can be done. You can make it challenging without changing the context and using creatures right out of the box. Unfortunately, you need an experienced DM to do that.

That DM will need
1) To know his players, their tactics and most of all, their magic items.

2) To have an extensive knowledge of the monsters he's going to use.

3) To have an extensive knowledge of the spells in the PHB.

4) To design adventures in such a way has to counter the 5 minutes work day. Otherwise the players will steam roll everything (or almost). 5ed is designed with multiple encounters in mind. Only one encounter isn't enough to challenge the players. You will see nova.

5) Will have to be able to adapt quickly and vary his encounters so that the players will not be able to apply a simple receipe to all encounters.

If a DM can do that, it means he has the experience needed to run a high level campaing.

Click to expand...

IMO, high level play is just fine.

But it takes a different approach. Someone else somewhere else said it really well when they said something like;
Early levels are about staying alive. Then you move to do things to help one or two others, then a town, then a region or city. By the mid-teens you are are influencing history, it's no longer about dungeon delving (though you might be in a dungeon), and by the last few levels you are challenging the world itself. What you do will make or break things. You might even kill or displace a god.

The higher level the characters, the more variables that come into play and the more careful a DM needs to be. Often that means it is harder to make a good game, it is certainly more complex and challenging.

If you think of it purely in damage per round terms, one 15th level party might be able to do 200 HP of damage in a round, another might do 800 HP. This means you have to know their party, their tactics, their resources.

It means one adventure will have trouble being a challenge to both of those two parties.

Click to expand...

I've never had a problem building challenging encounters at any level. Yes, you need to think tactically and (as has been stated here and in other threads) you need to adjust the game to your players and the options you allow. The basic encounter guidelines seem assume no magic items, a non-optimized group, no feats. So you need to tweak them.

If you have specific issues with running the game at higher levels post them and we can give advice.

Some of the things I do
- If I don't want people to be able to teleport to safety, then teleportation is not allowed where they are (Hallowed or Forbiddance for example).
- If my monsters have a hard time hitting I either give them the effect of a Bless spell or have low-level mooks assisting. Goblins firing an arrow to do an assist and then hiding every round can make a big difference. If you care about XP budget (personally I ignore the number of opponents multiplier) you can throw in dozens of 1/4 CR monsters without upsetting the balance.
- Fighting a black dragon on it's home turf? Use Hallowed to make everyone vulnerable to acid damage.
- Getting Counterspelled constantly? Make your casters sorcerers with Subtle Spell so they can't be countered or have them casting spells from more than 60 feet away. Give them some way of hiding so they can duck into the shadows only to blast away from the darkness.
- Set up traps and environmental effects that aid the enemy.
- Have enemies come in waves.
- Be creative. Give the bad guys cannon fodder Bulette's (or purple worms, etc) that dig tunnels into the carefully defended area to launch a surprise attack from the rear.
- Don't always have the bad guys show up on a wide open plane in fireball formation.
- Don't give the PCs a break. Do the 6-8 encounters between long rests with only 1-2 short rests.
- Develop an XP budget that works to challenge your group. You may have to adjust the guidelines a bit (I keep standard for 1 group, multiply by 1.5 for another).
- One guy always hides in the back? Ambush him with enemies that flank the group now and then.

And so on and so forth. In addition, some challenges have nothing to do with battle but are ethical or strategic. A big enough army of orcs can still take out any group of PCs. Just don't have the orcs camp above ground in a known location where they can all be Meteor Stormed.

I do create custom monsters, but I do that at all levels. And, of course there's always house rules to make your life easier if that's your style.

Most of all, adjust the game to your players and have fun. Oh, and don't listen to the naysayers. Some people just live to whine.

Remember that the game is about having fun. The PCs should shine now and then, but also feel free to throw a horde of Balors at them if that's what you need to do to to challenge them.

Click to expand...

Again the game can be played out of the box as it is.
Just like you can play leagues of legends. You might die a lot. You might not be the best in the world. But with practice and experience you can. Is that a design flaw?

StarCraft could be played out of the box. Some could steamroll the game's content other would have difficulties doing the first parts. Some were good enough to become world champions in tournament. A lot were not. Again a design flaw?

World of warcraft. Doing raids, pvp or many other things took a lot of time and practice. You can play right out of the box but higher content is for the dedicated that take the time to play, explore and practice. A design flaw?

Chess, again, a game that can be played out of the box. Yet you won't win every time. Design flaw?

A car can be ridden right out of the box. Yet not everyone can participate in F1 in Indi... Desing flaw?

High level play has always been a question of dedication, work and practice. That is true in any games. High level content is something that is not necessarily reached with ease. The play style needs to adjust for many factors. In D&D it means a lot of work for the DM. That is why you see a lot of games ending around level 15. That is the break point where experience is needed to be a better and to make better, challenging games for the players. The work involved can be enormous at first. Then as you get better and better, it will become an easy thing to do. It was so in all editions. 5ed is actualy easier to master as the math behind the power creep is relatively small (compared to 3e anyways).

You have trouble challenging your players at high level play? Don't blame the game. Start to re read the PHB, DMG and MM.
Here are a few advice.

1) Have an upto date copy of every character sheets.

2) Run simulations of encounters. Too easy? Adjust. Too hard Adjust.

3) Plan ahead the magic items your players will have. A plate +2? Not necessarily a good idea.

4) Use players' tactics against themselves. 20th level characters might become a lot less cocky when a ancient red dragon falls onto them with an anti-magic shell... Or a simple priest dispel all boosting magic on the GWM...

5) What the players can have so do monsters. Monsters can benefits from bless too. Or haste or whatever. A potion can be used by the monsters (especialy if intelligent). A hasted Pit fiend, Marilith etc.. can wreck havoc on a group.

All these take time and practice to master. Try them before complaining. I'm sure you can do it. I do this for two groups, 12 characters and yet, I have time for a full time job, my family and my friends. You can do that too. All it takes the will to try.

Click to expand...

SkidAce said:

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.

Click to expand...

I only needed one session to see that monsters are essentially helpless in the hands of the PCs.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

JeffB said:

IME, running a group of three 15th level characters (definitely not optimized) vs. a couple different CR16 monsters and then beefing things up (Marilith and minions, Mummy Lord in lair with minions), the CR system needs work. The PCs walked all over both encounters. The Marilith was particularly disappointing compared to other edition versions. I'd recommend adding in the optional summoning.

Click to expand...

Marilths are not for level 16 PCs, if I had to guess its a deadly encounter for level 10 PCs off the top of my head.

Deadly encounters in 5E are still not that hard. ACs need to be a bit higher and spell resistance doesn't matter to spells that have no save.

Zardnaar said:

Marilths are not for level 16.

Click to expand...

According to WOTC they are


I figured 3 PCs @15 and some Vrock minions with some buffed up attacks and damage would be a decent fight. It wasn't.


The Mummy Lord and.minions encounter was slightly better with his legendary/lair.actions but it was over in 3 rounds IIRC.

JeffB said:

According to WOTC they are


I figured 3 PCs @15 and some Vrock minions with some buffed up attacks and damage would be a decent fight. It wasn't.


The Mummy Lord and.minions encounter was slightly better with his legendary/lair.actions but it was over in 3 rounds IIRC.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Tobold said:

What I see is a whole thread of people giving me one of two answers: Either "high level play isn't viable in 5E" or "high level play is viable under the condition that you completely change the challenge ratings of the monsters".

Click to expand...

Again, check out the Tome Show podcast sessions; I'm pretty sure Mike Shea, who was DMing, didn't do any serious modifications to the monsters. He did give them minions, lair effects, etc.

Oofta said:

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.

Click to expand...

Welcome to my world. We tried both approach with two groups.
That was back in first days of D&D 5ed. Its kinda of a tradition for us to make a high level group with all editions. Just to see where we will get at.
The first time, we put in everything. And I mean everything. Be it from the PHB or the DMG. Boy was I overcome with what I thought to be the worst edition ever. Players had no trouble at all. Be mindful though that we were straigth from 4ed with some bias. A few session later. We tried the featless and optionless way. All things went relatively smooth.

The players all decided to play it with feats and I started to use a few modified version of the monsters. That is what I thought was necessary to give some challenge to the players. That is where I created the BBEG monster modifier that I shared in an other post. I really thought that it was necessary. After a while, I stopped using the BBEG Monster Mod because I started to enforce the 6 to 8 encounters per day and experience in 5ed thought me a few tricks to avoid the nova style play.

5ed entry curve for a DM is the smoothest ever done. I have seen many games in many editions and this one really hits the mark for the learning curve in the begining. But as the game evolves, player wise and especialy in higher levels; The DM learning curve rises by leaps and bounds. People comming from 3ed and 4ed are particularly vulnerable to this should I say "flaw"?

What we all have to remember is that the game assumes 4 players with standard array, no options in the DMG and (not the least) no feats. Even the backgrounds are optional. If you do not play with any of these, the games works out fine at all levels. The more options you add, the more work the DM will have to do in preparations to challenge the players. The stronger the players, the more ruthless you will need to be. If the group is bigger than four, then you have to adjust monsters number accordingly. Even the legendary actions of monster should be adjusted. Why? Again the game assumes 4 players, 3 legendary actions... I am sure that you see where I am going. Legendary actions should have been written number of characters minus one. So 6 players, 5 legendary actions. This is the only thing I kept from the BBEG Monster Mod.

Again, is that a design flaw? I am not really sure. After all I am only human. At best I'd say that this is a sad oversight. So far, exeption made for the above, I can play the game right out of the box without heavy modifications. Encounter building at high level has always been tricky. I remember a Lich being neutralized with one spell in 1ed. A dragon slain by one conjurer with a horde of lantern archons in 3ed. And so on. Heck, I even killed the avatar a god in the "Role Master RPG" with an astronomical crit of 900% (sometimes luck is on your side...) only to die to a goblin that overcame my -300% protection vs arrows... It is our jobs as DM to make sure that the challenge is up to the players' expectations. That good sirs, takes some works.

Side note: "I quite remember the fight that was refered to earlier. From my point of view, the fight was done correctly with what the vilains knew. Were they played optimaly? Nope, but everyone, even vilains can make a mistake. With hindsight I am sure that the fight would've been led by CapnZapp quite differently. Taking that as an example was not really sporting. not unfair, but not quite sporting."