D&D 5E (2014) The high-level play I'm hoping for.

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

In my opinion, high-level play doesn't automatically equal fighting gods and near god-like beings. Sometimes, I like for high-level play to remain in cities and dungeons as much as possible. I still want to fight orcs, very strong orcs, and other things that you fight at lower levels. To me, 4th edition had me feeling like I was climbing the creature ladder amd just killing things until I reached the most powerful creature left. I don't want stats for gods and primordials becaise I feel like they are beyond mortal comprehension and mortal reality.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I want the ability to stat gods if it fits the world, and the ability for an Orc hoard to still matter

 

[jodyjohnson]

Killing Lolth, Orcus, Demogorgon, and Asmodeus at level 10 in 1st edition was awesome.

To bad we died to a random Githyanki horde before we got to cleaning up the Japanese pantheon, that Japanese God-killer's sword would have been awesome.

Edit: it was the Chinese mythos with Ma Yuan. The Japanese mythos was pretty tame.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Killing Lolth, Orcus, Demogorgon, and Asmodeus at level 10 in 1st edition was awesome.

To bad we died to a random Githyanki horde before we got to cleaning up the Japanese pantheon, that Japanese God-killer's sword would have been awesome.

Back in Ye Olde Golden Days of 1E, I remember DMing a game where the party thief surprised & backstabbed Orcus for some huge amount of damage, leaving him with only a few hit points and easy pickings for the rest of the party. I don't think that same party managed to beat Demogorgon, though.

Other than her awesome AC, Lloth was kind of a pushover at only 66 hit points, but the party never fought her in my games.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I just don't want your regular 1st level monsters to be so weak as to never be a threat to a high level PC. Sure, the high level PCs should mop the floor with them, but there should still be the threat of serious damage, even death. Even the mightiest of heroes is still vulnerable to the perfectly placed crossbow bolt or dagger in the back (or, bullet to the head if you're using firearms)

 

[Mistwell]

To me, 4th edition had me feeling like I was climbing the creature ladder amd just killing things until I reached the most powerful creature left. I don't want stats for gods and primordials becaise I feel like they are beyond mortal comprehension and mortal reality.

I think all the editions did this. In fact, I'd argue with 4e's naming scheme for different "types" or orcs that went up greatly in level, 4e handled this issue better than any of the others before it. But, it still happened. Because you are climbing the creature ladder. That is the nature of a level-based system.

It doesn't have to end with deities, but it does have to end with "most powerful creature(s)", because you're now the most powerful PCs. That is, unless you want to take on armies of orcs with just a handful of individuals, in which case I hope we get some good mass combat rules to handle that.

 

[Mistwell]

I just don't want your regular 1st level monsters to be so weak as to never be a threat to a high level PC. Sure, the high level PCs should mop the floor with them, but there should still be the threat of serious damage, even death. Even the mightiest of heroes is still vulnerable to the perfectly placed crossbow bolt or dagger in the back (or, bullet to the head if you're using firearms)

Bounded accuracy definitely helps with this. ACs should max out around 20 (right now they max out around 25 but I think that will be corrected with some stacking rules). Which means anything can hit you, and even many first level creatures can hit you.

For example, Kobolds have pack tactics. Which means a normal Kobold can get up to a +6 in large numbers, and a Kobold Dragonshield can get up to a +8 in large numbers. For reference, the Balrog attacks at a +8, and a Red Dragon at a +6 or +7 depending on the attack. So those Kobolds in a swarm can definitely hit high level characters.

Of course, the party will have a lot more hit points by then. And they will one-hit those Kobolds (though they might miss a few of the Dragonshields, who can impose disadvantage). But yeah, I suspect in large numbers those Kobolds will be a serious threat to a higher level party.

By way of a real example, my third level party were seriously damaged by a troop of skeletons (wandering monsters), which are weak first level creatures. My PCs were caught during a short rest, which is a one hour rest. Their spells were depleted, their turning attempts were depleted, and their arrows were not very effective because the skeletons are resistant to piercing weapons. Only some exceptionally good tactics by the players, funneling their foes down a narrow bridge and then changing out their two front liners regularly to spread the damage across the entire party evenly, allowed them to survive with no party deaths.

So I'd say so far, 5e is built to allow for low level creatures to remain a threat to higher level PCs, provided you increase the quantity of lower level creatures attacking them.

 

[Wulfgar76]

In my opinion, high-level play doesn't automatically equal fighting gods and near god-like beings.

Then you should probably not being playing 3e and its variants, where a typical mid-level party can easily slaughter pretty much any monster in the book.

Sometimes, I like for high-level play to remain in cities and dungeons as much as possible. I still want to fight orcs, very strong orcs, and other things that you fight at lower levels.

Sounds like D&DN (where due to bounded accuracy and flatter power progression, monsters stay relevant for much longer) is the perfect edition for you.

To me, 4th edition had me feeling like I was climbing the creature ladder amd just killing things until I reached the most powerful creature left.

Okay so why is this in the D&D Next forum? Last time I checked this was not the place to list the reasons you don't like 4th edition.
There are a select few high-level monsters in the D&DN bestiary. Would you like to talk about those?

In response to your claim, the 4th edition the Monster Level was light-years better at measuring the power level/challenge of a monster than CR was.

I don't want stats for gods and primordials becaise I feel like they are beyond mortal comprehension and mortal reality.

So including stats for these types of beings in a book, even though you can completely ignore them, offends you, and since you don't like stats for powerful stuff - nobody should get them.

By the way, have you heard of 3rd edition books like the Epic Level Handbook, Elder Evils and Deities & Demigods?

 

[the Jester]

In my opinion, high-level play doesn't automatically equal fighting gods and near god-like beings. Sometimes, I like for high-level play to remain in cities and dungeons as much as possible. I still want to fight orcs, very strong orcs, and other things that you fight at lower levels.

I do too! Sometimes. But I like the whole dynamic of the quest to slay a god or a trip into the deep Abyss to kill Demogorgon or whatever.

To me, 4th edition had me feeling like I was climbing the creature ladder amd just killing things until I reached the most powerful creature left.

Let's not edition war, shall we?

And let's not kid ourselves; D&D has always had a lot of "climbing the creature ladder" in it. Note that, even in 1e and before, monsters were graded by "level" and were worth commensurately more xp the higher level they were. Bigger monsters had better treasure. Higher level pcs needed far more xp to advance. Modules for higher level characters had tougher monsters. And so on.

I don't want stats for gods and primordials becaise I feel like they are beyond mortal comprehension and mortal reality.

I do, because I want 5e to support every type of high level play for everyone, instead of trying to prescribe one for everybody.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I do too! Sometimes. But I like the whole dynamic of the quest to slay a god or a trip into the deep Abyss to kill Demogorgon or whatever.



Let's not edition war, shall we?

And let's not kid ourselves; D&D has always had a lot of "climbing the creature ladder" in it. Note that, even in 1e and before, monsters were graded by "level" and were worth commensurately more xp the higher level they were. Bigger monsters had better treasure. Higher level pcs needed far more xp to advance. Modules for higher level characters had tougher monsters. And so on.



I do, because I want 5e to support every type of high level play for everyone, instead of trying to prescribe one for everybody.

It's only edition war when you make it into one.