D&D 5E Tell me about 5E at 11th level

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The game starts to break around this level

I disagree entirely.

The reason you think this is because you play 5th edition in a particular way which creates the issues you encounter - my campaigns are entirely devoid of every issue you've ever expressed about the game thus far.

 

[Zardnaar]

I disagree entirely.

The reason you think this is because you play 5th edition in a particular way which creates the issues you encounter - my campaigns are entirely devoid of every issue you've ever expressed about the game thus far.

You could make the same argument about 3E using that logic lol.

 

[ehenning]

Apologies, Hold Monster which they got at 9th level.

Got it Mystery solved.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You could make the same argument about 3E using that logic lol.

No. Misusing the same logic? Yeah, probably.

 

[Zardnaar]

No. Misusing the same logic? Yeah, probably.

Its not just me saying the encounter rules, monster math and SS/GWF are broken/OP. 5E did a good job in some ways but there are problems with it I think it is getting harder to wall paper over. I don't think it works that much better than any other edition before it at higher level. Stick foresight on a character with the great weapon/sharpshooter feats and get back to me (I have seen this).

Have a look at official adventures where you have level 7 PCs taking on CR 13 Dragons. At level 15 you are really capable of fighting CR 22-23 critters and the MM just doesn't really support that type of game and larger numbers of lower CR stuff only gets you so far with the AoE effects available.

And 5E more or less sucks at hex crawls as well. Its decent at a dungeon hack at levels 5-10 is its sweet spot. Have not payed an OSR game since 5E landed but tonight I think we are playing Castles and Crusades for the 1st time since 2014 and it is mostly due to 5E math and complexity. Once the new shiny feel wears off 5E has some problems just like 3E and 4E before it. They did a very good job on the skill system and classes for the most part though.

 

[Kreinas]

You say the game plays well for optimized characters at this lv - but then disparage the melee fighters for optimizing??

Disparaging optimization? Not quite. I'm saying that without those strategies, the class becomes worthless in comparison to their caster counter parts. 5e is decidedly bad at allowing front-liners to BE front-liners without significantly going out of their way to do so. If your player decides he wants to build a straight fighter and stick him on the front line, at most he will have 3 AC more than the rogue in studded leather. His magical friends will be busy casting Shield for +5 AC when at risk, boosting their AC to an equivalent--if not higher--rating.

When it comes to casters, you could skip every form of optimization. You could play a warlock who never learns Eldritch blast (or any of its overpowered alterations), and still come out fine with a fireball later. You can play a Ranger who spent his feats on heavy armor, and unless his stats are all -1 modifiers, he will still perform at a sufficient level, and far from the combat.

The sorcerer in our group is brand new, and didn't know what meta-magic was until 7th level. Nor did he add spellcasting modifiers to his attack rolls. He still contributed a significant portion of our groups damage, despite missing every other spell. Eventually, I realized what was wrong (I wasn't there during character creation, and our DM is trying his hand at DnD for the first time. I would have corrected the issues sooner had the sorcerer not been at the other side of the table sitting next to the PC in our group that DMs a different 5e campaign.)

Long story short, if you can cast a blast, you're set on combat efficiency until legendary creatures start popping up. If you're keen to the blade, it's like preparing to raid; potions? check. Enchantments? Check. Perfect ability rotation and defensive skills so I don't get gimped by all of the advantage rolls that come with being surrounded? Check.

The one exception I can think of would be versatile range/melee mix of fighters/barbs/paladins fighting in formation. Paladins might as well be renamed to "Holy Spell Blade". While barbarians can make the cut as melee DPS, their utility as a front liner is hampered without some form of CC.

On the complete other end of the spectrum, a full group of ranged damage dealers could probably make out just fine in most instances, using only the basics of each class. Repelling Eldritch Blast can push 20 feet, Rangers have all sorts of lock down, Wizards have oodles of AoE, Sorcerers can burn a threat down before he's even realized combat is happened, and Druids/Clerics could function as life support machines during an open-heart surgery.



So yes, the game can play amazingly well for optimized characters at 11+, but melee fighters get the short end of the stick when unoptimized.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't think it works that much better than any other edition before it at higher level.

That's a very strange thing to think given the huge flaws in some prior edition's game math that are entirely not present in 5th edition or are significantly reduced (i.e. there is no more "rocket tag" because of the game math, and no more "welcome to high-level where the game math assumes you pumped everything you could into your combat stats, and if you didn't gives you less chance of success against relevant threats than you had at 1st level", even though there is still a reduced version of the old "if it's enough damage to put some fear of death in the fighter-types, it probably took the mage-types out of play in as much time."

Stick foresight on a character with the great weapon/sharpshooter feats and get back to me (I have seen this).

What you point to here is an example of a high-level combo being utilized and being potent - not that it is more potent than intended, too potent for the game to actually remain fun and playable during and after the usage of without more effort that normal from the DM, or that this is going to happen whether you do it on purpose or not.

It is thereby not a piece of evidence suggesting the game breaks, but may be a piece of evidence that your expectations of the game do not match what the game expects you to be expecting by its design.

Especially glaring in this case are that the "solution" to the proposed broken combo is this: have the party face high-level threats. Because high-level threats often have high-enough AC that the GWM/SS feat are mathematically not improving expected damage, and also possess things like dispel magic and antimagic which means foresight isn't the "always win button" I've seen some folks make it out to be.

 

[OB1]

Thanks. One of the challenges I have when running these con games is I usually have a full table so there are 8 players. Even at 7th level, they are powerful enough to walk over even deadly level appropriate encounters and if things get dicey and they decide to nova, I am consistently astounded at how powerful such a party can be.

In your estimation, is the CR system reliable at that level (or at least as reliable as it is at any level)? In other words, can I build XP budgets into encounters for 8 PCs and have them be reasonably challenging and balanced?

Another thing is that even at 6th-7th, PCs are notoriously hard to kill. I am guessing by 11th it is all but impossible aside from save-or-die effects. if that is the case, how do you build tension into combat encounters?

I think the adjusted daily xp budget guidelines are reasonable at this level assuming the party doesn't have magic items (since if they do they are designed to make the game easier) so you may want to not allow characters to start with them.

For that large a party in a convention space, I would think about something where perhaps you drop them behind enemy lines to accomplish an objective. Have paths available that allow them to go just under the recommended daily to an upper limit of several times the daily budget.

If they are smart and lucky, they will avoid encounters. If they run around guns blazing, they will soon have an entire army on top of them and will need to run. Bounded accuracy means that no mater how strong a party, they can be defeated by enough lower cr enemies. Telegraph this and give them ways to escape, but if they don't take them come down hard.

Maybe make it clear early on when they get into a mid difficulty fight only to have a deadly group of reinforcements show up because someone sounded an alarm.

I'm leaning heavily on Meta Gear Solid 5 encounter types in my level 12 campaign and it's working great to keep tension up.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's a very strange thing to think given the huge flaws in some prior edition's game math that are entirely not present in 5th edition or are significantly reduced (i.e. there is no more "rocket tag" because of the game math, and no more "welcome to high-level where the game math assumes you pumped everything you could into your combat stats, and if you didn't gives you less chance of success against relevant threats than you had at 1st level", even though there is still a reduced version of the old "if it's enough damage to put some fear of death in the fighter-types, it probably took the mage-types out of play in as much time."

What you point to here is an example of a high-level combo being utilized and being potent - not that it is more potent than intended, too potent for the game to actually remain fun and playable during and after the usage of without more effort that normal from the DM, or that this is going to happen whether you do it on purpose or not.

It is thereby not a piece of evidence suggesting the game breaks, but may be a piece of evidence that your expectations of the game do not match what the game expects you to be expecting by its design.

Especially glaring in this case are that the "solution" to the proposed broken combo is this: have the party face high-level threats. Because high-level threats often have high-enough AC that the GWM/SS feat are mathematically not improving expected damage, and also possess things like dispel magic and antimagic which means foresight isn't the "always win button" I've seen some folks make it out to be.

I have seen PCs hit AC 20+ critters with SS/GWM. Things like bless, bard dice, faerie fire make it reasonably trivial. You can get the foresight effect at a lot lower levels as well with greater invisibility just with a shorter duration. There's plenty of ways to boost your accuracy in 5E.

Bard dice
Spells that grand advantage (Faerie Fire, Greater Invisibility, Foresight)
Knocking things prone
Bless Spells
Class feature granting advantage
Conditions (stunned, blind, paralyzed)

And have a look at some of the other posters more or less saying the same thing. The encounter guidelines do not work, the combat math doesn;t work, monsters are to easy etc etc etc. The higher level you go the more combos come online and the more resources you have (Ki points, bard dice, spells etc) and the more feat combos come online and the more ability scores creep closer to 20.

See 5E is great at being traditional D&D in other words. Its also fun wrecking house I suppose and discovering new things as most of the classes are fun as well. High level 5E probably runs worse than say level 15 BECMI or 2E. It just runs better at level 1-3 than BECMI.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...all of the advantage rolls that come with being surrounded?

Most of the monsters in the game don't have features that give them advantage while gaining up on a single target, so it sounds like you are using the optional flanking rule in this estimation of how the game treats front liners.

Might I suggest that you simply not use that rule? I mean, it really does have very clear negative impact on the overall game-play experience (in that it both makes the features included in the game that generate advantage under specific circumstance less valuable and appealing, and that it runs counter to the idea that advantage is meant to be circumstantial because things which happen in basically every combat that has at least 2 creatures working as allies seem anything but circumstantial) even before getting down to the fact that it favors monsters more than the party (as is true of anything which enhances the frequency, or potency, of critical hits).