D&D 5E Anyone else hoping that the next campaign book WotC releases is 15th to 20th levels?

[CapnZapp]

I would argue it's not that simple.

You're letting WotC off the hook.

There are plenty of us out there who have tried high level 5E play and found the experience mechanically wanting.

So I'd save the "they just don't play" conclusion for when WotC has made a renewed effort of actually supporting (rather than "allowing") high level play, and that still does not help.

You might be rightfully asking what I mean by "renewed effort" and I'll be happy to oblige. Here are a few starters (just off the cuff) to get the WotC team going:

Step one. Read up on Dave2008's thread on how to make epic monsters.
And... that's basically it.

Wait a minute, could that really be all? Okay, so here's another one:

Step two. Fix the situation where a 20th level hero can still have a +0 save (and thus literally zero chance of making a related save).

Still want more? Oh, how about this one:

Step three. Publish an actual high-level adventure.
By this I mean one that ends at 20th level. And unlike OotA spends significant resources at making the end equally good as the beginning.

WotC does not get to say they've tried everything and they do not get away with saying people just "choose to" not play at high level. It is far more probably this is merely a convenient way of not having to confess they don't make enough money on a tier fewer players focus on. If anyone is just happening not to "choose to" focus on tier 4 it is WotC, not their players.


Have a nice day,
Zapp

 

[MonkeyWrench]

I hate to be that guy, but basically everything CapnZapp said.

As for why I want official support for high-level play? I no longer have the time in my life to devote the energy needed to make all of my own campaign/adventure material. It bugs me to no end because I'm otherwise a DIY DM, but right now, in order to play 5e with my friends, I need to adapt official material to fit my game. I prefer official products because in theory they are more "vetted" than products I could buy on DMsGuild; the hot mess of 3PP during the height of 3e has made me leery of wanting to use any non-WotC material in my games.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would actually respect WotC if they did choose to embrace the "not too many high level players" explanation and openly said "our rules provide basic support for levels 11-20 but we leave the field to actually utilize that framework mostly open to third party publishers and dungeonmaster's guild".

If only because then we would know where we stand.

It's the both having the cake and eating it too that won't do.

Either they stop pretending they actually support high level play, and open them up for deserved criticism along the lines of "but you said you would support levels 1 thru 20".

Or they better shore up what they have got so far. The game has been out for years now; the PHB classes and spells was a good start but it certainly isn't good enough this many years down the lane.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You're letting WotC off the hook.

Why is there even a hook for them to be on for you to perceive me as letting them off of?

Can't we just have different opinions without this being some kind of a battle?

 

[OB1]

Step two. Fix the situation where a 20th level hero can still have a +0 save (and thus literally zero chance of making a related save).

Still want more? Oh, how about this one:

Step three. Publish an actual high-level adventure.

As for Step 2. I quite like the idea that even a 20th level hero has significant vulnerabilities that she must be aware of. That she can't take on any and all threats that exist on her own. Why do you feel PCs being having no vulnerabilities is essential to high level play? Also, a PC could spend ABIs on lower stats to shore up save numbers if that is a concern, or take the Resilient feat (if feats are allowed) 4 times to gain prof in all saves, it's at the expense of offensive or defensive power, but 20s are not required in key stats to be effective offensively in 5e. Most classes do just fine with a 14 even at higher level play, giving plenty of room to help out with saves in other areas if that is a concern to the player.

As for step three, I hope they will and I believe that we will get a high level Planescape adventure next fall both to satisfy that itch and as a way to connect FR with other campaign settings. With 6 Tier 1-3 adventures out at that point, WoC will be able to afford to publish something a bit more niche and that covers Tier 3 - Tier 4. I think it would be a missed opportunity if they don't, especially since we will also likely be getting and Advanced Players Handbook to appeal to veteran players as well.

 

[CapnZapp]

As for Step 2. I quite like the idea that even a 20th level hero has significant vulnerabilities that she must be aware of. That she can't take on any and all threats that exist on her own. Why do you feel PCs being having no vulnerabilities is essential to high level play?

I'm all for significant vulnerabilities. I have never said "PCs being having no vulnerabilities is essential to high level play".

Now, did you have a question?

 

[Uchawi]

As for Step 2. I quite like the idea that even a 20th level hero has significant vulnerabilities that she must be aware of. That she can't take on any and all threats that exist on her own. Why do you feel PCs being having no vulnerabilities is essential to high level play? Also, a PC could spend ABIs on lower stats to shore up save numbers if that is a concern, or take the Resilient feat (if feats are allowed) 4 times to gain prof in all saves, it's at the expense of offensive or defensive power, but 20s are not required in key stats to be effective offensively in 5e. Most classes do just fine with a 14 even at higher level play, giving plenty of room to help out with saves in other areas if that is a concern to the player.

As for step three, I hope they will and I believe that we will get a high level Planescape adventure next fall both to satisfy that itch and as a way to connect FR with other campaign settings. With 6 Tier 1-3 adventures out at that point, WoC will be able to afford to publish something a bit more niche and that covers Tier 3 - Tier 4. I think it would be a missed opportunity if they don't, especially since we will also likely be getting and Advanced Players Handbook to appeal to veteran players as well.

It is not so much about having vulnerabilities, but addressing the astronomical gap on some saves. As a DM you can always throw something in to make a class vulnerable or a monster immune.

 

[OB1]

I'm all for significant vulnerabilities. I have never said "PCs being having no vulnerabilities is essential to high level play".

Now, did you have a question?

@ capnzapp Apologies for overstating your position, I will try again.

Why is the situation where a 20th level hero can still have a +0 save (and thus literally zero chance of making a related save) an issue to you that is essential to be fixed outside of the current rules. If a PC wishes to not have +0 saves they can either take ABIs to increase those saves, or if allowed, take resilience feats.

@ uchawi - Why is it a problem that there is an astronomical (+12, or +60%) gap on some saves? Why shouldn't a fighter who dedicated her entire life training in the physical be much better at those types of saves than ones of the mental variety? She chose not to improve in those areas throughout her career, focusing on other things instead, and has consequences at level 20 because of it.

 

[CapnZapp]

@ capnzapp Apologies for overstating your position, I will try again.

Why is the situation where a 20th level hero can still have a +0 save (and thus literally zero chance of making a related save) an issue to you that is essential to be fixed outside of the current rules. If a PC wishes to not have +0 saves they can either take ABIs to increase those saves, or if allowed, take resilience feats.

@ uchawi - Why is it a problem that there is an astronomical (+12, or +60%) gap on some saves? Why shouldn't a fighter who dedicated her entire life training in the physical be much better at those types of saves than ones of the mental variety? She chose not to improve in those areas throughout her career, focusing on other things instead, and has consequences at level 20 because of it.

I believe your worst saves should never be significantly less than about 20% chance of success against a monster whose CR is five levels above the party average level.

The current situation, where you have six saves to worry about, and where two or even three are low enough that you simply cannot succeed, makes for a poor game. It makes for a game where the atmosphere around the table becomes strained and incredolous. It makes for a game of "not heroes", where a hero is defined as someone with a fighting chance.

And this is borne out of actual playtest and isn't just my armchair theories.

The saving system is off. It is crude. And at high levels, it breaks down completely. That is the reason I included it as a step for WotC designers to look at.

 

[CapnZapp]

If a PC wishes to not have +0 saves they can either take ABIs to increase those saves, or if allowed, take resilience feats.

Let me adress that separately and specifically, because to be honest, now you are merely perpetuating an illusion I've seen others post about, a dream with no substance.

At least if WotC doesn't take drastic action. But bear with me, and we'll end up with a positive suggestion on how to move forward at the very end.

First off, spending significant resources on shoring up your weaknesses could be a worthy endevour. But not when it merely takes you from "pure crap" to "still very weak". So there's the fun factor to take into account - it simply isn't fun to be asked to focus on a crappy save defense that a) you'll never use for anything active or useful, and b) will likely STILL fail.

Secondly, it does not even work. The amount of resources you need to divert to ensure all your six saves are solid is simply staggering. It would mean you basically can't specialize in anything, it means you basically can't be especially good at anything.

That is because even if you put all six ASIs always to your weakest ability (which by the way is the complete opposite of effective build strategy) that is still a mere 12 ability points, or +2 per save bonus out of three crappy saves.

That is a huge, nay GINORMOUS, investment. And all it does it perhaps, just perhaps, giving you a 10% chance at making your worst save. And the cost is utterly injustifiable: you have just gimped your hero to have essentially no strong suits whatsoever.

---

At this stage we could use some illustrating numbers. So a level 12 character might sport the following ability scores and related feats, in order of greatness:

Dex 20 (proficiency and advantage)
Wis 20 (and a feat such as Resilient granting proficiency)
Con 14
Str 12 (proficiency)
Int 10
Cha 8

The saving throw bonuses are like follows:
Dex +10
Wis +10
Con +2
Str +1
Int 0
Cha -1

Against a DC 20 save, the chances of success are as follows:
Dex ~75% (my way of expressing the advantage)
Wis 55%
Con 15%
Str 10%
Int 5%
Cha 0

That is, frankly, horrible.

Do note how each ASI would shore up a bad save by only +1 a pop, so even if ALL SIX were used on Charisma, it would merely bring it up to a very mediocre +5. Not only is that not the way D&D has ever worked, it doesn't even work that well. It is not fun, and I simply cannot take the suggestion seriously.

The problem is that, no matter how heroic you are, an epic threat can always shut you down absolutely guaranteed, through no fault of your own. There is nothing you can do to bring up those poor saves even temporarily.

That is not heroic at all. It is unfun. It is game design that simply does not work.

If you expect heroes to seek out epic monsters to do battle with them you must give them a fighting chance.

I'm not saying heroes can't have a weak save or two. I'm saying heroes can't have four weak saves, where the weakest two are utterly useless.

---

The situation is so bad that we as a group start to consider rather extreme courses of action.

Should I as a DM hand out +3 Cloak of Protections to every party member? It feels off (to say the least) to feel forced to hand out magic items just to make the basic game work.

Should the party never venture out without a Paladin in the group? Her +5 saving throw bonus is beyond anything else the game can offer.

---

Sorry to burst your bubble but playing the game tells me it simply isn't built to handle save DCs above 20.

The save DCs of spells do work in a reasonable way. That is, a first spell level effect has a DC of 11, while a ninth spell level has a DC of 19.

If the game was carefully calibrated so that DC 20 was about the highest you would ever encounter, the saving throws as currently implemented might just work.

---

If the rules for saving throws put a minimum of your proficiency bonus that might also help out a lot.

Our example character would then go from the above to the following:

Dex +10
Wis +10
Con +5
Str +5
Int +5
Cha +5

---

If the designers reverted their decision to go with six saves, that could form the basis that makes your own suggestion work.

(It's the drastic action I spoke of earlier)

That is, if your Fortitude save is the best of your Strength and Con bonuses, your Reflex save is the better of Dex and Int, and your Will save is based on either Wis or Cha.

Then you would at least have a fighting chance. Our example character is obviously not built with this option in mind, but it would make it a much more fair playing field if you know this before you start planning and creating your character build.

Even so, we get:

Fortitude +2
Reflex +10
Will +10

This is actually much more reasonable.

Not only are two out of three saves suitably heroic (instead of just two out of six), but each ASI spent on shoring up the bad saves gives at least twice as much bang for the buck.

That is, if you spend the ASI to add to your bad Fortitude save, it automatically lifts both your Strength and your Con saves. Furthermore, you can spend it by taking Resilience (Con) which I must grant you is now a very worthwhile improvement (since it brings up the Fort save from +2 to +7 or possible even +8).

The only downside is that obviously existing class save proficiencies aren't designed for this. For instance, this character starts out with only proficiency in one out of the three saves (because it starts with Strength and Constitution saves), which is obviously a drawback compared to a class that just happens to gain two.

(If you allow the Resilience feat, not such a big deal. If you don't, it's a concern)