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

[Helldritch]

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Usually, when someone says something like high level D&D is broken and a cake walk, I am curious to know how it's DM'd. This somewhat recent thread is a prime example of someone who frequently says high level play is broken, but clearly the DM wasn't running the opponents with any sort of competence. I don't think it's coincidence that those two positions typically go hand in hand.

 

[Tormyr]

I think [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] highlights something important. High level adventures are most successful when you work your way into them. As you progress through the levels, you get a feel for the balance of your group and what they need. There are a lot of moving parts in high level 5e (although maybe less than previous editions), and it takes time to find the sweet spot for your group. It is easier to find the sweet spot at lower levels because there are fewer variables.

 

[clearstream]

Thank you for sharing. I like your line of thinking. I started looking at encounter difficulty a while back (Encounter Building: Revised XP Threshold by Character Level Table ), but I never finished it up or got to the adventuring day or XP progression. At some point I want to wrap all these ideas together into one coherent documrnt.

How did you get those tables to look so good?! FYI I've started a thread with my latest - http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?577844-5e-on-Hard-difficulty&p=7208434#post7208434. Would be interested in thoughts...

 

[CapnZapp]

Usually, when someone says something like high level D&D is broken and a cake walk, I am curious to know how it's DM'd. This somewhat recent thread is a prime example of someone who frequently says high level play is broken, but clearly the DM wasn't running the opponents with any sort of competence. I don't think it's coincidence that those two positions typically go hand in hand.

At least have the guts to mention me when you're trashtalking me. Sheesh.

 

[Sacrosanct]

At least have the guts to mention me when you're trashtalking me. Sheesh.

1. It was a general statement that applied to the argument in general. Just because the link was to a thread that you started, doesn't mean everything is about you only
2. That's not trash talking you. That's pointing out how someone (like you) who is constantly complaining high level play is broken, appears to DM in a way that the NPCs/monsters under your control are played incompetently, and thus seem to illustrate how the problem might not be the game or the rules, but on your style of play. When I say "incompetently", I mean that even from an average playstyle. Not to rehash that thread (because the discussion is there for everyone to read), but there was ZERO planning on the NPCs part, who happened to be high level geniuses, and their actions during combat made little sense as to what they would typically do as genius high level baddies. But when you throw in the fact that you were playing against players who are optmizers, the way those NPCs were ran is doubly incompetent. That leaves little doubt as to the real reason you think high level play is a cakewalk for the players. And it's not because of the game rules or guidelines.

 

[dave2008]

How did you get those tables to look so good?! FYI I've started a thread with my latest - http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?577844-5e-on-Hard-difficulty&p=7208434#post7208434. Would be interested in thoughts...

Awesome! I will check out the thread after I finish up some yard work.

I made them in excel and then made a jpeg of the table that I then pasted into the post. I am hope to make them for your thread if you want.

 

[DaveDash]

I ran a converted 3.0 City of the Spider Queen from level 10-18.

High level is very fun and viable, even with magic items.

The stock monsters are fairly weak at high levels but it's VERY easy to fix by adding more lower CR minions. I also used a host of custom converted monsters that I made using the DMG rules, and they felt very deadly at higher levels.

5e due to bounded accuracy is the most easily "tweakable" edition. You can still threaten high level PCs with low CR creatures (with sufficient number), even if you're making them chew through resources then that's making the adventuring day harder for them. This gives you a lot of flexibility in encounter design.

Also if you're using optional rules for your PCs(like feats) use them for your monsters too! For example, the spellcasting Dragon variant with counterspell, shield, misty step, and darkness will make your high level group scared of Dragons again.

 

[Tobold]

Some people think it works just fine.

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, and that I only have as a blanket statement like "everything in 5E is perfect, nothing to see here, move along", instead of any argument why you think that monsters as written being a pushover at high levels is working as intended.

 

[DaveDash]

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, and that I only have as a blanket statement like "everything in 5E is perfect, nothing to see here, move along", instead of any argument why you think that monsters as written being a pushover at high levels is working as intended.

Some D&D players like combat to be more of a anime, movie, or comic book. It's more about the narrative than the tactics. For example, watch the players in Chris Perkin's dice camera action. It's a narrative style based combat game and out of the box, D&D is perfectly fine for that style of play.

Others (like myself) prefer tactical combat. To me, the combat pillar in D&D is like an advanced version of a board game, and whilst I still roleplay I prefer the tactical style battles. Flashy narratives don't interest me as much. I love games like X-Com and tactical RPGs more than I love flashy movies and sweeping combat narratives.

Both playstyles are valid, along with even an hybrid approach.

Sacrosanct is right though, there ARE many people that find it fine - most youtube streamers fall into this camp. They seem to have a lot of fun playing the game in a way that's very suboptimal, but that's entertaining and narratively interesting.
For those like me that prefer a more 'gamist' difficult combat system, I wouldn't say it's "broken" at higher levels, but the baseline is definitely too low. The good news is it's very easy to tweak.