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

[SkidAce]

The idea is that any "legendary" (or epic, or solo, or whatever the label is) creature needs "three strikes" from a given spellcaster (that resets if the monster lives to take a short rest). Each time the monster fails a save against a sufficiently high-level spell, that counts as one strike. (For a low-level legendary, this might be as low as 3rd level. For monsters of the highest CR, it would be spells of 6th level or higher, the ones where you only get one per level, to reinforce the "specialness" of those).

Only spells with "strike" info counts. For instance, Fireball would not have strike info. You would not be able to cast two Fireballs against a Legendary Wyvern and then top it off with a single save or suck spell that does have strike info. This is because spells that primarily deal damage has that utility anyway.

For instance, let's invent some strike info for Forcecage:

Forcecage
7th level Bard, Warlock, Wizard Evocation strike spell
[regular info here]
1st strike: The monster visibly struggles against the invisible prison, rendering it effectively grappled.
2nd strike: The monster is losing the fight, barely being able to keep gaps in the prison open. It is restrained.
3rd strike: The spell works as described. (This part is always the same)

Strike info is ignored for regular versions of the monster.

This way, a single save-or-suck spell doesn't end a Solo encounter. Yet, it is hardly pointless to cast these spells anyway, since you do get benefits from every (successful) casting.

Since hit point totals are increased for Solo monsters (rather massively, I might add), the party can't just drop the idea to cast debilititating spells and "just kill it". The idea is that the monster should last long enough for a challenging combat, no matter the party's tactics (causing damage, causing it to "suck", or both).

And yes, the idea is for such an encounter to actually challenging on its own, right off the bat, no DM tweaking needed. No expectation is made on having any other encounters that adventuring day!!! (If there are more encounters, that makes the Solo "too difficult" rather than being a prerequisite for being dangerous at all).

Hmmm, instead of "Legendary Save" you fail, reduced effects, ... I kinda like it.

 

[Tobold]

This response is pretty telling. It tells me you are only looking for confirmation bias, because it's clearly not an accurate statement. Perhaps you need to re-read your own thread, because that's not what people have said, and I'm not the only who thinks high level play can be just fine. You also seem to be taking page from CapnZapp with the hyperbole of accusing others who don't agree with making statements like "the game is perfect so just move along", which isn't what people have been saying at all.

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

 

[SkidAce]

I'm happy for you, though note the complaint has never been "I am unable to challenge the PCs even when I write my own material".

The complaint has always been "I can't challenge my PCs with the guidelines given, and/or by using printed supplement as is."

I'm fairly certain we have discussed this before, and I understand your view.


But my opinion is that groups are so very varied at higher levels, that it is almost a fruitless effort to develop more than a basic framework (which we have).

 

[SkidAce]

Well, a game not working as intended out of the box for higher levels seems like a design flaw to me. Of course a DM has to tailor their game to their group all the time. But if the DM uses the encounter design rules from the book and they work from level 5 to 10, but don't give a good result from level 15 to 20, it is absolutely correct to say that the devs failed *for that specific part of the rules*.

As posted above, I think by level 15 to 20 its way to varied from table to table and group to group. Which is why it appears to fail.

But once you tailor it based on your group, starting from the basic framework, things "work" for your campaign.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hmmm, instead of "Legendary Save" you fail, reduced effects, ... I kinda like it.

Thank you.

The catch is that each spell needs to provide the "partial success" descriptions.

Perhaps this idea does warrant a thread of its own...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

But my opinion is that groups are so very varied at higher levels, that it is almost a fruitless effort to develop more than a basic framework (which we have).

And my view is that if you're going through all the trouble of statting up a creature you could do a decent job of it.

The probable reality is these factors:

* 5e was developed on a budget. WotC needs to be taken to account for their decision to go with such a scaled-back and lean team.
* They were probably scared to make the game too difficult, and couldn't let go of this mindset even at high levels, where it is mostly detrimental.




Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

As posted above, I think by level 15 to 20 its way to varied from table to table and group to group. Which is why it appears to fail.

But once you tailor it based on your group, starting from the basic framework, things "work" for your campaign.

It's okay to just say "fail".

We can still love and play the game. No need to say "appear to fail".

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[SkidAce]

Mention me if you start it. I was considering just making up effects such as you mention on the fly, based on situation and monster.

But going through and actually modifying each spell could be intriguing.

 

[SkidAce]

And my view is that if you're going through all the trouble of statting up a creature you could do a decent job of it.

The probable reality is these factors:

* 5e was developed on a budget. WotC needs to be taken to account for their decision to go with such a scaled-back and lean team.
* They were probably scared to make the game too difficult, and couldn't let go of this mindset even at high levels, where it is mostly detrimental.




Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

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.

 

[Oofta]

As posted above, I think by level 15 to 20 its way to varied from table to table and group to group. Which is why it appears to fail.

But once you tailor it based on your group, starting from the basic framework, things "work" for your campaign.

I agree. It's really hard not to just straight out face-palm when people claim that 5E is "broken" because the math doesn't work for their particular group.

How is that supposed to work again? WOTC was supposed to gaze into their crystal ball and predict the exact build, structure, and layout of each particular group and then develop guidelines for that specific group? Have a custom XP chart for each group and send out a unique copy of the DMG? WTF?

I've DMed or co-DMed for a few groups now, one which has gotten to 20, one that will get there soon (and another that never got above 10th). My experience with how much I can throw at the groups has varied dramatically even though I'm using the same options for both groups (point buy, all feats allowed, same books, etc). The "A" group needs a much tougher challenge, the "B" group I have to be careful to not TPK using the base guidelines. This has been true in every edition of D&D.

Even when running a public game using pre-canned mods I recognized which groups I could be tactically smart and which ones I had to go easy on. It's part of being a DM. Different groups will fall into a wide spectrum of effectiveness and you have to tweak your XP budget and tactics accordingly.

Or of course you can just whine about how the system is broken because you can't figure out how to multiply your XP budget by x%