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

[Sacrosanct]

Nothing you say or do change the basic facts:

If a doubling from Strength 10 to Strength 20 is enough to increase the CR, it is because the monster makes strength-based attacks, and the resulting attack bonus or damage passes some threshold in the CR calculation.

Conversely, if a doubling of Int should lead to an increase in CR, it needs to be because the creature makes Int-based attacks (say, spells) and the increased save DC passes some internal threshold.

In this way, the Int increase is indistinguishable from, say, a Charisma increase.

Intelligence is *not* a magic number that miraculously makes the monster use different tactics or allies. None of that is in the actual design, numbers and words on paper.

In your reply you completely ignore all the objective fact-based complaints. At this point let me remind you that you can always put forumists you disagree with on your ignore list.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Funny, in an extremely ironic way, that you're accusing me of ignoring "objective facts" when it's "objectively factual" what the DMG says right in the introduction on how a DM should run monsters/NPCs, and you've been completely ignoring those two very important areas in particular.

Here's another "objective fact": The game is not stat block comparisons. It's not just a math problem. It's a role playing game. That means role playing, which does not stop when combat starts. The flavor text, and things like intelligence, are just as, if not more important, than any other statblock unless you're throwing out a huge chuck of what the game is about and only play arena style board game D&D. Which again, is fine if that's what you prefer. But you need to understand how the game is designed and stop insulting and blaming the designers because you decide to ignore a huge chunk of the game.

Intelligence very much impacts the challenge of an encounter because it dictates to you as the DM how you should be running it. It's the difference between two monsters, identical in stats except intelligence from one monsters just lumbering along and engaging in melee combat with the closest PC, and one that lays in wait, ambushes, sets traps, or specifically targets party weaknesses. You seem to be arguing that they are the same challenge since their statblock is the same, and that's just ridiculous. The only way they are the same challenge is if you just compare stat blocks in a white room and totally ignore the actual role playing in a game world. I guarantee you in an actual game, they are completely different levels of challenges to the party.

 

[TwoSix]

In your reply you completely ignore all the objective fact-based complaints. At this point let me remind you that you can always put forumists you disagree with on your ignore list.

Funny, in an extremely ironic way, that you're accusing me of ignoring "objective facts" when it's "objectively factual" what the DMG says right in the introduction on how a DM should run monsters/NPCs, and you've been completely ignoring those two very important areas in particular.

It makes me cry when Mommy and Daddy fight.

 

[Schmoe]

So what is the difference between the tactics of an int 14 and an int 18? Is it quantifiable? Is it worth a +1 CR?

I don't recall int affecting CR in the CAR guidelines, but I'm away from books right now.

On a related note, if I, as an int 12 DM (I'm being generous here) don't use the right tactics for a lich and it gets curb-stomped, what do I do? Do I just say "whoops, I only played that as an int 12 lich that battle, I'll be smarter next time?"

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't recall int affecting CR in the CAR guidelines, but I'm away from books right now.

The DMG doesn't specifically call out INT in the Monster Creation rules. However, it does say this:

"Creating a monster isn't just a number-crunching exercise. The guidelines in this chapter can help you create monsters, but the only way to know whether a monster is fun is to playtest it. After seeing your monster in action, you might want to adjust the challenge rating up or down based on your experiences."

What that means, is that after playing a monster that is extremely intelligent (and therefore it would use tactics and planning) that may have the same stat block as a not so intelligent monster, the actual challenge to the players is going to be significantly different, and therefore the CR would be adjusted accordingly. So, how a monster is played (which INT is very much a factor) affects CR. INT can modify CR. Right there in black and white by inference.

But it really comes down to the common theme that seems to be overlooked a lot by the RAW crowd: The rules are guidelines. There is no way they can create rules to fit everyone's preferred style of play. It's repeated over and over again how DMs need to tweak and tailor the rules to fit their groups, and to go with what feels right for you. And really, it's been that way since day 1 by the very nature of what an RPG is. Very few people have the game work perfectly for them out of the box. Insulting the designers or blaming the game as broken because it doesn't fit perfectly right out of the box for you (general you) screams laziness and entitlement to me, especially if you (general you) refuse to follow the #1 rule: the rules are guidelines and you should tailor them to fit your style.

On a related note, if I, as an int 12 DM (I'm being generous here) don't use the right tactics for a lich and it gets curb-stomped, what do I do? Do I just say "whoops, I only played that as an int 12 lich that battle, I'll be smarter next time?"

If you (general you, and I'm certainly in the same boat since I don't have an 18 INT) don't think you can do the monster justice from that context, there are many resources out there to help give you ideas. For example, if I'm running a lich, I'm going to spend time really fleshing out it's motivations and behaviors, and try to pre-plan a list of scenarios that may occur that a genius like the lich would react to, so I don't have to come up with a genius idea during actual game play. I may look around for ideas on the web about the deviousness that an evil genius would do that I can't or didn't think of.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So what is the difference between the tactics of an int 14 and an int 18? Is it quantifiable? Is it worth a +1 CR?

Is a +2 DC on saves and a +1 to hit worth a +1 CR?

On a related note, if I, as an int 12 DM (I'm being generous here) don't use the right tactics for a lich and it gets curb-stomped, what do I do? Do I just say "whoops, I only played that as an int 12 lich that battle, I'll be smarter next time?"

The same problem comes up for players wanting a high-INT (or WIS or CHA) concept when they, themselves, are mere mortals mentally, in a way that simply doesn't come up with those playing paragons of STR or DEX.

Of course, the DM has a huge advantage, in that regard. Simply apply DM force in the moment /before/ it gets curb-stomped. Someone casts a spell you forgot existed that hoses the lich? "'Well-played for a mind still burdened by the exigencies of life, but, as you can see' - one of the amulets the lich is wearing flares and crumbles to dust, the spell you had cast ends - 'I am prepared for your simple mortal gambits.' The lich cackles.'"

You'd want to limit such gotchyas, of course. For instance, you could give the brilliant opponent one such retroactive trick per point of INT mod (or WIS, for that matter, or, to stretch a point CHA, if it involves deception or intimidation). More reasonably, one trick per point of the modifier above the PC with the best score in the same attribute.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No I am giving a data point to Sacrosanct that messes with his theory that I'm a badwrongfun DM

(Btw, what on earth makes you ask that question. Have I said that timing and environment and tactics can't make a difference? )

Well, I recall the example you gave where your party supposedly made short work of a high level group of NPCs, the one Sacrosanct linked to. You said the villains were a Death Knight, an Arch-Druid, a Blackguard, a Diviner, and a Warlock of the Fiend. And your party "curb-stomped" these villains.

Then you just provided an example of the party (same party or different one?) being decimated by a Banshee and a few Will o' Wisps.

Now, in the original discussion, whenever anyone implied that you ran the NPCs in a tactically poor manner, or that the terrain of the combat totally favored the PCs (like setting the initial distance of the fight within the monk's range of movement and allowing ranged attackers open season on the bad guys), you seemed to dismiss the importance of such factors.

So it seemed odd to me that you would share another anecdote where a much less dangerous group of bad guys was able to really damage the PCs. The monsters' effectiveness in this fight seems to be because of the terrain and timing of the battle more than just the abilities of the monsters, right?

So is it a case of the Banshee and the Will o' Wisps being exceptions to the poor monster design by WotC?

Or is it that the DM can easily influence how effective monsters are?

Seriously.....to what do you attribute the Banshee's success?

 

[hawkeyefan]

So what is the difference between the tactics of an int 14 and an int 18? Is it quantifiable? Is it worth a +1 CR?

I don't recall int affecting CR in the CAR guidelines, but I'm away from books right now.

On a related note, if I, as an int 12 DM (I'm being generous here) don't use the right tactics for a lich and it gets curb-stomped, what do I do? Do I just say "whoops, I only played that as an int 12 lich that battle, I'll be smarter next time?"

Yes. You learn and do better the next time. It's no some cataclysmic error if you let a supposedly dangerous enemy die too easily (unless maybe it was like, the BBEG of the whole campaign or something). But as with anything, you just look at what happened, and see what you can correct to make it better next time.

I don't think that the actual INT score of monsters is as important as it is to simply play them like they have a brain and that they are not simply there to be a challenge for the heroes. Most enemies don't want to die, for instance, yet many encounters seem to consist of the bad guys rushing the PCs recklessly without regard for their safety.

INT may be reflective of a creature's mental capacity, but even low INT creatures can possess cunning. And even the stupidest of creatures have senses of self-preservation.

 

[Schmoe]

Is a +2 DC on saves and a +1 to hit worth a +1 CR?

Ok, but what about the case where there is no mechanical benefit to a monster? What if I give an Ogre an Int of 14. Is that worth a CR increase? How should I quantify the differences in how the Ogre performs in an encounter? And why are we limiting this to a discussion of Int? If I increased a Lich's strength to 18, it's unlikely that I would increase it's CR, as that has no mechanical effect on its combat ability. Likewise, what if you increased an Ogre's Wisdom? What if you increased an Ogre's Charisma? I can think of all sorts of things that might play out slightly differently based on different stat abilities, but there is no way to measure the impact on combat ability, and therefore it really doesn't seem like it should have any bearing on Challenge Rating.

All of the other "flavor" or "tactical" affects of stats are so dependent on the DM, that they may as well not exist and can't reasonably be assumed in any sort of CR guidelines. Some DMs are simply tactical illiterates. Should the CR guidelines "over CR" straightforward brutes with the assumption that people don't know how to use tactics? Some DMs can't avoid using solid tactics even for a Black Pudding. Should the CR guidelines "over CR" creatures with strong tactical abilities and battlefield control? Some DMs like to vary tactics based on monster intellect and also have the capability to do so. Should the CR guidelines "over CR" intelligent monsters who, with an otherwise identical stat block, will outperform their less-intelligent counterparts?

I think the only approach that really makes any sense is to have CR guidelines that are based on mechanical effects, because those are the effects that can be measured and compared unequivocally (I say unequivocally with a huge grain of salt). And then you can have a good discussion of how to inject tactics where it's appropriate, with the understanding that tactics won't and shouldn't impact the baseline CR or XP numbers except where a particular DM decides it is appropriate in his game.

 

[Schmoe]

Yes. You learn and do better the next time. It's no some cataclysmic error if you let a supposedly dangerous enemy die too easily (unless maybe it was like, the BBEG of the whole campaign or something). But as with anything, you just look at what happened, and see what you can correct to make it better next time.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this really seems like it's just deflecting the onus of the CR system to the DM, rather than accepting that there might be some problems with the CR system.

DM: "Man, that XYZ with CR 10 was a punk. Your party of 6th level characters wiped it out in two rounds with barely a scratch!"
Player: "Nah, you just didn't play it smart enough."
DM: "Really? The DMG says the monster likes to wade into combat. That's what I did, and you guys ROFL-stomped it! It couldn't hit you, its saves suck, and you guys hit with every attack."
Player: "Oh, well don't wade into combat next time."
DM: "What should I do next time?"
Player: "I don't know, figure it out."
DM: "..."

Trust me, I get it, any encounter can turn into a cakewalk with poor tactical choices. You can't have a discussion of an encounter without a discussion of the tactics. But the mechanics matter, and tactics shouldn't be required to make up for weak mechanics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So is it a case of the Banshee and the Will o' Wisps being exceptions to the poor monster design by WotC?

That'd just be another example of 'poor' design. Poor design gives you inconsistent results. One CR X monster gets curb-stomped by a level X party, the next of the same CR TPKs them. Poor design - at least, poor assignment of CR. :shrug:

Or is it that the DM can easily influence how effective monsters are?

Excellent design or poor, that'd still be the case.