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

[MichaelSomething]

What's the point of high level play if the DM has to eliminate all the bonuses of higher levels?

Sent from my VS990 using EN World mobile app

 

[Celebrim]

Not that anyone called it 'optimization' - "Monty Haul," maybe

Compared to me, some of the other DMs I knew were much more generous with treasure and so forth. But they were really going for a deliberate 'high heroic' style campaign, and they were playing in the Forgotten Realms which had very much pushed NPC's into that territory. I wouldn't call it 'Monty Haul' though as it was a very skilled group with a very high degree of system mastery (not that we had even the term 'system mastery' at the time). But the general idea that players should be doing everything allowed by the rules to bend the game to their advantage was assumed.

A good example of a rule not everyone may even have been aware of at the time, let alone chosen to use, let alone remembered...

Let's put it this way; when I was DM we also applied the weapon vs. AC modifiers. I haven't actually mentioned anything I'd consider an obscure rule yet, nor were the rules on magic resistance obscure to us. An actual obscure rule might be what modifiers are applied to a character that undertakes a forced march.

'Monster level' was barely a thing. There were summoning spells that referenced a 'level X monster' and encounter tables 'by level' (monster level? dungeon level?).

It was barely a thing, but if you dug a bit, the intention of it as an aid to knowing what sort of creatures to throw at PC's of what levels can be dug out. For example, a Type V at 3000XP is a level VIII monster, and so is a lethal challenge to a 6th level party and should not be encountered before 6th level. It is a fair challenge to an 8th level party, and at higher levels multiple type V's will be needed to provide a suitable challenge.

CR formalized this in 3e, but you can with some digging around in multiple books figure out both what Gygax was thinking and how he thought it was supposed to work, and even figure out where CR and EL came from.

OTOH, the high-CON fighter could have +3 or even +4 per die. A 10th level fighter might have right around 90 hps. Or, he might have half that, or less. Random generation of CON plus randomly rolled hps = no universal experience to be found, here.

Agreed. But the point is, a fighter with 18 Con has nearly twice the survivability of one with 14 Con, so if you find yourself playing a fighter with 14 Con eventually you realize that this is a dead end. You are wasting your time on a character with very low potential in the long run. So by all means, you need to kill this character off and try again. Low strength can be offset by obtaining magical items like girdles, but very low Con means you either shouldn't have built a fighter or should not be treating this as a primary character.

The Type V demon y'all keep harping on didn't have all that many HD

I call that out in my essay as to why the Type V, even though its otherwise a very formidable and well designed monster, is pointless facing off against a high level party. With just 7+7 HD, they go down like chumps, and even with 7 attacks won't hit much or hard enough against a party that has AC's in practice between -3 and -8. Now, as I point out at the end of the essay, this sort of monster is a perfect one to double the HD to create a suitable challenge. A 14+14 HD Type V with a retinue of mooks does make a suitable encounter.

And, the published modules and the Treasure Types also gave out (what always seemed to me like) a lot of magic items.

The published modules set one standard for how much magic a campaign should have. It's a lot, as has been well documented before. Games like that would end up with high level parties covered with high end gear. A second standard comes from the DMG on how to build a dungeon. It results in somewhat less gear and treasure. The treasure types on the other hand as extremely conservative and when you actually do the math, if you strictly use the treasure types magic is very rare.

Some of the DMG methods made multiple high stats (and thus higher hps than you listed, above) pretty likely. Different assumptions, different rule books in use, differences in how the DM selectively applied rules, interpreted or changed rules, etc, etc...

Yep.

 

[CapnZapp]

Lots of monsters that were tougher in previous editions are weaker now;

but monsters is where I feel they really took a step backwards from previous editions.

for all the talk of being a great tactician, the Marilith does less for her troops than a Hobgoblin warlord, as far as the game is concerned. That's weird to me.

Exactly.

I will never understand why this is so hard to admit for some.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

What's the point of high level play if the DM has to eliminate all the bonuses of higher levels?

Sent from my VS990 using EN World mobile app

What do you mean?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Helldritch]

As for the rest, of your comments, read the freaking rules. By your own calculations an archer can fire for 24 damage per arrow when within 30'. On page 18 of the Unearthed Arcana it clearly shows that a 13th level fighter or ranger specialized in the bow can fire 4 arrows per round, which is an average damage of about 91 damage per round assuming hit on a 2 or better (which for most monsters is reasonable). That's one character out of 6, without having to pop haste and burn a year of age or anything you might do if facing off against a BBEG. Six characters with similar process will therefore do like 540 damage per round. Again, even if we assume the characters are half as effective as what you consider the optimal case, that is still 270 damage per round - enough to one shot Demogorgon or Asmodeus, or enough to kill multiple 16HD creatures per round.

Rule read and fully understood. Much better than you it appears.
Read the post again. I was taking the Elf archer. Then proceed to say that the human fighter would fare much better. Up to what you have calculated. But he will need haste spells and potions to get to the 200+ damage range that you claimed earlier. The haste "trick" will be usable only 40 times (may a bit more with potions of youth) before the human character will simply drop to 16 strength du to his age. So in your example, only the elf can use the haste trick and it only bring him on par with a human shooting 4 arrows. And all that is assuming the archer being within 30 feet. Not many archers like that kind of closeness to combat.

More on Island of the ape

The Island of the ape was made especially with Monty Haul campaigns in mind. At the time, there were complains about balance (as ever in every editions). Gygax' answer was that module. It addresses a lot of things. Some are done with "elegance" others not so. But it did get the job done. It showed DM that you can always challenge your players if you want it. You just have to work a bit more in your adventures' design.

More over, most of your damage assumptions are either from a white room where the monsters are stupid and just wait to be killed or from a monty haul campaign. With a typical BBEG of that era, it will be met with allies, minions and possibly summons. In Demon web, you could make Lolth appear alone or with minions (demons and drow priestesses...).

The enemies are bound to use many tactics to deter the group. Dispel magic just to name that one. Globe of invulnerability, Force cage, Wall (dome) of force and so many others to count. A simple wall of fire shots down an archer. The arrows burn just by passing through the wall. Also, the Anti-magic shell would simply negate magic items of your characters. No more difficult AC for your players, no more astronomical damage output but some of the monsters might not be so adversly affected. Turning a paladin was a viable option. So many ways to shut down players without resorting to the Gygaxian ways that you despise so much. In all my years, in all my groups, I never met a single group that I could not shut down. And that is about more than a hundred different players and most of them in the 1e.

Ho I did heard claims that this or that group was invicible. I was often invited to host a game and every single time I slew the supposedly invicible party with one scenario or the other and often with monsters they had just slew by the hundreds in earlier sessions. When the players saw that they were slain with monsters 8 levels or more below theirs; they were often shocked and surprised (if not downright ashamed). Some DM even invited me to coach them.

And for our main topic.

1e was viable for high level campaign. 5e is also viable. Both requires some work to make it work. A DM must find a balance between shutting down players and letting them shine and do heroic things. It is a fine line to walk, I agree on that, but it can be done.

 

[Helldritch]

Lots of monsters that were tougher in previous editions are weaker now; Marilith is really just one (good) example. Got to set aside previous expectations, I guess. It's too bad, though; some old favourites really got neutered (Babau, I hardly knew ye).

5e is my edition of choice, but monsters is where I feel they really took a step backwards from previous editions. At least someone (I am really sorry, I can't remember who) did a 4e-style all-in-one-block reformatting of a lot of spellcasting monsters, and that helps.

The issue for me (and a few others, I'm sure) is that for all the talk of being a great tactician, the Marilith does less for her troops than a Hobgoblin warlord, as far as the game is concerned. That's weird to me.

Of course she does less. She's a demon. What would you expect?
1e and 5e are on par with each other in attitude. "Go forth worthless hides or I'll slay you my self!" The marilith will kill a few of her own troops to get things done. Why do you think that the forces of hell can hold demonic armies to a stand still? Because one army is doing it's job well and the other isn't. Law vs chaos in this example.

The hobgoblin warlord cares (more or less but that is debatable) about his troops. The marilith doesn't care at all. That is why the marilith was not a solo in 1e. It takes a lot of marilith to direct the chaotic hordes of demon. They simply do not listen to orders unless the boss is near and they listen only so that it won't be slain by the boss. With that in mind, the marilith is considered a great tactician because despite the chaotic irresponsible hordes she commands, she manages to get things done, most of the time (remember the stand still...). But with such a kind of troops in mind, you need a lot of generals to get the troops in line. And even the marilith are demons. Chaos bound to do things their ways despite of the general tactic decided by the balors. Many marilith die in battle as the demonic horde beside her just did not listen and either fled or turned on her. That is why the marilith does less for her troops than the hobgoblin warlord.

About monsters in general.
Yes a lot of monsters are weaker than their 2e, 3e and 4e counter parts. It is by design. 5e is closer to 1e than any other editions in philosophy. Compare the 5e marilith to the 1e marilith and you'll be surprised how close they are together. The same hold true for any demon, devil, demodan, daemons and other monsters such as angels.

Is it a good thing? For me it is. It might not be so for some others.

 

[Helldritch]

By MichaelSomething: What's the point of high level play if the DM has to eliminate all the bonuses of higher levels?

What do you mean?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

He is refering to the Gygaxian method as an answer to uncontroled campaign (Monty Haul). That is you create a dungeon/adventure/demi-plane or whatever you need to completely shut down the players. Be it a place where such and such spells do not work or magic items will slowly decay or simply won't work to a group of special individual specially fitted to kill the group by playing on its weaknesses.. It is not an elegant playstyle but it can work to create artificial challenge to get rid of a Monty Haul problem.

 

[Eric V]

Of course she does less. She's a demon. What would you expect?

That she be a good tactician, tangibly in the game, based on her description.

About monsters in general.
Yes a lot of monsters are weaker than their 2e, 3e and 4e counter parts. It is by design. 5e is closer to 1e than any other editions in philosophy. Compare the 5e marilith to the 1e marilith and you'll be surprised how close they are together. The same hold true for any demon, devil, demodan, daemons and other monsters such as angels.

Is it a good thing? For me it is. It might not be so for some others.

It's a mystifying step back, AFAIC. Honest to goodness, I don't think holding 1st Edition, the one with the least hindsight, as a model is a great idea since it means ignoring advances made since it was published. But whatever.

 

[Helldritch]

That she be a good tactician, tangibly in the game, based on her description.

She is. Given the kind of troops she has. She is working miracles.

It's a mystifying step back, AFAIC. Honest to goodness, I don't think holding 1st Edition, the one with the least hindsight, as a model is a great idea since it means ignoring advances made since it was published. But whatever.

It is a good step back. The sales proves that. As I said, 5e is 1e with the best that 3e and 4e had to offer. The fluidity of the game is back. It is the most popular edition so far. Most of what you might think a step back is just a return to the roots of what made the game great. It is not a step back, it is an evolution toward what people wanted. This time around, the designers listened to US! Isn't it great? Yes the edition has some flaws. So did the others. But I can live with most of them. Those that I can't. I just modify.

 

[Sacrosanct]

She is. Given the kind of troops she has. She is working miracles.

She's also a lot smarter than a hobgoblin warlord. Which means she can and should come up with better tactical use of the creatures under her. It's the DM's job to use everything under her description, and not just use defined abilities while ignoring all the rest. Why some people can't grasp, or refuse to admit that is beyond me.

It is a good step back. The sales proves that. As I said, 5e is 1e with the best that 3e and 4e had to offer. The fluidity of the game is back. It is the most popular edition so far. Most of what you might think a step back is just a return to the roots of what made the game great. It is not a step back, it is an evolution toward what people wanted. This time around, the designers listened to US! Isn't it great? Yes the edition has some flaws. So did the others. But I can live with most of them. Those that I can't. I just modify.

Personally, I think it's a huge fallacy to assume "advancements from edition to edition" are automatically better than the previous edition. They aren't. Calling them "advancements" is just an opinion. Other people think of them as faults. Just like new Coke was not an advancement over regular coke just because it replaced the previous recipe. And how did that work out? It's also inherently contradictory. I.e., by that logic, then since 5e is the most recent, then the "advancements" in 5e are inherently better than previous editions. So that line of argument falls flat on several levels. What it comes down to, is someone defining an "advancement" by what they personally like on a line they personally and arbitrarily drew between editions, but they are trying to position it as some sort of objective gaming advancement when it's not.