D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?
- Thread starter Tobold
- Start date
I also wouldn't mind a book with alternate class features to create greater differences/variety in class members of the same class and to extend archtypes.
My ideas are taking hold!
Helldritch
Hero
You don't really need a monster update to do the kind of things you want to have.
Here is what I did before starting to work a bit more on my encounters. It is a "lazy" way to enhance a monster but it works out with all of them. I shared it in another post. Try it out, you'll see. It takes less than a minute to change a monster.
Single encounter big bad guys
Add 1 feat/ASI per 4 CR (save the first four)
Add 1 legendary action per PC above 4.
Multiply HP by 1 +0.25 per PC above 4.
Add 1.5 AC (round up) per PC above 4.
Here is a modified lich my players defeated at 17th level in a previous campaign.
AC: 17 (natural armor + dex) Now 23 (+1.5 AC x 2 for players number, Staff of power and +1 ring. It could go up to 25 for one attack because of the shield guardian and I am not counting shield. Since shield was an at will power, it became and AC 28 and 30 for one attack)
HP: 135 (18d8 + 54) Now 238 for a 1.5 multiplyer for number of players and tough feat (+36hp).
Spd: 30' (unchanged)
Stats: Unchanged (decided to use feats instead...)
Added: Warcaster, Elemental Adept Fire (that one was a surprise for my players), Tough.
Mage feature added: Shield and Mirror image at will (I counted that one as a feat)
Spell list was changed to reflect the added mage feature and feats.
Cantrip: Removed prestigiditation and added Fire Bolt. Rose number of cantrip to four and added Green Flame blade
Level 1: Removed shield and added disguise self (Lich used it to appear human as she did in her life.)
Level 2: Removed Mirror image and added Misty step instead.
Legendary action Rose to 5 (again 6 players)
Lich was also using Staff Of Power And a Shield Guardian.
Modifying your marilith could be easy.
Add legendary action
1) Marilith makes an attack (1 legendary action)
2) Marilith teleports (2 legendary actions.)
If she has treasure, she will use it. A protection ring or bracers +2 could enhance her greatly. So would a magical weapon or two.
Give her the following feats: Mobile, Sentinel and Martial adept. For the maneuvers chose whatever suits your fancy.
If you have more than four players (in my case 6). Her AC is raised by 3. Her HP are multiplied 1.5 and she has 5 legendary actions per turn...
I used that way to modify the monsters as in the first year of fifth edition I felt a lot like you. We were still on 4e way of doing things and nova happened all the time in my groups. The 5 mwd was the norm in both groups. Then I started to work with the 4 to 6 encounters per day and more restrictive approach to resting (we were using 10 minutes for a short rest and many other unbalancing things either kept from fourth edition or simply out of bad reading). And I also began to make not so standard environment that could either be used by the players or by the monsters.
As soon as I started enforcing the above and eleminated the 5 mwd, 5e became much more stable. It did required more work from my part, yet, as time goes on, that work is faster and faster. And the adventures are also better as some fights are really out the ordinary. A fight on levitating platforms that could only hold two medium creature in a windy canyon giving ranged attack disadvantage as the platforms were unstable and tangling a lot is quite a fond memory for the players that played PotA.
Even a simple fire pit in the middle of the room, a room with a few balconies, a protection circle vs whatever can change the outlook of a battle.
5e is usable at high level, right out of the box. But you need to work a bit more at high level than in the first 12 levels. It was that way with all editions so far.
Here is what I did before starting to work a bit more on my encounters. It is a "lazy" way to enhance a monster but it works out with all of them. I shared it in another post. Try it out, you'll see. It takes less than a minute to change a monster.
Single encounter big bad guys
Add 1 feat/ASI per 4 CR (save the first four)
Add 1 legendary action per PC above 4.
Multiply HP by 1 +0.25 per PC above 4.
Add 1.5 AC (round up) per PC above 4.
Here is a modified lich my players defeated at 17th level in a previous campaign.
AC: 17 (natural armor + dex) Now 23 (+1.5 AC x 2 for players number, Staff of power and +1 ring. It could go up to 25 for one attack because of the shield guardian and I am not counting shield. Since shield was an at will power, it became and AC 28 and 30 for one attack)
HP: 135 (18d8 + 54) Now 238 for a 1.5 multiplyer for number of players and tough feat (+36hp).
Spd: 30' (unchanged)
Stats: Unchanged (decided to use feats instead...)
Added: Warcaster, Elemental Adept Fire (that one was a surprise for my players), Tough.
Mage feature added: Shield and Mirror image at will (I counted that one as a feat)
Spell list was changed to reflect the added mage feature and feats.
Cantrip: Removed prestigiditation and added Fire Bolt. Rose number of cantrip to four and added Green Flame blade
Level 1: Removed shield and added disguise self (Lich used it to appear human as she did in her life.)
Level 2: Removed Mirror image and added Misty step instead.
Legendary action Rose to 5 (again 6 players)
Lich was also using Staff Of Power And a Shield Guardian.
Modifying your marilith could be easy.
Add legendary action
1) Marilith makes an attack (1 legendary action)
2) Marilith teleports (2 legendary actions.)
If she has treasure, she will use it. A protection ring or bracers +2 could enhance her greatly. So would a magical weapon or two.
Give her the following feats: Mobile, Sentinel and Martial adept. For the maneuvers chose whatever suits your fancy.
If you have more than four players (in my case 6). Her AC is raised by 3. Her HP are multiplied 1.5 and she has 5 legendary actions per turn...
I used that way to modify the monsters as in the first year of fifth edition I felt a lot like you. We were still on 4e way of doing things and nova happened all the time in my groups. The 5 mwd was the norm in both groups. Then I started to work with the 4 to 6 encounters per day and more restrictive approach to resting (we were using 10 minutes for a short rest and many other unbalancing things either kept from fourth edition or simply out of bad reading). And I also began to make not so standard environment that could either be used by the players or by the monsters.
As soon as I started enforcing the above and eleminated the 5 mwd, 5e became much more stable. It did required more work from my part, yet, as time goes on, that work is faster and faster. And the adventures are also better as some fights are really out the ordinary. A fight on levitating platforms that could only hold two medium creature in a windy canyon giving ranged attack disadvantage as the platforms were unstable and tangling a lot is quite a fond memory for the players that played PotA.
Even a simple fire pit in the middle of the room, a room with a few balconies, a protection circle vs whatever can change the outlook of a battle.
5e is usable at high level, right out of the box. But you need to work a bit more at high level than in the first 12 levels. It was that way with all editions so far.
A book with higher level monsters would be great. If that book contained templates and suggestions on how to make monsters tougher (something along the line of Heldritch's), all the better. I do similar things, adding half dragon or home-brew templates. Sometimes that template includes things like pack tactics (advantage if there's an adjacent ally) or extra necrotic damage on hits because the fight is taking place in a location dedicated to an evil death cult.
But I still don't think that would help with CR calculation. Some groups simply burn through more of an CR/XP budget than others. Having played with/DMed for multiple groups now, CR/XP rules are always going to be akin to Pirates Law. It's more of a guideline, really.
Helldritch
Hero
Yep, managing CR/XP budget is more of an art than a science. A good guide line but a guideline nonetheless. You have to adapt it to your group and how they usualy react.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Anecdotes are what we all have to share. Individually, they all carry the same weight no matter the frequency with which they are posted.
Much of the discussion depends on what we consider "high level" in 5E. That in and of itself is a bit subjective, especially considering how much that's varied over past editions.
Then, the subject of this particular thread, is how "viable" the game is to play at high levels. Again, that's subjective. I also don't know how the "out of the box" qualifier gets added. Wasn't mentioned anywhere in the OP. But anytime any topic remotely related to this comes up, you jump in and then make it about your specific criticisms, and apply them as if they are utmost importance. And clearly not everyone agrees.
Therefore, discussion is in order. Which means we share anecdotes. And despite your loud and aggressive posts about the topic, your findings are nothing more than a shared anecdote, as well.
So, with the above in mind, if we want to limit "high level" only to level 15 and above, then itis hard to judge given that very little published material is aimed at those levels. So we can certainly agree that there is a shortage of adventures for the highest levels. I think that's a valid criticism.
I don't think it's the same as saying the game doesn't support high level play, or that the game is not viable at high level.
The adventures have provided stats for several demon lords and the elemental princes and plenty of other incredibly powerful creatures. We have the MM and Volo's Guide, which also have tough creatures in them. We have XP charts and class progressions through level 20. We have guidelines for adapting monsters and for creating entirely new ones.
None of that is anecdotal. It all exists.
Choosing to ignore such tools that have been provided is a choice. You have every right to make that choice, but it's a choice nonetheless. Ignoring those things doesn't mean that they don't exist.
So in that sense, the game does support high level play. It's just not in the way that you would prefer. And that's fine...no one is saying you can't feel the way you do. But what you need to stop doing is labeling anyone who disagrees with you as some sort of apologist. And stop treating your opinion as if it's made from some enlightened state that the rest of us have yet to achieve.
I find the game is plenty viable at high level. I do put a bit of effort into making it so, but I think that's true of any level, really. Is this me apologizing for WotC? No...it's me sharing my experience on the topic.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Not helping.
Really not helping.
A major goal of 5e was to capture the feel of the classic game. 1e, the AD&D of the fad years, being a major example of that feel. "That's how it /worked/ in 1e" isn't as strong a reason as "that's how it /felt/ in 1st edition," but it's far from irrelevant in an edition trying to re-capture the Golden Age of those years, and appeal to fans of each & every prior edition.
I suppose fans are just un-natural, that way. Sometime we want familiar or nostalgic or consistent more than we want 'good.' Or, to put it another way, 'quality improvement' can include qualities that the target audience finds desirable, no matter how 'bad' they might be judged to be, even objectively. You don't see the tobacco industry making money hand-over-fist with nicotine-free cigarettes.
Not to go all apologist on you, but 5e does pass the buck to the DM to 'fix' the game how he wants. Discussing how to fix it at our individual tables is the more productive end than trying to pressure WotC to fix D&D. Pressuring WotC is what got us here.
Unverfiable anonymous anecdotes do not all carry the same weight. To the person who actually experienced them, they have the gravitas of absolute truth. To the person with an agenda/pre-conceived-notion supported by them, they are backed by the full weight of his own confirmation bias - if they contradict instead of support, then they are 'the exception that proves the rule,' or outright lies that prove the desperation of the other side.
Otherwise, they simply carry no weight, at all.
Much of the discussion depends on what we consider "high level" in 5E. That in and of itself is a bit subjective, especially considering how much that's varied over past editions.
Fortunately, anecdotes are not all we have, we each have access to a great deal of the content of the game and can readily verify the facts of it, when making or understanding (or picking appart) an analysis of them.
The question is about the game so the impetus to limit consideration to the game, itself, is understandable. It's also misguided, because, 'out the box,' it's honestly presented as a starting point, and openly calls for the DM to step up and make it work.
So, in a sense, and trivially so, it's true that it's not a viable game, at any level. Rather, the question becomes is it that much harder to make it work at high level.
Yes, it is, but folks do it, anyway.
Last edited:
Rofel Wodring
Explorer
Personally, I think it's much less of a problem that high-level 5E D&D fights are too easy (and I agree that they're too easy, especially in caster-heavy parties and/or lots of item drops) than if it would be if the game was too hard (3.5 D&D without exploits) or fights moved too slowly (4E D&D). When a boss fight is too easy, it's just a 'whoopsie daisy' and a funny learning experience.
In fact, I think it's preferable to some extent for the game to become easier as players gain resources. There are always going to be utility gaps in classes (and, like it or not, 5E D&D has them) but it's much preferable to have a Diviner Wizard and a Beastmaster Ranger in a game where the battles are generically easy than the same setup in a game where the battles are of medium difficulty.
In fact, I think it's preferable to some extent for the game to become easier as players gain resources. There are always going to be utility gaps in classes (and, like it or not, 5E D&D has them) but it's much preferable to have a Diviner Wizard and a Beastmaster Ranger in a game where the battles are generically easy than the same setup in a game where the battles are of medium difficulty.
Similar Threads
