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

[Tony Vargas]

I for one would love to hear someone relate their experiences with CR, XP budget and difficulty who isn't using magic weapons, or who is at least using them in a minimal sense...

I prefer not to use magic items (or feats, or MCing) at all. At low level (esp 1st) if find that XP budgets mostly give you fairly easy-seaming encounters, but yield the occasional unexpected TPKs, especially when the party is outnumbered or there aren't enough short rests. FWIW.

Of course, that's not germane to viability at high level. As far as that goes, I see no reason to think it'd work well - at least, any better than it did back in the day. 5e has reverted to almost every practice that had previously caused problems with high level play (BA/proficiency advancing everyone at the same* rate being the sole exception). And, y'know, definition of insanity....











* with the exception of Expertise and non-proficient checks, that is. Even exceptions end up with exceptions. Exceptional, that, and this isn't even supposed to be exception-based design, anymore.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I for one would love to hear someone relate their experiences with CR, XP budget and difficulty who isn't using magic weapons, or who is at least using them in a minimal sense... Maybe I've missed it in this thread but if so could someone point me to the post? I for one am a believer in magic items actually making characters better (which means yes they perform above the baseline the game expects) otherwise what's the point, if the challenge accounts for them then IMO they are little more than ornamentation. Thus I find it a little bit of a dichotomy for DM's to make the claim that CR is borked while handing out numerous and powerful magic weapons to their players... yeah it's easier, that's what magic weapons do make challenges in the game easier.

In my campaign, there are two groups of PCs. One is pure 5e....we made the PCs starting wth Lost Mines of Phandelver, and they've been adventuring since. They're currently 10th level. Here's what they have (beside a handful of potions):

- Arcane Trickster, human- Goggles of Night
- Valor Bard, human- +1 Silvered Rapier
- Champion Fighter (dual wielder), human: +1 Longsword
- War Cleric, dwarf: None
- Hunter Ranger, elf: had a dozen +1 Arrows, but now only has 4 left,
- Diviner Wizard, half-elf: None

That's all they have. As I mentioned above, they have a few random potions, and a couple of scrolls. I've intentionally kept them from having a whole lot because of the scaled nature of 5E's design. I do expect them to get a few more items soon.
EDITED TO ADD: Oh, they also had the Sunsword after completing Curse of Strahd, but they lost it while traveling on Athas. Suckers.

The high level group of PCs has more items. This is because these are "legacy characters" from prior editions who had long careers and well-established items. They're level 14 to 16. Besides consumables, here is what they have:

- Abjurer Wizard, human: Robe of the Archmage, Staff of Power, Ring of Regeneration
- Hunter Ranger/Trickster Rogue, half-elf: +2 Long Bow, Boots of Elvenkind, Handy Haversack, Ring of Mind Shielding
- Champion Fighter, human: Spellguard Shield, +2 Longsword, +1 Full Plate, Periapt of Health
- Life Cleric, Dwarf: Animated Shield, Adamantine Armor, Ring of Protection +2

Obviously this group has many more items, but I don't think it's too much for a high level group. I try to limit the numerical bonuses a bit, at least, by offering weapons or armor that provide other effects. This group is a powerful group of PCs, but I have challenged them pretty routinely.

I think it's real easy to let magic items get out of hand. Also, because the older editions went up to +5, I think some folks are still giving out items like +3 weapons in the level 10 to 12 range, which seems a bit too soon. If PCs are geared up with +2 or +3 weapons and armor, then yes, they are going to be significantly tougher and you have to expect that.

 

[Imaro]

Most of our games, especially with official campaigns, use little magic items. For example, the RoT campaign, even at the very end, each PC only had 2 or 3 magic items. Only half of us had magic armor. So none of this game breaking assumptions I've seen in this thread about how a high level PC will have maximum bonuses to saving throws, AC, etc. I think my 15th level tempest cleric had minor magical armor and a javelin of lightning. And healing potions of course. That was pretty much it. The monk had the dragon claws, and the rogue had a dragon dagger. But none of us had more than 3 or 4 items, even by level 15. The only item that caused a significant disruption was the Hazeron, the great sword. And it was a problem because you got it so early in the game, and it almost doubled damage for an already hard hitting weapon.

So did you find the higher level encounters easier than the guidelines suggest (and just to be clear I am asking insofar as the description given in the DMG for what an easy...medium...hard and deadly encounter are). Or did you find that they didn't really line up with the encounters as presented.

Just for reference...

Easy. The adventurers should quickly and decisively
overcome the encounter. They might take a few lumps
and lose a few hit points, but a good plan or a cunning
use of resources might make the encounter little more
than a brief pause in the adventure.

Medium. The encounter presents some difficulty, but
in the end the adventurers should emerge victorious.
Medium encounters might require the characters to
expend some resources or heal up a bit after the fight.

Hard. A hard encounter is tough, and it could
potentially go very badly for the adventurers with a
few unlucky die rolls or bad circumstances. Weaker
characters might get taken out of the fight, leaving a few
adventurers to deal with the threat. Hard encounters
have a small chance of killing PCs if things go awry.

Deadly. The encounter is potentially lethal for one or
more player characters. Survival often requires good
tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.
A difficult encounter causes serious injury, with a
substantial chance of character death.

So looking at this even a hard encounter is generally going to go the way of the PC's unless there are multiple unlucky rolls... or some of the PC's are already weakened... with a small chance of killing PC's if things go awry...

I'm being specific here because I am also wondering if some of the disconnect is people forming their own opinion on what a hard encounter should be and expecting the rules to provide that as opposed to judging CR and XP budget on whether it actually hits the mark the designers laid out for it in the game.

EDIT: Also I'd note I believe these are the difficulty expectations of the base game not one that includes magic items, multiclassing or feats... but I could be wrong.

 

[Imaro]

I prefer not to use magic items (or feats, or MCing) at all. At low level (esp 1st) if find that XP budgets mostly give you fairly easy-seaming encounters, but yield the occasional unexpected TPKs, especially when the party is outnumbered or there aren't enough short rests. FWIW.

Of course, that's not germane to viability at high level. As far as that goes, I see no reason to think it'd work well - at least, any better than it did back in the day. 5e has reverted to almost every practice that had previously caused problems with high level play (BA/proficiency advancing everyone at the same* rate being the sole exception). And, y'know, definition of insanity....











* with the exception of Expertise and non-proficient checks, that is. Even exceptions end up with exceptions. Exceptional, that, and this isn't even supposed to be exception-based design, anymore.

Hey Tony I'd be interested in your answer to the question I posed to [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] above this post....

 

[Tony Vargas]

EDIT: Also I'd note I believe these are the difficulty expectations of the base game not one that includes magic items, multiclassing or feats... but I could be wrong.

At least we'd have the novel experience of both being wrong about the same thing, in the same way. But, seriously it seems pretty obvious. Feats & MCing are optional. It's been repeatedly stated that magic items are not 'assumed.' It'd be kinda nuts to make guidelines that assumed magic items, feats, & MCing, wouldn't it?

did you find that they didn't really line up with the encounters as presented.

You could probably get a custom 4-sided die marked 'easy' / 'medium' / 'hard' / 'deadly' and do about as well predicting encounter difficulty. ;P

So looking at this even a hard encounter is generally going to go the way of the PC's unless there are multiple unlucky rolls... or some of the PC's are already weakened... with a small chance of killing PC's if things go awry...

Nod. Some people's idea of 'hard' is not 5e's definition of 'hard,' and that also causes issues with how the guidelines are perceived.

Another factor worth thinking about, though I suppose we've all had more than enough of it in Zapp's 'Elephant' thread, is pacing, combined with party composition. That can distort difficulty quite a lot. And, high level parties have more ways to engineer rests.

 

[Imaro]

Another factor worth thinking about, though I suppose we've all had more than enough of it in Zapp's 'Elephant' thread, is pacing, combined with party composition. That can distort difficulty quite a lot. And, high level parties have more ways to engineer rests.

I have thought about this and I'm not convinced pacing has that large an effect on the difficulty of individual encounters (which is different from how I first thought about it before I actually read the descriptions and realized that my idea of hard or deadly was nowhere near how it was defined in the books. I think it's a mechanism that tells you how far (within a reasonable margin) you should be able to push PC's before they are out of resources and gives markers for replenishing those resources. But at a party level (as opposed to individual character) I think a hard encounter is going to always be a hard encounter, i.e. one where the PC's are, barring multiple unlucky rolls or some prior weakness, basically guaranteed to win... and they will only risk loosing 1 or 2 characters if everything goes wrong for them. It seems like 5e is pretty upfront about encounters being skewed towards the PC's by a pretty large margin.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, I was a player, so I don't really know how the encounters were set to be (hard, easy, etc). I know we almost had a TPK at the final battle against Tiamat, and not from her (we had done actions to weaken her), but from all the other opponents.

Our party was tempest cleric, barbarbian, f/warlock, rogue, and sorcerer. all level 15.

FWIW, we also almost had a TPK when we were fighting in the hunter's lodge, and my 8th level shadow monk actually permanently died against cultists with a bunch of poisoned arrows. (that's when I move to the cleric).

We have all been playing decades, are not incompetent by any means either.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it's a mechanism that tells you how far (within a reasonable margin) you should be able to push PC's before they are out of resources and gives markers for replenishing those resources.

About the only broadly-used resource that'd work that way - you might run out of it, and therefor it limits how many encounters you face, but having more of it available in a single encounter makes no difference - would be HD.
Most other resources - mainly spell slots, obviously - can be 'nova'd in an encounter to make it much easier.

But at a party level (as opposed to individual character) I think a hard encounter is going to always be a hard encounter, i.e. one where the PC's are, barring multiple unlucky rolls or some prior weakness, basically guaranteed to win... and they will only risk loosing 1 or 2 characters if everything goes wrong for them. It seems like 5e is pretty upfront about encounters being skewed towards the PC's by a pretty large margin.

5e, 4e, and 3e all openly defaulted to a sort of 'speedbump' as the definitive at-level encounter, AFAICT, with resource-management issues making it harder or easier the more or fewer encounters you faced (or expected to face) in the day. But, the swing between a single-encounter '5MWD' and a more grueling 'standard' 'day' hasn't always been the same.
5e went with the longest baseline assumption for encounters/day of any ed (that made any such assumption, so the same three WotC eds), at 6-8 medium-hard.

Just like turning on Feats & MCing and giving out magic items, when the guidelines assume none of those things, is going to make combats easier having fewer encounter between rests will have the same effect, and it would seem it must be a more pronounced effect than ever before, since the 'norm' is so up there.

And, though it hardly bears mentioning since our sample is so skewed, poles around here have shown that encounters/day in games we actually run tend to fall well short of the 6-8 guideline. So that's a pretty clear-and-present explanation for the 'too easy' complaint. On top of using Feats & MCing and/or giving out too many (ie any) magic items.

 

[Stalker0]

And, though it hardly bears mentioning since our sample is so skewed, poles around here have shown that encounters/day in games we actually run tend to fall well short of the 6-8 guideline.

I do think that is a big factor. To me, 6-8 encounters in a day is flat out ridiculous in most of my games. Heck 6-8 encounters in an adventure is a large number. I feel like those numbers are created for the canned adventures that don't always have as much RP (though I have had some great RP sessions in those). But 6-8 encounters takes a lot of time...I just can't afford that in my campaigns.

That said, I personally don't feel "deadly" is deadly enough at higher levels. I've tried deadly encounters a few times and the party was never in true danger.

 

[Oofta]

I do think that is a big factor. To me, 6-8 encounters in a day is flat out ridiculous in most of my games. Heck 6-8 encounters in an adventure is a large number. I feel like those numbers are created for the canned adventures that don't always have as much RP (though I have had some great RP sessions in those). But 6-8 encounters takes a lot of time...I just can't afford that in my campaigns.

That said, I personally don't feel "deadly" is deadly enough at higher levels. I've tried deadly encounters a few times and the party was never in true danger.

The 6-8 encounter adventuring day is the main reason I switched to the optional rest rule of a short rest being overnight, long rest is several days or a week. We also regularly don't complete a "day" during a game day.

But the other option is just to adjust your scale. Do the calculation as if your party had more PCs. Have a 4 person party? Do the calc as if they were a 6 or 8 person party. At some point you'll challenge them, especially if you throw waves of opponents so that it's a little harder to go nova.