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

[Helldritch]

I would keep the HD or healing recovered on a long rest at one and not one per tier.

Players of level 6-10 would recover 2HD/long rest. It would take from 3 to 6 days to recover all HD. Why bother with the extended rest of one week?
Players of level 11-15 would recover 3HD/long rest. It would take from 4 to 5 days to recover all HD. Again why bother with the extended rest? At this point, greater restoration is readily available...
At level 16-20 and 4HD/long rest It would take 4 to 5 days to recover all HD. Again, why bother with the extended rest?

Keep it at one HD worth of healing recovered.

As for the DC of the save on a long rest.
I would go for something like that: DC 10 + level of exhaustion. If you like critical, add that a 1 adds one level of exhaustion and a 20 removes 2.
I would allow proficiency bonus on that. Just a small boost to our hand to hand combattants.

 

[OB1]

That's a good point. Maybe 1 HD levels 1-10 and 2 levels 11-20. Or, 1 per tier, but no recovery of HD if you have exhaustion or a failed death save when you start the rest. Still keeps the value of the long rest and puts another reason to avoid dropping to 0 HP on the list.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Stalker0]

In terms of the concepts of encounter building and adventuring day, ultimately for my group it comes down to this. We simply do not want to spend the time handling the number of encounters that is assumed in 5e.

I don't want to throw out a lot of standard encounters that drain the party just to make the "real" fight interesting. We can only game so much, meaning that gaming time is precious, and we don't want it to be filled with a trap that can be easily healed, or a fight that is an easy win.

Now, I could make a "really long adventure", and break it into those fights, and it would work. But then...we would go months with little resolution, and that is not attractive either.


For all of the options 5e presented, it did not make a good option for "gaming with fewer assumed encounters". And what you see at high levels is that a few deadly type encounters aren't really enough...they just aren't deadly enough at the baseline. A good DM can always modify his encounters to push their deadliness, but I agree with several that says it takes work. You can't just pick some monsters of a really high CR and expect them to challenge the party. My players laugh at CR +5 monsters now that they are 15th level, so it takes more work to make big combats viable if you aren't going to drain them with the small stuff.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For all of the options 5e presented, it did not make a good option for "gaming with fewer assumed encounters". And what you see at high levels is that a few deadly type encounters aren't really enough...it takes more work to make big combats viable if you aren't going to drain them with the small stuff.

To make shorter 'days' viable and attrition less mandatory you'd have to dive in and re-design the classes, mostly by taking stuff away from them.

In the run-up to the playtest, there was lots of rampant speculation and brainstorming on the WotC boards. Someone suggested that full casters could use a progression consisting only of slots in their top-level and slots of 'lesser' spells.

Something vaguely like:

CL - 1st L slots - 2nd L slots - 3rd - etc...
1 - 2 - 0
2 - 3 - 0
3 - 2 - 1
4 - 1 - 2
5 - 0 - 2 - 1
6 - 0 - 1 - 2

Something like that, anyway ... I think it eventually got up to 5 slots/day.

Also, given the nature of high-level spells, there's probably be a maximum of what counts as 'lesser' probably 5th.

So at 18th, you might have 3 slots for 5th-and-lower level spells and 2 slots for 6-9th level spells.

It'd work for very short days.

 

[OB1]

... You can't just pick some monsters of a really high CR and expect them to challenge the party. My players laugh at CR +5 monsters now that they are 15th level, so it takes more work to make big combats viable if you aren't going to drain them with the small stuff.

Try CR+50% as the baseline up to CR+100%



Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

In terms of the concepts of encounter building and adventuring day, ultimately for my group it comes down to this. We simply do not want to spend the time handling the number of encounters that is assumed in 5e.

Exactly this.

(And note to certain posters following me around on the forum:

We don't want to be told to play another edition either.

We want 5e to work the way we want to play the game.)




Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Try CR+50% as the baseline up to CR+100%



Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

The problem with the "just increase the CR" solution is it increases monster attack damage too.

There's no point building a "damage sponge", ie a tank, if the monster can one-shot you, despite you being optimized to soak attacks.

There needs to be "CR-appropiate" monsters (whether this is APL or APL+5 is a separate discussion) where the challenge is increased not merely by huge attacks and zillions of hit points, but by "tricks and tools": more attacks, ways to deny the party attacks, ways to move about the battlefield and to confound player characters.

In short, more monsters the way they used to be designed: with more sophistication.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[OB1]

In short, more monsters the way they used to be designed: with more sophistication.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Have you tried the 5E Tome of Beasts from Kobold Press?

 

[Thakazum]

Can someone who is obviously a greater DM than I give me an example encounter that works? Say I have a party of 6 ranging from (four 11's, one 13 and one 14). Feats have been allowed (multiclassing is but no one used it). I have a hard time challenging them without bringing down the what seems like endless enemies to try and challenge with attrition. I feel like they are near-invincible and just cut through monsters like butter.

I would love an example.

More specific example of party makeup:
11 - Hill Dwarf Open Hand Monk
11 - High Elf Lore Wizard
11 - Half Orc Battlemaster Fighter
11 - Mountain Dwarf Scout Fighter
14 - Human Rogue Swashbuckler
13 - Hill Dwarf Tempest Cleric

 

[Jester David]

Okay [MENTION=73093]Thakazum[/MENTION], to make a really challenging encounter, focusing on enemies is problematic. Because monsters are always disadvantaged in terms of options than PCs, and generally actions as well.
And fights are always one DM's brain versus the brains of six players. Whenever there's that many PCs at work, the base rules just go out the window.

First, focus on the encounter areas. The place the encounter is taking place.
Don't just have enemy archers, have enemy archers crouching behind a barricade that gives them full cover. Or up on a balcony shooting down.
Have floors of lava. Chambers full of toxic gas causing regular poison damage. Dungeons filled with flamable methane where torches can't be used and fireballs will burn everyone. Large psychic crystals that radiate emotion and cause buffs/ debuffs. Unholy areas that cause undead to regenerate and respawn. A magical shrine that protects enemies from harm, absorbing # damage each turn until it is destroyed.

Use high damage traps with a trick to disarming them.
Adding traps to encounter areas can work as well. Spiked pit traps can really derail a fight. Or pits of acid. Sliding walls that separate the party can also wreck their day.