D&D 5E (2014) Running D&D 5e for Levels 10+

[MichaelSomething]

If you have products that make high level 5E more challenging to players (or are DMs looking to purchase such things) please post/look at this thread I made earlier that tries (badly) to catalog such things...

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's what the topic was, currently, after six pages of posts.

The rules of the game exist to tell us how to translate narrative structures into game mechanics. That translation is why I bought the books. That translation is what my players have signed up to play.

If your advice for handling high-level campaigns is to ignore everything about challenge ratings and experience awards, then that's not terribly useful advice to anyone who actually wants to play they game they bought. I'm not saying that it's bad advice, necessarily, but it is tantamount to giving up on using the rules in the book.

Well, if the complaint is that the rules as they exist are resulting in a somehow unsatisfactory experience, then I would say adjusting them is the only actual option.

But I’d also say that such modifications are not against the rules, but are actually suggested by the rules.

 

[Eric V]

Ok, if dragons don't fit the bill, are there -any- monsters that can go toe-to-toe with high-level PCs without resorting to skirmishing tactics?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ok, if dragons don't fit the bill, are there -any- monsters that can go toe-to-toe with high-level PCs without resorting to skirmishing tactics?

An archmage that turns into a lich when defeated that turns into an ancient black dragon when defeated that turns into a kraken when defeated that heals up to full when defeated can almost beat a nearly-full party of level 16 characters in a fight.

Nothing in the book can remotely challenge a high-level party in direct combat.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok, if dragons don't fit the bill, are there -any- monsters that can go toe-to-toe with high-level PCs without resorting to skirmishing tactics?

Few can individually face a party of powerful PCs and go toe to toe. But the game isn’t designed with that expectation. To even have a chance, a solo monster should be a Legendary Creature with additional actions, Legendary Resistance, and possibly Lair Actions, as well.

Most creatures should not face a party alone, they should have underlings to help balance the number of combatants. So it’s best to use more than one enemy whenever possible. If you really want to have a creature go toe to toe with the party, then you should increase its HP significantly.

But really, it boils down to the party in question. An average party of average players? Monsters in the book will be fine. Players who know the system well enough to create incredibly optimal characters who work in unison and are geared toward combat efficacy...that’s another story.

 

[Hussar]

If what you're suggesting is to nerf or remove the class abilities, spells and feats the PHB hands out, then... No thanks.

I really feel that an Advanced Monster Manual is a way simpler fix than essentially rebuilding the whole game.

You might be right, or not. It might be that the MM isn't too weak, and instead the PHB is too strong. But it is still much easier to fix things on the monster end.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

The thing is, the fix is so simple that they don't need a new anything. You claim that your group is dealing 300 points of damage/round (60/PC). So, simply work backwards. A challenging encounter should last about 5 rounds - the baddies can deal enough damage in that time to put PC's in a hurt locker. So, your challenging encounter needs 12-1500 hp. You can achieve this any number of ways, but, that's what it comes down to.

So, an Adult White Dragon (CR 13) should be a stiff encounter for a standard 10th level party. 16d12+96 HP (baselines to 200) maxes out at 288. Now, my party would have a problem with that - that's about 3 rounds to drop that creature, so, yeah, it's going to put on the hurt on my guys. On your party, it's a speed bump - so, we jack up the HP to 1300. End of problem. It goes down in about 4 rounds, which gives it lots of actions.

I'm frankly rather baffled why this is even an issue. If you have a group that is so focused on DPS, and you insist on standing toe to toe with that party and fighting them based on their strongest abilities, of course they are going to munch encounters. So, get out your Mark 1 Pencil, and add a 1 to the beginning of every HP line.

Problem solved.

Ok, if dragons don't fit the bill, are there -any- monsters that can go toe-to-toe with high-level PCs without resorting to skirmishing tactics?

Well, it depends on the group. My group? No problems. Lots of monsters fit the bill because we're not interested in creating characters for the sole purpose of dealing DPS. But, if your group is focusing on dealing damage to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, then, well, no, nothing the MM will really work by itself.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Lots of monsters fit the bill because we're not interested in creating characters for the sole purpose of dealing DPS. But, if your group is focusing on dealing damage to the exclusion of pretty much everything else, then, well, no, nothing the MM will really work by itself.

Who has said anything about this premise? Please stop moving the goal posts by adding motives to other people's perceived complaints. Thanks.

 

[5ekyu]

It's what the topic was, currently, after six pages of posts.

The rules of the game exist to tell us how to translate narrative structures into game mechanics. That translation is why I bought the books. That translation is what my players have signed up to play.

If your advice for handling high-level campaigns is to ignore everything about challenge ratings and experience awards, then that's not terribly useful advice to anyone who actually wants to play they game they bought. I'm not saying that it's bad advice, necessarily, but it is tantamount to giving up on using the rules in the book.

Saelorn

In one post you comnent on how players can optimize their characters with tactics and with optimization, contrasting that with DM monsters who have tactics poisibly but a set CR for a set of stats.

Then, in a closely following post, you mention how chsnging monster stats changes the CR.

Then you toss out that as throwing higher CR at party with the goal being same CR.

This is not a problem of the game as much as it is a problem of deliberatly chosen conflucting constraints.

For the CR system, and much of the game, there is a general mid-ground baseline assumption about what "a group of four level x" can do. That is **not** the same as an expectation, **not** the same as a **prescription** and **not** the same as a restriction.

It is just a tool for getting the various parts on a relatively close and similar scale.

And likely as not there are few games that match that assumption precisely or even close. There are plenty of differences in what any given party of four level x characters will do as far as output in one game vs another.

Just as tactical ability will vary between two different groups, so will build optimization and so will tactical discipline and so will even environmental opportunities.

All of which points out something that you will see references alk thru the books... For balance LEVEL and CR are both just approximations and the GM has to figure out essentially what his specific party's EFFECTIVE LEVEL is relative to the CR.

The game could certainly raise the base default stat blocks for more raw power of a CR17 macguffin to match a baseline assumption of four character level 17 top end optimized tacticians... But then for all those games where optimized was not as much the norm or where precision tactical play did not become the expected norm, there would be just as much breakdown of the CR baselines to expectations.

Thats why the CR system as it is is really, lets face it, tuned to a level where inexperienced to middle quality outputs are the norm and not to the more peak performance - because it is expected the high end performing output games will be using the "assess and adjust accordingly" to balance encounters.

Its not "throwing higher CR" at a level X party to look at the party and play ecperience with them and say "they play at level x+y" and then use the multitude of tools and tricks recommended to provide a CR x+y challenge encounter - remembering that attention to the baseline encounter goal of easy, hard, deadly etc and such

Net result - holding "level" as a fixed value in the level-cr system and not adjusting it for "differences/variations from normal" while requiring for your argument that VR must be adjusted for changes/variations from normal is a restriction/conatraint **you** are imposing that is in itself, maybe by design, creating the problem.

But, let me ask you this... Look at the stat blocks for the various "standard" npcs in the MM or PHB. Will whatever you imagine your well played well built party of four do more output than four of thosr NPCs of similar level?

If so, then consider - is not your "level" just as "altered" as far as its value for CR as you here insist a dragon with added spells or abilities should be?



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Who has said anything about this premise? Please stop moving the goal posts by adding motives to other people's perceived complaints. Thanks.

While I don't agree to assigning motives, they aren't relevant to the goalposts. It has been established that at least one of the people with an issue here has a group whose damage output is over twice that expected for a typical party.

If the designers wrench up the goalposts from in front of the typical group in order to move them in from of a group of players that is over twice as capable as the norm, that is going to cause issues.

Bear in mind that while 5e was marketed as the new edition for fans of older editions, a large proportion of the playerbase are new to the hobby. The designers aimed at that demographic and gave guidance to adjust for others because they trust more experienced DMs are able to adjust to the needs of their group better than novice DMs.
I understand that decision even though it leads to a little more work for me.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

While I don't agree to assigning motives, they aren't relevant to the goalposts. It has been established that at least one of the people with an issue here has a group whose damage output is over twice that expected for a typical party.

If the designers wrench up the goalposts from in front of the typical group in order to move them in from of a group of players that is over twice as capable as the norm, that is going to cause issues.

Bear in mind that while 5e was marketed as the new edition for fans of older editions, a large proportion of the playerbase are new to the hobby. The designers aimed at that demographic and gave guidance to adjust for others because they trust more experienced DMs are able to adjust to the needs of their group better than novice DMs.
I understand that decision even though it leads to a little more work for me.

Right. I do think that the issue is there, even for non-optimized groups. I think it's very closely connected to the related "monsters are boring bags of hp and lacks interesting abilities" complaint that frequently pops up on this and other forums. The monsters needs tricks and abilities to be able to go toe to toe with high level parties, no matter if the latter are optimized or not.