Last week, the Level 14-16 party beat Graz'zt, 2 Marilith and a Storm Giant...easily

[Upper_Krust]

In the game last week, I was playing a Level 14 Fighter Battle Master (Heavy X-Bow build) and the rest of the group were:

Level 16 Rogue Arcane Trickster
Level 15 Fighter Champion
Level 16 Barbarian
Level 15 Paladin

So very Martial Heavy (the week before the Paladin was not there and another player had a Warlock) and also 5 PCs.

But I was shocked how easily we crushed the adventure's final encounter and how little damage the enemies dealt.

For reference these were the 2014 versions of the monsters.

We did get a bit lucky on Initiative and with a couple of rolls (the Barbarian hit two crits on the Storm Giant) and my Fighter somehow landed 6 hits with Action Surge on Graz'zt taking -5 on each to hit roll for +10 damage.

But it highlighted how feeble high CR monsters are when stacked against a half-decent party.

Using the 7.5 per CR damage output (suggested by Mike Shea)

CR 12 = 90 damage
CR 16 = 120 damage
CR 24 = 180 damage (though personally I would say 210, with 15 points for CRs 21-24)

The Storm Giant can do about 60 damage.
The Marilith can do about 100 damage.
Graz'zt can do 68 or 170 using 3 Legendary Actions to attack. Which on paper looks okay but in practice hiding 60% of his damage output within Legendary Actions is a mistake. I know Graz'zt is not necessarily a damage dealing brute (he did briefly Charm the Champion Fighter) but he just crumpled like tin-foil.

2024 Storm Giant deals 72 (but same HP) and the 2024 Marilth deals 117 (HP increased to 220), so definite improvements.

Hit Points were also a bit flimsy (with 20 per CR as an average)

CR 12 = 240 Hit Points, Storm Giant had 230
CR 16 = 320 Hit Points, Marilith had 189
CR 24 = 480 (I'd suggest 560), Graz'zt had 346

My overall takeaway is that I can see why high-level play gets a bit of bad reputation - the monsters don't hit hard enough. While 2024 improved monsters slightly they also boosted Players by at least as much. Encounter XP budgets have increased - however that fight was just over 100,000 XP which is almost a High Difficulty encounter for a Party of 5 Level 20 characters, let alone 5 characters averaging Level 15.

Anyone else had similar experiences at High-level?

 

[TheSword]

In the game last week, I was playing a Level 14 Fighter Battle Master (Heavy X-Bow build) and the rest of the group were:

Level 16 Rogue Arcane Trickster
Level 15 Fighter Champion
Level 16 Barbarian
Level 15 Paladin

So very Martial Heavy (the week before the Paladin was not there and another player had a Warlock) and also 5 PCs.

But I was shocked how easily we crushed the adventure's final encounter and how little damage the enemies dealt.

For reference these were the 2014 versions of the monsters.

We did get a bit lucky on Initiative and with a couple of rolls (the Barbarian hit two crits on the Storm Giant) and my Fighter somehow landed 6 hits with Action Surge on Graz'zt taking -5 on each to hit roll for +10 damage.

But it highlighted how feeble high CR monsters are when stacked against a half-decent party.

Using the 7.5 per CR damage output (suggested by Mike Shea)

CR 12 = 90 damage
CR 16 = 120 damage
CR 24 = 180 damage (though personally I would say 210, with 15 points for CRs 21-24)

The Storm Giant can do about 60 damage.
The Marilith can do about 100 damage.
Graz'zt can do 68 or 170 using 3 Legendary Actions to attack. Which on paper looks okay but in practice hiding 60% of his damage output within Legendary Actions is a mistake. I know Graz'zt is not necessarily a damage dealing brute (he did briefly Charm the Champion Fighter) but he just crumpled like tin-foil.

2024 Storm Giant deals 72 (but same HP) and the 2024 Marilth deals 117 (HP increased to 220), so definite improvements.

Hit Points were also a bit flimsy (with 20 per CR as an average)

CR 12 = 240 Hit Points, Storm Giant had 230
CR 16 = 320 Hit Points, Marilith had 189
CR 24 = 480 (I'd suggest 560), Graz'zt had 346

My overall takeaway is that I can see why high-level play gets a bit of bad reputation - the monsters don't hit hard enough. While 2024 improved monsters slightly they also boosted Players by at least as much. Encounter XP budgets have increased - however that fight was just over 100,000 XP which is almost a High Difficulty encounter for a Party of 5 Level 20 characters, let alone 5 characters averaging Level 15.

Anyone else had similar experiences at High-level?

Yes. Simply put.

I think there is a solution and that is to design high level encounters like a form of puzzle with interlocking parts.

The DM needs to synergise terrain, plot elements, and monster abilities to make a high level combat a challenge. In short they need to fine tune the antagonists to be effective as possible.

Reading your post has been a bit of eureka moment for me having ran a few campaigns to 20 level, most recently Age of Worms and finding some of the high level combat tedious at times. Now I reflect on it it’s obvious why really.

If you have a party that synergises with other PCs by granting them huge Paladin bonuses on saving throws for instance. Or uses terrain - bottlenecks/cover/environmental effect to their advantage. Or tactically selects the most beneficial targets and works as a concerted whole and squeezes every drop of potential out of their action economy. Then of course they are going to easily beat equal opponents that aren’t doing that. The higher the level the more they can synergise and affect the world around them.

I think a heck of a lot of thought has to be put into how high level combat is ran. The monsters and their stat blocks are not enough. I think we sometimes say D&D is badly designed at high level but the more I think about it, the more I am reaching the conclusion that it’s not, it’s just often the players and the DM are playing by a whole different set of expectations and norms.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there TheSword!

Yes. Simply put.

I think there is a solution and that is to design high level encounters like a form of puzzle with interlocking parts.

The DM needs to synergise terrain, plot elements, and monster abilities to make a high level combat a challenge. In short they need to fine tune the antagonists to be effective as possible.

I agree with that to the extent of 'if we continue to use the official monster stats' then certainly we need to think 'outside the box' and involve the terrain and potential plot elements (Reinforcements for instance).

Although I do believe a vastly simpler approach is to just increase the damage.

Reading your post has been a bit of eureka moment for me having ran a few campaigns to 20 level, most recently Age of Worms and finding some of the high level combat tedious at times. Now I reflect on it it’s obvious why really.

If I boiled the problems down to 3 main issues:

1. Monsters don't hit hard enough.
2. Big difference between optimized and unoptimized Player Characters.
3. Big difference when Player's go 'nova' (ie. Use best spells, action surges, high level smites etc.)

Solutions:

1. Easy solve - up the damage.
2. Relatively easy solve - know the party and up the Encounter Difficulty accordingly
3. Tricky solve and not even necessarily a flaw, just player's being clever - but could be mitigated somewhat by a chance of Reinforcements each round (lets say reinforcements arrive after 1d3 rounds).

You can have unnatural ways of mitigation such as (Boss cannot be harmed until 3 Magical Mac-guffins are destroyed)

If you have a party that synergises with other PCs by granting them huge bonuses on saving throws for instance. Or uses terrain - bottlenecks/cover/environmental effect to their advantage. Or tactically selects the most beneficial targets and works as a concerted whole and squeezes every drop of potential out of their action economy. Then of course they are going to easily beat equal opponents that aren’t doing that. The higher the level the more they can synergise and affect the world around them.

Agreed. That did happen in my example. Although this should have been a Highly Difficult encounter for 5 Level 20 PCs and instead it was an Easy Encounter for 5 Level 14-16 PCs.

I think a heck of a lot of thought has to be put into how high level combat is ran. The monsters and their stat blocks are not enough.

Certainly not if they punch well below their 'weight'.

I think we sometimes say D&D is badly designed at high level but the more I think about it, the more I am reaching the conclusion that it’s not, it’s just often the players and the DM are playing by a whole different set of expectations and norms.

Low Level D&D is designed to deliver potentially deadly (and thus exciting) Encounters.

High Level D&D does not keep pace with the damage numbers (in terms of PC percentages) and that coupled with greater synergy between characters, more chances for PC's to go 'Nova' and far more healing mean that the deck is ridiculously stacked in the favour of the PCs - although there is still the difference between unoptimized and optimized PCs which at high level is probably akin to 2:1 (as in 1 optimized PC is worth 2 unoptimized ones).

...and just to be clear by optimized I don't mean wild CharOps exploit-builds I just mean characters built to maximise their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But I was shocked how easily we crushed the adventure's final encounter and how little damage the enemies dealt.

Anyone else had similar experiences at High-level?

Yes, the designers did a poor job.
I use a combination of tools to assist against such sad outcomes, some of which are

Hit Points I have a table for how hit points are calculated and they are dependent on if the creature is a standard, elite, named etc
Touch Attacks for ethereal creatures brough back (they ignore armour + shields)
Feats and Class Features opponents gain 1 for every 4HD.
Reach use 3e or Level Up to adjust the reach of your monsters, allowing for threatening reach for opportunity attacks
Damage Threshold or Resistance for creatures of a certain size
Auto Knocked Prone or Pushed by creatures two sizes larger than you, one size larger allows you a save
Auto Improvising Damage you're fighitng with a Storm Giant etc in melee, it is not a safe environment, the terrain smashes and crumbles around you
Reactions and Bonus Actions design some

 

[TheSword]

Hey there TheSword!

I agree with that to the extent of 'if we continue to use the official monster stats' then certainly we need to think 'outside the box' and involve the terrain and potential plot elements (Reinforcements for instance).

Although I do believe a vastly simpler approach is to just increase the damage.

If I boiled the problems down to 3 main issues:

1. Monsters don't hit hard enough.
2. Big difference between optimized and unoptimized Player Characters.
3. Big difference when Player's go 'nova' (ie. Use best spells, action surges, high level smites etc.)

Solutions:

1. Easy solve - up the damage.
2. Relatively easy solve - know the party and up the Encounter Difficulty accordingly
3. Tricky solve and not even necessarily a flaw, just player's being clever - but could be mitigated somewhat by a chance of Reinforcements each round (lets say reinforcements arrive after 1d3 rounds).

You can have unnatural ways of mitigation such as (Boss cannot be harmed until 3 Magical Mac-guffins are destroyed
Agreed. That did happen in my example. Although this should have been a Highly Difficult encounter for 5 Level 20 PCs and instead it was an Easy Encounter for 5 Level 14-16 PCs.

Certainly not if they punch well below their 'weight'.

Low Level D&D is designed to deliver potentially deadly (and thus exciting) Encounters.

High Level D&D does not keep pace with the damage numbers (in terms of PC percentages) and that coupled with greater synergy between characters, more chances for PC's to go 'Nova' and far more healing mean that the deck is ridiculously stacked in the favour of the PCs - although there is still the difference between unoptimized and optimized PCs which at high level is probably akin to 2:1 (as in 1 optimized PC is worth 2 unoptimized ones).

...and just to be clear by optimized I don't mean wild CharOps exploit-builds I just mean characters built to maximise their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses.

I agree. Near the end of AOW I was using creatures with CR 23+ for routine encounters for my 17th/18th level party.

My concern is that having a Paladin add +6 is to all saving throws is already going to dramatically reduce the damage output. But if you design creatures for that, the parties without a Paladin are going to suffer.

I think the damage number doesn’t scale as fast because the gap between PCs hp widens. I’m really not sure we would want regular situations where a full strength character of any class can be one shotted without being unlucky. If creatures damage is boosted at a base level then this becomes a real issue.

There is a reason this issue hasn’t been fixed in any similar system I’ve played. I don’t agree with @AnotherGuy that is bad design. I think it’s the difficult but inevitable consequence of giving players substantial choice.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I agree. Near the end of AOW I was using creatures with CR 23+ for routine encounters for my 17th/18th level party.

My concern is that having a Paladin add +6 is to all saving throws is already going to dramatically reduce the damage output. But if you design creatures for that, the parties without a Paladin are going to suffer.

I think the damage number doesn’t scale as fast because the gap between PCs hp widens. I’m really not sure we would want regular situations where a full strength character of any class can be one shotted without being unlucky. If creatures damage is boosted at a base level then this becomes a real issue.

There is a reason this issue hasn’t been fixed in any similar system I’ve played. I don’t agree with @AnotherGuy that is bad design. I think the damage number doesn’t scale as fast because the gap between PCs hp widens.

Bold emphasis mine. These do not naturally occur. They occur by design.
i.e. Design leads to having us play solve it at higher levels.

 

[TheSword]

Bold emphasis mine. These do not naturally occur. They occur by design.
i.e. Design leads to having us play solve it at higher levels.

Well you are right one option is for abilities to stop progressing at high levels. Though it’s easy to balance a game if you don’t give players any abilities.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey amigo!

Yes, the designers did a poor job.
I use a combination of tools to assist against such sad outcomes, some of which are

Hit Points I have a table for how hit points are calculated and they are dependent on if the creature is a standard, elite, named etc
Touch Attacks for ethereal creatures brough back (they ignore armour + shields)
Feats and Class Features opponents gain 1 for every 4HD.
Reach use 3e or Level Up to adjust the reach of your monsters, allowing for threatening reach for opportunity attacks
Damage Threshold or Resistance for creatures of a certain size
Auto Knocked Prone or Pushed by creatures two sizes larger than you, one size larger allows you a save
Auto Improvising Damage you're fighitng with a Storm Giant etc in melee, it is not a safe environment, the terrain smashes and crumbles around you
Reactions and Bonus Actions design some

I agree with most of those although I might be wary of Adding Feats/Class Features as that leads us into 3E territory of over complication.

I typically use Damage Threshold = 1/2 the creatures Hit Dice (or better for Golems) for each of my Epic Tier monsters.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I think the damage number doesn’t scale as fast because the gap between PCs hp widens. I’m really not sure we would want regular situations where a full strength character of any class can be one shotted without being unlucky.

Depends who they are facing.

Typically HP is approx. x3 of a creatures damage output. So if a PC was facing 3 creatures of equal power and all 3 creatures hit with all attacks a PC with average Hit Points (between d8-d10s in Hit Dice) should be dropped.

Likewise I believe a CR 24 monster should be dealing 210 or so per round. If everything hits that should drop a PC with 210 HP or less.

CR 8 = 60 damage
CR 12 = 90 damage
CR 16 = 120 damage
CR 20 = 150 damage
CR 24 = 210 damage
CR 28 = 275 damage

Level 20 Wizard = approx. 93 HP
Level 20 Cleric = approx. 134 HP
Level 20 Fighter = approx. 195 HP*
Level 20 Barbarian = approx. 276 HP
Average = 174.5

So that means a CR 24 monster is dropping one average PC each round, but likely not a front-line martial character. That to me sounds reasonable.

*Slight aside, my Level 20 Fighter has 303 HP, so I am massively low-balling the averages.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I typically use Damage Threshold = 1/2 the creatures Hit Dice (or better for Golems) for each of my Epic Tier monsters.

Oh that is a fine idea!
I've used proficiency bonus and constitution modifier in the past but I really like yours too.