D&D 5E Balance at high levels - and a possible house rule


log in or register to remove this ad

Shiroiken

Legend
In every tier of 5E (and I have run all of them), the difference of power across the classes is based almost entirely on the amount of encounters per long rest. While I'm not a fan of the specific 6-8 per day, because I feel it should be more level dependent, the overall concept is solid. If your group has fewer but tougher encounters, then spellcasters will do best, while if you have many but weaker encounters, the spellcasters will run out of steam, leaving the martial characters supreme.
 

pukunui

Legend
I am currently playing a 20th level zealot barbarian. I do not feel overshadowed by the 20th level war wizard or his simulacrum.

I do, however, feel overshadowed by the 20th level kensei monk. That guy just has an answer to pretty much everything! Proficient in all saves, can’t get hurt falling, can’t be poisoned or diseased, can turn a miss into a hit, can use a longsword and a longbow and do extra damage with them, can literally walk on water and walls, and can stun everything before the rest of us even get turns.

Thanks to the DM, he even outshines my PC in the one area he excels at - being unkillable. The monk has died at least once already but the DM brought him back, and last session he had his brain eaten by an alhoon, but I expect he’ll be back again because we’ve only got about one or two sessions left in the campaign, so it’s a bit late to be bringing in a new PC. (We don’t have a cleric, but the wizard could potentially cast wish to bring him back too.)
 

cmad1977

Hero
The problems with high level casters is DM inexperience in pretty much every case I have ever seen or heard of.

Martials are easier to predict. Their ability to deal (and dish out) punishment increases on a reasonably linear scale (with bumps at 5th and 11th level, but pretty linear).

Casters can do things that you simply havent seen before with spells, and can trash an encounter (or an adventure) for the unwary (or inexperienced) DM.

It's why so many DMs rage-quit in the mid levels. It goes like this:

1) DM designs a series of encounters.
2) PCs steamroll encounters using abilities the DM has no experience with, demonstrating power the DM feels he cant counter
3) DM feels he has lost control of the game and rage-quits.
4) Time passes.
5) New campaign starts, players advance in level
6) goto 1

My advice for every DM is at stage 3, keep running the campaign. Fail and fail hard. Force yourself to do it. See what mid to high level PCs can do. Gain experience DMing at those levels (failure is the best way of learning).

Once you've done that a few times, you'll be prepared for high level play.

Yup.
 

So many variables: DM experience, player experience, group structure, encounters per day, ...

In my - now over 30 years - experience of AD&D, D&D and Pathfinder, all the above variables are still overuled by one important thing:
The party usually works together, not against each other.
Sure, on paper the high-level spellcasters can do amazing things, but could they do it without the BSF* in front?
And at least since 3e, is there any version of the game where an unprepared spellcaster would survive a turn versus a fighter?

Another point is character building and using the PCs resources within the game.
A high level wizard will seem weak when played by a noob compared to a fighter played by a pro.

I'm rather missing the out-of-combat options of the non-spellcasters, but that's also very dependent on the player. Ideas can come from anyone, no matter if spellcaster or not.

*BSF: Big Strong Fighter
 

Quartz

Hero
If you read the Tales of Wyre Story Hour - and I really recommend you do - one of the PCs is mainly a combat god and has very modest spellcasting power compared to the others.
 

Gadget

Adventurer
I don't want to pile on the OP, because it is a nice idea, and I think the disparity is still there, depending on campaign and play style. It is just lessened since the apex of the LFQW issue in the 3.x days. I want to acknowledge that it can be an issue, particularly in previous editions, but still in this one.

That said, High level spells are tricky. There are always good spells and more or less duds for any particular level, higher levels just make this more apparent, both due to the smaller number of spells to choose from and the need to one up lower level spells. I agree that encounters per day are a big issue with balance (spotlight & power) in 5e. The other factor is that even the highest level casters only have one of their "Big Guns," and they have to be judicious over when to pull out these so called "I win cards."
 

I do, however, feel overshadowed by the 20th level kensei monk.
Imagine if the monk was of the Long Death variety, truly unkillable.

The Monk class has the accelerator on the floor from level 1 and never lets up.

That is why I find it humorous when you read grognards, (whom clearly have limited experience with the class in 5e), state with such adamant authority, that the monk class sucks.

Uhh dude, Flurry of Misses is long gone...Magical Fists of Furry,( err Fury), is the name of the game in 5e.

puk, I would love to hear more about tier 4 single class barbarian experiences....I’ve either seen players retire their barbarian characters or multi-class past 10th level.
 
Last edited:


BacchusNL

Explorer
I think you could give most melee classes a Whirlwind-style attack @ lvl 11 (or equally powerful defensive ability) and a lot of the (percieved) disparity between melee and casters would be gone. Cuz let's be real, melee just want their own fireball-effect ^_^
 

Remove ads

Top