D&D 5E A Glimpse Of High-Level Play

[Charles Rampant]

[MENTION=62721]MortalPlague[/MENTION]: I love those maps. Such lovely line-work! Tragically my innate laziness precludes me from such high quality work, but I hope to throw my players (who have just started a sandbox campaign) through a dungeon soon and I'll be enviously staring at your pictures while doing so.

This is an interesting thread. I've run a 5th-level one-shot, which was fairly hilarious (see quote box below), but I've not gone above that level so far. I asked my players how they wanted to level - once a month to reach 7th or so, or quicker to reach 12th or so - and they opted for the slower progression. Not sure if I am sad about not seeing the top ten levels: some of the coolest monsters will simply be out of the players' pay grade even at the end of the sandbox game. On the other hand, the MM has a focus on 1/2 to 2 CR monsters, which makes me wonder if there would be enough variety for players of about 15th level or so.

As a question for those with experience? How do stuff like the utility magic and crazy class abilities affect the games? Do they stop 'normal' challenges like dungeon corridors and falling trees and whatnot from being a danger?

It turns out that being bad at rolling dice is always a problem, regardless of level. The one-shot saw the players very quickly lose hitpoints when threatened. I think that the Lost Mine of Phandelver adventure gave me something of the wrong idea, since its encounters are crazy hard at 1st level, but pretty easy by 4th/5th. When I threw a pair of Succubi (well, one of each gender actually - need to be eglitarian, right?) at the players, it all went very wrong, with the barbarian chasing the bard down the hallway and the players frantically trying to focus-kill one of the fiends down before someone died. The final fight in that one-shot was a Chasme, which insta-gibbed the Rogue before dying in two rounds. Brutal.

 

[Joe Liker]

[MENTION=62721] On the other hand, the MM has a focus on 1/2 to 2 CR monsters, which makes me wonder if there would be enough variety for players of about 15th level or so.

As has been discussed in this thread, your high-level players will have the entire MM for variety. En masse, even 1/2 and 2 CR monsters can be deadly.

I like to provide variety through tactical setups. It's OK if the players have encountered the monster species numerous times in the past. Sometimes it's even preferable because it gives them the insight to come up with effective new tactics they might never use the first time seeing a monster.

 

[GlassJaw]

Our sorceress is the newest addition to the group. She has 18 CON and the Durable feat. That accounts for 6 hit poitns per level automatically.

Just to clarify, Durable doesn't give you more hit points, it just lets you recover more hit points when spending Hit Dice during a Short Rest.

The Tough feat gives you more hit points.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yes.

Our sorceress is the newest addition to the group. She has 18 CON and the Durable feat. That accounts for 6 hit poitns per level automatically.

Part of that is the dragon-fighting nature of our game. After being hit by a couple of breath weapons, everyone wants more hit points.

This struck me the other day as I was pondering the new inner workings of 5e.

I think that, because the game has shifted many previous "save or XXX..." effects over to straight hit point damage, maxxing hit points is going to be an essential (and widespread) tactic.

Bounded accuracy (and bounded AC) is fairly flat from the mid-levels on up-- there's just not much to work with-- so spiking hit points is probably the most effective (munchkin) tactic of 5e.

Granted, this has always been my personal preference in any edition of the game-- I like playing dead 'ard heroes-- but it is really paying off for my 5e Wulf Ratbane build.

 

[MortalPlague]

These are awesome maps. I yearn for the days of yesteryear when I had the time and inclination to create maps like these.

Those maps are not just good, they're incredibly inspiring.

[MENTION=62721]MortalPlague[/MENTION]: I love those maps. Such lovely line-work! Tragically my innate laziness precludes me from such high quality work, but I hope to throw my players (who have just started a sandbox campaign) through a dungeon soon and I'll be enviously staring at your pictures while doing so.

Thanks guys! I'm not immune to laziness myself. While I've had a pretty good rough idea of what the lich's dungeon looks like, the map on the left was sketched about an hour before the session. Notably, I had to finish the left part of it during a break in play. I doodled the one on the right over an hour or so while listening to the Shut Up & Sit Down podcast, and the level of detail is already much higher. Also, I'm very pleased with the layout, which I think offers some interesting tactical possibilities.

As a question for those with experience? How do stuff like the utility magic and crazy class abilities affect the games? Do they stop 'normal' challenges like dungeon corridors and falling trees and whatnot from being a danger?

Somewhat... Spell slots are always precious, so using them spuriously is rare. In the dungeon crawl from post one, there are a few examples of it. The dao in the first encounter was banished, which took it right out of the fight. The fight was still challenging, since the storm giant and the behir are both tough monsters (and the storm giant had advantageous terrain, being on top of a 40 foot column). But the dao would have made a big difference, were it there.

Also, the fact that our sorceress had slippers of spider climbing meant that the missing floor was more an inconvenience than a challenge, but it was nothing that someone with a good climb check couldn't make. Even if she didn't have it, our dwarf barbarian has a feat which lets him jump much further.

Elsewhere in the campaign, teleport and teleportation circle have been put to good use. It's not so game-breaking as it used to be, since there's a chance to fail on a teleport, and the circle takes a minute to cast. But it can cut out large amounts of travel. On the flip side, it means your wizard is devoting some high level spell slots to travel, rather than combat.

The other big spell I've encountered is heroes' feast. Look it up. Picture a party armed with that going up against a green dragon.

Just to clarify, Durable doesn't give you more hit points, it just lets you recover more hit points when spending Hit Dice during a Short Rest.

The Tough feat gives you more hit points.

You're right, I had my feats mixed up. She's tough, not durable.

This struck me the other day as I was pondering the new inner workings of 5e.

I think that, because the game has shifted many previous "save or XXX..." effects over to straight hit point damage, maxxing hit points is going to be an essential (and widespread) tactic.

Bounded accuracy (and bounded AC) is fairly flat from the mid-levels on up-- there's just not much to work with-- so spiking hit points is probably the most effective (munchkin) tactic of 5e.

Granted, this has always been my personal preference in any edition of the game-- I like playing dead 'ard heroes-- but it is really paying off for my 5e Wulf Ratbane build.

I'm curious to see how that develops over time.

In my Tyranny of Dragons game (this one), the PCs took those feats as the result of a series of brutal combat encounters from my co-DM. But the tactic is undeniably effective.

It hasn't come up in either of the other games I play in, however. And those PCs are doing just fine.

 

[Plane Sailing]

but it is really paying off for my 5e Wulf Ratbane build.

I don't suppose there will be a StoryHour for 5e Wulf Ratbane? I loved those 3e story hours with him in!

 

[GlassJaw]

While I do agree that hit points are important, my gut says that AC is equally important and viable in the long run, perhaps more so than any edition in a long time. With the proficiency bonus being so flat, any bonus to AC is going to be huge and continually to be for a long time.

Heck, it's the first edition in a long time where a shield is a great option, as is the Dodge action. 5E finally allows you to be a legit tank, and all it really takes is fighting with a shield and the Dodge action.

 

[KarinsDad]

While I do agree that hit points are important, my gut says that AC is equally important and viable in the long run, perhaps more so than any edition in a long time. With the proficiency bonus being so flat, any bonus to AC is going to be huge and continually to be for a long time.

Heck, it's the first edition in a long time where a shield is a great option, as is the Dodge action. 5E finally allows you to be a legit tank, and all it really takes is fighting with a shield and the Dodge action.

AC is important for weapon attacks (especially weapon attacks with riders like with some undead) and a few directed damage spells; hit points are important for any damaging attack (which is a larger subset of all attacks).

But I agree that finding ways to increase AC is critically important for this edition. The ranger/wizard in our group was waffling between +2 with ranged weapon attacks, or +1 to AC. I mentioned to him that he will eventually be casting spells for offense, so the +2 to ranged weapon attacks might not be used every encounter. +1 to AC, almost always good. He took my advice and now has the third best AC out of six PCs (still not up with the two plate, and sometimes plate/shield PCs).

 

[transtemporal]

Tonight I'm testing how well low-lvl monsters threaten high-lvl characters due to bounded accuracy. 15th lvl PCs may run across gnolls and their cohorts. If so, we'll see how well charging PCs fair against a whole mess of archers.

Pretty well, I think will be the answer. Monster damage spiked in 5e, combined with bounded accuracy can make players lives really interesting really quickly.

 

[TerraDave]

I don't suppose there will be a StoryHour for 5e Wulf Ratbane? I loved those 3e story hours with him in!

So, will there? [MENTION=94]Wulf Ratbane[/MENTION]