D&D 5E Anyone else hoping that the next campaign book WotC releases is 15th to 20th levels?

[eayres33]

I would love a 15th plus level adventure and since Wizards wrote the PC's to 20th level, I believe they owe it to everyone who purchased a PHB to write some adventure that goes to 20th level.
Now they have written many other adventures all they have to do is write an 15 to 20 with tie ends, and quickly go from 10th or 13th level mini-adventures to bridge the gap. Then you can go from any of the pre-made adventures to the new 15th level adventure. Seems like the best of all worlds.

 

[flametitan]

Not a hardcover, but I heard Adventurer's League modules may be coming out for level 17+ play. Doubt it will be satisfactory for scratching some people's itches, but it's better than nothing.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I think that when people say things like that they would find goblins an interesting opponent at level 15 are imagining some level of encounter complexity greater than that which is necessary for the cleric to cast one spell then walk towards the enemy in order to achieve victory.

You know, like an encounter not in a blank open space, and that doesn't assume the goblins don't have ranged weapons with which to be a threat from outside the cleric's spell effect.

Basically, an encounter designed to be a 15th level encounter that uses goblins - rather than the cakewalk you seem to imagine being the only possibility.

Could you give an example of such an encounter? Bearing in mind that any Goblin that comes within 15' of the cleric will die instantly. I would also stipulate that it has to be fun for the players and playable in a short time frame.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Did you not read the part where I suggested upgrading the enemies?

Literally the idea is to make the enemies higher CR, adjust any traps or other hazards or effects, and give the enemies magic items/higher level spells. Which is, again, a 3 to 4 page, at most, task per adventure.

like, you know goblins can be CR whtever you want, right?

As for dragons and the rest, yeah.

As I noted earlier, we are basically given half the tools for such a campaign. If you want to run a game with up-levelled Giants, Goblins, and the like, then I have three observations:

1) An adventure that has to provide new special versions of every enemy seems like it would basically be a new core book.
2) There seems little to be gained from letting high level characters fight higher-level versions of the same things. I mean, why not just stick to the lower levels of both versions? What is gained? You suggest that fighting more powerful versions makes it more epic, but I'm not sure how giving everyone in the fight +50hp and +2 proficiency mod really makes it more epic.
3) You complain about dragons and giants and whatnot being weak, and I do sympathize (especially when my players kill them, the swine). But their numbers and CRs do seem suited very strongly for letting characters of 5-10 fight them, with varying degrees of success. I think that this is on purpose. What, then, is the purpose of the phb stuff for levels 11-20? Well, ask people how they felt about 4e and its changes, and you'll have the answer. Those levels probably exist because people wanted them there, not because they served any useful need.

As someone running a game that has now reached level 15, my biggest problem now is finding challenges for the players that are entertaining to run, and don't seem silly. Most of the available monsters are boss monsters, making them reasonably unsuitable for tossing in hordes at rhe players. My intention is to run them through Glacier Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, and see how that goes, with the full intention of stripping out half the fights if it gets boring.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Could you give an example of such an encounter? Bearing in mind that any Goblin that comes within 15' of the cleric will die instantly. I would also stipulate that it has to be fun for the players and playable in a short time frame.

Because I agree with your stipulation that it has to be fun for the players, I have to add a preface to the encounter I'm about to use an example: A large part of what makes an encounter fun for players in my experience is that the encounter means something to their characters - there is a purpose to it other than the obvious purpose of being there so the players have game-play. That also means that the fun-factor is impacted by ephemeral qualities not easily put to text. Lastly, the example encounter is one that happened at my table and my players did enjoy, though I do not doubt my use of the Mob attack rules in the DMG was a significant factor.

Environment: A large chamber with numerous passages leading into it (the one the players entered from, and eight others at different angles around the sides), cluttered with piles of mining gear, overturned handcarts, and scattered bits of ore and rock. A single barred door at one end.

The enemies: 160 zombies; about 40 start in the chamber between the party's entrance and the door. The rest are scattered about 60 feet down the various other passages and will begin flooding in as the rounds proceed.

The goal: Get through the barred door (which needs to be smashed open; AC 15, 27 hit points, expected resistances and immunities of an iron-banded wooden door barred with a thick timber) because that NPC the party is sick of is doing something dastardly beyond it and needs to be stopped.

The enemy tactics: Surround characters, grab them, shove them prone, deal damage with hits after that.

Final note: Other things before, and other things known to be after, this encounter also shapes the fun of it - resources already used are not available, and any resources used here will not be available in the following confrontation with the nasty NPC. And to directly address one last thing; I don't have to bear in mind that coming within 15' of the cleric means instant death because A) there isn't a cleric in every party (my party doesn't have one), and B) not every cleric has that spell and the spell slot to use it that they are willing to spend in this specific encounter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And also, all it takes is a magic item or spell effect to mitigate the tactics that would normally kill hordes of critters at once.

All a supliment would need to fill the gaps in the existing toolkit:

*a couple easy tables like sly flourish made for buidling encounters, and for leveling up the HP and damage of enemies

*a list/table of 1-5 sentence story hooks to add to adventures to explain why goblins are the mooks of a 15th level adventure, etc. no story change is needed for SKT, EE, or anything involving dragons. I don't need story changes for goblins or Drow, frankly. They're intelligent tool users. IMO, by definition that means they can be epic.

*templates for making any creature legendary, elite, etc ie, new abilities, magic items, spells, minions, lair stuff, etc. that can be applied to a type of critter, like humanoid tool users, flying monsters, etc.

*specific expansion material for at least a few published modules with advice on which options in the supliment to use for each.

*and guidelines for putting the loot PCs want in the hands of the enemies trying to kill them. (Optional)

no way that that needs to be much bigger than the HoTDQ of SKT modules.

 

[MonkeyWrench]

I would love a 15th plus level adventure and since Wizards wrote the PC's to 20th level, I believe they owe it to everyone who purchased a PHB to write some adventure that goes to 20th level.

I'll echo this and add that it's disheartening to hear Perkins basically pass the buck onto individual DMs to come up with high level ideas all on their own. Theres a real vicious cycle with high-level play right now: we're given the argument that most campaigns are played at low levels, so that's were most of the official support will be. This leads to anemic rules support for high-level play and the reputation that tier 4 play is "broken/difficult/unplayable", which means groups will avoid it or insist they're not up for playing at levels 15+. Market research then shows most campaigns are played at low levels...

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'll echo this and add that it's disheartening to hear Perkins basically pass the buck onto individual DMs to come up with high level ideas all on their own. Theres a real vicious cycle with high-level play right now: we're given the argument that most campaigns are played at low levels, so that's were most of the official support will be. This leads to anemic rules support for high-level play and the reputation that tier 4 play is "broken/difficult/unplayable", which means groups will avoid it or insist they're not up for playing at levels 15+. Market research then shows most campaigns are played at low levels...

I don't think that all that many players are intentionally avoiding high level play, it's just that most campaigns end long before the characters reach level 15. So I doubt that improved rules for high level play will lead to a significant increase in the number of groups playing high level campaigns.

 

[MonkeyWrench]

I don't think that all that many players are intentionally avoiding high level play, it's just that most campaigns end long before the characters reach level 15. So I doubt that improved rules for high level play will lead to a significant increase in the number of groups playing high level campaigns.

Very true, it does take time to get to tier 4. However, I see the sentiment expressed that levels 15+ are broken or DMs are intimidated to run at those levels. Those arguments are often brought up as reasons why WotC shouldn't provide more support for high level campaigns.

What I'm really getting at is this: it would be nice to see more official support for high level campaigns and frustrating to hear people dismiss such calls for support because most campaigns don't reach that level.

 

[nswanson27]

Very true, it does take time to get to tier 4. However, I see the sentiment expressed that levels 15+ are broken or DMs are intimidated to run at those levels. Those arguments are often brought up as reasons why WotC shouldn't provide more support for high level campaigns.

What I'm really getting at is this: it would be nice to see more official support for high level campaigns and frustrating to hear people dismiss such calls for support because most campaigns don't reach that level.

Agreed. What's particularly confusing about that argument is that even if THEIR table doesn't get to tier 4, why are they treating other people's fun so lightly, since it's clear that there are that do get that high and strongly wish to continue.