D&D 5E Avoiding High Level Play - Player or DM Preference?

[S'mon]

I'm currently running Shattered Star - Dead Heart of Xin converted from Pathfinder, see Varisia: Curse of the Crimson Throne, Runelords of the Shattered Star

I convert a lot of the Pathfinder monsters myself, as well as using Tome of Beasts and Sandy Peterson's 5e Cthulu Mythos book, which has some ridiculously deadly stuff like the Flying Polyps, never mind actual Great Old Ones! Primeval Thule 5e also has some good stats for Mythos critters. But the main thing for me is converting over the PF stat block to 5e, with a few tricks like 5e AC and other DCs = (0.5 x PF AC/DC) + 5, and halving stats over 20. It's generally much quicker to convert a PF stat block to 5e than to read & understand it fully, since I ignore most PF Feats and other heavy crunch elements. I cap DCs at 30, keeping most to around 25, and I cap to-hit bonuses at +20 with most kept to around +15, or for monsters whatever derives from Proficiency Bonus + Attack Bonus. I tend to increase hp +50%, but anything from keeping as-is to +100% can work depending on the monster. Damage is generally increased +50%, except for spell damage.

Example of converted Pathfinder monster - as here, the CR generally works out 2-3 higher:

5e Monsters - Rune Giant
This giant’s skin is black and pitted, like roughly cast iron, and etched with glowing red runes.

Rune Giant CR 20

LE Gargantuan humanoid (giant)
Init +0; Senses low-light vision; Passive Perception 21

Proficiency +6

Str 30 (+10), Dex 11 (+0), Con 24 (+7), Int 14 (+2), Wis 21 (+5), Cha 18 (+4)

AC 20
hp 405
Good Saves STR +16 CON +13 INT +8 WIS +11
Immune cold, electricity, fire

OFFENSE

Speed 50 ft.
Melee Greatsword (2 attacks) +16 dam 45 slashing (crit 67 slasing on 19–20) and an SML target is Pushed back 10' and knocked prone.
Ranged Javelin +16 dam 31 piercing (crit 46 piercing/19-20) plus 21 lightning damage; range 60'/240' and a SML target is Pushed back 10' and knocked prone.
Space 20 ft.; Reach 20 ft.

Equipment: Greatsword, 2 javelins.

Special Attacks command giants, runes, spark shower
Spell-Like Abilities (Spell Save DC 18; Spell Attack +10)

At will—charm person; suggestion
3/day—mass charm monster; dominate person
1/day— true seeing; air walk

STATISTICS

Skills Athletics +16; Craft +8; Knowledge (history) +8, Knowledge (nobility) +8, Perception +11
Languages Common, Giant, Terran

SPECIAL ABILITIES

Command Giant

Giants have disadvantage on saves vs charm or compulsion effects used by rune giants.

Runes

Whenever a rune giant uses its spark shower or spell-like abilities, it can cause the runes on its body to flash with light. All creatures within 10 feet of the giant must make a DC 18 CON save or be Blinded until the end of their next turn.

Spark Shower

As an action, a rune giant can cause a shower of sparks to erupt out of one of the runes on its body. These sparks function as a 30-ft. cone; 45 fire and 45 electricity damage; DC 18 DEX save half; recharge 5-6.

Legendary Resistance 3/day: The Rune Giant can choose to pass a failed save.

Legendary Action 1/turn, max 3/round: At the end of another creature's turn the Rune Giant may make a Greatsword attack or use Spark Shower (if available).

 

[akr71]

At my table it is both. Coming up with interesting plots and hooks for the players to want to play is tough. As a player, getting involved in the world and nation level politics that level 15+ adventures usually involve is tedious and less fun than "Somebody save our village!"

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Shiroiken]

A campaign should be the length of the DM's story, regardless of level. I've played a campaign that went from level 1-5 and was very satisfied with it. My first 5E campaign went to level 18, because the final enemy was Lolth, not because I wanted to run high level. I expect my current one to end somewhere around level 10-12, but I don't know for sure. One of the most annoying campaigns I played in was one that should have ended around level 8, because we finished the story the DM set forth, but they continued on (fairly aimlessly for a while) and it became like a TV show that "jumped the shark."

I think the average campaign ends not due to game related issues, but because of personal issue. DM burnout is a serious thing (one of my DM's is currently trying to finish his campaign, but I know he's burned out), and causes campaigns to peter out. Players can also get apathetic to a DM's story, especially if there's been high PC turnover (one of my games ended when the players realized that no one in the party was actually part of the events that started the campaign, and thus had no real motivation to complete it). Social issues kill games too, as real life pulls players away from game time, and when players (or even the DM) have personal issues with someone else in the group.

 

[pogre]

But when we did do the high level ones, only a few players wanted to ROLE PLAY their characters. The rest just wanted to Hack'N'Slash with their greater HP, +weapons/to hit, etc and collected treasure.

At which stage we would end up stop doing modules, and just do random dungeon generation.

So I would say it is equal DM/Players when it comes to high level adventures.

Why waste time getting a high level module/campaign ready if the player just want to hack'n'slash?

That's fair.

On the other hand, my players may just want to hack and slash but do it with some new abilities and tactical possibilities. Combat is definitely the strongest/biggest pillar in our D&D games.

Still, I agree that just throwing combat encounters at a group with a random dungeon would be a drag.

 

[pogre]

Social issues kill games too, as real life pulls players away from game time, and when players (or even the DM) have personal issues with someone else in the group.

Totally understand this. Players/group chemistry is important to keep a campaign going. People have to like playing with each other to play at high levels!for extended campaigns!

A campaign should be the length of the DM's story, regardless of level.

I hear what you are saying, but I look at it a little differently. I want to provide a campaign where players can explore their character's story. I want the players to dictate when they are done and ready to retire a character.

DM burnout is a serious thing (one of my DM's is currently trying to finish his campaign, but I know he's burned out), and causes campaigns to peter out.

No doubt. That can be even truer IME when there is less prepared material to steal from - like as is the case with current offerings.

 

[Raith5]

I think very different skillsets are required for low-level and high-level play.

I think this is key. I dont think that D&D has ever really given great direction to DMs in high level play - and I think 5e is no exception. For one thing high level play often involves players dictating the action and changing the campaign world. This requires having DMs who are both able to 'let go' of their world to some degree and also willing to push the encounter mechanics beyond the guidelines.

 

[S'mon]

I hear what you are saying, but I look at it a little differently. I want to provide a campaign where players can explore their character's story. I want the players to dictate when they are done and ready to retire a character.

I run both - 'open' player-directed campaigns like my Wilderlands sandbox or my current Primeval Thule game, and GM-directed campaigns with a 'story' like Red Hand of Doom, Princes of the Apocalypse & my Runelords of the Shattered Star mash-up. Both approaches can be great and both have their strengths. The open campaign has no obvious end, but sometimes it just feels 'done - at least for now' when PCs have died, achieved their goals, retired or otherwise come to the end of their personal arc.
For Primeval Thule I told my players the plan was to play weekly for one year level 1-20 then stop, echoing the setting's primary theme of transience - " Mighty cities and sprawling empires rise and fall, weaving a tale of great deeds and epic tragedies that will be lost and forgotten by the peoples who came later. Even the land itself is fated to fall beneath the numbing cloak of endless winter, burying the triumphs and defeats of this vanished age beneath miles of ice. But for this glittering moment in the slow dream of time, Thule lives!"

 

[Larnievc]

Is it player preference or dungeon master preference that is ending campaigns/adventure paths before high levels?

My sense is that players really want to continue playing high level PCs, but the campaigns tend to fizzle on the DM's part. However, that is a very local observation and I'm interested in your perspective. Do players really prefer to end campaigns as their PCs near or hit 4th tier? Is the so-called 'sweet spot' of the game, 3rd-8th level (or 10th), the sweet spot for DMs and Players?

The group I run are knocking on 11th level for the first time in ever with wizard, druid, fighter, ranger. We’ve been playing the campaign for about a year and no one has complained about the high levelness.

I would not be so keen to continue is it was 3.5 ed, though.

 

[Quartz]

High level play in 3.x was fine. Liberal use of Disjunction (but not every time) from around 12th level kept magic items in check (and allowed for churn) and the power level down. If the PCs know they will likely be hit with a Disjunction they're not going to bother buffing. Yes, the BBEGs are sensible and put Disjunction into Rings of Spell Storing and give them to lackeys so they don't run the risk of loss of spellcasting. (If memory serves I also redefined the definitions of artefact and relic to reduce the risk further.) Multi-classing helped keep the power level down too. And anyone who's read the Tales of Wyre knows how D&D can come alive at epic levels.