D&D 5E Bounded accuracy and more mundane heroes

[cmad1977]

I've run and played in games that went all the way to 20th, personally I didn't experience an issue. YMMV of course, but high level play felt suitably heroic to our group. We were fighting dragons and creatures of legend, handling region (if not necessarily world shaking*) threats.

When we did fight low-level monsters, we fought mobs with dozens if not hundreds of opponents. When our wizard called down tactical nukes (aka Meteor Storm) on our enemies it felt pretty cool. As a DM I just went a little over the top with some encounters and turned the dial up to 11 ... and then celebrated with my players when they stomped on multiple level 20+ monsters.

Throw in a handful of legendary magical items and we felt suitably heroic. Maybe not superhero powerful but that's just a matter of expectations and game feel.

*That's kind of a personal preference. How many times can you avert the end of the world?

In the latter stages of ToD(where players got to 16th or so) I thought to myself:
Self:”is this scenario too metal?”
Other self: “No. In fact... it needs more metal”
Self: “OK! More fire giant ballista!”

At high levels I think you need to turn it to 11 and have fun with epic scenarios.

 

[Oofta]

In the latter stages of ToD(where players got to 16th or so) I thought to myself:
Self:”is this scenario too metal?”
Other self: “No. In fact... it needs more metal”
Self: “OK! More fire giant ballista!”

At high levels I think you need to turn it to 11 and have fun with epic scenarios.

At high levels I always throw as much as I think the party can handle and then add a bit more. Sometimes quite a bit more.

 

[Laurefindel]

With bounded accuracy, low level opponents, in sufficient numbers, can still present a threat to even a high-level party, overwhelmed by the number of actions the crowd will have and not being nearly-immune to their attack. A high-level fighter can still be hit by a CR1 monster sometimes.

In practice, I've found that due to the PC's high amount of hp and ease with which they can kill low CR creatures without spending too much resources, those "sufficient numbers" of low-level opponents need to be quite high indeed, (like several hundreds high for a typical 4-member party), especially if they have high AC or decide to invest more of their PC's resources. While it makes for epic battles, there is a limit to which hordes of low-level critter can pitch themselves against the PCs on a regular basis (4-8 encounters per adventuring day).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In your experience of DM'ing at high level, have you noticed the endgame being "less superheroic" than in the 3.5 days (where you could engineer a acrobating run over liquid or semi-reliably fight on very narrow ledges)?

While high-level mundane characters aren't routinely pulling off crazy-impossible stunts in 5E, for the most part, they weren't doing that in 3.5 either. High levels were notoriously under-played during the 3.5 era, and when they were played, the sort of party tricks you could pull off with skill checks were still over-shadowed by the party tricks you could pull off with cheap magic items.

So, between the two, I would say they're roughly at the same level of super-heroics.

 

[TwoSix]

Perhaps part of the reason was an expectation that the DM would narrate success in situations where a skilled character should be able perform some task that requires his level of skill, but is otherwise routine?

That's specifically how I run 5e. Your background, chosen proficiencies and overall character concept gate what results the players receive far more than the results of the roll. For most non-combat/non-desperate situations, I only let characters who are trained in the relevant skill roll.

 

[cmad1977]

At high levels I always throw as much as I think the party can handle and then add a bit more. Sometimes quite a bit more.

And somehow they seem to find a way to victory or escape. It’s amazing!

 

[cmad1977]

That's specifically how I run 5e. Your background, chosen proficiencies and overall character concept gate what results the players receive far more than the results of the roll. For most non-combat/non-desperate situations, I only let characters who are trained in the relevant skill roll.

Yeah. In general I try to ask for as few rolls as possible. Still working on that somewhat.

 

[Celebrim]

Perhaps part of the reason was an expectation that the DM would narrate success in situations where a skilled character should be able perform some task that requires his level of skill, but is otherwise routine?

DM Empowerment was a big part of 5e's design philosophy, and that kind of thing popped up very early in playtesting (even before the open playtest) and seemed to stick around.

The problem with subjective success based on the DM's empowerment is that cuts both ways. If some of the time you are going to succeed just because the DM thinks you should, then some of the time you are going to be tested just because the DM thinks you should. This is an example where the DM empowerment philosophy cuts against player empowerment. That isn't always true. Not every sort of DM empowerment is a zero sum game. But when you are talking about having the DM fix rules problems by fiat, then unless you are talking about extreme edge cases, it's a problem.

Again, I get what they were going for, but I personally would take a little less elegance and a little more just works intuitively without fiat.

 

[Oofta]

The problem with subjective success based on the DM's empowerment is that cuts both ways. If some of the time you are going to succeed just because the DM thinks you should, then some of the time you are going to be tested just because the DM thinks you should. This is an example where the DM empowerment philosophy cuts against player empowerment. That isn't always true. Not every sort of DM empowerment is a zero sum game. But when you are talking about having the DM fix rules problems by fiat, then unless you are talking about extreme edge cases, it's a problem.

Again, I get what they were going for, but I personally would take a little less elegance and a little more just works intuitively without fiat.

But ultimately the DM is always setting a DC. The DC may be based on some obstacle but if there's a wall the DM decides what kind of wall. Ice wall? Old, crumbling wall with lots of handholds? Basing the DC on the type of wall just moves the decision point.

If I set a DC, I do it based on what I envision. It's a less formalized than previous editions, but I always ended up looking up the chart to come up with my description anyway. Ultimately I'm not sure it really matters that much.

On the other hand, I do get the whole "a peasant could succeed" thing. I just don't think there's a great way around it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again, I get what they were going for, but I personally would take a little less elegance and a little more just works intuitively without fiat.

I can't tell what you're contrasting, here: "works intuitively without fiat" sounds pretty elegant.

The problem with subjective success based on the DM's empowerment is that cuts both ways. If some of the time you are going to succeed just because the DM thinks you should, then some of the time you are going to be tested just because the DM thinks you should. This is an example where the DM empowerment philosophy cuts against player empowerment. That isn't always true. Not every sort of DM empowerment is a zero sum game. But when you are talking about having the DM fix rules problems by fiat, then unless you are talking about extreme edge cases, it's a problem.

So what makes this instance of DM Empowerment (the DM narrating success when a PC uses a skill he's very good at, even if the numbers modeling 'very good' don't overwhelm the d20 dictating success) zero sum? The player has invested heavily in a skill, the DM has rewarded that, right?
Is it that the DM might also narrate failure on a check the player has neglected but has a small bonus with (more or less by accident) that could, on a very high roll, in theory hit some DC that might otherwise be set? Because that doesn't sound unfair or disempowering to the player - who chose to neglect that skill.