D&D 5E Have you experienced very high-level (18+) play in 5e? Tell me about it!

[dave2008]

I havent really looked at 5ths higher level demons, but dont they have teleport spells anymore?

Yes, many of them do (up to 120 ft. as an action). However, I make a small tweak to allow them to teleport as a bonus action (recharge 5-6) too so they can teleport and then attack - but I'm evil that way

 

[CapnZapp]

CapnZapp, I would suggest that, whatever WotC design intent is/was, it was not to "dumb down" stat blocks. That has a strongly negative connotation that I don't think you intend. It implies, at least to me, that those who use the standard stat block are dumb as well. I would suggest that they (WotC) have offered simplified or modest stat blocks that take a degree of system and rpg mastery to get the most out of.

Personally, I don't think any edition of D&D, or any rpg I have ever played or owned, has had monsters that cover all of my needs. So I guess I have always assumed I would need to tailor them to my needs. For that I find 5e very accommodating, more so than any edition of D&D I've played (1e, 4e, & 5e). Now, if that is a result of them making the stat blocks simpler, than for me it was the correct move.

I find this even more true with high level play. It is, for me, fairly easy to adjust 5e monsters to accommodate different threats.

To each his own. I know WotC are able to offer up more interesting stat blocks at high-level because the two last editions offered them.

Yet, they chose not to do so this time. It's hard to not get bitter about it since it seems they get away with (much) less work for more money. It's hard to shake the feeling they offer just enough high level support this time to be able to say they have that support, but when customers actually try it out it falls apart rather quickly.

These two arguments are so worn out and illogical. I'm getting tired of having to counter them each time.

I hear the "the Dm can do it himself" all the time. I'm getting sick and tired of that defense. It is utterly irrelevant. I want to pay WotC to do it for me.

I also hear "No matter what WotC does, you need to tweak things your way". This is relativizing of the worst kind. This does not mean WotC should get away with not doing a good-enough job in the first place.

My expectations are that each new edition should improve upon the old ones. 5E is a disappointing step backwards in some regards.

Yes, 5E is "accomodating" in that it marries the great idea of 4E that monsters doesn't have follow PC rules. Creating NPCs in 3E was a nightmare. But none of this explains or excuses the way high-level monsters aren't even given rudimentary tricks (tricks I definitely don't have to explain to you Dave2008, since you are a master of them yourself).

Look, it all boils down to one single thing.

In their anxious attempts to make 5E a success (which was far from given before publication), they have decided to treat high-level play as just more of the same as low-level play. Perhaps they were afraid customers would look at a CR 20 stat block and be scared away.

But the reality is that at low-level it's okay to use that strategy. But almost none of their applied choices (non-complex stat blocks, bounded accuracy, etc) really work above single-digit levels.

The game desperately needs a whole new layer of complexity and nuance for those of us who DM experienced players. That's far more work than can be expected from any single DM.

You are apparently content with changing practically everything at high level. I'm not. I expected 5E to shine from the extensive experience of four prior editions, but I simply don't see it.

High level 5E play feels.... flat. The design feels naive. Simple somehow.

Like as if the newb players that start the game remains as clueless and non-performing even after levelling up their characters to level 15 or 20.

In my experience, there is no such thing as a newb high level player. By that time, almost every player will rip the default 5E challenge to shreds. Simple, accessible and direct - those are valuable design goals at low level. At high level not so much.

Of course I can fix all this. But I need to do much more work than I want to. I'd far prefer a more complex and more challenging tier III and especially tier IV baseline. I might still make tweaks here and there, but it would be far less work to get to where I need it to be to properly challenge my players.

 

[CapnZapp]

I feel it's necessary to point out that most DMs simply fail at being devious enough for the true nastiness of many high-CR opponents to come out.
Take a Balor, for example. It has a genius IQ, the ruthlessness of Stalin, the strength of a dozen men and leads entire demonic legions into battle. The chances of this guy (or lady) waking up one morning and saying to themselves, "Today I'm going to stand in the middle of a room and push myself at a high-level PC party like meat into a sausage maker" is somewhere between slim and nonexistent. You see, this bad boy has everything the DM needs for victory in it's flavor text, i.e. that aforementioned demonic blanking legion.
So now that the PCs are neck deep in minor demons on the ground, have aerial forces swooping in and beating them about the head and shoulders, and endless ranged blasts from various nasties (demons have zero regard for blue-on-blue as long as the Balor's objectives are being met) *then* the General shows up to punk down the 1 or 2 battle-weary survivors for the foot on entrails selfie.
Similarly, you should never see "Just a Death Knight". You should see a ravenous horde of undead of all types, various evil allies, and the Death Knight waving it's sword to give battle orders looking like a total badass on it's Nightmare on the nearest rise.

Sent from my SM-T350 using EN World mobile app

I completely disagree. It's a very large trope in fantasy to have the single BBEG.

I certainly am not prepared to silently accept if WotCs ruleset can't support interesting solo fights.

I don't think anyone here is questioning the way you can always solve things by "more monsters".

But that gets old after a while. The much more interesting design challenge is to offer encounters that are challenging even though the heroes outnumber the BBEG five to one.

The mechanism that allows monsters extra actions after each PCs actions is the closest we get to a working model. More of that, please.

I would love to see official support for and discussion around ways to apply that mechanism to almost every monster in the book, with a couple of official examples that are used in WotCs adventure books.

An Ogre King that might still be a low-level threat, yet unlike every other Ogre he acts after each hero as well.

Perhaps templates could be used, but as I said, official example stat blocks would help in making it 100% officially supported.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, many of them do (up to 120 ft. as an action). However, I make a small tweak to allow them to teleport as a bonus action (recharge 5-6) too so they can teleport and then attack - but I'm evil that way

Well, I wouldn't call it a small tweak, since it is a huge upgrade to be able to be both mobile and still deliver damage.

But I agree completely. It's a very useful change to make.

In fact, it should have been in the MM. Wasting your entire action on teleporting only means the fight is prolonged, and it encourages demons to not use "in your face" tactics which they IMHO should use.

Changing teleport to a bonus action also allows the demon to attack first, teleport away later. Being able to deliver damage damage but then be reasonably secure that the party can't reciprocate makes the encounter much more dangerous and therefore interesting (even when the demon isn't surrounded by underlings).

 

[dave2008]

Well, I wouldn't call it a small tweak, since it is a huge upgrade to be able to be both mobile and still deliver damage.

How about a small tweak with a big effect?

 

[dave2008]

I completely disagree. It's a very large trope in fantasy to have the single BBEG.

...

But that gets old after a while. The much more interesting design challenge is to offer encounters that are challenging even though the heroes outnumber the BBEG five to one.

I agree, I want to be able to, if I want, have a fully powered group of PCs take on a BBEG with a threat of failure. I got tired of the arguments in 4e that solos had to have support, they are not meant to actually be solo monsters, That was why I always remade my solos and 4e and I do it now in 5e. At least they don't call them solos anymore.

 

[dave2008]

To each his own. I know WotC are able to offer up more interesting stat blocks at high-level because the two last editions offered them.

Yet, they chose not to do so this time. It's hard to not get bitter about it since it seems they get away with (much) less work for more money. It's hard to shake the feeling they offer just enough high level support this time to be able to say they have that support, but when customers actually try it out it falls apart rather quickly.

These two arguments are so worn out and illogical. I'm getting tired of having to counter them each time.

I hear the "the Dm can do it himself" all the time. I'm getting sick and tired of that defense. It is utterly irrelevant. I want to pay WotC to do it for me.

I also hear "No matter what WotC does, you need to tweak things your way". This is relativizing of the worst kind. This does not mean WotC should get away with not doing a good-enough job in the first place.

My expectations are that each new edition should improve upon the old ones. 5E is a disappointing step backwards in some regards.

Yes, 5E is "accomodating" in that it marries the great idea of 4E that monsters doesn't have follow PC rules. Creating NPCs in 3E was a nightmare. But none of this explains or excuses the way high-level monsters aren't even given rudimentary tricks (tricks I definitely don't have to explain to you Dave2008, since you are a master of them yourself).

Look, it all boils down to one single thing.

In their anxious attempts to make 5E a success (which was far from given before publication), they have decided to treat high-level play as just more of the same as low-level play. Perhaps they were afraid customers would look at a CR 20 stat block and be scared away.

But the reality is that at low-level it's okay to use that strategy. But almost none of their applied choices (non-complex stat blocks, bounded accuracy, etc) really work above single-digit levels.

The game desperately needs a whole new layer of complexity and nuance for those of us who DM experienced players. That's far more work than can be expected from any single DM.

You are apparently content with changing practically everything at high level. I'm not. I expected 5E to shine from the extensive experience of four prior editions, but I simply don't see it.

High level 5E play feels.... flat. The design feels naive. Simple somehow.

Like as if the newb players that start the game remains as clueless and non-performing even after levelling up their characters to level 15 or 20.

In my experience, there is no such thing as a newb high level player. By that time, almost every player will rip the default 5E challenge to shreds. Simple, accessible and direct - those are valuable design goals at low level. At high level not so much.

Of course I can fix all this. But I need to do much more work than I want to. I'd far prefer a more complex and more challenging tier III and especially tier IV baseline. I might still make tweaks here and there, but it would be far less work to get to where I need it to be to properly challenge my players.

CapnZapp, I apologize as I didn't intend to trigger your angst in this way. I think you know I pretty much agree with your thoughts on high level monsters as I make most of the changes you suggest (I'm still working on a more codified high level / epic monster and encounter design scheme though - maybe in 2017). My comment was regarding that to me (and possibly others) it appears that you are not only disparaging WotC (absolutely a OK), but also the people who like and enjoy playing what they have presented, which I didn't think you intended. That's all. I don't disagree with you thoughts, just how it was coming across. You definitely have no need to defend your displeasure with official high level monsters to me!

 

[Rhenny]

The mechanism that allows monsters extra actions after each PCs actions is the closest we get to a working model. More of that, please.

I would love to see official support for and discussion around ways to apply that mechanism to almost every monster in the book, with a couple of official examples that are used in WotCs adventure books.

An Ogre King that might still be a low-level threat, yet unlike every other Ogre he acts after each hero as well.

Perhaps templates could be used, but as I said, official example stat blocks would help in making it 100% officially supported.

Yes. This would be great. I wonder if they avoid publishing something like this because it is a DM tool that players might not buy? It seems like their publishing strategy is to make books that appeal to both players and DM's (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and Volo's Guide, for example). If they could make it a guide appealing to players and DMs, they would have a winner.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

The DM has infinite tools to challenge a party of any level.

 

[koga305]

The DM has infinite tools to challenge a party of any level.

Sure, technically. But if my party fought three young red dragons in every encounter they would surely call BS - and I'd agree with them.

Personally I feel that every creature I use in an encounter needs to be justified from a world building perspective. Why is it there and why does it want to fight the PCs? If it's super powerful and evil why hasn't it defeated everyone already, before the PCs were strong enough to face it? If a powerful creature comes out of nowhere, why haven't they heard about it before? Obviously there are answers to those questions but it gets harder to justify the more arbitrarily difficult challenges the PCs face.