D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?

[Jester David]

Oh yes and CR system is crap and once again the devs failed to learn from past issues.

CR here is pretty much the "level" system used by 4e that was continually praised.

Only with a different name as level 1/2 is weird.
And you avoid the hiccup of expecting a level 10 party to regularly fight level 11 and 12 creatures.
And the numbers aren't the same for all creatures of that level, allowing some variability.
And it's still better than almost every other RPG on the market, the majority of which barely include encounter building rules, let alone a system for assessing the difficulty of encounters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not really, though. We cannot say if these results are inconsistent due to poor design. Nor would I necessarily agree that inconsistent results must be an indication of poor design.

You offered inconsistent results as a counter-example to Zapp' s assertions of 'poor' design. I'm just pointing out that inconsistency is consistent with poor design, not asserting that it's proof.

These results could be just as likely to stem from poor tactical play. Or other variables, but most would seem to fall under that umbrella.

Its a convenient enough umbrella, but, in the hypothetical case I posed, it was the same party, so tactical acumen probably didn't change radically between encounters.

. I disagree in that I don't think the system is all that complex, and I feel it's about as dependable as can be reasonably expected

We've only had 3 such systems, all on WotCs watch, and 5e's is certainly the most complex (the 3e & 4e versions readily boil down to comparable levels and simple rules of thumb, while 5e requires the exp budget and multiplier), and arguably the least dependable. I'm sure a case could be made for 3e being even less dependable when you bring rampant optimization and rocket tag into it, or for 4e secondary roles hiding complexity under same level, or whatever.

But, no it's not that complex, only the most complex of the small sampke.

. But that doesn't mean I think it's all that much use to anyone except the inexperienced.

It's desirable for the inexperienced, in theory, but probably serves only as an object lesson to the new DM to depend on judgement, not guidelines, rulings, not rules...

Each of us probably has different ideas aboutwhat their job was,

Mearls was reasonably forthcoming - well, comparatively so - early on in the playtest.

I wonder how differently things would have gone if they hadn't included it.

Its absence might have invited controversy, but as a practical matter, little difference. IMHO.

 

[Helldritch]

This is fantasy. Not real life.

Yep. Now that you bring that up... RPG are based on fantasy. Generals in fantasy can be either with guards or not. So leave the "not real life" where it stands. You're better than that crappy type argumentation.

Have you ever heard of the trope of a boss so awesome it takes on the whole party all by itself?

Yep, that is what we call a legendary monster in lair. Such as Beholders, Vampires, Dragons, Demon Princes and such. A marilith is not part of these. You can make it as such if you are willing to modify her. Nothing prevents you from doing that.

That's what D&D needs to support, but currently doesn't.

As the above. We already have some of these. Nothing prevents you from creating some of your own.

She sure as hell aint CR 16 now. She's mentioned so often precisely because she's one of the most underwhelming monster designs in the whole of MM. She can do absolutely zero against a party that denies her the opportunity to just waltz up to the PCs. She has zero tricks up her sleeve that gives her a chance to shish-kebab anyone.

The encounter I have shown you was used in a real encounter. The players, all 15th level and 6 players strong with 2 henchmen of 13th level had to break through quite a few demons and when they finaly got to the marilith they almost died. It had been quite a long fight (12 rounds if I remember correctly). They were quite impressed with how the marilith was teleporting in and out. One player mentionned he did not believe that a marilith could be that strong. And yet, I used her as written in the MM (she could summon though...).

You have to forget what the marilith was in 2ed, 3ed and 4th. Think of her as she was in 1ed. You could kill these by the score!
You are trapped in what earlier editions have done. 5ed is its own edition. It works if you make it work and if you take time to make it work. It is a much better edition than what has gone before in some aspects, worst in other. It is not perfect. No edition and surely no game will ever be. I played enough RPG to know that a lot of work will be need to make them work at all levels. Some will require more work than others.

From what I am starting to understand, unless I am mistaken, you would like 5ed to be like 4e with clear boss, brute, skirmishers and controlers. 5e isn't build like that. You must realize this or you will end up not playing this edition the way it is supposed to be played. That is to provide fun for you and your friends. You pester so much about it that you simply don't see the good things that this edition has to offer. You are stuck in a time loop where the only thing you see are what you perceive as flaws in the edition. Not everything is perfect far from it. It does require more work than 4e (which I really liked by the way.) but at the same time, it has a special something that brings back what was good in the AD&D. A fluidity that the tactical editions (3e and 4e) lacked. Start playing the edition to have fun. Follow the guidelines where it suits you. Modify where you want to see something more to your tastes.

I have no problems to challenge my players at any levels and I have my share of optimizers and powergamers. I do use the advice I gave in earlier posts. I did that in all editions and all RPG I have been a DM in. The pieces of advice I gave work. Try them out. You will see a big change in how your games run.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You offered inconsistent results as a counter-example to Zapp' s assertions of 'poor' design. I'm just pointing out that inconsistency is consistent with poor design, not asserting that it's proof.

Well, you said "That'd just be another example of 'poor' design." I don't think that need be the case. I think the way the encounters were handled was a much bigger factor than the design of the monsters/NPCs used in each.

And consistency is great, but I would always expects some variance in the results of any encounter, except those that are on the extremes of the difficulty spectrum.

Its a convenient enough umbrella, but, in the hypothetical case I posed, it was the same party, so tactical acumen probably didn't change radically between encounters.
We've only had 3 such systems, all on WotCs watch, and 5e's is certainly the most complex (the 3e & 4e versions readily boil down to comparable levels and simple rules of thumb, while 5e requires the exp budget and multiplier), and arguably the least dependable. I'm sure a case could be made for 3e being even less dependable when you bring rampant optimization and rocket tag into it, or for 4e secondary roles hiding complexity under same level, or whatever.

But, no it's not that complex, only the most complex of the small sampke.

I'm not sure what hypothetical case you posed....maybe I missed something? I was speaking about two examples of play given by CapnZapp. I don't know if he ever said if the two examples were with the same party.

As for the system being the most complex....okay, I suppose that's true. My evaluation was not in comparison to similar systems in other editions, but just based on the fact that it uses pretty basic math of about a grade school level. So despite being the most complex of the D&D systems....it is still simple.

The dependability is another matter. It's hard to gauge. There are many here who seem to think that plugging CR numbers into a daily budget calculation should spit out exactly the same results for every table. Others seem to recognize it as a rule of thumb more than an exact formula, which is probably the best way to evaluate it. Then you have the folks like me who don't even bother with it in actual play.

Those in the first group will likely find the system very undependable. So will those in the third, but they won't really care. Those in the second group, the middle ground, probably have results more in line with expectations.

It's desirable for the inexperienced, in theory, but probably serves only as an object lesson to the new DM to depend on judgement, not guidelines, rulings, not rules...

Yeah, I've made the comparison to training wheels before. It should help get you started, and then once you're going, you don't need it anymore.

Its absence might have invited controversy, but as a practical matter, little difference. IMHO.

Yeah, I don't think I'd expect the editions performance to have been affected by the lack of a CR and encounter design system. It certainly would have been a source of contention for many, but likely the same folks for whom it still is, so I don't know if that would actually be a difference.

I think the discussions and the criticisms would be very different if the CR rating and system did not exist.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, you said "That'd just be another example of 'poor' design." I don't think that need be the case.

Any specific instance needn't be the case, sure. But neither does pointing out that some encounters may be harder than CR indicates rather than weaker mean that design of the monster or the CR system (or the encounter, by the DM!) can't be deemed 'poor.'
That's all.

And consistency is great, but I would always expects some variance in the results of any encounter

Obviously. A 'good' design would moderate that variance enough to make CR a useful yardstick for the DM who wants such a yardstick.

I'm not sure what hypothetical case you posed....maybe I missed something?

Nope, no specific details, just a generic 'ceteris parabus' kind of comparison. If CR X results in wildly difficult degrees of challenge, then CR's not a very useful metric, thus design of CR (or design of the monsters it rates) might reasonably be deemed 'poor.' Or, a specific DM noting such might be blamed, personally.
:shrug:

I was speaking about two examples of play given by CapnZapp. I don't know if he ever said if the two examples were with the same party.

They were at least with the same DM, an experienced one.

As for the system being the most complex....okay, I suppose that's true.

's all relative.

The dependability is another matter. It's hard to gauge.

Dependability that can't readily be gauged certainly can't be very dependable!

There are many here who seem to think that plugging CR numbers into a daily budget calculation should spit out exactly the same results for every table.

I don't see how anyone could think that. You'd have to at least posit the same DM with the same players & characters to even start isolating CR as the culprit.

Others seem to recognize it as a rule of thumb more than an exact formula

Doesn't really contrast with the former extreme, you could recognize it as a rule of thumb, and still expect it to be equally useful to everyone, or you could think of it as an exact formula and expect it to need to be adjusted heavily for the needs of a given table.

Then you have the folks like me who don't even bother with it in actual play.

Which also says something about how useful a guideline it is. ;(

Yeah, I've made the comparison to training wheels before. It should help get you started, and then once you're going, you don't need it anymore.

I'm afraid a few things in D&D are traditionally viewed and even actually used that way (as 'for beginners' or the like), when they may actually be rather poor for the purpose. Apprentice Tier and 'simple' fighters as well as CR.

Yeah, I don't think I'd expect the editions performance to have been affected by the lack of a CR and encounter design system. It certainly would have been a source of contention for many, but likely the same folks for whom it still is, so I don't know if that would actually be a difference.

Definitely.
I suspect leaving things out entirely is more damning than intentionally making them garbage, which is more damning than just doing a half-assed job. So including CR, even if it's of questionable value, was the right call.

 

[lysrinn]

I think that there can be more balance to later levels.

 

[jimmytheccomic]

I agree that the creatures are created in a way to make them easy to run, and sacrificing complexity has the effect of also lowering it's challenge, especially for higher level groups. I've found the game to be incredibly malleable, though, I've had a super easy time readjusting creatures to something that makes them resemble their former edition versions more.

 

[Sadras]

I agree that the creatures are created in a way to make them easy to run, and sacrificing complexity has the effect of also lowering it's challenge, especially for higher level groups. I've found the game to be incredibly malleable, though, I've had a super easy time readjusting creatures to something that makes them resemble their former edition versions more.

True. What is annoying/time-consuming is having to consult older editions MM's all the time for monsters (especially in the higher levels) in order to create that resemblence. It would be nice to have a MM that had those monster trait options available from the get go. As it is now, I find I'm consulting 3 different MM's.

 

[Jester David]

I don't think D&D supports high level play right out of the box.
But neither does it support a piracy campaign, having no rules for naval combat, managing crews, shipboard tasks, and the like. Nor does it have rules for kingdom building and realm management.
Or harvesting and selling vials of magical dragon blood used to created sorcerers, like in my current campaign.

There's a lot D&D doesn't do right out of the box. But I don't know anyone who plays RAW only with no house rules, DM rulings, 3PP, or accessories. Everyone makes the game their own, to some degree or another.

For high level play, you have to adjust the rules to match the needs and tone of the campaign. Just like you would for a Ravenloft campaign or a Dark Sun campaign or a piracy campaign...

 

[jimmytheccomic]

True. What is annoying/time-consuming is having to consult older editions MM's all the time for monsters (especially in the higher levels) in order to create that resemblence. It would be nice to have a MM that had those monster trait options available from the get go. As it is now, I find I'm consulting 3 different MM's.

For me that's a lot of the fun, but I'm certain mileage varies there