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

[Sadras]

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

Well there is some excitement - you're planning an encounter
I guess there is also an OCD factor - as I could just make changes on the fly during the encounter.

 

[CapnZapp]

I believe that because the devs tried to simplify everything in this edition that in some areas they oversimplified, areas such as Mid - high level monsters, certain classes, healing and several other areas. Due to this oversimplification many creatures either lost abilities or were given watered down abilities which impacted function.

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

Yep.

I love the game and think 5th is the best edition yet, but it could have been so much better still...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Yep

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Jester David]

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.

The catch being that they expanded the MM 32-pages compared to the other core rulebooks to get as many monsters in there is possible, and they still had to cut monsters. Some of the beasties in Volo's Guide to Monsters were written for the MM but cut...
Adding monster traits would have also bumped monsters.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Who are you to say I need to forget progress, as if WotC is automatically pardoned for not building on previous progress?

I will never understand why some of you feel compelled to defend even the indefensible parts. Why can't you simply live with the fact your favorite edition has inexplicable weaknesses, like I do - and then point toward them in the hopes WotC will admit and fix their mistakes??

After all, the first stage to getting there is consensus among us players. And we're not getting there fast enough with several apologists on these boards...

There is absolutely no reason why we should view the Marilith's regression as a good thing. It is not a good thing. In fact it is a disappointingly bad thing. That you or I can still make it work is UTTERLY BESIDE this fact.

Nothing you say change the basic facts: going with simplicity, while great where the game begins at low levels, does the game a huge disservice at high levels.

This is clearly WotCs fault. You conveniently forget that this edition was made on the cheap. It is they who skimped on a large enough development team.

Why do you let WotC get away with the lows of the edition? Why can't you enjoy the best edition yet AND criticize the weak parts at the same time...?





Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Helldritch]

Who are you to say I need to forget progress, as if WotC is automatically pardoned for not building on previous progress?

I am me? And who are you to say that your view is the right one? Previous editions were a nightmarish mathematical power creep. I am happy, over joyed that this power creep is finally over. I would not like to revert to that. They took a wrong turn and they corrected their course of actions. You should applaud them for that.

I will never understand why some of you feel compelled to defend even the indefensible parts. Why can't you simply live with the fact your favorite edition has inexplicable weaknesses, like I do - and then point toward them in the hopes WotC will admit and fix their mistakes??

These are mistakes for you. It is your opinion. As I said, the edition isn't perfect. None ever were. Some of the weaknesses you pointed out are actualy strong points for others. You should admit that.

After all, the first stage to getting there is consensus among us players. And we're not getting there fast enough with several apologists on these boards...

The only concessus you seem to be able to accept is that your idea are the only one worth defending. The ranger was doing quite the concensus and they did something about it. A few things that you are implying are not bad at all. They're great!

There is absolutely no reason why we should view the Marilith's regression as a good thing. It is not a good thing. In fact it is a disappointingly bad thing. That you or I can still make it work is UTTERLY BESIDE this fact.

That regression wasn't bad. At least in my eyes and the eyes of many others. The fact that I and many others can make it work is the only valid point. Not all monsters need to be solo monsters. Again, nothing prevents you from modifying a marilith to suit your taste. It is sooooo easy to do in this edition.

Nothing you say change the basic facts: going with simplicity, while great where the game begins at low levels, does the game a huge disservice at high levels.

Just the fact that this is the best selling edition of all time proves you wrong. People wanted simplicity and fluidity. It was all about that during the playtests. We got exactly what we wanted. It looks like the sales proved that us (who participated to the playtests) and WotC were right.

This is clearly WotCs fault. You conveniently forget that this edition was made on the cheap. It is they who skimped on a large enough development team.

It was not made on the cheap. They had thousands of playtester this time around. Maybe it is why it is so popular now. It is better to have a few dedicated developpers than hundreds that are arguing around. With the way they went for 5ed. They had a lot of data to process. They did their job quite well. Some weak spots did slipped in but not in the amount that you are refering.

Why do you let WotC get away with the lows of the edition? Why can't you enjoy the best edition yet AND criticize the weak parts at the same time...?

Some of the lows that you mention are actualy highs for me and many others. Again I am not an apologist. This edition has some weaknesses but I can live with most of them. Those I can't live with, I simply rule them out or I change them to suit my tastes. The beast ranger needed a lot of change and the unearthed arcana made almost the same changes I did. The concentration mecanic is a necessary evil but too many spells were put on that mecanic. I removed some of the spells from that mecanic, mainly hex and hunter's mark. It works wonders.

The only thing I don't like in what you're doing is that if we don't agree with you on something we are either apologists or simply unable to see the true way. We can disagree with you without being apologists. I took your defense on many occasions as some of your points are quite valid while some others are not. Its not that everything is black or white. Sometimes shades of grey gets in the way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I will never understand why some of you feel compelled to defend even the indefensible parts. Why can't you simply live with the fact your favorite edition has inexplicable weaknesses, like I do - and then point toward them in the hopes WotC will admit and fix their mistakes??

I don't think it's a case of apologists. There are plenty of flaws with this edition. However, I'll also point out that this is probably the easiest edition to correct any such flaws. So words like "indefensible" and "inexplicable" seem to be hyperbole. Folks have both defended the decisions and explained why they happened.

What I don't want is for them to start issuing corrected materials and multiple versions of material that are "fixed". Like with the Ranger. That's a small example and not a big deal....but I'm leery of having multiple versions of the same class. Especially when I didn't really think that the class was nearly as bad as many made it out to be.

So, while there being 3 different versions of the Ranger is not that big a deal, it seems a potential slippery slope. Look at the 4E Basics approach, or Pathfinder Unchained. I prefer not to have that kind of material.

Now, if they did release that kind of material, yes, I would likely ignore it, so you may say "well what does it matter to you?" and the answer is that for them to work on this type of thing, they must stop working on something else. I'd prefer more adventures and setting material than any kind of crunch correction.

After all, the first stage to getting there is consensus among us players. And we're not getting there fast enough with several apologists on these boards...

You mean that not everyone is agreeing with you fast enough.

Consensus on these matters is going to be tough to obtain.

There is absolutely no reason why we should view the Marilith's regression as a good thing. It is not a good thing. In fact it is a disappointingly bad thing. That you or I can still make it work is UTTERLY BESIDE this fact.

It is not beside the fact.

I would have made different choices with the Marilith (and plenty of other monsters) if it had been up to me. So I can agree with your criticism of the design. But it is what it is at this point, and it's so trivially easy for me to correct, that I don't want or need WotC to step in and spend more time on it.

I get it that you would be fine spending more money on the Marilith again. I don't want to do that, and I think their development time would be better spent on another project, so I would prefer not to see it happen.

Nothing you say change the basic facts: going with simplicity, while great where the game begins at low levels, does the game a huge disservice at high levels.

This is clearly WotCs fault. You conveniently forget that this edition was made on the cheap. It is they who skimped on a large enough development team.

Why do you let WotC get away with the lows of the edition? Why can't you enjoy the best edition yet AND criticize the weak parts at the same time...?

There's a difference between criticism and demanding that they correct any and all mistakes. I can criticize the edition in plenty of ways. I think you are mistaking people who disagree with your demands that your concerns be personally addressed by WotC as being "apologists" or "not criticizing the edition", but that's not always the case.

I don't know if the design decision are a "huge disservice" to high level play. No matter what, high level play requires more work on the part of the DM. There are simply more things to consider for PCs that have more tricks at their disposal. So if I'm designing a high level adventure, and I decide to include some monsters that I've found are not as tough as I'd like them to be, is it a huge disservice for me to tweak those monsters a bit? Or is it a minor inconvenience?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Can someone explain how "X edition was way better, this is garbage, and anyone disagrees is an apologist for lazy and indefensible game design" is not both edition warring and personal attacks? Seems very clear cut, so what am I missing? I imagine if I said 4e was a disaster that flies in the face of what D&D is supposed to be where the developers were too lazy and self centered and they ignored what most gamers wanted but put out a crap indefensible game, and anyone who disagrees is an apologist, I'd be met with a ton of reports and moderation action pretty quickly.

For the record, that's not what I think, I'm just replacing 5e with 4e. Also, I hear it over and over, and not just from one person (there are four that I can recall off the top of my head who have said it, two who say it often). Just hoping someone can honestly explain why that's not edition warring at the very least.

 

[happyhermit]

Dismissing someone who disagrees with a particular criticism you put forth as an "apologist" who unequivocally finds no fault in the thing you are criticizing is just bad. It is illogical and ascribes negative motivations that cannot be fairly assumed from the simple fact that they don't share the particular criticism, and it gives them a label of "other" and indicates that all of their opinions should be dismissed. Continuing to make the assertion in light of actual evidence to the contrary (the fact that they have other criticisms of the same thing) is just terrible. Nobody should have to prove they are not an "apologist" and therefore their opinions are valid, that is a terrible atmosphere for discussion, but when people feel they need to defend themselves on the matter and do, but even that gets dismissed it's pretty much just petty bullying tactics.

 

[cmad1977]

It's either geurill4 Warriors or people unwilling to take responsibility for their own table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk