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

[Tony Vargas]

There is absolutely no reason why we should view the Marilith's regression as a good thing.

In an edition that aims for classic feel, 'regression' is a necessary thing.

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.

It should be the least controversial, anyway. DM Empowerment is largely an attitude, and it's an attitude the community at large has not broadly rejected. So, in general, as a DM, you do not have a current of RAW- or balance-worship to swim against. That's easier to fix on one level - players will be less resistant to implementation.
OTOH, the nature of some of the perceived 'flaws' in 5e is much deeper and more systemic than just a monster putting in a disappointing showing for it's CR, and can't be fixed at all easily, rather, should be worked around. :shrug:
Besides, DMing is never easy, how hard is it to change the 'bad design' of one monster not living up to it's CR, when CR couldn't account for the capabilities of your party, anyway? or you're already finessing encounters to impose a little spotlight balance? Hardly seems worth mentioning.

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.

Agreed. When the game's meant to be a 'starting point,' "fixing" anything, even issuing as much errata as they have, is kinda pointless. Everyone's going to be changing stuff, anyway.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

My thoughts exactly. But, at the same time, we are in an era where communication goes fast. It is possible to issue errata in pdf forms that we can print and insert into our books. I do that systematicaly with the material that I and my players find satisfying for our table.

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

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

If not impossible...

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.

So do I. And I fully agree on that one. Teleport as a "rechargable" move or bonus action?

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.

Right on point. Maybe it's time for a high level adventure to be printed out?

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?

High level play has always been wonky for almost every game that I have been aware of or in which I played.
D&D is no exception. White Wolf game system breaks down pretty fast when the number of dice rise a bit too high. Rôle Master was almost a nightmare to manage with all its tables. Palladium gets really strange at level 10 and more (but is still one of my favourite game system). Call of Cthulhu had its flaws too. GURPS was not different either. In fact, only Paranoia was safe to handle at all level (Death was soooo fast...).

Point is, live with it. Hawkeyefan is right. You don't like a monster? Tweak it to suit your tastes. Its really easy and it can be done on the fly. The monster is going down too fast? Here is a trick I used.

The "whatever" is almost dead. On the wall behind it, you see a strange tiny idol starting to pulse with an eery red light. Whisps of smoky red light moves toward (the whatever) and surounds it. You see the wounds of the (whatever) closing before your eyes. The (whatever) bursts with an evil laughter. "You thought that I would be so easy to defeat? I was merly toying with you worms!"

Is that fair? Who cares. It makes for quite a memory. After that, it gave me the job to find what was that damnable idol, where it came from and who made it and why? Because with the kind of players I have, I better be ready to back up my excentricities...

 

[Helldritch]

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.

Yep, I have been accused of edition bashing when it was not the case. I was simply stating the good and bad point of one edition vs an other and I got reported. I wasn't aware of the edition war as I am relatively new.

Yet you're dead on accurate with your statement. This is almost 5e bashing. (or at least it looks like that...)

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yet you're dead on accurate with your statement. This is almost 5e bashing. (or at least it looks like that...)

To preemptively cut off the "I'm not bashing the edition, just this one design area (monsters)" before it comes up, the reason I don't buy that is because literally every topic about 5e has the same people saying how horrible it is, how lazy the designers are, and how anyone who defends it are just apologists. So I don't buy that excuse. It's pretty much:

"I'm not bashing 5e as an edition, I just think the way the developers made the release schedule, marketing, mechanics, classes, races, spells, monsters, magic items, and feats are horrible and lazy design."

 

[Oofta]

To preemptively cut off the "I'm not bashing the edition, just this one design area (monsters)" before it comes up, the reason I don't buy that is because literally every topic about 5e has the same people saying how horrible it is, how lazy the designers are, and how anyone who defends it are just apologists. So I don't buy that excuse. It's pretty much:

"I'm not bashing 5e as an edition, I just think the way the developers made the release schedule, marketing, mechanics, classes, races, spells, monsters, magic items, and feats are horrible and lazy design."

It does seem to be a handful of users who are the main offenders.

Then again, I don't have a problem with high level play. I accept that there is no way the devs could tailor an XP/CR budget that fits my specific group. To think they could would be somewhat delusional.

On the other hand, don't get me started on how awful sharp shooter is!*

*I kid. If I don't like any specific aspect of the rules I'll just tweak it. It's incredibly easy to do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It does seem to be a handful of users who are the main offenders.

It always is. Even if you block 'em, you see them quoted, too (there was a brief, halcyon moment where they fixed that, or maybe I was dreaming...)

Then again, I don't have a problem with high level play. I accept that there is no way the devs could tailor an XP/CR budget that fits my specific group. To think they could would be somewhat delusional.

Obviously, they could (and you should), it's just not practical, though I agree it'd be metaphorically 'delusional' to actually expect them to.
OTOH, guidelines that are fairly consistent and remain workable for a wider range of styles and campaigns isn't so unreasonable. It's even been done - a matter of tighter balance, so factors like system mastery, party composition, rests, &c swing the difficulty of encounters less dramatically, and the rating given to monsters can be more consistent in what it means.
OTOOH, a more robust guideline is still one that DMs are going to want to deviate from, some of the time, lest they fall into a rut...

On the other hand, don't get me started on how awful sharp shooter is!*
*I kid. If I don't like any specific aspect of the rules I'll just tweak it. It's incredibly easy to do.

Don't much see the point of feats unless (a) you're shooting for a 3e feel or (b) you're not using MCing but /do/ want players to be able to blend a little of one class into another, and Backgrounds don't do quite enough of that for your purposes (and you're not up for making up more backgrounds that do).

 

[Werebat]

I think the problem with "the DM can just change rules on the fly" is that some gaming groups are peopled by players who will hoot, holler, and flip the table if the DM changes the rules on them. It IS lazy design to just fob off balancing the rules onto the DM.

 

[Oofta]

I think the problem with "the DM can just change rules on the fly" is that some gaming groups are peopled by players who will hoot, holler, and flip the table if the DM changes the rules on them. It IS lazy design to just fob off balancing the rules onto the DM.

There's a big difference between "change rules on the fly" and "adjust encounter calculations based on your group".

I do come up with custom monsters now and then and I do have a handful of house rules, but I've pretty much done that with every edition. But adjusting how many monsters I throw at a group and using effective tactics? That's not changing rules, that's being a DM.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's a big difference between "change rules on the fly" and "adjust encounter calculations based on your group".

I do come up with custom monsters now and then and I do have a handful of house rules, but I've pretty much done that with every edition. But adjusting how many monsters I throw at a group and using effective tactics? That's not changing rules, that's being a DM.

Not to mention, any player at my table that "hoots, hollers, and flips the table" if the rules are modified can go DM their own game and get the heck off my table with haste. Luckily I've never actually had such a player because any issue about rules that do come up, we talk about it like adults. The idea that it's WoTC's fault for players acting like spoiled children is pretty ridiculous to me. No game rule can fix a broken player.

There isn't a limited number of DM licences out there. And there isn't any WOTC police that keeps people from DMing. Anyone, and everyone, who doesn't like a particular DM doesn't have to play with them. They can either find a different group, or DM the game just how they want it themselves.

 

[happyhermit]

Making rules in an attempt to prevent bad players from acting badly is a fool's errand IME, as is trying to prevent bad GMs from ruining player's fun, which is all the more problematic because it is likely to result in a worse game for the "non-bad" majority of players and GMs. 5e largely (I think there a few decisions that might unfortunately stem back to hold-overs of that strategy) decided to put their focus on making the game fun and useful to most people.

Getting rid of a formulaic and standard wealth/magic items by level progression, making feats optional, putting a lot of "creative" magic use back into combat and not confined to rituals, etc. does IMO make encounter building guidelines less exacting when applied to any particular party. No previous versions escaped these types of discrepancies, nor does any proposed system that could approximate it, it is simply a matter of a small change in degree to which things vary. It doesn't make thing unviable though, it just makes it slightly more important for a high level GM to know the party they are running for, if they are very concerned about "encounter balance".

On a side note, even though I do think the 5e systems work fine, I think the whole idea that high level play is not viable because these systems might be inaccurate is pretty funny because it means most of the RPGs I have enjoyed playing were not viable at any level. People are still enjoying and making them today.