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

[CapnZapp]

I don't think D&D supports high level play right out of the box.

Thank you for finally admitting that WotC's marketing, which clearly gives off the impression the game works just fine at high level, is just that: marketing, and that WotC coldly gambles so few gamers ever realize the weaknesses that they just don't have to fulfil their empty promises.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Again with the strawmen!

Have I advocated for a "nightmarish mathematical power creep"? No.

Am I asking for Mariliths getting two or three tricks up their sleeves? Yes.

You're resorting to desperately absurd arguments at this stage, Helldritch!

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

Can you explain why it is acceptable how people change arguments from "I think Z is weak and here's how it could have been so much better" to "you just want perfection that is clearly unreasonable" or "why do you want to go back to the old bad days where NPCs were hellishly complicated and crunchy"?

Not to mention your own strawman, Sacrosanct! I have repeatedly said 5th edition is by far the edition I prefer. I just want good to be better. The ONLY reason we point out weaknesses and discuss ways WotC could fix them is precisely because we love this edition so much! If the edition weren't so good in general, why bother fixing its flaws?


Why do you keep defending WotC at every turn? Why do you pretend there are no blemishes on this otherwise very shining edition?

What would be so wrong with accepting and acknowledging that for 5E's many strengths, the high-level experience straight out the box is very weak? (Whether it was weak in earlier editions does not matter. Whether you can make it strong in your campaign does not matter). The fact is simple: the PHB gives us a truckload of goodies. This is good. But the MM is woefully under-equipped to deal with all those goodies. That is disappointment, no matter how you cut it.

Then you try to undercut this argument with a load of irrelevant sidetracks. The fact remains: IF the MM was better made from the beginning, you would have enjoyed it at least just as much, while a powergamer like me would have enjoyed it MUCH more. It would have been a win win for everybody.

I am ONLY talking about what you get in the books. And I am very constructively analysing exactly what is wrong, so we can fix it, and better: hope that WotC fixes it!

 

[CapnZapp]

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."

If you and your ilk hadn't turned up at every corner to question our assessment, arguments would likely not have gotten so heated.

Other than I can only point to the horrible way you bunch together completely separate posters. Of course you would get the impression somebody hates the entirety of the edition, had a single poster bashed all those individual aspects. Of course you can find somebody hating every single part of this edition, much like pretty much every other game, but those are many separate individuals.

But that is simply not the case. I reserve the right to only stand by my own posts.

You react to a phantasm in your own mind. Can I suggest you focus on the good stuff instead?

 

[Helldritch]

Again with the strawmen!

Have I advocated for a "nightmarish mathematical power creep"? No.

Am I asking for Mariliths getting two or three tricks up their sleeves? Yes.

You're resorting to desperately absurd arguments at this stage, Helldritch!

Strawman yourself dear Sir. My arguments are far from absurd. In fact you are the one that sounds desperate beyond measure.

Now, check the first edition marilith because in case you don't know, 5e is tailored from 1st with a bit of 3e and 4e mixed in. It is more modern and more to my taste than any other edition so far.

1st edition Marilith
Frequency: Rare
No. Appearing: 1-3 or 1-6 (in the abyss) (and yes they were meant to be encountered in numbers...)
AC: -7/-5
Move: 12"
HD: 7+7
no of att: 7
DMG: 2-8 & 6 with weapons.
Special def: Magic to hit
Magic Resistance: 80%
Psionic: 130 AE/FGH
It could even summon a demon prince (but the chances were very low).
She did have a few spells: Charm person, levitate, read magic, detect invisible, pyrotechnics, polymorph self and project image.
She had the standard resistance that all demon shared and she also had the basic spells, darkness, teleport and infravision.

Here is your first edition general. We are very far from the 2nd edition Marilith or the 3rd or the 4th. Most trick spells were useless in encounter. The only ones that were of any use were Charm person, Darkness, Detect invisible and Teleport. Project image could be of some use in some situations...

The fifth edition Marilith is closer now to her original role than it ever was in any other previous editions.
So, yes the marilith is quite ok as she is now.

Was the Marilith the power house of previous editions? No.
Did she had dozens of different tricks up her sleeves? No.

She did have a better armor class but her HP were a joke. 38hp on average.
In fifth, what she lacks in AC she has in HP. Is it a fair trade off? I think so, AC is sooooooooo easy to fix.

As for you advocation of nightmarish power creep....

The more tricks you give a monster, the more complicated it is to run. The more tricks you give monsters, the more powers will be needed by the player. Thus encouraging the return of a form of power creep.

In 5e, numerous tricks are restrained to solo lair type monsters such as beholders, demon princes and all the other that we already know (I'm not about to write all of them, no way).

The marilith was never intended to be such a type of monster in 1st edition. The fifth edition went back to the roots of D&D and modernized it thus, the marilith is just a CR 16 monster in 5e. She is not a solo/lair monster. In my opinion, the marilith is now at it right place in the MM. You might not like that fact. But it is a fact nonetheless.

And just to be clear on my standing about 5e.
I do not say that the edition is perfect.
I do not say that the edition must be defended at all cost.
I am not an apologists for 5e.

Hell there are things in 5e that I really don't like and that I had strongly voted against in the numerous surveys when it was called D&D next. Mainly the concentration mecanic on some spells. The short duration of some spells (charm person mainly) and a few others not necessarily worth mentioning as I have corrected them by myself.

All you do is asking that the marilith and some other non-lair, non-boss level monsters get more tricks up their sleeve. Well sorry sir. WotC won't do that as it would go against the philosophy of 5e. Not all monsters are lair/boss/legendary type. If you want to give the marilith some more tricks, go ahead. Do it. It is your game. But don't make it ours.

 

[Celebrim]

Now, check the first edition marilith...

Anyone very familiar with 1e knows that if 1e characters had magic items and options like weapon specialization, the 1e play was not viable with published content above about 10th level either. By 10th-12th level, a competent party of players with good equipment could handily defeat any published monster, including the fiend lords and any DM that wanted to challenge such a party would need to invent their own content. It was I think assumed that any DM who had players of that had "earned" such "high level" PCs would have sufficient experience to do so.

A 1e Marilith was not a "CR 16" foe. It was about CR 8. Even six of them was a reasonably easy fight for a 13th or 14th level party. The limitations of published 1e monsters I've discussed in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...to-Challenge-a-Party-of-13th-level-and-Higher

So it would seem to me that the explanation "5e is a lot like 1e", would be a confession that as written 5e is not very viable for high level play at all.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

1e and 5e are not a very good comparison either. 9-10th level in 1e was high level gaming. In all my years of 1e gaming I saw a couple characters get to the teens simply because advancement was slow and new games would usually start before going that high.

 

[Jester David]

Thank you for finally admitting that WotC's marketing, which clearly gives off the impression the game works just fine at high level, is just that: marketing, and that WotC coldly gambles so few gamers ever realize the weaknesses that they just don't have to fulfil their empty promises.

*sigh*
Seriously man? You just can't let it sit and have to drift into hyperbole.

First off, what marketing? Show me ONE place where they even talk about high level. Let alone make a promise.
It's not in their adventures. It wasn't listed a design goal of the edition. It was barely in the playtest. Levels above 15 are there more because they're expected than because WotC wanted to put them in the game.
(If you want to get into it we can talk about how WotC did promise epic levels that finally worked again and again... during the lead-up to 4e. But that doesn't feel relevant since everyone seriously involved in that is gone.)

Does epic work out of the box in 5e? Well, no. Not in terms of content. There are too few high level monsters. And the encounter building guidelines get a little bit shakier.
But I maintain that 5e is probably the best version of D&D for high level/ epic play. You just have to ignore the encounter and monster design rules for groups that know what they're doing. But, hey, I pretty much have to do that anyway because I have a table of five experienced gamers who work well as a team. And they're only level six! The encounter building rules are really training wheels for adventure design anyway; they're there to help give you a feel for balance until you can do it on your own.

But after that the restrained math, low hand size, closer parity between classes, and fast combats make epic 5e probably the best epic D&D there is. You just need to do some more design with your party in mind. And supplement with some 3rd Party books, like the Tome of Beasts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Can you explain why it is acceptable how people change arguments from "I think Z is weak and here's how it could have been so much better" to "you just want perfection that is clearly unreasonable" or "why do you want to go back to the old bad days where NPCs were hellishly complicated and crunchy"?

I don't have a problem with people saying "I think X is weak and here's how it could have been so much better." Lot's of people make arguments like that. But that's not what you do. What you do is flat out call whatever the topic is we're talking about complete garbage, and then follow it up by personally attacking the developer team and then calling anyone who disagrees with you an apologist.

Not to mention your own strawman, Sacrosanct! I have repeatedly said 5th edition is by far the edition I prefer. I just want good to be better. The ONLY reason we point out weaknesses and discuss ways WotC could fix them is precisely because we love this edition so much! If the edition weren't so good in general, why bother fixing its flaws?

I made this post as a preemptive, because I knew you'd say this. So here it is again:

"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."

I don't believe you when you say you think 5e is the edition you prefer for just that reason. Every topic, whether it be classes, races, monsters, whatever, you always comment about how it's broken and the design team was lazy. Every one. So if 5e is your preferred edition, good lord in high heaven I can only imagine what you think of the worst edition. Tell me, how do you feel about 4e?

Why do you keep defending WotC at every turn? Why do you pretend there are no blemishes on this otherwise very shining edition?

Here's some advice. Stop accusing other people of making strawmen and then immediately make one yourself. Do you even read your own posts? Serious question? For Christ's sake, I literally just created a thread a couple days ago about my distaste for the sorcerer, but unlike you, I actually proposed an actual solution in a format that can be shared with anyone who wants it. For all these problems you keep pointing out, you never actually put your money where your mouth is, and provide solutions to people in the official channels we have (DM's Guild, DTRPG, etc).

And that's by far not the only thread I've commented about my criticism of 5e. So stop with the irony before my meter explodes.

If you and your ilk hadn't turned up at every corner to question our assessment, arguments would likely not have gotten so heated.

Me and my ilk? WTF man. Lots of people have commented about criticisms of the game. No one ever gets into arguments with them. Why do you think that is? If it's not criticisms of the game, what do you think the common factor is in why you find yourself in so many heated arguments? Maybe it's because all you do is bash the game, personally insult the developers, and then insult anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's comments like this "You and your ilk". What is my "ilk"? Someone who points out your blatant hypocrisy? Or someone who just disagrees with you?

. Can I suggest you focus on the good stuff instead?

Oh, the sweet irony of this statement. It's also contradictory to what you just said. I'm a fanboi because "I defend them at every turn and refuse to acknowledge any blemish" and also someone who only focuses on the bad things about the game? Make up your mind. Those are literally diametrically opposed positions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you and your ilk...

...I can only point to the horrible way you bunch together completely separate posters.

In the same post. Hysterical.