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

[Oofta]

So here's the thing I don't understand. How can D&D be "too easy"?

The DM decides what encounters to build. Not challenging your party on a regular basis? Throw more monsters. Throw wave after wave. Change how often they get short and long rests.

Campaign difficulty is determined by the DM. Not WOTC, and certainly not optional suggested guidelines for how to determine encounter difficulty.

 

[robus]

So here's the thing I don't understand. How can D&D be "too easy"?

The DM decides what encounters to build. Not challenging your party on a regular basis? Throw more monsters. Throw wave after wave. Change how often they get short and long rests.

Campaign difficulty is determined by the DM. Not WOTC, and certainly not optional suggested guidelines for how to determine encounter difficulty.

I agree it should be manageable but you don't want combats to become a slog (which can happen if there are waves upon waves). Basically you want combat to last roughly the same about of rounds 4 +/-2 (?) throughout the entire campaign. So finding the appropriate challenge point is tricky at high levels, when the PCs have so many tricks up their sleeves (literally and figuratively).

My players are at 13th level and things are starting to become tricky.

I think the Angry GM summed up how the game should go to be a satisfying play experience and that was that it should be ratcheting (roughly paraphrasing):

Initially the players find things hard, then they get some improvements and things get easier, they enjoy their new ass kicking powers until things get harder again and then they sweat until once more upgrades make it easier and so on.

Without some ability to calibrate that challenge (through the rules) the experience is going to be all over the place.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

So here's the thing I don't understand. How can D&D be "too easy"?

Have you ever played one of the hardcover books like Storm King's Thunder or Tales of the Yawning Portal? I've played through both, and with the exception of Tomb of Horrors the adventures were significantly harder at lower level than at higher levels.

Also, note that even though a DM can adjust the difficulty slider up and down, it's easy to end up in a situation where it breaks willing suspension of disbelief (i.e. a tweaked Archmage or Lich who instead of the standard spell list has prepared nothing but single target SoS and doesn't have appropriate spell defenses) or players feel like the DM is breaking the worth wall to pick on them or patronize them (i.e. why are so many fire vulnerable monsters suddenly showing up in our Against The Fiends adventure?). This is unavoidable to an extent, but it's not a trivial problem.

 

[cmad1977]

So here's the thing I don't understand. How can D&D be "too easy"?

The DM decides what encounters to build. Not challenging your party on a regular basis? Throw more monsters. Throw wave after wave. Change how often they get short and long rests.

Campaign difficulty is determined by the DM. Not WOTC, and certainly not optional suggested guidelines for how to determine encounter difficulty.

But that means that the DM is responsible for their game. That's not what people want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Henry]

But that means that the DM is responsible for their game. That's not what people want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bit of a loaded statement, there?

A DM could always shoot themselves in the foot by placing an overwhelming series of encounters against the PCs - the trick is for the designers to provide an accurate set of tools that the DM can use to gauge the level of force to use to give the level of challenge he and the players desire, and still provide a fun game.

 

[cmad1977]

Bit of a loaded statement, there?

A DM could always shoot themselves in the foot by placing an overwhelming series of encounters against the PCs - the trick is for the designers to provide an accurate set of tools that the DM can use to gauge the level of force to use to give the level of challenge he and the players desire, and still provide a fun game.

They do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

So here's the thing I don't understand. How can D&D be "too easy"?

If new players can learn it in a session or two, and be running their own games shortly thereafter, rather than spending years absorbing 'skilled play' conventions and acquiring system mastery, and generally paying their dues to become conforming members of the community, then D&D is failing in it's gatekeeper role and must be judged 'too easy,' and be re-complicated somehow, as soon as a new rev can be rolled. ;P

Campaign difficulty is determined by the DM. Not WOTC, and certainly not optional suggested guidelines for how to determine encounter difficulty.

Seriously, though, if the encounter guidelines tend to consistently give less challenging encounters than implied, they could be legitimately called 'too easy,' but it's a trivial criticism as you can just dial it up (and exp down) to establish the desired equilibrium.

It's if the guidelines deliver inconsistent challenge that there's more of an isdue...
...even then, the Empowered DM solution is to toss the guidelines and craft encounters without them. Ditch the paint-by-numbers and draw 'em free-hand.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Unverfiable anonymous anecdotes do not all carry the same weight. To the person who actually experienced them, they have the gravitas of absolute truth. To the person with an agenda/pre-conceived-notion supported by them, they are backed by the full weight of his own confirmation bias - if they contradict instead of support, then they are 'the exception that proves the rule,' or outright lies that prove the desperation of the other side.
Otherwise, they simply carry no weight, at all.

No, I meant in terms of online discussion. Each anecdote matters equally toward the discussion. Just because someone makes their opinion known over and over does not make their opinion any more valid than any other poster.

How an individual poster reacts to shared anecdotes is up to the individual poster. How they view their own anecdotes is also up to them. I know that my examples are just that...examples of a type of game or type of play. I know it will be different than the experiences of others.

Fortunately, anecdotes are not all we have, we each have access to a great deal of the content of the game and can readily verify the facts of it, when making or understanding (or picking appart) an analysis of them.

Well I cited plenty of examples of material from the books that supports high level play. I also cited the lack of published adventures for the highest levels as a shortcoming of 5E.

But these concrete examples don't objectively prove or disprove the viability of 5E at high levels. That's up to each of us to decide.

The question is about the game so the impetus to limit consideration to the game, itself, is understandable. It's also misguided, because, 'out the box,' it's honestly presented as a starting point, and openly calls for the DM to step up and make it work.

Unless a DM is exclusively running published adventures, the term loses most meaning. The game as presented requires work on the part of the DM.

It seems a nonsensical requirement given the nature of the game. Like expecting a game disc to be playable out of the box without the right game system.

So, in a sense, and trivially so, it's true that it's not a viable game, at any level. Rather, the question becomes is it that much harder to make it work at high level.
Yes, it is, but folks do it, anyway.

I don't even think it's that hard, honestly. The high level PCs in my campaign seem to be in constant danger. The stakes are high, and the numbers and types of creatures that come their way border on overwhelming.

 

[Oofta]

Have you ever played one of the hardcover books like Storm King's Thunder or Tales of the Yawning Portal? I've played through both, and with the exception of Tomb of Horrors the adventures were significantly harder at lower level than at higher levels.

Also, note that even though a DM can adjust the difficulty slider up and down, it's easy to end up in a situation where it breaks willing suspension of disbelief (i.e. a tweaked Archmage or Lich who instead of the standard spell list has prepared nothing but single target SoS and doesn't have appropriate spell defenses) or players feel like the DM is breaking the worth wall to pick on them or patronize them (i.e. why are so many fire vulnerable monsters suddenly showing up in our Against The Fiends adventure?). This is unavoidable to an extent, but it's not a trivial problem.

Which just goes back to the idea that the published materials assume nothing more than the basic rules. So standard ability generation options, low (or no) magic, no feats, no multi-classing, a non-optimized group.

Change any of the base options and the differences are going to be more pronounced the higher your level. In addition, tactics and team balance is going to matter more at higher levels.

Which is why there's a DM. Nobody's going to come knocking on your door if you tweak the mod.

As far as the lich having appropriate spells prepared, why wouldn't they? We're talking about a being with all the time in the world and a genius level IQ. As far as fire resistant monsters ... fire resistance is simply one of the most common resistances (and immunities) in the book. Particularly for fiends.

But even if monsters are customized to be more of a threat to the group. So what?

 

[Eric V]

They do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they don't.