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

[CapnZapp]

As usual it boils down to people being responsible for their table. If monsters aren't viable at high level it isn't because the designers are lazy. It's because you are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol

I would love to have you for a customer if I design a rpg.

No matter how lazy and weak my monster design, you'll have my back - it's always the Dungeon Master's fault!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lol

I would love to have you for a customer if I design a rpg.

No matter how lazy and weak my monster design, you'll have my back - it's always the Dungeon Master's fault!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Only if your RPG says D&D on the cover, and has all the sacred cows happily grazing within.

No, I meant in terms of online discussion. Each anecdote matters equally toward the discussion.

So did I, and yeah, 0=0.
(Though, really, since unverifiable, anonymous anecdotes are seized upon by overwhelming confirmation bias, they're arguably worse than useless, if informed/open debate, or exploration of a topic is the goal, rather than pushing an agenda).

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.

Both perfectly valid as far as they go, but pointing to different conclusions.

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.

Objective viability is not down to opinion, acceptable degree of viability, OTOH..

. The game as presented requires work on the part of the DM.

That's what I meant to say

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.

Its like the plug-and-play claim.

I don't even think it's that hard, honestly.

Hard is relative. D&D's easier to run in the given ed's mechanical 'sweet spot' harder outside it, and while you're in the conventional up-from-1st style, you'll acquire more skill running low levels than high, especially when RL brings a campaign to a premature end...

 

[robus]

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?

I think you're probably right - D&D group abilities are kind of like the storm track projections we see for Hurricane Irma (as a topical reference ) - at low levels they're all kind of clustered together but as they get higher in level (further out projections) they start to wildly diverge and the ability to capture a reliable set of guidelines that work for all those different groups does seem impossible.

Their (WotC's) mistake is probably in writing guidelines they think can be used up to the 20th level! - just cut it off at level 12 and say "here be dragons" for the rest of them!

 

[Sacrosanct]

As usual it boils down to people being responsible for their table. If monsters aren't viable at high level it isn't because the designers are lazy. It's because you are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wouldn't say this is a blanket rule, as there are some really bad designs out there of where no matter how good of a DM you are, the game will suck. But those are the extreme minority. Certainly not D&D.

The bottom line is that D&D is designed for the largest group of gamers. They seem to have succeeded in spades with that in this latest edition. It's also true that a DM needs to tailor their adventures to fit their gaming group. Says so right in the introduction of the DMG.

So yeah, when I hear someone call the 5e designer's lazy because the game isn't exactly how they personally want it right out of the box, I agree with your statement. It's not the designers that are lazy. It's the DM's for refusing to take ownership of their own minority preference of style, and refusing to do the DM's job, as described right there in the introduction.

It's also amusing that the people who most frequently complain about the designers being lazy and incompetent are the ones who can't be bothered to put in the effort themselves to walk their talk (true of every industry). Pretty easy to be an armchair quarterback and call another designer incompetent when you refuse to show your competency for everyone to judge. I call that both lazy and cowardly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Only if your RPG says D&D on the cover, and has all the sacred cows happily grazing within.

So did I, and yeah, 0=0.
(Though, really, since unverifiable, anonymous anecdotes are seized upon by overwhelming confirmation bias, they're arguably worse than useless, if informed/open debate, or exploration of a topic is the goal, rather than pushing an agenda).

Both perfectly valid as far as they go, but pointing to different conclusions.

Objective viability is not down to opinion, acceptable degree of viability, OTOH..

That's what I meant to say
Its like the plug-and-play claim.

Hard is relatrelative D&D's easier to run in the given ed's mechanical 'sweet spot' harder outside it, and while you're play in the conventional up-from-1st stule, you'll acquire more skill running low levels than high, especially when RL brings a campaign to a premature end...

So what's your take on it then? Viable at high level, or not viable at high level?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

At least there was that member of this community (again, I regret not knowing his/her name) who formatted the 5e monsters so that all the info is there. He or she is a noble indeed. Stops from having to look up anything in the middle of combat at all.

Here you go: https://gsllc.wordpress.com/2017/03...he-yawning-portal-rpg-bandofmisfits-stitched/

 

[Tony Vargas]

So what's your take on it then? Viable at high level, or not viable at high level?

I'll stick with:

At any level, the viability of 5e approaches that of the DM running it.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

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

Here's the thing that people don't consider when they present this fix: what if the players don't want you doing that? If my Eldritch Knight picks up a Flametongue and starts doing fireball damage every round, a lot of people aren't going to appreciate it when the DM ups the difficulty slider to compensate by arbitrarily having more fire-resistant monsters.

Some people want a constant difficulty level such that having a well-oiled party, great item drops, and creative use of plans means that they fight encounters 2 levels harder than expected, and that's fine. However, there are also a lot of players (and I suspect there are many more players in this group than in the former) who, when they get a lucky drop or have a particularly efficient crew, do want the game to get easier. That is, now that they rolled a lucky Holy Avenger in Tomb of Annihilation, they don't actually want there to be more skeletons and radiant-resistant revenants. They realize that the game expects a generic level 6 character to have a certain level of butt-kicking and it makes them feel good when they kick so much more butt that things are significantly easier. Maybe not no challenge whatsoever, but definitely in a '1996 Chicago Bulls v. Seattle SuperSonics'.

Again, a game that's too easy is less problematic and easier to compensate for than a game that's too hard. So it's not a big deal. But it's not a problem you can handwave away with 'just add more monsters, bro'.

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?

My example was intentionally that of a difficulty revision downwards (Lich prepares suboptimal spells, more fire-vulnerable monsters show up) than upwards. I really don't appreciate you changing my example like that, especially since I feel that difficulty revisions downwards are more problematic than difficulty revisions upwards.

 

[Oofta]

Here's the thing that people don't consider when they present this fix: what if the players don't want you doing that? If my Eldritch Knight picks up a Flametongue and starts doing fireball damage every round, a lot of people aren't going to appreciate it when the DM ups the difficulty slider to compensate by arbitrarily having more fire-resistant monsters.

Some people want a constant difficulty level such that having a well-oiled party, great item drops, and creative use of plans means that they fight encounters 2 levels harder than expected, and that's fine. However, there are also a lot of players (and I suspect there are many more players in this group than in the former) who, when they get a lucky drop or have a particularly efficient crew, do want the game to get easier. That is, now that they rolled a lucky Holy Avenger in Tomb of Annihilation, they don't actually want there to be more skeletons and radiant-resistant revenants. They realize that the game expects a generic level 6 character to have a certain level of butt-kicking and it makes them feel good when they kick so much more butt that things are significantly easier. Maybe not no challenge whatsoever, but definitely in a '1996 Chicago Bulls v. Seattle SuperSonics'.

Again, a game that's too easy is less problematic and easier to compensate for than a game that's too hard. So it's not a big deal. But it's not a problem you can handwave away with 'just add more monsters, bro'.

Sure you can. I just did.

OK, in all seriousness this whole thread has had many, many examples of how to adjust difficulty. My default go-to is give the monsters a +2 or even advantage and increase damage by 20-50%. But that's just me.

As far as fire resistance, what can I say. I'm hitting a similar issue in my own campaign. The group is just hitting monsters that make sense for the story (which is what I normally do) that also happen to be fire resistant or immune (which is not my intent). I think it's possible you are simply reading too much into things.

My example was intentionally that of a difficulty revision downwards (Lich prepares suboptimal spells, more fire-vulnerable monsters show up) than upwards. I really don't appreciate you changing my example like that, especially since I feel that difficulty revisions downwards are more problematic than difficulty revisions upwards.

Ummm ... I don't have every mod, and every monster in them memorized. I don't know if it's a revision to make the lich more of a threat or less, and I assumed harder (it wasn't clear). But aren't you kind of complaining about mods being too easy? When you were just complaining about mods being too hard?

 

[Rofel Wodring]

Ummm ... I don't have every mod, and every monster in them memorized. I don't know if it's a revision to make the lich more of a threat or less, and I assumed harder (it wasn't clear). But aren't you kind of complaining about mods being too easy? When you were just complaining about mods being too hard?

Broadly, my complaint involves the generalization situation where the designer's assumptions of out-of-the-box difficulty do not match what's actually going on in actual play. There are a lot of ways for this to be the case (assumes too much about groups, too generically difficult, too generically easy, combat takes longer or shorter than expected, etc.) and I was merely noting that 5E D&D's situation of the game being easier than advertised is the least malignant form of the problem.

That said, least malignant does not equal good. I don't think it's a big deal, certainly not on the level of 2E D&D making too many assumptions about party composition or 3.5E D&D being too difficult or 4E D&D taking too long. Nonetheless, I sympathize with people who think it is a problem worth addressing.