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

[Helldritch]

As for the design assumptions, I would agree that perhaps more guidance on how to adjust the CR/XP systems to allow for feats and multiclassing was in order. I think it was actually smart to design based on the assumption those options would not be used because of the way they decided to present the game, abd the fact that they are targeting new players as well as trying to retain or regain old players.

Anyone can play the game with the Basic Rules, which are free. The Basic Rules gives one feat and one subclass for each class, so there is incentive to actually buy the books if a new player decides they like the game. So an approach designed to add these kinds of things on as you go just makes sense to me. Especially compared to an approach that assumes the inclusion of all options, requiring peole to remove the ones they don't like and adjust accordingly.

This puts the modification in the hands of players and DMs who have decided to make their game more complex, rather than requiring modifications by people who want a simpler game.

Again the famous "basic rule" intended. The more options you add, the more work you'll have to put in your game. But putting advanced challenge making in the hands of the DM was the only choice possible.

Sure, some more advice on how to adjust may have been in order...but I also think that there is such a broad spectrum of how the game can go that it's hard to know how to make such adjustments. Maybe it is better to leave that up to the individual groups to decide. I mean, if I allow Feats in my game, and my players take things like Actor and Linguist because they think it will be cool for story purposes...does my game require as much combat adjustment as someone who's got players taking Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, and also has multiple PCs dipping into Warlock for Devil's Sight so they can cheese Darkness and destroy their foes? Probably not.

So although more advice would help, I think that ultimately they made the right choice. Everyone's game is different and you know it better than anyone. And the best way to learn is through experience; the best advice in a book can only ever hope to match actual experience.

So, to come back to viability...the answer seems obvious to me. I've been given a set of basic tools, and then many examples of how to adjust those tools for a specific purpose. I can indeed achieve a viable high level game using what the books offer. That does not mean I have not had to put some effort in. But when does a DM not have to put in some effort?

With simple tools you can go very far. I agree with you that it is our role to modify the tools given for our tastes and preferences which might not be the same as another DM.

So the question seems to me to he about where the designers' responsibility for how the game plays ends and where the DM's begins. It's an interesting question....and with a myriad of answers, I'm sure. But to me, it's about the level of fun I'm having and that my players are having. If the rules are so bad that the game is not enjoyable, then that's the designers' fault. If the game is enjoyable, but there are some areas that can be improved...a bit of a gray area, but hard to say designers of something enjoyable have failed.

But, if the game is mostly enjoyable, and the designers have offered examples of variant rules and options that can help the game be more to your liking, and you choose nit to inprove your game, ,I do think that's a case where it falls to the DM.

Again, we get to the DM's role. You want to modify the rules? Go ahead but you will have some work to do.
Should they have given more guidelines for "advanced" groups? Maybe. But the variables are way too many to encompass every possibilities. I allow feats but no backgrounds. I allow positioning with flanking, inspirations and hero points but no feats. I do not allow human variant but I allow feats but no options from the DMG. I do not allow demi-humans but I allow feats and hero points.

You get the point. There are so many possibilities that taking all of them into account is impossible. A DM must do some work if he wants to play something more than the base game.

 

[Stalker0]

Ultimately what I'm hearing is, a lot of DMs have to adjust their monsters at high levels because of options used and times per day.

So I think then the followup question is...what are some of the adjustments that should be made? For example, at my experience at high levels is that an equal CR monster is really not a threat at all. But how much higher should you generally go...2,3,5 CR higher?

If a deadly xp budget isn't high enough, than how much higher should you go?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ultimately what I'm hearing is, a lot of DMs have to adjust their monsters at high levels because of options used and times per day.

So I think then the followup question is...what are some of the adjustments that should be made? For example, at my experience at high levels is that an equal CR monster is really not a threat at all. But how much higher should you generally go...2,3,5 CR higher?

If a deadly xp budget isn't high enough, than how much higher should you go?

I don't know if it has to be an increase over what would be considered a Deadly Encounter. But, I admit I don't know all the numbers.

So instead of worrying about the CR and assocoated math, I think what you should do is examine what is making encounters so easy for your PC party. Are they optimized for ranged combat, so they wind up killing things from afar? Do they dominate in melee? Do the party casters shut down opponents with save or suck spells?

Once you know why your party is dominating, then you adjust encounters accordingly. If the PCs are ranged experts, have the bad guys be good at range, too. Some sharpshooting enemies with a couple of waves of mooks (who have some access to cover) to charge the party should work better. Or provide the bad guys with the means of countering the party's ranged dominance. Such changes shouldn't really affect the CR or encounter difficulty at all.

Beyond that, if you find some of the monsters to be weaker than you'd like, adjust them. There is nothing at all wrong with that. The Marilith often comes up, and was mentioned earlier in the thread. Make her Teleport ability a move action or a bonus action, and give her a quiver of javelins, or the ability to cast Lightning Bolt 3/day. Again, nothing drastic to radically alter her CR, but it makes her more capable of dealing with a variety of PC parties. And of course she needs underlings....she's not intended to be a solo monster, not unless it's against a significantly lower level party. If you want her to be a solo monster against a high level party, then you have to give her Legendary Actions and Resistance.

Another way to bolster the bad guys is by giving them consummable magic items like potions and scrolls. This gives them a boost without impacting the Difficulty, and also incorporates some treasure for the PCs. Treasure that's not too powerful.

Then you can always go the route of adding monsters, or increasing HP for monsters and other such adjustments, as have been mentioned before.

I don't design my encounters with XP budget and Difficulty Rating and all of that, so I can't answer your question about how much of an increase in CR is needed. I think you're better off making adjustments based on what you observe in the encounters and what you know of the PCs and the players, and only worrying about the math afterward.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So instead of worrying about the CR and assocoated math, I think what you should do is examine what is making encounters so easy for your PC party. Are they optimized for ranged combat, so they wind up killing things from afar? Do they dominate in melee? Do the party casters shut down opponents with save or suck spells?
.

This right here. Too many people get caught up in the math, or the CR values. While simply increasing more monsters may be an option, that's not always the best option, or option at all. It all depends on what exactly is making the encounters too easy, just as you say.

For example, I tend to run encounters that may be more challenging than the CR says, because I'm a big proponent on monsters being cunning and/or intelligent (if their stat blocks are like that), and thus rely on environment and tactics a lot. I never design encounters on CR budget. Always by feel of what I know will be a good fit for my players. Have since 1981. Don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[Helldritch]

[MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION]
Check on page 37 for some advice I gave. May not be perfect but it's a start. Many others gave some of their "tricks" to either run encounters or simply build them. With all the ideas on this thread, you should find something that suits you.
[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]
I tend to agree with you. But a small guideline can help a lot the novice DM.
[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]
All of what you posted above as an answer to Stalker0 is correct. Using Sacrosanct approach isn't bad either. I am also for more intelligent played monsters. Be it from a highly combative instinct or higher intellect. And again, a small guideline can help a novice DM by quite a lot.

Although I really feel that 5e is usable in high level campaign from the box. The work needed to do so can be quite high for the DM that don't have the time to build encounters with heavy experience calculation or the time to make simulations like I do. In that respect, our friend CapnZapp is right to ask for better suited tools to make high level campaign easier to make. Although I may seem to be on the "everything's ok" side, I am really in the middle ground on that subject. I did used heavy modifications at the beginnings of 5e. I've had my share of one way fights. It took me 3 months to find out what was going wrong with the way I was playing. All my simulations were off by quite a lot. It is only by eleminating the 5mwd and strictly enforcing the 6-8 encounters per day that I started to see the encounters going up to my expectations in both length and challenge. Remember that 5e came right after the 4e and some of that playstyle carried over (counsciously or not, I can't say) and that playstyle is not compatible with how 5e is working.

 

[Tony Vargas]

.
So I think then the followup question is...what are some of the adjustments that should be made?

At any level, D&D is a game that plays best with a great deal of It's resolution kept sub rosa, specifically, behind the DMs Screen. But, particularly at high level, after running for a group quite a while. You get to know the characters and the players, and you can narrate results for maximum fun based on that much more effectively than you can based on the rules and guidelines.

 

[Sadras]

I tend to give demons/devils bonus standard actions to pull off their supernatural/scary stuff, otherwise these monsters tend to fall flat and I typically dislike adding more hit points, as that doesn't solve the problem of the monster not using all its abilities before they drop and just extends the combat in the most boring of ways.

For instance, rather have the Balgura perform a running leap, recklessly attack and then cast entangle or even go invisible, that way the demon becomes an interesting threat and is not just a sack of over-inflated hit points, IMO.


EDIT: Giving monsters bonus actions/reactions is the best way to deal with high-level play. I wouldn't even bother adjusting the CR or any of the encounter tables. Characters already advance too fast, IMO.

Just make general hardcore house-rules for yourself when designing combat encounters:
- Monsters crit when they score 5+ over the AC mark required;
- Monsters gain an additional supernatural bonus action during their turn (whether it be one attack or spell power);
- Monsters gain a bonus encounter reaction;
- Monsters gain +1 additional bonus to hit per Tier above the 1st;
- Monsters gain an additional x traits;
...etc

 

[jimmytheccomic]

I tend to give demons/devils bonus standard actions to pull off their supernatural/scary stuff, otherwise these monsters tend to fall flat and I typically dislike adding more hit points, as that doesn't solve the problem of the monster not using all its abilities before they drop and just extends the combat in the most of boring ways.

For instance, rather have the Balgura perform a running leap, recklessly attack and then cast entangle or even go invisible, that way the demon becomes an interesting threat and is not just a sack of over-inflated hit points, IMO.

Yeah, same here! Like, if it's got a rechargable ability, it uses that AND it's attack action.

Adding spellcasting as Legendary Actions are gamechangers, especially for Dragons. I normally let them cast a spell for two legendary actions.
Tonight my party may be fighting a Beholder- it randomly shoots one eye beam as normal as a legendary, but I'm letting it spend two legendarys to choose an eye ray. Adjusting it's legendary skills makes a huge difference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This right here. Too many people get caught up in the math, or the CR values. While simply increasing more monsters may be an option, that's not always the best option, or option at all. It all depends on what exactly is making the encounters too easy, just as you say.

For example, I tend to run encounters that may be more challenging than the CR says, because I'm a big proponent on monsters being cunning and/or intelligent (if their stat blocks are like that), and thus rely on environment and tactics a lot. I never design encounters on CR budget. Always by feel of what I know will be a good fit for my players. Have since 1981. Don't see that changing any time soon.

I think one of the biggest improvements I've ever made as a DM is to stop having the majority of bad guys simply hurl themselves at the PCs. I do my best to treat each enemy as a thinking creature with goals of its own, and a normal sense of self preservation (although there are occasional exceptions to that, like fanatic cultists or whatever).

It just makes no sense for a creature looking for a meal to decide to attack a group of humans, and then for that creature to continue attacking them well after it's obvious that there are easier meals to be had. It doesn't require a high intelligence for basic self preservation to kick in.

For more intelligent creatures, I try to use tactics and thinking that makes sense for them. I think most such plans would include some kind of option for falling back or getting away, so I try to keep that in mind. I don't think many people would ever approach a fight without at least some thought to this...not unless it was such a seemingly foregone conclusion that it did not seem to be a concern.

Having fights end a bit earlier due to the bad guys retreating can also help address the complaint that "pointless combats" that are present just to help increase the number of encounters per day need to take up so much time. Having the bad guys retreat helps reduce the amount of time it takes for the encounter, and it also provides a slightly different take on the combat; it becomes less about "kill them all" to "stop them from getting away".

I meant to mention that in my last post, too; changing the goals of combat can really increase the how tough or meaningful an encounter can be without adjusting the actual Difficulty. Make the combat about rescuing someone, or about capturing one specific target, or about reaching and throwing a lever to open the drawbridge.....whatever. If every combat simply boils down to each side trying to kill the other and little else, then no amount of tweaking the rules or mechanics will prevent some feeling of repetition.

 

[shoak1]

Ultimately what I'm hearing is, a lot of DMs have to adjust their monsters at high levels because of options used and times per day.

So I think then the followup question is...what are some of the adjustments that should be made? For example, at my experience at high levels is that an equal CR monster is really not a threat at all. But how much higher should you generally go...2,3,5 CR higher?

If a deadly xp budget isn't high enough, than how much higher should you go?

Using the XP Threshold Chart, I begin at "hard" as the baseline for 7 encounters per day (my players like a challenge).

I go a column right for every 3 encounters/day less than 7, or a row down if hit right side of table (although I made another column right of deadly just for that reason)

for boss fights i use 2 rows down in addition to above

if monsters/PCs are outnumbered by 2-1 or more, i shift 1 row up/down also