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

[happyhermit]

What I see is a whole thread of people giving me one of two answers: Either "high level play isn't viable in 5E" or "high level play is viable under the condition that you completely change the challenge ratings of the monsters". The "some people" who think it works just fine appear to be just you, and that I only have as a blanket statement like "everything in 5E is perfect, nothing to see here, move along", instead of any argument why you think that monsters as written being a pushover at high levels is working as intended.

Huh, I just re-read this thread and I still don't see that at all. I see a whole lot of people saying you need to adjust/customize things depending on the parties level of optimization/magic items/feats/strategy, and I see some people talking about strategy/tactics/planning on the NPC side of things. I don't see everybody saying that it is completely unviable without changing the CR of the monsters.

For the record I am part of the "some people" who think it works just fine (and that you don't need to completely change the challenge ratings, though you certainly might want to), but I certainly don't like the "everything in 5e is perfect" line, there are a lot of things in 5e that don't suit my preferences it just happens to accommodate them better than most other systems.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The question we need to ask is how optimized the party is versus how optimized the DM is?

Also, isn't 5th designed to be simple to understand and use? I imagine that would make it easier to modify. I don't even play 5th Edition but I imagine simply giving all the monsters a +1 to attack rolls / 1d8 to damage rolls per 4 levels the players have could go a long way.

Does the DMG has modules that make the game harder for the players? Make them use the Gritty Rest rules and you might have an easier time challenging them.

 

[CapnZapp]

1. It was a general statement that applied to the argument in general. Just because the link was to a thread that you started, doesn't mean everything is about you only
2. That's not trash talking you. That's pointing out how someone (like you) who is constantly complaining high level play is broken, appears to DM in a way that the NPCs/monsters under your control are played incompetently, and thus seem to illustrate how the problem might not be the game or the rules, but on your style of play. When I say "incompetently", I mean that even from an average playstyle. Not to rehash that thread (because the discussion is there for everyone to read), but there was ZERO planning on the NPCs part, who happened to be high level geniuses, and their actions during combat made little sense as to what they would typically do as genius high level baddies. But when you throw in the fact that you were playing against players who are optmizers, the way those NPCs were ran is doubly incompetent. That leaves little doubt as to the real reason you think high level play is a cakewalk for the players. And it's not because of the game rules or guidelines.

No. I count at least three times you call me out as incompetent, in your "totally not talking about you" response. Classy.

Talking about incompetent, I'll let your feeble attempt to "prove" I'm a bad DM, using a single encounter as "proof", speak for itself.

 

[CapnZapp]

but I certainly don't like the "everything in 5e is perfect" line, there are a lot of things in 5e that don't suit my preferences it just happens to accommodate them better than most other systems.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Zardnaar]

What the 5E is perfect crowd don't like to admit is the monster math doesn't work so good and the encounter guidelines are rubbish as well at higher levels.

You can fight stuff around 7+ CRs above your level. CR 20 is not for level 20 PCs more like 12-14 depending on how powerful the PCs are. Level 18-20 PCs need CR 25-30 critters. IN theory you can use a lot of lower CR stuff but then the encounter guidelines numbers multiplier kicks in so the numbers are usually way over the suggested limits. The more PCs you have the harder it is (4 is easier than 6).

You can kind of make it work but its a bit of work so 5E has few advantages of 3E or 4E in this regard, AD&D and BECMI beat it in that regard (easier to DM for).

We played the crap out of 5E at launch and hit level 13/14 twice in the 1st 6 months or so. Figured out most of the powerful spells, feats and combos in that time and were getting through 6-12 encounters/long rest most of them deadly with one being deadly X5. 6 person party using the -5/+10 feats, buffing and 4 primary spellcasters.

We had some interesting terrain as well, giant floating crystals above lakes of fire, trips to elemental planes, fighting under water in a harbour etc.

 

[JeffB]

IME, running a group of three 15th level characters (definitely not optimized) vs. a couple different CR16 monsters and then beefing things up (Marilith and minions, Mummy Lord in lair with minions), the CR system needs work. The PCs walked all over both encounters. The Marilith was particularly disappointing compared to other edition versions. I'd recommend adding in the optional summoning.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What I see is a whole thread of people giving me one of two answers: Either "high level play isn't viable in 5E" or "high level play is viable under the condition that you completely change the challenge ratings of the monsters". The "some people" who think it works just fine appear to be just you, and that I only have as a blanket statement like "everything in 5E is perfect, nothing to see here, move along", instead of any argument why you think that monsters as written being a pushover at high levels is working as intended.

This response is pretty telling. It tells me you are only looking for confirmation bias, because it's clearly not an accurate statement. Perhaps you need to re-read your own thread, because that's not what people have said, and I'm not the only who thinks high level play can be just fine. You also seem to be taking page from CapnZapp with the hyperbole of accusing others who don't agree with making statements like "the game is perfect so just move along", which isn't what people have been saying at all.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What the 5E is perfect crowd don't like to admit is the monster math doesn't work so good and the encounter guidelines are rubbish as well at higher levels..

Who has said 5e is perfect? Or is this a strawman you're setting up?

 

[Sacrosanct]

No. I count at least three times you call me out as incompetent, in your "totally not talking about you" response. Classy.

This is what I originally said

Usually, when someone says something like high level D&D is broken and a cake walk, I am curious to know how it's DM'd. This somewhat recent thread is a prime example of someone who frequently says high level play is broken, but clearly the DM wasn't running the opponents with any sort of competence. I don't think it's coincidence that those two positions typically go hand in hand.

That was a general statement. That thread was just used as supporting evidence of my general statement because it was a clear example I could remember off the top of my head. And I didn't reply back with three times calling you incompetent. I said once, how the way those NPCs were ran in that thread, was incompetent, not only for a typical gaming group, but especially for a group where the players are optimized. I.e., you have a clear example of optimizing players (which you have said that is your group's style many many times), and not only did the DM (you in this case) not optimize the opponents, but you played them as incompetent actors on the stage for the reasons I had given. Therefore, no wonder why you thought the encounter was a cakewalk by the players. Never once did I call YOU incompetent. I said how you ran that encounter was.

Talking about incompetent, I'll let your feeble attempt to "prove" I'm a bad DM, using a single encounter as "proof", speak for itself.

Well, it's the only example I have, so....

There was nothing in that thread that gave me the impression that that was out of the norm for your style of DMing. I.e., you didn't give any sort of disclaimer that hinted at "I'm taking it really easy on my group by playing these opponents as incompetent."

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, it's the only example I have, so....

There was nothing in that thread that gave me the impression that that was out of the norm for your style of DMing. I.e., you didn't give any sort of disclaimer that hinted at "I'm taking it really easy on my group by playing these opponents as incompetent."

I suggest you treat it as an isolated data point then. Here's another, fresh from my last session:

They found a valuable bracelet lying in a cave, recently opened up to the world by a rockfall. The cave itself radiated cold and the Druid noticed how devoid of life it was, even grubs and insects. Despite this, the party decided to spend the night, the Wizard wearing the bracelet in the hopes it would reveal itself to be magical.

Then they got ambushed by a Banshee and her four "maids" (Will'o'the'wisps).

They only got away alive because when the wildshaped Druid lost all his hit points, he "fell out" of his form but was otherwise unharmed, and could pick up a friend and flee.

That, and that every undead focus-fired on the Wizard who had "stolen" her bracelet. He quickly died. First he failed the Banshee's Con save, then he failed the Wisp's. Bam - instant death.


(four 4th level characters)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app