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

[Fleetwood C. DeVille]

I'd also like to see a return to slower advancement. I ran the numbers, a couple days ago, and to recapture the 1E rate of advancement, even assuming you got twice as many XP from gold as from monsters, you'd have to reduce XP awards for monsters by a factor of 10 and still have to multiply the XP tables for leveling by 50 or even 100. There's just too much focus on the next toy. I don't mind zipping through the first couple levels, though.

In our current campaign I am leveling the PC's "at the DM's discretion". We have slowed things way down and everyone is loving it. There is more time for the players to get in tune with their characters and learn their abilities and develop personalities.

 

[Seramus]

If you are the kind of DM who uses custom monsters, or just custom statistics for classic monsters, then the game remains completely viable all the way to Level 20. Even if you are running from modules to save time, as long as you use custom stats for monsters, then everything works great.

If you are the kind of DM who mostly uses monsters straight out of the books?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So I was wondering, how viable is the high level game of 5th edition D&D anyway?

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

Seriously, a good enough DM can run 5e at any level. 1st level and high levels are trickier than the middle of the sweet spot (maybe 5-9?), getting easier the closer you get to that ideal zone (2nd is easier to run than 1st, 3rd than 2nd; 15th is easier to run than 20th, 11th easier than 15th). At least 1st level goes by quickly (if no one dies or, if, as in AL, they get auto-raised every session until 4th), so you can often muddle through while the players are distracted getting to know their PCs.

What kind of adventures do you reasonably play at that level without resorting to silly "you open the random dungeon door and encounter 3 adult dragons"?

What's silly about that? The arbitrary, ecologically-untenable, even randomly-generated-as-you-go mega-dungeon is a staple of D&D tradition! Most of EGG's pre-release campaign happened in one dungeon, under Castle Greyhawk (so I've gathered from whispered nth-hand legend, anyway).

Are players still interested in their characters after having played them for 10 to 15 levels?

Some players retain interest more than others, some classes offer more to be interested in.

Do a lot of people play at higher levels, or is restarting at low level fairly common?

Not really (depending on what you mean by 'a lot'), and yes, certainly.

I'm going to chime in with a statement that I'd actually really like to see a slower advancement table. I don't actually care about playing past 11th level or so -- for most campaigns. Retiring at "name level" was a pretty good model. The game just isn't that interesting, IMO, when you can teleport casually, etc.

Nod. The 5e exp table /does/ slow substantially after the first couple of levels, and speeds up again after 11th, extending the play-time in the more-functional 'sweet spot.' You could emphasize that further with a little tweaking. You could simply treat the entries on the exp table as 'additional exp for next level' rather than 'total exp for next level.' That should slow it down.

In our current campaign I am leveling the PC's "at the DM's discretion". We have slowed things way down and everyone is loving it. There is more time for the players to get in tune with their characters and learn their abilities and develop personalities.

Also a viable option, and one I'm hearing of more & more DMs using. (Really, it's been a trend ever since 3.0 put everyone on the same chart - hey, if we're all leveling at the same time, why track exp so obsessively - but it also fits 5e's DM Empowerment philosophy neatly.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The big problem with high levels is that there are no threatening monsters to fight. When you're level 5, you can fight a couple of level 8 monsters and it will be a tough but quick and dynamic encounter. When you're level 19, a tough encounter means fighting half a dozen level 15 monsters, which is a tedious slog through mountains of HP. Between that and the attrition model, it can get pretty boring after a while.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure all editions of D&D has become wonky at high levels,

'Wonky' covers quite the range, apparently, from the dwarf fighter topping out at 7th level while the human fighter builds a castle and gets nothing more than +3 hps/level after a while and the wizard eventually hikes to Arch-mage & 9th level spells, all the way down to your attacks and defenses might be 3 points behind the curve if you don't take the right feats, and back up to ...

but after playing the game for twenty years it has never felt so... empty... like playing a game on easy mode.

... 'playing the game on easy mode.'

Though, y'know, just apply some time pressure and it'll be fine!

;>

 

[CapnZapp]

One thing I would want is for D&D to finally embrace "partial results" so that a BBEG can fail a Banishment or Hold Monster or whatever, but still not be outright crippled. Legendary Saves, sure, but it's crude, simple and not especially satisfying. Much better if each party spellcaster needs three "strikes" before his or her spell "takes", giving progressive bonuses (and descriptions) along the way.

The idea is that any "legendary" (or epic, or solo, or whatever the label is) creature needs "three strikes" from a given spellcaster (that resets if the monster lives to take a short rest). Each time the monster fails a save against a sufficiently high-level spell, that counts as one strike. (For a low-level legendary, this might be as low as 3rd level. For monsters of the highest CR, it would be spells of 6th level or higher, the ones where you only get one per level, to reinforce the "specialness" of those).

Only spells with "strike" info counts. For instance, Fireball would not have strike info. You would not be able to cast two Fireballs against a Legendary Wyvern and then top it off with a single save or suck spell that does have strike info. This is because spells that primarily deal damage has that utility anyway.

For instance, let's invent some strike info for Forcecage:

Forcecage
7th level Bard, Warlock, Wizard Evocation strike spell
[regular info here]
1st strike: The monster visibly struggles against the invisible prison, rendering it effectively grappled.
2nd strike: The monster is losing the fight, barely being able to keep gaps in the prison open. It is restrained.
3rd strike: The spell works as described. (This part is always the same)

Strike info is ignored for regular versions of the monster.

This way, a single save-or-suck spell doesn't end a Solo encounter. Yet, it is hardly pointless to cast these spells anyway, since you do get benefits from every (successful) casting.

Since hit point totals are increased for Solo monsters (rather massively, I might add), the party can't just drop the idea to cast debilititating spells and "just kill it". The idea is that the monster should last long enough for a challenging combat, no matter the party's tactics (causing damage, causing it to "suck", or both).

And yes, the idea is for such an encounter to actually challenging on its own, right off the bat, no DM tweaking needed. No expectation is made on having any other encounters that adventuring day!!! (If there are more encounters, that makes the Solo "too difficult" rather than being a prerequisite for being dangerous at all).

 

[CapnZapp]

I recently finished up a 5e Age of Worms campaign that went to level 20. The PCs were flush with magic items, used feats and multiclassing, the Champion had GWM and foresight, and they were challenged regularly.

I'm happy for you, though note the complaint has never been "I am unable to challenge the PCs even when I write my own material".

The complaint has always been "I can't challenge my PCs with the guidelines given, and/or by using printed supplement as is."

 

[CapnZapp]

Expecting the books, RAW, to keep every table challenged and engaged is lazy DMing. The rules are the framework, not meant to do everything for you.

So if there are two games, one of which manages to challenge the players right out of the box, but the other not...

... the difference is that one DM is good, the other is lazy...?? Under no circumstances could it be that the first game is simply better, more thoughtfully designed, than the other one...?!

Stop blaming the DM, Sacrosanct. Admit WotC has failed to provide enough challenge out the box this time around. You don't need to tell yourself 5E is the best thing since sliced bread to use the game. It is okay to be able to criticize the games you love.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ran my last campaign from 3-20, with several sessions at 20. Worked great. I created some new monsters and NPCs (and buffed some others). I put more thought into environments and lairs than I had at lower levels. Really, with the right environmental challenges and lair effects, you can challenge 20th-level characters with monsters and NPCs straight from the book. Actually, the main thing I took away from it was that I want to put more thought into environments and lair effects at the lower levels, too. It's a great opportunity to exercise some creativity, and it makes encounters unique and memorable.

Just gonna repeat myself:

I'm happy for you, though note the complaint has never been "I am unable to challenge the PCs even when I write my own material".

The complaint has always been "I can't challenge my PCs with the guidelines given, and/or by using printed supplement as is."

 

[CapnZapp]

Though, y'know, just apply some time pressure and it'll be fine!

;>

XP given for "knows the right button to push"