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

[Tormyr]

That'd just be another example of 'poor' design. Poor design gives you inconsistent results. One CR X monster gets curb-stomped by a level X party, the next of the same CR TPKs them. Poor design - at least, poor assignment of CR. :shrug:

Excellent design or poor, that'd still be the case.

To be fair, dice give inconsistent results too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be fair, dice give inconsistent results too.

They give random results. Consistently so over enough rolls. Well, if they're fair dice.

Ok, but what about the case where there is no mechanical benefit to a monster? What if I give an Ogre an Int of 14. Is that worth a CR increase?

I suspect the solid mechanical benefit could be a guideline. A +2 to checks is nothing to sneeze at, a +2 to hit or save DCs is a big deal. It's a judgement call, but that's something to base the judgement on.

Like so many things, it's likely to be situational. Put the unusually-bright Ogre in a situation where what you judge to be 'good tactics' can give it a meaningful advantage, it'd make an encounter tougher - it might be tougher in the same sense that being outnumbered is tougher - the encounter is harder, but the CR and exp values of the participants are unchanged. In that case, the question would be moot.

How should I quantify the differences in how the Ogre performs in an encounter? And why are we limiting this to a discussion of Int?

I brought up WIS & CHA, as well. But the mental stats are potentially troubling as we make decisions for our PCs & monsters that'd be influenced by those stat were we blessed (or cursed) with the real IQ/perception/personality corresponding to those numeric abstractions.

If I increased a Lich's strength to 18, it's unlikely that I would increase it's CR, as that has no mechanical effect on its combat ability.

I'm not sure why a lich would have an 18 STR, but, the lich has a nasty attack just for touching you, one that grappled you would likely be that much nastier. Just a random thought.

Likewise, what if you increased an Ogre's Wisdom?

More likely to spot you if you try to sneak past is.

What if you increased an Ogre's Charisma? I can think of all sorts of things that might play out slightly differently based on different stat abilities, but there is no way to measure the impact on combat ability, and therefore it really doesn't seem like it should have any bearing on Challenge Rating.

It's not like CR is that hard a number, but, yeah, it'd bear on the difficulty of the encounter more on the CR.

Some DMs are simply tactical illiterates.

Actually all DMs are tactical geniuses outside of tactics implicit in the game mechanics (like focus fire - well, until they overrule said mechanics), because they judge what tactics work and how well. If the DM rules that wearing pink tu-tu's and quoting Emerson is tactical genius, then when his high-INT Ogres do it, they get advantage on all their attacks.

I think the only approach that really makes any sense is to have CR guidelines that are based on mechanical effects, because those are the effects that can be measured and compared unequivocally

Sure. Of course, being a tactical genius, or more generally being smart, could be given mechanical effect, in the monster's stat block.
FREX: Masticator is smarter than his brother Crunch, and uses surprisingly good tactics in battle, whenever he moves into melee with an enemy that was not adjacent to him at the start of his turn, he gains Advantage on his first attack.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Don't take this the wrong way, but this really seems like it's just deflecting the onus of the CR system to the DM, rather than accepting that there might be some problems with the CR system.

DM: "Man, that XYZ with CR 10 was a punk. Your party of 6th level characters wiped it out in two rounds with barely a scratch!"
Player: "Nah, you just didn't play it smart enough."
DM: "Really? The DMG says the monster likes to wade into combat. That's what I did, and you guys ROFL-stomped it! It couldn't hit you, its saves suck, and you guys hit with every attack."
Player: "Oh, well don't wade into combat next time."
DM: "What should I do next time?"
Player: "I don't know, figure it out."
DM: "..."

Trust me, I get it, any encounter can turn into a cakewalk with poor tactical choices. You can't have a discussion of an encounter without a discussion of the tactics. But the mechanics matter, and tactics shouldn't be required to make up for weak mechanics.

Sure, I agree with a lot of that. I am not dismissing the mechanics. I think that mechanics matter, but so does what you do with them. I don't think you can dismiss either, honestly. No matter what the mechanics, if the DM does nothing with them, then the encounter will be weak. No matter what the DM does tactically, a weak monster can only accomplish so much.

Honestly, the CR system is, in my opinion, pretty simple. I think that's kind of a necessity, and I think it's best for people newer to the game, to serve as a guide on how to handle encounter design. But I don't rely on it myself, and I think other long-time DMs would be better served by abandoning it.

And for monsters, I think we can certainly criticize some choices in that area. I don't think the Monster Manual is perfect....far from it. But I also don't think that any version of the MM would be perfect. There's always going to be conversations about "this monster should be able to to this" and so on. Especially if you compare to the many previous versions. There will always be criticism, and opinions will always vary.

And that's fine. The Marilith came up, and I agree that it can be improved. So I easily did so. Conversations like this can be productive and can lead to solutions.

Does this mean that WotC didn't do their job? I don't know.....maybe? I look at it more as a case of them having done their job, but they could have done better. Does anyone expect the game to be perfect? Is it so bad that WotC knows that advanced players and DMs are likely to come up with their own mechanics, rules, and options? I suppose my question is why is labeling it so important? What is to be gained by saying that? Isn't the point of criticism to improve things?

I far prefer to find solutions for the problems I find with the game, rather than laying blame for them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly, the CR system is, in my opinion, pretty simple. I think that's kind of a necessity, and I think it's best for people newer to the game, to serve as a guide on how to handle encounter design.

"MM3 on a business card" was simple. CR is one piece of a not-so-simple, not-so-dependable system, that is there for DMs who really want a system - maybe even if it's just for the sake of having one, rather than for the sake of getting any use out of it. (Hope that doesn't come off as too harsh - I /do/ like having such a system, myself...)

...but:

But I don't rely on it myself, and I think other long-time DMs would be better served by abandoning it.

Agreed. DMing := ART > science.

...doesn't mean I actually use it.

Conversations like this can be productive and can lead to solutions.

Does this mean that WotC didn't do their job? I don't know.....maybe?

They didn't do the job of "make a balanced game with a simple system to determine encounter difficulty with a fair degree of dependability." But, y'know, on the third try, they did get pretty close to doing that job back in 2010, so it's probably not because they couldn't do it. It's because that wasn't the job this time around.

This time around, Job 1 was 'evoke classic feel.' I think they did that job and did it well. Maybe no CR at all would have been doing it better, but there was a Job n+1 of 'also let the DM evoke later editions* if he really wants to...'










* like 3.x/PF, which had CR, which wasn't terribly dependable - job done.
Really, they must be just dizzy with success up there in Renton.

 

[Schmoe]

Sure. Of course, being a tactical genius, or more generally being smart, could be given mechanical effect, in the monster's stat block.
FREX: Masticator is smarter than his brother Crunch, and uses surprisingly good tactics in battle, whenever he moves into melee with an enemy that was not adjacent to him at the start of his turn, he gains Advantage on his first attack.

That's an interesting thought. I like your sales pitch and would like to hear more.

 

[Mistwell]

All I can say is that the game clearly breaks down if you use the provided options in the PHB: multiclassing and feats. Also all the cool magic items in the DMG? Forget them if you want to use monsters as-is.

I would not say "clearly breaks down" but I would say otherwise you are correct that the CR system is based on no options being used (multiclassing or feats) and no magic items, and about 5 PCs. That's the baseline, and if you use the baseline, and then use the designated number of encounters and CR for those encounters per day, the monsters and CR system for them work fine.

Once you adjust one of those factors (multiclassing, feats, magic items, number of PCs), then you need to adjust the CR system to account for your optional adjustment.

I wish WOTC had put guidelines in for how to adjust CRs based on an adjustment to those options. They give us dials to turn to make the game our own, but then don't list the CR formula to turn with those other dials turning. But I don't think that means the CR system itself is flawed, nor the monsters - the baseline remains the same and functional, and as long as it remains consistent then adjustments to challenges can be made consistently too. If you learn how to adjust based on one or more of those dials being turned, the CR system continues to serve it's purpose. But like I said, I wish WOTC had put in more guidelines on how to make those adjustments. A lot of people use those options, and it would be helpful to know how to adjust CR based on each adjustment factor.

 

[lkj]

I'm running a campaign for 17th level characters (have come all the way from first). It's a blast. Players are very much into their characters. And I haven't had any trouble keeping them challenged. They are plenty frightened by the situations they are in. I should note that I don't bother with CR at this level, other than as a very rough guideline to get started. Just too many variables depending on the characters and magic items, etc. So I suspect a lot of the bigger encounters they wade into would be in the 'deadly' range. I also don't ever use complete 'solo' fights. The big baddies are always accompanied by healthy bands of powerful minions. If I did do a true solo fight, I'd probably makes some adjustments. But honestly, with 5e, those adjustments are easy.

That's my experience. I haven't read this thread, but I have no doubt others have had different ones.

AD

 

[Tormyr]

I would not say "clearly breaks down" but I would say otherwise you are correct that the CR system is based on no options being used (multiclassing or feats) and no magic items, and about 5 PCs. That's the baseline, and if you use the baseline, and then use the designated number of encounters and CR for those encounters per day, the monsters and CR system for them work fine.

Once you adjust one of those factors (multiclassing, feats, magic items, number of PCs), then you need to adjust the CR system to account for your optional adjustment.

I wish WOTC had put guidelines in for how to adjust CRs based on an adjustment to those options. They give us dials to turn to make the game our own, but then don't list the CR formula to turn with those other dials turning. But I don't think that means the CR system itself is flawed, nor the monsters - the baseline remains the same and functional, and as long as it remains consistent then adjustments to challenges can be made consistently too. If you learn how to adjust based on one or more of those dials being turned, the CR system continues to serve it's purpose. But like I said, I wish WOTC had put in more guidelines on how to make those adjustments. A lot of people use those options, and it would be helpful to know how to adjust CR based on each adjustment factor.

Is the issue here with CR then? I think you made the argument concise enough that I realized: It seems like most of the discussion is using the word "CR" and talking about certain monsters, but ultimately most posts get into a discussion about encounter results.

I don't have an issue with the DMG's monster building numbers and that they primarily focus on damage and hp. It is a consistent system in my opinion even if certain situations or party configurations favor some monsters over others.

If the PCs are getting extra bonuses from different sources, it is ultimately the encounters that are easier (usually universally so). The encounter can then be made more difficult through increasing the CR of the existing monsters, adding more monsters, altering the environment, stringing more encounters together, etc., but the changes are ultimately to the encounter.

I have generally noticed two groups that complain about 5e being too easy: Optimizers/Power Gamers and larger parties. Thankfully their situations can be handled the same way: make the encounter more difficult. Personally, I see the encounter building system being built around parties of 4 if for no other reason than a monster of a certain CR is a Medium encounter for 4 PCs of the same level. For the power gaming parties, we hear how the system is not difficult enough. That suggests to me a need to universally bump the intended encounter difficulty level or two (Medium -> Hard, Hard -> Deadly) rather than immediately going to altering CR (although it remains an option).

TL : DR We can turn the dials on a monster to adjust its CR, but I think the target here probably should be encounter building (of which altering a monster is one option).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would not say "clearly breaks down"

We could stipulate that it "turbidly breaks down."

I have generally noticed two groups that complain about 5e being too easy: Optimizers/Power Gamers and larger parties.

I would add to that the set of players who haven't figured out their DM can just dial up the difficulty if they complain....

 

[Helldritch]

I have generally noticed two groups that complain about 5e being too easy: Optimizers/Power Gamers and larger parties. Thankfully their situations can be handled the same way: make the encounter more difficult. Personally, I see the encounter building system being built around parties of 4 if for no other reason than a monster of a certain CR is a Medium encounter for 4 PCs of the same level. For the power gaming parties, we hear how the system is not difficult enough. That suggests to me a need to universally bump the intended encounter difficulty level or two (Medium -> Hard, Hard -> Deadly) rather than immediately going to altering CR (although it remains an option).

TL : DR We can turn the dials on a monster to adjust its CR, but I think the target here probably should be encounter building (of which altering a monster is one option).

That is the truest statement done so far.

Larger party can handle more. It may be obvious when it's said that way, but many DM are forgetting that fact when building their encounters.

A lone monster should be 5CR above the party average bla bla bla. With a party of four yep. With 5 or 6 (+ hirelings and henchmen...) no way.

As I said earlier, have a copy of the characters' sheets. Run a simulation to the best of their habilities and you will see what is needed to challenge them.

A lone marilith will be busted. She is not a solo monster. She IS a general. When did you last see a general up to the front, alone with no soldiers? She will have minions, lots of them and not all of them demons. To get to her, they will have to fight waves of demonic shock troopers or assassin squads (babau, nabassu etc...). She might have demon worshipers as minions and advisers. Yes a general worth his salt will heed his advisers. A warlock? A demon worshipping priest? A few succubi? The choice is yours. She will not fight fair. Hex on the fighter targeting strength. Teleport in. Grab the fighter. Teleport in the lava or poisonous pit next to her adobe leaving the poor the fighter to his death only to teleport back to take an other player or getting healed by her priest. All the while the demon worshipping priest will simply dispel magic on the party while a vrock, chasme, glabrezou and dretches will be attacking the group "en masse".

The lone marilith must have some treasure. Maybe a ring of protection? A shield? Attack is not everything you know? Well so does she. With a magical shield with a ring of protection while the demon worshipping priest has cast warding bond and shield of faith on her will raise her AC to 24! Maybe 25 if the shield is of the +1 variety. Many players forget that monsters can be boosted too. And what about a potion of haste? Devious; as she should be.

Too often do I see usable treasure laying on the ground or in a chest. I saw that so often that it's almost a joke. The marilith will know what she has. She will use it. And more often than not, she will be aware that the players are coming for her (so many invisible hidden imp ready to spy for her and eager to get a promotion in status...)

If you want a solo marilith, it is feasible. But you have to adapt it so that she is now solo. You must add legendary resistance and lair action. She might need a few spells to. But she would be a much more dangerous foe and she would not be CR16. She'd be much higher.