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

[hastur_nz]

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.

For me, the basic adjustment is pretty simple - don't adjust the CR level or anything, but dial up the damage output of the monsters. For example, give them +1 to hit and to their spell DC's, per 'tier', is a baseline for the bare minimum adjustment required for a group with PC's that have grown characters from scratch (i.e. know how to play them in real life), and/or have some magic items etc. Maybe also pump up the attacks per round or damage per hit, but not necessarily. That will help avoid the common problems with higher level play, where the monsters just can't hit the PC's often enough, or if you dial up the challenge rating it becomes a huge slog where it takes hours to whittle down all the monster HP on the table.

BTW, 5e was extensively play tested at the very lowest of levels - all the open beta tests were starting at 1st level, and in my home game we also started at first and only got to about 4th or 5th level during the closed alpha and beta phases. The higher levels were only really "spot tested", i.e. people (including WotC people) made up a group of PC's at level X, and fought some monsters. That's not a criticism - they gave a long time for play testing, there's only so much you can do without giving it a couple more years of real-life play testing in big campaigns - it's merely an observation that supports the basic observation that the maths behind 5e only assumes PC's that are "plain vanilla", whereas if you run a regular game where people multi-class, use feats, optimise, know how to play their PC well, have magic items, only have a small number of fights per day, and so on... then yes, the maths doesn't quite work and the guidelines in the DMG / MM need adjusting as the group levels up.

 

[Mistwell]

What I'd like is some sort of online calculator that calculates recommended CR and advice on the suggested increase to CR based on increasing the power of existing creatures, increasing the CR of the creatures used, or increasing the quantity of creatures in the challenge, determined roughly by this kind of calculus:

So you'd enter the number of party members, their level, whether they use feats and if so the total number of feats in the party, whether they use multiclassing and if so the total number of PCs who have multiclassed, whether you use magic items and if so the total number of common, uncommon, rare, very rare, and artifacts the party has, etc.. And then the calculator tells you the recommended CR for an easy, medium, hard, and deadly encounter for that particular party, and how it differs from the baseline CR, and advice on how to increase the CR from the baseline for this party.

The calculator would be based on something like this (these are rough guesstimates):

First it would calculate it as normal, so for example if Party is level X, and is a Baseline Party (5 party members, no feats, no multiclassing, no magic items) then the CR for a medium challenge should be Y.

If Party has more than 5 members, then add 0.5 to the challenge for each additional party member beyond 5 (the "Y" element of the equation), and at the end the calculator would recommended that the additional CR for this option should be (if possible) represented by additional creatures as opposed to a higher level creature.

If the Party is using Feats, then first determine the average number of feats the party members have (number of total feats divided by number of party members). Then increase the CR by 0.5 for each number of feats the average party member has. The notes at the end would recommend that the additional CR for this option be (if possible) in additional CR to existing creatures (either a higher level creature or increased abilities for the existing creature such as increased AC, HP, or Damage) in the challenge rather than in additional creatures.

If the Party is using Multiclassing, then increase the CR by 0.25 for each party member which has more than one class. So for example in a party of 5 members, if two members are multiclassed that would be 0.25+0.25 = +0.50 to the CR. You can increase the CR of the challenge by either adding additional creatures or increasing the CR of the existing creatures.

If the Party is using magic items, then first determine the total common, uncommon, rare, very rare, and artifacts the party has. For common and uncommon items, first determine the average number in the party for each type, and apply either 0.25 for each average number of common items, or 0.50 for each average number of uncommon items. For rare and very rare, add 1 CR for each rare item in the party (not average) and 1.5 for each very rare. If the party owns an artifact, the DM must determine what additional CR to apply depending on the artifact, and that would be in the notes. For this option the advice would be to add the CR in increased power for existing creatures rather than in additional creatures, if possible.

Obviously this needs more work I am just spitballing here, but this is the sort of tool I'd like. Something that really lets you drill down on your particular party's optional rules use to fine tune the CR recommendations (both number and how that CR should be increased, either in boosting foe powers or foe quantity). Because feats and multiclassing and magic items all go up with level, it also accounts for the CR system needing more tweaking from these things as the party gets to higher levels.

 

[Oofta]

What I'd like is some sort of online calculator that calculates recommended CR and advice on the suggested increase to CR based on either increasing the power of existing creatures, increasing the CR of the creatures used, or increasing the quantity of creatures in the challenge, determined roughly by this kind of calculus:

If Party is level X, and is a Baseline Party (5 party members, no feats, no multiclassing, no magic items) then the CR for a medium challenge should be 12.

If Party has more than 5 members, then add 0.5 to the challenge for each additional party member beyond 5, and it is recommended that the additional CR be in additional creatures as opposed to a higher level creature, where possible.

If the Party is using Feats, then first determine the average number of feats the party members have (number of total feats divided by number of party members), rounding up. Then increase the CR by 0.5 for each number of feats the average party member has. It is recommended that the additional CR be in additional CR to existing creatures (either a higher level creature or increased abilities for the existing creature such as increased AC, HP, or Damage) in the challenge rather than in additional creatures.

If the Party is using Multiclassing, then increase the CR by 0.25 for each party member which has more than one class. So for example in a party of 5 members, if two members are multiclassed that would be 0.25+0.25 = +0.50 to the CR. You can increase the CR of the challenge by either adding additional creatures or increasing the CR of the existing creatures.

If the Party is using magic items, then first determine the total common, uncommon, rare, etc.. magic items in the party. For common and uncommon items, first determine the average number in the party for each type, and apply either 0.25 for each average number of common items, or 0.50 for each average number of uncommon items. For rare and very rare, add 1 CR for each rare item in the party (not average) and 1.5 for each very rare. If the party owns an artifact, the DM must determine what additional CR to apply depending on the artifact.

Obviously this needs more work I am just spitballing here, but this is the sort of tool I'd like.

The problem is how to account for other factors such as number of rests and effectiveness of the party.

Personally I just come up with a factor and see how it works. If the PCs are walking all over encounters I up it. Having a hard time? I ease up a little after the 4th or 5th encounter. I have to adjust every few levels but by and large it works reasonably well.

Different groups with exactly the same options require different difficulty factors simply because of the party makeup, how well they synergize and how good the team is at strategy. One good strategist in the group can make a big difference.

So personally, I start with CR as a guide for individual encounters and then build towards an XP budget that works for the party.

Which is to say that while I agree with your concept, I just don't think you can ever create a generic rule.

 

[Mistwell]

The problem is how to account for other factors such as number of rests and effectiveness of the party.

Personally I just come up with a factor and see how it works. If the PCs are walking all over encounters I up it. Having a hard time? I ease up a little after the 4th or 5th encounter. I have to adjust every few levels but by and large it works reasonably well.

Different groups with exactly the same options require different difficulty factors simply because of the party makeup, how well they synergize and how good the team is at strategy. One good strategist in the group can make a big difference.

So personally, I start with CR as a guide for individual encounters and then build towards an XP budget that works for the party.

Which is to say that while I agree with your concept, I just don't think you can ever create a generic rule.

That's what I do as well. But I think a lot of people would like some sort of tool to help get them closer to the right CR for their party, along with that advice on whether the increase should be in more foes or bumping the power of foes or a combination of both. You can still adjust yourself based on number of rests and party effectiveness, but it's easier to adjust from a closer number and foe composition set than it is from the current system.

 

[Oofta]

That's what I do as well. But I think a lot of people would like some sort of tool to help get them closer to the right CR for their party, along with that advice on whether the increase should be in more foes or bumping the power of foes or a combination of both. You can still adjust yourself based on number of rests and party effectiveness, but it's easier to adjust from a closer number and foe composition set than it is from the current system.

I think the major categories would be

1. Do you allow feats
2. Do you players have more than +n weapons and armor at level x?
3. Did your players start with higher than standard stats?
4. Do you follow the 6-8 encounters with 1-2 rests?

Maybe even a "what level are they" modifier since I seem to have to up the factor a little at higher levels.

So figure out what the baseline is for #2 in the list and then assign a percentage between 5-10 percent with another +/- 20% based on group effectiveness.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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:

Not really, though. We cannot say if these results are inconsistent due to poor design. Nor would I necessarily agree that inconsistent results must be an indication of poor design.

These results could be just as likely to stem from poor tactical play. Or other variables, but most would seem to fall under that umbrella.

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

Very true. Which is why the given examples are a poor barometer on 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...)

Meh, be as harsh as you want. I find that the CR ratings and encounter building guidelines lead to a whole lot of tail wagging the dog. I disagree in that I don't think the system is all that complex, and I feel it's about as dependable as can be reasonably expected given how play will vary so greatly from table to table. But that doesn't mean I think it's all that much use to anyone except the inexperienced.

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.

Each of us probably has different ideas aboutwhat their job was, which is why we have such avariance in the areas of the game that folks complain about.

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...'

It seems entirely possible that the system was tacked on. No way to know for sure. I wonder how differently things would have gone if they hadn't included it.

 

[Tormyr]

What I'd like is some sort of online calculator that calculates recommended CR and advice on the suggested increase to CR based on increasing the power of existing creatures, increasing the CR of the creatures used, or increasing the quantity of creatures in the challenge, determined roughly by this kind of calculus:

So you'd enter the number of party members, their level, whether they use feats and if so the total number of feats in the party, whether they use multiclassing and if so the total number of PCs who have multiclassed, whether you use magic items and if so the total number of common, uncommon, rare, very rare, and artifacts the party has, etc.. And then the calculator tells you the recommended CR for an easy, medium, hard, and deadly encounter for that particular party, and how it differs from the baseline CR, and advice on how to increase the CR from the baseline for this party.

The calculator would be based on something like this (these are rough guesstimates):

First it would calculate it as normal, so for example if Party is level X, and is a Baseline Party (5 party members, no feats, no multiclassing, no magic items) then the CR for a medium challenge should be Y.

If Party has more than 5 members, then add 0.5 to the challenge for each additional party member beyond 5 (the "Y" element of the equation), and at the end the calculator would recommended that the additional CR for this option should be (if possible) represented by additional creatures as opposed to a higher level creature.

If the Party is using Feats, then first determine the average number of feats the party members have (number of total feats divided by number of party members). Then increase the CR by 0.5 for each number of feats the average party member has. The notes at the end would recommend that the additional CR for this option be (if possible) in additional CR to existing creatures (either a higher level creature or increased abilities for the existing creature such as increased AC, HP, or Damage) in the challenge rather than in additional creatures.

If the Party is using Multiclassing, then increase the CR by 0.25 for each party member which has more than one class. So for example in a party of 5 members, if two members are multiclassed that would be 0.25+0.25 = +0.50 to the CR. You can increase the CR of the challenge by either adding additional creatures or increasing the CR of the existing creatures.

If the Party is using magic items, then first determine the total common, uncommon, rare, very rare, and artifacts the party has. For common and uncommon items, first determine the average number in the party for each type, and apply either 0.25 for each average number of common items, or 0.50 for each average number of uncommon items. For rare and very rare, add 1 CR for each rare item in the party (not average) and 1.5 for each very rare. If the party owns an artifact, the DM must determine what additional CR to apply depending on the artifact, and that would be in the notes. For this option the advice would be to add the CR in increased power for existing creatures rather than in additional creatures, if possible.

Obviously this needs more work I am just spitballing here, but this is the sort of tool I'd like. Something that really lets you drill down on your particular party's optional rules use to fine tune the CR recommendations (both number and how that CR should be increased, either in boosting foe powers or foe quantity). Because feats and multiclassing and magic items all go up with level, it also accounts for the CR system needing more tweaking from these things as the party gets to higher levels.

I think that might have a few too many moving parts to be reliable (though I could be wrong). So many feats do various amounts of additional damage from nothing (Skilled) to an extra PC worth of damage in ideal situations (GWM). Multiclassing can provide increases in combat or no additional combat effectiveness as well. Similarly with magic items.

I think @Oofta is closer to something that is going to be easier to make work because a DM adjusts it for their own party. If you want a calculator, you can look at the Excel spreadsheet I made. It smooths out the jumps that are otherwise in the calculations when adding PCs or monsters. Basically, if DM wanted to make an encounter hard for their level 16 party, but the party was very effective, the DM can make a hard encounter for a level 17 or level 18 party instead. The idea being that the effort is just that little bit more with each encounter.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&downloadid=1186

The nice thing about working with a group for a while is that a DM gets a feel for how much added difficulty is need. Each time the party levels up, the power level creep is less than if the group just jumped into an adventure at the high level with all their cool stuff.

I get that you want to adjust CR of creatures, but I think adjusting the encounters is a more straightforward way to go here. It seems like there are too many variables otherwise, and the unmodified creatures can still be used when modifying the encounter.

That being said, I have successfully run solo encounters through the entirety of my Age of Worms campaign. What I did with the extra characters was add another 30 hp per PC (90 hp at CR 20 or higher). If the monster has legendary resistance, they could use an extra legendary resistance in place of one hp boost if it was needed.

 

[Sadras]

I don't need WotC to provide me with a slower XP advancement table - I can do that myself by multiplying the XP requirement by 10 or whatever.

What would be nice would be additional varriants for a hardcore-mode (as some ppl here refer to Advanced) such as:
- MM2 or Deadly Monsters book with additional traits for monster types: goblinoid traits/feats, troll traits/feats...etc that could be tacked on monsters from MM1. The CR would change depending on how many additional traits you tacked on.
- Additional Lair options
- Enviromental threats and effects.
- Low Magic Variant ideas such as (Rituals cost HD, magic cost - defiling, aging or fatigue, no cantrip variant..., Item creation cost)
- Additional Consumable Magic Items
- E6-type variants of 5e
- Extended skill challenge examples/use
- Equipment quality variants and additional properties for weapons/armour.
- Redefine the abilities to ensure use of odd numbers are worthwhile, not just the even numbers.
- I would say Rest Variants, but Enworld did their job for them already on this
- A chapter on gold/treasure consideration for setting (spend and recovery)

Now to be honest, a lot of the above I have already started sorting out myself for our table, borrowing/stealing ideas from here or other systems. I believe using Hardcore-mode variants would assist in high-level play.

At our table, I'm running an E13 style game, where Level 13 is the cap, but in order to reach the power levels of 12 and 13, you are required to make, through the in game fiction, a permanent sacrifice of an ability Point. The higher the ability point spent (lost), the greater the number of XPs earned.

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

This is fantasy. Not real life.

Have you ever heard of the trope of a boss so awesome it takes on the whole party all by itself?

That's what D&D needs to support, but currently doesn't.

But she would be a much more dangerous foe and she would not be CR16. She'd be much higher.

She sure as hell aint CR 16 now. She's mentioned so often precisely because she's one of the most underwhelming monster designs in the whole of MM. She can do absolutely zero against a party that denies her the opportunity to just waltz up to the PCs. She has zero tricks up her sleeve that gives her a chance to shish-kebab anyone.

 

[Eubani]

I believe that because the devs tried to simplify everything in this edition that in some areas they oversimplified, areas such as Mid - high level monsters, certain classes, healing and several other areas. Due to this oversimplification many creatures either lost abilities or were given watered down abilities which impacted function.

Oh yes and CR system is crap and once again the devs failed to learn from past issues.