Last week, the Level 14-16 party beat Graz'zt, 2 Marilith and a Storm Giant...easily

[Upper_Krust]

Oh that is a fine idea!
I've used proficiency bonus and constitution modifier in the past but I really like yours too.

Just to clarify its 1/2 Hit Dice, but for Golems increase the amount +5% per point of Material AC above 11. So for an Iron Golem (Iron = AC 19) its:

2014 Iron Golem (20 Hit Dice) = 1/2 HD = 10, increase by 40% = Damage Threshold 14
2024 Iron Golem (24 Hit Dice) = 1/2 HD = 12, increase by 40% = Damage Threshold 16

 

[Upper_Krust]

Oh that is a fine idea!
I've used proficiency bonus and constitution modifier in the past but I really like yours too.

Would work at low levels but I find using Hit Dice is good at all tiers...including my Immortal and higher tiers of play.

 

[TerraDave]

2024 monsters, especially at higher levels, have been toughened up. (Though spell casting and spell like abilities have been oversimplified).

Not sure how much of a difference it would make here but I thought it was worth noting.

 

[TheSword]

Depends who they are facing.

Typically HP is approx. x3 of a creatures damage output. So if a PC was facing 3 creatures of equal power and all 3 creatures hit with all attacks a PC with average Hit Points (between d8-d10s in Hit Dice) should be dropped.

Likewise I believe a CR 24 monster should be dealing 210 or so per round. If everything hits that should drop a PC with 210 HP or less.

CR 8 = 60 damage
CR 12 = 90 damage
CR 16 = 120 damage
CR 20 = 150 damage
CR 24 = 210 damage
CR 28 = 275 damage

Level 20 Wizard = approx. 93 HP
Level 20 Cleric = approx. 134 HP
Level 20 Fighter = approx. 195 HP*
Level 20 Barbarian = approx. 276 HP
Average = 174.5

So that means a CR 24 monster is dropping one average PC each round, but likely not a front-line martial character. That to me sounds reasonable.

*Slight aside, my Level 20 Fighter has 303 HP, so I am massively low-balling the averages.

That’s not a game I would want to play. I don’t want to be a spectator to someone else’s fun because I happen to have been picked first. Intentionally or randomly and I don’t want to be a DM that does that to players. Increasing damage like this as standard in a monster block is a very unsatisfactory solution. We can be more creative than that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

2024 monsters, especially at higher levels, have been toughened up. (Though spell casting and spell like abilities have been oversimplified).

Not sure how much of a difference it would make here but I thought it was worth noting.

Certainly the 2024 monsters are generally a bit tougher.

The thing is though 2024 PCs have also had some power creep, so it likely evens out.

 

[Upper_Krust]

That’s not a game I would want to play. I don’t want to be a spectator to someone else’s fun because I happen to have been picked first. Intentionally or randomly and I don’t want to be a DM that does that to players. Increasing damage like this as standard in a monster block is a very unsatisfactory solution. We can be more creative than that.

I disagree with you for one obvious reason: Low Level play is already this dangerous.

All I am suggesting is make High Level play as dangerous as Low Level play. Plus High Level PCs already have access to FAR more ways to avoid death and heal damage.

Even assuming your character somehow got unlucky and were dropped in Round 1. Most high-level characters are likely going to be getting Heals and Potions of Supreme Healing poured down them and back in the fight Round 2.

 

[John98GR]

I disagree with you for one obvious reason: Low Level play is already this dangerous.

All I am suggesting is make High Level play as dangerous as Low Level play. Plus High Level PCs already have access to FAR more ways to avoid death and heal damage.

Even assuming your character somehow got unlucky and were dropped in Round 1. Most high-level characters are likely going to be getting Heals and Potions of Supreme Healing poured down them and back in the fight Round 2.

I hate to butt in like this (and my knowledge on 5e in general is extremely limited) but a game of ever-increasing astronomical numbers for the sake of artificial difficulty is something I believe nobody wants to play in earnest, especially in the context of a dice-rolling game.
In my honest opinion, a more realistic approach to virtually limitless epic play (which I assume is the whole point of Immortals) is relying on a system that does not use or at least pauses "bigger numbers" to simulate progression.
A system that relies on casual 120d6s for damage and HP pools in the 4 or 5 digits to simulate epic/cosmic play is bound to become silly very fast.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes. Simply put.

I think there is a solution and that is to design high level encounters like a form of puzzle with interlocking parts.

The DM needs to synergise terrain, plot elements, and monster abilities to make a high level combat a challenge. In short they need to fine tune the antagonists to be effective as possible.

Reading your post has been a bit of eureka moment for me having ran a few campaigns to 20 level, most recently Age of Worms and finding some of the high level combat tedious at times. Now I reflect on it it’s obvious why really.

If you have a party that synergises with other PCs by granting them huge Paladin bonuses on saving throws for instance. Or uses terrain - bottlenecks/cover/environmental effect to their advantage. Or tactically selects the most beneficial targets and works as a concerted whole and squeezes every drop of potential out of their action economy. Then of course they are going to easily beat equal opponents that aren’t doing that. The higher the level the more they can synergise and affect the world around them.

I think a heck of a lot of thought has to be put into how high level combat is ran. The monsters and their stat blocks are not enough. I think we sometimes say D&D is badly designed at high level but the more I think about it, the more I am reaching the conclusion that it’s not, it’s just often the players and the DM are playing by a whole different set of expectations and norms.

I hate to butt in like this (and my knowledge on 5e in general is extremely limited) but a game of ever-increasing astronomical numbers for the sake of artificial difficulty is something I believe nobody wants to play in earnest, especially in the context of a dice-rolling game.
In my honest opinion, a more realistic approach to virtually limitless epic play (which I assume is the whole point of Immortals) is relying on a system that does not use or at least pauses "bigger numbers" to simulate progression.
A system that relies on casual 120d6s for damage and HP pools in the 4 or 5 digits to simulate epic/cosmic play is bound to become silly very fast.

I think you've both hit on important parts of high level play. Obviously enough people have complained about high level play that there's an issue--I'm not going to gaslight a lot of players by saying there isn't.

That said, there are important things about high level play the DM needs to understand.
1. You can't treat those encounters like lower level encounters. High level creatures have resources that lower level creatures don't have that don't necessarily appear in the statblock, so tossing them into an encounter room like you would with a bunch of orcs is going to feel disappointing. Lair actions, minions, location, etc are all really important. A demon lord doesn't become a demon lord unless they fight the battle on their terms, in a location they choose. When doing high level encounters, the DM needs to account for all of this when setting up the encounter.

2. Like John says, most people don't want the same thing "but bigger numbers!". The biggest gripe of 3e was high level play (designing monsters and crazy stat bonuses). It was a time consuming math problem every round. I actually think 5e did a good job with bounded accuracy and keeping the numbers lower, but in order for that to work, you have to see point #1.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Just want to comment on this specific fight setup -

Graz'zt should be using his teleport to stay out of movement range of all the melee PCs. He has 4 casts of Dominate and a number of spells/legendary actions which create more distance between him and his foes. Was the combat in a very small room?

His spell save DC of 23 should mean that most PCs literally cannot roll high enough to save. Even with resilient:WIS, the 2 fighters/barb should have a 80-85% chance of failing against Dominate or Command. The PCs should constantly be Losing Turns.

 

[Upper_Krust]

I hate to butt in like this

Fire away buddy - all opinions welcomed.

(and my knowledge on 5e in general is extremely limited) but a game of ever-increasing astronomical numbers for the sake of artificial difficulty is something I believe nobody wants to play in earnest, especially in the context of a dice-rolling game.

I agree astronomical numbers simply as artificial difficulty IS a bad idea.

However, the flipside is, powerful Epic Monsters need to deal sufficient damage to be considered 'powerful Epic Monsters', otherwise they just get steamrolled by the PCs.

Perhaps my favourite Epic Tier encounter was against a Robot in the Astronaut's Tomb section of the Stonehell Mega-dungeon. The Robot itself was basically akin to ED-209 from Robocop. It had two miniguns and a Rocket Launcher attack each turn 20d6, 20d6 and 28d6 respectively. So 238 if everything connected (far more than a Tarrasque) and it had something like 300 HP. That thing pushed us to the limits...then we found out there was a room with 4 of them guarding the best treasure in the Dungeon. After some meticulous planning we beat them; even though the first one nearly TPK'ed us.

In my honest opinion, a more realistic approach to virtually limitless epic play (which I assume is the whole point of Immortals) is relying on a system that does not use or at least pauses "bigger numbers" to simulate progression.
A system that relies on casual 120d6s for damage and HP pools in the 4 or 5 digits to simulate epic/cosmic play is bound to become silly very fast.

Not sure I agree. Having immortal characters, cosmic monsters and Great Old Ones in D&D and seeing the 'crazy' stats is half the fun - provided its all consistent. As long as you retain the same basic damage/hit point relationship that the core 5e rules were built upon then it doesn't matter if the Hit Points are 50 or 50,000.