D&D 5E (2024) Let's Write A High Level Adventure

[Reynard]

While I certainly would avoid the ham-fisted hobbling of older editions (usually by denying or twisting the useage of spells), sometimes using the environment to put a monkeywrench into the straightforward approach makes things interesting. I think for a lot of these high level encounters that the environment is going to have to be an enemy/factor as much as the physical foes to challenge the PCs. I'm not just talking about putting the fight into a field of burning lava that deals damage but that hinders/limit movement or actions, changes the effectiveness of certain attacks or abilities or mucks with PCs ability to choose their targets.

In short, make the combat into a puzzle so novaing & focus fire can't be the go-to tactic.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I find it revealing that no one has actually engaged with the idea of actually breaking down what 16th level character can do in order to examine how one might design encounters that engage those abilities. All we have gotten is people complaining about how it is impossible to design high level adventures. And frankly, for those people, it seems a little weird that they are in the thread at all.

 

[Stormonu]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I find it revealing that no one has actually engaged with the idea of actually breaking down what 16th level character can do in order to examine how one might design encounters that engage those abilities. All we have gotten is people complaining about how it is impossible to design high level adventures. And frankly, for those people, it seems a little weird that they are in the thread at all.

Well, by 16th level it's very difficult to nail down exactly what the party has or doesn't - and that can be a huge swing on the adventure design. We could go into Beyond and create a generic Fighter, Rogue, Wizard & Cleric party all at 16th level for a basis, but that's unlikely to actually represent what's out in the real world when you consider subclasses and magic items on top. It's one of the reasons I've always thought high-level adventures need to be tailored to the play group, and why WotC and the like have such issues writing a high-level adventure that isn't crap.

Maybe one of the Charop folks would be kind enough to help us here giving us an "average-good" group we could design around?

 

[Zardnaar]

While I certainly would avoid the ham-fisted hobbling of older editions (usually by denying or twisting the useage of spells), sometimes using the environment to put a monkeywrench into the straightforward approach makes things interesting. I think for a lot of these high level encounters that the environment is going to have to be an enemy/factor as much as the physical foes to challenge the PCs. I'm not just talking about putting the fight into a field of burning lava that deals damage but that hinders/limit movement or actions, changes the effectiveness of certain attacks or abilities or mucks with PCs ability to choose their targets.

In short, make the combat into a puzzle so novaing & focus fire can't be the go-to tactic.


While I don't play much high level, I much prefer using numbers than attempting to "top out" and overwhelm the PCs through superior power directed into a single (or dual) opponent. Outnumbering the party goes a long ways towards splitting firepower and resources. I also think it makes an interesting encounter if the PCs have to make (hard) choices on where to direct their firepower and who to take out first and gives the Leader/Boss/Subboss some ablative armor to let them do their thing before being taken out.


Doesn't even have to be that; Demons & Devils that aren't on their home plane return and reform on their home plane if defeated, and they can hold quite the grudge. If we were to use the scenario I suggested earlier, it could be the Pit Fiend and Balor are watching from a Yugoloth's "gaming" abode in Gehenna (neutral ground), for example.

Yeah encounter designs an art form.

Best higher level encounters adding a few more bodies is key. Downside is real life time.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, by 16th level it's very difficult to nail down exactly what the party has or doesn't - and that can be a huge swing on the adventure design. We could go into Beyond and create a generic Fighter, Rogue, Wizard & Cleric party all at 16th level for a basis, but that's unlikely to actually represent what's out in the real world when you consider subclasses and magic items on top. It's one of the reasons I've always thought high-level adventures need to be tailored to the play group, and why WotC and the like have such issues writing a high-level adventure that isn't crap.

Maybe one of the Charop folks would be kind enough to help us here giving us an "average-good" group we could design around?

Magic items use the 5.5 rules.

Start with basic +1/+2/+3 items. Dont allow perfect weapon builds. Eg champion fighter dual wielding vicious weapon each hand.

Something like a frostbrand is a nice not broken very rare weapon to hand out. That could also be +3 weapon or shield or +2 armor.

The really good weapons are the +2d6 ones. Flametongues, vicious. Various legendary ones in WotC adventures.

Spellcasters a wand or staff is fine. Dont go overboard on stacking spell boosting items. A wand of the warmage+1 or +2 is also fine to hand out.

Sane levels add +1 -+3 to hit and damage 1 or 2 to spell DCs and maybe an extra d6 damage via weapons eg +2 weapon extra d6 damage.

High power weapon is +2 or better and +2d6 damage.

Poison damage treat as weaker along with fire.

Dumping stats and using a girdle or gauntlets of ogre power dont do that. The strength boost item might end up on a cleric or rogue. Primary striker shouldn't need it unless its 22+.

 

[Vael]

IME, modules are generally run stand alone ... ie, unless we're talking a series of adventures designed to link together in a campaign, players make a PC for the module.

Conceptually, I liked Eye of Vecna's idea of having a multiplanar adventure, I feel like a high-tier adventure should feel different.

So I kinda like the initial set up being a bunch of high level adventurers being brought together from different worlds.

 

[Reynard]

IME, modules are generally run stand alone ... ie, unless we're talking a series of adventures designed to link together in a campaign, players make a PC for the module.

Huh. This is not my experience at all. I think it is more common for the GM to pick a module that fits the campaign in play, based mostly on the level of the PCs.

 

[Vael]

Huh. This is not my experience at all. I think it is more common for the GM to pick a module that fits the campaign in play, based mostly on the level of the PCs.

That was more my 3.5 and 4e experience, it has not been my 5e experience. A GM ran Curse of Strahd, we made PCs for it, retired them at the end of the module, then switched GMs and game systems. When the pandemic started, I made an online group, and I ran Dragonheist. PCs were made for the module and while I carried the campaign a little past the end of the adventure, they then retired and we rotated GMs and started again with Descent into Avernus. I've run Light of Xaryxis twice but both times were standalone and PCs retired at the end.

Campaigns have been pitched as either "I want to run X adventure" or "I want to GM X system", but generally start with someone offering to GM and picking the module they want to run and the players then building for that module.

That's my two current groups, a GM wanted to run Rime of the Frostmaiden, so I made a PC for it and expect them to retire at the end, and I wanted to try Daggerheart, so I pitched a one-shot that went so well that it's become a full campaign.

ETA: this is why I want more adventure support for non-FR settings from WOTC. I think I'd have more chance to play an Eberron campaign if there were a Curse of Strahd-esque big adventure book for it.

 

[Reynard]

That was more my 3.5 and 4e experience, it has not been my 5e experience. A GM ran Curse of Strahd, we made PCs for it, retired them at the end of the module, then switched GMs and game systems. When the pandemic started, I made an online group, and I ran Dragonheist. PCs were made for the module and while I carried the campaign a little past the end of the adventure, they then retired and we rotated GMs and started again with Descent into Avernus. I've run Light of Xaryxis twice but both times were standalone and PCs retired at the end.

Campaigns have been pitched as either "I want to run X adventure" or "I want to GM X system", but generally start with someone offering to GM and picking the module they want to run and the players then building for that module.

That's my two current groups, a GM wanted to run Rime of the Frostmaiden, so I made a PC for it and expect them to retire at the end, and I wanted to try Daggerheart, so I pitched a one-shot that went so well that it's become a full campaign.

Well, sure, if your "modules" are all campaign length adventure. But that is actually a selling point for high level adventures: players that want to keep playing those characters can.

 

[Vael]

Well, sure, if your "modules" are all campaign length adventure. But that is actually a selling point for high level adventures: players that want to keep playing those characters can.

Sure, but I'd argue that an adventure should sell itself as a standalone first, as a "here's a high-level module that a prospective GM can buy and run" is a wider audience than "This module might help you continue your ongoing campaign"

 

[Reynard]

Sure, but I'd argue that an adventure should sell itself as a standalone first, as a "here's a high-level module that a prospective GM can buy and run" is a wider audience than "This module might help you continue your ongoing campaign"

I am not sure what the difference between those would be, besides maybe the inclusion of pre-gens.