D&D 5E (2014) Monster Manual and Players Hand Book Power Levels

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] I have to disagree with you on one thing - to me OoTA is still a 'recent-ish' adventure - mid-2015 wasn't it? A year or so old is hardly lost in the mists of time. I can kinda see this argument for the Tiamat adventures that came out along with the game, but Abyss was generally regarded as an improvement on those, and on Apocalypse as I recall.

It's not ancient history, but it was early, and from a third party company. And the point of complaining about an earlier adventure, I assume, would be to try and persuade the company to improve on those aspects of adventure writing. And you'd know if that worked by...looking at the more recent adventures from the past year. Which he will not do. So, I am failing to see the point of complaining, unless it's just to vent.

 

[MonkeyWrench]

i think it'll be a few more months before people get enough actual play experience with STK to see how WotC has addressed any complaints about encounters for higher level characters. My suspicion is not a lot since groups were still playing OotA, and thus first encountering any potential issues, while STK was being written. The feedback process takes time, and lacks a formal mechanism unlike the UA stuff, so we might not see improvements until next year's adventures if at all.

 

[CapnZapp]

And you'd know if that worked by...looking at the more recent adventures from the past year. Which he will not do.

Feel free to point me in the direction of recent level 11-20 official adventure campaign material, and we can talk.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The math in 5e is much more like the math in 1e than it is the math of 3e/4e.

In some ways, in others, not so much. For instance, in 5e, as in 1e, your AC is prettymuch just whatever armor you're wearing and not likely to go up much. OTOH, in 1e, your chance to hit is going to improve a lot faster if you're a fighter than a thief, while in 5e you're likely to be all but identical. Then there's saves.

TL;DR: the game is designed for levels 6-10, so levelling past that in the APs means that the difficulty decreases.

I'm sorry, what's wrong with level 5?

I have come to the conclusion that WotC are doing this on purpose. Part of a levelling system is the feeling of increased power. I believe that they are deliberately making the APs easier towards the end, in order to facilitate that feeling. In addition, the game as a whole seems calibrated for level 6-10 characters to be able to handle everything.

I suppose that could just be BA. Oh, and 'fast combat' - as you get to higher level, characters get more complicated, which'd slow down combat, so dial things back a bit to keep it quick?

I'll echo the statement that the game works great for levels 3-8, but after that I find myself bored as both a player and a DM.

Nod. The 'Sweet Spot' is back, certainly. Obvious solution is to stay in it.

No, not right. I mean, not only was it acceptable, but even you accepted it, right? You kept playing. Here you are, posting still, a year later after those adventures came out, talking about the game. Obviously, it's acceptable.

OK, so 'acceptable' is a pretty low bar.

"This game is terrible..."
"...yeah, but at least we're gaming."

 

[Mistwell]

OK, so 'acceptable' is a pretty low bar.

"This game is terrible..."
"...yeah, but at least we're gaming."

Yes. Acceptable is a pretty low bar. If I were to say to my wife, "this meal you made is acceptable" she'd probably not take too kindly to that

 

[pming]

Hiya!

(TL;DR ...at least not all of it)

I'd be interested in knowing if the folks saying the high-level encounters are too easy are using any optional rules...like Feats and Multi-Classing in particular. I have a sneaking suspicion that many are, but I'm not positive. My group has never managed to get a character past level 7, and we've been playing since the Starter Set. I think we've dabbled in three or four 'campaigns' (better to call them "extended adventuring"), with the latest being the longest lasting I think (probably...8 months and still going). In our experience, PC's get significantly more 'powerful' the moment they hit level 4 or 5. And no, I don't allow Feats or Multi-Classing (or magic item buying... but I don't think many do in 5e). It's the HP's and quick'ish healing that seems to be the culprit in this "power boost". At level 3, we're talking about 20 to 25hp; which is about 4 to 6 hits from baddies. An extra 6 to 10hp more is another two or three hits they can take. Fights tend to not last more than about 6 or 7 rounds, tops. So monsters will usually be dead before they manage to get in their 7 or 8 hits. Toss in Surge, Spells, and Short-Rest HD Healing and the parties capability to soak up damage and keep going is...well, we're finding it slowly creeping into "silliness" (not quite "ludicrous speed", but I have a feeling level 10+ will see that).

Hit Points. That's the potential problem I see. I'm considering capping HD gaining at level 10. After that, I'm going with AD&D hp gains (+1 to +3 hp's per level after that, depending on class). But I'll cross that bridge when...if...any PC ever gets there.

Anyway, sorry for the slight meander there. My point and question is how many folks that find high-level encounters "easy" are also using the OPTIONAL stuff like Feats, MC, etc.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd be interested in knowing if the folks saying the high-level encounters are too easy are using any optional rules...like Feats and Multi-Classing in particular.

Or magic items.

In our experience, PC's get significantly more 'powerful' the moment they hit level 4 or 5. And no, I don't allow Feats or Multi-Classing (or magic item buying... but I don't think many do in 5e).

Sounds about right.

It's the HP's and quick'ish healing that seems to be the culprit in this "power boost".

Not Extra Attack or 3rd level spells?

Hit Points. That's the potential problem I see. I'm considering capping HD gaining at level 10.

Sounds very AD&D...

After that, I'm going with AD&D hp gains

Ah, but you knew that.

My group has never managed to get a character past level 7, and we've been playing since the Starter Set. I think we've dabbled in three or four 'campaigns' (better to call them "extended adventuring"), with the latest being the longest lasting I think (probably...8 months and still going).

So why aren't you getting past 7th level? Boredom, TPKs, attention span?

 

[MonkeyWrench]

My group uses rolled stats, feats, and MCing - 3e style, they like to call it. We just started CoS without any of those options and I imagine we'll find the game to be quite different.

It was pretty obvious to us that using those options would increase the power of the PCs relative to the monsters. It's also clear that monsters as a whole, and the encounters in published adventures particularly, need an overhaul. If players have options for increasing the power of their characters, why don't DMs have similar options. Yes, DMs can make their own stuff, and yes there are some guidelines in the DMG, but we don't ask players to come up with their own feats. We don't tell them a good player can fix this issue. If I wanted to homebrew a bunch of new material, I'd play an earlier version of D&D.

I like 5e, but after playing it since launch, the system still feels incomplete.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Or magic items.

Sounds about right. Not Extra Attack or 3rd level spells? Sounds very AD&D...Ah, but you knew that.

So why aren't you getting past 7th level? Boredom, TPKs, attention span?

Magic Items: Yeah, I left that one out because I'm seeing AP's give out magic items, and I'm pretty sure the number of and power of said magic items that DM's are giving out in their own campaigns varies far too much for it to be a factor. As in, if he doesn't use them at all...then monsters may be a bit harder (or MUCH harder). And if the DM hands them out like it was a 1e module, then the PC's are going to be SIGNIFICANTLY tougher. Too much of a range to cover.

Extra Attack/3rd Level Spells: Nope. Never been a factor. In my experience as a DM (any edition I've DM'ed [BECMI/1e/2e/3.5e/PF]), it's not really how fast the PC's can deal damage to kill the baddies that is the main problem....it's the other way around. If it gets to the point where the PC's are shrugging off or otherwise nonchalantly saying"Oh, another fire giant patrol? I guess we'll just keep cooking lunch and let Snag the Barbarian and Mr.Wizard over there deal with them"... that is a problem. The total lack of the fear of death is what kills suspense...not really if it takes PC's 7 rounds to kill the bad guys in stead of 12.

Not Getting Past 7th Level: TPK's or NTPK's (nigh TPK; as in only one PC survives). I'm a pretty harsh DM. I grew up learning Basic D&D on my own back in '80/'81. Nobody told me "don't do this", or "make sure you do that"...school of hard knocks and all that. This is one thing that bothers me about DM's nowadays; they have the internet to tell them typical pit falls of DM'ing. But that's a 'nother thread. Anyway...yeah. As I said, I don't pull punches, I let the chips fall where they may, and pretty much let the players screw themselves of they want to. I'm quite content with the PC's starting an adventure, going half-way, then deciding to leave for whatever reason. The bad guys might then recuperate, then find out who and where the PC's are, and then send assassins after them, or bribe Lords/Mayors/Captains to "dispose of" the PC's as they see fit. One campaign actually was a NTPK because of this. The PC's left in the middle of an adventure...a few sessions later, I had them all make Con saves one night. One guy lived...all the others died in their sleep via poison (mind you, most of the folks who ate/drank at that inn also died...but bad guys really don't care about collateral damage!). The players were initially upset (like, for 3 or 4 seconds), until I told them why and how. Then they all kicked themselves in the ass for underestimating the bad guys 'conviction', rolled up new characters, and we played on. "Death comes easy to the unwary".

^_^

Paul L. Ming