D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[MNblockhead]

I my opinion the requirements are things like needing to be a cleric or druid to cast certain spells and needing to have a spell slot open to cast the spell. Once you pick the spell, the parameters of the spell are set. If you are mimicking fireball, it takes effect in 1 action, has a range of 150 feet, a duration of instantaneous and fills a 20 foot radius area. Components are a bit of a conundrum for me. I'm not sure if they would be requirements or not. I'm leaning yes.

If you take away range, duration, etc., it's no longer a fireball. It's some other fire explody spell. I would rule duration is not a requirement. That said, using wish to make it faster is such a minor difference that I would not make the player roll to see if the wizard loses the ability to cast wish.

yeah, while I read it as components and casting time requirements being waived when cast with wish, even if interpreted as you do, I wouldn't impose the risk of never being able to cast wish again. But increasing the area of effect and damage of the spell should IMHO.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

In 5E, I have DM'd the following campaigns:

• 1-20 level with 7 epic boons (took 122 sessions and almost 5 years)
• 1-11 level that's about to wrap up after nearly 60 sessions
• 1-10 level that's still going and will probably get to Tier 4

 

[FrogReaver]

The title of that video is annoying clickbait. "99% broken," indeed. I've both run and played in high-level 5E campaigns, and they're fine.

Just because your Pinto didn’t explode doesn’t mean they weren’t broken.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just because your Pinto didn’t explode doesn’t mean they weren’t broken.

"I don't have a problem, therefore there isn't a problem" is an unfortunately extremely common wrong argument. Hasty generalization is a serious problem all over the place; this is just a really common one in TTRPG discussions.

 

[Autumnal]

On the other hand, “i had a problem, therefore there is a problem” danced with fallacious reasoning, too.

 

[Minigiant]

Both "I don't have a problem, therefore there isn't a problem" and "I have a problem, therefore there is a problem" are bad arguments.

The only good arguments to me are "what are the most common playstyles and do they have problems.".

The tricky part many do want to admit is that Some valid styles of D&D 5e can be played as is played at high levels and Other valid styles are not playable and can't be played.

Usually because unfortunately many D&D fans are selfish and only truly care about their preferred playstyle.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On the other hand, “i had a problem, therefore there is a problem” danced with fallacious reasoning, too.

Is it really? It certainly isn't the same level of hasty generalization as the previous. All one needs to do is show that some people have problems to show that, yes, something should probably be done to address them. One does not need to show that absolutely everyone has problems in order to say that there is a problem going on that could be fixed, or at least mitigated.

One must in fact actually show that nobody has a problem in order to say that there is no problem at all.

And I think, given the many, many, MANY threads on the topic...and statements from actual designers...and youtube videos...and personal stories...etc., etc., ad nauseam, is a pretty good reason to say that, yes, there are some problems here that could be addressed.

Both "I don't have a problem, therefore there isn't a problem" and "I have a problem, therefore there is a problem" are bad arguments.

See above. The former is "because I don't have a problem, nobody could possibly have a problem." The latter is "because I have a problem, there is a problem to be solved." The two claims are not comparable. One is a universal negation "derived" from a single personal experience. The other is not a universal claim in any part. Proving a mere existence claim only requires one example. It is, of course, useful to demonstrate that the problem is not unique to you, but useful and necessary are two distinct things.

The only good arguments to me are "what are the most common playstyles and do they have problems.".

The tricky part many do want to admit is that Some valid styles of D&D 5e can be played as is played at high levels and Other valid styles are not playable and can't be played.

Usually because unfortunately many D&D fans are selfish and only truly care about their preferred playstyle.

I make it a firm policy to fight for playstyles I don't personally enjoy. It's why I have always--since before 5e launched--advocated for robust, well-featured "zero level" rules present in the core books, and which are treated fairly and respectfully, not cordoned off or treated like something dangerous or problematic. I have no use for such rules; they represent a playstyle I have zero or even negative interest in playing. But I am firmly committed to getting them included, because I know a lot of people would love to have them.

I also advocate for playstyles I do enjoy. But I refuse to be selfish about it.

 

[Minigiant]

Is it really?

It is if that's all they said.

I make it a firm policy to fight for playstyles I don't personally enjoy. It's why I have always--since before 5e launched--advocated for robust, well-featured "zero level" rules present in the core books, and which are treated fairly and respectfully, not cordoned off or treated like something dangerous or problematic. I have no use for such rules; they represent a playstyle I have zero or even negative interest in playing. But I am firmly committed to getting them included, because I know a lot of people would love to have them.

I also advocate for playstyles I do enjoy. But I refuse to be selfish about it.

I'm glad you aren't a selfish one

 

[Demetrios1453]

Considering that yesterday's announcements show that WotC is adding support to high-level play (the Vecna campaign going to level 20 and that they are adding a large number of high CR creatures to the 2024 MM), the sudden reappearance of this thread is actually a bit amusing...

 

[Minigiant]

Considering that yesterday's announcements show that WotC is adding support to high-level play (the Vecna campaign going to level 20 and that they are adding a large number of high CR creatures to the 2024 MM), the sudden reappearance of this thread is actually a bit amusing...

Some designer, I forgot if was Merwin or Coville because scrambled brains, said that designers always have a list of changes and additions for a game that they want to publish that don't get done for one reason of another and revisions and remasters make them happy as they can finally have the excuse to put them in without objections of the schedule, edition change backlash, or costs.

But even still an adventure from 1-20 and high level monsters are nice but D&D still needs formalized high level landscapes, ecologies, and organizations for other playstyles.