D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[Minigiant]

The bolded is where you said it. It is implied. I have to chip the casters down or else...

And I am telling you that is not even remotely close to true.

You also said this:

You are saying the game is broken at high levels. In your own words, your very first reason is: "The DM has to burn down a lot of spell slots in unrealistic ways in order to create a challenge..."

And I am telling you that is 100% false. Wrong. Not correct.

Now, if you were just talking about the length of time it takes for some casters to take their turn, I am 100% on board. I think you are correct. But it is patently wrong to say the DM can't challenge them.

The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters but casters have enough spells for 9 or more encounters depending on DM difficulty, then it takes more long fights to grind down their spells in order to reach parity down to half casters and noncastets.

A number of encounters that is hard to get to because caster turns are so long their contribution to fatigue is massive and some high level spells provide options to shorten ones day.

And soon noncaster turns will be long as well via masteries and new class features.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say there was a lack of trying.
I said that like high level play, mass combat is always an afterthought.

Because it can't be a forethought. D&D is a game about individual characters doing things in the world, exploring, roleplaying, etc. A game designed to do that well can't also do mass combat well. To do mass combat well, you need to buy a game that is designed to do only mass combat.

I've had DMs tell us at the beginning of a campaign that if mass combat happens, we are going to switch to X or Y mass combat game to run them. That to me is the best way to run mass combats in D&D. You play D&D until a mass combat happens, and then you pull out Warhammer Fantasy Battle or something.

And since they keep trying, there must be a demand.

There is, but they are not a company that is willing or able to make a good mass combat game that is separate from D&D, so they keep failing.

 

[Minigiant]

Because it can't be a forethought. D&D is a game about individual characters doing things in the world, exploring, roleplaying, etc. A game designed to do that well can't also do mass combat well. To do mass combat well, you need to buy a game that is designed to do only mass combat

I don't believe that.

The current WOTC designers can't do it. But to say nobody or no group in the millions of RPG fans can't do it seems defeatist and unlikely.

There is, but they are not a company that is willing or able to make a good mass combat game that is separate from D&D, so they keep failing.

Exactly. It's not impossible. Just impossible in current WOTC.

I bet if WOTC wanted to challenge GW they might do it given time.

But a mass combat system that used 6 scores, d20s, adv/diav, and iconic D&D races, classes,and spells doesn't seem impossible.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't believe that.

The current WOTC designers can't do it. But to say nobody or no group in the millions of RPG fans can't do it seems defeatist and unlikely.


Exactly. It's not impossible. Just impossible in current WOTC.

It's not possible because there are not enough D&D players who are also miniatures war gamers to justify a separate D&D miniatures wargame. There isn't money enough in it for WotC or Hasbro. D&D players who want a good wargame to do mass battles have to go buy a different brand to use.

I bet if WOTC wanted to challenge GW they might do it given time.

But a mass combat system that used 6 scores, d20s, adv/diav, and iconic D&D races, classes,and spells doesn't seem impossible.

It's not worth the loss of revenue to eventually challenge GW in an industry that isn't going to make WotC enough money when they do take it over as they will still be splitting the industry with a lot of wargame makers.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That's what I meant.

It's less about hard mechanics and how the mechanics are intwinned in the core game.

I think you are overstating this. The mechanics of the game are public knowledge and are available in an open licence. There is nothing in the bastion system that a public designer could not have done independently.

The Stronghold gives you a mini game outside of the game

This is mainly that they wanted an abstracted wargame. This seems to me, because that is the style of tier 2/tier 3 game that Matt Colville runs.
I suspect that the original concepts of this rose organically in a game being run by Matt and he later decided to polish it up and publish it.

The Bastion gives you game items and game mechanics already in the game using the games base game loop.

That's what I meant about designing the game with the subsystems in mind. A 3PP can't do that as they aren't designing the game. A 3PP can't design a small optional subsystem alone because it's not enough for a book. A 3PP can't do that unless they sign a license that lets them into the design phase of the game

I really do not see anything about the bastion system or any alternative stronghold system that requires design control of the base game.

 

[Minigiant]

It's not possible because there are not enough D&D players who are also miniatures war gamers to justify a separate D&D miniatures wargame. There isn't money enough in it for WotC or Hasbro. D&D players who want a good wargame to do mass battles have to go buy a different brand to use.

It's not worth the loss of revenue to eventually challenge GW in an industry that isn't going to make WotC enough money when they do take it over as they will still be splitting the industry with a lot of wargame makers.

I am not saying a D&D war games should be design.

I was stating that it is not an impossible task as many keep saying just because TSR and WOTC never did it. Same with high levels.

They haven't produced a balanced druid or ranger yet either so those are impossible too?

 

[Scott Christian]

The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters but casters have enough spells for 9 or more encounters depending on DM difficulty, then it takes more long fights to grind down their spells in order to reach parity down to half casters and noncastets.

A number of encounters that is hard to get to because caster turns are so long their contribution to fatigue is massive and some high level spells provide options to shorten ones day.

And soon noncaster turns will be long as well via masteries and new class features.

6-8 encounters is a suggestion. It has been stated many times by the designers that an encounter can be any number of things, including a set RP encounter, some exploration, or combat. And again, it is a suggestion.

None of that changes what you said, so therefore it doesn't change my claim. A competent DM can challenge their casters with only one encounter per day, let alone two or three. A competent DM can do this at any level, yet doing it at higher levels is a lot more work. This is especially true if you are highlighting a PC or class.

And again, if you are only talking about time, I agree. Casters often require more time, and the time increases as they level. Adding class features will slow the game down. I agree. But, just so we're clear, that has nothing to do with challenges.

 

[nevin]

I am not saying a D&D war games should be design.

I was stating that it is not an impossible task as many keep saying just because TSR and WOTC never did it. Same with high levels.

They haven't produced a balanced druid or ranger yet either so those are impossible too?

Problem is War gamers were always a niche hobby even back in the 70's. It's expensive now and was even more expensive back then. And WOTC didn't do it, TSR swiped chainmail rules and used them, and only a tiny, tiny part of thier base ever really used them.

 

[nevin]

6-8 encounters is a suggestion. It has been stated many times by the designers that an encounter can be any number of things, including a set RP encounter, some exploration, or combat. And again, it is a suggestion.

None of that changes what you said, so therefore it doesn't change my claim. A competent DM can challenge their casters with only one encounter per day, let alone two or three. A competent DM can do this at any level, yet doing it at higher levels is a lot more work. This is especially true if you are highlighting a PC or class.

And again, if you are only talking about time, I agree. Casters often require more time, and the time increases as they level. Adding class features will slow the game down. I agree. But, just so we're clear, that has nothing to do with challenges.

Yep. If DM knows what the spells can do and prepares the encounter's appropriately casters aren't gods. Now for the next whiney complaint that will come about either Utility or ability to change narrative, I simply ask. Why don't your bad guys use the utility?, and why don't your bad guys change the narrative on the PC's sometimes?

 

[Minigiant]

6-8 encounters is a suggestion. It has been stated many times by the designers that an encounter can be any number of things, including a set RP encounter, some exploration, or combat. And again, it is a suggestion.

None of that changes what you said, so therefore it doesn't change my claim. A competent DM can challenge their casters with only one encounter per day, let alone two or three. A competent DM can do this at any level, yet doing it at higher levels is a lot more work. This is especially true if you are highlighting a PC or class

Again isn't not about just challenging the casters. Any DM can challenge a caster with one encounter. But you can't fairly do so while letting the noncasters shine with the officially given content.

Then you have go through all those slow caster turns.

Official fair high level 5e is a griiiiiiiiiiiiind.