D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight - 3rd Level

[Pauper]

Are you saying "I haven't like high level play in prior iterations of D&D" or "I have tried high level play in 5th edition and do not like it despite how significantly different it is from high level play in prior iterations of D&D"?

I think there's a reason that every published 5E 'adventure path' expects you to finish by 15th or 16th level at the highest -- a number of the 19th and 20th level capstone abilities in the Player's Handbook are gloriously unplayable.

--
Pauper

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think there's a reason that every published 5E 'adventure path' expects you to finish by 15th or 16th level at the highest

I agree that there is a reason.

-- a number of the 19th and 20th level capstone abilities in the Player's Handbook are gloriously unplayable.

I don't agree that this is that reason, because I don't agree that any of the capstone features in the Player's Handbook are unplayable, let alone "gloriously" so.

I think we may be using a different definition of the word "unplayable" though, since a number of those capstones are certainly game-changing (well, they all are, some just have a more pronounced effect within a limited section of the game) but none of them fit with what I consider unplayable, which are things which just cannot actually function anymore - like if one character gets so much to-hit bonus compared to the next highest sort of character that setting the AC of enemies is either the former almost always hitting so the latter can have a fair chance, or the former having a fair chance and the latter and everyone else having only a snowball's chance in Avernus.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's always chicken-and-egg with high level, isn't it? Do people not like high level because it sucks? Does it suck because designers don't put effort into it because no one likes it anyway? Is it just that you generally try to get through low-level first, and groups break up before they get to high level? Where's the 'sweat spot' where it doesn't suck? (In 5e, there's a broad hint in experience progression: first few levels are lightning fast, then much slower for the rest of single digits, then speeds up again - keeping you in that mid-level 'sweet spot' longer).

I agree that it is tricky to determine which is the cause and which is the effect.

For my experience, high level play didn't used to get much support because it took real life years to get to it and that meant the commonality of groups that managed to get there rather than end one campaign and start another was pretty high. But at the time, high level play actually worked just fine, you just had to actually do it.

There is also a large component of the designers at the time expecting that high level play was inherently different from lower level play, and the things which they expected to feature in high level play were the type of things which were best left to the DM and group to handle rather than being included in a written adventure because the word count needed to give the right kind of detail and options would have left next to no room for any actual adventure in the page count typical of adventures at the time.

Then time moved on, the system changed, and high level play became actually difficult to even do because of the way the game math worked. I never saw a campaign collapse under the weight of the mechanics of the game before 2000, and haven't seen a campaign collapse for any other reason than that or the players moving out of town since.

I think a lot of people are basing their expectations on how high level 5th edition will play on prior editions, as I recall the survey on the subject of how long people expect their campaigns to last had a most common answer around 13th level despite that the same survey also asked what level people had reached so far and the most common answer was below 10th. From my reading of the game, 20th level 5th edition looks just as, if not easier, to run and play than the same or equivalent level in AD&D or BECMI.

Of course, my personal view on what spoils the fun of high level games is giving the player characters too many things, which I think 5th edition does a very good job at avoiding without taking the AD&D approach of basically not gaining much of anything after a certain point.

As always, it's up to the DM to keep things on an even keel, but this time the 5e DM is Empowered to actually do so.

I agree, and I am genuinely excited to have my players get their characters to 20th level and then keep playing, because that once again looks like it is not only possible, but also not labor-intensive, and actually fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For my experience, high level play didn't used to get much support because it took real life years to get to it and that meant the commonality of groups that managed to get there rather than end one campaign and start another was pretty high. But at the time, high level play actually worked just fine, you just had to actually do it.

The first part matches my experience: I ran an AD&D campaign for 10 years (spanning 1e/2e), it got to 14th level, and that was running weekly, for 8 hours. The second part, not so much - one-offs just run arbitrarily at high level were generally pretty awful, and campaigns that survived to high level got so heavily-modified they were no longer a valid test case.

I never saw a campaign collapse under the weight of the mechanics of the game before 2000

I have, just not necessarily at high level, and not always D&D. But, again, prior to 3.0, variants were widely acceptable, so if the game did run into issues, you just changed it - a lot. With 3.x/PF/d20 came RAW-obsession, and suddenly you were stuck with the rules, even as they started to fall apart. In lieu of old-school variants re-writing the rules piecemeal, you had 'core only' and E6 games to cope with the problems.

All that nay-saying aside, the two 3.5 campaigns I played in for it's full run did hold together - just barely - through 13th level, and I'm running a 4e campaign that's at 17th, and playing in one that's on the cusp of Epic, as well as running & playing in Paragon and Epic one-offs and mini-campaigns.

I think a lot of people are basing their expectations on how high level 5th edition will play on prior editions

It's the logical thing to do. High level play was potentially problematic in the editions that 5e more closely resembles, especially in terms of 'feel' - if you feel like you're playing 2e or 3e, you expect the campaigns to go like your 2e or 3e campaigns did. They won't though. For one thing, high-level exp progression accelerates instead of slowing to a crawl. For another, there's Bounded Accuracy keeping everyone on the same page like the treadmill effect did. And, most importantly, the DM has a lot of latitude to keep 'em from going that way.

From my reading of the game, 20th level 5th edition looks just as, if not easier, to run and play than the same or equivalent level in AD&D or BECMI.

From just reading it, I'd agree, and it's not encouraging. From actually running it at lower levels, though, I'm more optimistic.

I agree, and I am genuinely excited to have my players get their characters to 20th level and then keep playing, because that once again looks like it is not only possible, but also not labor-intensive, and actually fun.

In a way it's back to the saving grace of old-school, only you don't need to write out reams of variants and educate your players in your customized version of the system, you just Rule in favor of the campaign staying fun in the moment, Rules notwithstanding.

But, the game does top out at 20, so I'm not sure what you mean by that italic bit.

 

[abirdcall]

On high level play: It's not that I don't think it can work, it's not for me. In 3.x I didn't think it could work and played e6 instead (stop at 6th level and just get feats instead of levelling). In 5e the sweet spot for me is 5th-10th level which is great, as the experience tables are based around that. I think I would be happy to play up until 13th-15th or so but that is it. It is more of what I want out of the genre than the game mechanics themselves.

DM's free to rule how he likes, of course. Both because the optimal use in 5e is often to bring PCs up from 0, and because unconsciousness doesn't include actual deafness, I'd tend to rule that it'd work fine.

It includes being unaware of your surroundings which would include being able to hear someone speak.

Having it work on fallen allies might be the easiest house rule. It would certainly make it a lot more powerful.

I am personally not a big fan of the 'unaware of your surroundings' part of being at 0 HP anyway.

It still doesn't do anything to make Charisma more a part of the class, but maybe Persuasion expertise is enough.

- edit - maybe allow it to work on fallen allies but limit it to charisma bonus allies (min 1). That is a power up and a nerf.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But, the game does top out at 20, so I'm not sure what you mean by that italic bit.

All hitting level 20 means is that you aren't going to gain any more levels, not that you can't keep playing the character and keep having fun, and even keep progressing in other non-level ways, whether that is just the story stuff your character can pick up (ruling a country, expanding your territory, making allies of other nations or even planets/planes of existence, etc.) or it is a mechanical benefit like magic items or the epic boons option in the DMG.

The only acceptable "can't play that character any more" condition for me is the player not actually wanting to keep playing that character.