D&D 5E Running D&D 5e for Levels 10+

[Matrix Sorcica]

You obviously never played with my group where the PCs stomped on Lollth (CR 34?) at level 22 because I had set up a fight I thought they couldn't win.

It took them a round and a half. Yeah, 4E was so much better.

Don't get me wrong. I managed to challenge my players in most fights, but just like every edition you have to use tactics and adjust encounters to your group.

Must be because you were min/maxing powergamers who ignored two-thirds of the game!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. I do think that the issue is there, even for non-optimized groups. I think it's very closely connected to the related "monsters are boring bags of hp and lacks interesting abilities" complaint that frequently pops up on this and other forums. The monsters needs tricks and abilities to be able to go toe to toe with high level parties, no matter if the latter are optimized or not.

I wouldn't mind if there were some more abilities possessed by some monsters. I do agree with that criticism. I don't think that it goes so far as to make most monsters "boring bags of HP", though. Sounds to me like having a Dragon land amidst PCs and then try to just go punch for punch with them is the very definition of a "boring bag of HP". It takes away much of what makes the Dragon a Dragon.

Again, I can understand wanting more unique or mechanically interesting mechanics for monsters (I actually add them in my game when I want) but no amount of such abilities is going to replace simply playing the monster as if it had a brain.

This.

The GWM/CE feats create two groups of martial characters: the ones dealing damage, and the ones dealing double damage. Why would you ever want to belong to the first group, when your primary job is to kill monsters. (And also, you don't really pay much of a price. It's not like you need to sacrifice anything special to get good at your job)

While I can see that the monsters have a somewhat longer shelf life for the first group, that alone isn't the whole story. PCs get spells, rerolls, maneuvers, movement abilities yada yada - taken together, they can run circles around any poor brute whose only means to make a difference is to run straight at the heroes in the hopes he'll get close enough to deliver his melee attacks.

Your increasingly desperate attempts to shoot down our persuasive arguments by focusing on isolated snippets at a time doesn't impress me. Sure you can argue that X doesn't need to be true, or Y doesn't always happen, or Z only appeals to some players, and so on.

But when you add up X, Y, Z... you get a very clear picture: monsters are decidedly weak-sauce relative to the player characters of the same edition.

"Easy mode" it definitely is, and I'm not saying that as a compliment.

Keeping it simple has its uses, especially at lower tiers. But 5th edition has gone way too far at tiers III and IV.

Why even deny it? The game is still the best D&D there is. We just want community consensus to appear, so the pressure on WotC to fix this can increase.

"I allow Option X in my game. Option X increases the amount of damage my players do. I find the amount of damage my players do makes the monsters too weak. I want the designers to fix the monsters."

The solution to the problem here is clear. Just get rid of feats. Doesn't even have to be all feats, just the -5/+10 ones and maybe a couple others. Why would you think that changing all the monsters is somehow an easier fix than removing a couple of Feats?

Those Feats have obviously affected your game. It's clear that they are the problem. Why focus elsewhere? Will your players truly balk so much if those Feats are taken? It sounds to me like maybe that would be good for them....maybe they'd explore some other Feat choices that would add some variety to the game. Maybe if every character wasn't built solely with combat in mind, your players may find combat more challenging.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Those options are in the corebook. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the designers took basic core book options into account

 

[Sacrosanct]

I wouldn't mind if there were some more abilities possessed by some monsters. I do agree with that criticism. I don't think that it goes so far as to make most monsters "boring bags of HP", though. Sounds to me like having a Dragon land amidst PCs and then try to just go punch for punch with them is the very definition of a "boring bag of HP". It takes away much of what makes the Dragon a Dragon.

Again, I can understand wanting more unique or mechanically interesting mechanics for monsters (I actually add them in my game when I want) but no amount of such abilities is going to replace simply playing the monster as if it had a brain.

Absolutely agree. I am not against adding extra things to monsters. Heck, A year or two ago I even released a product guide call Monstrous Leaders, which was all about adding extra abilities and traits to monsters, and how it might impact CR. So it's obvious I'm not against adding things to monsters if you want.

That being said, the impact of as you say, "playing with a brain", is often undervalued. It makes the world of difference in game play and challenge.

"I allow Option X in my game. Option X increases the amount of damage my players do. I find the amount of damage my players do makes the monsters too weak. I want the designers to fix the monsters."

The solution to the problem here is clear. Just get rid of feats. Doesn't even have to be all feats, just the -5/+10 ones and maybe a couple others. Why would you think that changing all the monsters is somehow an easier fix than removing a couple of Feats?

Those Feats have obviously affected your game. It's clear that they are the problem. Why focus elsewhere? Will your players truly balk so much if those Feats are taken? It sounds to me like maybe that would be good for them....maybe they'd explore some other Feat choices that would add some variety to the game. Maybe if every character wasn't built solely with combat in mind, your players may find combat more challenging.

Someone mentioned this earlier, and I'm sorry I don't remember who that is to give credit to, but it is an excellent point. CRs are largely based on the baseline: the average table, may not even have feats or magic items, etc. So why would anyone allow an optimized party where players use all of the tools to min/max their PCs, but then don't allow the DM to do the same with the monsters? That doesn't make any sense. If your players are optimizing and using optional rules, then by all means you as the DM should be doing the same. RAW, a CR4 creature is appropriate for a standard encounter for 4ea level 4 baseline PCs. If those PCs are optimized, then it seems common sense to me that the CR4 rating is no longer going to work, and the DM will need to add things to it on the same level as the players added to their PCs in order to keep it a CR4.

 

[Oofta]

Those options are in the corebook. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the designers took basic core book options into account

All feats are optional. In addition, out of more than a dozen players in my home groups since 5E was released, only 1 has taken sharpshooter (and even then it wasn't the cheesed out dual x-bow expert).

The devs can't plan for every possible group build.

 

[5ekyu]

Those options are in the corebook. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the designers took basic core book options into account

Actually, almost every ruleset i have ever seen was clear about difference between like basic rules, advanced rules and OPTIONAL rules. Pretty much the break point was that anything labelked OPTIONAL was never assumed as in play by the rules.

Basic and advanced were for different complexity or tiers but always assumed.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[hawkeyefan]

Those options are in the corebook. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the designers took basic core book options into account

They're in the core book, but they are cited as options. They do advise that playing with Feats and Multiclassing will affect how the game functions. So I think they did take these into account in that sense...they explained how using those options will change some of the other base assumptions of the game.

That is them saying "these things will affect your game, so if you allow them, you may have to adjust for them".

What they also provided in the core books are options for monsters and NPCs; beside the Legendary Creature options, the DMG talks about modifying monsters and creating new monsters. The DM should use these options to help achieve the results he wants for the party he has.

My players are experienced players, but they are not necessarily min/max types. They make effective characters because they understand the way the game works, bu they are also mindful of character concept and the fiction of the game, so combat efficacy is not their sole focus. So therefore, they don't build their characters only around how to deal as much damage as possible. This does not make them ineffective players, or supoptimal, or any other label that people care to throw about. They are perfectly capable of building characters that are nothing but murder machines, with every bit of to hit bonus and damage output maximized and with little regard for anything else.

They just realize that playing that way actually winds up making the game less fun. Like playing basketball with your 6 year old brother when you're 18. Or, if the game is not easier, then it's because the DM had to adjust things for their style. They know that the fun of the game comes from challenge.....so they don't do everything in their ability to reduce the challenge.

Now, this sounds like I'm criticizing any playstyle other than my group's....but really, I'm not. For some folks, making the most combat effective character possible is the fun of the game. And that's fine....good for them. But DMs for such players need to then do the same with monsters. They need to make them as effective as possible. Otherwise, there's an imbalance, and it will show in play.

And this is my point...whatever play style or experience level the players may have, the DM should be able to challenge them. He may have to have the monsters use tactics, he may have to increase or alter their abilities from time to time, he may have to send higher threat monsters at them....but he can challenge them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Those options are in the corebook. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the designers took basic core book options into account

This.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

Those options are in the corebook. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the designers took basic core book options into account

This.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Great news! They did, as hawkeyefan points out:

What they also provided in the core books are options for monsters and NPCs; beside the Legendary Creature options, the DMG talks about modifying monsters and creating new monsters. The DM should use these options to help achieve the results he wants for the party he has.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I want to expand on my above post, and what hawkeyefan said.

Pg274 of the DMG talks about giving monsters traits. That may or may not affect the CR of the monster, depending on what those traits do to the overall calculation (using the table on page 280 and 281). For example, giving the monster magic resistance is like giving an AC bonus of +2, so when you calculate CR, you'd act like the AC is 2 higher than what it is if the monster has magic resistance.

The second thing I think is really important is classes given to monsters on page 283. Specifically the examples, and the bit about how higher CR monsters may get a few class levels that don't adjust the CR rating at all. The example they give is how a dragon can have 5 levels of wizard (which is pretty significant) and yet still not have its CR changed. So for the earlier discussions about dragons not being a challenge enough, according to the guidelines in the DMG, you could have that dragon casting spells like a 5th level wizard with the same CR. Counterspell anyone? Yeah, that might screw up the PC's plans just a bit.

But to the point, the designers very much did take options into account. There's a whole chapter in the DMG about that very thing. Matrix Sorcica and CapnZapp's posts seem to imply that they weren't aware of what's in the DMG because the very thing they are asking for already exists.