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

[Hussar]

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

As was mentioned, these are not basic core book options. They are optional options.

But, again, presuming that every single PC in a group will be dual pistol crossbow wielding crossbow experts with sharpshooter is perhaps something the dev's didn't think they needed to do.

Because otherwise, the -5/+10 feats don't actually make a huge difference. Yes, they bump damage, but, not double as CapnZapp claims. The DPR analyses have been done repeatedly. It's not until you start really cheesing things out that these feats actually make a whole lot of difference.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But, let me ask you this... Look at the stat blocks for the various "standard" npcs in the MM or PHB. Will whatever you imagine your well played well built party of four do more output than four of thosr NPCs of similar level?

If so, then consider - is not your "level" just as "altered" as far as its value for CR as you here insist a dragon with added spells or abilities should be?

If you look at the NPC mage in the MM, it's a CR 6 monster that has 9d8 hit points and casts level 5 spells. If you compare it to a standard level 6 wizard, it has a few less hit points and its spell save DC is slightly lower, but it makes up for that with greater invisibility and cone of cold. We don't have a full suite of NPCs for every role and CR, but if we did have a CR 6 archer and a CR 6 barbarian and a CR 6 druid to round out the NPC group, then I would expect it to fare about as well against a CR 6 dragon as a level 6 party would - which is to say, they would stomp all over it.

You want me to admit that an optimized group of PCs is effectively higher level, and should be fighting correspondingly tougher monsters, and there are two problems with that:

1) That's not how the game works. The game says that the strength of a party is measured by its level, and challenges should be measured relative to that level. Moreover, it would be terrible if you did make the monsters stronger to compensate for the competence of the party, because it would render player choice meaningless. If the high-Charisma barbarian with low Strength only has to fight one kobold, but the high-Strength barbarian with low Charisma has to fight four kobolds, then there's no point in playing a competent character.

2) Even if you don't care about invalidated player choice, there's nowhere left to escalate at high levels. Monsters can only get so tough. Ability scores only go up to 30. We know how strong the Tarrasque is supposed to be within the world, and we know the numbers associated with that, and anything that could threaten a high-level party (numerically) would melt the planet in half (narratively). Maybe if we got some stats for some actual gods, then we might have some context to provide a real challenge, but unless the PCs are the only high level adventurers in the entire setting...

 

[Eric V]

It may just be that 5e can't support certain styles of play. I'm fine with that. I think it's really unfair that people are characterizing those who want tougher monsters in caricature-like fashion, but that's public debate these days, I suppose. It's a bit disappointing that I can't have an epic toe-to-toe fight between my high-level group and a singular opponent (I didn't seem to have trouble with that in 2e, 4e, or even 3.5 after the Epic-Level Handbook came out), but the game is good in a lot of other ways so them's just the breaks.

To make sure what is being asked for is clear though: I'm not a designer. Most people here aren't. Some fancy themselves designers, but...sorry. You just don't bring the expertise of people who work on the game as a career to the table. I don't know for sure, but I think [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] and others (definitely myself) are asking for an official product because we assume the designers will do a better job at it than we will; it's a request rooted in humility. For a game that was supposed to be modular, I'm not sure asking for a "scale goes to 11" module is really worthy of all this scorn.

 

[Stalker0]

I feel that the perception on this issue is there are 2 camps...and I think there are actually 3.

There is the divide of “5e is too easy for optimized high level characters” vs “no it’s fine”.

What i think is forgotten is: “5e is too easy for reasonably designed high levels characters” vs “no it’s fine”.

This is where I fall. My high level party were not damage monkeys. I had one high dpr Barbarian with gwm...all other 5 characters were normal. Heck 3 of my players were brand new to dnd...they wouldn’t even know what optimized means.

And yet I found “hard” encounters were trivial...even “deadly” encounters were just decent. I had to crank it up to 11 to put any real fear in the group.

So when i say high level characters are tough, I do not mean crazy optimized characters. I just mean characters that normal reasonable people that like to role play would make

 

[5ekyu]

If you look at the NPC mage in the MM, it's a CR 6 monster that has 9d8 hit points and casts level 5 spells. If you compare it to a standard level 6 wizard, it has a few less hit points and its spell save DC is slightly lower, but it makes up for that with greater invisibility and cone of cold. We don't have a full suite of NPCs for every role and CR, but if we did have a CR 6 archer and a CR 6 barbarian and a CR 6 druid to round out the NPC group, then I would expect it to fare about as well against a CR 6 dragon as a level 6 party would - which is to say, they would stomp all over it.

You want me to admit that an optimized group of PCs is effectively higher level, and should be fighting correspondingly tougher monsters, and there are two problems with that:

1) That's not how the game works. The game says that the strength of a party is measured by its level, and challenges should be measured relative to that level. Moreover, it would be terrible if you did make the monsters stronger to compensate for the competence of the party, because it would render player choice meaningless. If the high-Charisma barbarian with low Strength only has to fight one kobold, but the high-Strength barbarian with low Charisma has to fight four kobolds, then there's no point in playing a competent character.

2) Even if you don't care about invalidated player choice, there's nowhere left to escalate at high levels. Monsters can only get so tough. Ability scores only go up to 30. We know how strong the Tarrasque is supposed to be within the world, and we know the numbers associated with that, and anything that could threaten a high-level party (numerically) would melt the planet in half (narratively). Maybe if we got some stats for some actual gods, then we might have some context to provide a real challenge, but unless the PCs are the only high level adventurers in the entire setting...

now this is getting way way way out there.

the game does not say the strength of a party is measured by its level. it provides a rough mechanic for tabulating the expected results from a combat making some very broad assumptions.

if anyone, much less te game assumed "four level 7 characters" had some defined strength of say 7-thumps, then that would mean it would be equal to every other four level 7s which also have a strength of 7 thumps and that is just an insane position given the variety of choices in build and design that players have, not to mention the large amount of variety and variability in encounters. Lotsa undead vs party with no cleric = tougher than lotsa unded vs party with three clerics - just to name one.

your choice to try and read these things as somehow locked in stone absolutes for the purpose of your fabrications is tedious.

But, far as i know, a great many Gms in a great many games have tailored there games thresholds and challenges and so on to fit their party for decades upon decades and amazingly players have not rebelled for being rendered "de-choicified." Cant speka for everyone but most of the games a set of players enjoyed being challenged even after they "got gud" or whatever.

As for the nebulous "whats the incentive..." the incentive for all things and choices in this game is because you enjoy it.

one player optimizes the hell out of his character, seems outputs in combat that are great... happy.
Another player doesn't and scores less damage in combat but is happy because the choices they made were focused on other things like their style or roleplaying focus... happy.

Maybe you have experienced lots of players who wanted to optimize their characters and then expected to see easy encounters cuz they out-designed the statblocks in the book... but i have not and i don't know of most any Gm i have seen who advocated this as a thing... well possibly until now.

We keep coming back to - with the constraints you are chosing to wrap around the elements in your argument, you are creating the illusion of conflict within the game, but it is really a conflict of your constraints.

So, like the humorous doctor says when someone says "it hurts when i do this"... "well, stop doing that."

enjoy.your self-inflicted and self-intended crisis.

 

[Oofta]

And yet I found “hard” encounters were trivial...even “deadly” encounters were just decent. I had to crank it up to 11 to put any real fear in the group.

I'm not disagreeing (and it depends on many, many factors) that I also sometimes have to crank it up to 11.

I'm just saying that once you figure out how to do that, figure out what XP/CR budget needs to be you need it's no longer an issue.

Some groups are simply more tactically minded and better at working together than other groups. Sometimes it's not a question of how optimized the individual PCs are.

I was DMing for 2 groups for a while and one group I was OK if I cranked it up to 9 and left it there, the other group I had to crank it up to 12 to get the same results. Similar options, same level, so on and so forth. The latter group just synergized better.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

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.

Oh come on! We are talking about the unaltered monsters straight from the MM, for christ's sake, not about using the guidelines in the DMG! Guidelines we are very aware of. You are just proving our point!

Your solution is to alter the monsters, possibly by changing their CR, maybe not. Our complaint is exactly that you have to do just that, i.e. the monsters straight out the MM are weaksauce.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

It may just be that 5e can't support certain styles of play. I'm fine with that. I think it's really unfair that people are characterizing those who want tougher monsters in caricature-like fashion, but that's public debate these days, I suppose. It's a bit disappointing that I can't have an epic toe-to-toe fight between my high-level group and a singular opponent (I didn't seem to have trouble with that in 2e, 4e, or even 3.5 after the Epic-Level Handbook came out), but the game is good in a lot of other ways so them's just the breaks.

To make sure what is being asked for is clear though: I'm not a designer. Most people here aren't. Some fancy themselves designers, but...sorry. You just don't bring the expertise of people who work on the game as a career to the table. I don't know for sure, but I think [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] and others (definitely myself) are asking for an official product because we assume the designers will do a better job at it than we will; it's a request rooted in humility. For a game that was supposed to be modular, I'm not sure asking for a "scale goes to 11" module is really worthy of all this scorn.

Thank you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because otherwise, the -5/+10 feats don't actually make a huge difference. Yes, they bump damage, but, not double as CapnZapp claims. The DPR analyses have been done repeatedly. It's not until you start really cheesing things out that these feats actually make a whole lot of difference.

They make a whole lot of difference, yes.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I feel that the perception on this issue is there are 2 camps...and I think there are actually 3.

There is the divide of “5e is too easy for optimized high level characters” vs “no it’s fine”.

What i think is forgotten is: “5e is too easy for reasonably designed high levels characters” vs “no it’s fine”.

This is where I fall. My high level party were not damage monkeys. I had one high dpr Barbarian with gwm...all other 5 characters were normal. Heck 3 of my players were brand new to dnd...they wouldn’t even know what optimized means.

And yet I found “hard” encounters were trivial...even “deadly” encounters were just decent. I had to crank it up to 11 to put any real fear in the group.

So when i say high level characters are tough, I do not mean crazy optimized characters. I just mean characters that normal reasonable people that like to role play would make

Yes, the apologists are fond of putting us critics in some roll-player min-max corner where our arguments can safely be ignored, in their increasingly desperate attempts to not have to hear our coherent and reasonable complaints.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app