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

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Um no. What you said was that the designers should have taken into account the optional rules like feats when designing monsters. And they did. With the DMs own optional rules about how to modify monsters. So what you were asking for very much already exists. They took into account optional rules by players with optional rules for DMs. Wanting unaltered monsters already for an optional player rule is a double set of standards, and I think is disengenous. If you want optional player rules, then use optional DM rules that directly address your complaints.

What you want is entitlement. “I play with these optional rules, but I want the default monster design to cater to how I play with said optional rules.”

Edit* So as not to misquote you, this was your actual quote:

"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"

And what hawkeyefan and myself pointed out (even provided page #s), is that the thing you're asking for already exists, and they did take into account those options by creating a whole chapter in the DMG for the DM to bolster monsters as needed. If you're suggesting that the monsters be designed by default assuming players use optional rules, then I would posit that would be bad game design, because then you have the opposite problem: monsters being overpowered for tables who don't play with feats or other optional rules. What they did was like for like. Optional DM rules to be used when players use optional player rules.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

I wouldn't get upset over that user. As far as I can see, his only contribution to these forums is to intervene in every critical thread to say all is well and nothing is ever wrong.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

You know what? Knock it off. I am sick and tired of you personally insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with you by calling them apologists. Following that up with a strawman is the least offensive thing about this post. And if you don’t want to be into a min/maxer corner, THEN STOP BRAGGING HOW YOUR PLAYERS ARE AWESOME OPTIMIZERS, Good lord...

 

[Oofta]

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.

Would you consider an ancient red dragon "weaksauce" if the group was all first level? I would assume the answer is no. The PCs wouldn't stand a chance.

It's not a question of if the monsters are "weak" but how you use the monsters and how you balance the encounter according to the group you have, not the baseline assumptions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

That comparison seems off. The CR 6 mage is effectively a level 9 character, minus some PC bells and whistles. They have 9 hit dice and spellcasting per a 9th level caster. But yet their CR is a 6. I don't think CR is equal to level.

So no, the CR 6 NPCs would not perform the same against a given monster as level 6 PCs. CR and Level are not the same.

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.

No way. [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] already addressed this point, but not all 7th level parties are equal. They're likely comparable, but depending on player choice and experience the difference from one 7th level party to the next could be wildly different.

And the impact on player choice is no greater than any other aspect of the game. Your use of the extremes to make your point does not take into consideration the degree of adjustment made.

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...

There's plenty of room to escalate. Numbers keep going. Plus, isn't that the request that's being made? Don't you guys want the monsters to be made tougher? The caveat is you want the designers to make them tougher rather than the DM.

How does this criticism not apply to what the designers could come up with?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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 @CapnZapp 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.

I think maybe you are misunderstanding, or perhaps I have been unclear. I don't blame anyone for wanting tougher monsters. If that is what you think your game needs, then that is what you should provide.

I just don't think that blaming the designers for dropping the ball is very helpful in a thread where someone asked for help with a problem.

"How do I fix my car?"
"Fords suck."

It's kind of annoying and unhelpful.

As for being a designer....I think that does go with the DM territory a bit. It need not be complicated. Granting a creature max HP, or a basic ability like Damage Resistance is pretty simple. The books give many examples, and some of us here have been offering advice.

The modules you are calling for already exist, to a large extent.

You don't need to be a professional RPG designer to fix your game if there are problems like this. And considering how badly the designers seemed to have "dropped the ball" in this area, I'm surprised that people aren't more willing to take the task on themselves.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Gotta admit. Never thought I’d see complaints like this:

“The designers are lazy, incompetent, and anyone disagreeing is an apologist for horrible game design”

As being described as “a request rooted in humility.”

 

[hawkeyefan]

I wouldn't get upset over that user. As far as I can see, his only contribution to these forums is to intervene in every critical thread to say all is well and nothing is ever wrong.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

And you've contributed nothing to this thread other than trying to use it as a reason to go with your usual talking points. I prefer to discuss points rather than the person making them, but this thread started about running games for high level characters, and how to address some specific concerns about PC power and so on.

You have offered nothing.

Do your games utterly break down at 10th level? Are you incapable of challenging such a party? I doubt either of those to be the case given how you present yourself and given how thoughtful you can be in other discussions.

So why not offer something rather than saying WotC should do so? The OP didn't send a letter to WotC....he came to the community for help.

So help.

 

[robus]

I’m going to have to side with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on this one. In my experience running ToD and SKT i’ve not had trouble hitting the PCs with legendary creatures. The problem is the creatures just don’t have the longevity to ride out the fight to a point where the players are getting nervous about their characters. In the final battle with Iymrith in SKT I had to fudge her an extra 200 hp so she could at least keep some dignity!

I don’t know how much damage the PCs can deliver per round but going forward I’m definitely going to give monsters max hp and legendary creatures maybe 2x max hp. I’ll feel free to fudge as the combat goes and hopefully I’ll find some number that works.

 

[5ekyu]

I’m going to have to side with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on this one. In my experience running ToD and SKT i’ve not had trouble hitting the PCs with legendary creatures. The problem is the creatures just don’t have the longevity to ride out the fight to a point where the players are getting nervous about their characters. In the final battle with Iymrith in SKT I had to fudge her an extra 200 hp so she could at least keep some dignity!

I don’t know how much damage the PCs can deliver per round but going forward I’m definitely going to give monsters max hp and legendary creatures maybe 2x max hp. I’ll feel free to fudge as the combat goes and hopefully I’ll find some number that works.

Personally, i find giving "boss" adversaries max HP as a good start to their longevity.

But, the biggest issue with encounter performance is the so- called action economy and that hits traditional "solo boss" fighrs hard, needing laor actions and more to come close.

I doubt i will throw many "undermanned" encounters as challenges at key points after say 5th level kicks in.

No reason an ancient red wont have "fleas" that are quite deadly when provoked...

Call back to Cloverfield.


Hmm... Stirge swarms that have fed on big reds for years???

Ancient red as an eco-system.







Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app