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

[Oofta]

This is actually an interesting question. I have noticed that the monsters in the MM do not necessarily reflect the CR guidelines in the DMG. What I usually end up doing for higher level monsters is look at the average HPs and defenses for a monster of that CR in the DMG and adjusting as needed. Tends to work well.

I think that's partly due to the fact that the MM came out long before the DMG. Since I don't run published campaigns, I don't really hit some of the issues others hit. If I want a fight with orcs, I just throw as many orcs as I need to be a threat.

But some of the things I do are along the same lines - if I want to throw a bunch of lower level monsters at a party with significantly high AC, I'll sometime just give them a bonus to hit and possibly greater damage. Kind of like the minion idea from 4E except that it will take more than 1 HP of damage to kill the monster.

I do it because they feel like a threat while at the same time the caster can really contribute to the combat at a critical moment with those AOE spells.

It would be interesting to have a list - what do people do to increase individual monster threat level?

 

[robus]

I think that's partly due to the fact that the MM came out long before the DMG. Since I don't run published campaigns, I don't really hit some of the issues others hit. If I want a fight with orcs, I just throw as many orcs as I need to be a threat.

I do think this is something a novice DM like myself has encountered. The published adventures encourage you to assume that the encounters will work as designed if your PCs are at the right level. Heck this is why we buy them!!

But experience is saying, no, don’t trust the encounter math in the adventures (however it would be super helpful if the adventures indicated whether the combat encounter was supposed to be easy, medium, hard or deadly...).

In fact it might be better for the adventures to not tell you how many creatures are in the encounter, just that there are giant spiders (or whatever) and the encounter is supposed to be hard (or whatever) and encourage the DM to figure out what that means for their table...

 

[hawkeyefan]

It would be interesting to have a list - what do people do to increase individual monster threat level?

I agree with you, totally....that's what I think a thread like this should be about.

I do think this is something a novice DM like myself has encountered. The published adventures encourage you to assume that the encounters will work as designed if your PCs are at the right level. Heck this is why we buy them!!

But experience is saying, no, don’t trust the encounter math in the adventures (however it would be super helpful if the adventures indicated whether the combat encounter was supposed to be easy, medium, hard or deadly...).

In fact it might be better for the adventures to not tell you how many creatures are in the encounter, just that there are giant spiders (or whatever) and the encounter is supposed to be hard (or whatever) and encourage the DM to figure out what that means for their table...

The published adventure books could certainly use some more advice in that sense, I agree. I know from time to time they will point out "this can be an incredibly dangerous encounter..." and similar, but it would be good if they gave more concise and clear advice on that.

The best bit of advice throughout all of this, I think, if newer DMs only walk away remembering one thing, is that the CR system is approximate at best, and that the best way to design or run encounters is to observe the results and then adjust in the future. Pay attention to CR and XP budgets and all that, but if the results are telling you something different, then you have to go with the results as a more reliable gauge.

 

[generic]

I always apply a rule that I have invented named "the one-above rule". If you have players whose characters are beyond tenth level, act as though they are at least one level higher than they are when calculating encounter levels.

Side Note: powerful monsters will use the magic items they own, rings resize to fit anyone, ancient dragons can wear rings of invisibility.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Homebrew monsters are a good idea. I use them a good amount myself. But I have to ask...if you’re willing to homebrew, why the reluctance to alter existing monsters? Is it just to try and leave the CR/XP system as intact as possible?

It's mostly so as to not mess with the players. If a player has invested enough time and effort (on either side of the screen) to understand intuitively how tough and strong a troll is (within the game world, and not just as abstract numbers), then my increasing the stats of a troll for reasons of math or game balance feels like I'm messing with that player in particular. It's easier for them - or at least, it would be easier for me, if I was a player in that situation - if new monsters are used which can be described relative to old monsters. It reduces the amount that knowledgeable players have to unlearn about how the world works.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's mostly so as to not mess with the players. If a player has invested enough time and effort (on either side of the screen) to understand intuitively how tough and strong a troll is (within the game world, and not just as abstract numbers), then my increasing the stats of a troll for reasons of math or game balance feels like I'm messing with that player in particular. It's easier for them - or at least, it would be easier for me, if I was a player in that situation - if new monsters are used which can be described relative to old monsters. It reduces the amount that knowledgeable players have to unlearn about how the world works.

Okay, gotcha.

That’s interesting because I kind of lean the exact opposite way. I don’t want my players to ever think a Troll is always a Troll as it appeara in the MM, and is therefore this much of a threat to me at my current level. I don’t think that the characters would actually think that way within the game world, so I try to limit how much my players do it.

It just seems odd to me that a PC would see an ogre and think “ha a CR 2 brute, it’s no threat to me” but then they’d see a human warrior and think “hmm it’s possible this warrior is a higher level than me, I’d better be cautious”.

To me, that kind of thinking is way too game mechanicy, for lack of a better term, and I prefer to limit how much it happens in my game. That’s a major reason I’m a proponent of altering monsters; it keeps the players on their toes.

But this is just another example of two ways to approach things; neither is right not wrong, just a matter of preference. And I imagine this is one of the major challenges of game design...knowing that any choice you make as a designer may please one customer, but will displease another.

 

[5ekyu]

Okay, gotcha.

That’s interesting because I kind of lean the exact opposite way. I don’t want my players to ever think a Troll is always a Troll as it appeara in the MM, and is therefore this much of a threat to me at my current level. I don’t think that the characters would actually think that way within the game world, so I try to limit how much my players do it.

It just seems odd to me that a PC would see an ogre and think “ha a CR 2 brute, it’s no threat to me” but then they’d see a human warrior and think “hmm it’s possible this warrior is a higher level than me, I’d better be cautious”.

To me, that kind of thinking is way too game mechanicy, for lack of a better term, and I prefer to limit how much it happens in my game. That’s a major reason I’m a proponent of altering monsters; it keeps the players on their toes.

But this is just another example of two ways to approach things; neither is right not wrong, just a matter of preference. And I imagine this is one of the major challenges of game design...knowing that any choice you make as a designer may please one customer, but will displease another.

Agree with the bold completely - says the "flaming stirge swarm" guy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It just seems odd to me that a PC would see an ogre and think “ha a CR 2 brute, it’s no threat to me” but then they’d see a human warrior and think “hmm it’s possible this warrior is a higher level than me, I’d better be cautious”.

It's not so much that they see a CR 2 brute, as they see the reality which its statistics reflect. They see the huge muscles, which we see as Strength 19. They see the hide armor it wears, which we see as AC 11. They see its size and relative lack of skill, which we see as 59 Hit Points.

Unless it has different stats, in which case they see a different reality. If it has more HP, then they can see that it's bigger and/or more skilled. If it's wearing plate armor, then that's also obvious. Or if it's some homebrew rock giant that I introduce because I think ogres need to be 30% harder, then they can see that it's proportionally stronger and tougher and more skilled or whatever.

I know you don't have to play that way, but honestly, I really don't want to play the game of hiding information from players or making them second-guess what they think their characters should know. It's one of the reasons I'm so dead-set against unnecessary abstraction.

 

[Eric V]

Must have missed that. It's easy to in a thread this big, my bad. WOTC focuses on the casual crowd anyway, so more advanced players need to look else were for certain things. Though some guidence would always be useful.

Sent from my VS990 using EN World mobile app

Basically this. Despite the misunderstandings of the poster you're responding to, some of us really would like some guidance by the experts who designed the game (though I appreciated [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s ideas, certainly), because we think they're the best place to go for it. We'd be willing to pay for a well-crafted book around this idea, too. Why is that bad? And it's certainly not asking for a "re-write" of existing books.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not so much that they see a CR 2 brute, as they see the reality which its statistics reflect. They see the huge muscles, which we see as Strength 19. They see the hide armor it wears, which we see as AC 11. They see its size and relative lack of skill, which we see as 59 Hit Points.

Unless it has different stats, in which case they see a different reality. If it has more HP, then they can see that it's bigger and/or more skilled. If it's wearing plate armor, then that's also obvious. Or if it's some homebrew rock giant that I introduce because I think ogres need to be 30% harder, then they can see that it's proportionally stronger and tougher and more skilled or whatever.

I know you don't have to play that way, but honestly, I really don't want to play the game of hiding information from players or making them second-guess what they think their characters should know. It's one of the reasons I'm so dead-set against unnecessary abstraction.

Yeah, I understand the approach and I didn’t mean to imply it was bad in any way. It just goes against the way I view the game and its mechanics. Based on your views, I can see why you’d be reluctant to alter creatures. But for me, it’s a vital part of helping to balance expectation and surprise on the part of the players.

So, without resorting to altering the monsters, what are other ways that a DM can help mitigate PC power at higher levels? You mentioned reducing the effects/frequency of rests, which is a good suggestion. What are some others? Larger groups of monsters and more frequent encounters are some obvious choices, but are there others you can think of?