D&D 5E Tell me about 5E at 11th level

[Flamestrike]

Erm bard dice recharge after a short rest,

So with a Charisma of 20, you get 5 such dice to dole out between on average 2-3 encounters and around 3-4 other PCs?

things like knock things prone is a bonus action with shield master

Absolutely - or you could just substitute a single attack from the attack action for it as well. Doest work on Huge+ critters and they start to show up a fair bit more often at 11th+ level.

If a fighter wants to invest a feat to go S+B (hen most of the complaints are about great weapon fighting and archery) then fine.

Id hardly call it broken though, particulary when most fights should be featuring multiple opponents to fight.

and you can get enough resources to easily do the 6-8 fights thing. Hell bless by level 3 is 4/day only using level 1 slots.

Taking into accound spell durations, the fact it uses your concentration slot, and is usally cast by primary or secondary frontliners (meaning it has a tendency to get shut down) Im not too worried.

Heck, if all I have to worry about in 5E from a 15th level Cleric is that 'he uses Bless a lot as his sole buff spell', then it shows just how far we've come from CoDzilla and 3.5.

Its why 5E starts to break down or at least be very easy at the higher levels.

No it really truly doesnt (barring some generous wish/ simulacrum shennaigans from an overly permissive DM).

If you want I can prove it to you. If you want to stat out 4 or 5 13th level PCs (replete with a very rare and uncommon magic item each) I'll happily design an adventure (featurong 1 or two adventuring days) using the encounter guidelines and advice in the DMG and I'll prove it to you empirically.

 

[CapnZapp]

2. PC power is ridiculous versus the DMG/MM XP guide.

3. Rarity is not a great indicator of relative power.

4. The "work day" concept is useless.

I've said this for months. Great that people are finally catching on to this!

 

[CapnZapp]

I disagree entirely.

The reason you think this is because you play 5th edition in a particular way which creates the issues you encounter - my campaigns are entirely devoid of every issue you've ever expressed about the game thus far.

Anecdote is not data.

Unless you go into sufficient detail, we can't evaluate whether we're even playing the same game.

 

[CapnZapp]

snip

Sorry you don't get the luxury of saying our observations are wrong without explaining what it is that you do that saves the game.

Otherwise I'll discard your claims as unsubstantiated. There's simply too many people finding the same thing for me to take your word over my own experiences.

Regards

 

[CapnZapp]

So with a Charisma of 20, you get 5 such dice to dole out between on average 2-3 encounters and around 3-4 other PCs?



Absolutely - or you could just substitute a single attack from the attack action for it as well. Doest work on Huge+ critters and they start to show up a fair bit more often at 11th+ level.

If a fighter wants to invest a feat to go S+B (hen most of the complaints are about great weapon fighting and archery) then fine.

Id hardly call it broken though, particulary when most fights should be featuring multiple opponents to fight.



Taking into accound spell durations, the fact it uses your concentration slot, and is usally cast by primary or secondary frontliners (meaning it has a tendency to get shut down) Im not too worried.

Heck, if all I have to worry about in 5E from a 15th level Cleric is that 'he uses Bless a lot as his sole buff spell', then it shows just how far we've come from CoDzilla and 3.5.



No it really truly doesnt (barring some generous wish/ simulacrum shennaigans from an overly permissive DM).

If you want I can prove it to you. If you want to stat out 4 or 5 13th level PCs (replete with a very rare and uncommon magic item each) I'll happily design an adventure (featurong 1 or two adventuring days) using the encounter guidelines and advice in the DMG and I'll prove it to you empirically.

No, you don't get to set restrictions that come with a solution to the greatest problem built-in.

One or two adventures with built-in timers that restrict resting is okay, but to take 6-8 encounters a day for granted?

In a game with all these ways to get rest? Pleez.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Anecdote is not data.

I never said it was.

Unless you go into sufficient detail, we can't evaluate whether we're even playing the same game.

I've gone into as much detail as I can; I run 5th edition the way it is written, without any baggage brought over from prior editions, and the problems [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] mentions experiencing at his games do not occur in mine.

Sorry you don't get the luxury of saying our observations are wrong without explaining what it is that you do that saves the game.

The only thing that I am likely to be doing differently is not expecting that the "balance point" of the game was intended to be at the same place that others might expect it to be - which is why someone can say something like "foresight + great weapon master = broken game" and I can respond with "No, that's just teamwork - and is also actually limited in usage, both in the way of which parties can do that combo and how often the combo can be utilized when it is possessed by the party."

Otherwise I'll discard your claims as unsubstantiated. There's simply too many people finding the same thing for me to take your word over my own experiences.

See, here's the thing... I'm not even saying that you, or anyone else, hasn't broken the game.

I'm just pointing out that the things which have been claimed as evidence that the game universally breaks that aren't actually universal, and using the data point of my own group not having our game broken by those specific things (or anything thus far) as the proof.

As for people finding the same thing... you seem to be implying that's not true of my position as well, and that's not the case even in just this thread.

 

[Zardnaar]

I never said it was.
I've gone into as much detail as I can; I run 5th edition the way it is written, without any baggage brought over from prior editions, and the problems [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] mentions experiencing at his games do not occur in mine.

The only thing that I am likely to be doing differently is not expecting that the "balance point" of the game was intended to be at the same place that others might expect it to be - which is why someone can say something like "foresight + great weapon master = broken game" and I can respond with "No, that's just teamwork - and is also actually limited in usage, both in the way of which parties can do that combo and how often the combo can be utilized when it is possessed by the party."

See, here's the thing... I'm not even saying that you, or anyone else, hasn't broken the game.

I'm just pointing out that the things which have been claimed as evidence that the game universally breaks that aren't actually universal, and using the data point of my own group not having our game broken by those specific things (or anything thus far) as the proof.

As for people finding the same thing... you seem to be implying that's not true of my position as well, and that's not the case even in just this thread.

Natural Spell and persisten spell+cleric spells was also team work I suppose.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Natural Spell and persisten spell+cleric spells was also team work I suppose.

If you want to talk about editions other than 5th, might you choose to do in threads other than those specifically about 5th edition?

Also, this statement is a nonsequitor with a complete lack of context that does nothing but leave me with a sense that I am more accurate than I previously thought that you are carrying prior-edition baggage.

 

[OB1]

Just as magic items inherently make 5e "easier", optimizing your character or party for combat also makes combat "easier". The game does not assume the need for system mastery for players to be on a level playing field with encounter guidelines. It assumes that if you take the trouble to pour through every option and team combo to make yourself as powerful as possible that you want combat at appropriate level to be easier (i.e. less random).

On the other hand, if you want to build a highly intelligent and charismatic fighter to give yourself additional options out of combat, you can do so while still being effective.
It's why my Gnome Sorcerer/Warlock has no problem contributing at level 7 with only 14 Cha and why I'm not concerned about taking a few levels of Wizard at level 8 with only 13 Int. I'm playing the character I want to play, not something limited by the necessity of taking a narrow set of pre determined optimal solutions.

So, back to the challenge that the OP faces, if his convention group comes to the table with fully combat optimized characters, he should be ready for that to make combat easier for them. What he may want are a few social or exploration encounters meant to test a party only optimized for combat and that lead to very deadly combat encounters if failed.

One other thought, with a party that large, 1 or 2 will likely fail save it suck rolls such as a Chasme's buzzing that knocks unconscious and that can make a huge difference. I had a party of 6 level 11s where three failed the save at the start of combat and it turned a medium difficulty combat into one where they expended 3/4 of their short rest resources. And all from an encounter they could have avoided entirely if they had succeeded on a stealth roll.

*edited for typos and clarity

 

[Quartz]

For a convention I'd suggest pre-designed characters.

BTW I've not spotted anyone address the key issue: is playing at 11th level fun?