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

[jodyjohnson]

I feel like there is a disconnect between the why and the what in the game.

"Why did you pick that feat?" Because it makes my character better. "What is the result of being better?" Things are easier.
Repeat with char op, choose that magic item, and multiclass.

So at 11+ you basically have "easier" to the 4th power and ... things are too easy.

Which is a direct response to the treadmill of previous editions (3.x and 4e) where you optimized to keep up because the monsters assumed you were always specialized and had your bases covered versus the save or dies/sucks.

 

[Reynard]

That's a lot of hours of content! I would probably go with your idea of involving fiends. An escape from the Lower Planes to Sigil in the style of Planescape would be a lot of fun and would allow you to vary locations from session to session. The scope would also easily provide the context to include new players at the table. Create like one hexmap for a given Lower Plane which you can use for each session. Each hexmap leads to two other Lower Planes you have prepared. Each plane has its own weirdness, restrictions, environmental hazards - and boons if you embrace evil.

You don't want to do it that way. You want a base of operations that each sessions begins and ends at, and a singular zone of exploration. One of the keys is to not make each sessions a part of an ongoing plot, but rather have each session a fresh start within the context of a persistent world and persistent characters. Accessibility is fundamental because while half of your players are likely to have played the previous session, half aren't. You don't want to waste precious slot time filling players in on what has come before in any more detail than a "previously on" segment for an episodic TV show, and you don't want fresh players to feel disconnected from the veterans. it is a balance that has taken 3 years of running these kinds of con games to get right, and I am still tweaking the formula.

Also, believe it or not you don't need huge swaths of areas to explore each session. I ran Return to the Isle of Dread for a total of 13 4-hour sessions between Carnage in November and TotalCon last week and they explored probably 20% of the island in all that play time.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If you need to soften up the party, use the mob rules from the DMG and let them get attacked by waves of 20 mooks, who spread out their attacks more or less evenly amongst the characters (ranged attacks work well for this, though melee can allow them PCs to strategically defend the squishier characters).

I did this a lot in a 10th level adventure (that ran about 10 sessions), and it really helped make the game more fun. You both wear down the characters, *and* let them feel cool by dispatching (or scaring off) large numbers of foes.

 

[iserith]

You don't want to do it that way. You want a base of operations that each sessions begins and ends at, and a singular zone of exploration. One of the keys is to not make each sessions a part of an ongoing plot, but rather have each session a fresh start within the context of a persistent world and persistent characters. Accessibility is fundamental because while half of your players are likely to have played the previous session, half aren't. You don't want to waste precious slot time filling players in on what has come before in any more detail than a "previously on" segment for an episodic TV show, and you don't want fresh players to feel disconnected from the veterans. it is a balance that has taken 3 years of running these kinds of con games to get right, and I am still tweaking the formula.

I always spend 20 minutes at the start of a session making sure the characters have ties to each other and the adventure scenario. I think this is time well-spent. We don't need to go into everything that happened during the previous session - the players can do that as they play via social interaction.

I've been watching games based on the single base of operations of late and I'm not too impressed with that format. I believe you that it works, but it's not my favorite.

Also, believe it or not you don't need huge swaths of areas to explore each session. I ran Return to the Isle of Dread for a total of 13 4-hour sessions between Carnage in November and TotalCon last week and they explored probably 20% of the island in all that play time.

It could be that I run things a lot faster or tighter and thus would need more content. I've been told that is the case by players before. Some have even said the text game I ran covered more ground than in-person games they've experienced.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

No you seem to give 5E a free pass with its power combos and yet judge other editions with a different standard. A power combo is a power combo regardless of edition. 5E has power combos and it is very easy to get advantage.

 

[OB1]

I feel like there is a disconnect between the why and the what in the game.

"Why did you pick that feat?" Because it makes my character better. "What is the result of being better?" Things are easier.
Repeat with char op, choose that magic item, and multiclass.

So at 11+ you basically have "easier" to the 4th power and ... things are too easy.

Which is a direct response to the treadmill of previous editions (3.x and 4e) where you optimized to keep up because the monsters assumed you were always specialized and had your bases covered versus the save or dies/sucks.

Yes!!!! Instead of the treadmill in 5e you can have the smart charismatic leader type fighter who isn't all that great on the front line and still have an effective character. Or the not so bright wizard with high wisdom and constitution who just loves magic and picks spells that aren't ability stat dependent but whose iron will allows her to maintain concentration where other wizards would run crying home.

Releasing PCs from the requirement to optimize means there are infinitely more options to build an effective character.

If you choose to optimize for combat anyway, expect combat to be easier, and possibly too easy as you reach tier 3 and 4.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No you seem to give 5E a free pass with its power combos and yet judge other editions with a different standard. A power combo is a power combo regardless of edition. 5E has power combos and it is very easy to get advantage.

I judge all games to the same same standard (Do the rules meet their design intentions within acceptable margins? Is the game fun to play without heavy alteration?)

What it is that is different between my view of 5th edition and other editions is those stated design intentions being extremely different - for example, that 3.5 encounter building guidelines claim a percentage of the party's resources which an encounter of a certain difficulty is meant to consume (a highly specific goal which my experience suggests is rarely, if ever met when using what you call a "power combo"), while the 5th edition encounter building guidelines claim only a benchmark for when the party might (meaning if the dice go that way) have some number of casualties greater that 0 while defeating the encounter (a goal which is not very specific and which I have yet to experience an encounter not meeting).

That's why every time you, or someone else, says "this is broken" I point to your expectations not matching what the game tells you to expect as a cause for you thinking that is true while I think it isn't - because if someone expects the 5th edition encounter building guidelines to have the same function as the 3.5 or 4th edition encounter building guidelines, it's not the game that broken, it's that expectation. The same holds true for other parts of the game, I only mention encounter building because it's a popular point and one which is easy to cover the issues clearly with.

And lastly, you might note that when I talk about prior editions of D&D breaking I refer to the core game math - not these "power combos" - which is a subtle, but important distinction.

 

[Zardnaar]

I judge all games to the same same standard (Do the rules meet their design intentions within acceptable margins? Is the game fun to play without heavy alteration?)

What it is that is different between my view of 5th edition and other editions is those stated design intentions being extremely different - for example, that 3.5 encounter building guidelines claim a percentage of the party's resources which an encounter of a certain difficulty is meant to consume (a highly specific goal which my experience suggests is rarely, if ever met when using what you call a "power combo"), while the 5th edition encounter building guidelines claim only a benchmark for when the party might (meaning if the dice go that way) have some number of casualties greater that 0 while defeating the encounter (a goal which is not very specific and which I have yet to experience an encounter not meeting).

That's why every time you, or someone else, says "this is broken" I point to your expectations not matching what the game tells you to expect as a cause for you thinking that is true while I think it isn't - because if someone expects the 5th edition encounter building guidelines to have the same function as the 3.5 or 4th edition encounter building guidelines, it's not the game that broken, it's that expectation. The same holds true for other parts of the game, I only mention encounter building because it's a popular point and one which is easy to cover the issues clearly with.

And lastly, you might note that when I talk about prior editions of D&D breaking I refer to the core game math - not these "power combos" - which is a subtle, but important distinction.

Well 5E s fun squishing stuff I have just seen fighters and barbarian types dealing more damage than the rest of the part put together. Around 80-100 damage by level 11. And its the -5/+10 feats doing that due to low ACs on 5E monsters, the encounter guidelines RAW, and various buffs.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Well 5E s fun squishing stuff I have just seen fighters and barbarian types dealing more damage than the rest of the part put together. Around 80-100 damage by level 11. And its the -5/+10 feats doing that due to low ACs on 5E monsters, the encounter guidelines RAW, and various buffs.

Yes, when you put a character into the ideal circumstances for their particular powers - which you are demonstrating you have done by the choices made in the group, such as which optional rules you use, which monsters the characters face, and which spells the party uses - their performance really shines.

But since none of that is "no matter what I do or what the players are doing, the game goes wonky" it's nowhere near demonstration of things being broken.

 

[Reynard]

I always spend 20 minutes at the start of a session making sure the characters have ties to each other and the adventure scenario. I think this is time well-spent. We don't need to go into everything that happened during the previous session - the players can do that as they play via social interaction.

I've been watching games based on the single base of operations of late and I'm not too impressed with that format. I believe you that it works, but it's not my favorite.



It could be that I run things a lot faster or tighter and thus would need more content. I've been told that is the case by players before. Some have even said the text game I ran covered more ground than in-person games they've experienced.

What format are you talking about? I am confused whether you are refering to con games, VTT or something else.