D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Oofta]

I don't want to repeat the same things again and create another one of those topics.

But the statement I've said has been said numerous times on social media and other forums. The "it's only here" thing is a myth.

Now if you are staying their is a Massive Online Bubble, you might have something. But it's big

Most games end before they get to high levels for various reasons, including the fact that WOTC doesn't publish modules for high levels because, wait for it, most games end before they get to high levels.

Whether it's an issue for other people that want to play high level games and are willing to run homebrew campaigns? I have no idea how widespread it is and neither do you.

It hasn't been an issue for me. In 3E the game absolutely had an issue with linear fighters, quadratic wizards. In 4E the game slowed to a crawl. There is simply nothing inherently broken that can't be resolved if the group wants to make it work in 5E. The proof? I, and others, have done it and it works well with minimal or no changes to the rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In any game where characters gain new features and powers as they level the complexity of the game will obviously increase higher the levels get. This indubitably will make the game somewhat more unwieldy, but it is not inherently an issue. Granted, if majority of the player base feels it is a problem, then it is. In any case, I feel the high level issues are more related to this, rather than the game being actually "broken" in any real sense.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, I think it's very much the conventional wisdom that high-level play bogs down and is nearly unplayable.

I just think the conventional wisdom is wrong.

I'm not even sure it's conventional wisdom because that would imply that the majority of people who play want to or have an opportunity to play to high levels in the first place. I think most people don't even think about it because there's so little module support.

Ultimately we just don't know so declarations of "conventional wisdom" or "common knowledge" one way or another simply don't have a factual basis.

 

[Minigiant]

Most games end before they get to high levels for various reasons, including the fact that WOTC doesn't publish modules for high levels because, wait for it, most games end before they get to high levels.

Whether it's an issue for other people that want to play high level games and are willing to run homebrew campaigns? I have no idea how widespread it is and neither do you.

It hasn't been an issue for me. In 3E the game absolutely had an issue with linear fighters, quadratic wizards. In 4E the game slowed to a crawl. There is simply nothing inherently broken that can't be resolved if the group wants to make it work in 5E. The proof? I, and others, have done it and it works well with minimal or no changes to the rules.

You not having an issue with something does not mean the issue doesn't exist or can't exist.

Having to homebrew all your monsters is an issue.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not even sure it's conventional wisdom because that would imply that the majority of people who play want to or have an opportunity to play to high levels in the first place. I think most people don't even think about it because there's so little module support.

Ultimately we just don't know so declarations of "conventional wisdom" or "common knowledge" one way or another simply don't have a factual basis.

No one said a majority of fans want to play high level.

What is said is that the majority of fans who do want to play high level 5e are unsatisfied by the mechanics, lack of support, and few tables.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But you don't need such a kludge. If the characters get more powerful as they level, they will actually be able to beat those same monsters that were too much for them earlier, without having to replace the monsters with balloon facsimiles. And at least to me it will feel more satisfying that way.

I don’t mind your preference… that’s fine. But the idea that it’s a “kludge”? It’s no different than any number of other rules that affect play.

And I think it is just confused to have the enemies downscale. Why we have both upscaling characters and downscaling enemies? Aren't these in effect representing the same thing? Also what if the same enemy is fighting characters and their allies that are of different levels? Compared to whom is the enemy scaled then? It is just an unnecessary ugly mess.

It’s really not. It’s very simple. That you don’t like it doesn’t make it difficult or messy.

They compromise objectivity of the universe, and that bothers me. I get that this is a difference in attitude and not everyone feels the same way, but to me this is important. I want the world and the mechanics to be in sync, informing each other. Jake the ogre has certain stats that represent him, and those are objective. They do not change depending on who he is fighting.

Minion rules to me ARE the world and the mechanics being in synch.

What are the purpose of stats? To dictate how different creatures interact. Why should I not adjust those as needed based on the result I’m looking for?

I think not. My priorities are quite clear, and right where I want them. You just don't agree and are therefore trying to cast shade on my preference. Minion rules are the gamist priorities taking precedence over the setting in order to force the creation of a desired narrative. Not what I want.

No, I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. Minion rules reflect a desired fictional element. Yes, they include a gamist element, but so does any monster stat block.

Insistence that mechanics always be the same seems more gamist to me.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not even sure it's conventional wisdom because that would imply that the majority of people who play want to or have an opportunity to play to high levels in the first place. I think most people don't even think about it because there's so little module support.

Ultimately we just don't know so declarations of "conventional wisdom" or "common knowledge" one way or another simply don't have a factual basis.

I'm duly impressed that you managed to disagree with my post where I was agreeing with you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t mind your preference… that’s fine. But the idea that it’s a “kludge”? It’s no different than any number of other rules that affect play.

It’s really not. It’s very simple. That you don’t like it doesn’t make it difficult or messy.

Ok. Then explain to me what character stats scaling up represent and what do some enemies becoming minions represent? Because don't they both represent the same thing, the characters becoming more powerful? Why use two different methods to represent the same things, the latter of which is not actually codified in any way and is up to GMs whims? And how to handle the foes facing characters and allies of varying levels at the same time? To whom the enemies are scaled?

To me it is clear that this is far more convoluted than just having the character stats scale up as they level thus the lower level enemies becoming easier to beat.

Minion rules to me ARE the world and the mechanics being in synch.

It's not. Minionising not something that exists in the setting. It is just the stats of a monster being arbitrarily changed whilst the fictional entity being represented remaining the same.

What are the purpose of stats? To dictate how different creatures interact. Why should I not adjust those as needed based on the result I’m looking for?

The purpose of stats is to represent the underlying fictional reality. If we want to pretend that this reality is objective (and I do) then that representation must be objective too. Changing stats depending on the desired narrative role is no objective.

Insistence that mechanics always be the same seems more gamist to me.

No, that would be simulationistic. What is desired is the consistent representation of fictional reality by the mechanics.

 

[Oofta]

You not having an issue with something does not mean the issue doesn't exist or can't exist.

Having to homebrew all your monsters is an issue.

You saying that it is a widespread problem also means nothing. Which is not what you said, you stated as a matter of fact is that 5E doesn't work at higher levels.

I make no claims whatsoever about what people other than the ones I've played with to level 20 say or think. All I can say is that the issue is not universal.

 

[Oofta]

No one said a majority of fans want to play high level.

What is said is that the majority of fans who do want to play high level 5e are unsatisfied by the mechanics, lack of support, and few tables.

Do you have any data to back up your statements? Any at all?