D&D (2024) Wrapping up first 2-20 2024 campaign this week, some of my thoughts

[ECMO3]

I'm curious if the new MM handles higher level PCs better than 2014; I'm sure most of the higher level monsters didn't get the sort of playtesting the lower levels ones did back when this all started.

From what I have read of it no. Monsters are more powerful, but not enough IMO.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that some of the recent comments about high level challenges nicely shows why 3.x iterative attack penalty/pf2's MAP was such an elegant solution to allow some minimum "BaB must be this tall to pretend these monsters are a plausible boss" while the -5/-10/-15 goes on to wall off "this monster is just a hard/moderate/mook fight" behind significant level gaps.

 

[Older Beholder]

Unless your name is Shang-Chi you should have no business with 10 rings.

The real question is, was the game fun?
As long as you’re having fun you can wear another 10 rings on your toes for all that it matters.

 

[ECMO3]

Sorry if I have little sympathy for someone who 5 PCs with experienced players and with magic items up the wazoo (I've never seen a +3 shield in 5E and don't expect to) along with 10 rare ring each and then doesn't change the module at all from what I understand. Then apparently allow the party to get long rests on demand(?). No surprise it's a cakewalk.

This is not a problem with the rules of the game. I will never, ever let a level 20 group have as much magic as the OP has, but if I did I would just crank the target XP for encounters up and use tactics that are effective against the group on a regular basis. But it's like handing someone a chainsaw and then complaining when it's easy for them to chop down a tree in an open field.

I'm not asking for sympathy, I am simply reporting my experiences. I have played many high level 5E campaigns and the number and rarity of magic items we have is not out of line with those campaigns, including several official WOTC products. We have more than some other 20th level games I've played, probably more than most, but we have less than some others and roughly consistent with the guidelines in the DMG, which are 100 magic items at this level.

A +3 Shield is not even Legendary, it is very rare and that is not one of the problems any way. How much 17th-20th level D&D have you played where you don't see a Very Rare item? I think that is a rare game indeed and certainly one which is deviating from the DMG guidelines.

Also, you say it is not a problem with the new rules; but the reason the party has all those rings is because the rules were specifically changed to allow it. A year ago in 5E someone could only use 3 Rings of Resistance at a time maximum and that is if they were not attuned to anything else at all.

It is changes in the Vicous weapons too, a Rare weapon that will blow away a Legendary +3 weapon.

It is changes in the rules for these magic items that is a primary cause of the problem with the magic.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not asking for sympathy, I am simply reporting my experiences. I have played many high level 5E campaigns and the number and rarity of magic items we have is not out of line with those campaigns, including several official WOTC products. We have more than some other 20th level games I've played, probably more than most, but we have less than some others and roughly consistent with the guidelines in the DMG, which are 100 magic items at this level.

A +3 Shield is not even Legendary, it is very rare and that is not one of the problem magic items any way ... the vicious weapons are a far bigger issue. How much 17th-20th level D&D have you played where you don't see a Very Rare item? I think that is a rare game indeed and certainly one which is deviating from the DMG guidelines.

Also you say it is not a problem with the rules; but the reason the party has all those rings is because the rules were specifically changed to allow it. A year ago in 5E someone could only use 3 Rings of Resistance at a time maximum and that is if they were not attuned to anything else at all.

It is changes in the Vicous weapons too, a Rare weapon that will blow away a Legendary +3 weapon.

It is changes in the rules for these weapons that is a primary cause of this.

The only one allowing a PC to have 10 rare items without compensating by modifying the encounters is the DM.

 

[ECMO3]

Keep in mind, the 100 items recommendation is over the life of the campaign.

47 of those are common and uncommon, many of which would be of limited usefulness by 18th level (assuming they weren't consumed, destroyed or otherwise lost).

Well I am still rocking a non-magic breastplate and you are right I quit using my uncommon Cloak of Protection when we found the Rod of Lordly might at 17th level.

Also keep in mind those are guidlines for what should be found and does not to include stuff crafted or purchased.

47 uncommon and common, plus 23 Rare (we probably have about 50), 19 Very Rare (we probably have about that), and 11 Legendary (we have 4 I think .... but we have promised a 5th one if we defeat a Dragon we are currently fighting).

It is a lot of magic, I am not saying it isn't.

The real problem here is a lot of those Rare items are way overtuned. Under the 5E rules we would probably only have 15 Rare items because they others would not have been useful at all or not worth the $$$

 

[Mort]

Aso keep in mind those are guidlines for what should be found and does not to include stuff crafted or purchased.

If your expecting crafting and allowing purchase of magic items, the number of "found" items should absolutely be adjusted.

And frankly, purchased magic items are just "found" magic items by another name. There are no purchased items that the DM hasn't allowed to be there (and given the means for them to be purchased) just like if they'd been placed to be found.

 

[Older Beholder]

While there might not be a specific rule that says you can’t wear 10 rings of the exact same type.

There is a rule that says you can’t wear more than one type of the same magic item (to be fair it lists pretty much everything but rings as examples). There is also a rule that you can’t attune to the same type of specific magic item more than once, and gives Ring of Protection as an example.

 

[ECMO3]

The only one allowing a PC to have 10 rare items without compensating by modifying the encounters is the DM.

My point is the changes to the rules resulted in far less balance. You say this is the DM, but it is still reflective of changes in the rules.

I don't think there are 10 rare 5E items you could give each party member that would unbalance the game to this degree at this level. The main reason is the rare items in 5E that could unbalance such a high level game require attunement and are not usable in such quantities (i.e. you can't use 10 Rings of Resistance in 5E, you can't use 4).

In other words if we were still using the 5E rules 10 rare items, or even 20 rare items per player would not result in the DM needing to rebalance things at 18th level.

 

[Zardnaar]

My point is the changes to the rules resulted in far less balance. You say this is the DM, but it is still reflective of changes in the rules.

I don't think there are 10 5E items you could give each party member that would unbalance the game to this degree. The main reason is the rare items in 5E that could unbalance such a high level game require attunement and are not usable in such quantities.

In other words if we were still using the 5E rules 10 rare items, or even 20 rare items per player would not result in the DM needing to rebalance things at 18th level.

I'm stress testing up to a point.

By level 10 3 attuned items, a ring of resistance, vicious weapon and generic +1or 2 whatever probably a best case scenario.

Vicious bow or one handed weapon more likely to be handed out in my games.