How does power balance change at higher levels?

[Rfkannen]

I have been in a campaign that has been reaching higher levels. I have noticed that many features are more powerful than they seemed at low levels, and I am thinking it might change how I evaluate classes.

For example, at low levels, ac is the main determiner of how hard it is to kill your character, but at our current level saves matter a whole heck of a lot more. This got me thinking about how utterly insane it is that monks get good at all saves, like that is really nuts??? are high-level monks one of the game's tankiest classes? If so that would be interesting, since at low levels, they are very squishy. Does a monk's role in combat change?

Conversely, having 25 ac as an eldritch knight is awesome at low levels, but when you are facing an ancient dragon you are just as easy to hit you as they are the unarmored wizard, ac seems to get less valuable.

It also got me to think differently about things like the berzerker barbarian, I always kind of thought it was utterly terrible, but at higher levels, I am now seeing that being immune to charm is SUPER helpful.

Also, at lower levels, I thought that stuff like scrying would make a rogue's stealth superfluous, but expertise at high levels is INSANE? Like my gloomstalker has expertise in stealth, he just flat out can't be caught most of the time.

I was also thinking about (pre-tasha's) sorcerer vs wizard. At lower levels, the amount of spells you can get as a wizard completely blows a sorcerer out of the water in out of combat play, but at high levels, the sorcerer's con saving throw proficiency is going to be a huge deal (and at a certain point you get enough spells known to cover most of combat stuff)

Are my guesses correct? Is there anything else that becomes more or less powerful as you get to higher levels? What class/feature/subclass do you think changes the most in role as you reach higher levels?

[LudicSavant]

I was also thinking about (pre-tasha's) sorcerer vs wizard. At lower levels, the amount of spells you can get as a wizard completely blows a sorcerer out of the water in out of combat play, but at high levels, the sorcerer's con saving throw proficiency is going to be a huge deal (and at a certain point you get enough spells known to cover most of combat stuff)

Are my guesses correct?

I don't think so. Sorcerer is alright at Tier 2 but gets blown out of the water completely at Tier 3 and 4, even post-Tasha's. The difference in spell list (Simulacrum/Contingency/Wall of Force/Minionmancy/etc) and subclass abilities (Illusory Reality, Overchannel, etc) is just too great to close, and Metamagic becomes less and less relevant (compare Quicken Spell vs Crown of Stars, for example), and that Con save isn't really worth much more than the Wis save proficiency, and if you want it that badly you've got plenty of time to get Res(Con) by then.

And for Pre-Tasha's Sorcerers, spells known don't stop being oppressive at high levels. Your spell progression slows down so much in tier 3 and 4 that you only get a pitiful 4 spells known over the last 10 levels.

By 20, you’ll have have just 1.66 (repeating) spells known per spell level... meaning some spell levels will have only one spell known!

[Tanarii]

Also, at lower levels, I thought that stuff like scrying would make a rogue's stealth superfluous, but expertise at high levels is INSANE? Like my gloomstalker has expertise in stealth, he just flat out can't be caught most of the time.
Expertise in Dexterity (Stealth) checks is amazing. But don't forget that in many circumstances you could well need total cover or concealment to Hide.

[strangebloke]

I don't think so. Sorcerer is alright at Tier 2 but gets blown out of the water completely at Tier 3 and 4, even post-Tasha's. The difference in spell list (Simulacrum/Contingency/Wall of Force/Minionmancy/etc) and subclass abilities (Illusory Reality, Overchannel, etc) is just too great to close, and Metamagic becomes less and less relevant (compare Quicken Spell vs Crown of Stars, for example), and that Con save isn't really worth much more than the Wis save proficiency, and if you want it that badly you've got plenty of time to get Res(Con) by then.

And for Pre-Tasha's Sorcerers, spells known don't stop being oppressive at high levels. Your spell progression slows down so much in tier 3 and 4 that you only get a pitiful 4 spells known over the last 10 levels.

By 20, you’ll have have just 1.66 (repeating) spells known per spell level... meaning some spell levels will have only one spell known!

Or zero spells known per level!

But yeah hard agree. I've seen sorcerers taken from 1 to 14 and its just oppressive. Sorcerer's trade everything Wizards have for "breaking the game" in a few specific ways but those ways ultimately become completely outclassed by the options available to their chadly wizarding kin. You get more spell slots but almost no spells known. You get more metamagic options but you're picking options that you passed over the first time which is to say, options that are less good for your character.


As to the rest:
Monks are trash in T1, respectable in T2 if not overpowered and then actually amazing in T3. Overall they definitely have the most positive story arc.

Clerics and Fighters and Barbarians all fall off to differing degrees. Clerics because their high-level spell list is kind of mediocre and their 'armored caster' schtick isn't as important anymore. Fighters because although their damage scaling is great they kind of run out of uses for all those extra ASIs. Barbarians because they simply stop getting class features entirely.

Bards eventually get the tools to shore up their weaknesses and truly deliver on their jack of all trades role. Early on you might find yourself wishing you had more damage and wishing you were tougher but that feeling fades around 10th level.

Warlocks, Rogues, Rogues and Rangers are just 'fine' throughout the whole game. Never really great or terrible, just showing up at 9AM and getting their coffee.

Druids are completely contingent on subclass. Moon druids dominate T1. Shepherds dominate T2 (if you ignore Tasha's). Land druids are the best druids in the extreme late game.

[Rihno]

Or zero spells known per level!

But yeah hard agree. I've seen sorcerers taken from 1 to 14 and its just oppressive. Sorcerer's trade everything Wizards have for "breaking the game" in a few specific ways but those ways ultimately become completely outclassed by the options available to their chadly wizarding kin. You get more spell slots but almost no spells known. You get more metamagic options but you're picking options that you passed over the first time which is to say, options that are less good for your character.


As to the rest:
Monks are trash in T1, respectable in T2 if not overpowered and then actually amazing in T3. Overall they definitely have the most positive story arc.

Clerics and Fighters and Barbarians all fall off to differing degrees. Clerics because their high-level spell list is kind of mediocre and their 'armored caster' schtick isn't as important anymore. Fighters because although their damage scaling is great they kind of run out of uses for all those extra ASIs. Barbarians because they simply stop getting class features entirely.

Bards eventually get the tools to shore up their weaknesses and truly deliver on their jack of all trades role. Early on you might find yourself wishing you had more damage and wishing you were tougher but that feeling fades around 10th level.

Warlocks, Rogues, Rogues and Rangers are just 'fine' throughout the whole game. Never really great or terrible, just showing up at 9AM and getting their coffee.

Druids are completely contingent on subclass. Moon druids dominate T1. Shepherds dominate T2 (if you ignore Tasha's). Land druids are the best druids in the extreme late game.

You forgot about Paladins who scale really well through their whole career. In my opinion Wizard and Paladin (which are two highest rated classes in 5e) are the best designed classes are they scale really through their whole career.

Lore Bard actually gets really overpower at T3 if you know how to build him. He gets crazy.

Agree with rest, though I think with Cleric you missed Arcana Cleric who get THE absolute power boost in Tier 3, getting 7,8,9 levels Wizard spells.

[Ashe]

I was also thinking about (pre-tasha's) sorcerer vs wizard. At lower levels, the amount of spells you can get as a wizard completely blows a sorcerer out of the water in out of combat play, but at high levels, the sorcerer's con saving throw proficiency is going to be a huge deal

If you're playing with feats this is a non-factor. Any wizard building themselves for success will take Resilient (Con), and any (non-Aberrant Mind) Sorcerer likely wants Resilient (Wis), so at level 12 (assuming point buy taking up 4th and 8th for main stat pumping) they've likely evened out on saves to each other. Of course this assumes that you're building that way, but there's really no reason not to set yourself up that way given just how strong being proficient in the two best saves for casters really is at that level and up.

[stoutstien]

I have been in a campaign that has been reaching higher levels. I have noticed that many features are more powerful than they seemed at low levels, and I am thinking it might change how I evaluate classes.

For example, at low levels, ac is the main determiner of how hard it is to kill your character, but at our current level saves matter a whole heck of a lot more. This got me thinking about how utterly insane it is that monks get good at all saves, like that is really nuts??? are high-level monks one of the game's tankiest classes? If so that would be interesting, since at low levels, they are very squishy. Does a monk's role in combat change?

Conversely, having 25 ac as an eldritch knight is awesome at low levels, but when you are facing an ancient dragon you are just as easy to hit you as they are the unarmored wizard, ac seems to get less valuable.

It also got me to think differently about things like the berzerker barbarian, I always kind of thought it was utterly terrible, but at higher levels, I am now seeing that being immune to charm is SUPER helpful.

Also, at lower levels, I thought that stuff like scrying would make a rogue's stealth superfluous, but expertise at high levels is INSANE? Like my gloomstalker has expertise in stealth, he just flat out can't be caught most of the time.

I was also thinking about (pre-tasha's) sorcerer vs wizard. At lower levels, the amount of spells you can get as a wizard completely blows a sorcerer out of the water in out of combat play, but at high levels, the sorcerer's con saving throw proficiency is going to be a huge deal (and at a certain point you get enough spells known to cover most of combat stuff)

Are my guesses correct? Is there anything else that becomes more or less powerful as you get to higher levels? What class/feature/subclass do you think changes the most in role as you reach higher levels?

Monks are unique in the fact they do tend to switch primary roles as they move up in levels. Starts off as a striker, gains some good CC options and mobilty, and ends up being one of the toughest frontliners with a ton of defensive options in the end game. Some of the subclass options changes this up a little like long death tanking or 4E with water whip. Other classes can switch roles but it's more of an active choice.

AC doesn't really ever lose it's value unless you only see encounters with high CR and not a lot of hordes or minions. If anything all forms of mitigation should be relevant from the get go but that's a campaign design issue that is very common. Generally with published material I would say saves and HP catch up to AC rather than AC losing value. AC can still be a very powerful mitigation tool but it takes planning and more opportunity costs to keep it high enough to really show. Making sure attacks have disadvantage is the single most impactful tool that I see going under used when trying to maximize AC or mitigation as a whole. 25 AC isn't really that high in tier 4.

Nondetection is one of the most important spell to have IMO. It makes or breaks the power of controlling what information the opposition has. Skill are super easy to have high values in and are also super easy to counter. Plan accordingly

The mindless rage is the best feature berserker gets IMO. Does it save it? Maybe for certain campaigns.

Sorcerer is an odd ball. Outside the rangers they have the lowest spell known so they become hyper specialist that take a good eye to really take full advantage of. Of the full casters they can feel the least full. Not bad just frustratingly flat. The con save proficiency is nice but only shines in featless games. A few classes have a similar feeling where they shine in one style of game rules but lack a niche when feats and multi-classing comes into play.

[Captain Panda]

For example, at low levels, ac is the main determiner of how hard it is to kill your character, but at our current level saves matter a whole heck of a lot more. This got me thinking about how utterly insane it is that monks get good at all saves, like that is really nuts??? are high-level monks one of the game's tankiest classes?


I can speak from a lot of high level D&D experience, played and DMed for level 20 parties with epic boons: saves matter more, but AC never stops mattering, and monks at high level are good pretty much only for stunning things. Having high saves is good, but a monk is still a pretty soft, easy target.



Conversely, having 25 ac as an eldritch knight is awesome at low levels, but when you are facing an ancient dragon you are just as easy to hit you as they are the unarmored wizard, ac seems to get less valuable.


High AC means that the dragon can miss, though. If the player has low AC against the same dragon the dragon is really only rolling to check for critical hits or misses. AC still means something.



It also got me to think differently about things like the berzerker barbarian, I always kind of thought it was utterly terrible, but at higher levels, I am now seeing that being immune to charm is SUPER helpful.


I don't see that. Charm never came up in my high level campaigns. There's a lot of high level magic that does things more useful than charming a target. Also, charm isn't the hard mind control a lot of people seem to think it is.




Are my guesses correct? Is there anything else that becomes more or less powerful as you get to higher levels? What class/feature/subclass do you think changes the most in role as you reach higher levels?

I don't think your guesses are correct, at least they weren't in my experience. Though you're right that stealth at a certain point becomes such that someone with expertise in it won't be spotted. Thankfully (for the DM), the group of clanky plate-wearers usually give the group away.

At high levels, caster classes have extremely powerful toys to play with that make some incredibly busted (but fun) options viable. Melee characters do more damage, but lack the dizzying amount of options casters get.

[Rihno]

High AC means that the dragon can miss, though. If the player has low AC against the same dragon the dragon is really only rolling to check for critical hits or misses. AC still means something.

At levels 16-20 you easy meet lots of enemies with +12 to even +19 to hit. AC becomes less important. Of course higher AC still means enemy CAN miss you, I won't deny that, but what I learnt from my experience at higher levels is that three things matter more than AC at highest levels:

1. Hard CC. Obviously.
2. Kill enemy faster than he can kill anyone else. That. At level 16-20 I would take lower AC but higher DPR/Nova build over high AC low damage build any day.
3. Mobility and ways to make it hard to focus/move to player. At higher levels I found that mobility and having ways to disengage and kite enemy instead of face tanking him proved to mitigate way more damage than higher AC. Hence why at higher levels Monks with all their speed or Paladins on Pegasuses (especially hasted), Casters with teleportations or super long range Sharpshooter builds etc. could actually mitiage more damage than AC 25 "tank" or Barbarian eating every hit on face, risking critical hit to drop them. Mostly it will take enemy way more turns/tries to reach mobile striker to inflict significant damage than smacking immobile high AC player.

Also if party is mobile and can spread out it's harder for enemies to use any sort of AOE vs more than single player, which also mitigate a lot of damage.

I think AC is never bad if you can increase it but if I had to chose between high AC and low mobility and high mobility + high killing power or CC I would take later any time.

[Captain Panda]

At levels 16-20 you easy meet lots of enemies with +12 to even +19 to hit. AC becomes less important. Of course higher AC still means enemy CAN miss you, I won't deny that, but what I learnt from my experience at higher levels is that three things matter more than AC at highest levels:


The problem with that logic is this: even at high levels, you probably aren't fighting ancient dragons over and over. The ancient dragon is the boss. High AC still matters against the boss, but less so due to bounded accuracy. However, against the creatures leading up to the boss (could vary substantially in how accurate they are in their +to hit), having high AC means they will very rarely hit. If your AC is 20 or less, even things like orcs and gnolls will still hit you reasonably often.

AC loses power at 17+, but it's still important.



1. Hard CC. Obviously.


True.



2. Kill enemy faster than he can kill anyone else. That. At level 16-20 I would take lower AC but higher DPR/Nova build over high AC low damage build any day.


It's worth pointing out that the two aren't mutually exclusive. A sorcadin build at high levels can both churn out huge nova turns and avoid being eaten alive by swarms making attack rolls, and they also shake off most of the nasty spells that enemy casters can toss at them.



3. Mobility and ways to make it hard to focus/move to player. At higher levels I found that mobility and having ways to disengage and kite enemy instead of face tanking him proved to mitigate way more damage than higher AC. Hence why at higher levels Monks with all their speed or Paladins on Pegasuses (especially hasted), Casters with teleportations or super long range Sharpshooter builds etc. could actually mitiage more damage than AC 25 "tank" or Barbarian eating every hit on face, risking critical hit to drop them. Mostly it will take enemy way more turns/tries to reach mobile striker to inflict significant damage than smacking immobile high AC player.


This strikes me as impractical theorycrafting. This could vary from table to table, but in my experience it's pretty rare to have the space necessary to actually utilize the movement a hasted pegasus provides, at least if your game is using battlemaps. I play on a VTT, so there is usually a map and limited space.




Also if party is mobile and can spread out it's harder for enemies to use any sort of AOE vs more than single player, which also mitigate a lot of damage.


Same point as above, can't speak for all groups, but in my experience you are not going to be doing most of your fights in open spaces. That isn't to say mobility is useless, in an open field it's very nice, I just question how often that's actually going to be the case. When I imagine the spaces high tier fights take place, 'wide open field' doesn't really spring to mind.



I think AC is never bad if you can increase it but if I had to chose between high AC and low mobility and high mobility + high killing power or CC I would take later any time.

I don't actually think you do have to choose, but I disagree with the premise. If you pin down a hard target with low mobility, you still have to crack its defense. If you pin a highly mobile target with low defense, once they're grappled or in a situation where mobility can't be leveraged, they're in a bad situation. I'd also point out that the character dealing out the big "high killing power" numbers is going to move up to the top priority to neutralize if your enemy is intelligent.

Mobility vs Beef/AC debate aside, that actually doesn't matter. The real winners of tier 4 play are wizards and bards, who can carry the team without even needing to show up to the fight. They're so strong that most campaigns stop at tier 4 because DMs don't want to deal with their bull****. The kind of DM who thinks coffeelocks, heat metal and goodberries are "broken" is just not going to be equipped to handle high tier casters.

Edit- Typo fixes.

[MrStabby]

I think AC is sometimes more important than you give it credit for. AC falls off against the strongest monsters you can face - sure. What it doesn't fall off against is facing the same enemies at level 15 as you were at level 7 but twice as many of them. If the DM only scales the CR of the combatants and never the number it does fall off. If your white dragon brings a dozen hobgoblin archers to the fight then your AC will feel like it matters a lot more.






You forgot about Paladins who scale really well through their whole career. In my opinion Wizard and Paladin (which are two highest rated classes in 5e) are the best designed classes are they scale really through their whole career.

Lore Bard actually gets really overpower at T3 if you know how to build him. He gets crazy.

Agree with rest, though I think with Cleric you missed Arcana Cleric who get THE absolute power boost in Tier 3, getting 7,8,9 levels Wizard spells.

There is one other class that gets access to levels 7,8 and 9 wizard spells, can get more of them and can begin to pick them up before the arcana cleric. I think that other class gets a bigger power boost in T3 for that reason.

[Rfkannen]

Alright interesting! We are in the low teens so we haven't gotten to high level, so it sounds like 5e doesn't change that much.

Side question then, is there anything that seems bad at low levels that is really good at high levels?

[Rihno]

The problem with that logic is this: even at high levels, you probably aren't fighting ancient dragons over and over. The ancient dragon is the boss. High AC still matters against the boss, but less so due to bounded accuracy. However, against the creatures leading up to the boss (could vary substantially in how accurate they are in their +to hit), having high AC means they will very rarely hit. If your AC is 20 or less, even things like orcs and gnolls will still hit you reasonably often.

But at that levels even 30 gnolls or 30 Orcs are not an issue. We talk about party who has access to bazillion high level spells and utility spells that can even say "nah, we don't like this fight, we teleport on other continent", not to mention ressurection spells, wall of force etc. At this level even death is like *shrug* if you have Cleric in party or Wish or both, or Cleric + Paladin + Wizard. You would need TPK to even make players worry at this point and 30 gnolls won't cut it. I mean at this level if you are not fighting Ancient Dragons (I mean like power-level of monsters) then you will die from being bored. Those levels are epic levels in 5e as party has enough tools to practically solve anything.


This strikes me as impractical theorycrafting. This could vary from table to table, but in my experience it's pretty rare to have the space necessary to actually utilize the movement a hasted pegasus provides, at least if your game is using battlemaps. I play on a VTT, so there is usually a map and limited space.

Same point as above, can't speak for all groups, but in my experience you are not going to be doing most of your fights in open spaces. That isn't to say mobility is useless, in an open field it's very nice, I just question how often that's actually going to be the case. When I imagine the spaces high tier fights take place, 'wide open field' doesn't really spring to mind.

I don't actually think you do have to choose, but I disagree with the premise. If you pin down a hard target with low mobility, you still have to crack its defense. If you pin a highly mobile target with low defense, once they're grappled or in a situation where mobility can't be leveraged, they're in a bad situation. I'd also point out that the character dealing out the big "high killing power" numbers is going to move up to the top priority to neutralize if your enemy is intelligent.

Mobility vs Beef/AC debate aside, that actually doesn't matter. The real winners of tier 4 play are wizards and bards, who can carry the team without even needing to show up to the fight. They're so strong that most campaigns stop at tier 4 because DMs don't want to deal with their bull****. The kind of DM who thinks coffeelocks, heat metal and goodberries are "broken" is just not going to be equipped to handle high tier casters.

Edit- Typo fixes.

Mobility is not theorycrafting. Even on small maps like 30 on 30 or 40 on 40 squares If you have character than can attack and get back at the edge of map then he will already be attack be less enemies than standing in the centre. Not to mention elevation if high mobile character can fly. Also especially at higher tier you have bigger maps and huge spaces becasue:

1. Usually locations are more epic because everything is more epic, and epicness in many cases = big
2. Enemies are Huge or Gargantual or there is multiple Huge enemies which also require a lot of space.
3. Smaller the space - bigger chance PC Wizard will end fight with one Hypnotic Pattern, AOE spell or Wall of Force/Force Cage. Not to mention Evoker who can fill whole area with lingering dmg spell like Sickening Radiance, while allies are unaffected.

Actually the more space the more chance your minions will not be insta-deleted by caster or stand in Spirit Guardians all the time.

I guess if you play 10/20 on 10/20 mini maps all the time then yeah, but from my experience good DM always varies terrain to allow everyone to shine and also when bigger enemies come - bigger space comes too, but even in smaller space, a high mobility character utilizing hazard of your casters like Spirit Guardians, Wall of Fire, Web, Grease etc. will take less hits than front line immobile AC guy who will most likely be focused more. Especially when we talk flying. Also grappling mobile character is very hard, unless your enemy makes Ready Action but it can be easy seen by players that enemy didn't do anything his turn. And mobile strikers like Hexblades, Paladins or Monks (and to some extend Rogues) have actually very good defenses, albeit monks later than rest.




Mobility vs Beef/AC debate aside, that actually doesn't matter. The real winners of tier 4 play are wizards and bards, who can carry the team without even needing to show up to the fight. They're so strong that most campaigns stop at tier 4 because DMs don't want to deal with their bull****. The kind of DM who thinks coffeelocks, heat metal and goodberries are "broken" is just not going to be equipped to handle high tier casters.

Actually I think it's Wizards and Paladins. Wizards can insta-win many fights vs enemies with one/two spells or cut challange by half while their biggest enemies- Legendary resistance ones are deleted by Paladin in 3 turns, not to mention that Paladin rocking crazy Saves while being buffed by Wizard and if you have melee guy that pretty much can't be shut down by WIS/CHA saves or can end spell effects with touch then it's a real deal. Not to mention Wizard Counterspell. Or Paladin with Lucky feat on top. But well build Lore Bard or Arcana Cleric can also spoil whole day. Generally level 15+ is just "power fiesta" for players :). It's just fun at this point. Challange is just on paper mostly.

[Rihno]

I think AC is sometimes more important than you give it credit for. AC falls off against the strongest monsters you can face - sure. What it doesn't fall off against is facing the same enemies at level 15 as you were at level 7 but twice as many of them. If the DM only scales the CR of the combatants and never the number it does fall off. If your white dragon brings a dozen hobgoblin archers to the fight then your AC will feel like it matters a lot more.

For sure, I agree. But then the more lower CR enemies you bring, the more chance they get delete by party Wizard with one spell, no? And that brings us to issue of small vs big map and number of enemies vs AOE and so on. It's a delicate balance. A well balanced optimized party who has both high CC/AOE + High Single target Nova/DPR is hard to counter as they have answers for a lot of stuff.

Hence why I think it's best to have one mobile striker, one beefy front liner with good control (heavy armor cleric like Twilight is great for this) and at least one Wizard behind. As long as you have that core it's good for almost any scenario.

[Captain Panda]

But at that levels even 30 gnolls or 30 Orcs are not an issue. We talk about party who has access to bazillion high level spells and utility spells that can even say "nah, we don't like this fight, we teleport on other continent", not to mention ressurection spells, wall of force etc. At this level even death is like *shrug* if you have Cleric in party or Wish or both, or Cleric + Paladin + Wizard. You would need TPK to even make players worry at this point and 30 gnolls won't cut it. I mean at this level if you are not fighting Ancient Dragons (I mean like power-level of monsters) then you will die from being bored. Those levels are epic levels in 5e as party has enough tools to practically solve anything.


I'll grant that at level 17+, if you have a wizard, even wiping doesn't matter. But if your party is comprised of people with low AC, 50 low cr creatures can absolutely demolish a soft target, and that's not a good thing. If nothing else it damages the pride of a leve 17+ character.




Mobility is not theorycrafting. Even on small maps like 30 on 30 or 40 on 40 squares If you have character than can attack and get back at the edge of map then he will already be attack be less enemies than standing in the centre. Not to mention elevation if high mobile character can fly. Also especially at higher tier you have bigger maps and huge spaces becasue:


I'm not referring to one standard small map size, map size can vary heavily, but what I'm saying is that if you're in a dungeon with a bunch of hazards and tight spaces, bringing in a flying hasted pony is tough. That's one of the weaknesses of a summoning build (though I still love them), tight quarters are a thing in dungeons. Good defense is always going to work, mobility works only when terrain allows. Sometimes it will work very well, sometimes it won't. I would recommend people build characters who won't feel impotent in certain contexts at 17+.



Actually I think it's Wizards and Paladins.

Paladins are fine, but they are still limited to the 'big swing with lots of dice attached' mindset. At tier 4, wizards (and bards) transcend the piddling 'I have one attack that does one big thing' tactic and can, if they want, just decide to win. Planar bind minions, true polymorph them into cool stuff, send them off to win your fights for you while you kick back on a sofa with a beer. Wizards are just the best. :D

[stoutstien]

For sure, I agree. But then the more lower CR enemies you bring, the more chance they get delete by party Wizard with one spell, no? And that brings us to issue of small vs big map and number of enemies vs AOE and so on. It's a delicate balance. A well balanced optimized party who has both high CC/AOE + High Single target Nova/DPR is hard to counter as they have answers for a lot of stuff.

Hence why I think it's best to have one mobile striker, one beefy front liner with good control (heavy armor cleric like Twilight is great for this) and at least one Wizard behind. As long as you have that core it's good for almost any scenario.

In tiers 3-4 the idea of a front/back lines and wizards blasting encounters away being relevant strategies means the DM is woefully underprepared for what is meant to be challenging at this point in the game.

[strangebloke]

+1 AC always provides the same absolute amount of damage reduction, regardless of how good the enemy's attack mod is.***

Lets consider two fighters who both get attacked by two monsters. Both monsters deal 20 damage on a hit, but the first monster (We'll call him HITMONSTER) has a +12 attack modifier and the second monster (we'll call him MISSMONSTER) has a piddly +4. Meanwhile the first of our two fighters (who we'll call STEELKNIGHT) has 23 AC, whereas the second fighter (called SHIRTLESSKNIGHT) has only 17 AC.

Lets look at the expected damage they take from each.


HITMONSTER vs. STEELKNIGHT: 50% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit, ~11 damage on average.
MISSMONSTER vs. STEELKNIGHT: 10% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit, ~3 damage on average.
HITMONSTER vs. SHIRTLESSKNIGHT: 80% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit, ~17 damage on average.
MISSMONSTER vs. SHIRTLESSKNIGHT: 40% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit, ~9 damage on average.


SHIRTLESSKNIGHT takes 6 more damage per attack on average. Period. If we give them both +1 AC they both take one less damage but the difference between them remains six.

Now there is a sense in which AC is a more reliable source of damage reduction for STEELKNIGHT but saying that AC is worthless for SHIRTLESSKNIGHT is simply wrong.


*** the exceptions here are if your AC is 20 higher than their attack mod, or if their attack mod is higher than your AC, but these are both rare most of the time. Oh and the other exception is when advantage/disadvantage come into play, in which case AC does NOT scale linearly, but enemies shouldn't usually have advantage against you unless you're a barbarian.

[Rihno]

In tiers 3-4 the idea of a front/back lines and wizards blasting encounters away being relevant strategies means the DM is woefully underprepared for what is meant to be challenging at this point in the game.

And I don't blame them. Ask even most experienced DMs how is it to prepare for a party of 4-5 people on level 15+ when each one of them have access to so many tools and clever solutions using magic, not to mention magic items and features that saying that DM is "underprepared" is little rude. It's really really hard to prepare anything challanging for optimized level 15+ party. Out of 20 DMs I would say only 1 is able to do it, because most DMs are not mechanical muchkins or min-maxers themselves. Which is part of the reason why majority of tables never see 15+ gameplay. 10+ is challanging for majority of DMs already and many campaigns end there because DMs don't feel like they can think of any proper challange. Most DMs are NOT number-crunchers and definitely most DMs are not tactic-masters, not to mention it's 1 brain on battlefield vs 4-5 brains. It's not a cake walk at those levels. At all. DMs are mostly story tellers.

[Rihno]

Now there is a sense in which AC is a more reliable source of damage reduction for STEELKNIGHT but saying that AC is worthless for SHIRTLESSKNIGHT is simply wrong.

Nobody set that AC is worthless. I simply stated that from my experience ways of preventing enemies from reaching and attacking you at all is more effective than being harder to hit but easy to target. Not being able to hit you at all cause you are out of reach/movement etc. nets bigger damage reduction.

Of course it's not 0-100 scenario as sometimes as it was pointed out above by @Captain Panda - you just can't mitigate damage that way, so of course higher AC has it's place and absolutely it's not worthless as I am always happy I have high AC beef-PC up front who stands there and takes it on chest.

But overall in course of playing level 1-15+ as few characters I found out I was being downed way less on mobile characters who were moving and fighting more tactically with hit-n-run style than high AC front liners because I was utilizing 5e movement and reach restrictions to my advantage, as well as cover, obscurement and so on. That's my experience hence why I said I prefer to build in a way of preventing being hit by most enemies than tanking all the hits on face with higher AC. It's my personal opinion, not Holy Truth :)

[Tanarii]

In tiers 3-4 the idea of a front/back lines and wizards blasting encounters away being relevant strategies means the DM is woefully underprepared for what is meant to be challenging at this point in the game.
This is even true in Tiers 1 and even 2 if the party is in an area that outstrips the "front line" ability to zone control with their physical bodies. And as soon as they are, all the kiting in the world just became an impeded strategy. Conversely in Tier 1/2 and low Tier 3, if you only have kite/mobility capability, you just lost the ability to win many kinds of fights at all, even as you dominate wide open fields. (Wether that holds true in Tier 4 I couldn't say.)

[Rfkannen]

It sounds like martials other than paladins and rouges don't do great at higher levels. Are there any subclasses that do particularly well at high levels? (in particular, people seems to think high level monks are tanky and mobile but don't bring much to combat, what subclass most fixes that?)

[strangebloke]

It sounds like martials other than paladins and rouges don't do great at higher levels. Are there any subclasses that do particularly well at high levels? (in particular, people seems to think high level monks are tanky and mobile but don't bring much to combat, what subclass most fixes that?)

Fighters, rogues, rangers, and paladins all do fine at higher levels, providing the bulk of the single target dpr of the party most of the time. They all have ways to contribute outside of combat. For subclasses, basically all the paladin and ranger ones are good, and while most of the fighter and rogue subclasses are fine... eldritch knight and arcane trickster do give you more bang for your buck. For non magical play, of recommend cavalier, samurai, battle master, and swashbuckler.

Fwiw, ranged fighters tend to be outright superior at high levels because of how busted sharpshooter is, but playing a strength based character still has some utility because you might be the only strength based character in the party.

Monks do fine at high level. They're reasonably tough and their high speed allows them to skirmish effectively, and they have good damage in melee... but they are married to melee and they don't have anything that makes them uniquely capable other than stunning strike. Playing a monk with a fly speed like an aaracockra alleviates 90% of these issues.

Barbarian is a great class it's just only five levels long.

[stoutstien]

And I don't blame them. Ask even most experienced DMs how is it to prepare for a party of 4-5 people on level 15+ when each one of them have access to so many tools and clever solutions using magic, not to mention magic items and features that saying that DM is "underprepared" is little rude. It's really really hard to prepare anything challanging for optimized level 15+ party. Out of 20 DMs I would say only 1 is able to do it, because most DMs are not mechanical muchkins or min-maxers themselves. Which is part of the reason why majority of tables never see 15+ gameplay. 10+ is challanging for majority of DMs already and many campaigns end there because DMs don't feel like they can think of any proper challange. Most DMs are NOT number-crunchers and definitely most DMs are not tactic-masters, not to mention it's 1 brain on battlefield vs 4-5 brains. It's not a cake walk at those levels. At all. DMs are mostly story tellers.

It's not rude to point out an objectable fact. It's a huge mental space and prep time investment to run higher level games which is understandably more than most are willing to commit to a hobby that already disproportionately gives them the most work to keep the game going. None of this changes the fact that strategies that only worked part time in tier 1-2 shouldn't be seen as a definitive point of comparison on the growth each class has.

[BoutsofInsanity]

It's not rude to point out an objectable fact. It's a huge mental space and prep time investment to run higher level games which is understandably more than most are willing to commit to a hobby that already disproportionately gives them the most work to keep the game going. None of this changes the fact that strategies that only worked part time in tier 1-2 shouldn't be seen as a definitive point of comparison on the growth each class has.

This is the most important thing at higher levels.

A lot of the theory crafting done on here depends on the DM. And that's the problem with high level play. As already pointed out, crafting a good encounter or even a campaign at high levels takes an immense amount of prep work because you have to look into different abilities and how they interact. Than run those abilities effectively and quickly. Simultaneously you have to run combat with different objectives than "Kill all enemies in the room."

Finally it depends on the campaign. A lot of martial characters shine in my campaigns because long rests are sparse once the "Adventure begins" proper. Time limits, increased pace, and damaging abilities start stripping caster's down while the short rest classes keep chugging along. But in other campaigns, caster's are going to do much better.

It's a complicated issue and it's entirely dependent on how good the DM is and how matched in playstyle his party is to his dming style.