What would be in the High-level Handbook?

[Kyutaru]

Suppose WotC came out with a new book, the High-level Handbook for lack of a better name. In it you will find tons of options for improving your characters, campaigns, and monsters to better suit high level gameplay. Essentially it's a patch book that improves the second half of the level bracket to make it more interesting and balanced. A lot of campaigns never make it to level 20 because the game is simply worse at the later levels for a variety of reasons and the devs haven't put much effort into fixing things. This is their way of fixing everything wrong with the high level game.

My question to you is: what's in the book? What do you think would be a great addition to the game to fix the current problems with end game running? What changes would you make to monsters and spell systems and feature lists and whatever else you can think of? It'd be nice to see where the consensus lies on what specifically would make for better scaling and retain interest in actually running high tier campaigns.

[nickl_2000]

Are you talking about Mordenkainen's Tome Of Foes? That's a listing that has a few player options in there (mostly just extra Tiefling subclass options) and higher CR Monster's. This is mostly a Monster Manual 2 rather than player options for higher level players..

Completely misread the OP

[Unoriginal]

Suppose WotC came out with a new book, the High-level Handbook for lack of a better name. In it you will find tons of options for improving your characters, campaigns, and monsters to better suit high level gameplay. Essentially it's a patch book that improves the second half of the level bracket to make it more interesting and balanced. A lot of campaigns never make it to level 20 because the game is simply worse at the later levels for a variety of reasons and the devs haven't put much effort into fixing things. This is their way of fixing everything wrong with the high level game.

My question to you is: what's in the book? What do you think would be a great addition to the game to fix the current problems with end game running? What changes would you make to monsters and spell systems and feature lists and whatever else you can think of? It'd be nice to see where the consensus lies on what specifically would make for better scaling and retain interest in actually running high tier campaigns.

Issue is, "What would WotC do if they made an High-level Handbook" and "what would we on the forum include in an High-level Handbook" are two very, very different questions. Even if the forum users agreed on what "everything wrong with the high level game", the 5e designers would almost certainly have a different viewpoint (and the 5e businesspeople likely would have another too).

To put it in another way: my wrong is not your wrong, and neither are their wrong.

[Kyutaru]

Are you talking about Mordenkainen's Tome Of Foes? That's a listing that has a few player options in there (mostly just extra Tiefling subclass options) and higher CR Monster's. This is mostly a Monster Manual 2 rather than player options for higher level players..

No. A whole new book that includes what you want.

Issue is, "What would WotC do if they made an High-level Handbook" and "what would we on the forum include in an High-level Handbook" are two very, very different questions. Even if the forum users agreed on what "everything wrong with the high level game", the 5e designers would almost certainly have a different viewpoint (and the 5e businesspeople likely would have another too).

To put it in another way: my wrong is not your wrong, and neither are their wrong.

Not an issue. There is no Right and Wrong. These forums are too focused on the One Way to Play and it leads to confrontations between different mindsets and playstyles, especially between the tactical and roleplay crowds. There's room for both and no one needs to agree since no rules are required, especially in splatbooks. It's merely optional variants at best and I'm interested in what people think would fix the game. Mike Mearls has even said they chuck out their own ideas and implement ones based on player feedback often.

[nickl_2000]

No. A whole new book that includes what you want.

.

I missed the word "Suppose" in your first post. That completely changes this post from a "what is the name of this book I can't think of" to "what would you want to see in this book".

My apologies.

[Unoriginal]

No. A whole new book that includes what you want.


Not an issue. There is no Right and Wrong. These forums are too focused on the One Way to Play and it leads to confrontations between different mindsets and playstyles, especially between the tactical and roleplay crowds. There's room for both and no one needs to agree since no rules are required, especially in splatbooks. It's merely optional variants at best and I'm interested in what people think would fix the game. Mike Mearls has even said they chuck out their own ideas and implement ones based on player feedback often.

Well then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by "consensus".

[Kyutaru]

Well then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by "consensus".

Consensus means a general agreement... if we see multiple inserts of people wanting the same things that's a general agreement within the scope of this thread. I get what you were saying but it's only going to serve to derail the thread to start questioning the merit of the approach. Let the results speak for themselves.

[Yakk]

Patch up the back 10 levels of each class.

Revised multiclass rules; fix the EA5 hole, and make cleric 10/wizard 10 competitive with caster 20.

Spellcaster back 10 coasts on high level spells. Melee back 10 drowns next to it. Multiple 1-4 multiclass dips in other melee (or the charisma singularity) give melee support against drowning.

Accept level 6-9 spells; thus cleric 10/wizard 10 needs some access to them to compete with cleric or wizard 20.

Which in turn means wizard 11-20 needs something else that isn't just higher level spell access. You can see this in the 3 level caster dips (once you have L 9 spells other features pale).

Then swing back to melee. L 16-20 of each class needs to compete with L1-4 of egery MC. L 12-20 competes with up to 3 L3 dips. Etc.

And then, the melee types need to have narrative agency in the same solar system as "wish" or even "foresight"/"shapechange"/etc. 4e's epic destiny patrern, restricted to non-casters, could work.

Going back, the L10/L10 melee runs into the extra attack hole (as does L2/3 melee). Patch that somehow.

And finally, a more robust post 20 advancement system than "boons whenever you feel like it".

---

Ok that is character building. Now world building.

Without becoming spreadsheets and accounting, ways to model investment into the world.

Castles, cities, fleets, dutchies, schools, bars, guides, companies, institutes, kingdoms, schools, demiplanes, monestaries, churches, conspracies, clans, rebellions, forests, armies.

These are all things a PC might want to help, use, set up, influence or destroy.

Some crunch, so you can determine what happens when you use your school of magic to undermine a kingdom using dice, and include what your PCs can do to tip the balance.

The goal would be to generate story hooks (for the DM) and a feeling of ownership and value (in the PCs).

I saw something like this in the Reign RPG.

[OldTrees1]

Patch up the back 10 levels of each class.

Revised multiclass rules; fix the EA5 hole, and make cleric 10/wizard 10 competitive with caster 20.

Spellcaster back 10 coasts on high level spells. Melee back 10 drowns next to it. Multiple 1-4 multiclass dips in other melee (or the charisma singularity) give melee support against drowning.

Accept level 6-9 spells; thus cleric 10/wizard 10 needs some access to them to compete with cleric or wizard 20.

If a 10/10 got access to 7th level spells known (instead of 5th/5th or 6th/5th) I think they would be balanced with caster 20.

Patch up the back 10 levels of each class.

Yes. This would be a good start.



I think it would also be wise for this High level handbook to address the narratively powerful abilities PCs can gain.
Ex: How to still create a campaign when Teleport is going to exist. Now the PCs no longer travel overland but they still travel. What are ways to handle that ability without negating it? I like to think about it as the world just shrunk to the size of a city. With teleport available, everything is effectively closer.

Also talk about how monsters can be played to various level's of strategic intelligence. Some might have a Red Wyrm engage in melee. Some might have the Red Wyrm land between strafes because it gets tired. Some might have the Red Wyrm immerse itself in a lava lake. High level encounters can be Low level encounters with bigger numbers, or they can be qualitatively more dangerous.

[Man_Over_Game]

Everyone's biggest complaints for endgame stuff are usually:

• How the Attack Action is the same for 20 levels.
• High level plots are hard to balance and implement, when you have to plan around things like Resurrection, Dimension Door, and the like.
• Skills kinda fall behind compared to spells at later levels, and are hard to leverage a strategy around due to their RNG.

So I'd like things that fix that. Right now, most of the high-level stuff I've ever seen are mostly in 1-shots, because running a consistent campaign at that level just doesn't seem fun for how much energy it consistently takes. So ramp up the fun, and make it easier so it doesn't seem so exhausting.

[KorvinStarmast]

Suppose WotC came out with a new book, the High-level Handbook

DM Section: How to run the game from levels 14 through 20.
Some short adventures: one for levels 14-16 and one for 17-20.

Optional rules for Player Character classes: optional tweaks for some of the level 14-20 class features, particularly some of the capstones (Bard?) and the 14th level Create Thrall for GOO Warlocks.

DM Section: how to run mass combats so that high level characters can, if need be, lead armies.

DM Section:
More detail on how to run encounters on the various planes:
Elemental, Astral, and the 17 or so Great Wheel alignment planes. High level play can be expected to be accomplished in these settings, since Epic Tier has influence on the whole multiverse, right?

Lore Section:
How about some gorram Planescape setting material already! (Further rant curtailed in the interests of keeping things within bounds)

[Segev]

If we're going to theorize game design features to beef out higher-level builds, we should consider where there's room to add things at all.

Obviously, there are feats, but you have to be careful that "high-level" feats aren't going to overpower a low-level game. And I don't think 5e's feats have prerequisites beyond, potentially, requiring proficiency with what they improve. Further, there aren't many ASIs at "high level" to work with.

Let's talk about subclasses, though: I think they all top out at level 14, don't they? I know several classes give features all the way up to level 18, and have capstones at 20, but maybe there's room for 1-2 high-level subclass features, say at 16 and 19? If you wanted to get particularly ambitious, you could even make new high-level subclasses that are modular with the low-level ones. Rather than just extending, say, Illusionist, you could have entirely new wizard subclasses that are picked at level 15 or 16.


Multiclassing subclasses might also be a thing. Subclasses you only take if you've already got levels - maybe even a subclass - in another class. This could be how you make the Cleric/Wizard advance spells a bit faster: a Cleric Domain that advances wizard spellcasting at key levels, instead of other features, or a Wizard School that advances Cleric spellcasting at key levels instead of other features. You could gate them behind requiring a subclass so that you can't take both, and have essentially picked one or the other as your "primary" class, or you could leave them open so that a Wizard/Cleric that took both "cross-classing" subclasses would advance both Wizard and Cleric to higher-level spell slots at the expense of other subclass features.

Of course, they already kind-of do this with some subclasses: the Celestial Sorcerer, for example, is essentially a Sorcerer/Cleric.

[x3n0n]

Let's talk about subclasses, though: I think they all top out at level 14, don't they? I know several classes give features all the way up to level 18, and have capstones at 20, but maybe there's room for 1-2 high-level subclass features, say at 16 and 19?

Well, Fighters get a subclass feature at 18 (and 15), Monks and Rogues at 17, plus Paladin subclass capstones at 20.

I think heavy caster classes are expected to get their tier 4 bumps from accessing their final spell level, generally at 17, and they recognized the need for something in the other classes.

[OldTrees1]

If we're going to theorize game design features to beef out higher-level builds, we should consider where there's room to add things at all.

Levels 11-20 is a good place. Plenty of room. Character have up to 10 levels in that range that you could give extra features to. What do you mean by "where there's room"?

Obviously, there are feats, but you have to be careful that "high-level" feats aren't going to overpower a low-level game. And I don't think 5e's feats have prerequisites beyond, potentially, requiring proficiency with what they improve. Further, there aren't many ASIs at "high level" to work with.

Yes the Nth ASI is generally worse and at a later level than the 1st ASI so simply adding feats is not going to work because feats are selected strongest to weakest. Level/Tier based prerequisites (like Invocations) could be reasonable.

[Segev]

Well, Fighters get a subclass feature at 18 (and 15), Monks and Rogues at 17, plus Paladin subclass capstones at 20.

I think heavy caster classes are expected to get their tier 4 bumps from accessing their final spell level, generally at 17, and they recognized the need for something in the other classes.

Hm. Okay, then that idea doesn't work on its own.

Part of the issue of "beefing up" anything is that you need space to work. We could just add "epic archetypes" that stack on top of, or replace as ACFs, subclass and class features, but that's...a bit inelegant, and also just a flat power-boost.

Now, you could still make a flat power-boost for all classes, but make it smaller for those that are already pretty okay for the level of capability you're aiming for, but it does feel weird to just say, "And high-level characters get to add a second subclass that's even cooler!" As a post-20 Epic, that'd make some sense. As a level 11+ thing, though...hrm.

Maybe a category of features that are purchasable as "training." Spend gp, gain access to special features that have their own trees, which cost more gp to expand through. Maybe mutually-exclusive, probably have class or subclass prerequisites.

[Pex]

Teach DMs not to resent that obstacles and plots that worked at low levels don't work anymore. Work with what players have, not against them. Be ok with teleportation being a convenience and show how in some cases it could be vital or useful. Remind DMs PCs no longer care nor need to guard caravans or deal with bandits on the road. It doesn't matter a spell can say who killed the Important Person. The adventure is trying to capture the murderer who is hard to find let alone defeat. Maybe the assassin can be captured or killed, but the true villain is the one who hired him.

[Kyutaru]

Having more DM guidance for running the politics and massive armies players might be engaging in sounds like a good and consistent idea. Planar stuff would be nice too though I'm sure we'll see it in other sourcebooks tackling the subject.

Rather than just extending, say, Illusionist, you could have entirely new wizard subclasses that are picked at level 15 or 16.

Sounds like something worth looking at. Maybe Prestige Classes can be a thing again from 15 to 20 but the catch is you can only get them if you were a pure class the whole way. Now instead of everyone being a 10/10 hybrid you might want to stay 20 fighter to get access to the dreadnought prestige class. Multi-classing has a lot of benefits already. Casters have some multi-classing problems and this would push them towards pure classing so we'd need high level multiclassing rules to fix spell progression. All good things to find in a book aiming to fix the end game.