D&D 5E Level Capping? No. Level Squashing? Maybe.

[EzekielRaiden]

Many of the ills of gaming can be chalked up to "DMs don't know how to do it, and never get taught." Hence why I so value DMGs that, y'know, actually try to teach. Or guide, you might say.

Pacing. Having enough events in the tank to keep the story going (if you beat the big bad at level 8, where do you go from there?) Actually thinking through character resources and abilities. Not dwelling on stuff long after it isn't that important anymore. Adapting to player interests without taking it too far. Etc., etc., etc. Tons of skills, many of which only get exercised just before things start to go wrong, which encourages people to wrap things up so they can start again in "the good part" rather than learning how to make every part a "good part." And that's without touching any of the "game design is 100% pure art, you cannot analyze it or develop skill with it, it just is, man, like, full intuitive, you grok me sister?"

 

[J-H]

It's not unusual for monsters in T4 to do 24+ dmg in a single hit (and significantly more in a turn). Meaning that even a 20th level fighter with above average Constitution would be about 1 hit from being insta killed by PW:K.

I assume by resistances you don't mean the half damage kind. That would leave fighters a bit tougher than they are in standard play, while undercutting barbarians (who already get resistance to weapons as part of their standard kit).

If a high level mage needs to cast both Absorb Elements and Shield in the same round, then either the player is making very poor tactical decisions or something has gone dramatically wrong. Things will occasionally go dramatically wrong, but that's why we have Raise Dead. It's pretty rare, IME, that a high level wizard will use Absorb Elements/Shield and regret having done so because they later need the other. That would likely mean that the wizard is taking some pretty heavily focused fire from the opposition.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. That's up to you and your group, obviously. I'm just relating what occurred to me after reading.

I'm currently running a high level game (Against the Idol of the Sun, campaign log is posted here and GITP). It has been my experience both with that, and with a one-shot with 14th level characters, that most PCs at high level can get hit by multiple fireballs and prismatic sprays and completely shrug it off as "not even worth worrying about."

Now, I did manage to kill two of them last session (level 20 with an epic boon each) but that's because they were foolish and decided to take on a large group of Aaracokra flying and hunting them, didn't have the party archer present, and let the enemy set up and englobe them.
Out of 72 enemies, 18 were casters with Fireball (save DCs 14-16). I used average damage and had them just roll some saves (most passed). Even with saves and resistances, that stacked up. That's the only time I've ever killed more than one PC in a round, and I don't want to have that sort of firepower be required to be a threat.
If it had been 6 or 8 fireballs? Nobody would have cared, and that's ridiculous.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm in agreeance with stagnating HP gain after 10th level. I think that's one thing 1E got right.

As for "squashing" level, I'd rather not. After 9th-10th level characters have a lot of abilities to track and the capabilities put them at super-heroic levels that I've found I just don't care for. If the game tracked PCs to 10th level or so, and bad guys up to 15th, I would be fine with that. It's not something I would have considered years ago ("the more levels the merrier"), but nowadays I'd welcome a slimmed down PHB that only covers up to 10th (such as Old School Essentials).

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm going to be frank. I don't think it's the number of levels that's the problem. It's the abilities at high levels.

As a DM, I prefer gaming up to level... 9-12. The reason I don't like high levels is not because the martials are doing too much damage, or that the wizard can single-handedly win a fight with a high level control spell. Let the PCs be cool, feel powerful. The enemies can be as tough as needed, don't hesitate to tweak.

Rather, it's the options and possibilities the party has with out of combat, story affecting powers, like high level divinations and movement spells. But then you have to consider if the bad guys are scrying on the party and ambushing them at every turn... it gets weird. I know some people like that kind of play, but I'm not sure if I'm interested in running it. Edit: and my point is that I can't be the only DM who's ... more at ease with tier 1-2 play.

What I would like to know is if those levels in 5e can instead have an agreement that no one is scrying for "reasons" and some other obnoxious abilities... Maybe tier 3 can be like tier 2 cranked to 11?

Lastly, for those wanting a fun low level D&D game, look into the GLOG

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't disagree, but it would also do something else; mid-high levels might actually be played, whereas they are currenlty abandoned by many groups.

I feel like most people don't play high level because they can't handle the abilities, not the big, scary number of times you can be punched in the face.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I feel like most people don't play high level because they can't handle the abilities, not the big, scary number of times you can be punched in the face.

Keeping track of what the characters, particularly antagonists, are actually capable of, that is a pain at high level.

But in my experience, hit points are pretty much irrelevant at high level. Abilities that bypass hit points, such as control spells and petrification are the only things that can swing a fight.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Keeping track of what the characters, particularly antagonists, are actually capable of, that is a pain at high level.

But in my experience, hit points are pretty much irrelevant at high level. Abilities that bypass hit points, such as control spells and petrification are the only things that can swing a fight.

What I do to manage mental overhead is to not worry (keep track) about what the PCs can do. I just expect and allow myself to be surprised, and I find that this adds a lot of enjoyment on my side of the table. I'd go so far as to say it's my favorite aspect of high level games (it does happen sometimes in low level games, but I'd say the frequency and scale is much greater in high level games). But it does mean much more improvisation and necessitates a much looser approach to prep than low level play.

As for antagonists, that's really on the GM. You can have a hyper-intelligent mage with no sense of honor who will do anything to win, but you ought to realize going in that it's going to be significantly more work vs a brutish tarrasque or even a hyper-intelligent mage who is hobbled by a sense of honor/ego (and therefore would never stoop to something as dishonorable or plebian as scry/teleport/kill). IMO, a villain with some limits is more interesting and fun. As an added bonus, it's less overhead. You can always add additional challenges if the players find it too easy (oh no, THIS tarrasque splits into two identical copies every time you reduce it to 0 HP). That's another thing I love about high level play; you can basically go nuts and trust the players to come up with the solutions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As for antagonists, that's really on the GM. You can have a hyper-intelligent mage with no sense of honor who will do anything to win, but you ought to realize going in that it's going to be significantly more work vs a brutish tarrasque or even a hyper-intelligent mage who is hobbled by a sense of honor/ego (and therefore would never stoop to something as dishonorable or plebian as scry/teleport/kill). IMO, a villain with some limits is more interesting and fun. As an added bonus, it's less overhead. You can always add additional challenges if the players find it too easy (oh no, THIS tarrasque splits into two identical copies every time you reduce it to 0 HP). That's another thing I love about high level play; you can basically go nuts and trust the players to come up with the solutions.

That's the trouble. I'm a lot more rules savvy and tactically adept than my players. If I "went nuts" with a high level caster antagonist, the campaign would be over very quickly.

For the players to actually enjoy themselves at high level I have to play with at least one hand tied behind my back.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's the trouble. I'm a lot more rules savvy and tactically adept than my players. If I "went nuts" with a high level caster antagonist, the campaign would be over very quickly.

For the players to actually enjoy themselves at high level I have to play with at least one hand tied behind my back.

That seems like a good thing to me. When I said go nuts, I meant I feel free to go wild with my imagination. Not to cook up the most ironclad unwinnable tactical scenario I can come up with.

IMO, you're looking at it backwards. You can challenge them using only low mental overhead. That's ideal.

Though I suppose if what you want as a DM is to be challenged tactically it is less than ideal, but I find that doesn't generally work unless the DM is green and the players are experienced. It's much much easier for the players to be challenged tactically by the DM, than for the DM to be challenged tactically by the players. The DM has effectively infinite power, whereas the players have finite power.

If you want to challenge yourself, I suggest finding ways to do more with less. If you have a high level party you could try to see what's the lowest adjusted XP total encounter that you can come up with to still challenge your players. For example, if the players are level 20, you might try to come up with an encounter appropriate to level 10 characters that can nonetheless challenge that level 20 party. Something like that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That seems like a good thing to me. When I said go nuts, I meant I feel free to go wild with my imagination. Not to cook up the most ironclad unwinnable tactical scenario I can come up with.

IMO, you're looking at it backwards. You can challenge them using only low mental overhead. That's ideal.

Though I suppose if what you want as a DM is to be challenged tactically it is less than ideal, but I find that doesn't generally work unless the DM is green and the players are experienced. It's much much easier for the players to be challenged tactically by the DM, than for the DM to be challenged tactically by the players. The DM has effectively infinite power, whereas the players have finite power.

If you want to challenge yourself, I suggest finding ways to do more with less. If you have a high level party you could try to see what's the lowest adjusted XP total encounter that you can come up with to still challenge your players. For example, if the players are level 20, you might try to come up with an encounter appropriate to level 10 characters that can nonetheless challenge that level 20 party. Something like that.

"Low mental overhead" is boring.

When the players don't use their high level abilities, because they don't know what to do with them or forget they have them, and I don't use high level abilities so the players stand a chance, then what is the point of playing at high level?