-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E What Should the Maximum Level Be?
- Thread starter ren1999
- Start date
I would think the initial release would support no more than 20 levels (not that you couldn't go beyond that if you wanted to, just that there is little direct support initially). I think 4e had a lot of problems with high level (epic) play, not the least of which was lack of support, but part of the problem was the sense that it was just 'turning the dial to 11' so to speak. WOTC should get levels 1-20 down well, then gauge the value of releasing a specific high level module if the demand is there.
the Jester
Legend
I cannot express enough how terrible an idea I think this is, nor how strongly I feel that way.
This is a great way to lose every single group (okay, maybe just the vast majority of them) that is currently playing above 10th level and would like to convert.
For God's sake, there is no reason to release the game in an incomplete form.
If I run a high level game with gnome druids and half-orc barbarians fighting frost giants, there is no reason why I shouldn't have everything I need to convert on day 1. NO REASON.
The whole crappy "let's save some mainstays for later" approach pissed off a ton of folks about 4e. You COULD NOT play a gnome, half-orc, barbarian or druid on day 1... in fact, you had to wait for a year.
Likewise, if you wanted to use certain classic monsters- REALLY CLASSIC- like frost giants, gold dragons, ankhegs, etc., you had to wait a year.
Let's not. Please, let's not.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I think 20 is a fine level cap for normal ideas of play. From battling gods to building empires or just committing kobold genocide, all these things can be covered well in that range. 21+ needs to be something else entirely. Perhaps the stat-caps come off, maybe things scale faster. This isn't just the realm of powerful heroes vs a capricious god, it's gods vs other gods, vs extra-planar monstrosities whose mere existence defies the laws of reality. Level 20 is where you do battle with Asmodeus and may defeat him. 21-30 is where you invade Hell and destroy him utterly.
LightPhoenix
First Post
There's no real mechanical reason to have a level cap.
From a business standpoint WotC should allocate their resources towards material they know is going to be used significantly. I don't have access to specific data, so I can't speak to where that data suggests such a cap would be. From a psychological standpoint, having people convert characters is important to having a retaining and converting players. With that in mind, it seems clear either 20 levels (for 3E/Pathfinder) or 30 levels (for 4E) would be the goal. The trick is balancing the two standpoints.
There are certainly monetary considerations to so. If the number of people converting high-level campaigns is low, and the money lost by those people not buying Next is less than the money saved/gained by breaking up the levels, then from a business standpoint it does makes a lot of sense. This is especially true if you consider a waning market and a slow economy. Furthermore, calling it incomplete is a incorrect. If, for example, only levels 1-10 are released, then the game is complete and playable. High-level groups certainly wouldn't be happy, but that doesn't make it incomplete.
I don't honestly think WotC will go this way; the market doesn't have so many people that anyone can really squander good-will. On the other hand, if the market really is shrinking, a time may come when companies will have to make a call between being profitable and being popular.
From a business standpoint WotC should allocate their resources towards material they know is going to be used significantly. I don't have access to specific data, so I can't speak to where that data suggests such a cap would be. From a psychological standpoint, having people convert characters is important to having a retaining and converting players. With that in mind, it seems clear either 20 levels (for 3E/Pathfinder) or 30 levels (for 4E) would be the goal. The trick is balancing the two standpoints.
the Jester said:
There are certainly monetary considerations to so. If the number of people converting high-level campaigns is low, and the money lost by those people not buying Next is less than the money saved/gained by breaking up the levels, then from a business standpoint it does makes a lot of sense. This is especially true if you consider a waning market and a slow economy. Furthermore, calling it incomplete is a incorrect. If, for example, only levels 1-10 are released, then the game is complete and playable. High-level groups certainly wouldn't be happy, but that doesn't make it incomplete.
I don't honestly think WotC will go this way; the market doesn't have so many people that anyone can really squander good-will. On the other hand, if the market really is shrinking, a time may come when companies will have to make a call between being profitable and being popular.
Warbringer
Explorer
10, but in certain cases it can go to 11
Raith5
Adventurer
I think you have to have a hard cap to level 20 or 30 then maybe have an optional system of advancement which does not include mathematical bonuses. I prefer up to 30th level because I really like the high level play of 4th ed and BECMI. The key thing is that these parameters have to be set out from the outset - you need to space out the abilities/spells etc over the relevant levels and work out if orcus should be 20th or 30th level!
Last edited:
I'm hearing from most of you that you either don't want a cap or you want a cap between 20 and 30.
I agree that 20 for natural ability scores for humanoids is a good number.
And if we offer a magical bonus to ability in the range of +5 then that ability score becomes 25 with magic.
Here are some things to consider. Module writers in the past have often commented that the characters should at least advance one level at a certain point in the adventure. Usually 3 levels. For example, this adventure is for characters from 4th to 6th level. Then the writer would release the next module for levels 6 to 9, etc.
But the best module that I have ever run in all of my years is Pathfinder's "Crypt of the Everflame" by Jason Bulmahn and it just levels-up the party to 2nd.
I agree that 20 for natural ability scores for humanoids is a good number.
And if we offer a magical bonus to ability in the range of +5 then that ability score becomes 25 with magic.
Here are some things to consider. Module writers in the past have often commented that the characters should at least advance one level at a certain point in the adventure. Usually 3 levels. For example, this adventure is for characters from 4th to 6th level. Then the writer would release the next module for levels 6 to 9, etc.
But the best module that I have ever run in all of my years is Pathfinder's "Crypt of the Everflame" by Jason Bulmahn and it just levels-up the party to 2nd.
Stormonu
Legend
(Personally, I found "Crypt of the Everflame" to be wretched)
From what I remember, pre-3E, it was standard practice NOT to hand out XP until after the adventure was over - leveling during an adventure was frowned upon (except for super-adventures like T1-4, which were campaign games).
Personally, as long as the game goes to level 10, that's all I care about. Anything beyond that probably won't be actively used by me and would probably only be used for notating NPCs or possibly opponents. Yet I know several folks that won't play the game below 10th level and I don't want to see the game exclude them. And to me, there's not a real argument for capping advancement - the ubiquitous MMO's can handle games well into the 60's, 80's and higher and I don't see why D&D should bother laying down a "you shall not pass!" level cap. Fighting gods or demon lords? Those things are unique anyway - set them at a level appropriate for your game if you're going to use them.
From what I remember, pre-3E, it was standard practice NOT to hand out XP until after the adventure was over - leveling during an adventure was frowned upon (except for super-adventures like T1-4, which were campaign games).
Personally, as long as the game goes to level 10, that's all I care about. Anything beyond that probably won't be actively used by me and would probably only be used for notating NPCs or possibly opponents. Yet I know several folks that won't play the game below 10th level and I don't want to see the game exclude them. And to me, there's not a real argument for capping advancement - the ubiquitous MMO's can handle games well into the 60's, 80's and higher and I don't see why D&D should bother laying down a "you shall not pass!" level cap. Fighting gods or demon lords? Those things are unique anyway - set them at a level appropriate for your game if you're going to use them.
Similar Threads
