D&D 5E What is your preferred level of play?

[Sacrosanct]

If this poll is similar to the metrics WotC have at their disposal, it gives a pretty strong indication why WotC might've chosen to only make their APs go up to level 15 and why they also haven't provided any "epic level" adventure stuff yet. The market for it just isn't there.

Which makes sense, but an interesting observation is that whenever you have a thread talking about character concepts, many of the response are around level 20 builds. there are even entire sites devoted to playing max level PCs. I guess that's sort of misleading, in that the reality is that not that many gamers actually play with max level PCs. Or enjoy it as their preferred level range at any rate.

 

[Xeviat]

I said 5th to 9th, but really it's 5th through 20th. 4E was the only edition that I liked playing 1st level.

 

[Raith5]

5th-9th, say it isnt so! At what point does the term "sweet spot" really mean "design flaw", if so many games are unable to get past half of the games content!

Anyway, I really like high level play. I liked the upper levels of BECMI and 4th edition - both which worked really well and I am looking forward to above 15th level play in my 5e campaign.

 

[Sacrosanct]

5th-9th, say it isnt so! At what point does the term "sweet spot" really mean "design flaw", if so many games are unable to get past half of the games content!

.

I don't think one means the other. it comes down to preference, and more people seem to prefer the things that level range offers. Like what some people have been saying: "starting to get some neat abilities, but don't have to worry about being uber powerful." and "I've played this archetype for a while, and I'm anxious to try out another one."

Think of it like this. Compact cars far outsell offroad SUVs. That doesn't mean SUVs have a design flaw. That just means it offers a different experience.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think one means the other. it comes down to preference, and more people seem to prefer the things that level range offers.

Things like the game actually working better?

Like what some people have been saying: "starting to get some neat abilities, but don't have to worry about being uber powerful." and "I've played this archetype for a while, and I'm anxious to try out another one."

Those could both point to something in the nature of the system. D&D classes accumulate new abilities as they level. You go from not having much to do, to having interesting new things, to getting bored with the old things and overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of new things you've accumulated. For instance, if you started with more abilities at first, but could trade out those that got boring for newer ones as you leveled, characters could have more longevity across levels. You'd start with 'neat abilities,' never worry being 'uber powerful,' and the archetype wouldn't get old so quickly.

Think of it like this. Compact cars far outsell offroad SUVs. That doesn't mean SUVs have a design flaw. That just means it offers a different experience.

Offering a different experience doesn't mean they don't have design flaws, either. ;P
Roll-over crash tests, OTOH...

If this poll is similar to the metrics WotC have at their disposal, it gives a pretty strong indication why WotC might've chosen to only make their APs go up to level 15 and why they also haven't provided any "epic level" adventure stuff yet. The market for it just isn't there.

Heh. Chicken-and-egg, problem, though. D&D has mostly had a mid-level sweet spot. 5-9 in this case. High level is obviously still be problematic, 1st is pretty awful, IMHO, though I may just be running too much of it (thanks to running introductory games & the Encounters format). In 3.x, the sweet spot was 1-10 or E6 variant. Earlier than that, it's fuzzy because classes progressed differently, but pretty nice by 3rd, and pretty messed up by 'name level' (9th or so depending on class).

I said 5th to 9th, but really it's 5th through 20th. 4E was the only edition that I liked playing 1st level.

I used to say that 3rd was when AD&D finally got fun, and 3.0 1st-level felt enough like AD&D 3rd level to be fun, so I'd credit both 3e & 4e with being more playable at the lowest levels.
I agree with the implication (even if you didn't mean to imply it) that the main reason so few people are voting 1-4th is because it includes 1st. 2-4th or 3-9th would probably get plenty of votes.

The design of the exp tables really speaks volumes, too. Progress is fastest (ie the exp it takes to reach the next level compared to the exp budget of the encounters you can handle) the first 2 levels (a single standard adventuring 'day' of 6-8 medium-hard encounters is all you need to go from 1st to 2nd or 2nd to 3rd) and starts slowing at 3rd, dramatically at 4th, it speeds up again once you hit 11th.
Seems like a clear intent to prolong exposure to a 'sweet spot,' and that spot seems to be 4th-10th.
Which encompasses the 5-9th that's winning the poll so handily.

 

[jodyjohnson]

5th-9th, say it isnt so! At what point does the term "sweet spot" really mean "design flaw", if so many games are unable to get past half of the games content!

1e had all the monsters divided into 10 Dungeon Level tables. From what I'm seeing a welled prepared party could take on almost all the games content at 10th (double party level). It would be a very 1e/2e experience.

 

[Rhogar_Rarr]

I'm actually not sure what to vote for. I like the idea of high level play. I'd certainly want to test it out more before I render my judgement. I simply haven't played above 11th~12th level. But some of the options at higher levels appeal to me.

At the same time, I like the tactics and thrill of low level. I love the fact that you can actually kill things in one shot; where at higher levels combat simply bogs down. However, a lot of my character concepts and builds don't really start coming through until 4th~5th level.

I suppose I really want to start with a low-level adventurer and raise them into apotheosis. (No actual vote on my part, just thoughts)

 

[Rhenny]

I DM more than I play. Generally, I like DMing from levels 1-10. I like playing any level, but rarely have I played over level 14.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I like the part of the game where you have a Fireball or two that can completely turn the course of a fight, but you need to save them for exactly the right moment, and I don't like the part of the game where Fireball is obsolete because you have something supposedly even more impressive.

 

[mellored]

1-4 feels like your a wimp. You fight rats and small savage children.

5-10 feels like you have more power then the average person, but your still human. You'll still die if you get stuck with a sword. It's the batman levels.

11-15 feel like your super-human. Only other super-humans can fight you. More of the x-man levels.

15-10 feels like your godly. A town is wiped out with a tsnunami and you barely blink. Superman or dragonball. Only gods can challenge you.


I like batman levels. It's easy to get a pack of street thugs and a strong leader as your enemy. You can see yourself fighting one gang after another. You have power to impact daily life, but daily life still matters.

Though the x-man level's arn't shabby either.


But fighting rats, or gods stretches the scope of most story telling.


But as for balance. It's pretty good 1-20. Moon druids win at 2, and wizards win at 18, but in between is pretty good.