D&D 5E Nobody Is Playing High Level Characters

According to stats from D&D Beyond, above 5th level characters start to drop off sharply, and above 10th level, the figures are very low. The exception is level 20, which looks like it's probably people creating experimental 20th-level builds.

Some of them say 0%; this isn't strictly accurate, but levels 16-19 are used by an insignificant number of players. Interestingly, there are more 3rd-5th level characters than there are 1st-2nd level.

D&D Beyond has said before that under 10% of games make it past 10th level, but these figures show the break point as being bit lower than that. DDB used over 30 million characters to compile these stats.

 

[jayoungr]

The game works fine at high level. I've done it.

 

[Lanefan]

And thus the rub - if you want a game with depth, you have to play a spellcaster.

That completely depends on how one defines "depth".

If you only care about mechanical "depth" and rules-based abilities/tricks/whatever then yes, casters give more of it.

But depth of emotion, depth of character, depth of immersion, depth of setting - any one of these IMO gives as much if not more depth to the game than does the mechanical stuff; and collectively they leave mechanics far behind in the realm of depth generation.

Best of all, these things are class-agnostic and allow one to get the same depth-of-game from a straight-up Fighter as one can from a mage or cleric or sorcerer or whatever spellcasting class you care to name.

 

[Ace]

For us, DM fatigue usually sets in about 7th to 10th level; the even funnier thing is that this hasn’t changed in groups I’ve been in even since AD&D days!

Same here though AD&D considered L10 enough to tackle a God! (C.f Queen Demon Web Pits max level 14)

In my experience a lot lack the skill much less the interest to run high level games as well. I'd hope that the "OMG I gave my players a +1 sword my game is DOOMED!" mentality that has been part and parcel of gaming for so long would go away with the more hi powered fantasy and media but it doesn't seem to have.

GM's just do not understand high level play which is shame and to be frank most would be better served by a different system that support low fantasy play exclusively

Also gaming attention spans just aren't there.

Players much less GM's lose interest in a much shorter period of time than in the past . IMO here this is not tech driven as much a social, the kind of structure that older D&D had with strongly delineated DM/Player divide (lampooned nicely in the Hackmaster comic) isn't there and everyone wants to go off and run their own thing or just (and this is tech driven here) go replay Witcher 3 or Skyrim when the game gets slow or less than satisfying.

And note too that all games have binds and bottlenecks slow and mediocre bits. Its a social activity but there is a lot of competition for valuable time resources even when jobs and life aren't the main issue

The chance of someone wanting to play a character for a whole year from 1-20 much less for many years, sometimes a decade or more as in the past is no longer a thing so much less high evel play

I think its too bad. No version of D&D has ever been more balanced at high level but what can you do?

 

[fjw70]

I rarely play higher levels in any edition. I typically enjoy up to around 10th or so the most. My current campaign just got to 13th and we plan to take it to 20.

 

[Anoth]

Same here though AD&D considered L10 enough to tackle a God! (C.f Queen Demon Web Pits max level 14)

In my experience a lot lack the skill much less the interest to run high level games as well. I'd hope that the "OMG I gave my players a +1 sword my game is DOOMED!" mentality that has been part and parcel of gaming for so long would go away with the more hi powered fantasy and media but it doesn't seem to have.

GM's just do not understand high level play which is shame and to be frank most would be better served by a different system that support low fantasy play exclusively

Also gaming attention spans just aren't there.

Players much less GM's lose interest in a much shorter period of time than in the past . IMO here this is not tech driven as much a social, the kind of structure that older D&D had with strongly delineated DM/Player divide (lampooned nicely in the Hackmaster comic) isn't there and everyone wants to go off and run their own thing or just (and this is tech driven here) go replay Witcher 3 or Skyrim when the game gets slow or less than satisfying.

And note too that all games have binds and bottlenecks slow and mediocre bits. Its a social activity but there is a lot of competition for valuable time resources even when jobs and life aren't the main issue

The chance of someone wanting to play a character for a whole year from 1-20 much less for many years, sometimes a decade or more as in the past is no longer a thing so much less high evel play

I think its too bad. No version of D&D has ever been more balanced at high level but what can you do?

lolth was not a god back then. Just a demon with 66hp. Ac -10. And 95% Magic resistance

ok still a badass demon

 

[Azzy]

lolth was not a god back then. Just a demon with 66hp. Ac -10. And 95% Magic resistance

Nah, she was a less goddess even back in 1e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nah, she was a less goddess even back in 1e.

Not in the module. I guess she got enough XP from all the adventurers who TPKd in it that she leveled.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Spells Known.

That's part of every D&D edition. And not everybody plays casters. And that's still entirely optional as a DM might want to run a game of 5e without magic.

Talislanta: The Savage Land setting for 5e is an example. But it does have an option to go classless in it and let's players pick whatever abilities they want from all the non-casting stuff as they gain levels.

 

[Anoth]

Nah, she was a less goddess even back in 1e.

I would post a picture of the page on D3 vault of the drow published in 1978 if I knew it was allowed. I have the module in front of me right now. She was a Demon.

 

[Eric V]

That completely depends on how one defines "depth".

If you only care about mechanical "depth" and rules-based abilities/tricks/whatever then yes, casters give more of it.

But depth of emotion, depth of character, depth of immersion, depth of setting - any one of these IMO gives as much if not more depth to the game than does the mechanical stuff; and collectively they leave mechanics far behind in the realm of depth generation.

Best of all, these things are class-agnostic and allow one to get the same depth-of-game from a straight-up Fighter as one can from a mage or cleric or sorcerer or whatever spellcasting class you care to name.

What you describe as 'depth ' is available in ANY rpg. It's the result of what the players and DM bring to the table. Happens in the most simple and most complex of games. It has little to do with the actual game that is bought.

Since that 'depth' is a possibility regardless of system being used, there are many who would like a system that allows for character development in both deeds accomplished AND mechanical expression. There's no need to choose between the two.