D&D General Why does D&D still have 16th to 20th level?

[Don Durito]

I think it's likely that most people are using D&D hardbacks, so the lack of higher level characters has a lot to do with the fact that adventures don't go up that high. Exactly why they don't go that high is an interesting question in itself. I believe that Paizo started with adventure paths going to level 20 and then backed away from that, so maybe that is informing WOTC too.

In any case here's some reasons why you might seperate the higher levels out of the core book, or at least put some big warning signs and transition points (but really I think it's better to not have two games in one)

• It reduces the psychological impact on world building of those levels. I've seen several published settings with "Barbarian King, can be challenged in battle for his position, 20th level". This is basically inflation. A Barbarian King does not need to be 20th level, ruling a barbarian kingdom is far too small for someone of that power level (Someone presumably useful enough to pal around with a demigod who can cast wish).
• It draws a sharp line and allows a transition. If you've stopped the regular game, then this is the point where we can stop pretending that the purely mundane fighter is still mundane. It gives you a clear line conceptually for where Conan transitions to Thor. (My experience is that attempts to match the description of what is happening in the game with the fiction really stumble around this point. Let's not say the Fighter loses 20 hit points grazing his shin as he leaps aside from the Giant's fist, let's just say the Giant slams him into the wall with his massive fist, and the the Fighter just gets up and hits him back). For the wizard, this is the point where, instead of constantly expanding numbers of spell slots you can just drop off the lower level slots entirely and let them choose some low level utility spells they can cast at will.
• It's clear about expectations. Right now high level play can be a bit like boiling the frog. If you haven't really done it before, you find yourself looking around and realising that you're enjoying the fiction of the game a lot less because you've transitioned to superheroics at some point. Or even just that you're playing of the character has not caught with up what they evidently now are.

 

[MichaelSomething]

15 to 20th levels belong in the PHB as much as Gnomes and Bards

 

[Alzrius]

I believe that Paizo started with adventure paths going to level 20 and then backed away from that, so maybe that is informing WOTC too.

Nope. Looking the first several Adventure Paths Paizo put out, the final adventure in each one ended with the expectation that the party would reach the following levels:

1. Rise of the Runelords: 16th.
2. Curse of the Crimson Throne: 16th.
3. Second Darkness: 16th.
4. Legacy of Fire: 16th.
5. Council of Thieves: 13th.
6. Kingmaker: 17th.
7. Serpent's Skull: 17th.
8. Carrion Crown: 15th.
9. Jade Regent: 16th.

It goes on like that, but you get the idea. The first Adventure Path that was designed to go all the way to 20th level was Wrath of the Righteous, and that also presumed that the party would gain 10 mythic tiers over the course of the AP as well.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Why does everyone conflate political influence with high level? In the real world are people ascending to high office based on how good they are on beating people up?

 

[Don Durito]

Why does everyone conflate political influence with high level? In the real world are people ascending to high office based on how good they are on beating people up?

Presumaby D&D worlds tend to make these characters high level so the PCs can't just take over.

Or you can go the Waterdeep route (which is cleverer) and make the rulers hidden.

 

[Alzrius]

Why does everyone conflate political influence with high level? In the real world are people ascending to high office based on how good they are on beating people up?

I don't think it's a case of "all politically influential characters are high level," so much as it's "all high level characters are politically influential."

When you're an arch-mage with enough magical power to wipe out cities (in some editions more than others), then you tend to be a factor in political considerations whether you want to be or not.

 

[Maxperson]

I believe pacing has a hand in that as well.

In D&D, its kinda slow to level up. IMX, its slower leveling up in milestone variants because usually even a whole adventure may not satisfy the DM's milestone requirements. But even with the official xp variants, it still takes roughly 1-2 full adventuring days to get a single level up.

With that in mind, its very difficult to maintain a campaign that spans 5-7 adventures since creating a single adventure takes so much effort even if its pre-made.

So if it takes 60+ sessions to even get to level 15+ and players really get worn out at an average of 30 sessions, its likely to cause games to end before reaching these levels.

Why would you get worn out? And if you're worn out playing D&D, how is playing yet more D&D at low levels any less wearing?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Presumaby D&D worlds tend to make these characters high level so the PCs can't just take over.

Or you can go the Waterdeep route (which is cleverer) and make the rulers hidden.

That was the silliness that led to Azoun IV being a 20th level cavalier and the absurd levels of FR npcs in general.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think it's a case of "all politically influential characters are high level," so much as it's "all high level characters are politically influential."

When you're an arch-mage with enough magical power to wipe out cities (in some editions more than others), then you tend to be a factor in political considerations whether you want to be or not.

But while individuals may be powerful, they still can't face a concerted effort to kill them. Everyone has to sleep sometime.

This goes down the 20th level caster could rule the world rabbit hole, but I think people overestimate the capability of high level PCs when compared to the might of an entire kingdom. A high level character is going to have a leg up in some ways, but they don't necessarily have the capability, connections or wherewithal to become super powerful politically.

If you want to do that in your campaign, that's great and it can be fun. But particularly if you're running a no-evil-PC campaign, being high level only gets you so far. Unless of course you're playing older editions where the followers and kingdoms at a certain level were just part of the game.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I don't think it's a case of "all politically influential characters are high level," so much as it's "all high level characters are politically influential."

When you're an arch-mage with enough magical power to wipe out cities (in some editions more than others), then you tend to be a factor in political considerations whether you want to be or not.

Sure, but stopping at lower levels doesn’t preclude your characters having influence if that’s where you want to take your game.