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

[CleverNickName]

To answer the original question in the thread title: D&D has a level cap at 20 because levels need to cap somewhere, and 20 is as good of a number as any. There is nothing stopping you from capping all class levels at Xth level, where X is any number between 1 and 20.

This is really easy to dial in yourself. Let's say you've decided that you want the level cap to be 6th level. (I'm sure you have your reasons.) So characters would just stop leveling up when they reach 14,000 xp and would earn ASIs when they reach the proper amount of XP for them. Like this:

0 xp = 1st level
300 xp = 2nd level
900 xp = 3rd level
2,700 xp = 4th level, ASI
6,500 xp = 5th level
14,000 xp = 6th level (the cap)
34,000 xp = ASI
100,000 xp = ASI
195,000 xp = ASI
355,000 xp = ASI

 

[Don Durito]

I think making King Azoun 20th level is silly, but a lot of things in D&D are somewhat silly.

But in many ways higher level important NPCs are a consequence of the rules. If King Azoun is a 1st level Fighter a Bard with Expertise can just lie to his face. If he's say 10th level, then he at least has a proficiency bonus to fall back on, so that lying to him is a risk. You don't have to stat him up, but if he doesn't follow the basic arc of the rules then things will feel arbritrary to many players.

And ultimately Azoun is vulnerable to assassination by teleportation and the like. If he is not himself a high level Fighter he's going to have at least one on staff (the question then becomes not how high level is the king, but how high level is his body guard). The king is also going to have a wizard. These are valid worldbuilding concerns to my mind (how high level does a king's bodyguard and a king's wizard have to be to maintain the plausibility of his rule?).

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I think making King Azoun 20th level is silly, but a lot of things in D&D are somewhat silly.

But in many ways higher level important NPCs are a consequence of the rules. If King Azoun is a 1st level Fighter a Bard with Expertise can just lie to his face. If he's say 10th level, then he at least has a proficiency bonus to fall back on, so that lying to him is a risk. You don't have to stat him up, but if he doesn't follow the basic arc of the rules then things will feel arbritrary to many players.

And ultimately Azoun is vulnerable to assassination by teleportation and the like. If he is not himself a high level Fighter he's going to have at least one on staff (the question then becomes not how high level is the king, but how high level is his body guard). The king is also going to have a wizard. These are valid worldbuilding concerns to my mind (how high

level does a king's bodyguard and a king's wizard have to be to maintain the plausibility of his rule?).

You are making the mistake of thinking you use PC rules to create NPCs. Azoun doesn’t need stats.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's what Contingency and Clone are for.

And it's not whether the combined might of a country can take out a high level PC, it's that it's often not worth the resources to do so and better to just work with the high level individual politically.

 

[Reynard]

D&D, and 5E in particular, is asymmetrical when it comes to PCs versus enemies. Much of that higher than 12th level information in the PHB (spells especially) gets used by the DM with things like Archmage enemies or powerful outsiders. There's an argument to be made, then, that such information should exist in the DMG or MM. But that's inefficient because some number of player groups are going to use high level characters. As such, there's really no reason NOT to keep it in the PHB.

 

[Reynard]

You are making the mistake of thinking you use PC rules to create NPCs. Azoun doesn’t need stats.

Everything needs stats. My players can't be expected to kill it if it doesn't have stats, and I want my players to be able to make whatever choices they want -- up to and including trying to stab God in the eye. If there is one thing that defines an RPG versus other kinds of games, it is player agency.

 

[MerricB]

D&D was not always a game with character levels going from 1st to 20th level. The original game only covered the first ten levels or so

In Original D&D, the expectation was that it would take a year of weekly play to achieve level 9, and then you would gain only 2-3 levels per year beyond that.

The tables in OD&D (Men & Magic) cover up to 16th level for Wizards. and the attack matrices (for fighters) end at 16th level.

But wait! Then Gygax talks about "Levels Above Those Listed" and and extends it further (indefinitely) - Wizards are now explicitly given up to 19th level.

Spells only exist to level 6 (Magic-Users) and level 5 (Clerics) in Men & Magic. But in Supplement I: Greyhawk - released the following year in 1975 - these are extended to level 9 and 7 respectively. This also extends the levels for Wizards to 22nd and Cleric to 20th. Of note - these higher level spells don't follow the exact progression of "gain a new spell level every odd character level". Especially in the case of the Cleric, they are delayed - 7th level spells are only added at 17th level.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

Well, the point was that someone that powerful is a factor in political considerations regardless of their intent. But in terms of "the might of an entire kingdom," that really depends on the kingdom in question, since there's no baseline for these things.

Take, for example, the Kingdom of Furyondy in Greyhawk. According to WGR4 The Marklands, the military strength of one of their provinces looks like this:

A quick breakdown of the abbreviations (omitting specifics like weapons and armor equipped, etc.):

LI: Light infantry, human fighters level 1 to 2.
MI: Medium infantry, same as light infantry but with slightly better weapons and armor.
HI Heavy infantry, same as medium infantry but with slightly better weapons (including some ranged weapons) and armor, officers are level 4+.

LC: Light cavalry, humans fighters level 1 to 2 on light warhorses, officers are level 3+.
MC: Medium cavalry, same as light cavalry but with slightly better weapons and armor, horses have barding.
HC: Heavy cavalry, human fighters level 2 to 3, better weapons and armor than medium cavalry, officers are levels 4 to 9.

E: The prefix "E" indicates an elite unit; fighters have a minimum of 6 hit points per die, morale is improved by 1 point, there's a 2% chance per level of a character having a magic item, and a 50% chance of the unit having an animal handler with 1d4+4 war dogs.

Now, this is only one of seven provinces in the kingdom, and while they're not all the same, we can presume that if you multiplied the above by seven you'd have a rough idea of Furyondy's strength. What you get is a large number of very low-level fighters, most of whom have no magic items, and who - depending on the edition, as well as the preparations of a high-level character with various options (particularly spellcasters) - are likely not going to be able to put up much of a concerted fight.

 

[Don Durito]

You are making the mistake of thinking you use PC rules to create NPCs. Azoun doesn’t need stats.

I addressed this in the post you quoted. Either you didn't read it (which is bizarre but seems to happen a lot around here), or you ignored it. If the latter why waste your time replying if you're not going to address what was said?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Everything needs stats. My players can't be expected to kill it if it doesn't have stats, and I want my players to be able to make whatever choices they want -- up to and including trying to stab God in the eye. If there is one thing that defines an RPG versus other kinds of games, it is player agency.

Then make him a low level aristocrat. It seems giving high levels to npcs is a way to pretend to have a simulated world but actually no, this guy is too tough to kill.

it’s akin to having dinosaurs attack your players when they venture off the path.