D&D (2024) Do We Really Need Levels 11-20?

[MGibster]

I've seen various sources saying most D&D campaigns end by the time the characters are between levels 7-10. Assuming this is true, why bother with levels 11-20? Okay, I get it. Assuming most campaigns go no higher than 10, there are still some people who do have campaigns that go that high and obviously they want support for that, but wouldn't it be better to focus on the levels people are actually playing through?

 

[ezo]

there are still some people who do have campaigns that go that high and obviously they want support for that

Since people do play there, why not support it? My current game is about to move to level 9 tomorrow night. I anticipate getting to at least level 13 or 14 by the end of summer if not sooner.

There is plently of support for tiers 1 and 2 already IMO, and frankly I think enough for above 10th level. I am sure people who might more routinely play above 10th would love a supplement or something for more support, but that's about it.

I wouldn't want part of the game neglected when people actually use it. Many groups begin at level 3, for example, but we still have 1st and 2nd for the people (like myself) who want it.

 

[Remathilis]

Depends on how you intend this. Do you mean nothing over level 10 exists (no 6th or higher level spells, no monsters over CR 10-14, no very rare or legendary magic items) or taking 15-20 levels worth of stuff and crushing it down to 10 and under?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Several of the campaigns go above 10 (I think in Avernus, we retired at level 12 and Rime we TPK'd at the end, but were level 11 at that point). So I'd personally cap it at 15. I think since people do play higher level, that should be supported, but a separate supplement. One that had more time balancing and playtesting it before cramming it into a core rulebook.

 

[Mercurius]

Isn't that what they mostly do? (Focus on lower-to-mid levels).

Not sure what you're suggesting, though. I like 11-20 as an option for those that want to play higher levels. If anything, I'd like to see a bit more for 21+, and/or some kind of "path to demigodhood."

 

[prabe]

I've run two 1-20 campaigns over the past seven-ish years. Those levels--and play in them--haven't really been all that well-supported, but we've muddled through. My own thinking is that so few campaigns get there because there's so little support, and I think writing more support for high-level play would probably result in more campaigns getting to higher levels.

 

[TwoSix]

Depends on how you intend this. Do you mean nothing over level 10 exists (no 6th or higher level spells, no monsters over CR 10-14, no very rare or legendary magic items) or taking 15-20 levels worth of stuff and crushing it down to 10 and under?

I'm in favor of chopping off class at 10, and having levels 11+ be "epic levels" that you have to multiclass to take. Your characters grow horizontally by getting new class features, but no more proficieny bonus and hit point increase.

 

[Clint_L]

I've repeated this a lot lately, but fairly recently WoTC informed us that, per their tracking (DDB?) 97% of campaigns end before level 10 (someone please correct if I've got it wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the gist of it, and the number was 97%).

That said, this forum skews older and I suspect has a lot more folks who have played or currently are playing in longer term campaigns. And I further suspect that that minority who play longer campaigns or upper level campaigns are probably disproportionately invested in their games, and probably represent a small but important subset of the overall pool of players. So we are likely worth catering to. That's all supposition, though.

Then there's the aspirational aspect of the game. Even if most characters don't reach those higher levels, it's fun to think about and even plan for it.

Overall, though, I think the game does mostly cater to lower and mid-level characters. For example, if you sort all the monsters in the new MM by challenge rating, there is a precipitous drop off after mid-level challenges. And there are much fewer campaigns aimed explicitly at high level play, such as the recent Vecna one.

 

[Parmandur]

Isn't that what they mostly do? (Focus on lower-to-mid levels).

Not sure what you're suggesting, though. I like 11-20 as an option for those that want to play higher levels. If anything, I'd like to see a bit more for 21+, and/or some kind of "path to demigodhood."

I mean, 11-20 is the Epic Tier play.

 

[SteveC]

I think that the reason we don't see as many high level campaigns is two-fold: first, people just start games at level one. I've been in a few games that went against the grain but as a rule, you start at the beginning. At most it's level three since that's where you get subclasses.

The other reason is because the game can break down at higher levels. Or I guess I should say more "could." I absolutely refuse to play a high level 3E campaign because the game, in my opinion, just breaks down at high levels.

Now I'm playing in a game that moved from 3E to 5E and we haven't had the same issues. I'd say that high level 5E play works better and is playable in a way that I wouldn't say it is in 3E. Now I'd say the best edition for very high level would be 4E. And a second vote for BECMI, which is designed for very high level play.