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

[AlViking]

I don't think it has probably grown much. 2019 is 9 years after the game came out. Plenty of time for enough groups to play and get to the various levels to come up with those numbers.

The only thing that might change it is that it's only DDB players, so it doesn't take all the groups that don't use DDB into account, and there might be some small amount of difference in how the two groups play the game. Sort of like how we here who go online to discuss the game aren't representative of all of D&D.

It's all that we have, though, and it's what people are using to try and kill high level D&D for the millionish people who do play to very high levels. Two million if you want to discuss games over 10th level.

We don't know how many people played to high level in 2019 and as you said all we know is the number of people that played to high levels and used dndbeyond. At the point the numbers came from the tool had been out for a year and a half and my hypothesis is that if you had already gotten to fairly high level when the tool was starting to gain traction there wasn't a lot to be gained to switch things over. After all you had already played for six months or a year tracking your character some other way there's not a lot of reason to switch over. That's why I think if you could look at numbers today it would be far more accurate.

I also agree with you that I and millions of others have enjoyed playing to high levels despite the obstacle of lack of support. I think the answer is to provide more high level monsters, suggestions on how to start characters at a higher level rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face. Creating modules at a high level is going to be difficult because they need to be more tailored to the group's builds and level of magic, not to mention powerful abilities.

 

[el-remmen]

I really think 6-7 is too short. If D&D was a more granular system where skills, combat, magic and HP all improved independently of class level, I could see it. But in a game where I get five or six updates total? Especially at the lowest level when I have so few options? Not really interested.

Ha! My guess you'd be even more turned off that hitting level 7 can take 3 or more years of playing! Getting to11th level (which was a 3.xE game) took 5 years of playing for 5 to 6 hours every other week. (Anyone interested can download the compiled and revised complete story hour in PDF form here - but warning it is longer than the Lord of the Rings ).

None of those things (skills, combat, magic and HP) may improve if you don't go up a level, but improving mechanically is only one area of the game. Improving your position in the setting, finding magical items, building relationships and bastions, exploring the world, its politics and societies, pursuing individual goals are more important to me in designing an engaging campaign, personally - and has the benefit of an organic feel rather than a straight mechanical advancement (which also comes with time).

Don't get me wrong, I love getting to level up or telling players they have earned enough XP to level up, it is jut not the focus.

But to each their own.

 

[Maxperson]

We don't know how many people played to high level in 2019 and as you said all we know is the number of people that played to high levels and used dndbeyond. At the point the numbers came from the tool had been out for a year and a half and my hypothesis is that if you had already gotten to fairly high level when the tool was starting to gain traction there wasn't a lot to be gained to switch things over. After all you had already played for six months or a year tracking your character some other way there's not a lot of reason to switch over. That's why I think if you could look at numbers today it would be far more accurate.

I also agree with you that I and millions of others have enjoyed playing to high levels despite the obstacle of lack of support. I think the answer is to provide more high level monsters, suggestions on how to start characters at a higher level rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face. Creating modules at a high level is going to be difficult because they need to be more tailored to the group's builds and level of magic, not to mention powerful abilities.

I heard that more high level monsters were supposed to be in the 5.5e MM. Is that true?

 

[AlViking]

From what data is available, it isn't just some people who don't care for high level play it's 90% of the players. I tend to think of "some" as a small number, not necessarily insignificant, but far less than the overwhelming 90% who don't play high level for whatever reason.

There's significant lack of support for high levels on the GM side of things. It is undeniably easier to run games at lower levels but it's not like there is this massive additional cost for people who do want to play even if they are in the minority. We could say we should only have a half dozen classes and only a handful of species as well if we base the cutoff on the percentage of people playing.

 

[el-remmen]

Also, just because advancement stops at level 10, doesn't mean that you still can't use higher CR monsters, just like my level 6 group recently had to deal with a CR14 vampire - they just couldn't fight it head on.

EDIT: I originally wrote "can" when I meant can't. Ooops!

 

[AlViking]

I heard that more high level monsters were supposed to be in the 5.5e MM. Is that true?

There's a few more. The 14 MM had 84 over CR 10 and 41 over CR 15. The 24 MM has 96 over CR 10 and 47 over CR 15.

I haven't looked much in depth but the ones I have the monsters have been beefed up at higher levels and of course the XP budget recommendations have also gone up. I've always adjusted XP budget as necessary to challenge my group but some people seem to use them as law.

 

[Retreater]

In the olden days we had character classes that were difficult to qualify for if you rolled your stats legitimately: Bard, Ranger, Paladin. A lot of pages were dedicated to these special edge cases because they were aspirational for players. Similarly, powerful artifacts were rarely seen.
I have had players who are disappointed that they never achieve high level play (levels 11+). In my experience, it's a false hope. The game isn't as fun as you would think at those levels. It's slow, it's not usually well balanced or playtested.
I think the game would be better served by the assumption that those high levels are a different experience. You play through levels 1-10, then levels 11+ are one shots. You skip around to "check in" on your retired characters at occasional moments when they face extreme challenges and big moments.
I'd probably also put it in a separate book with guidance for running these challenges.

 

[payn]

In the olden days we had character classes that were difficult to qualify for if you rolled your stats legitimately: Bard, Ranger, Paladin. A lot of pages were dedicated to these special edge cases because they were aspirational for players. Similarly, powerful artifacts were rarely seen.
I have had players who are disappointed that they never achieve high level play (levels 11+). In my experience, it's a false hope. The game isn't as fun as you would think at those levels. It's slow, it's not usually well balanced or playtested.

I'm a 3E/PF1 weirdo and know exactly what you mean. I dont usually play it past level 12. However, I have played high level 5E and its actually not bad at all. BA and some of the other restraints on the game make it very playable at high level. At that point, its less of a math mess, and more of a power level grok-ing.

I think the game would be better served by the assumption that those high levels are a different experience. You play through levels 1-10, then levels 11+ are one shots. You skip around to "check in" on your retired characters at occasional moments when they face extreme challenges and big moments.
I'd probably also put it in a separate book with guidance for running these challenges.

I like adventure paths, a lot. I think they should absolutely keep making them. Though, I think a "high level" book that has suggestions on building adventures and starting there would be really appreciated. I think the complaints would be that now the "
epic" plybook is relegated to levels 11-20, but the point stands. Its not nobody playing high level, but its not lots either.

 

[Parmandur]

From what data is available, it isn't just some people who don't care for high level play it's 90% of the players. I tend to think of "some" as a small number, not necessarily insignificant, but far less than the overwhelming 90% who don't play high level for whatever reason.


I got some grumbles when I started my most recent campaign at level 1. But I had a few players new to D&D and when a new edition, uh, revision is released I like to start from the beginning. I really dislike having to wait until level three to start playing your class.

The 2024 PHB, for what it is worth, straight up recommends just starting new characters at Level 4.

 

[Maxperson]

There's a few more. The 14 MM had 84 over CR 10 and 41 over CR 15. The 24 MM has 96 over CR 10 and 47 over CR 15.

I haven't looked much in depth but the ones I have the monsters have been beefed up at higher levels and of course the XP budget recommendations have also gone up. I've always adjusted XP budget as necessary to challenge my group but some people seem to use them as law.

My main issue with the 5e MM is that most of that 84 over CR 10 were some variation of giant, dragon or outsider. There aren't a whole lot of other types of high level creatures to use. I expect the 5.5e MM is the same way since it doesn't have that many more.