D&D 5E Why Do Higher Levels Get Less Play?

[Upper_Krust]

WotC has already said they'll never again publish a "(core book) 2" since it can overwhelm new players. But a "So-and-so's Guide To Epic Adventuring" seems possible.

You would think a general "Dungeon Masters Guide 2" that leaned into Epic Tier might have a wider appeal that an "Epic Tier Handbook".

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't think they've defaulted to one shot for high level. I think they've ignored any sort of high level altogether. They've just told DMs it exists and left them to fend for themselves and then point to 90% as if that means something. It doesn't unless they fully support it and THEN look to see how many play.

As for being impossible, it's not. Whether they've accepted one shot only or not, they could still have changed their mind and done it differently. It's not impossible for them to support high level play. They just haven't chosen to.

That kind of blame shifting to excuse 5hr result of deliberate design choices is not made is not relevant. By actively choosing to endlessly design for simplify & streamline to the monorail song tune, 5e actively makes choices that also impact what styles of high level play. Not considering high level play while designing against all but a single style is the same end result as choosing to design explicitly for that one style. 5e doesn't just "ignore high level play", it actively works against any style of high level play other than one shot/low agency string of them for high level play. The only way to fix that is with a book.

 

[Staffan]

Your examples: "You might want to: take the good fight to a Demon Prince, wrestle a Kaiju, time travel, battle a Great Old One, invade Hell and shave Asmodeus' moustache."

The problem isn't wrestling a kaiju. The problem is that the way D&D is set up makes it more like "Wrestling a kaiju? Eh, that's just Tuesday."

 

[Upper_Krust]

Your examples: "You might want to: take the good fight to a Demon Prince, wrestle a Kaiju, time travel, battle a Great Old One, invade Hell and shave Asmodeus' moustache."

Not sure what your point is here? Am I expected to write a short story involving an Epic Tier character's personal trauma to explain examples of what players might want to do get up to at 20th level that they cannot at 12th?

I don't think there are Emotions you can have at 20th level that you cannot have at 12th level. Which means the difference between the two is going to be in terms of spectacle and (collateral) stakes.

Well, if you've read the thread then you know that I've already answered that point. In detail.

Yes I got the gist of your argument from one of your earlier posts...

I think it is a massive failure of storytelling to confuse the literal size of the threat with the narrative stakes. It's why so many blockbuster movies are /yawn.

...but, my counter point is, the size of the threat is not inversely proportional to the narrative stakes. It can be sure, I agree lots of blockbuster movies are yawn and probably push spectacle over; or at the expense of, story.

But the thing is, lots of movies that are not blockbusters are also yawn.

Scale doesn't need to be a hindrance to story.

 

[Upper_Krust]

One of the interesting things about giants is even though they top out at those CRs, in groups they are still a formidable challenge for the players. Having a good ranged attack (rock) and good attack bonuses does an awful lot of heavy lifting.

True, our party recently took on a motley crew of around 50 giants deep in Stonehell and that was an epic battle.

I think there is a greater range than just "dragons, fiends, and giants" for very high level threats, but they might not be apparent from just the Monster Manual.

I am sure there are enough disparate sources out there to cobble together an Epic campaign. But as you attest, looking at the 2014 Monster Manual the CR 20-30 options were:

Solar, Pit Fiend, 10 dragons, Empyrean, Lich (which was not really hitting its CR in 2014), Kraken, Tarrasque = 16

The 2025 book adds: Animal Lord, Arch-hag, Elemental Cataclysm, Blob of Annihilation and Colossus = 21 (about 4%)

By contrast the 4th Edition Monster Manual had 84 monsters of CR 20-30 (around 20%), with similar numbers in the 2nd and 3rd Monster Manuals (albeit with less overall monsters in the sequels the percentage of CR 20-30 monsters was more like 30%).

 

[Aldarc]

My Two Cents:

There are two tragedies in life—not getting what you want, and getting it.

In terms of players: By the levels that most D&D 5e campaigns end, players will generally have what they want in terms of their character build or character fantasy. Ironically, I think that this actually contributes to killing long-term interest and investment in the game. Their build comes online and their interest then peters out. Part of the reason may be because they just wanted to see how their build plays. It may also be because they have sufficiently explored their character and/or character concept. It may be that their build or PCs of these levels have enough tools to trivialize encounters.

 

[GrimCo]

This is pure anecdotal and just based on feeling.

But i think that high levels were always meant to be endgame content. You hit them few session before the big epic finale of campaign, you enjoy your moment of glory, epilogue rolls, campaign ends and that's it. Avengers assembled, fought Thanos and that's it. It was never intended for prolonged campaigns. Dnd is based around heroes journey. Start small, overcome increasingly bigger challenges and grow in power until you are strong enough to fight off main antagonist. Once you do, go into the sunset and retire, leaving room for new generation of heroes.

Lack of solid tools in both DMG and MM or even dedicated books supports that theory (at least in part).

 

[Zardnaar]

One of the interesting things about giants is even though they top out at those CRs, in groups they are still a formidable challenge for the players. Having a good ranged attack (rock) and good attack bonuses does an awful lot of heavy lifting.

I think there is a greater range than just "dragons, fiends, and giants" for very high level threats, but they might not be apparent from just the Monster Manual.

They're very vulnerable to getting owned by hold monster spells and command.

I had 3 CR 14 ones get shut down easily by 2024 characters.

 

[MerricB]

They're very vulnerable to getting owned by hold monster spells and command.

I had 3 CR 14 ones get shut down easily by 2024 characters.

I do tend to use them in greater numbers - since I know how vulnerable lone monsters are to those sorts of spells.

Cheers!

 

[NN]

Lack of solid tools in both DMG and MM or even dedicated books supports that theory (at least in part).

and that material needs to be transform D&D into “Demigods and Domains” rather than some dreary splatbook thats a really just a bunch of munchkin tcg “+10 Ancient” cards pasted together