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

[Staffan]

Or like 13th Age where high level casters lose their low level slots. So a 15th level wizard would only have 9th, 8th, and 7th level slots. So if you really wanted to have mage armor at the very high levels you would be casting it as a seventh level spell and using up one of your spells known on a first level spell.

In 13th Age, pretty much all spells scale with level though. I don't think it actually has mage armor, but if you look at magic missile it goes from 2d4 damage as a 1st level spell to 6d6 as a 7th level spell.

This table doesn't even align with WotC published adventures. I have Princes of the Apocalypse (published 2015).

I think I've seen one of the designers mention that the early 5e adventures (don't recall if it was Princes of the Apocalypse specifically, or the early ones in general) deliberately didn't give out many magic items because they thought DMs would add in whatever items seemed appropriate to their party. I'm pretty sure the actual books don't say anything like that, though. And I'm not going to try to find an off-hand comment some designer made ten years ago, so the source is going to have to remain as "Trust me, bro".

 

[pemerton]

I dunno... it really isn't hard to down-power a pit fiend so that a party can face off against it at like level 8

Probably not that hard. But facing off against a weakened Pit Fiend is not the same as facing of against a Pit Fiend at the peak of its power.

An alternative is to recalibrate the whole system, so that the fiction is retained by the mechanics are compressed. 4e D&D did this with the Neverwinter campaign setting. But that sort of "dissociation" attracts endless criticism . . .

I mean the fact that what has always been the de facto primary "high-level activity"... going to the Outer Planes... has been done in an adventure book for characters Level 1 to 13... tells us that nothing is off-limits or level-barriered.

I thought that Planesecape did this first?

I would venture an opinion that most DMs and players if given a choice would rather play two of different styles and characters in campaigns that go from 1-10 then one campaign of equal time from 1-20. But YMMV.

Presumably this is true. It seems a bit orthogonal to the claim that I responded to, though.

Short explanation, if D&D is monopoly than Pit Fiends are only at one CR.

That's an odd way to think of it. But this comes back to how you view the game and the DM's power to change that game. If you view it from a perspective similar to a board game, the DM is merely a player. A player should have to follow the rules. The statblocks are the printed rules.

As I noted, the only version of D&D to systematically present versions of the game that re-aligned the fiction vis-a-vis the mechanical underpinnings is 4e D&D: Neverwinter compresses the fiction of Heroic and Paragon tiers into 10 levels of play; Dark Sun extends the fiction of Heroic and Paragon tiers into 30 levels of play.

But generally, D&D has approached creature HD as if they are an "objective" matter, so that having (say) 24 HD has an objective meaning in the setting about how tough something is.

 

[pemerton]

As DM am I getting paid for this?

This seems an odd thing to say. Like, if you GM other games because you enjoy it, why would GMing a high level campaign be inherently different?

 

[Zardnaar]

This seems an odd thing to say. Like, if you GM other games because you enjoy it, why would GMing a high level campaign be inherently different?

More work required. Less fun to run.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

As I noted, the only version of D&D to systematically present versions of the game that re-aligned the fiction vis-a-vis the mechanical underpinnings is 4e D&D: Neverwinter compresses the fiction of Heroic and Paragon tiers into 10 levels of play; Dark Sun extends the fiction of Heroic and Paragon tiers into 30 levels of play.

But generally, D&D has approached creature HD as if they are an "objective" matter, so that having (say) 24 HD has an objective meaning in the setting about how tough something is.

This is all subjective. WotC's ascribed fiction is relatively meaningless here. This is an ideological spectrum about how much power the DM has to shape the world and rules to fit their table. Bloodtide's example players fall to one extreme of that spectrum.

If you believe, as many do, that the DM has wide latitude to change and manipulate things to suit their table, what WotC prints both rules-wise and fiction wise diminish in value greatly. There is no imaginary chain binding groups to any singular vision. In fact, any perceived chains are a product of the group's own view on their power to change things.

Each of us may view this topic slightly differently. We may each find ourselves on very different parts of the spectrum. That's okay. No one is wrong. Play the game as you view it, and seek out those who desire the same. Happy gaming groups are made up of like-minded individuals.

 

[pemerton]

This is all subjective. WotC's ascribed fiction is relatively meaningless here. This is an ideological spectrum about how much power the DM has to shape the world and rules to fit their table. Bloodtide's example players fall to one extreme of that spectrum.

There's no "ideological" spectrum here.

WotC publish a lot of books with stats in them. A lot of people buy and use those books, and take them fairly seriously in their game play: the evidence for this is easy to find (eg any thread about the new MM).

I don't see much evidence of people using the 5th level D&D mechanics to run games about heroes confronting Pit Fiends and purging the Abyss.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

There's no "ideological" spectrum here.

WotC publish a lot of books with stats in them. A lot of people buy and use those books, and take them fairly seriously in their game play: the evidence for this is easy to find (eg any thread about the new MM).

I don't see much evidence of people using the 5th level D&D mechanics to run games about heroes confronting Pit Fiends and purging the Abyss.

Then I play wrong. Good to know.

I will bow out of this conversation at this point, as it is beyond unproductive.

 

[Reynard]

In a game where the PLAYERS know what a Pit Fiend is, having their characters fight and defeat a level appropriate one at 7th level is a let down. In D&D, there are aspirational monsters, including liches and ancient dragons and the powerful demons. I don't think players want to fight lesser versions of those things (except maybe dragons).

 

[Zardnaar]

In a game where the PLAYERS know what a Pit Fiend is, having their characters fight and defeat a level appropriate one at 7th level is a let down. In D&D, there are aspirational monsters, including liches and ancient dragons and the powerful demons. I don't think players want to fight lesser versions of those things (except maybe dragons).

Early in 5E I think a pit fiend lasted a round or 2 vs level 7-10 characters.

 

[AlViking]

In a game where the PLAYERS know what a Pit Fiend is, having their characters fight and defeat a level appropriate one at 7th level is a let down. In D&D, there are aspirational monsters, including liches and ancient dragons and the powerful demons. I don't think players want to fight lesser versions of those things (except maybe dragons).

I think one of the issues is the mistake Wizard's makes when they create mods where you're fighting Tiamat at level 10 or whatever it was. Fighting the avatar of a god should be a fight you know you probably won't walk away from even at level 20. By having characters stopping world-ending threats at a relatively low level cheapens high level play for me.