D&D General 70% Of Games End At Lvl 7?

[Zaukrie]

Which implies to me we should see more options for lower level play, and less uber powerful stat blocks..... More low level adventures, like the dragon delve book, but only going to ten or so.....

 

[Ebony Dragon]

As someone who is in a stable group (over 20 years now) and has done I think eight level 1-20 campaigns in that time (and a couple of the 3e campaigns even went past level 20 into the epic handbook), I would be really sad if game development that allowed those type of games stopped being supported in the future.

 

[Stalker0]

If we want games to go to 20, more often, then there needs to be 3 major changes:

1) Power grading for classes needs to be brought in-line. Quadratic power increase for spellcasters needs to be brought down which mostly means getting rid of some "Classic" spells that we all know are broken.

2) Classes need to be restructured to gain interesting options every level. A5e has been decent about this, with social and exploration features added to every class providing new or more certain ways to get around obstacles that don't require someone to cast a spell.

3) NPC scaling needs to be reined in, hard. Yes. A dragon isn't much of a challenge as a solo opponent when the party can collectively drop 300 damage in two rounds or less. So address the output issue and stop inflating enemy health and damage to ridiculous numbers to try and compensate.

As others have noted later in the thread, while handling power scaling is A reason that a campaign might falter, its more the minority. The simple truth is, high level campaigns usually take a lot of IRL time. Campaigns die by attrition, or because the campaign is resolved successfully earlier, or because the group wants to do something else....those factors are a lot more prevalent than "high levels is difficult to run".

So while you could certainly do some work to clean up high levels, its not going to result in a significant increase in high level campaigns.

 

[Stalker0]

Taking in this data, the thing that is always interesting to see is how much time is spent on forums just like this debating levels that don't exist for 95% of games. 11th level is basically 20th for most groups, a level maybe you get to once in a blue moon, and its more of a "maybe one day" fantasy.

How often optimizers discuss 6th level spells and high level abilities....but they simply don't matter to the common zeitgeist of the game. Caster vs Martial discussion often talks about high level games....which don't exist in large quantities.

Really what the data shows is....this is a 10th level game, not a 20th level one. Basically 11-20th might as well be the epic level handbook for all intensive purposes. Our discussions should focus almost exclusively on 10th level and lower, and leave the high level for that "crazy once in a blue moon kind of gaming"

 

[Zardnaar]

Taking in this data, the thing that is always interesting to see is how much time is spent on forums just like this debating levels that don't exist for 95% of games. 11th level is basically 20th for most groups, a level maybe you get to once in a blue moon, and its more of a "maybe one day" fantasy.

How often optimizers discuss 6th level spells and high level abilities....but they simply don't matter to the common zeitgeist of the game. Caster vs Martial discussion often talks about high level games....which don't exist in large quantities.

Really what the data shows is....this is a 10th level game, not a 20th level one. Basically 11-20th might as well be the epic level handbook for all intensive purposes. Our discussions should focus almost exclusively on 10th level and lower, and leave the high level for that "crazy once in a blue moon kind of gaming"

Yeah I'm thinking if this stat was similar back in the day all those XYZ 5/PrC2/PrC1/PrC3 type builds were essentially theory crafting.

I did have suspicions in 2002 after watching casuals play vs online assumptions.

And the rapid death of 4E. Fixed problems most groups won't see. 3.x played casually 3-7 is mostly fine imho.

Looking at what ex TSR veneers have said I suspect it was similar 1980s

 

[Staffan]

Yeah I'm thinking if this stat was similar back in the day all those XYZ 5/PrC2/PrC1/PrC3 type builds were essentially theory crafting.

I have a distinct memory of one of my friends playing a monk/sorcerer of some sort and having planned their career quite far in advance. At one point he said "Just wait until level 11, then things will really kick in." (I believe because of a feat or PRC feature that allowed them to use Charisma instead of Wisdom for their monk AC bonus).

 

[GrimCo]

To be fair, over the years, i did play and ran decent amount of games in mid to high teen levels, all the way to the 20 (and few that went over 20). But, those games would start at levels 8-10 usually, sometimes even higher. There just aren't that many published adventures that start at mid to high levels and go to epic. Running games at those levels require both DM and players with decent amount of system mastery, at least if you want smooth experience ( combats that don't take IRL hours). IMHO, that is one reason people tend to avoid starting at high levels. Character creation is more complex, you get way options out the gate, DM has lot more work to make combat both fun and challenging.

 

[Horwath]

My groups pretty routinely get into the high teens, but we usually start a little higher and level up pretty frequently. (Every 2-4 sessions.)

this is main way to see higher levels.

start at levels 5-7, level up every 3 or 4 sessions.

if you play biweekly, for a year, that is around 8 level-ups.

and most campaigns survive for about a year.

 

[Horwath]

If we want games to go to 20, more often, then there needs to be 3 major changes:

1) Power grading for classes needs to be brought in-line. Quadratic power increase for spellcasters needs to be brought down which mostly means getting rid of some "Classic" spells that we all know are broken.

one fine solution is to remove all 6+ level spells from the game.
you can keep uscasting if you want or not,
maybe some iconic 6th level spells can be moved to 5th level,
Arcane gate, Create undead, Mass suggestion, Harm, Heal, Summon fiend True seeing are all good 6th level candidates to be moved down to 5th level with some reduction in power, duration, range or other things.

if there is no upacsting, the higher level slots can be turned into lower level ones:

or just use Spell-Points(SP) to save some hassle.

 

[Steampunkette]

As others have noted later in the thread, while handling power scaling is A reason that a campaign might falter, its more the minority. The simple truth is, high level campaigns usually take a lot of IRL time. Campaigns die by attrition, or because the campaign is resolved successfully earlier, or because the group wants to do something else....those factors are a lot more prevalent than "high levels is difficult to run".

So while you could certainly do some work to clean up high levels, its not going to result in a significant increase in high level campaigns.

Unfortunately, I can't game design more hours into the day or days into the week in the real world. The only solutions I can offer have to be within the confines of the game itself.

If a game falls apart because of DM-Player mismatch, no amount of game design will fix that, either. Nor is there a way to design the game to be played during wedding receptions or tragedies or on moving day so that you don't have to miss a session.

Trust me, if I had the power to design a version of D&D that could somehow be played regardless of external issues like problem players or scheduling, I would leap on that so hard Gygax's head would spin in his grave.

But it's just not possible. So I'll offer what suggestions I can, instead.

one fine solution is to remove all 6+ level spells from the game.
you can keep uscasting if you want or not,
maybe some iconic 6th level spells can be moved to 5th level,
Arcane gate, Create undead, Mass suggestion, Harm, Heal, Summon fiend True seeing are all good 6th level candidates to be moved down to 5th level with some reduction in power, duration, range or other things.

if there is no upacsting, the higher level slots can be turned into lower level ones:

View attachment 412525

or just use Spell-Points(SP) to save some hassle.

Personally... I'd just keep 6th level spells as the 'high end', myself, if you're going that direction. It's the last level where the scaling still makes sense with spells like Chain Lightning or Sunbeam.

Though... if I had -my- druthers...

1) 1st level to 9th level spells would be granted by level 12.
2) The list would be shifted -sharply- to cut out stuff like Simulacrum gaming. A bunch of spells would simply -not- exist, anymore. Or be so drastically rewritten they need to be renamed.
3) The progression of spellcasting would be way more linear in it's actual function with breakpoints clearly defined and balanced against each other by scaling damage values that maintain power parity even through upcasting (a 7th level Fireball should do as much damage as a 7th level Delayed Blast Fireball, it's just the other benefits that make DFB useful over regular Fireball)
4) Class-Separation results in different 'max level spells' for different classes with Clerics/Druids casting up to 7th level spells, but 7th level Cleric/Druid spells being as strong as 9th level Wizard Spells so there's a different progression of power between the two where the Wizard is smoother but has less room for class-benefits while the Cleric gets more class-benefits but larger scaling jumps between spell levels.

It would a disaster a of Biblical proportion. Real wrath of god type stuff. Fire and Brimstone coming down from the sky, rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness. Earthquakes! Volcanoes! The dead rising from their graves! Human sacrifices! Dogs & cats living together...mass hysteria!

Maybe someday I'll sit down and write the "Ultimate D&D Variant" to go on the shelf with everyone else's Ultimate D&D Variant to collect dust.