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

[TwoSix]

My best guess here is that most people don't want to play at higher levels.

They probably don't, I agree. But anyone who's like "Oh, I want to play higher levels, but our games never get there" is being a little silly.

 

[Parmandur]

They probably don't, I agree. But anyone who's like "Oh, I want to play higher levels, but our games never get there" is being a little silly.

I think the fantasy of getting to high level by effort is a strong aspirational fantasy...and achievable, so not all that fantastic.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

As for why higher-level play isn't more popular, perhaps the average player finds the number of options available at those levels overwhelming to keep track of? I personally use a custom character sheet formatted like a monster stat block to keep track of my PC's traits, actions, bonus actions, and reactions, and I make cheat sheets to keep track of my most commonly used abilities. Most people probably use a more standard character sheet and no cheat sheets, I'd assume.

To illustrate my point, here's a standard character sheet compared to a statblock-style character sheet. I think the latter is much more usable and convenient for keeping track of what you can do on a turn, which makes it easier to juggle your options as they increase at higher levels. The more traditional sheet can be much more disorganized and hard to use since a lot of info is going to be penciled into features and traits over time without an intuitive way to sort through them.

 

[TwoSix]

To illustrate my point, here's a standard character sheet compared to a statblock-style character sheet. I think the latter is much more usable and convenient for keeping track of what you can do on a turn, which makes it easier to juggle your options as they increase at higher levels. The more traditional sheet can be much more disorganized and hard to use since a lot of info is going to be penciled into features and traits over time without an intuitive way to sort through them.

View attachment 397208


View attachment 397210
View attachment 397209

Agreed, I have a strong preference for formatting my character into something like a statblock, although I prefer to also break out actions and bonus actions into separate headers.

 

[R_J_K75]

I've been playing D&D on and off since 1982, and I've played/DM'd basic, 1E & 2E AD&D, 3E-5E D&D and now the revised 2024 version. In all those years I don't think I've played a character or DM'd a campaign that went past level 10. I think I'm being a bit generous with that number too, and most games probably ended by level 7 or 8 for whatever various reasons, TPKs, groups broke up, etc. For me this is one of two things, 1) Just remove levels 11-20 from the core rules and address it for those who want it in a future book, or 2) expand the core rules to more than the traditional 3, PHB, DMG, & MM, to add a book of optional rules or two. I don't think it's as easy as just saying keep those levels or remove them, but if it were up to me, I'd get rid of them.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Agreed, I have a strong preference for formatting my character into something like a statblock, although I prefer to also break out actions and bonus actions into separate headers.

That's what I do personally. I just found it easier to copy and paste this statblock I found versus copying and correctly formatting one my own character sheets correctly on here.

 

[Zardnaar]

My best guess here is that most people don't want to play at higher levels.

Dm PoV by the time we reach those higher levels I'm already thinking about the next game.

Playing bi weekly short sessions it took a year to get to level 7 in C&C.

5E took about 5 months with longer more frequent sessions. By level 10 or 12 I'm probably done anyway IRL time.

I can and have run high level up to 30 it's just not worth my time. 4 hour sessions probably takes 4 hours of prep.

 

[grimmgoose]

As someone who is running two high-level D&D campaigns at the moment: no. no we don't.

The players love it, but I stopped having fun about four levels ago (around level 12).

I'm rocketing both groups towards the end (they both want to go to level 20), so we can say that we did it, and then never do it again.

 

[mamba]

I'm guessing the 97% thing is less "97% of players only like 1-10" and more "97% of campaigns only last long enough to get to 10th level or lower."

it’s a combination of both

 

[Stormonu]

Back in the 80s, the goal was to get to 20th, 30th or as high a level as you could possibly get players. It had been drilled into me you had to get to these levels as a rite of passage and prove your salt as a DM. If you didn't have games that regularly went to 20th level and beyond, you were a poor DM - that sort of thing. The designers didn't seem to share that sentiment - there's barely any 10th+ official adventures and other than the semi-joke Throne of Bloodstone, I can't recall any pre-3E adventures that went as high as 20th level.

After my first campaign got into the 15th-18th range however, I decided that was not the game I wanted to play. After the last few campaigns I've done, I'm happy to cut off as soon after 9th level as I can. Getting a hold of Old School Essentials and its 15th level cutoff further reinforced that I'm more than happy to cut off well before 20th level.

Sometimes it even irks me that D&D is so huge that it takes up 3 books for the "base" game. The D&D Rules Encycylopedia showed it was possible to put a more than complete D&D game in a single book, and I'd love a "5E D&D lite" treatment of an all-in-one book that cut off no later than 15th level.