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

[Remathilis]

I’ve played and run D&D of various kinds since 1983. The highest level any PCs in any game I’ve run (including years long ones) is 11th level.

It is usually more like 7th.

For my own homebrew rules et project I stopped at 10th but kept higher CR monster and higher level spells through other means.

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.

 

[MGibster]

There are like 20 million players or something. 12-15 million in North America alone. That means that around a million people play tier 5. That's a lot of tier 4 players.

It's true, everything D&D does is going to be big. I think of it like Coca-Cola who will cancel versions of their soda that smaller companies would find wildly successful. If I were an outlier when it comes to what levels I play I'd just keep my trap shut. But the way they handle character advancement and balance multiclassing is based on the idea that characters might reach high level but it doesn't apply to 90% of the players. That seems rather silly to me.

D&D doesn't know what the game above level 11 and can't agree on all of it.

To be fair, ask 5 D&D players what the game is about and you'll get at least 7 different answers.

But actually why don't people want to play at higher levels?

This is my suspicion. The game simply becomes less fun when you get to those higher levels. I think my players made it to level 12 for my first 2014 campaign and running the game started becoming a real chore for me. The sweet spot for me was about levels 5-10 and by then I'm ready to wrap things up.

 

[Minigiant]

To be fair, ask 5 D&D players what the game is about and you'll get at least 7 different answers

By D&&D, I mean the IP holders, designers, customers, and fans.

Really all you need is NEW CLASSES.

 

[AlViking]

I get that some people don't care for higher level play. I enjoy them both as a player and GM. On the other hand I don't really care for warlocks either from a thematic point of view or in play. As a GM I know it's at least heavily implied there should be some kind of quid-pro-quo relationship, some cost to the powers received but I've never found a meaningful way of doing that without causing issues for the other players who are not playing a warlock. I also don't start threads saying that warlocks don't belong in the game. They're not my thing but if you enjoy them play away. Same with high levels. Don't like high levels don't play them. Just like I'll never play a warlock.

 

[Maxperson]

We need levels 11-20.

The problem is the community and designers.

It took 50 years for the Ranger class to get the ability to turn invisible and back away like the Predator.

50 years for the class whose whole gimmick is "I track down the raiders, leap out the X in ambush, and kill them all" to be able to stand near a bush and be unseen.

D&D doesn't know what the game above level 11 and can't agree on all of it.

Sure, but in 2010 they got the ability to hide in plain sight just like Arnold did in the Predator.

 

[Maxperson]

That data is also from 2019 and there's no telling how accurate it is, dndbeyond was released in August 2017. If getting to 20th level takes a couple of years for most groups then the odds were that they had been tracking characters somewhere else all along. We'd have to have current numbers to have a good idea I'm sure the 5.4% has grown by now. By how much we don't know.

But there's also a lack of support at the high end. If a DM is unwilling or unable to create custom campaigns and monsters there's not much out there.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

It's true, everything D&D does is going to be big. I think of it like Coca-Cola who will cancel versions of their soda that smaller companies would find wildly successful. If I were an outlier when it comes to what levels I play I'd just keep my trap shut. But the way they handle character advancement and balance multiclassing is based on the idea that characters might reach high level but it doesn't apply to 90% of the players. That seems rather silly to me.

It's not the same, though. WotC isn't creating an entirely new product like Coca-Cola would have to, with separate shipping, advertising, bottling, and more.

Edit: In fact, the suggestion I've seen here in the thread that a separate product be made for the higher levels, so that the PHB would only be 1-10, would be much closer to what you are describing.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Yeah I’d have to see the complete system if it were to start capping levels. As it is right now, I don’t think you have a complete character until you’ve gained your subclass so throw me in the group that thinks all games should start at level 3 anyways.

But if the game goes to level 12 or 15 or 20, it has trickle down effects on how you advance, what you get each level, and what does a campaign look and feel like? Just putting a cap doesn’t tell me much.

 

[MGibster]

I get that some people don't care for higher level play.

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.

Yeah I’d have to see the complete system if it were to start capping levels. As it is right now, I don’t think you have a complete character until you’ve gained your subclass so throw me in the group that thinks all games should start at level 3 anyways.

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.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't need them. Sounds like based on data, hardly anyone else needs them. I'm in favor of making them outside of the "core" rules, kinda like how Epic Level Handbook did it in 3e.