D&D General Does D&D Really Need 20 Levels?

[Toe Knee Nose]

I also think the aspirational value of high levels should not be underestimated. Since I started in 1e, there’s been a lot of fun in just imagining what your character might be like at suet high levels.

I dunno. I feel like capping 5e at tenth level is a solution in search of a problem.

I agree. I wouldn't want to cap the game at 10th. What I would like to see is the game "reset" at say, 12th level, where you take 3/4 of the powers/effects/actions that you've accrued in the first 11 levels, bundle them up in to one or two effects and then move on from there. Maybe yoru 12th level PC simply autokills anything at 1/2 his level in CR. I dunno. Not a game designer.

I just know that having 20 or 30 baddies on the table, which is what you need to be able to do at those really high levels because it's really plausible, doesn't work in D&D worth a darn and it never did. Even in AD&D, having that many baddies on the table was just fireball fodder. Wasn't worth it to even bother with.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree. I wouldn't want to cap the game at 10th. What I would like to see is the game "reset" at say, 12th level, where you take 3/4 of the powers/effects/actions that you've accrued in the first 11 levels, bundle them up in to one or two effects and then move on from there. Maybe yoru 12th level PC simply autokills anything at 1/2 his level in CR. I dunno. Not a game designer.

I just know that having 20 or 30 baddies on the table, which is what you need to be able to do at those really high levels because it's really plausible, doesn't work in D&D worth a darn and it never did. Even in AD&D, having that many baddies on the table was just fireball fodder. Wasn't worth it to even bother with.

You were the one who mentioned higher encounter hp slog if you use multiple critters vs a few?

 

[bsss]

13a keeps the attack spells.

13a barely has high level control spells [...]

The top level wizard spells are Teleport , Meteor Swarm, Disintegrate

This is not really true. Spells scale with level, so for example, a wizard at 10th level casting confusion (first available at 3rd level) targets a standard 10th level enemy, confusing (and with a feat, dazing) a large spread of opponents at 10th, and even more at lower level, uninjured. This scaling further essentially means that the wizard's top level spells are the whole set of spells. Additionally, many wizard spells are a combo of damage plus debuff, compared to a sorcerer tending towards raw damage; a wizard may look like it only has damage spells, but that's only if you compare their spells by name --- to my point of needing to see the whole game to evaluate power level.

(To be clear: I am citing the recent 2E here, but scaling and spell availability was basically the same in 1E, just without a 9th to 10th bump.)

13a barely has high level [...] caster enemies.

And there is no Archmage enemy. The Archmage and Lich are Uber NPCs

The icons are not statted, but that's not important. The game has 10th+ level sorcerers, wizards, casting dragons, demons and devils, etc., filling a caster or spoiler (your typical control type) role.

What the game doesn't have is enemies built like PCs where you give them PC class levels, largely because it's a lot of work, but also because it's completely unnecessary --- they made the math work to the point that a 14th level uberwizard has a baseline stat array and then you pick or construct the spellcasting effects it has. This may sound like DIY effort, but it's simple enough to do it on the fly.

The point I want to make is not that 13A is exceptional (though I think it's exceptionally great), but that they thought through the game at high levels. How did I know a 10th level confusion targets a standard 10th level enemy uninjured? Because the math is right there: it targets creatures of hp 400 or fewer, and a standard 10th level opponent at baseline has 240 hp (a significant 10th level threat is more like 720 hp, or a standard 12th level threat baseline 400 hp, for context), clear as the tables they're written in. This scaling is abstractly true regardless of type: fighters' damage scales with their basic attacks and martial effects, bards buff and debuff with increased effectiveness, etc., and the high level threats follow a mathematical framework where the GM knows what to expect of the tools and has an ample roster to draw from, because high level threats don't need complexity patches or mob rules or etc. --- 13th Age crunched the 20 levels into 10 the right way, because they focused on all 10 of the levels, and (opinionated statement here) weren't constrained by bounded accuracy's drawbacks. I think 13th Age is a great example of how the number of levels doesn't matter, but the cohesiveness of the whole spread of those levels does.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

You were the one who mentioned higher encounter hp slog if you use multiple critters vs a few?

DOesn't really matter if you use a few either. A 15 level party of 5 PC's vs 3 Horned Devils. That's not a particularly hard encounter. That's still 534 HP across the three critters. Each of which has 3 attacks. Very simple monsters and this is still going to take a while to get through. The problem just gets worse and worse as you get into more and more critters.

 

[bsss]

I just know that having 20 or 30 baddies on the table, which is what you need to be able to do at those really high levels because it's really plausible, doesn't work in D&D worth a darn and it never did. Even in AD&D, having that many baddies on the table was just fireball fodder. Wasn't worth it to even bother with.

Agreed, but with the noteworthy exception of 4e minions, because they allowed in the game's design for a moderate threat, high count, not-sack of hp enemy to throw on the table en masse.

 

[Zardnaar]

DOesn't really matter if you use a few either. A 15 level party of 5 PC's vs 3 Horned Devils. That's not a particularly hard encounter. That's still 534 HP across the three critters. Each of which has 3 attacks. Very simple monsters and this is still going to take a while to get through. The problem just gets worse and worse as you get into more and more critters.

Context Im noticing something similar.
Separate thread.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Personally, what I would like to see is a PHB that goes from 1-12 with a companion Monster Manual and DMG that focuses on what you would typically be dealing with at those levels - bastion management and campaigns that are usually constrained to a particular region. Might be a large region, but, it's all generally one (kinda sorta) area.

Then we have a Legendary PHB, MM and DMG. This goes from 12-20 (or even higher). The rules for 1-12 are balled up into small chunks that can be quickly dealt with at the table. Challenges are now planar level - the PC's can leverage the resources of entire states/religions/whatever to deal with whatever the new problems are. The new DMG would have to spend a lot of space simply explaining what the new campaign paradigms are.

It's not like 15th level PC's are dealing with bandits raiding the caravan anymore. So, it does require a refocusing of adventure design and the Legendary DMG needs to provide clear guidelines and advice for building adventures and campaigns that recognize the fact the party by this point are essentially demi-gods. The priest in the party can literally talk to their god on a regular basis. That's the kind of power level we're talking about.

 

[bsss]

Personally, what I would like to see is a PHB that goes from 1-12 with a companion Monster Manual and DMG that focuses on what you would typically be dealing with at those levels - bastion management and campaigns that are usually constrained to a particular region. Might be a large region, but, it's all generally one (kinda sorta) area.

Then we have a Legendary PHB, MM and DMG. This goes from 12-20 (or even higher). The rules for 1-12 are balled up into small chunks that can be quickly dealt with at the table. Challenges are now planar level - the PC's can leverage the resources of entire states/religions/whatever to deal with whatever the new problems are. The new DMG would have to spend a lot of space simply explaining what the new campaign paradigms are.

I agree, I think a BECMI-like model would be a good one, as long as the core mechanics support it...

It's not like 15th level PC's are dealing with bandits raiding the caravan anymore. So, it does require a refocusing of adventure design and the Legendary DMG needs to provide clear guidelines and advice for building adventures and campaigns that recognize the fact the party by this point are essentially demi-gods. The priest in the party can literally talk to their god on a regular basis. That's the kind of power level we're talking about.

...and not to beat a dead horse, but this is part of my objection to having enemies be combat relevant for a longer stretch of time. In a high level, high stakes game, at some point the PCs would nuke those bandits if they even bothered to notice them, instead they're fighting through hell and defeating armies of demons and gouts of living flame.

 

[Minigiant]

This is not really true. Spells scale with level, so for example, a wizard at 10th level casting confusion (first available at 3rd level) targets a standard 10th level enemy, confusing (and with a feat, dazing) a large spread of opponents at 10th, and even more at lower level, uninjured. This scaling further essentially means that the wizard's top level spells are the whole set of spells. Additionally, many wizard spells are a combo of damage plus debuff, compared to a sorcerer tending towards raw damage; a wizard may look like it only has damage spells, but that's only if you compare their spells by name --- to my point of needing to see the whole game to evaluate power level.

(To be clear: I am citing the recent 2E here, but scaling and spell availability was basically the same in 1E, just without a 9th to 10th bump.)

I never played 13a2e.

My point is.
Confusion is not Imprisonment.

When i played 13th Age, it was balanced. But at no point did I feel epic nor did I feel like my foes were.

Might have changed in 2e.

 

[bsss]

I never played 13a2e.

My point is.
Confusion is not Imprisonment.

When i played 13th Age, it was balanced. But at no point did I feel epic nor did I feel like my foes were.

Might have changed in 2e.

Well, for starters, imprisonment takes a minute to cast in D&D 5e, so right off the bat, you're into ritual territory in 13th Age. The magical restraint and follow-on effects are all just roleplaying the specifics of the ritual at that point. You'd say you want to create a special ritual using, say, hold foe (only a 7th level spell) as a base, maybe with teleport for extra effect, negotiate the effects with the GM, spend some time and any other components deemed necessary, and make a skill check against the target DC. Blammo, magical restraint and entombed beneath the earth or whatever. RAW.

So, I would say that 13th Age "has" imprisonment, but more importantly, it has the power level for imprisonment. It's completely in the rules, a class feature for casters (including the wizard, which is even called out as being the best at rituals) even, for a caster to create that effect, just it's not done the same way (a spell literally labeled imprisonment) as D&D 5e. 13th Age's way works because the math predicts that a ritual against a powerful target is going to come back with a high target DC, rather than strictly codifying the effect just to constrain it to a high level. This is what I'm getting at. That power level can absolutely fit in 10 levels, it's not a question of a number, it's a question of what the game does with the numbers.

And, D&D 5e's imprisonment is not the same as 3e's, where it takes 1 standard action and seems even stronger (or you could say, "epic") than 5e's. This is also an important point --- you cannot just compare two games' rules elements, or even their spell effects, in a vacuum, if what you're trying to evaluate is the whole games' power ranges. And this doesn't even get to the reasons why and how a game might make one decision over another, such as casting time, or even more orthogonal choices such as toning down casters and tuning up non-casters in order to enhance equal footing capabilities, because equal footing among the classes means more compositions and system elements are predictable for/within high level play.