It can be cool even if it doesn't go to 11...

[delericho]

I'd like 10 to be the pinnacle level. Post 10th level you can still level up but when you do some stuff start to deteriorate. Physical skills and to hit and such become worse whereas only some mental skills and spells are allowed to grow.

Why would anyone want to level up only to become less effective? -Don't know, such is life. It creates contrast, it's the autumn of a long and fruitful career as an adventurer. It makes sense.

I'm sorry, but no. That's a cool campaign set-up, but it's something that I absolutely would not want the game to mandate for me. If I want my PCs to grow to the point where they are Qui-Gon Jinn or Yoda, and then continue to advance, then the game shouldn't be working to stop me.

 

[Agamon]

The game could be made with 500 levels and I could stop at 10th level, true. But the less increments the designers need to deal with, the tighter the design.

The designers of 13A and DCC didn't decide on 10 levels because it's kewl. It allowed for a tighter design, made it easier to make each level gained interesting and made gaining a level more meaningful.

I'm not saying 20 levels is a bad idea, just that some smart designers seem to be onto something.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm sorry, but no. That's a cool campaign set-up, but it's something that I absolutely would not want the game to mandate for me. If I want my PCs to grow to the point where they are Qui-Gon Jinn or Yoda, and then continue to advance, then the game shouldn't be working to stop me.

Agreed. Plus, it would be fairly easy to bolt that on top of a more traditional D&D system, as an option.

For such a campaign, you have a "destiny" resource that is renewable each session, adventure, week, year, whatever makes sense, and you might gain trace amounts from major quests. You can use this to do "fate" type things, perhaps. However it is set up, it is useful.

Through the first 10 levels or so, every level adds to your destiny points (your working total). After that, gaining a level gives you the usual benefits, but starts costing destiny points, permanently. This escalates going up and escalates going down, so that it gets progressively more expensive in destiny to achieve the higher levels. Every character finally reaches a point where it takes an immense amount of questing to pay for the next level, and paying for it trades this next level of power for reduced effectiveness in active destiny points.

To vary the pace, change the "switchover" point, moving it up or down the levels and/or adjusting the points gained or lost. If you want something more like Star Wars, you start with an immense amount of destiny, but begin losing it almost immediately. If you want something more like high level BECMI/RC, then you start with none, gain it slowly, and don't start paying out until you near the Immortal range.

 

[Ratskinner]

Or you could just stop at 10th level and let the people who like higher levels have their candy too. Putting everything above 10th level in a module is a pretty drastic solution to something that isn't a problem, IMHO.

I'm not a higher-level player, typically. However, my feeling is that there are such widely varied expectations from high-level play that it may make more sense to modularize it. Creating a default-supers\Gonzo high-level game would create a cringe-worthy core for the people who want Old-School gritty feels. Vice-versa, too, if the Fighter's oft-demanded "mountain cleave" power is in a module that makes large changes to the core. So, rather than nominate one high-level core, and offend the others' adherents that they are somehow "weird". I'm personally in favor of letting all the high-level players realize that they are weird (more specifically, that play above 10th level is unusual, and should probably be customized to the demands of the individual group, rather than have a default playstyle.)

 

[Trance-Zg]

Ten levels?

And WotC said that there will be 10 levels of spells?

that sounds cool.

levels could be more powerfull and no filler levels are left.

and more gritty choice for MC

+1 from me.

Prestige classes could be only 2 to 3 levels if they would exist in the first place.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wonder how dm's options would work. Imagine a default level 1-20, then an optional 5 level set of epic destinies, that can be tacked on anywhere.

So you could play 1-20 then 5 epic, or 1-10 then 5 epic or 1-5 then 5 epic.

Then a second set of level 11-20 for more sim country building.

So the game fits the rules and the rules fit the story... The a big red warning about mix and match

 

[Minigiant]

10 levels or 20. To me it doesn't matter.

But one thing I hope the designers realize that D&D does not only cater to zero to recent hero play. I enjoy all levels of D&D from shiny armor newbies to protectors of the city to national legend to savior of the universe.

If they can get low, middle, high, and epic play in 10 level via some working add on modules, fine. But if we get another barely supported, unbalanced, afterthought features again because "nobody ever plays higher than level 7"*, I will be very displeased.

*people tend to rarely play over 9 or 10 not because they don't want to but because they often can't do so easily because of lack of support, poor base balance, clunky rules, and poor scaling. So most games start at 1 and most groups get bored after 7-8 levels.

 

[Recidivism]

I rarely enjoy D&D at higher levels, not because of poor support, but because the assumption is that high levels equate to comic-book levels of overpowered nonsense.

I prefer games where characters have more comprehensible needs, desires, and motivations. D&D's default game rules quickly have characters accumulating more wealth than they can spend, virtual immortality, etc. If the only thing the campaign has to run on is, "Save the city/nation/world" then I have a hard time getting into it.

I'm actually skeptical of the idea of only 10 levels because of this. It sure sounds good if the only 10 levels are the first 10 levels of a 1st/2nd/3rd Ed D&D campaign and push the comic-book stuff into a supplement, but that seems unlikely.

 

[Mattachine]

By the way, DDO does this: fewer levels, but there are "levels within levels". Meaning, before you gain a level, you get some more skills, feats, etc. within the current level.
Big class features still depend on your level.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

By the way, DDO does this: fewer levels, but there are "levels within levels". Meaning, before you gain a level, you get some more skills, feats, etc. within the current level.
Big class features still depend on your level.

I also wouldn't mind something like that, but that would be a tricky thing to finesse, have it make sense as a mechanic (as opposed to merely having more levels), and be accepted.

For example, it wouldn't bother me at all if D&D was structured such that levels capped your abilities, but you could broaden your abilities within your current levels by actions in game. You can't get 3rd level spells until you hit the right caster class level, but you can learn more spells (in some kind of 3E sorcerer "spells known" system). You can't hit any better with your sword until you gain another level, but you can pick up another weapon proficiency.

Getting a level becomes something that characters want when they start butting their heads against those caps, and don't have much left to do that interests them. In the meantime, if they learn basic sailing, no big deal. You'd need training rules to make that work, and possibly training costs. So adventuring and XP moves your level, and thus your caps on power. Training and practice expand your breadth.

I just can't see people going for it.