D&D 5E Level Capping? No. Level Squashing? Maybe.

ElPsyCongroo

Explorer
Why have 20 slices when 10 will do?

Majority of people online rarely play much past 10th level as far as I've read online at least. Which inevitably means a good 50% of their character's class features/potential go to waste. So why not make each level heavier and more noticeable.

All the while not increasing the HD of each level up, thereby escaping the HP stodge and making the game feel more meaningful. Characters will max out with 10HD, which both ensures epic fights and also a level of danger which feels exciting. That and they get to enjoy the entire complement of their class features in a much more manageable time frame.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Why have 20 slices when 10 will do?

Majority of people online rarely play much past 10th level as far as I've read online at least. Which inevitably means a good 50% of their character's class features/potential go to waste. So why not make each level heavier and more noticeable.

All the while not increasing the HD of each level up, thereby escaping the HP stodge and making the game feel more meaningful. Characters will max out with 10HD, which both ensures epic fights and also a level of danger which feels exciting. That and they get to enjoy the entire complement of their class features in a much more manageable time frame.
Okay but...well, a few problems.

By removing HP scaling, you have now removed almost all effects of levelling, because 5e was explicitly built around making HP the main scaling factor of character and monster power growth. Either you keep 5e's current "level/4" scaling, which means you gain...not very much at all over the course of 10 levels. Or you double it, to compensate for the halving of the level space...which means bringing back the math of The Edition That Must Not Be Named. You also make characters incredibly, incredibly squishy. Having half as much HP, but not changing anything about monsters at all, would make anything high-level genuinely impossible to fight, with characters regularly dropping to 0 in one or two hits, and crits potentially causing instant death, no saves.

You'll (almost certainly) start seeing issues of things capping out at level 5, because at least some of the problem is not the number of levels to chew through, but a clash between what people think the game should be paced like vs what is actually effective pacing. Another facet is, some players (mostly a certain subset of DMs) don't really seem to want to ever get beyond even the very early levels at all. Squishing things down so level 3-4 is actually level 2? So that by the time you hit level 5 you have 5th level spells? A number of people will start avoiding levels beyond 4-5, because high level is a bridge too far, either because they want more "zero to zero-and-a-bit" play, or because they want something that actually has at least a little bit of balance left in it and thus shun the highest levels of spells where the wheels really come off.

Plenty of people feel this sort of thing actually reduces the amount of fun gameplay experiences. 13th Age reduced things to only 10 levels, and...yeah, there's some weight to the criticism that 10 chunky levels feels smaller than 20 thinner levels, even if they've been designed to be the same. Whether this feeling is accurate or not, it's something to consider when creating a design.

Exactly the same effect (apart from the lost HP) can be achieved without changing anything at all about 5e simply by doubling all XP rewards. Why go to all the work of rewriting the game and potentially making it like The Edition That Must Not Be Named when you could just...stick a little "2x" modifier on each character. Doubling XP gained should be trivial to implement. If you're really desperate for that HP thing, double monster damage as well (perhaps only for creatures above level 2?)
 

J-H

Hero
Why have 20 slices when 10 will do?

Majority of people online rarely play much past 10th level as far as I've read online at least. Which inevitably means a good 50% of their character's class features/potential go to waste. So why not make each level heavier and more noticeable.

All the while not increasing the HD of each level up, thereby escaping the HP stodge and making the game feel more meaningful. Characters will max out with 10HD, which both ensures epic fights and also a level of danger which feels exciting. That and they get to enjoy the entire complement of their class features in a much more manageable time frame.
I'm cutting HD growth after level 10 in my next game. Too many things end up as non-threats when you have 230 hit points.
 



dave2008

Legend
Capping and squashing can work, it just depends on what your goals are. My next campaign I plan to stop HD at 10th level, but still give some HP past that. So depending on your HD you get:
d6 =1 HP/lvl
d8 =2 HP/lvl
d10 =3 HP/lvl
d12 =4 HP/lvl

Honestly, it seems you could achieve your goal by just reducing HP and XP per level. You level faster (so you can get to all your character abilities) and maybe just eliminate HP from HD and just use my table above (+CON mod). Then at 20th level a fighter would have a max of 160HP and only then if they had max Con from the get go.
 



Laurefindel

Legend
Why have 20 slices when 10 will do?

Majority of people online rarely play much past 10th level as far as I've read online at least. Which inevitably means a good 50% of their character's class features/potential go to waste. So why not make each level heavier and more noticeable.

All the while not increasing the HD of each level up, thereby escaping the HP stodge and making the game feel more meaningful. Characters will max out with 10HD, which both ensures epic fights and also a level of danger which feels exciting. That and they get to enjoy the entire complement of their class features in a much more manageable time frame.
TL;DR: If large amount of hp is the problem, you're better off limiting hp than condensing features.

I tried once condensing all 20 levels-worth of features into 10, with mitigated success. I had a thread here about that that I could find if you want.

Quite a few people enjoy high-level play the way it is, as posters above can assert, but I too have observed that campaigns (including my own) typically end around level 11-13, sometimes going up to 15-16 at best (often with the last three or four levels rushed up because the campaign is about to finish).

I think the problem exists on many levels but the one you seem to be addressing is the fact that high-level characters have a naughty word-load of hp. That's fine insofar as high-level threats deal naughty word-load of damage but with 5e generous hp recovery, it can feel like the campaign needs a daily end-of-the-world threat or world-shattering event to challenge the PCs. Part of that is attributable to the DM's style of play but in their defense, whatever way they were running the game was working perfectly fine until the PCs hit the double-digits levels.

Modern campaigns play very fast (compared to my old AD&D campaigns). The DM barely has any time to adjust their style to the power-level of PCs, and PCs barely have the time to start being efficient with the resources they have before they gain new ones. In theory, stretching all 20 levels over a higher number of games and longer amount of time would solve this but for a multitude of reasons, we rarely play regularly with the same characters for 5 or 6 years in a row anymore. Heck, it's hard enough to keep a stable group for more than two years...

Mathematically condensing all 20 levels into 10 brings another issue; the default D&D progression works fine until level 9-10 but if the levels are condensed, PCs gain twice the features in the same amount of time, which upsets the DM's expected way of running the game at low and mid levels. I believe the key is to treat each tiers of play differently, but I haven't yet found a satisfying way of doing so. In my last campaign, I openly slowed level progression but gave two levels on each "level-up". After 5th level, they would only gain one hit die worth of HP (they could choose the best when double-classing). It had the unforeseen effect of making Constitution disproportionately important. If I had to redo it, I'd make 1-5 RaW, levels 6-11 gaining two hit dice but adjusting constitution only once, and gaining only one hit die (plus Con) per two levels from 12th level on.

This is obviously broken if you try to play high levels as if the PCs had full hp. The point is that such high-level PCs don't need an invasion of demons or a flight of dragons every second day to feel challenged.
 

Laurefindel

Legend
All this really does is nerf martials, casters have LOADS of ways to mitigate even with low HPs.

Martials do not need further nerfing, especially at mid-high levels.
I don't disagree, but it would also do something else; mid-high levels might actually be played, whereas they are currenlty abandoned by many groups.
 

Remove ads

Top