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

[Fanaelialae]

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.

IMO, HP bloat is not the reason most groups don't play high levels. I think there are two reasons primarily at work.

One, a lot of campaigns fizzle out for various reasons before the intended end point. Leaving aside the rare game that starts at high level, that means low level games are naturally more likely vs high level games.

Two, some DMs have trouble with (or simply don't enjoy) running high level games. It's a fairly different style of DMing, IME.

Whereas you can get away pretty easily with an artfully wielded plot hammer at low levels, PCs at high levels tend to have potent abilities that can nullify all but the most heavy handed plot hammering. At low levels, if a DM wants to drag out a murder mystery plot, the witnesses can simply be uncooperative. At high levels, if the witnesses don't cooperate the party can call up the servant of a deity for the info they need.

On a similar note, the ability for a high level party to throw curve balls at the DM is vastly improved. If the low level party suddenly decides they want to go to the far side of the continent, making travel arrangements and traveling there may be several adventures in itself. Whereas the high level party can simply teleport, leaving the DM scrambling to improvise.

I enjoy running high level games myself, but even I wouldn't want to do it all the time. I've seen other DMs struggle with high level games (and I struggled myself when I was younger). That said, IME those are the two big issues that DMs face with high level games. HP bloat, if even an issue, is at best a very distant 3rd, IMO.

 

[J-H]

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.

Almost all save-boosting abilities belong to martials and half-casters (Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Artificer). Diviner and War Wizard are the only full-casters I can think of who have ways to boost their saves on demand.
At level 20:
Con 14, Average hp using a d6 to 10, +1/level after that: 72
Con 14, Average hp using a d10 to 10, +3/level after that: 124

The Power Word: X spells and others that depend on the target's HP also become a much more relevant threat as most wizards will never be immune to PW:K.

Note: For me, this is going to be paired with a number of other changes around items, some spells available, and attunement.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Almost all save-boosting abilities belong to martials and half-casters (Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Artificer). Diviner and War Wizard are the only full-casters I can think of who have ways to boost their saves on demand.
At level 20:
Con 14, Average hp using a d6 to 10, +1/level after that: 72
Con 14, Average hp using a d10 to 10, +3/level after that: 124

The Power Word: X spells and others that depend on the target's HP also become a much more relevant threat as most wizards will never be immune to PW:K.

Note: For me, this is going to be paired with a number of other changes around items, some spells available, and attunement.

Just look at a basic spell like Absorb Elements. With that, if the casters fails the save they take the same damage as a typical character would on a successful save (half), and half that on a successful save.

With only 10 HD max, most fighters will never be immune to PW:K. With a 100 HP threshold, a fighter who takes average HP (6) would need an 18 Constitution to be immune to PW:K at max level, and even then only until they take a light shot.

 

[Laurefindel]

IMO, HP bloat is not the reason most groups don't play high levels. I think there are two reasons primarily at work.

One, a lot of campaigns fizzle out for various reasons before the intended end point. Leaving aside the rare game that starts at high level, that means low level games are naturally more likely vs high level games.

Two, some DMs have trouble with (or simply don't enjoy) running high level games. It's a fairly different style of DMing, IME.

Whereas you can get away pretty easily with an artfully wielded plot hammer at low levels, PCs at high levels tend to have potent abilities that can nullify all but the most heavy handed plot hammering. At low levels, if a DM wants to drag out a murder mystery plot, the witnesses can simply be uncooperative. At high levels, if the witnesses don't cooperate the party can call up the servant of a deity for the info they need.

On a similar note, the ability for a high level party to throw curve balls at the DM is vastly improved. If the low level party suddenly decides they want to go to the far side of the continent, making travel arrangements and traveling there may be several adventures in itself. Whereas the high level party can simply teleport, leaving the DM scrambling to improvise.

I enjoy running high level games myself, but even I wouldn't want to do it all the time. I've seen other DMs struggle with high level games (and I struggled myself when I was younger). That said, IME those are the two big issues that DMs face with high level games. HP bloat, if even an issue, is at best a very distant 3rd, IMO.

Totally in agreement! But from the OP, it seems that hp bloats is the primary perceived issue (but I might be wrong) rather than high-level features (which the OP suggests condensing in 10 levels). I was commenting in spirit of the OP.

 

[ElPsyCongroo]

You have convinced me that collapsing 20 levels into 10 would bring too much imbalance. Playing the game as intended at the pace intended is more than likely best.

That said in all honesty I much prefer the feel of low level gameplay and would much rather drag that feeling of mortality. I just found it a shame to waste the rest of a characters progression through a specific class.

That said I may instead make certain class features available to low level characters through limited Legendary Artifacts.

 

[the Jester]

Technically they are not saying to get rid of high level play since you still get all your high level abilities. They are just wanting to reduce HD/HP

Compressing the same material into fewer levels is not the same. The old "1st to 20th level in a month" thing is not my bag, and fewer levels means faster advancement through the campaign. This is not to my taste.

I think there are other ways to reduce hp bloat. We could start by having HD top out like they did in earlier editions. There's also the option of going back to smaller HD for all the classes, with fighters et al getting d8s and the wizard and its ilk returning to the d4.

 

[dave2008]

Compressing the same material into fewer levels is not the same. The old "1st to 20th level in a month" thing is not my bag, and fewer levels means faster advancement through the campaign. This is not to my taste.

I think there are other ways to reduce hp bloat. We could start by having HD top out like they did in earlier editions. There's also the option of going back to smaller HD for all the classes, with fighters et al getting d8s and the wizard and its ilk returning to the d4.

I don't disagree with you, I was just clarifying that the didn't say to get rid of high level play.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You have convinced me that collapsing 20 levels into 10 would bring too much imbalance. Playing the game as intended at the pace intended is more than likely best.

That said in all honesty I much prefer the feel of low level gameplay and would much rather drag that feeling of mortality. I just found it a shame to waste the rest of a characters progression through a specific class.

That said I may instead make certain class features available to low level characters through limited Legendary Artifacts.

If you want to preserve some of that sense of mortality, you could just add a once per turn damage boost at higher tiers. For example, +1d6 at tier 2, +2d6 at tier 3, +3d6 at tier 4. For monsters as well as PCs. Adjust to desired flavor. More damage generally means shorter combats and a greater likelihood of going to 0 HP.

That said, I've seen fighters get dropped in a single round even at tier 4 (albeit, not from a single hit/crit like you see at low levels, but most monsters at that tier have multiattack).

IME, what really makes high levels less deadly are the features. Raise Dead et al for starters, since it becomes relatively trivial to undo death. Also spells like Heal, Teleport, and Wish can make the game significantly less deadly. And that's before you get into shenanigans like having summoned/bound monsters or a simulacrum take all the risks for you.

High level is meant to be kind of wahoo, including death being relatively trivialized. If your 1st level character dies, you can have a new one rolled up in 30 minutes or so. If your 20th level character dies, writing up a new one is likely to take hours.

Your idea of making certain high level abilities available is a good idea because this way you can curate what they get, and avoid giving out abilities that might undercut their sense of mortality.

 

[J-H]

Just look at a basic spell like Absorb Elements. With that, if the casters fails the save they take the same damage as a typical character would on a successful save (half), and half that on a successful save.

With only 10 HD max, most fighters will never be immune to PW:K. With a 100 HP threshold, a fighter who takes average HP (6) would need an 18 Constitution to be immune to PW:K at max level, and even then only until they take a light shot.

They keep getting HP at a fixed amount after 10. By 20 with 16 con they have
10+3 (1st level) 13
6*9+3*9 (2-10) 81
3*10 (11-20) 124

The plan is also for this to be higher magic in terms of item availability (Baldur's Gate II) so the fighters will probably have a couple of resistances each thanks to armor and stuff.

Absorb Elements is good, but the opportunity cost is no Shield that round.

 

[Fanaelialae]

They keep getting HP at a fixed amount after 10. By 20 with 16 con they have
10+3 (1st level) 13
6*9+3*9 (2-10) 81
3*10 (11-20) 124

The plan is also for this to be higher magic in terms of item availability (Baldur's Gate II) so the fighters will probably have a couple of resistances each thanks to armor and stuff.

Absorb Elements is good, but the opportunity cost is no Shield that round.

It's not unusual for monsters in T4 to do 24+ dmg in a single hit (and significantly more in a turn). Meaning that even a 20th level fighter with above average Constitution would be about 1 hit from being insta killed by PW:K.

I assume by resistances you don't mean the half damage kind. That would leave fighters a bit tougher than they are in standard play, while undercutting barbarians (who already get resistance to weapons as part of their standard kit).

If a high level mage needs to cast both Absorb Elements and Shield in the same round, then either the player is making very poor tactical decisions or something has gone dramatically wrong. Things will occasionally go dramatically wrong, but that's why we have Raise Dead. It's pretty rare, IME, that a high level wizard will use Absorb Elements/Shield and regret having done so because they later need the other. That would likely mean that the wizard is taking some pretty heavily focused fire from the opposition.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. That's up to you and your group, obviously. I'm just relating what occurred to me after reading.