D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[Mort]

I think i would like to run a high level campaign by first having the PCs play one adventure at, say, 3rd, 7th, and 11th level, then jump to 15 and go forward from there. It would help get the players familiar with their PCs, help give the PCs a history (together and in the world) and allow me to lay groundwork for the ongoing campaign.

WoTC has just done something similar (it's actually mentioned in the video, but I'll still spoiler it):

Spoiler

Initial campaign is 3-10th level then jumps to 17th level

I do think making sure the players have experience with the characters BEFORE jumping to high level play is a very good idea.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the big problem with high-level play is that it tends to be fairly boring for various reasons.

1) Casters start being able to do ridiculous things to the point where it can be increasingly hard for a DM to even think of solutions. Banning a bunch of spells can fix this, but it's certainly a thing and even for a lot of caster players it's not very interesting. This is a fundamental design flaw of 1/2/3/5E D&D (not 4E, which had different flaws). Casters can simply do too much, too easily, at too little real cost to themselves, outside of combat (inside they're more balanced). The higher level you get, the worse the issue becomes.

2) The monsters get more complicated and overpowered and this also tends not to make things more fun for a lot of groups. Especially when you need to start including multiple complicated and powerful-seeming monsters in the same encounter. It's easy to overdo it with fancy monsters too, tonally.

3) HP get so bloated every starts seeming a little silly. The math still works in 5E, but the numbers are kind of videogame-y in a bad way.

4) Proliferation of magic items often reaches excessive levels. This can be mitigated, but it can very easily add to the complication and boredom.

In general I don't think many would dispute that D&D tends to peak in fun somewhere between about 3rd level and 12th level, and these are big parts of it. Outside of 4E, D&D has never had a particularly good framework for high-level play (and again 4E had other issues). That's still true in 5E, just the math works better in 5E.

One thing is very obvious from this thread too is how little and low quality the guidance and support WotC offer for higher-level play.

Also a fundamental issue is that an awful lot of people see going up the levels as some sort of test of worth or skill, and creating high-level characters as wrong or cheating. That common attitude obviously severely limits how much play high-level stuff will see.

 

[Reynard]

WoTC has just done something similar (it's actually mentioned in the video, but I'll still spoiler it):

Spoiler

Initial campaign is 3-10th level then jumps to 17th level

I do think making sure the players have experience with the characters BEFORE jumping to high level play is a very good idea.

That's kind of the opposite of what I am thinking. the majority of that campaign happens in the typical range then dips into the high levels for (probably) the Boss Fight. I am suggesting brief stints in the earlier tiers then spending most of the campaign at high levels.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Highest level game I ever got to the hard way, as a DM or player, was 13th. I ran a 4e one-shot at epic levels for PCs from my old 4e campaign, but we skipped from about 11 to 27 so people could see where their PCs ended up.

 

[nevin]

I think almost any role playing game was probably designed for an average run from x to y level, and when you leave behind what they Dev's planned for it get's harder to run. I do suspect that most who play high level just enjoy thier game and keep going. I think most that decide they wan't to master their game and play to 20 or godhood or whatever arbitrary goal they set are probably unhappy with thier experience as they find that the game is really just a scaffolding past a certain point. The more powerful things get the harder it is to be predictable, I suspect the sweet spot for Dev's is to cut the dev cycles at that point. Not enough reward for the effort involved. Leave that for the DM's who are willing to do it.

 

[Mort]

That's kind of the opposite of what I am thinking. the majority of that campaign happens in the typical range then dips into the high levels for (probably) the Boss Fight. I am suggesting brief stints in the earlier tiers then spending most of the campaign at high levels.

Ah,

Honestly. As a player I would MUCH prefer that.

I've played LOTS and LOTS of low level 5e play (mostly because I'm the only DM of 2 different groups that's willing to DM high level play). My only mid high-level play (as a player) in 5e has been Adventurer's League which, while fun and all, is just not the same as a home campaign with friends. A game where it's low level for a brief time but then goes into 3 and then 4 tier play - that would be great for me.

 

[Oofta]

The problem with more high level content is one teleport and that content is now useless. The players can just say no and plane shift. I would love to see a proper epic level handbook that makes sense and flows from say 15ish to demigods but haven't seen one of those for any system that I truly like. The only one I've ever seen that comes close to being functional is the PF 1e Mythic handbook and it needs a complete rework. Some of it is brilliant, some of it is you get an ability you can get as a class feature and they call it mythic. It's very hit or miss. but as a framework for high level play I consider it a great idea.

If you don't want people teleporting hither and yon there are plenty of solutions. Use spells like inner sanctum or forbiddance to stop teleportation. Ban or limit long distance teleportation if it's an issue or just introduce a new ritual that redirects teleporters to a cell somewhere.

Discuss it with your players of course, but if the options are between limiting long distance teleportation or modifying it so that it's not as simple as snapping fingers and not playing high level then I don't think it's a problem with the game. D&D is all about making the game your own and sometimes that may mean accepting a handful of limitations.

Or don't change a thing and give them a reasons why saying no is not an option. People can always decide to not fight the BBEG, not delve the dungeon, not stop the crisis. Spells don't change that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

no if you have a god of death then there are rules.

Then reach high level and kill that fool until a more affable god of death arrises.

 

[Mort]

Also a fundamental issue is that an awful lot of people see going up the levels as some sort of test of worth or skill, and creating high-level characters as wrong or cheating. That common attitude obviously severely limits how much play high-level stuff will see.

I see this WAY too much, DMs who think starting at high level is something JUST NOT DONE. I get annoyed by that, as I find high level play the most fun.

As for the stuff earlier in your post. I do think high level 5e play presents challenges - but if there is a good push to overcome them - then the play, for me, is just that much more rewarding (at the higher levels).

 

[SteveC]

I am currently playing in a 5E campaign that just hit 13th level. We transitioned from the same game in 3.5 so I have a solid comparison.

I would never play 3.5 at the level we're at again. It is simply too complicated and unbalanced. It was horrible. The DM was excellent and had decades of experience and we almost had a mutiny.

Now the 5E game is working much better mechanically. It is also much less deadly and less rules heavy. I don't know how this will work out eventually, but it does seem more playable. The DM wants to make a challenging and yet fun game and so far, we're not doing bad.

In the 4E days, I played into the low Epic levels and really had no issues of balance or playability.

I am playing in Pathfinder Society games, and running one, but we're too low level to really get a sense of what high level play is like. I'll tell you in a year or so.