D&D 5E Nobody Is Playing High Level Characters

According to stats from D&D Beyond, above 5th level characters start to drop off sharply, and above 10th level, the figures are very low. The exception is level 20, which looks like it's probably people creating experimental 20th-level builds.

Some of them say 0%; this isn't strictly accurate, but levels 16-19 are used by an insignificant number of players. Interestingly, there are more 3rd-5th level characters than there are 1st-2nd level.

D&D Beyond has said before that under 10% of games make it past 10th level, but these figures show the break point as being bit lower than that. DDB used over 30 million characters to compile these stats.

 

[Maxperson]

It is very interesting, especially when compared to the number of people around this forum that have completed multiple APs, which typically go up to 10-15. I think it is more evidence on how outside the norm the forum posters are. We are just a rare breed!

I wonder how many online games disintegrate due to people not showing up. In my experience, which is admittedly limited, online games collapse more often than table top games, which would skew the numbers downward in favor of low level PCs. That would also distort the true numbers.

Edit: It's also very easy to update 5e characters. Once you make the PC as a low level character, if you are using the character in a tabletop game, it's the same or more work, depending on where the PC is, to update it on the PC and reprint the sheet than it is to just flip open the book and change a few numbers and write down a new ability.

 

[Mercador]

As a player, I never went further than level 5. As a DM, my best players went through level 12 if I remember correctly.

 

[Anoth]

The answer is new blood since the old guard is either likely to maintain brand loyalties OR that their numbers are so small that catering to them is keeping the game on life support. (See Battletech the boardgame.)

That gamble paid off for 3e. I am a personal example having avoided D&D for a decade until 3e came back.

And since it took 4e to really spark the retroclone/Pathfinder movement, you could say that's futher anecdotal evidence. (And the big retroclone before that was basically streamlined and hacked d20, not an attempt at a faithful recreation/retro heartbreaker.)

'Cause one would assume such a big movement to happen a decade earlier if the old guard was bigger/much more upset with the changes.

I can't speak to 5e, I noticed that:
1. PF Adventure Paths started capping out at 15th
2. Their pblished high level games ended on the same high note, meet the final boss(es) in the planes.

Something that held no appeal to me. Not just for the prep, but also my style of play and learning new mythologies.

one thing I really try to avoid is having a BBEG in any of my games. You are playing in a team fighting another team that is probaly much larger. I never have a show down against one big critter. And there’s always someone There is always several himler’s ready to take the place of a hitler or Stalin or whoever. In generally anyway. If a great warm red dragon is the leader he will have many allies helping him.

 

[Umbran]

And, I mean, you have cautioned us, yourself, about reading too much into stats. Just a mean average is not that much to go on.

I mean an obvious inference of the less-than-1-yr averaging fewer sessions between restarts would be TPKs bringing that average down. But it's not the only possible explanation.

Yep. We know the average, but not the shape of the distribution. However, let us remember that what we have is a summary. The survey would have given WotC the shape of the distribution. From there, we have two basic choices:

1) Assume that WotC was full of complete dunderheads, who couldn't understand what that distribution meant.

2) Assume that WotC could look at that distribution, and get basically the right idea.

 

[Weirdok]

I haven't had the opportunity to play a high level game in 5e. I imagine getting to 20th level has some time constraints.

 

[jmucchiello]

For those who usually have short campaigns but desire reaching high levels, just play the even levels. Start at 2nd level, first milestone go to 4th level, etc.

 

[Tiggerunner]

Yep. We know the average, but not the shape of the distribution. However, let us remember that what we have is a summary. The survey would have given WotC the shape of the distribution. From there, we have two basic choices:

1) Assume that WotC was full of complete dunderheads, who couldn't understand what that distribution meant.

2) Assume that WotC could look at that distribution, and get basically the right idea.

3) Assume WoTC wants to corner the market on a supplement targeting players in the 10-20 level character range and selectively released misleading statistics to their third party competitors.

Edit: oh, I meant "partners."

 

[ZEROHEX]

Not amazed, for all its simplicity and quick combat mechanics 5e lacks customization and the character progresion is not very rewarding either, there's little to no motivation/reason to reach higher levels much less lvl 20, the monsters in general have very low AC and even lower DC's for their special abilities even higher CR monsters, making leveling up a character not a requirement to fight and defeat them, a well balanced and equiped lvl10 party can take on and adult dragon with little difficulty, a lvl 15 party can steam roll an ancient red dragon. This edition made a great starting point for low level charaters (specially with players new to the game) but offers little at higher levels, a almost nothing for more experienced players wanting a challenge.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

3) Assume WoTC wants to corner the market on a supplement targeting players in the 10-20 level character range and selectively released misleading statistics to their third party competitors.

Edit: oh, I meant "partners."

Does WotC really have any real competitors? I mean, sure. There are other game companies out there and providers of content, but what real impact are they having now with the resurgence of D&D and 5e? Especially, third-party providers.

Surely, not even close to enough for them to bother with misleading any so-called "competitors." That just looks like casting about for some reason, any reason to paint WotC in a bad light because someone is unhappy with the company and its direction.

 

[Tiggerunner]

Does WotC really have any real competitors? I mean, sure. There are other game companies out there and providers of content, but what real impact are they having now with the resurgence of D&D and 5e? Especially, third-party providers.

Surely, not even close to enough for them to bother with misleading any so-called "competitors." That just looks like casting about for some reason, any reason to paint WotC in a bad light because someone is unhappy with the company and its direction.

I was leaning towards option 1, and just chalk it all up to Hanlon's Razor, until the lead designer from WoTC took time out of his busy day to let some yahoo with a theory know how wrong he was.