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.

 

[Lanefan]

What you describe as 'depth ' is available in ANY rpg. It's the result of what the players and DM bring to the table. Happens in the most simple and most complex of games. It has little to do with the actual game that is bought.

Well, to a point.

But there comes a point where too many mechanics simply get in the way of immersion-characterization-setting interaction; a point defined by when a player's concentration and-or immersion is broken by having to look at a character sheet or rulebook too often in order to reference abilities or mechanics.

Since that 'depth' is a possibility regardless of system being used, there are many who would like a system that allows for character development in both deeds accomplished AND mechanical expression. There's no need to choose between the two.

Deeds accomplished is actually a third avenue of development that I hadn't considered, along with mechanical expression and personality/characterization development, and also largely falls under the 'class-agnostic' banner particularly when it's the party as a whole whose accomplished deeds are most relevant.

 

[Maxperson]

The issue here is that one relatively-recent D&D edition very much rewarded hyper-specialization, that being 3e (and 3.5, and PF), and many players still have this in the back of their minds.

Yeah, but it was a fool's reward. After a moderate amount of specialization, the game became easy. All those excessive bonuses were wasted unless you just wanted to feel good about being the bomb or make the game super, super easy.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, but it was a fool's reward. After a moderate amount of specialization, the game became easy. All those excessive bonuses were wasted unless you just wanted to feel good about being the bomb or make the game super, super easy.

While I don't disagree about it being something you wound up with diminishing rewards after a point, finding out you cab't qualify for feats & PrCs until far too late was a problem for people who didn't consider it at all. At the end of the day 3.5 was probably too much choice while 5e is too streamlined Somewhere between the two is probably more of a sweet spot.

 

[Anoth]

Prestige classes would have been a great idea if they were limited to one.

 

[Anoth]

I see the points of really both sides of the argument. High level play is just not appealing to many. I personally think many things can always be improved on. But it really looks to me like people don’t want or don’t have time to learn how the game plays at high levels. Encounters have to be built differently. Monster intelligence become way more important with the increase options. Player intelligence too. I never had a problem in any edition. Okay. I never played immortal rules. They just didn’t appeal to me. But I played many becmi characters right up to level 36 and had a blast. Played a game with wizards and fighters in ad&d in the 30 level range. And guess what, the wizard needed the fighter. And the fighter needed buffs from the wizard and cleric. And the cleric and wizard were happy to give it to them because it allowed them to focus on other things.

yup spamming disarm and trip were annoying. And those players suffered against critters that couldn’t be tripped or disarmed, and generally died and were replace with character with different builds. And the list goes on for me. I find that damn Sorlock annoying, but definitely Not invincible and unchallengeable. I think some things are cheese like bards smiting. But I still give them a run for their money.

I think every game has room for improvement and every game has things that don’t play as intended. Either ban it or build encounters to deal with it.

I laugh at the disarm specialists. They didn’t last long against common critters that can’t be disarmed.

 

[tetrasodium]

I see the points of really both sides of the argument. High level play is just not appealing to many. I personally think many things can always be improved on. But it really looks to me like people don’t want or don’t have time to learn how the game plays at high levels. Encounters have to be built differently. Monster intelligence become way more important with the increase options. Player intelligence too. I never had a problem in any edition. Okay. I never played immortal rules. They just didn’t appeal to me. But I played many becmi characters right up to level 36 and had a blast. Played a game with wizards and fighters in ad&d in the 30 level range. And guess what, the wizard needed the fighter. And the fighter needed buffs from the wizard and cleric. And the cleric and wizard were happy to give it to them because it allowed them to focus on other things.

yup spamming disarm and trip were annoying. And those players suffered against critters that couldn’t be tripped or disarmed, and generally died and were replace with character with different builds. And the list goes on for me. I find that damn Sorlock annoying, but definitely Not invincible and unchallengeable. I think some things are cheese like bards smiting. But I still give them a run for their money.

I think every game has room for improvement and every game has things that don’t play as intended. Either ban it or build encounters to deal with it.

I laugh at the disarm specialists. They didn’t last long against common critters that can’t be disarmed.

It's not just a matter of not wanting to or not being able to figure out how to run the game at high levels, there's also distaste for the way things need to be scaled affects the story

 

[Anoth]

It's not just a matter of not wanting to or not being able to figure out how to run the game at high levels, there's also distaste for the way things need to be scaled affects the story

I see your point and respect it. But I want high level to play to be different than low level play. And i don’t think there is an easy way to do it if high level means lots of more options and abilities. Imho. It should be tougher and a whole new ball game imho. I don’t want high level to mean just number inflation.

 

[jayoungr]

It works. But to me feel like you jump the shark at level12-13.

The game changes at certain points, sure, but I don't see it as getting worse. It just requires some adjustment on the DM's part to learn to handle the "new normal" once PCs get access to some of their more powerful abilities. And I'm sure there are some DMs who (for whatever reason) would rather not deal with that.

At the end of the day 3.5 was probably too much choice while 5e is too streamlined

Too much choice for whom? Too streamlined for whom?

 

[tetrasodium]

I see your point and respect it. But I want high level to play to be different than low level play. And i don’t think there is an easy way to do it if high level means lots of more options and abilities. Imho. It should be tougher and a whole new ball game imho. I don’t want high level to mean just number inflation.

"different" sure, it's the scale of that different that is problematic. It's like if (mad) Max, Sarah Connor, John Mcclane, Dutch, etc were to have another movie where they each had an unhackable aircraft carrier, unhackable orbital weapons platform, and a tshirt that protects them from anything short of close range nuclear warhead detonation. Everything built up in their respective worlds is entirely irrelevant while any and all threats are subject to the levels of power in the pinky finger.

@jayoungr that was in regards to the comment someone made earlier about wotc simplifying things trying to cater to the more casual crowd. As a pair of examples... Managing skills & synergy bonuses was a chore that was extremely important for qualifying later, but something that would only be clear of just how important when it was too late (or close to) for those more casual players. Meanwhile in 5e having damage types other than magic/not magic be virtually irrelevant, weapons all so close to being virtually identical in all ways but damage die & what stat you use with them was probably too far because what weapon or cantrip Alice & Bob use is no longer subjective with pros & cons to any particular choice. Collapsing the feat chains was a good thing sure, but there's room to argue that they were collapsed too far because feats are now so good that a subjective "I think this might be flavorful" is too significant of a loss in power over any mechanically useful feat.

 

[jayoungr]

wotc simplifying things trying to cater to the more casual crowd.

The whole analysis kind of contains a value judgment that mechanical choice is important and desirable--even the word "casual" has that value judgment attached.

I've played more complex systems, and I'm fine with them. But for me, 5E is the sweet spot, because the mechanics--again, for me--support the fiction but don't dictate it. They get out of the way so I can concentrate on story, but also give me a baseline to adjudicate unusual actions on the fly.