The game I played in and the game I DMed both had wizards. They are no more or less likely to die than anyone else. Fighters and barbarians are significantly tougher, but they also tend to be in the front line and are more likely to be eaten.
-
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes has a launch date! Mark your calendars for November 12th, 2024. 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Click here to follow on Kickstarter!
Reaching tier 4
- Thread starter Tyler Dunn
- Start date
The game I played in and the game I DMed both had wizards. They are no more or less likely to die than anyone else. Fighters and barbarians are significantly tougher, but they also tend to be in the front line and are more likely to be eaten.
jgsugden
Legend
I have an enchantment school wizard - who has a long history of running into danger to use Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm strategically. He has never had to roll a death save. He is on the cusp of the highest tier.
I also DMed two games that ran to the highest tier (17+). Both had wizards, although one was a Spellsword.
I'm not sure why people think wizards can't survive. They rarely get attacked, have shield and defensive spells when they do get attacked, and excel in negating enemy abilities to attack which makes the entire party more durable.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Never did tier 1 to 4 in 5e. Right now most games starting seem to start at 5th (so not even tier 1 anymore) because we've played so much 1-4, but even there I've never had one get near the end of tier 3.
I do put a lot of this on that many DMs run the hardcovers instead of their own campaign and those have end points that they seem to be happy with as a final ending.
I do put a lot of this on that many DMs run the hardcovers instead of their own campaign and those have end points that they seem to be happy with as a final ending.
First campaign I’ve ever DM’d and after about 2.5 years of play they’re at levels 18 & 19, and yes a wizard is in the mix (the others being a ranger multi-classed with Sorcerer, a cleric and a monk multi-classed with rogue).
We use milestone based leveling because tracking XP got tiresome, but milestone is also a bit opaque, so if there’s another campaign I’ll probably use some fractional milestone leveling.
The primary campaign ended around level 15 with Rise of Tiamat but the players expressed desire to continue to level 20 as none had ever managed to get that far before. So here we are, probably 4 or 5 sessions remaining until the end of an era! Not sure how I’ll feel about it, a mix of relief and loss I imagine
We use milestone based leveling because tracking XP got tiresome, but milestone is also a bit opaque, so if there’s another campaign I’ll probably use some fractional milestone leveling.
The primary campaign ended around level 15 with Rise of Tiamat but the players expressed desire to continue to level 20 as none had ever managed to get that far before. So here we are, probably 4 or 5 sessions remaining until the end of an era! Not sure how I’ll feel about it, a mix of relief and loss I imagine
the Jester
Legend
The 20th level pc is a knowledge cleric, the 19th level dude is a vengeance paladin.
It's a lot harder to answer the second part of your question. I run a sandbox and the players often swap pcs in and out of the various groups running around the setting. So Bling (the cleric) has adventured with anywhere from two other pcs to a big adventure with about 20 other pcs at various points. I'd say the typical group size that both of those guys have adventured with is from 4 to 8 other pcs.
ParanoydStyle
Peace Among Worlds
I have NEVER as a player either started a campaign at Level 1 nor finished a campaign with that same character at Level 20 in ANY EDITION of D&D ever, let alone both. Some of that is that I usually DM, but mostly it's that PCs die and when PCs don't die campaigns die without really reaching a conclusion. I have gained relatively few D&D levels in my life, period. Again I think it's partly explained by the fact that I DM when I can.
Whenever gamers (mostly old school grognards that I respect) tell me about how they actually took a character from zero to superhero over the course of an AD&D campaign back in the 80s or whatever, I'm always at least a little impressed.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
There was a wizard (conjuror) who made it to level 20 in the campaign I ran. He used his Wish for a suit of Empyrean armor, which he later used to tank the Tarrasque in the penultimate session. Wizards don't actually have low HP in this edition, because they gain little benefit from feats, so they're free to pump Constitution as high as they need it. (They also have pretty good AC, especially as they gain levels, since they can spend low-level spell slots to Shield as a reaction.)
The other characters were a Paladin (Devotion), Monk (Open Hand), Barbarian (Totem), and Warlock (Fiend).
jgsugden
Legend
Reminder: 20 is the cap in 5E, but 4E went to 30, 3E went to 30, 2E and 1E had some varied level limitations and the basic/expert/etc... series was also a bit crazy. 20th as a cap is a 5E beast.
I expect to see an "Epic Campaign" Supplement for 5E that will give us character levels 21 to 30 for each class.
Regardless, I consider it a bot of a shame that more games are not going into those epic 17th to 20th level. In a well run game, it hurts to have a character journey go unfinished - and if the DM builds good storylines around the PCs, they have things to explore continually until retirement at epic levels. If you're ending games before then and everyone is fine with it, it might be useful to ask yourself, "What could we have done to make people want more of this campaign, and would it hve been a good thing had we done that..."
I expect to see an "Epic Campaign" Supplement for 5E that will give us character levels 21 to 30 for each class.
Regardless, I consider it a bot of a shame that more games are not going into those epic 17th to 20th level. In a well run game, it hurts to have a character journey go unfinished - and if the DM builds good storylines around the PCs, they have things to explore continually until retirement at epic levels. If you're ending games before then and everyone is fine with it, it might be useful to ask yourself, "What could we have done to make people want more of this campaign, and would it hve been a good thing had we done that..."
Well I suppose it depends on the pacing of each game, really. But I've done some math with XP in various editions, and 5e seems to be the edition that hands out more XP thus far. So in theory it should be the faster one to level up in.
5e:
A CR 15 monster gives 43% of the XP a level 15 character needs to level up.
A CR 10 monster gives 20% of the XP needed.
3e:
A CR 15 monster gives 30% of the XP a level 15 character needs to level up.
A CR 10 monster gives 5% of the XP needed.
2e and earlier:
Here it's trickier to compare because there was no notion of CR in 2e and earlier editions, Hit Dice being the closest you could use to compare but even then not really very appropriate. But rest assured that leveling in 2e was MUCH slower than any more recent edition. Probably because 2e considered 1-10 (~ish) the level range for "normal" adventures, and beyond that it was more or less "epic adventures" already. Even a famous epic and powerful character like Drizzt was level 13 or 15 in 2e (depending on the timeline of his career). Getting anywhere near level 20 by standard 2e XP rules would require a loooooooong years-long campaign of frequent game sessions. Most people cheesed it a bit by rewarding lots of XP for completed adventures and such when playing beyond level 10.
------
Edit: Also, 5e has a LOT more healing/recovery than 3e or 2e, so in theory you can face more encounters than before at a lower risk. Thus allowing for a quicker progression pace I imagine.
I know 4e also had lots of healing, but I haven't played that one, really, so I can't speak for it.
Last edited:
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Yes. In one of my 5e campaigns I did milestone leveling. Eventually, I would like to do it again, but even moreso.
My idea is to play 20 8-hours sessions. Each session was one adventure with everyone at one level.
The conceit would be that this is a group of heroes that were off doing their own things but every few years would be called together to address some threat.
In the actual campaign that I ran, it was my first 5e campaign and home brew world and adventures. I started with XP and eventually went to milestone. By the fourth tier I was basically running it like I described above.
The advantage is that you get to play all levels (if your character dies you just role up a new character at the appropriate level). It is also go for groups like mine that can't meet often or who might have to miss a session now and then. Since each session stands alone, missing a session isn't an issue.
The only downsides are that you don't have that feeling of organically building up XP and the thrill of finally having enough to level up. Yet, at the same time, since we only meet once a month, it still takes almost two years to through all levels.
Another option I've thought about is a campaign made up of six 8-hour sessions, but I've not settled on which levels to include besides 1st, 5th, and 20th.
My idea is to play 20 8-hours sessions. Each session was one adventure with everyone at one level.
The conceit would be that this is a group of heroes that were off doing their own things but every few years would be called together to address some threat.
In the actual campaign that I ran, it was my first 5e campaign and home brew world and adventures. I started with XP and eventually went to milestone. By the fourth tier I was basically running it like I described above.
The advantage is that you get to play all levels (if your character dies you just role up a new character at the appropriate level). It is also go for groups like mine that can't meet often or who might have to miss a session now and then. Since each session stands alone, missing a session isn't an issue.
The only downsides are that you don't have that feeling of organically building up XP and the thrill of finally having enough to level up. Yet, at the same time, since we only meet once a month, it still takes almost two years to through all levels.
Another option I've thought about is a campaign made up of six 8-hour sessions, but I've not settled on which levels to include besides 1st, 5th, and 20th.
Similar Threads
