so how often do you go above 10th level?

[JeffB]

In some of the OD&D games we have seen 10-14th level, but no way for 3/4e. I cannot stand tbe rule bloat at high levels.

8-10th is fine by me.

 

[Votan]

In the 3E/Pathfinder era I have DMed a group this high three times that I can recall (three different groups, actually). I do think if I did a Pathfinder game it would be an E8 or E9 game so long as it was not another adventure path.

I found the high levels worked really well in the 6th book of a Paizo adventure path, well in my first sandbox, sand I was not especially happy with the results in my second.

 

[Stormonu]

With over 30 years under my belt, I can only remember two campaigns getting past 10th; the first was in 1990 - the campaign last 2 years total - and the second occurred in the hiatus between 3E and 4E (2008?) - that campaign lasted 3 years total.

I've done a few one-shots with Tomb of Horrors, but that's about the extent, so I've done maybe one year's worth of 10th+ level gaming?

I just seriously dislike high-level D&D.

 

[Raith5]

How many of you on a regular basis breakthrough the level 10 barrier (or are playing there long term) ? If the answer is yes, what does it look like? What kind of stuff are you doing?

What about your high level games says "this is high level D&D done right" ?

I tend to play one campaign per edition and it has always gone over 10th.

I had a AD&D campaign that got to 12th legitimately and one that became monty haul at about 10th and went up to 20th by building a castle in the vault of the drow (no less) and going alphabetically though demon lords in the MM1 and 2. Fun times!

I cant remember what exact level Second Ed got to but 3rd ed got to 13th before the spell users ground the game to a halt with haste, stoneskin and multiple monster and animal summonings.

In my 4th ed campaign we are 19th level and still going strong.

I guess my one feeling with respect is that designing a game to work properly up to 10th level is creating a self fulfilling property. Sure the math has to work, but I think you have to stretch the game a bit and leave game elements (such as flying and teleporting) to higher levels, leave certain monsters to higher levels and leave certain spells likewise. I dont see the point of packing 80% of D&D content to levels 1-10.

I think 4th has done the best at high level play, but that said I do like the ideas of the legacy system in DDN.

 

[Li Shenron]

Up to level ~15 several times, beyond that maybe once...

But let's not forget that NPCs always get a few levels higher than PCs. This is IMHO the reason why we really need the core PHB to support levels higher than 10.

 

[Ebony Dragon]

I've been playing with a group of friends for over 10 years now, 3rd edition and more recently Pathfinder. In that time our games have all started at level 1 and end somewhere around level 20-25. Just high enough to start getting into the epic content, but ending the campaign before we are all sick of how broken the game is at that level.

The higher level adventures tend to involve things like planar travel, space travel, getting mixed up in the plots of demon lords and previously dead gods, heading off the invasion of our planet by aberrations from another dimension, leading negotiations between kingdoms, or heading up armies if those negotiations fail. And thats all just all from our last campaign.

When running a game, however, I prefer lower level stuff, even going so far as to use the E6 ruleset.

 

[delericho]

I missed a couple of things in the OP when I wrote my previous post in this thread...

A D&D that goes to level 10, would actually be best. As a matter of fact I'd rather they focus on levels one to ten in the PHB (with a ton of options) they publish and release levels 10+ later down the road.

There's a problem with this, in that high-level play requires quite a lot of careful design work. And if that work isn't done when the system as a whole is constructed, it's very likely that it can't be done well later on. In fact, it's quite evident in 3e that a huge amount of work went into playtesting the low to mid levels, and much less at higher levels. The rules give an impression of a mathematical rigour that they don't, in fact, possess. (In 3e, this is also true of the item creation rules.)

In order to do high-level play 'right', it is probably necessary that they do the bulk of the design work for it right at the outset of the edition. In fact, I'm more than a little concerned that the existing playtests have explicitly and deliberately focused on low-level play.

The problem with level ten plus that I am seeing is that they could in theory be done at any level. Rule a keep? Could be done at level one depending on the campaign. Travel to the planes? The same.

...

What about your high level games says "this is high level D&D done right" ?

Well, I'm not sure if what we do counts as "doing it right", but...

As the game has moved from low- to mid-level, and again from mid- to high-level, I've tried to consciously change the scope of the game. Low-level is all about dealing with local troubles and small-scale issues - the PCs run into bandits, and thugs, and the occasional band of orcs. Mid-level is very much quest-based, and the threats another step up.

But the high-level adventures are the truly world-shaking stuff - the PCs are the biggest and the best heroes around. The trivial concerns of lesser characters just aren't an issue for them - they can take on entire armies of orcs, they can stand toe-to-toe with demons, dragons, and even demigods if the situation warrants. And the outcome of their adventures may permanently alter the game world, for good or ill.

So, while it's true that a party could rule a keep or go planar hopping from first level, IMC they simply don't.

(For another shorthand about the difference between 'tiers' - low-level is "save the village", mid-level is "save the nation", high-level is "save the world". Or destroy it, of course!)

 

[Steely_Dan]

I started a 3rd level 3rd Ed Planescape campaign in 2005, got to 13th level by 2008, switched over to 4th Ed, got to 17th level by 2010, and is now on hiatus.

But aside from that, it would seem many campaigns peter out before 10th level.

 

[DragonLancer]

Under 1st and 2nd edition AD&D we rarely played beyond 9th/10th because we felt that the game broke down balance wise past there. I think the highest we ever went was about 15th.

When 3rd ed (and now Pathfinder) came out we felt that that problem wasn't so bad any more and we can happily play through to 20th level.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Well over 50% of my time across all systems.
Over 75% for 4e.

I actually enjoy high-level 4e play more than I have in any other system.