D&D 5E What Should the Maximum Level Be?

[ren1999]

..not a survey because I'm asking for reasoning why.

If we cap level, ability score and armor class at 20, the bonus spread is more noticeable. However, if the highest level is 20, that makes higher level monsters less challenging.

If we cap level, ability and ac at 25, this seems to be a happy medium. We've got a nice bonus spread for ability and level and high level monsters are a little more challenging.

If we cap level, ability and ac at 30 the +1 bonuses are less noticable between players and monsters. Combat also takes longer because monsters could have 30d12 hit points.

What should be the maximum number be? We really need to cap numbers.

Here are some questions when setting these limits.

How many rounds would the highest level highest stat character take to kill the highest level monster if she hit every turn doing maximum damage?

I'm thinking 5 rounds.

Are 20 low level monsters a threat to the highest level character.

I would like the answer to be yes.

 

[Sekhmet]

I fail to see why a cap is necessary, as it will surely be tossed out the window by anyone approaching that level of game play.
Players and DMs don't like to be restricted in how much power they can obtain or use.

 

[delericho]

Yep. Those caps won't last long in actual play, just as the removal of demihuman level limits was extremely common in older editions.

IMO, the Core Rulebook(s) for the game should support either 10 or (better) 20 levels of play, but I see no reason those should be considered hard caps on advancement in the game.

 

[ren1999]

Thanks for the comments. I see that some players will ignore the caps and create 40th level characters with 40 intelligence. I'm cool with that. But for the core game, we'll need to set limits in order to determine other important elements of the game. Every edition had limits, they just weren't spoken limits.

 

[the Jester]

Not every edition had limits on levels though, and I don't see the need for one.

I favor significant advancement slowdown, a la 1e, at levels above around 10, with a further significant slowdown at 20th, and again every 10 levels.

 

[A'koss]

Personally I like how they've reigned in the ability scores to keep disparities from getting out of hand. So 20 as a hard cap on ability scores for mortals is a pretty sensible limit. As far as levels go, I don't feel all that strongly one way or the other. I wouldn't mind it going up to 30 as we've seen in the past. Open-ended is fine as well but eventually the sheer number of abilities (and potentially magic items) will become unwieldy.

I seem to recall there being some discussion from WotC about changing the gameplay at epic levels. Maybe some way of consolidating powers as to keep the sheer number of them from getting out of hand... we'll see.

 

[S'mon]

There should be 10 levels in the initial 2014 release, giving them time to get the Level 11-20 expansion book right for 2015. Then if that works well, release the Level 21-30 book in 2016.

 

[Stormonu]

I think 20 levels should be the soft cap for players (with DMs having advice/support for monsters up to 25). I think a hard cap though, is folly. Sometimes the fun of the game comes from breaking player expectations.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm all for open-ended levels, but this poses a possible problem for divinities. It doesn't make sense to have 87th level wizards running around when the greater god of magic is a 40th level wizard. Different campaigns and DMs could handle this differently, but perhaps the default core rules could be something akin to divine ascension - that once you get past 30th level you are a "candidate" for demigodhood. Before then, the gods are taking notice, even vying for your services on "their side." Numerous story possibilities here.

I'd like to see a continuation of tiers, but spread out a bit. Something like this:

1-10: "Adventuring" tier
11-20: "Heroic" tier
21-30: "Paragon" tier
31-40: "Epic" tier
41-50: "Legend" tier
51+: "Immortal" tier

That gives 50 levels of "mortal play" with possibilities beyond that. Perhaps if 50th level is the normal cap for mortality, beyond which some kind of ascension takes place, 100th level is the cap for immortals; the overgod/universal spirit doesn't allow for power beyond that.

Another option would be to have a different system altogether for immortal "levels." So maybe you have open-ended levels, and then "circles" of immortality which supercede and replace mortal levels. So an 87th level wizard could exist, but would still be mortal (if absurdly bad-ass), but would be lesser (if only by a hair) than even a 1st circle immortal. The tiers could be the same as above, except without the "immortal", which "Legend" being open-ended, but then you'd also have immortal circles:

1st circle: quasi-god
2nd circle: demi-god
3rd circle: lesser god
4th circle: intermediate god
5th circle: greater god
6th circle: over-god
7th circle: supreme deity/universal spirit

Each circle unlocks a different degree of power; all higher circle beings include the powers of lower circles. For instance, all divinities are immortal and ageless and can grant spells to different degrees; the higher the circle, the higher the spell/prayer level. But the point is, these "circle powers" surpass even the highest mortal levels. A deity, then, wouldn't really have normal levels - except in the form of an avatar.

But I digress...

 

[Pog]

Guess it depends on how quick players like their pcs to progress ... 10 is fairly quick, 20 average, 30 quite slow - depending, of course, on how quick xp is shelled out (or some other progression system).
I prefer lower numbers - I haven't yet played a single character all the way through to top level, it takes sooo long. I don't think I'm alone. It would be nice to be able to fully complete a pc across all levels for once