D&D 5E Why Do Higher Levels Get Less Play?

[nevin]

Published settings put too many magic items in them, probably so that DMs of those tables that like that many won't have put items in. DMs who want less can easily reduce the numbers with almost no effort.

You can't use published adventures as any sort of indication for how many items should be handed out.

I do it all the time. works fine. has never unbalanced my games. This is only a problem in magic item light games where the DM is trying to control everything or play a magic is rare game. In that case yep you have to figure it out yourself. any other situation it works fine.

 

[nevin]

One bad but popular DMing advice is to flood the high level party with magic items to cover for the martials having too few combat options, too few non-combat options, and too many saving throw weaknesses.

Basically creating martial Xmas trees to make up simplistic old school design without escalation of base stats.

and yet it works. I'd argue the bad design of DND at high level pretty much makes either giving the martials powers the books don't have or giving out magic items to fill the gap necessary. Note there is almost no difference between the two different options mechanically except magic items can come and go while the powers you give them are most likely never going away. It's why I like magic items for most gaps in abilities at high levels as they can go away and other's can come in if the story and what the character needs changes. Though I do often hand out special abilities to characters as part of story lines as well.

 

[AlViking]

Published adventures don’t always align with how the DMG tells us to run Ability checks either but… that’s another thread.

Apparently, the designers thought the topic of magic item distribution needed more coverage beyond that limited info given in the DMG. There’s a table in Xanathar’s (p 135) entitled Magic Items Awarded by Tier. And this sidebar on the next page (FWIW, a similar sidebar appears in the 2024 DMG):

Are Magic Items Necessary in a Campaign?​

The D&D game is built on the assumption that magic items appear sporadically and that they are always a boon, unless an item bears a curse. Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items, which means that having a magic item always makes a character more powerful or versatile than a generic character of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are they necessary? No.

Magic items can go from nice to necessary in the rare group that has no spellcasters, no monk, and no NPCs capable of casting magic weapon. Having no magic makes it extremely difficult for a party to overcome monsters that have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In such a game, you'll want to be generous with magic weapons or else avoid using such monsters.

One of the things they did that I appreciate in the 2024 monster manual is that all the magic item resistance and immunities have gone away. I always let silvered weapons stand in place of magic and with the introduction of some common magic weapons it wasn't as big of a deal. But I'm glad that I can now use things like gargoyles and wererats in level appropriate encounters without either handing out magic far earlier than I want or taking out the group that doesn't have the right mix.

 

[tetrasodium]

One bad but popular DMing advice is to flood the high level party with magic items to cover for the martials having too few combat options, too few non-combat options, and too many saving throw weaknesses.

Basically creating martial Xmas trees to make up simplistic old school design without escalation of base stats.

That sounds more like the result of bad information or well meaning but misunderstood logic. I think that the responsible & functional version of that is to change "flood" to "appropriately award based on party composition & differing levels of CharOp in order to adjust the individual PCs as needed to keep everyone feeling effective in their own ways" That can be in the form of growing narrow & specialized relative power or growing broad widening versatility across underserved niches.

It was said before & is worth repeating.... Magic items can/(should) come & go or be consumed, the same cannot usually be said of permanent abilities granted to the PCs themselves & magic items that automagically recharge as long as the player doesn't do something no informed player would ever knowingly do with the thing on their character sheet

 

[Maxperson]

I do it all the time. works fine. has never unbalanced my games. This is only a problem in magic item light games where the DM is trying to control everything or play a magic is rare game. In that case yep you have to figure it out yourself. any other situation it works fine.

I didn't say it couldn't be played. It's just way over what is the game suggests be handed out. You can't use published adventures to determine what the game says should be handed out, because they put too many in them for the guidelines.

 

[Minigiant]

That sounds more like the result of bad information or well meaning but misunderstood logic. I think that the responsible & functional version of that is to change "flood" to "appropriately award based on party composition & differing levels of CharOp in order to adjust the individual PCs as needed to keep everyone feeling effective in their own ways" That can be in the form of growing narrow & specialized relative power or growing broad widening versatility across underserved niches.

It is.

A lot of people like using crazy boss monsters.

 

[Daraniya]

my point was more to illustrate that by the time you are high level, you have multiple options, you and your 5 level 15 NPCs have a Monty Haul of magic items, feats, skills, NPC contacts, and initiative does not allow for good planning.

Spend 30 minutes making a "plan", the second you or another PC rolls a failure, the plan goes to shite, and the party continues in open warfare, going directly at any problem.

when you have less options as a player, less feats, less multiclass min/max players, less magic items.

Finally, most DMs haven't played as a high level PC, so scaling encounters is far more difficult... and most 'normal' campaigns to get to high level if you start low take years...

just my opinion...

 

[pemerton]

Basically fans want to high level barbarian to be the hulk.

Making the high level barbarian into the hulk in D&D would be such a drastic mechanical change and shift philosophy that it would not only require an entire addition change It will require convincing the community to agree to some mechanical and visual changes.

Like encumbrance would have to start mattering. You won't be able to skip encumbrance anymore. The formula for encumbrance would have to be not simple anymore.

I don't really follow that last sentence. Playing or GMing a Hulk-like PC doesn't require complicated encumbrance rules.

Your examples: "You might want to: take the good fight to a Demon Prince, wrestle a Kaiju, time travel, battle a Great Old One, invade Hell and shave Asmodeus' moustache."

All the stories I care about have personal stakes. This sounds more like banging action figures together, which is fun on occasion but doesn’t sustain my interest. I suspect most people feel the same, which is why high level characters are more fun to think about than to actually play.

I think high-level D&D-style fantasy works best when what is personal and what is "external" are closely integrated. If the lives, hopes etc of the PCs are disconnected from the mythic reality of the (imagined) world, then high level play doesn't offer anything of particular interest.

Aragorn-esque or Arthurian "true kingship" stories are one example; but there can be others too.

In my high-level 4e D&D game, the PCs defeated Orcus - thus realising a crucial ambition of the Raven Queen, who had two exarchs and another powerful follower among the PCs - and also Lolth, just realising the dream of the Drow PC to free the Drow from her tyranny and undo the sundering of the Elves.

In a high-level Rolemaster game that I GMed, one of the PCs was able to rescue the "dead" god that he served from the void. Another PC was able to help resolve various conflicts among the Storm and Sea Lords, thus clearing the way to - and showing his worthiness to - wed the dragon whom he had been courting for many, many levels.

I don't think there are Emotions you can have at 20th level that you cannot have at 12th level. Which means the difference between the two is going to be in terms of spectacle and (collateral) stakes.

<snip>

Scale doesn't need to be a hindrance to story.

To me there's one answer that seems to make the most sense: more people actually care about the stories their PCs experience, not the game mechanics.

All the stories a player can experience can be told at any level of character.

<snip>

There's nothing one gains by playing high level other than using some game mechanics you've never used before. But anything having to do with a character's personality? Their history? The journeys and quests they go on? Their stories? Can be done at any level.

I think this is a contentious reading of D&D.

There's an alternative reading, which is that certain sorts of "stories" are level-dependent. For instance, meeting a Pit Fiend as an equal, or carving out a kingdom to rule, or travelling places by way of teleportation - on my understanding of D&D (informed primarily by B/X, AD&D and 4e D&D), these are not things that can occur at any level.

When these sorts of events or experiences are intertwined with personal aspirations and/or self-realisation - which to me is the essence of epic/mythic fantasy - then I think high level play can have something to offer.

I think 4e D&D shows how this can be done within a D&D framework.

And my view - tentative, but based on a fair bit of observation of how people talk about their play, and how TSR/WotC present high level play - is that a big problem is that there is a reluctance to allow the sorts of stakes (and associated themes) that are central to epic/mythic fantasy as a part of D&D play. And of course, high level play that is merely a continuation of fetch quests, looting dungeons, and the like won't offer anything that low level play doesn't.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't really follow that last sentence. Playing or GMing a Hulk-like PC doesn't require complicated encumbrance rules.

Lifting, dragging, and throwing weight and size is what hulks bringing in and out of combat.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't really follow that last sentence. Playing or GMing a Hulk-like PC doesn't require complicated encumbrance rules.

I think high-level D&D-style fantasy works best when what is personal and what is "external" are closely integrated. If the lives, hopes etc of the PCs are disconnected from the mythic reality of the (imagined) world, then high level play doesn't offer anything of particular interest.

Aragorn-esque or Arthurian "true kingship" stories are one example; but there can be others too.

In my high-level 4e D&D game, the PCs defeated Orcus - thus realising a crucial ambition of the Raven Queen, who had two exarchs and another powerful follower among the PCs - and also Lolth, just realising the dream of the Drow PC to free the Drow from her tyranny and undo the sundering of the Elves.

In a high-level Rolemaster game that I GMed, one of the PCs was able to rescue the "dead" god that he served from the void. Another PC was able to help resolve various conflicts among the Storm and Sea Lords, thus clearing the way to - and showing his worthiness to - wed the dragon whom he had been courting for many, many levels.

I think this is a contentious reading of D&D.

There's an alternative reading, which is that certain sorts of "stories" are level-dependent. For instance, meeting a Pit Fiend as an equal, or carving out a kingdom to rule, or travelling places by way of teleportation - on my understanding of D&D (informed primarily by B/X, AD&D and 4e D&D), these are not things that can occur at any level.

When these sorts of events or experiences are intertwined with personal aspirations and/or self-realisation - which to me is the essence of epic/mythic fantasy - then I think high level play can have something to offer.

I think 4e D&D shows how this can be done within a D&D framework.

And my view - tentative, but based on a fair bit of observation of how people talk about their play, and how TSR/WotC present high level play - is that a big problem is that there is a reluctance to allow the sorts of stakes (and associated themes) that are central to epic/mythic fantasy as a part of D&D play. And of course, high level play that is merely a continuation of fetch quests, looting dungeons, and the like won't offer anything that low level play doesn't.

The hulk comic book character is written for a different medium that builds the character covering a different scope of "story" than d&d. Some of those differences are things that are mostly/totally off the table when it comes to having a meaningful impact (IE the green guy/banner disagreement over how to act) covers a lot of ground that or just totally mundane for a PC until they are stupid broken (or hulk in hulk level strength in a world where "adventurer" level combat capability is extremely unusual despite multiple heroes and villains approaching/matching him at times.

The part of the hulk that still matters in d&d is his ability to lift/pull/carry stupid amounts &we have past examples of how proper system level mechanical support can be leveraged for character level distinction through PC abilities. One of the better examples is the 3.5 light/moderate/heavy load. Those three are relevant in play by giving some small but meaningful bonuses at light mostly not much or minor restrictions at moderate and severe penalties at heavy load... Light load was possible but difficult if a PC wanted to carry more than the bare minimum needed to fight, moderate load allowed more supporting gear like food rope tent some consumables etc & critically some treasure & critically some of those things for lower strength party members, heavy load allowed you to carry it all in excess but came at the cost of some pretty significant penalties that intentionally hurt in the event of combat or environmental Hazards. With that covered in a nutshell the 3.5 barbarian was able to leverage their high strength in ways that weren't often possible for other high strength PCs because unarmored defense allowed good defense within the encumbrance of the heavy armor normally worn by every other high strength PCs.... 5e broke the mechanical hooks that made the distinction possible or relevant at every point possible though so you have a barbarian who carries less and has double capacity while other high/low strength PCs never feel pushed to carry less of make hard choices in what to carry because they can all carry far more than they need to even when taking the role of packrat. But it doesn't really matter to the point that the sheet doesn't even support tracking it.