D&D General Why does D&D still have 16th to 20th level?

[James Gasik]

I have recently run a campaign up to level 20, at my players request. And my conclusion is 5e is a terrible terrible system at level 16-20. Encounters are slow, almost impossible to balance, and players have so many abilities they keep forgetting what they can do. Thematically, the PCs teleport everywhere, go shopping in the far corners of the multiverse, and only get out of bed for godlike enemies.

I think high level in every edition of D&D has been an unbalanced slog one way or another. Even 4e, with the math and the numbers all worked out (kind of...) wasn't immune to this, since the developers were obviously guessing at what epic tier powers should do. Our Scales of War game kind of imploded once we hit level 21, as an example, and the weird part was, it had nothing to do with the new powers- it was the same high paragon stuff we'd been using, but suddenly our numbers were a lot better, and the only thing that gave us pause were high level solos with their "bs magic" powers. We ate elites for breakfast, and our DM had no idea what to do about it.

High level 3e is probably the worst of all worlds though. Spellcasters have an endless well of bizarre options (all SR: No, of course), monsters have ridiculously bloated stats, and melee characters have 5 classes and strange feats from 8 books to try and keep up (or they just become uberchargers, and you aim them like cannons at enemies). You need a stack of index cards to remember all the buffs (if you have a good group), and enemy casters are spamming dispel magic like mad, hoping to knock something vital off of you. Whether a fight is a near-TPK or a cakewalk is decided when you roll initiative.

That 5e, even with flattened math, less buffs, less magic items, less feats, and less class abilities, runs into the same old problems, makes me wonder if there is any solution to making high level play fun and challenging.

 

[Jer]

The only modern D&D variant I've run that doesn't have issues with "too much stuff" at epic levels is 13th Age. And that's largely because the game is scaled such that it's built to be played at epic tier, rather than epic tier being an obligatory thing you put into the game at the end because only a small group of players use it but everyone expects to see it - like encumbrance rules.

As far as official D&Ds go, 3e is I agree the worst, with 4e better and 5e in between. The only branded D&D edition I've run where high level play doesn't become that is BECMI - though that's mostly due to reduced character options and more dependence on magic items for abilities to keep track of.

 

[James Gasik]

Even if you're playing to level 36, as I recall, there's not a huge gain when you gain a level after awhile. I mean, I saw that in AD&D, and I can't imagine it being any different.

Once you get your second attack as a Fighter, it's like, wow, a level. -1 on the old Thac0, never no mind I have bonuses for days, 3 whole hit points (WOW!), and maybe another tick on the saving throw table...and I'm already wearing a +4 Ring of Protection anyways.

Good times.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That 5e, even with flattened math, less buffs, less magic items, less feats, and less class abilities, runs into the same old problems, makes me wonder if there is any solution to making high level play fun and challenging.

Probably not.

NB Ever played Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal? 2nd edition was also broken!

1st edition was designed to stop at level 9, even though higher levels hypothetcally existed.

I suppose Basic/Expert etc came closest to a solution, by leaning into "you become a god".

 

[Oofta]

I have recently run a campaign up to level 20, at my players request. And my conclusion is 5e is a terrible terrible system at level 16-20. Encounters are slow, almost impossible to balance, and players have so many abilities they keep forgetting what they can do. Thematically, the PCs teleport everywhere, go shopping in the far corners of the multiverse, and only get out of bed for godlike enemies.

It does take a different mindset and the structure is different. Combats are slower because PCs have more options. On the other hand combats aren't anywhere near as slow as 4E and the balance is better (nothing is perfect) than in 3.x. I do limit teleportation options - teleportation circle sigils are incredibly hard to come by and an object has to be closely associated with a location, not just a random pebble. Similarly I limit plane shift to opening portals unless you are returning to your home plane of existence.

As far as players forgetting things, I guess that's not really my problem. I'll remind them once or suggest stuff in a while but it's not up to me to run their PCs for them. I can see that it's not for everyone, but having run high level campaigns in other editions, 5E works better than in the past. For me anyway.

 

[beancounter]

Part of the "issue" with few top tier PCs is that WoTC frontloads the best (or at least the most useful abilities) at the lower levels. Also, most of the capstone 20th level abilities are underwhelming. Further, there seems to be periodic power creep.

When you get to the point where you can steamroll everything, people get bored and want to start over with a new class.

 

[Jer]

Even if you're playing to level 36, as I recall, there's not a huge gain when you gain a level after awhile. I mean, I saw that in AD&D, and I can't imagine it being any different.

The thing about BECMI is that after "Expert" levels the things that the characters gained at each level (other than spellcasters) were mostly out of combat things. Like they had a dominion they needed to worry about in their downtime, or maybe they were researching paths to immortality. The spellcasters of course gained higher level spells, which added to the complexity a bit. The later rulesets did add some special combat options for the fighter beyond just extra attacks, but in practice the ability to Parry or Smash or Set Spear vs. Charge just didn't come up all that much.

Unless you made the mistake of trying to use the Weapon Mastery rules from the Masters set. I mean, they worked I guess, in that they gave players some more options to be able to customize their characters more, but they added complexity and were kind of fiddly in a game that wasn't really suited for that kind of fiddliness.

 

[jgsugden]

As a suggestion: If you have not experienced a fun high level campaign, consider watching a little bit of a highly rated high level streamed game. Also, consider taking another look at the Masters of the Realm and Masters of the World sections in the Tiers of Play part of the DMG, and looking for guidance on how to run high level games, and look into some of the video guides for running high level D&D. I've watched a few, and do not universally agree with them, but many of them have some good points.

My advice: Think about Comic Books.

At low levels, your PCs are Street Level heroes like Green Arrow and Daredevil. A few thugs are a good match for them. There are many threats that are as far beyond the PC as an Ancient Red Dragon is beyond a 1st level Fighter.

As the PCs approach those middle levels their power levels rise and greater threats are reasonable - and many of the threats that would challenge Street Level heroes become ridiculously simple. We don't see Marvel Comics often throw a few bank robbers with clubs at Iron Man, except as a lark. If there is a murder mystery, Iron Man can analyze the facts and solve it in seconds as easily as a cleric can find a missing person with a spell.

As PCs approach high levels, a lot of things that would challenge a Mid Level PC also become trivial. A high level PC can often banish a Demon or Devil one with casting of a spell. They have enough spell slots to use a Disintegrate to remove a wall without sweating it. They can solve riddles by chatting with a God. Like a Superman or Doctor Strange in the comics, they can do almost anything with a little thought behind it - but they can still be challenged. Look at some of the well written and interesting high power comic characters to be inspired for ideas for high level campaigns. You'll see there are often difficult decisions on where and how to use their amazing levels of power, for example. There can be demands upon the PCs and questions of morality and responsibility.

One other thing to consider: High level is expected to be much quicker than mid-level.

You may not find that these high level games are something you want to run all the time - but that is ok. Know why? Because the game, in the way it is designed, assumes you want to burn through higher levels faster. The amount of time you'll spend at each level, assuming you use experience point advancement, isn't linear. In the DMG you can find the 'recommended EXP per adventuring day' and you can also in the PHB calculate the amount of experience required to advance a level. By diving the required experience by the recommended experince, you can get a nice estimate of how long you should be spending at each level (YES - there is some simplifcation here ... this is estimated, not precise, obviously).

They think you need 1 adventuring day to reach 2nd level and one more to reach 3rd. That means that the expectation is that you do not need to Long Rest until you're ready to advance a level!

At third level you need about 1.5 adventuring days, meaning you'll likely take 1 long rest mid-level.

From levels 4 to 10 you'll need over 2 adventuring days to get the experience. You'll range between 2.13 adventuring days up to 2.33 ... but regardless, the expectation is that you'll be taking 2 long rests mid-level.

From 11 to 20 it drops to an average of 1.6 adventuring days to get another level, with a range of 1.48 up to 1.73. This means they expect you to take 1 mid-level long rest.

All in all, the total expected adventure days you'll take to go from 11 to 20 (10 levels) is a little over 14. That is over an adventuring day less than the 15.5 you're expected to spend between 4 and 10 (7 levels).

How does this work out in game sessions? If we assume 1 encounter per hour, and 7 encounters per adventuring day (following the recommendations in the books), and 4 hour D&D sessions:

It'll take you about 6 sessions (6.125) to advance to level 4.
To get to 5, it'll take you about 4 (3.9) more for a total of about 10 (10.03) sessions to get to level 5.
To get to 7, it'll take you need about 7.5 more (7.685).
To get to 9, it'll take about 8 more (7.93).
To get to 11, it'll take about 7.5 more (7.62).
Then every 2 levels from there on out is about 5.5 session (5.7,5.5, 5.5, 5.4)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It does take a different mindset and the structure is different. Combats are slower because PCs have more options. On the other hand combats aren't anywhere near as slow as 4E and the balance is better (nothing is perfect) than in 3.x. I do limit teleportation options - teleportation circle sigils are incredibly hard to come by and an object has to be closely associated with a location, not just a random pebble. Similarly I limit plane shift to opening portals unless you are returning to your home plane of existence.

As far as players forgetting things, I guess that's not really my problem. I'll remind them once or suggest stuff in a while but it's not up to me to run their PCs for them. I can see that it's not for everyone, but having run high level campaigns in other editions, 5E works better than in the past. For me anyway.

What's the point in trying to limit teleportation? Unless your setting has an ancient dragon hiding behind every tree it's not like there is anything to do along the road apart from pick daises and admire the scenery.

 

[Shardstone]

As a suggestion: If you have not experienced a fun high level campaign, consider watching a little bit of a highly rated high level streamed game. Also, consider taking another look at the Masters of the Realm and Masters of the World sections in the Tiers of Play part of the DMG, and looking for guidance on how to run high level games, and look into some of the video guides for running high level D&D. I've watched a few, and do not universally agree with them, but many of them have some good points.

My advice: Think about Comic Books.

At low levels, your PCs are Street Level heroes like Green Arrow and Daredevil. A few thugs are a good match for them. There are many threats that are as far beyond the PC as an Ancient Red Dragon is beyond a 1st level Fighter.

As the PCs approach those middle levels their power levels rise and greater threats are reasonable - and many of the threats that would challenge Street Level heroes become ridiculously simple. We don't see Marvel Comics often throw a few bank robbers with clubs at Iron Man, except as a lark. If there is a murder mystery, Iron Man can analyze the facts and solve it in seconds as easily as a cleric can find a missing person with a spell.

As PCs approach high levels, a lot of things that would challenge a Mid Level PC also become trivial. A high level PC can often banish a Demon or Devil one with casting of a spell. They have enough spell slots to use a Disintegrate to remove a wall without sweating it. They can solve riddles by chatting with a God. Like a Superman or Doctor Strange in the comics, they can do almost anything with a little thought behind it - but they can still be challenged. Look at some of the well written and interesting high power comic characters to be inspired for ideas for high level campaigns. You'll see there are often difficult decisions on where and how to use their amazing levels of power, for example. There can be demands upon the PCs and questions of morality and responsibility.

One other thing to consider: High level is expected to be much quicker than mid-level.

You may not find that these high level games are something you want to run all the time - but that is ok. Know why? Because the game, in the way it is designed, assumes you want to burn through higher levels faster. The amount of time you'll spend at each level, assuming you use experience point advancement, isn't linear. In the DMG you can find the 'recommended EXP per adventuring day' and you can also in the PHB calculate the amount of experience required to advance a level. By diving the required experience by the recommended experince, you can get a nice estimate of how long you should be spending at each level (YES - there is some simplifcation here ... this is estimated, not precise, obviously).

They think you need 1 adventuring day to reach 2nd level and one more to reach 3rd. That means that the expectation is that you do not need to Long Rest until you're ready to advance a level!

At third level you need about 1.5 adventuring days, meaning you'll likely take 1 long rest mid-level.

From levels 4 to 10 you'll need over 2 adventuring days to get the experience. You'll range between 2.13 adventuring days up to 2.33 ... but regardless, the expectation is that you'll be taking 2 long rests mid-level.

From 11 to 20 it drops to an average of 1.6 adventuring days to get another level, with a range of 1.48 up to 1.73. This means they expect you to take 1 mid-level long rest.

All in all, the total expected adventure days you'll take to go from 11 to 20 (10 levels) is a little over 14. That is over an adventuring day less than the 15.5 you're expected to spend between 4 and 10 (7 levels).

How does this work out in game sessions? If we assume 1 encounter per hour, and 7 encounters per adventuring day (following the recommendations in the books), and 4 hour D&D sessions:

It'll take you about 6 sessions (6.125) to advance to level 4.
To get to 5, it'll take you about 4 (3.9) more for a total of about 10 (10.03) sessions to get to level 5.
To get to 7, it'll take you need about 7.5 more (7.685).
To get to 9, it'll take about 8 more (7.93).
To get to 11, it'll take about 7.5 more (7.62).
Then every 2 levels from there on out is about 5.5 session (5.7,5.5, 5.5, 5.4)

You bring up an interesting concept of "amount of rests per level." Very interesting metric.