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

[Bacon Bits]

4E went up to 30th level!

Yeah, but that's extremely misleading. 1st level in 4e starts at like an equivalent to level 3, and then by 5th level you've actually got nearly everything you'll ever get. You'll be able to swap out powers for others with bigger numbers, gain an extra power at 10th, and at 20th everybody does bonus damage, but that's about it. They basically took 3rd through 12th and divided it into 30 levels.

And, frankly, I don't think 30 levels benefitted 4e. It required them to print so many monsters and powers! It made the books 25-30% longer, but it didn't really add depth. They had to spread their content thin when basically every monster was only good for about 5 levels. Instead of a quarter of the game, that was a sixth.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

How many pages would cutting levels 16-20 save?
10? 15?
The benefits of giving people the choice outweighs the small cost

 

[Charlaquin]

They did consider having 5e only go to 10th level, but the feedback was consistently that people wanted the option to play to higher levels.

 

[Maxperson]

They did consider having 5e only go to 10th level, but the feedback was consistently that people wanted the option to play to higher levels.

Because despite the flawed D&D Beyond data, lots of people go to higher levels at least some of the time.

 

[Umbran]

If you feel that way why not just start at the level five?

Not speaking for Vaalingrade, but broadly, because in terms of role-playing a personality, letting the character grow into their concept often works better than just starting them there.

Also, I know some folks feel they know the mechanics for everything so well that they can jump into high-level characters and expect their tactical play to be optimal from the get-go. But, usually, I see folks who are playing classes they aren't used to, and taking that time to build player-mastery with the mechanics is extremely valuable later on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not speaking for Vaalingrade, but broadly, because in terms of role-playing a personality, letting the character grow into their concept often works better than just starting them there.

Also, I know some folks feel they know the mechanics for everything so well that they can jump into high-level characters and expect their tactical play to be optimal from the get-go. But, usually, I see folks who are playing classes they aren't used to, and taking that time to build player-mastery with the mechanics is extremely valuable later on.

Yes, I agree with all of this but it but you probably wouldn't describe these early levels as a 'slog,'

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I think using D&D Beyond numbers is flawed beyond belief. The vast majority of players don't play online. They play in person. During the Pandemic my group had to play online and it was very frustrating and not nearly as enjoyable an experience. It's no surprise that the D&D Beyond numbers are low with that kind of experience.

One major issue is that Beyond only allows for limited rules customization, and doesn't fully support high level characters. You can't make custom classes or majorly customize classes for example, and last I checked, it doesn't natively support Epic Boons, and instead you have to kludge them in as homebrew feats. In my experience, a lot of people playing high level games do a lot of customization, which D&D beyond doesn't even support, and it definitely doesn't support the core 'advancement after 20' mechanic that the game includes.

So even for people who enjoy online play or like using D&D Beyond for games played at an actual table, D&D Beyond has significant limitations that I would expect to crop up more in higher level play than lower level 'let's run a published module' play.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, I agree with all of this but it but you probably wouldn't describe these early levels as a 'slog,'

I have experienced them several ways - one of those ways is kind of sloggy, despite the utility.

 

[Shiroiken]

They exist because some people like epic tiers of play. My first campaign went to level 18, and I'm considering revisiting those characters for another adventure. The current game I'm playing in we just hit level 16, and it's been a blast. I know of groups that have just started with level 15 characters, wanting to just do epic things. If anything, I have an issue with the fact that levels stop at 20, rather than being unlimited like 1E!

However, don't fall for the trap that the game assumes you play from level 1-20. A campaign should be only as long as it needs to be. I've played in games that only went to level 5, because that's where the story ended. I've also played up to level 30 in an epic Dark Sun campaign (basically following the same path as the books). I've also ran a 1E game that went to level 36 before I ended it with an epic adventure leaving the PCs as demigods (or erased from existence if they failed). Just because most games end around level 12 doesn't negate the fact that some campaigns can end earlier and some much later.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because despite the flawed D&D Beyond data, lots of people go to higher levels at least some of the time.

Lots of people going to higher levels at least some of the time is not at all inconsistent with the D&D Beyond data - lots of people can do something at least some of the time and still be the significant minority.

From what I remember though, the attitude during the playtest was largely “most of my games only go to 10th, but there should still be the option to go to 20th if you want.” Which is a perfectly reasonable point.