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

[Aldarc]

"But why don't you just go to 10 levels and make levels 8-10 where your upper level epic play happens?"


~unironic pause~

"Ours levels go to 20."

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The D&D beyond data basically said that 0% went to 17, 18 and 19 and 2% went to 20. That's very inconsistent with a lot of people doing anything.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

When I'm the DM I do. But some of my friends who DM still feel obligated to start every campaign at 1 or run modules that start at 1.

Also, skipping to five in world where the cap is somewhere like 13 means advancement either makes the game too short or is so far and few between you can't feel it.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Thing is, they could have easily said, "Okay it goes to 10 levels, and here are rules for level 10+ games. You go up in a few HP and maybe a few things here or there (e.g., ASI), but that's it."

 

[Mercurius]

The D&D beyond data basically said that 0% went to 17, 18 and 19 and 2% went to 20. That's very inconsistent with a lot of people doing anything.

I think the implication is that if you make it to over 15 or so, might as well keep going up to 20. Stopping at 17-19 (especially 19) is sort of like leaving one bite of your ice cream cone. The deed is already done.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thing is, they could have easily said, "Okay it goes to 10 levels, and here are rules for level 10+ games. You go up in a few HP and maybe a few things here or there (e.g., ASI), but that's it."

Sure, they could have. But 5e was designed around giving the players what the majority wanted, and the majority wanted 20 levels.

 

[Mercurius]

20 has a nice symmetry to it that aligns with a d20-based game. It is also flexible in terms of allowing for quick or slow progression, and level gain is a good sweet-spot between "this is a huge change" and "this is inconsequential."

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thing is, they could have easily said, "Okay it goes to 10 levels, and here are rules for level 10+ games. You go up in a few HP and maybe a few things here or there (e.g., ASI), but that's it."

By that logic 5e goes to infinite levels because epic boons. I think most people who want the option to go to 20 want more mechanical support for the idea (fully fleshed out classes to 20, spells, etc).

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the implication is that if you make it to over 15 or so, might as well keep going up to 20. Stopping at 17-19 (especially 19) is sort of like leaving one bite of your ice cream cone. The deed is already done.

That, and 0% doesn’t necessarily mean 0 groups. It just means a statistically insignificant portion of groups.

 

[Aldarc]

By that logic 5e goes to infinite levels because epic boons. I think most people who want the option to go to 20 want more mechanical support for the idea (fully fleshed out classes to 20, spells, etc).

Not sure if I'm following your "by that logic" logic.