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

[Jack Daniel]

Because without epic levels, how else will Dexter get to play Gygax, his 27th level fighter/mage with a +18 soul-sucking sword!?

But seriously, the game's high levels should be there for people who like to play them. My old-school fantasy heartbreaker explicitly caps out at 10th level (for humans; 6th to 8th for demihumans) because I feel that high-level play doesn't fit the game's setting; but when I'm playing by-the-book OD&D or AD&D? I have no problem letting OD&D characters go up to 36th level and past that into the Immortals levels, or letting AD&D characters go to 30th and then quest for godhood. It's traditional and it's fun! (Though of course this does come from a place where the higher levels existing in the game-rules doesn't come with any assumption that they'll ever be achieved by player characters. The concept of a 1st level to 20th level campaign arc makes no sense at all when the campaign milieu is just a sandbox backdrop for the various players' competing characters to all try and work up to whatever level they can achieve before the player decides to retire the character!)

 

[FrogReaver]

But that doesn't jive with what I said. If a lot of groups get there at least sometimes, then you are not going to be statistically insignificant, especially considering a lot of groups get there a lot of the time.

“A lot” can absolutely be a statistically insignificant portion, if there are sufficiently more than “a lot” that don’t fall into that subset.

Now I've seen it all. Is this really an argument about what "a lot" means.

 

[DammitVictor]

A lot of neat comments here about the importance of high-level play that mostly just make me think "high-level play" should start at much lower levels. PCs should be pushing weight in the campaign world after their first adventure. The original "name level" where PCs started ruling their domains was only 9th.

It puts me in mind of the transition from AD&D to WotC D&D, comparing the former's DM's Option: High Level Campaigns to the latter's Epic Level Handbook and marveling at which of the 11th level "high level" options got moved to 21st level and which got moved to 1st.

I'm definitely a proponent of "high level play" in D&D but I'm much less attached to high level spells and numbers go up on class features you've had since the game started.

 

[Charlaquin]

Now I've seen it all. Is this really an argument about what "a lot" means.

N… no?

 

[Maxperson]

“A lot” can absolutely be a statistically insignificant portion, if there are sufficiently more than “a lot” that don’t fall into that subset.

No matter how you look at it, their data is skewed and unreliable. If there really was close to 0% that go above level 15, we wouldn't have it in the books.

 

[Weiley31]

I still prefer the 3.0/3.5 idea of Epic Levels and all the way up to Level 40. I don't know. Was it buggy? Ya probably. Mostly cuz I just liked the idea of maxing out two classes fully.

Temple of Elemental Evil for the PC actually had a max level cap of 10 and part of me still felt that was low. But I guess it worked best for that game.

 

[Maxperson]

Now I've seen it all. Is this really an argument about what "a lot" means.

Not really. It's an argument about how D&D Beyond's numbers are irrelevant and useless. "A lot" just seems to be the focal point right now.

 

[FrogReaver]

No matter how you look at it, their data is skewed and unreliable. If there really was close to 0% that go above level 15, we wouldn't have it in the books.

To be honest, D&D Beyond is the first time anyone's got a good look at what levels people actually play with a sample size large enough to be statistically significant. D&D Beyond Data is not perfect but it sure beats the anecdotal experiences people give, unless there's some reason why people would put characters of every other level on there except 16+.

 

[Charlaquin]

No matter how you look at it, their data is skewed and unreliable.

I think their methodology seems pretty sound from what we know of it.

If there really was close to 0% that go above level 15, we wouldn't have it in the books.

That doesn’t follow. The books were written first, based on feedback from a subset of the player base at the time, which largely showed that the majority didn’t expect to use the full 1-20 spread often, but wanted the option anyway - a good reason to include them in the books! Then the player base expanded significantly, to the point where the subset who gave feedback on the original playtest is no longer representative. Given that players who actually used the full 1-20 spread were already in the minority during the playtest, it is not at all unexpected that after massive expansion, that minority would shrink even further. Might that be a good reason not to include those higher levels in a hypothetical 6th edition? Possibly, although as the 5e playtest feedback shows, there are factors that go into including or excluding features beyond just how much they’re used. It is entirely possible that the majority of the player base would still want the option to play to 20th level, even though only a tiny minority would take advantage of that option.

 

[Yora]

I didn't even know there was any actually collected data. Anyone got a link?