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

[Oofta]

High levels let you tell a different type of story. Yes, it can get a bit gonzo but it can still be fun. It does take extra work on the DM's side to set up proper scenarios and solos in my experience have never really work particularly well at any level in any edition. Better to have waves of bad guys. I have a couple of templates I apply to boost the threat level of relatively low level monsters for examples so I can use them as fodder.

But really it just becomes more and more difficult to have published campaigns that go to high levels because you really need to know the group and what they're capable of. In my experience, encounters can be fairly generic at lower levels, but at a certain point you simply need encounters customized to fit your group. How much I can throw at any given group to get the desired level of difficulty varies based on groups and team efficiency, it just gets worse as you get to higher levels. Have a small army of mid level monsters? If the wizard has meteor storm, an available spell slot and the situation is set that they can target it, that small army just goes away. Not able to cast that spell? Good luck, might want to figure out how to run mobs!

I get that most people don't play to that level and I understand why. It can take a lot of hours of gaming to go from 1-20. On the other hand they sell cars that can easily go double or even triple the speed limit; the idea that you could do it even if it's only ever going to happen under certain circumstances while driving the autobahn doesn't mean it's not something to aspire to.

 

[Aging Bard]

I actually think D&D should end around level 10. The only reason it doesn't it because Gygax made the mistake of designing level 9 spells for wizards, deliberately as a way to give antagonists spells the PCs couldn't use.

This, and my 1e campaign does end with PCs around 12-13th level. But you want higher level NPCs for challenges more interesting than most monsters.

 

[Maxperson]

D&D was not always a game with character levels going from 1st to 20th level. The original game only covered the first ten levels or so, and oldtimers from back in the day tell stories of characters retiring as rulers of their own domains rarely advancing much beyond that. In BECMI, characters other than humans can't go above 12th level, and in AD&D most characters other than humans and/or thieves cap out at 12th or 16th level.
I believe the codification that all characters go up to 20th level started with 3rd edition, because the game engine was called the d20 system and there's an opportunity to have another 20 show up.

But from everything I've heard in the two decades that I've been playing D&D, people playing above 15th level almost never seems to happen. Published modules and adventures also barely ever covered levels above that. Pathfinder Adventure Paths usually go from 1st to 15th level, and even the original Dragonlance series went only up to about 14th level, I've been told. In the days of 3rd edition, there was a lot of complaining from people digging deep into the math that things just start to break down completely once you go past those levels.

One problem seems to be that by 15th level, a group of 4 to 6 well prepared characters can take on a single one of the traditional top dog monsters. You can of course face off against groups of high power enemies after that, but that really stretches the narrative consistency of the game world. The best thing I've heard about high level play is "the same as always, but with bigger numbers".

Of course, the lure of 9th level spells has always been tempting. But given the overwhelming anecdotal evidence, is it really worth to still keep putting high level content in the regular Player's Handbook? If there really might be a market for material at higher levels, there's the option for a kind of Epic Level Handbook that covers level 15 to 25. (Remember the Epic Level Handbook? Yeah, I remember how people fawned over it when it came out, and then nobody ever using any of it.)
I think the PHB would actually become a better book if it goes only up to 15th level and doesn't bother 8th and 9th level spells. Not only does it become more compact and makes learning the game easier, it also creates more realistic expectations for players.

Because a lot of us still get there.

 

[Alzrius]

D&D was not always a game with character levels going from 1st to 20th level. The original game only covered the first ten levels or so, and oldtimers from back in the day tell stories of characters retiring as rulers of their own domains rarely advancing much beyond that.

This is an overstatement. Even back in the Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), the rules said (Men & Magic, p. 18):

Levels: There is no theoretical limit to how high a character may progress, i.e. 20th level Lord, 20th level Wizard, etc. Distinct names have only been included for the base levels, but this does not influence progression.

While a lot of players kept to the lower end of the power curve, there was a distinct subset who power-gamed up to higher levels. And I mean, very high levels. After all, consider Tim Kask's foreword to Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes:

This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?

Of course, trying to shame power-gamers into reining themselves in worked out about as well as you'd imagine.

Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't know why people care one way or the other. If the game ends at 10, so be it. If it ends at 20, okay. If it ends at level 30, fine. If the game has no final level, then those who want to play it can keep doing so. What does it matter?

Any game should include in it as many levels as they can comfortably include (for page count, mechanical stability etc.) and not care whether or not someone uses it. But at the same token, no game is beholden to producing content for all the levels they put in the game either. I mean if the designers of D&D 5E consider level 15 to be the max level of usefulness in the adventures they design... then fine. Yes, they included levels 16-20 in the game itself as well, but they did that as courtesy to those players who wished to adventure there. But the designers don't need to make stuff for those people just because they included those levels in the book-- the same way they don't need to produce content for people who want to play levels 21-30... content that they didn't choose to include in the book.

"You included levels 16-20 in the book, you should support it!" is often a call we hear. And to me, the proper response is "No. We included those levels to be nice to some of you, while also thumbing our noses at some of you who wanted levels 21-30 as well. If you choose to adventure at levels 16-20 or even from 21-30... you are more than welcome to... but you'll need to do a bunch of the work on your own. We're choosing not to do the work for you."

Heck, be thankful you actually got pre-made class material designed in the books for levels 16-20 at all... because you could have been part of the group that had your preferred level range completely stripped out of the game (like the 21-30 fans did.)

 

[MatthewJHanson]

My current campaign is at 15th and will level up after their next fight. We plan to go all the way up to 20.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Considering IME that the characters don't even start to get into their concepts until level 3, the game doesn't really get interesting until level 5, You need the last 4 levels to make up for slogging through the first four.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Considering IME that the characters don't even start to get into their concepts until level 3, the game doesn't really get interesting until level 5, You need the last 4 levels to make up for slogging through the first four.

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

 

[jmartkdr2]

I play a lot at very high levels (17+ in 5e)... it works okay, once the dm learns to make challenges for that kind of level (pull out all the stops). It's a little extra work for them, but on the other hand they know the players extremely well by then.


The best part is how much the pc's can impact the world - the decisions they make have far-reaching consequences. They aren't just reacting anymore. They build kingdoms, reshape the landscape, and begin movements that will impact world history. It's not the "powerful npc's" world anymore.

 

[Yora]

Any game should include in it as many levels as they can comfortably include

That's the important point. In my experience, I feel that high level in the 3rd and 5th edition Player's Handbook don't comfortably fit into the scope of the book.