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

[Yaarel]

Actually, with the epic boon system neither your class nor your character level advance. You instead advance through feats, boons, and ability scores. We’ve played with a few time and i personally enjoyed it more than levels. In fact, we plan to do a campaign it starts at level 20 we liked it so much.

I probably prefer a more 4e approach with epic destinies.

For 5e, the boons need to be fluid, allowing the play free choice of which ones to take. Some boons are stupendously better than other boons. Players will and should cherry pick the better boons.

That said, the boons can organize thematically. Some themes will relate to Psion becoming an immortal mind (reminds me of Ob1). Some like Wizard becoming an immortal archwizard. Some themes wont relate to class, such as an undead Lich or so on.

At minimum, each theme should be levels 21 to 24, a full "immortal" tier. But higher levels are also possible. Even so, the player can pick any boon they want at each level, so the immortal levels are fluid.

Simply becoming level 21 should get immortality for free, but the flavor of the epic destiny will determine HOW the character became immortal (magic, ascendant, undead, etcetera) − in addition to the first choice of boon at level 21.

 

[d24454_modern]

I probably prefer a more 4e approach with epic destinies.

For 5e, the boons need to be fluid, allowing the play free choice of which ones to take. Some boons are stupendously better than other boons. Players will and should cherry pick the better boons.

That said, the boons can organize thematically. Some themes will relate to Psion becoming an immortal mind (reminds me of Ob1). Some like Wizard becoming an immortal archwizard. Some themes wont relate to class, such as an undead Lich or so on.

At minimum, each theme should be levels 21 to 24, a full "immortal" tier. But higher levels are also possible. Even so, the player can pick any boon they want at each level, so the immortal levels are fluid.

Simply becoming level 21 should get immortality for free, but the flavor of the epic destiny will determine HOW the character became immortal (magic, ascendant, undead, etcetera) − in addition to the first choice of boon at level 21.

Why should someone become immortal just because they reach level 21? Don't they have enough powers as is?

 

[Yaarel]

Why should someone become immortal just because they reach level 21? Don't they have enough powers as is?

Immortal is narrative. There are no mechanical benefits. The character no longer ages, but can still be killed in combat.

A boon is a mechanical benefit to make the character more powerful in some way.

Each tier feels different from the other tiers
• 1 to 4: Student
• 5 to 8: Professional
• 9 to 12: Master (head an institution)
• 13 to 16: Leader (perhaps head a nation)
• 17 to 20: Legend (highest extremes of humanity)
• 21 to 24: Immortal (beyond humanity)

Immortality (achieved by various means according to the chosen epic destiny) is part of the feel of the tier.

 

[d24454_modern]

Immortal is narrative. There are no mechanical benefits. The character no longer ages, but can still be killed in combat.

A boon is a mechanical benefit to make the character more powerful in some way.

Each tier feels different from the other tiers
• 1 to 4: Student
• 5 to 8: Professional
• 9 to 12: Master (head an institution)
• 13 to 16: Leader (perhaps head a nation)
• 17 to 20: Legend (highest extremes of humanity)
• 21 to 24: Immortal (beyond humanity)

Immortality (achieved by various means according to the chosen epic destiny) is part of the feel of the tier.

Your tiers are honestly too low and linear.

I would do:

• 1 to 8: Low level
• 9 to 14: Mid level
• 15 to 18: High level
• 19 to 20: Masters
• 21 to 30: Paragons
• 31 to 50: Legends

 

[Yaarel]

Your tiers are honestly too low and linear.

I would do:

• 1 to 8: Low level
• 9 to 14: Mid level
• 15 to 18: High level
• 19 to 20: Masters
• 21 to 30: Paragons
• 31 to 50: Legends

Your feel seems accurate.

I prefer the symmetry. Where I have each tier be four levels, each tier corresponds exactly with the proficiency bonus improvement and having a choice of feat as its cap. The mechanical difference between tiers is significant.

Also, levels 1 to 4 as a tier feels very different from the levels 5 to 8 as a tier. But I agree both tiers together 1-4 and 5-8, are best for a low-magic setting, with a more Tolkien-esque feel.

Similarly, 9 to 12 (like 1e "name" levels) feels different from 13 to 16 (which sometimes becomes mechanically very different).

Once one gets into levels 17 to 20, with the Wish spell each day, and the like, it is a different kind game.



Regarding tier names I am of two minds. On the one mind, I am still leaning toward medievalesque advancement in profession.

• 1 to 4: Student: Apprentice / Page
• 5 to 8: Professional: Journeyer / Squire
• 9 to 12: Master: Guildmaster / Knight
• 13 to 16: Noble (≈ Lord/Lady)
• 17 to 20: Legendary



And on the other mind, the old Basic-Expert D&D is suggestive.

• 1 to 4: Basic
• 5 to 8: Expert
• 9 to 12: Champion (works for the name levels and "knight")
• 13 to 16: Master
• 17 to 20: ...
• 21 to 24: Immortal

While tempting, the BECMI divisions are awkward for both medieval-esque and D&D 5e feel.

 

[Greg K]

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.

7-9th level spells according to at least one of his players

 

[Yaarel]

And on the other mind, the old Basic-Expert D&D is suggestive.

• 1 to 4: Basic
• 5 to 8: Expert
• 9 to 12: Champion (works for the name levels and "knight")
• 13 to 16: Master
• 17 to 20: ...
• 21 to 24: Immortal

While tempting, the BECMI divisions are awkward for both medieval-esque and D&D 5e feel.

Heh, I probably prefer "BEMCLI"

• 1 to 4: Basic
• 5 to 8: Expert
• 9 to 12: Master
• 13 to 16: Champion (!)
• 17 to 20: Legend
• 21 to 24: Immortal

Champion at tier 13 to 16, is also when the superhero feel kicks in.

 

[Staffan]

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.

Just checking: are you under the impression that D&D Beyond is a service for gaming online? It's not. There's no VTT associated with D&D Beyond, though there are third-party add-ons to integrate it with various VTTs to various degrees (for example, I have one called Beyond20 that lets me click on an ability or attack or spell in D&D Beyond and send the result to a VTT like Roll20).

The main purpose of D&D Beyond is to have the books in an electronic format (and one that's far superior to PDFs), and in a way that lets me share my books with my players. This means that instead of bringing 8 hardbacks (PHB, DMG, MM, Xanathar's, Tasha's, Volo's, Mordenkainen's, and a hardback campaign) to the location where we're playing, I can bring one laptop or even a tablet. I also have access to the books no matter where I am. The secondary purpose is to have a character generator that makes it easy to create and advance a character, and to keep track of that character's abilities. D&D Beyond works just fine for these purposes work just fine regardless of whether I'm playing online or in person.

 

[Staffan]

I think it's likely that most people are using D&D hardbacks, so the lack of higher level characters has a lot to do with the fact that adventures don't go up that high. Exactly why they don't go that high is an interesting question in itself. I believe that Paizo started with adventure paths going to level 20 and then backed away from that, so maybe that is informing WOTC too.

It's the other way around, actually. PF1 adventure paths generally aimed for level 20 but fell a few levels short and generally ended somewhere in the 15-18 range because in the later books things became more complex and took up more page count. In PF2, they have made a concerted effort to go all the way to 20 and even provide actual 20th level adventuring. Mind you, said adventuring is more-or-less the same as early-level adventuring except with bigger numbers and with spells that do increasingly wondrous things – but there's no transition from "adventurer" to "ruler" or anything like that.

I have Thoughts on how well the current APs work, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[d24454_modern]

It's the other way around, actually. PF1 adventure paths generally aimed for level 20 but fell a few levels short and generally ended somewhere in the 15-18 range because in the later books things became more complex and took up more page count. In PF2, they have made a concerted effort to go all the way to 20 and even provide actual 20th level adventuring. Mind you, said adventuring is more-or-less the same as early-level adventuring except with bigger numbers and with spells that do increasingly wondrous things – but there's no transition from "adventurer" to "ruler" or anything like that.

I have Thoughts on how well the current APs work, but that's a topic for another thread.

You're right. It's like a JRPG: while the scope of what you're doing changes, what you're actually doing doesn't actually change.