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

[Ancalagon]

In 5e, the only high level play I've had was a play-by-post game at level 11, and we never reached level 12. Apart from that, the highest was level 8 (both playing and running).

 

[d24454_modern]

In 5e, the only high level play I've had was a play-by-post game at level 11, and we never reached level 12. Apart from that, the highest was level 8 (both playing and running).

People have a weird idea about what counts as "high-level".

 

[Minigiant]

The issue with D&D levels is that we fans do it by feel and not mechanics.

Tier 2 is Tier 2 because warriors get an extra attack and casters get spells that truly break reality but with limitations.

The problem is after that, we don't agree what comes next and next after next. Is Tier 3 where spell break reality with the limiters off or is that Tier 4? What are warriors at tier 3, 4 or 5?

This is why we can't adventure past level 16th. No one agrees what characters should be able to do there.

 

[mhd]

My personal issue with higher level play, apart from rule bloat, was that it inevitably felt too different from earlier play. At a certain spot, the world isn't big enough and you have to cross unto other planes or prime material places as of yet unreached. And for some kind of reason, this threshold often felt quite sudden. Regular archmages, dragons etc. were still mundane enough. So if this is all part of the same campaign or even adventure path, it's a bit like stumbling into Narnia.
And quite often, there's no good reason why the doorway wasn't there before and hasn't been crossed from the other side. If it's all part of the campaign that the new Big Bads are able to reach our heroes, that's good enough, but with D&D worlds, it sometimes seems like you just got the archdevils on your back because it's time.

High-level environments and monsters feel a bit like the Peter Principle of D&D to me.

Sticking to work place metaphors: Yes, a period of domain play is a nice gap between "regular" stories and epic levels. But why do I have to be promoted to management to get a raise

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

Same. I played in a 5e DnD game past 20th level and I run a campaign with lots of boons "past" 20th. What we did to keep the players from cherry picking is everyone chose one player's boon and then the DM chose the rest. The restriction on boons was they had to be thematic.

 

[Weiley31]

He's basically a teleporting Uber.

So if you don't give Tomas a 5-Star rating, you could find yourself stuck somewhere in the nastier parts of the Shadowfell?

 

[jgsugden]

Why do we have trucks? Cars are so much more efficient!
Why do people eat steaks? Hamburger is so much cheaper!
Why do we learn to swim? It is so much easier to walk!

Why do we have high level play? Because it is a different experience that allows players to play a different stage of the game. It can be insanely rewarding when executed well. The problem: There is insufficient training and tools to support it and a lot of DMs don't understand the nature of the game at that level. Although this is not a universally true statement, I have seen it be true fairly often: Most groups that are not enjoying high level play are primarily struggling because they are trying to run it like a low level game.

When PCs have high magic available to them, it is folly to try to run a lot of the mainstays of low level play. Teleportation, divination, etc... negate a lot of things that would challenge low level PCs. It is this ability to bypass these types of challenges that makes the high level PCs feel powerful. This is a good thing. It gives the players new experiences with their old PCs.

So many DMs just try to run a low level adventure with high level monsters. They contrive reasons for PC abilities to not work. "Anti-magic zones", "Every NPC is wearing an amulet of proof against detection and location", "The BBEG wizard cast a spell that makes teleportation impossible." While a little touch of these techniques can be worked in without much impact, if you're constantly negating your PC abilities, you're fighting the system, not playing the game. After all, D&D is improve acting at the core, and the first rule of improve acting tells you not to negate what others are doing.

In high level play, you often know a lot about the challenges you face. Warlocks and wizards might scout out an entire dungeon with arcane eye or similar magics before the PCs set foot inside. The PCs might realize they can skip right past guardians with teleportation magic. DMs face a catch 22: Spend a lot of prep time on encounters PCs might bypass, or risk having to 'wing it' if PCs do not bypass it. However, you can write adventures for high level that are fun for the PCs and do not negate the abilities of the PCs. They generally work on a few fundamental approaches:

1.) There are massive forces at work. The PCs are trying to shift the balance of power. You want to recover powerful magics by gathering their elements, you want to stop forces in various places from achieving their goals, you want to build defenses that can withstand attacks. You're not going to dungeon delve as often. It is about the larger picture - not small goals. They can come up with dozens of different things they can do to further those massive goals, creating a more open ended game.

2.) PCs have to tap into deeper resources. They have more spell slots and more HPs, as well as better defenses. This allows for longer combat scenarios with less resting. I often see my high level games feature a four hour combat where the PCs are defending something from waves of enemies, or are racing against the clock to do something in less than an hour. This creates a challenge for PCs - how do they stretch their resources long enough to reach their goals? Short battles allow the PCs to effectively be at max power all the time - something that results in them using their most powerful abilities and ignoring the less powerful abilities.

3.) The PCs generally need motivations. They need to care about something outside of themselves - something that needs to be protected. If a PC is just accumulating wealth and power and killing, then it becomes hard to motivate adventure. It isn't impossible, but the game is far easier when the PCs are trying to do something bigger than themselves, even when they are so big and powerful.

4.) DMs must adapt to the unexpected. PCs with this many options will rewrite your story with a good (or horrible) idea. Go with it. If you're on a VTT and they go someplace unexpected that is not prepared, then you may need to just draw a map without the features or go with theater of the mind. If you have a grand storyline in mind tht is to span 5 sessions and they figure out a solution that negates the whole adventure - go with it. Yes, you'll lose out on a lot of planning, but it is not hard to recycle that later subtly.

 

[Shardstone]

The game should be kept to 20 levels, but I like the idea that each tier is split up like BECMI and that would effect the levels of it. Imagine if each class was designed like that in mind? Food for thought!

 

[Shair-afiyun]

Speaking from someone who played public games and home games over the years, dming included:

Public games like Adventurer's League or Pathfinder Society only go up to level 12. If you play in public groups your experience is shaped by games that only extend that high so you make the most out of the first 12 levels and treat anything beyond 12 as though it doesn't exist.

With home games, while the option exists to go to higher levels, I've been in an handful that certainly went to 20, but I seen plenty more games that just stop around 1-10 or even 1-5. This can be because the DM just wanted to run something else even if the party wanted them to continue, or maybe a player isn't having fun, or maybe the dm or one or more party members schedule gets very busy because of real life stuff.

There is also just the thing where while levels 16-20 can seem superfluous at times, first couple levels can also feel like a slog as the builds players want usually starting to come online at 3-6 range. And the temptation as a dm is there to start players at a higher level because why deal with levels 1 and 2 which are basically just 'rusty dagger shanktown'.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do we have trucks? Cars are so much more efficient!
Why do people eat steaks? Hamburger is so much cheaper!
Why do we learn to swim? It is so much easier to walk!

Why do we have high level play? Because it is a different experience that allows players to play a different stage of the game. It can be insanely rewarding when executed well. The problem: There is insufficient training and tools to support it and a lot of DMs don't understand the nature of the game at that level. Although this is not a universally true statement, I have seen it be true fairly often: Most groups that are not enjoying high level play are primarily struggling because they are trying to run it like a low level game.

When PCs have high magic available to them, it is folly to try to run a lot of the mainstays of low level play. Teleportation, divination, etc... negate a lot of things that would challenge low level PCs. It is this ability to bypass these types of challenges that makes the high level PCs feel powerful. This is a good thing. It gives the players new experiences with their old PCs.

So many DMs just try to run a low level adventure with high level monsters. They contrive reasons for PC abilities to not work. "Anti-magic zones", "Every NPC is wearing an amulet of proof against detection and location", "The BBEG wizard cast a spell that makes teleportation impossible." While a little touch of these techniques can be worked in without much impact, if you're constantly negating your PC abilities, you're fighting the system, not playing the game. After all, D&D is improve acting at the core, and the first rule of improve acting tells you not to negate what others are doing.

In high level play, you often know a lot about the challenges you face. Warlocks and wizards might scout out an entire dungeon with arcane eye or similar magics before the PCs set foot inside. The PCs might realize they can skip right past guardians with teleportation magic. DMs face a catch 22: Spend a lot of prep time on encounters PCs might bypass, or risk having to 'wing it' if PCs do not bypass it. However, you can write adventures for high level that are fun for the PCs and do not negate the abilities of the PCs. They generally work on a few fundamental approaches:

1.) There are massive forces at work. The PCs are trying to shift the balance of power. You want to recover powerful magics by gathering their elements, you want to stop forces in various places from achieving their goals, you want to build defenses that can withstand attacks. You're not going to dungeon delve as often. It is about the larger picture - not small goals. They can come up with dozens of different things they can do to further those massive goals, creating a more open ended game.

2.) PCs have to tap into deeper resources. They have more spell slots and more HPs, as well as better defenses. This allows for longer combat scenarios with less resting. I often see my high level games feature a four hour combat where the PCs are defending something from waves of enemies, or are racing against the clock to do something in less than an hour. This creates a challenge for PCs - how do they stretch their resources long enough to reach their goals? Short battles allow the PCs to effectively be at max power all the time - something that results in them using their most powerful abilities and ignoring the less powerful abilities.

3.) The PCs generally need motivations. They need to care about something outside of themselves - something that needs to be protected. If a PC is just accumulating wealth and power and killing, then it becomes hard to motivate adventure. It isn't impossible, but the game is far easier when the PCs are trying to do something bigger than themselves, even when they are so big and powerful.

4.) DMs must adapt to the unexpected. PCs with this many options will rewrite your story with a good (or horrible) idea. Go with it. If you're on a VTT and they go someplace unexpected that is not prepared, then you may need to just draw a map without the features or go with theater of the mind. If you have a grand storyline in mind tht is to span 5 sessions and they figure out a solution that negates the whole adventure - go with it. Yes, you'll lose out on a lot of planning, but it is not hard to recycle that later subtly.

Not that I disagree, but what about high level play is fun for the GM? I see a lot of advice here that boils down to, "Your PCs are super powerful now and can do what they want, more or less. Deal with it." The problem with high level play is it widens the gap. Players get more cool stuff they can do, including ways to ignore challenges that used to actually be challenges. GMs just get expotientally increasing headaches.