D&D 5E Why is level 5-10 the "sweet spot" in D&D

[Warmaster Horus]

I don't think many DMs have the experience or knowledge to challenge a 11+ level party. Believe me, it can be done. But the challenges need to be difficult and frequent to keep a high level party on edge. The best advise I can give for that level of play is for a DM to take off the kid gloves and push his players hard, make custom creatures they can't recite word for word from the MM and be sure their campaigns have a commensurate sense of urgency that keeps the PCs moving forward against a powerful and mysterious opposition.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think many DMs have the experience or knowledge to challenge a 11+ level party. Believe me, it can be done. But the challenges need to be difficult and frequent to keep a high level party on edge. The best advise I can give for that level of play is for a DM to take off the kid gloves and push his players hard, make custom creatures they can't recite word for word from the MM and be sure their campaigns have a commensurate sense of urgency that keeps the PCs moving forward against a powerful and mysterious opposition.

This is another good way to do the "low is limited, high is hard" analysis I did earlier. Low levels have a very narrow, even "restraining" range of options for the DM to work with, so the intensity, variety, complexity, and creativity of the challenges players will face is also constrained. At high levels, a combination of DM analysis paralysis and inexperience can lead to a similar situation, where the DM has fewer valid threats to work with (even in 5e) and fewer strategies for challenging the players. The middle levels furnish the DM with the widest variety of tools and strategies, while being common enough that most DMs will have (or get) experience with them.

 

[Ancalagon]

So, are 5e casters less good at bypassing point plots and fixing everything with a spell?

Pardon me for quoting myself, but this question is key to me in knowing if the sweet spot has extended past 9-10 in 5e...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Pardon me for quoting myself, but this question is key to me in knowing if the sweet spot has extended past 9-10 in 5e...

I would say that casters doing that is much less frequent than in earlier editions for a couple reasons. 1. Spell slots are fewer. Spells 6th level and above, regardless of level, aren't nearly as numerous as a previous edition's caster would be at the same level. 2. 5e seems to have a lot of spells that increase your chance, or give you a great bonus, but not nearly as many "auto succeed" as previous editions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pardon me for quoting myself, but this question is key to me in knowing if the sweet spot has extended past 9-10 in 5e...

Doesn't look like it, but I've only personally experienced the lower end.

Yes - it gets very challenging as a GM to well, challenge the PCs at higher levels. Not because the spellcasters have attack spells of doom, but because their *problem solving capacity* becomes immense. I call this the "swiss army knife" wizard problem.

So, are 5e casters less good at bypassing point plots and fixing everything with a spell?

Sure. If anything, it's a little easier for them to get there because they just have to have the right spell prepped once - they expend slots spontaneously, so can choose as the day progresses whether to actually cast more combat or more utility spells. Plus, some such spells are even rituals and don't expend slots, just take up extra time.

That would be interesting, but I suspect only a portion of groups would like it. And the portion of groups where *every player* is interested in that will be minute.

Nod. A friend runs a 4e campaign like that, the regular sessions are the usual D&D stand-bys, but there is also an almost sim-city like sub-plot going which only a couple of the players really care about going through in the excruciating bookkeeping details he's come up with. They take care of it away from the table, a lot of it on a wiki. The over-arching goal of it still drives some of the plot hooks that everyone gets involved in.

 

[hejtmane]

I do not know why people think that I love higher levels but then I generally run a custom campaigns

 

[Shiroiken]

Keep the full 20 levels, just stop making level 20 the "finish line."

Technically there is no "finish line" since the DMG has rules for gaining abilities after level 20 (but the players don't see that).

The PHB (which the players see) gives the impression that there are 20 levels to be played. This creates the notion that the game goes from levels 1-20, when this isn't the reality. In addition to outside influences (which end more campaigns than successful resolution ever will), a campaign has a story lifespan. Once you've told the tale, it's time to retire the characters, start something new, and occasionally reminisce about the great campaign.

Too often I've seen DMs push a campaign too long, where there is very little worthwhile story left, and these campaigns seldom end well (like a great TV show that's jumped the shark). I played in a 3E campaign that was really good, with us killing (banishing) a Demon Lord at level 8 (don't ask... it was a Monty Haul, make the most broken character you could kind of campaign), but the DM didn't want to end the campaign at such low level. We continued on until level 15 or so, but everything after the Demon Lord felt pretty anti-climatic. A great campaign lasts only as long as it needs to. The best 4E campaign I played in was only levels 1-5, leaving 25 levels unused... and unneeded.

 

[Gadget]

Pardon me for quoting myself, but this question is key to me in knowing if the sweet spot has extended past 9-10 in 5e...

While there are some notable exceptions, Higher level spells seem to have been toned down in this edition (caveat: I have not played into the high levels in 5e). While tossing out a Meteor Swarm or Wish, and especially the newly uber Foresight is impressive, they don't seem to be as dominant as past editions. There are still powerful abilities that come about at higher levels (Teleport is now a 7th level spell, no doubt in response to previous Edition's scry and fry technique), but also seems to be a lot of "more of the same" spells that merely add to the damage dice or number of targets. Look at Moderkien's sword, now look at Spiritual Weapon; now back to Moderkien's Sword; Which one is the 7th level spell and which is the 2nd level spell again? Summoning has been curtailed quite a bit, along with the fact that spell casters have to deal with concentration and only one slot of 6th through 9th level spells limits options.

However, you can get some sweet riders with just cantrips. Chill Touch prevents healing & regeneration for a round. Shocking Grasp eliminates reactions from the target. While that is okay, it leaves little room for higher level spells in the respective schools to go, other than moar damage. Not even very high level necromancy spells prevent healing for a round, IIRC, though of course specific spells may have other nasty side effects. I can't think of any other spells at the moment that prevent reactions other than those the incapacitate outright. So I think that, with scaling attack cantrips in hand, enough 1-5th level slots, and a few 6-9th level slots for a big boom, spell casters eventually get to the point that they have enough going on to handle most encounters, despite limited high level access. Also, many (though certainly not all) high level campaigns tend to be EPIC PLOT driven, with big showdowns the emphasis, rather than grinding out 6-8 encounters a day. This could be a factor as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I completely agree. There is a bit of "playing safe" with this edition of D&D and that probably felt like a risk not worth taking.

Hard to blame the game for listening to its fans even if it results in 1/4 - 1/2 of the thing just not ever really getting played that much. "We want more options that we'll never actually use in play!" has been a reoccurring theme from certain D&D fans even to this day. Pathfinder sells more rules options than most folks could use in a lifetime or three. The character-building minigame in D&D is a strong bit of "solo play," and it's something that unquestionably pushes books, at least until a point of saturation has been reached.

Agreed. I'm not advocating the game be released without a full 20 levels. Only that the expectation of players achieving all 20 of those levels for a "complete" journey needs to go away. I remember WotC talking about how they wanted to encourage groups to get past certain levels after determining that "most campaigns stop at 12" or whatever the number was. Except they never bothered asking *why* most campaigns stop then.

Keep the full 20 levels, just stop making level 20 the "finish line."

Part of this is something I see in 5e's 20-level arc. Some of the level 20 abilities are powerful enough that it's clear that you're not exactly meant to play the game for long periods of time at that maximum level - similar to the way low levels are fragile and the XP curve takes you out of them quickly.

But I think you encounter a psychological issue. If the game has 20 levels, people are going to, on some level, expect to use those 20 levels, and not just have them be theoretical. It seems that 5e makes them very usable, but just logistically, people rarely get to that point. All that design going to waste.

Yes - it gets very challenging as a GM to well, challenge the PCs at higher levels. Not because the spellcasters have attack spells of doom, but because their *problem solving capacity* becomes immense. I call this the "swiss army knife" wizard problem.

So, are 5e casters less good at bypassing point plots and fixing everything with a spell?

Significantly so, though it's a bit of a swing back from 4e's significant nerf batting. Casters can dominate a single combat encounter if they nova, though that's true of any class with a daily resource, and 5e wants you to have multiple combat encounters in a day, so that one moment of boom doesn't become game-defining. Casters are less able to dictate the strategies of parties, though, given the tight reigns and possible GM noodling placed on most magic.

Charm Person isn't a bad example of this philosophy in action. In 5e, even after you charm a person or a monster, you still need to make Charisma checks, so while the magic makes it easier / possible, it doesn't make it assured, and it leaves room for a DM to be like "sorry, buddy, that's a wasted spell slot."

Most classically game-changing spells are riskier. Teleport has a < 50% chance to have you arrive on-target if you've just "seen it casaully" (such as through scry). Dominate only lasts a minute. Polymorph gives you the brain of the beast. Any spell of level 6+ is a 1/day thing.

 

[Ancalagon]

[MENTION=23716]Gadget[/MENTION]:

but the "big boom" spells are not the problem. It's the "problem solving" spells that greatly enhances a party's capacity for transportation, information gathering, obstacle bypassing etc...

I mean let's say you are in an inn of a cursed town, and with you is the body of some damned sod who will rise as a terrible vampire lord once the sun goes down. The only solution is burying him on consecrated grounds. You have to carry the body through the town which is filled with - I don't know, ghouls, goblins, foes basically; furthermore you only have a few hours before sunset. This could be a cool part of an adventure right? Not at high level though.

Sorcerer: I will teleport everyone to the consecrated grounds!
Wizard: Don't bother. I will open a portal to the elemental plane of fire and we'll toss the body in there. Have fun regenerating vampire lord!
Cleric: guys guys come on now, let's do this right. I'll consecrate the grounds behind the inn, we'll bury him there, and then the sorcerer can teleport us back to our beach-side mansion!
Barbarian: ... I guess I can cook BBQ once we are there?

Is this still a thing in 5e?