D&D 5E Why stop at Level 20?

[Tallifer]

If the player characters in the campaign I run ever reach 20th level, I would keep running the campaign, but there would be no more levels. There would however be new artifacts, more social status, power and prestige, and ever greater tales of heroism and horror.

 

[Ymdar]

Something to consider for adventuring beyond 20: The PCs are some of the most powerful entities in existence. They should not face many enemies that pose a large risk to their lives. If they do, you diminish how powerful they are. They're Supermen. And like Superman, the way to challenge them is not by threatening their lives, it is by threatening the things they care about. Threats to their loved ones, their kingdom, their faith... these all the PCs to be stronger than others, but still face challenges.

I haven't played high level games yet but I see a lot of monsters with CR's over 20. Do characters plough through these as easily as you suggest?

 

[Coroc]

Since this thread was successfully dezombified, i wonder if epic levels would be a problem in 5e more or less than in other editions, leaving out 4rth with its linear math.

I would argue part more difficult: you already are pretty much limited with spellevel 6th to 9th and a hard limit for attributes (20)

Otoh less: Bound accuracy makes DMs life easier it should theoretically even work at epic levels. Also weak saving throws in at least one if not two of the Dex/Wis/Con group
Means you can stil lhit and hurt the party.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't played high level games yet but I see a lot of monsters with CR's over 20. Do characters plough through these as easily as you suggest?

A well prepared party that is not low on resources can take out pretty much any monster in the book. Probably even multiple. A monster at your CR is just a moderate encounter for a 4 party group.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=84661]Tallifer[/MENTION] love your drawings, top left guy with tentacles coming out of .. ... reminds me of "Drawn together"

 

[Oofta]

Can I just say something? Players have fun where they are challenged and aren't limited by the imagination or desires of the DM. Most DMs are intimidated by high level characters, and in the case of Immortals, terrified. They don't want to look inept or incompetent having put forth challenges, only to see the characters easily overcome them or having looked foolish from the attempt.

It's called Dungeons and Dragons, but Dungeons can only go so deep and Dragons can only be so tough, until they become something of an annoyance as opposed to any real challenge.

That leads DMs changing the rules to make it harder. Doubling monster's HP, increasing the frequencies or even adding strange and bizarre powers and defences to existing powers.

And when all of that fails, just simply say, "Oh you find your spells no longer work" and that 30th level Wizard becomes zombie food.

I personally think high level PC's and Immortals have a place in adventuring, if DM's think outside the box. Going to other planes of existence to deal with some ancient evil attempting to open a portal to the Prime. Go to one of the vast Galaxies to be involved in an interstellar rebellion against an extremely powerful Empire that rules dozens of worlds. Perhaps uncovering the machinations of one or more evil Immortals or Fiends.

The possibilities are endless.

Having run epic level campaigns, all I can say is that they aren't something I would enjoy very often. It has nothing to do with thinking outside the box, or having a hard time challenging the players. It's because the campaign has to shift tone entirely and effectively leave my campaign world behind. I'm not intimidated, terrified or afraid of looking incompetent. But I've put a lot of thought and work over the years into what makes my world tick. Epic level campaigns, by their very nature, are a different game. If I wanted to play a superhero or galaxy spanning game, I'd use a different system.

[EDIT]Grammar typo.

 

[FieserMoep]

Most Groups and Campaigns don't even reach Tier 4 which makes it a softcap anyway. 20 is just a hard cap for it only makes sense to publish so much official material to be actually usefull. Creating classes with 30 levels in mind with not even 1% of player and customers even using those rules is kinda pointless.
That being said, it should be quite easy to adapt the rules to allow an open ended system. Will it be unbalanced? Yea, but given the DM always has the most potent arsenal anyway, it can work.

For level 40 max I suggest:
- Allow Sources of multiattack to stack from up to two classes.
- Raise the Stat Cap to 30, class abilities that increased the cap previously stack on top of that 30.
- Don't increase proficiency any further, it devalues classes/abilities that had invested into those unless you get DCs that are higher, though the curve gets very awkward given the single D20 doesn't scale etc. so avoid this entire conondrum. Due to higher base stats expect DC 10-20 to be pretty much trivial.
- Start the spell slots anew the moment someone "get" 20 levels for casters, allow your player to calculate the most beneficial way if they multiclass. Meaning you get one full progression for 20 and then start the spell slot list for 1 again. Allow slots to be used indiscriminately. Keep Warlock progression separate as always.

The most difficult part is creating encounters. Keep on mind that your players at that point can easily 1on1 ancient dragons and the like. They may spit tons of damage but the most "difficult" aspect may be their Spell Save DC that can get through the roof and pretty much neuter ANYTHING that has been published. If you want to run such a campaign, creating monsters, stats etc. should be a hobby of yours or otherwise you wont have much fun.

Also don't make the mistake of creating "mirror" enemies that just use the same mechanics as the PCs to create a challenge. Regular DnD5e sucks at PvP but this way you will get quite a good tabletop adaptation of Unreal Tournment Insta-Gib Arena.

 

[delericho]

Why is there an assumed stopping place of level 20 in 5e?

- Nobody plays that long?

I think it's mostly just tradition. That said, it is true that most people play at lower levels, and very few campaigns get to level 20, so it makes sense not to provide much support for very high levels.

(The fact that most play is at lower levels should be obvious, of course: more games start at level 1 than anywhere else, and they then run for a while before ending. This inevitably skews the population towards lower levels.)

The fact that 5E campaigns still peter out before hitting 20th is one of the things that makes me suspect it isn't about power level at all, per se--it's about DMs who haven't prepared for what a level 20 campaign would or should look like.

I think it's simpler than that - people get bored after a while. Once you've played the same character for months, I think there's an inclination to start looking for other worlds to conquer.

 

[delericho]

Personally, I think my preference would have been to end at level 15, and thus free up space for more support across fewer levels.

 

[Maxperson]

Tradition? I think that's where it stopped for every edition but 4e?

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

This isn't true.

In 1e there was no limit at all. Heck, even the spell charts for cleric and magic user went to level 29, and illusionist to level 24. And there was a 1e module for levels 18-100.

In 2e I can't remember if there were rules for going past level 20.

In 3e the epic handbook allowed for no limit on character level.

In 4e the PHB went to 30.

So for at least 3 out of 5 editions, 20 was not the where it stopped.