D&D 5E Why stop at Level 20?

[Oofta]

... Because 5th edition doesn't actually support play beyond around 10th level. (And is barely functional from 1-10 to be honest.)

I would disagree with that, I've run and played in a couple of campaigns now that got to 20th. If the campaign isn't working at higher levels I'd say it's a problem with the DM, not the game.

It's more difficult to run higher level games and you have to do more to challenge characters at higher levels. I'm not even saying it's worth the effort for everyone.

But it works reasonably well, certainly better than 3.5 and previous versions.

 

[Retreater]

I would disagree with that, I've run and played in a couple of campaigns now that got to 20th. If the campaign isn't working at higher levels I'd say it's a problem with the DM, not the game.

It's more difficult to run higher level games and you have to do more to challenge characters at higher levels. I'm not even saying it's worth the effort for everyone.

But it works reasonably well, certainly better than 3.5 and previous versions.

Just because there are technically rules for higher than 10th level play doesn't mean the system does a good job at supporting that tier of play. The published content for levels 10+ is sorely lacking - whether advice for how to run games or published adventures. WotC has just sort of swept it under the rug, as if there is no assumption that anyone actually plays those levels.

My experience has been that the game completely breaks down around 10th level. (Actually probably closer to 5th level.)

 

[Oofta]

Just because there are technically rules for higher than 10th level play doesn't mean the system does a good job at supporting that tier of play. The published content for levels 10+ is sorely lacking - whether advice for how to run games or published adventures. WotC has just sort of swept it under the rug, as if there is no assumption that anyone actually plays those levels.

My experience has been that the game completely breaks down around 10th level. (Actually probably closer to 5th level.)

If your games are starting to fall apart at 5th level you have some pretty fundamental issues with how the game is being run. As far as published content I don't use published modules so I have no clue. There aren't a ton of high level monsters for when I get tired of throwing mobs at the PCs, but there are guidelines for creating or upgrading existing monsters. It is a bit more work.

I've seen multiple campaigns that ran quite successfully up to and including level 20. Advice on how to do that would be a separate thread. Maybe you should be looking for advice on how to run your games - either ask for specific advice or go to one of the numerous blogs and podcasts out there.

 

[ad_hoc]

If your games are starting to fall apart at 5th level you have some pretty fundamental issues with how the game is being run. As far as published content I don't use published modules so I have no clue. There aren't a ton of high level monsters for when I get tired of throwing mobs at the PCs, but there are guidelines for creating or upgrading existing monsters. It is a bit more work.

I've seen multiple campaigns that ran quite successfully up to and including level 20. Advice on how to do that would be a separate thread. Maybe you should be looking for advice on how to run your games - either ask for specific advice or go to one of the numerous blogs and podcasts out there.

Yeah, the sweet spot the game is designed around is levels 5-10. If the game falls apart for you at 5 then something is probably going on there.

Each tier of play is a different experience. It was good design to split the game up this way. I don't care for levels 12+. I'm happy to have a big world shattering conclusion at 11, but don't have a desire to play after that.

One thing I've noticed is that people tend to under challenge high level characters. In the 'tiers of play' section, 11+ is for threats to an entire world, 17+ is for threats to the multiverse. If the group wants to continue a game with a smaller scope then I think it is best to start over with new characters.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, the sweet spot the game is designed around is levels 5-10. If the game falls apart for you at 5 then something is probably going on there.

Each tier of play is a different experience. It was good design to split the game up this way. I don't care for levels 12+. I'm happy to have a big world shattering conclusion at 11, but don't have a desire to play after that.

One thing I've noticed is that people tend to under challenge high level characters. In the 'tiers of play' section, 11+ is for threats to an entire world, 17+ is for threats to the multiverse. If the group wants to continue a game with a smaller scope then I think it is best to start over with new characters.

Our games weren't exactly universe shattering, but they did certainly involve the old "stop an apocalypse" trope. That's not for everyone. How many apocalypses can there be, and what happens if the group fails? If the group can't fail, what's the point?

There are a lot of things that can go wrong with high level play. For example, I find that allowing people to get a long rest too often, have enemies show up in fireball formation, the only goal always being kill the enemy and so on can make it really difficult to challenge high level parties. When you get a wizard or two that can call in the artillery cast meteor storm, it changes things.

So I understand the preference for lower level play. But to say that high level play doesn't work is simply not true in my experience.

 

[ad_hoc]

Our games weren't exactly universe shattering, but they did certainly involve the old "stop an apocalypse" trope. That's not for everyone. How many apocalypses can there be, and what happens if the group fails? If the group can't fail, what's the point?

It is a good indication of scale. At levels 17+ the party should be involved in matters affecting the fabric of the multiverse. If they're still on their home plane hunting even bigger dragons for cash then things are going to get wonky and the group will inevitably end up on a forum complaining about how easy the game is.

So I understand the preference for lower level play. But to say that high level play doesn't work is simply not true in my experience.

It works at something different. Characters don't have the same constraints. Threats need to be different and dynamic. When the party is powerful enough to affect gods and the planes then people will take notice.

It's easy to fall into creating the same thing that happens at lower levels just with bigger numbers. Replacing the scenery from a village on the material plane to a village on an outer plane isn't very interesting to me. At some point as the levels get higher that is all that is happening. It's the same reason I don't want anyone to start with higher than a +3 modifier. Sure, we could all have 24s to be 'heroic', but then that just becomes the new normal. If everyone is a god then no one is a god.

 

[Mistwell]

 

[MPA2000]

I would disagree with that, I've run and played in a couple of campaigns now that got to 20th.

Already?? The game has only been out since 2014 or 2015.

hmm. Was it just one person campaign? Frequency of play? I can't fathom this.

 

[MPA2000]

Go to other dimensions and fight gods or demons sounds pretty limited to me.

I agree, especially when the DM's lack the capacity to think beyond dungeons.

 

[SkidAce]

Personally I think well should stop at LEVEL 9,000! Granted I will need 3 gallons of regular size d6s on a level 40 fireball but it will be worth it.

Why STOP at 9,000?