D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

No, I genuinely think it's impossible. Because that means having a magic weapon? That counts as one of your passives. Each and every magic item you own counts as one, in fact. Any consumables you have, those count, individually. Extra Attack counts.

When even Champion Fighters are at risk of being over the line, the line is far too close.

I’m not talking about for 5e, a game built with that idea from the ground up. I think it is possible. If you replace old abilities with new and better ones it could work.

 

[haakon1]

What do you think? Do you think high-level play is actually important to the game? Do you think it's just in the book for nostalgia or window-dressing for power gamers?

Yes, I think you’re right. The only time I’ve ever seen characters above 13th level was this:

My first DM decided we could level up in safety with training time at home.

We did the G123D123Q1 super adventure without leveling up. At the end, my cleric was 21st level. We retired the party to be NPC’s. That was around 1987, in AD&D, when the differences between levels were smaller.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I’m not talking about for 5e, a game built with that idea from the ground up. I think it is possible. If you replace old abilities with new and better ones it could work.

I still think it unlikely, because again, every single item you have counts against your total. Health potion? That's an active ability. Fiery sword? That's a passive ability. Anything feat-like would count. Etc.

I think you would find extremely quickly that a hard, inviolable cap of 10 and never more would be too low, even for classes specifically designed to be focused and simple.

Consider that League of Legends, which specifically designs every character to have five key abilities (one passive, three basic, one ultimate), also has six item slots plus wards. A game meant to be played over the course of only 20-40 minutes fails to uphold your standard, despite being shockingly consistent about the whole "only five abilities" thing. I just don't think it's feasible.

 

[Oofta]

What's funny is that I'm starting my current group at level 0, as kids going to the same school. I run a pretty heavy RP game and their enjoying having an opportunity to explore and define who their characters are before they become adventurers and start risking life and limb. I intend to run the game up to level 20 again.

So for everyone that wants to start at a higher level (and I think guidelines on doing so should be in the 2024 DMG), there's people like our group where level 1 is too high.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What's funny is that I'm starting my current group at level 0, as kids going to the same school. I run a pretty heavy RP game and their enjoying having an opportunity to explore and define who their characters are before they become adventurers and start risking life and limb. I intend to run the game up to level 20 again.

So for everyone that wants to start at a higher level (and I think guidelines on doing so should be in the 2024 DMG), there's people like our group where level 1 is too high.

Well, I at least have always--since before 5e launched--called for robust, fully-featured, at-launch "zero level" or "novice" rules for exactly such folks. They should get just as much support, attention, and testing as higher-level play--and that means a heck of a lot more than what higher-level play actually got in multiple editions of D&D.

 

[Minigiant]

No, I genuinely think it's impossible. Because that means having a magic weapon? That counts as one of your passives. Each and every magic item you own counts as one, in fact. Any consumables you have, those count, individually. Extra Attack counts.

When even Champion Fighters are at risk of being over the line, the line is far too close.

Mafic items don't count against your 10 because they are passive and thus already calculated in you r bass active options.

Your sword goes from 1d8+7 to 1d8+10. The 1d8+7 is gone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Mafic items don't count against your 10 because they are passive and thus already calculated in you r bass active options.

Your sword goes from 1d8+7 to 1d8+10. The 1d8+7 is gone.

It was explicitly said before that passives counted:

That's it. I knew I picked 10 from somewhere.

When I though up the slot system, the idea was that you'd have ~7 active abilities and ~3 passives. A player or DM can personally adjust them up or down.

A big dumb barbarian could have 5 passive features buffing their melee and ranged strength attacks, 4 types of SMASH, and a Rage feature.

A holy cleric could have 7 spells and 3 passives for armor, weapons, and flavor their style based of the type of priest they are.

And the wizard could choose 9 spells and some passive for a specialty.

Going up to Intelligence score could pull the average to 9-12 and add more passives. And it lets the people who really want options to go higher. And it lets the people who want to be simple play the "I attack" or "I cast ELDRITCH BLAST AGAIN" 8 Int fighty moron.

Have you changed your mind about that?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I still think it unlikely, because again, every single item you have counts against your total. Health potion? That's an active ability. Fiery sword? That's a passive ability. Anything feat-like would count. Etc.

I think you would find extremely quickly that a hard, inviolable cap of 10 and never more would be too low, even for classes specifically designed to be focused and simple.

Consider that League of Legends, which specifically designs every character to have five key abilities (one passive, three basic, one ultimate), also has six item slots plus wards. A game meant to be played over the course of only 20-40 minutes fails to uphold your standard, despite being shockingly consistent about the whole "only five abilities" thing. I just don't think it's feasible.

It is not my standard or even my idea. I do think it is an interesting idea, and one I think could work. I also don’t think 10 is some magic number, that is just what some one else suggested and I think the concept / idea is interesting.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Whereas for me, I've never had a 5e game that did work that way. The average is something like 3-4 sessions just on level 1.

Yikes, if I had to spend four sessions at Level 1 I think I would start screaming and or quit. lol

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yikes, if I had to spend four sessions at Level 1 I think I would start screaming and or quit. lol

Oh yeah. It's genuinely terrible, and I have begged and pleaded with multiple DMs (including actual friends) to consider starting at any level other than 1st to avoid this problem. None, not a single one, has ever considered switching from starting at level 1 to anything else.

I've also warned more than one DM about the dangers of running stuff for low-level characters in 5e, their fragility and the difficulty of using 5e's CR system for the extreme low end. At least three campaigns have failed specifically because such a DM brushed off my warnings. Despite my best efforts to prevent such a thing from happening (as much as one can while trying to never tell another player what they "should" do).