D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[SteveC]

It's really interesting to look at this thread because a lot of what people are asking for has been done in games that I'd describe as "D&D done right". A lot of them actually date back to the 70s and 80s, although you can find a lot of this in OSR games.

I've played in high level D&D in every edition. I have been lucky enough to play some AD&D with the old designers at Gamehole Con (yes, another reason for you to join us at that Con). I've found that it gets rather gonzo, but it works.

And that's largely the case for most of the editions. The only one I wouldn't play at high level is 3X with all the options, since ... shudder ... that's just too much for me.

The best edition for high level play, hands down (and of course, this is my opinion) is 4E. I've played one campaign into Epic, and many in Paragon and it was just fantastic.

And I'm just playing 5E at high level (is level 13 high level?) right now, and I find it to be a perfectly cromulent experience, within the confines of a 5E game.

The single thing that I think helps with high level D&D is ... to play other games. Once you play and run an Amber game, high level D&D is not something that's intimidating. The Epic 4E character I played had the ability to Shadow Walk anywhere, so I think that very accurately reflects the play style.

If you're playing in or running a Dungeon World game, you just have to expect a ton of curve balls from the players. And be ready for it.

Outside of that, a ton of the problems people are talking about go into player and table issues. If the players don't want to engage with the game you should stop play and discuss that. If players want a different kind of game, especially at high level, you need to get onboard with that as a DM or stop the game.

What really needs to change in high level 5E? Less than you might think. I'm still a work in progress about it, but there seem to be a lot fewer problems than I've been told existed.

 

[Umbran]

It's a different type of storytelling that the community ignores because it doesn't fit with the vision of high level stuff that's meant to hyperbolize and malign it.

Mod note:

The person who was, a moment ago, chastising an "ignorant statement" takes on the task of telling everyone else why they do things?

Can you not do that please? Thanks.

 

[pogre]

I have run several campaigns from 1-20. I am finishing one up now. It's certainly not everyone's cup of teas, but my players enjoy getting their late career abilities and using them.

I pretty much design encounters at high levels (16+) with the mind set - "Yeah, this probably will kill them." It never does.

I have a very stable group and that helps a lot when playing through to the higher levels.

Finally, in our games I use XP, and honestly levels 16-20 zoom by.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Then the "no more than 10" standard is impossible.

Not impossible, just that hasn’t been done.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I jumped from 4th to 13th page on this discussion.

But in 1st and 2nd AD&D I played in a 30+ level game that had started at 1st level, but I was a late comer. The DM made a lot of challenges that had to be thought and played through without fighting, because combat was so deadly that my Paladin 15/Monk 15/Ascetic 20 would get cut in half in an instant. I ran a 30+ level game which had a lot of political intrigue.

In 3.x I ran a game that started at 1st level in 3.0 and ended at 30th level in 3.5. And I brought forward what I learned from 1st and 2nd edition and did much of the same things my old DM did. It worked well.

And I played in a 5e game that stopped at 20th level and again, mostly acting, intrigue, and other things like that. I haven't run anything over 5th level because my game groups keep breaking up.

 

[MGibster]

It's not that high level adventures are harder, it's that D&D DMs have been conditioned to not want to design high level adventures that are super open-ended to account for the huge number of options available and the idea that at this point, it's more about the story than traditional challenge.

This might be a chicken or egg thing. I typically stop at 10-12th level because as a DM I get tired of the bookkeeping and the amount of time it takes to resolve a fight. The higher in level, the more diminished my return on fun verseus work.

 

[Ogre Mage]

There has long been a sacred cow in D&D of starting at Level 1 (or at least in Tier 1). Campaigns burn out before the high levels of play are reached. Since people are not playing it WoTC spends little time developing high level play. It feels unfinished.

I dislike both Tier 1 and Tier 4 play but I've been forced to experience Tier 1 a lot more. I have repeatedly asked to begin at Level 5 but it almost never happens. On average we start at Level 2 and end around Level 10. I would prefer campaigns from Level 5-14. That has never occurred. The modest handful of times we got to Level 13-14 it was a long running campaign that started at Level 2-3.

I wish the "start at Level 1-2" sacred cow would die but I first started playing D&D in 1986 and it shows no signs of dissipating. Frankly, I hate 1st level characters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not impossible, just that hasn’t been done.

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.

 

[pogre]

There has long been a sacred cow in D&D of starting at Level 1 (or at least in Tier 1). Campaigns burn out before the high levels of play are reached. Since people are not playing it WoTC spends little time developing high level play. It feels unfinished.

I dislike both Tier 1 and Tier 4 play but I've been forced to experience Tier 1 a lot more. I have repeatedly asked to begin at Level 5 but it almost never happens. On average we start at Level 2 and end around Level 10. I would prefer campaigns from Level 5-14. That has never occurred. The modest handful of times we got to Level 13-14 it was a long running campaign that started at Level 2-3.

I wish the "start at Level 1-2" sacred cow would die but I first started playing D&D in 1986 and it shows no signs of dissipating. Frankly, I hate 1st level characters.

I understand your point, and I can only speak to my games, but for us levels one through four zip by. My PCs are never level one for more than a single session.

I don't bring this up to argue against your position, but to explain why we continue to start at 1st level.

I do have one player that wishes we would stay in tier one longer, but the rest are content with our speedy ascent to the second tier.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I understand your point, and I can only speak to my games, but for us levels one through four zip by. My PCs are never level one for more than a single session.

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.

And maybe 10% of all 5e games I've tried to join, let alone actually played, start at anything other than level 1.

I have never been part of a 5e game that lasted long enough to reach level 4 (unless it started higher, I mean; but there was only one of those.)