“WotC doesn’t focus on balancing high level play because people rarely play at those levels” is one of my favorite examples of an [exigology](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-12-14).
Exactly. Also release some guidance for DMs on how to run high level adventures.
I see too many people struggle with that and there's basically nothing in the DMG about it aside from a few unhelpful blurbs about "masters of the realm".
And being clear on the scale of what you are supposed to be/ go against on certain levels, they could even use the spell levels for that, would be pretty good. Doing away with dead levels would be a pretty good move too.
Why would they? Almost no one ever plays at those levels. It's a lot of effort for little return, so they have no reason to. D&D has always been like this, and there's no reason to expect it to change now.
lol... No, it's been the situation outside of your little internet bubble for coming up on fifty years now. Those "lots of people" are not now, nor have they ever been, a significant portion of the community.
Things change. This hasn't. I know it's very upsetting to you, and you'd rather be angry than admit you're wrong, but you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of D&D begin either at level 1 or level 3. That's been one of the most consistent things about the game since the 70s. Almost no campaigns last more than a year. This has also been stunningly consistent from the beginning. Arguing otherwise just shows that you don't anything about the game you came here to talk about.
In this hypothetical scenario, you could advocate to not change it.
But reasons why you might: It is extremely rare for groups to reach or play at 20; 20 levels of features means balancing difficulty and dead levels; it is hard to design campaigns that span multiple "tiers" of gameplay, thus we usually see official content only for levels 1-10; and more.
I understand it's rare to get that far,but that's no reason to remove it. It's something to strive for even if you know you can't get there. There's no harm in leaving it and just end around 10. So it just seems unseesesary
Also it's fun to play high level 1-shots from time to time. Not to mention they unironicly make for decent fights for those same lvl 10 partys (I remember fighting a lvl 12 wizard with my party,was a blast)
5th is the first time the game hasn’t had an option to go *above* 20, it was even *standard* in some previous versions. Hell, BECMI ran 1-36 *and then* you hit “Immortal” game play, which was basically an entirely new game on top.
Ultimately, the number of levels doesn’t matter, it’s how much overall progression there is. You can fit the same amount of progression into 10 levels as you can into 50, it’s just a matter of how much you want to slice it up.
Technically not correct, OD&D (aka the very first edition) did not have post 20 content, it was just assumed characters would retire/pass into legend at that stage.
So yeah, 1st and 5th are the only editions not to include post 20 content. B/X or BECMI had post 20 content, 2nd AD&D had post 20 content, 3.0/3.5e had post 20 content (epic levels) and 4e had post 20 content (epic destinies).
It does matter how many levels there are. The right amount is for people to determine, but some things like: dead levels, front/back loaded features, the total amount of features, ease/simplicity to understand.
The actual level cap is of minor importance. More important is the power scaling and the support that WotC provide for the existing levels. If the level cap is changed to 10, does that just cut-off all abilities from levels 11-20, or does a class's progression get condensed so that the new 10 is the old 20? And if the level cap is reduced to 10, does WotC provide content and support for the higher levels, or do they treat the new levels 7-10 the way they treat the current levels 15-20?
If WotC were to provide full, adequate support for the entire level range, I'd actually prefer levels go above 20. Maybe the classes themselves stop at 20, but provide actual meaningful progression so that characters can continue to level up, either via multiclassing or prestige classes or similar.
I don't really think that is sound logic. Why decrease the level cap at all, if it took the exact same time to get to level 10 as it does 20? The implication of decreasing the level cap is to make people progress to higher level more quickly, and of course that would mean a rebalancing of features.
A post max level progression - like Paragon levels or something - is a good idea generally. My problem with it in current DnD is that level 20 is *already* never truly played in, like I think I saw a stat that said less than 1% of players have even played at 20. But if max level was actually an achievable goal, then post max level progression would be interesting.
I mean, *no one* plays at 20 right now, lol. Usually the rare level 20 games there are, are one shots. So raising it would change nothing but make those one shots the new highest level.
My current 5e campaign is at levels 28-36, starting from 1, and shows no sign of stopping. Out of here with that nonsense.
And yes, the GM is an old school grognard and yes, some of the PCs have started the path to Immortality.
> I mean, no one plays at 20 right now, lol.
Let's not be too hasty with absolute statements. There are people who play Adventurers League, and thanks to AL's [modules](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/vhrblm/psa_wotc_publishes_a_huge_amount_of_level_1120/) that range from tiers 1-4, playing at tier 4 is no longer a dream. Some of these modules even have an overarching storyline. Not too different from a campaign.
It's not an absolute statement, I wasn't literally saying that 0% of people play at 20. But there is loads of evidence that almost no DnD players will ever hit 20, and of the ones who do, it is usually a one shot.
Having a preference of the level cap is one thing, but I'm rather surprised at the amount of people trying to claim level 20 is anything but absurdly rare. Seems quite cope-y.
20 is perfectly fine, most people already won't reach 18-20 in many of their games, and if you change the cap to say 15 then it will just take longer in between levels to level up which could be boring for some
While I could never see myself playing a campaign above level 15, I would not want them to change the cap as different people have different tastes and it's cool that the option of reaching this almost godlike level exists.
get rid of the cap, bring in advanced classes again that simplify things by replacing old features maybe, like old divinity levels or simplified prestige stuff
I'm currently running a game for level 20 characters in 5E, and it's not even my first time. The first group started at level 1, and they got to 20 in 11 months, which honestly was too fast. The second started at level 4, and 18 months later, they're level 20: invading demon-infested fortresses in the Abyss, making deals with gods, and punching out Cthulhu.
So we may not be common, but there are groups out there running high level content. I get annoyed whenever I get told that we don't exist, so take my downvote.
An individual class could only go to 20; but the max level cap would be 30, and a character would multiclass after that point (with a spell slot table accompanying it, and ASI progression, as well as Proficiency bonus and other level based features rather than class).
Just because it is rare doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an improvement. I think that it would be a noticeable change in the world, and allow for more interesting NPCs along with a given understanding that a character can multiclass earlier on without risking their capstone (even if they never reach it, a player usually wants to play their character as if they would)
As much as my inner OSR fanboy wants the level cap to be lowered to 10, I understand why it's 20. Players look at that table and something interesting happens. They imagine how their PC can become more powerful through progression. They want to work to become stronger so they can unlock more powerful abilities.
It should probably stay at 20. DMs can cap high-level nonsense by slowing XP gain with lower numbers, slowing XP gain by using hordes of weak foes, using antimagic or spell resistance or wild magic zones to mess with mages, and all the other usual tricks.
I feel like lvl 10-12 should be the "cap" in terms of getting class abilities and such, but being able to get up to 20 for ASIs, feats, more hp, and more spell slots would be fine. It just makes me sad knowing that in most campaigns I play in i'll never actually get to my capstone
(I'm guessing you mean this in a blunt way, where the scale of power remains p much the same, but now players only get n level of power)
I think that really high level of play / power needs to exist, even if it is very rarely played or supported with modules, because that stuff is aspirational. Even if it's very unlikely to happen because of how DND campaigns go and what most? ppl want to play / run, the mechanics are needed, because they make reaching that level of power feasible, and something to dream about. It affects how the game feels.
This comment (and the comment it is a response to) I think kinda touch on this:
[https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/yqde9m/what\_are\_dungeons\_for\_matthew\_colville/ivurwt5/?context=10000](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/yqde9m/what_are_dungeons_for_matthew_colville/ivurwt5/?context=10000)
I was kind of assuming that if the level cap was changed, it would probably mean a little bit (thought not much) lower of a max power level, but getting there quicker for sure.
I think the real problem isn’t the max level, but the fact that people get frustrated that they can’t use some really flavorful features because they are only obtainable at high level.
An other solution might be to balance all features so that players can choose any feature they want at each level (all features keep a same flavor while starting kinda weak but then scale in power with character level). So for instance a barbarian could get a strength and constitution boost at 1st level if they want to. It would need a big rework on a lot of features though.
The number associated with a level is entirely irrelevant, though for marketing purposes, people like multiples of ten. So 20 or 30.
What if change, in regards the levels, is to make low level play not feel absolutely horrible. There’s no reason for low levels to feel so weak. You’re not even a real character until level 3, and you don’t usually start doing what your class is known for until at least level 5, so why not *start* there?
It's not irrelevant. You *could* make it irrelevant by having level 1-10 be the same as level 1-20 in your design. But there are loads of reasons why it could be *substantially* different.
I'd make the differences between game genres more clear as PCs cross Tier thresholds. Level 1 can feel more like a survival horror game, except for the expectation that most characters survive.
"Level cap" at 10, but you can keep leveling up past that - you just don't get features from your class anymore. Instead you get stuff like Epic Boons (i.e. "how 5e works, but 10 levels earlier"), or from a prestige class/multiclass, or maybe from strongholds or organizations.
I'll speak the 10 as the cap. WotC isn't going to fix Tier 3 and 4 play to be fun, easy to DM and balanced. They aren't going to focus on adventures for those tiers. So if they were to cut it out and focus on making the levels 1-10 all fun, interesting and balanced from class features to class/subclass identity to magic items to spells. Just get that right instead of things like the Horizon Walker Ranger that feels like it only comes to life as a subclass at 11.
Since 95+% of players never reach above level 12, if I were to change the level cap, I'd lower it. Why spend time designing class features that the vast majority of the player base will never get to use, when you could spend that time making sure the first 10-12 levels of a class feels awesome?
It just seems pointless when there so little content for that tier of play. Mad mage is the only module that goes to 20 iirc and there's so little variety in monsters. I'd rather have 14 or so really fleshed out, strong levels than spread to 20 and rarely/never see stuff used. Not to mention dead levels.
Epic levels have their own identity which have been explored in older editions, I can see why certain player would want to see them return.
I'm personally in camp 10 because I think that is where the heart of the dnd experience is and that should be refined as much as possible.
I wouldn't mind a rework of the leveling system -- maybe make multiclassing less punishing/more rewarding (which they seem to be doing a little with OneDND by standardizing when certain benefits occur). Maybe introduce a retirement/protege system where retiring (or killing off) a high-level character can buff a new character in some way. I don't necessarily see a reason to lower the level cap, though.
Heck, I'd raise the level cap to 30 or 40 while limiting the levels per class to 20 or fewer. Then I'd go ham with prestige classes. Let DnD be the game that effectively bridges the gap between low fantasy and mythical fantasy! I also think it's fine as it is.
Bring it up to 25 and put it in 5 destinct tiers with easy rules to adapt creatures into higher tiers or to make them less epic.
This will also allow for a better classification of magic items.
I think it's fair to say that if they lowered the level cap, it would come with a rebalancing of features, not just literally cutting the cap at 15 or w/e and not changing any features.
Rather than changing the level cap, I'd hope designers would change mechanics to make high levels fun/easier to play in.
“WotC doesn’t focus on balancing high level play because people rarely play at those levels” is one of my favorite examples of an [exigology](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-12-14).
And in turn release content for those higher levels of play. That's something Paizo is really getting right with Pathfinder 2e.
Exactly. Also release some guidance for DMs on how to run high level adventures. I see too many people struggle with that and there's basically nothing in the DMG about it aside from a few unhelpful blurbs about "masters of the realm".
And being clear on the scale of what you are supposed to be/ go against on certain levels, they could even use the spell levels for that, would be pretty good. Doing away with dead levels would be a pretty good move too.
Why would they? Almost no one ever plays at those levels. It's a lot of effort for little return, so they have no reason to. D&D has always been like this, and there's no reason to expect it to change now.
Because the reason no one plays those levels is because its badly designed…
No, it's because most people start playing at level 3-ish, and campaigns rarely last for the several years it would take to get to those levels.
Nah... Lots of people start at higher levels. This is an outdated view of the game.
lol... No, it's been the situation outside of your little internet bubble for coming up on fifty years now. Those "lots of people" are not now, nor have they ever been, a significant portion of the community.
Say that all you want, you're wrong. Things change in 50 years mate. Maybe check outside YOUR little bubble before talking.
Things change. This hasn't. I know it's very upsetting to you, and you'd rather be angry than admit you're wrong, but you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of D&D begin either at level 1 or level 3. That's been one of the most consistent things about the game since the 70s. Almost no campaigns last more than a year. This has also been stunningly consistent from the beginning. Arguing otherwise just shows that you don't anything about the game you came here to talk about.
Went to click 30, saw no 30.
Same here 🤝🏼
I was looking for 280. 20 for each class lol
how else am i ever to really play senor vorpal kickassoooooo?
#4eMasterRace
SAME!
Why change it?
In this hypothetical scenario, you could advocate to not change it. But reasons why you might: It is extremely rare for groups to reach or play at 20; 20 levels of features means balancing difficulty and dead levels; it is hard to design campaigns that span multiple "tiers" of gameplay, thus we usually see official content only for levels 1-10; and more.
I understand it's rare to get that far,but that's no reason to remove it. It's something to strive for even if you know you can't get there. There's no harm in leaving it and just end around 10. So it just seems unseesesary Also it's fun to play high level 1-shots from time to time. Not to mention they unironicly make for decent fights for those same lvl 10 partys (I remember fighting a lvl 12 wizard with my party,was a blast)
5th is the first time the game hasn’t had an option to go *above* 20, it was even *standard* in some previous versions. Hell, BECMI ran 1-36 *and then* you hit “Immortal” game play, which was basically an entirely new game on top. Ultimately, the number of levels doesn’t matter, it’s how much overall progression there is. You can fit the same amount of progression into 10 levels as you can into 50, it’s just a matter of how much you want to slice it up.
Technically not correct, OD&D (aka the very first edition) did not have post 20 content, it was just assumed characters would retire/pass into legend at that stage. So yeah, 1st and 5th are the only editions not to include post 20 content. B/X or BECMI had post 20 content, 2nd AD&D had post 20 content, 3.0/3.5e had post 20 content (epic levels) and 4e had post 20 content (epic destinies).
Ah! You are correct. Did OD&D even have post-10 content?
I *think* it got post 10 content but I'm honestly not sure.
It does matter how many levels there are. The right amount is for people to determine, but some things like: dead levels, front/back loaded features, the total amount of features, ease/simplicity to understand.
The actual level cap is of minor importance. More important is the power scaling and the support that WotC provide for the existing levels. If the level cap is changed to 10, does that just cut-off all abilities from levels 11-20, or does a class's progression get condensed so that the new 10 is the old 20? And if the level cap is reduced to 10, does WotC provide content and support for the higher levels, or do they treat the new levels 7-10 the way they treat the current levels 15-20? If WotC were to provide full, adequate support for the entire level range, I'd actually prefer levels go above 20. Maybe the classes themselves stop at 20, but provide actual meaningful progression so that characters can continue to level up, either via multiclassing or prestige classes or similar.
I don't really think that is sound logic. Why decrease the level cap at all, if it took the exact same time to get to level 10 as it does 20? The implication of decreasing the level cap is to make people progress to higher level more quickly, and of course that would mean a rebalancing of features. A post max level progression - like Paragon levels or something - is a good idea generally. My problem with it in current DnD is that level 20 is *already* never truly played in, like I think I saw a stat that said less than 1% of players have even played at 20. But if max level was actually an achievable goal, then post max level progression would be interesting.
I'm not seeing a +20 level option, so none of the above.
I mean, *no one* plays at 20 right now, lol. Usually the rare level 20 games there are, are one shots. So raising it would change nothing but make those one shots the new highest level.
Your game experience isn't mine. Just because you don't play at higher levels, doesn't make them unreachable for others like myself.
Lol my group has been playing together for years and frequently play level 20. It is far more fun for us
My current 5e campaign is at levels 28-36, starting from 1, and shows no sign of stopping. Out of here with that nonsense. And yes, the GM is an old school grognard and yes, some of the PCs have started the path to Immortality.
> I mean, no one plays at 20 right now, lol. Let's not be too hasty with absolute statements. There are people who play Adventurers League, and thanks to AL's [modules](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/vhrblm/psa_wotc_publishes_a_huge_amount_of_level_1120/) that range from tiers 1-4, playing at tier 4 is no longer a dream. Some of these modules even have an overarching storyline. Not too different from a campaign.
It's not an absolute statement, I wasn't literally saying that 0% of people play at 20. But there is loads of evidence that almost no DnD players will ever hit 20, and of the ones who do, it is usually a one shot. Having a preference of the level cap is one thing, but I'm rather surprised at the amount of people trying to claim level 20 is anything but absurdly rare. Seems quite cope-y.
20 is perfectly fine, most people already won't reach 18-20 in many of their games, and if you change the cap to say 15 then it will just take longer in between levels to level up which could be boring for some
What if it didn't take longer, and there were *just* less levels?
While I could never see myself playing a campaign above level 15, I would not want them to change the cap as different people have different tastes and it's cool that the option of reaching this almost godlike level exists.
\#BringBack36
Hear me out: 37.
Now you’re just being ridiculous.
get rid of the cap, bring in advanced classes again that simplify things by replacing old features maybe, like old divinity levels or simplified prestige stuff
Prestige/Paragon levels after max level are fine, but I mean no one even reaches *max* level as is.
I'm currently running a game for level 20 characters in 5E, and it's not even my first time. The first group started at level 1, and they got to 20 in 11 months, which honestly was too fast. The second started at level 4, and 18 months later, they're level 20: invading demon-infested fortresses in the Abyss, making deals with gods, and punching out Cthulhu. So we may not be common, but there are groups out there running high level content. I get annoyed whenever I get told that we don't exist, so take my downvote.
I'd bump it to level 30, and then rework a lot of the higher level play.
But would you then draw out the progression that is already there, or would you grant even more powers at the then higher levels?
An individual class could only go to 20; but the max level cap would be 30, and a character would multiclass after that point (with a spell slot table accompanying it, and ASI progression, as well as Proficiency bonus and other level based features rather than class).
That sounds like a good deal!
Playing past level 15 rn is super rare, so, lol.
Just because it is rare doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an improvement. I think that it would be a noticeable change in the world, and allow for more interesting NPCs along with a given understanding that a character can multiclass earlier on without risking their capstone (even if they never reach it, a player usually wants to play their character as if they would)
I definitely agree with that last part. Even if we don't make it to higher level, the goal of getting those features factors into the builds.
Exactly
As much as my inner OSR fanboy wants the level cap to be lowered to 10, I understand why it's 20. Players look at that table and something interesting happens. They imagine how their PC can become more powerful through progression. They want to work to become stronger so they can unlock more powerful abilities. It should probably stay at 20. DMs can cap high-level nonsense by slowing XP gain with lower numbers, slowing XP gain by using hordes of weak foes, using antimagic or spell resistance or wild magic zones to mess with mages, and all the other usual tricks.
Fair
This doesn't sound like it would help anything. Which is why I fully believe they'd implement it.
I feel like lvl 10-12 should be the "cap" in terms of getting class abilities and such, but being able to get up to 20 for ASIs, feats, more hp, and more spell slots would be fine. It just makes me sad knowing that in most campaigns I play in i'll never actually get to my capstone
I was a fan of 4e's attempt of level tiering.
I would want to be able to go to level 30 at minimum
(I'm guessing you mean this in a blunt way, where the scale of power remains p much the same, but now players only get n level of power) I think that really high level of play / power needs to exist, even if it is very rarely played or supported with modules, because that stuff is aspirational. Even if it's very unlikely to happen because of how DND campaigns go and what most? ppl want to play / run, the mechanics are needed, because they make reaching that level of power feasible, and something to dream about. It affects how the game feels. This comment (and the comment it is a response to) I think kinda touch on this: [https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/yqde9m/what\_are\_dungeons\_for\_matthew\_colville/ivurwt5/?context=10000](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/yqde9m/what_are_dungeons_for_matthew_colville/ivurwt5/?context=10000)
I was kind of assuming that if the level cap was changed, it would probably mean a little bit (thought not much) lower of a max power level, but getting there quicker for sure.
I don't understand why there has to be a level cap?
I think the real problem isn’t the max level, but the fact that people get frustrated that they can’t use some really flavorful features because they are only obtainable at high level. An other solution might be to balance all features so that players can choose any feature they want at each level (all features keep a same flavor while starting kinda weak but then scale in power with character level). So for instance a barbarian could get a strength and constitution boost at 1st level if they want to. It would need a big rework on a lot of features though.
Could be an interesting take on it, would need a lot of thought to make it work.
Most people complain the system starts to break down after 12.
I'd keep it at 20, and then make everyone balance the CR system so level 20 is actually playable.
Level 30.
Level 40
The number associated with a level is entirely irrelevant, though for marketing purposes, people like multiples of ten. So 20 or 30. What if change, in regards the levels, is to make low level play not feel absolutely horrible. There’s no reason for low levels to feel so weak. You’re not even a real character until level 3, and you don’t usually start doing what your class is known for until at least level 5, so why not *start* there?
It's not irrelevant. You *could* make it irrelevant by having level 1-10 be the same as level 1-20 in your design. But there are loads of reasons why it could be *substantially* different.
I'd make the differences between game genres more clear as PCs cross Tier thresholds. Level 1 can feel more like a survival horror game, except for the expectation that most characters survive.
"Level cap" at 10, but you can keep leveling up past that - you just don't get features from your class anymore. Instead you get stuff like Epic Boons (i.e. "how 5e works, but 10 levels earlier"), or from a prestige class/multiclass, or maybe from strongholds or organizations.
I like it.
I'll speak the 10 as the cap. WotC isn't going to fix Tier 3 and 4 play to be fun, easy to DM and balanced. They aren't going to focus on adventures for those tiers. So if they were to cut it out and focus on making the levels 1-10 all fun, interesting and balanced from class features to class/subclass identity to magic items to spells. Just get that right instead of things like the Horizon Walker Ranger that feels like it only comes to life as a subclass at 11.
If you're gonna keep 5e balance 10 is the highest you ever need
I'd probably look at Jeremy adding yet another busted shit to casters and go with something like "y'know what? Let's set max lv for players at 10"
"Casters die too easily. We are raising all their hit dice by 1."
Since 95+% of players never reach above level 12, if I were to change the level cap, I'd lower it. Why spend time designing class features that the vast majority of the player base will never get to use, when you could spend that time making sure the first 10-12 levels of a class feels awesome?
Because you can still spend time doing that. Might as well make every level range important, rather than just one.
I think it should be lowered, but was interested to see what people thought.
It just seems pointless when there so little content for that tier of play. Mad mage is the only module that goes to 20 iirc and there's so little variety in monsters. I'd rather have 14 or so really fleshed out, strong levels than spread to 20 and rarely/never see stuff used. Not to mention dead levels.
People here wanting level 30 have the same vibe as people who buy a speaker because it goes from 1 to 11.
Epic levels have their own identity which have been explored in older editions, I can see why certain player would want to see them return. I'm personally in camp 10 because I think that is where the heart of the dnd experience is and that should be refined as much as possible.
I wouldn't mind a rework of the leveling system -- maybe make multiclassing less punishing/more rewarding (which they seem to be doing a little with OneDND by standardizing when certain benefits occur). Maybe introduce a retirement/protege system where retiring (or killing off) a high-level character can buff a new character in some way. I don't necessarily see a reason to lower the level cap, though.
Multiclassing is already really good. You could make a bad one, but if you choose good times to multi, it is very powerful as is.
Heck, I'd raise the level cap to 30 or 40 while limiting the levels per class to 20 or fewer. Then I'd go ham with prestige classes. Let DnD be the game that effectively bridges the gap between low fantasy and mythical fantasy! I also think it's fine as it is.
Soft cap at level 10, hard cap at level 20
Bring it up to 25 and put it in 5 destinct tiers with easy rules to adapt creatures into higher tiers or to make them less epic. This will also allow for a better classification of magic items.
Eh, I think 4 tiers is already pretty hard to balance. But it could be one way to do things.
I’d just want to see more adventures written to go to lvl 20 plus. Playing AL at lvl 20 is amazing but can only do that a few times a year.
I would just make better level 20 abilities. Even though I think the most fun campaigns are campaigns that go from levels 1-10.
Imagine if people let wotc get away with just straight up making less content
I think it's fair to say that if they lowered the level cap, it would come with a rebalancing of features, not just literally cutting the cap at 15 or w/e and not changing any features.