# Will we get 5 tiers of game in 5.5 insted of current 4?



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Now we have 4 tiers of play. Somewhat, it's kind of blurry but it works as marks of power jump of PC's

T1: 1-4
T2: 5-10
T3: 11-16
T4: 17-20

But, as we now get all, or almost all limited features tied to proficiency bonus(or double prof bonus) per long rest, in how much we can use them,
would it be good step to have current lvl11 class features lowered to level 9 and some kind of upgrade or new features set at level 13?

Then we could have 5 tiers of play;

T1: 1-4, +2 prof bonus
T2: 5-8, +3 prof bonus
T3: 9-12, +4 prof bonus
T4: 13-16, +5 prof bonus
T5: 17-20, +6 prof bonus


----------



## Mind of tempest (Jul 20, 2022)

it is more likely they just cut high levels completely as they have no idea what to do with them.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> it is more likely they just cut high levels completely as they have no idea what to do with them.



And here I was hoping for 10th level spells for full casters at level 19...


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jul 20, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> it is more likely they just cut high levels completely as they have no idea what to do with them.




I think they'll do what they did with 5e. Print the spells in as familiar a form as they can, create class abilities that really don't do anything in 90% of circumstances (but they fill a character sheet!), curve it so the math largely stops, then add some flashy finisher at level 20 that makes it look worth it for everyone. Then ignore it as much as you can and let the small minority of players who actually play at that level do whatever they want. It doesn't matter as long as they're satisfied enough not to complain. The real game dev stops at 13.


----------



## bedir than (Jul 20, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> it is more likely they just cut high levels completely as they have no idea what to do with them.



I'd give a greater chance of rolling 1s for an entire session than them cutting levels


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> I think they'll do what they did with 5e. Print the spells in as familiar a form as they can, create class abilities that really don't do anything in 90% of circumstances (but they fill a character sheet!), curve it so the math largely stops, then add some flashy finisher at level 20 that makes it look worth it for everyone. Then ignore it as much as you can and let the small minority of players who actually play at that level do whatever they want. It doesn't matter as long as they're satisfied enough not to complain. The real game dev stops at 13.



They should accept that most games end around 13/14th level.

higher level could just be improvements/more usages/more targets of abilities that you gained in first 10/11 levels.


----------



## tetrasodium (Jul 20, 2022)

bedir than said:


> I'd give a greater chance of rolling 1s for an entire session than them cutting levels



I've seen a couple 5e forks that do it & then switch to alternativesto class levels every so often beyond ten but the only one that I can think of is the Stargate rpg.  It works well because the ten that are class levels all grant solid abilities rather than ribbons.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I've seen a couple 5e forks that do it & then switch to alternativesto class levels every so often beyond ten but the only one that I can think of is the Stargate rpg.  It works well because the ten that are class levels all grant solid abilities rather than ribbons.



Condense abilities from 20 levels to 13(suggested Tier4), where most games end(or long before)
last 6 levels just expand on already gained abilities.


----------



## bedir than (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Condense abilities from 20 levels to 13(suggested Tier4), where most games end(or long before)
> last 6 levels just expand on already gained abilities.



Cutting levels would destroy the desired compatibility.
Considering the PHB is still one of the best selling books in the world compatibility isn't just a desire, it's a business requirement. Wizards won't be making massive changes. There's no need. Tabletop D&D is still growing


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

bedir than said:


> Cutting levels would destroy the desired compatibility.
> Considering the PHB is still one of the best selling books in the world compatibility isn't just a desire, it's a business requirement. Wizards won't be making massive changes. There's no need. Tabletop D&D is still growing



It is not about cutting levels, it is about getting your (new)class features sooner. Even if some of them might need to be in some "light" mode the first time you get them.

I.E. barbarians capstone of +4 str and +4 con, might be +2 con at 13th level, +2 str at 15th, +2 con 17th and +2 str at 20th.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> They should accept that most games end around 13/14th level.
> 
> higher level could just be improvements/more usages/more targets of abilities that you gained in first 10/11 levels.




I'm not sure what they _should _do. I know that I don't like high level play, but I didn't like it in AD&D, either, or 3e. It was fine in 4e mostly, other than HP bloat, but except for HP the math in that edition is a series of parallel lines.

However, there are some people who do like the existing high level play. So do they change higher level play? That will alienate the people who like it now.

And if they do change it, how? WotC has trouble changing D&D too much without losing players. Do they make high levels more like the rest of the game? I'd love that, but I doubt if everyone wants the game to do that. On the other hand, if they doubled down and ramped power up even more, that would satisfy others but wouldn't satisfy me.

So WotC is in a position where high level is broken and difficult to play (for more than a one-shot), but if they change it they're just changing from satisfying one set of players to another set. Should the line be quadradic, linear, or logarithmic? 1 through 12 or so it all looks the same, but how should progression curve going beyond?

And since nobody currently plays at high level, is it worth it? What if they magically develop a perfect system that lets the DM perfectly control the power curve above level 12, and nobody uses it because there are other reasons nobody plays above that level? What then?


----------



## Jer (Jul 20, 2022)

If they were going to separate tiers of play by proficiency bonus increase they would have done it back when they released 5e.  It was the absolute most natural way to do those breakdowns but they chose to not do it that way.

And the reason for that break wasn't the proficiency bonus I suspect - I think it was spell slots.  Levels 5-10 gets you up to level 5 spells and no higher - and I think that's the determiner for where that second tier ends and where the next tier starts. At level 11 the full casters get to start casting 6th level spells - and 6th level spells are where the special rules on spellcasting start to come into play.  Sorcerers only get to use spell points to buy up to 5th level slots, spell progression is basically one 6+ slot per level from 11-20, etc.

I think that the expectation is that the thing that differentiates "high level play" from "mid level play" is the casters getting access to 6th level spells. That's where a lot of folks feel their games start to change.  Getting an extra +1 to proficiency bonus isn't actually enough of a change to the power level to change the feel of the game, but unlocking those higher level spells definitely can be depending on the group.


----------



## bedir than (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It is not about cutting levels, it is about getting your (new)class features sooner. Even if some of them might need to be in some "light" mode the first time you get them.
> 
> I.E. barbarians capstone of +4 str and +4 con, might be +2 con at 13th level, +2 str at 15th, +2 con 17th and +2 str at 20th.



I was directly replying to someone who said that it was likely they will cut levels


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Jer said:


> If they were going to separate tiers of play by proficiency bonus increase they would have done it back when they released 5e.  It was the absolute most natural way to do those breakdowns but they chose to not do it that way.
> 
> And the reason for that break wasn't the proficiency bonus I suspect - I think it was spell slots.  Levels 5-10 gets you up to level 5 spells and no higher - and I think that's the determiner for where that second tier ends and where the next tier starts. At level 11 the full casters get to start casting 6th level spells - and 6th level spells are where the special rules on spellcasting start to come into play.  Sorcerers only get to use spell points to buy up to 5th level slots, spell progression is basically one 6+ slot per level from 11-20, etc.
> 
> I think that the expectation is that the thing that differentiates "high level play" from "mid level play" is the casters getting access to 6th level spells. That's where a lot of folks feel their games start to change.  Getting an extra +1 to proficiency bonus isn't actually enough of a change to the power level to change the feel of the game, but unlocking those higher level spells definitely can be depending on the group.



yeah, about mechanics of 6th level spells that are only available to full casters I agree, but 6th level spell really are not that special.
3rd level is a big boost in power and 5th level spells. 7th level spells are bigger jump from 6th that 6th level are from 5th level.
So, yeah, new tier should be at 3rd level spells, 5th level spells, 7th level spells
and finally 9th level spells.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

They will not cut level. They will however improve low level play.
I do believe the fighter chassi will be battlemaster by default then choose among champion or eldritch knight and maybe cavalier or rune knight. Other classes will adjusted accordingly.


----------



## tetrasodium (Jul 20, 2022)

bedir than said:


> Cutting levels would destroy the desired compatibility.
> Considering the PHB is still one of the best selling books in the world compatibility isn't just a desire, it's a business requirement. Wizards won't be making massive changes. There's no need. Tabletop D&D is still growing



It would actually improve compatibility to a degree with the power of PCs dropping from 11 on the dial to something a little more sane.  Something would need to be done pretty significantly with casters & spells though since they would be getting less and more importantly casters don't improve notably with magic weapons & would get a double kneecapping


----------



## Mind of tempest (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> They will not cut level. They will however improve low level play.
> I do believe the fighter chassi will be battlemaster by default then choose among champion or eldritch knight and maybe cavalier or rune knight. Other classes will adjusted accordingly.



we would be so lucky, that will never happen as fighters must be weak or wizards will have to grow up and admit they are not living gods or unliving if they ascent to lichdom.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 20, 2022)

I don't think so.  Tiers are pretty much just thought experiments anyway, ways for people to classify certain level for the sake of it... but there's nothing that the "four tiers" actually do.  Yes, we can describe 5th level (IE the start of Tier 2) as the "level you get the really good stuff!  Extra attack!  3rd level spells!"... but so what?  Neither of those things really does anything so outrageous or out there from the stuff a character has gotten before, or will be getting later.  So "Tier 2" is not anything different from Tier 1, and Tier 3 and 4 the same way.  Thus making a 5th Tier doesn't do anything other than allow people like us to shorthand level blocks when we talk here on EN World.  Heck, you could remove the Tier designation entirely and it wouldn't change the game in any meaningful way either I don't believe.

As far as moving abilities up or down level... sure WotC could, but I don't see any real net gain.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> it is more likely they just cut high levels completely as they have no idea what to do with them.



But WotC has never known what to do with them, and they're still there.  What benefit comes from removing them at this point?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> They should accept that most games end around 13/14th level.




Given that they have almost no adventure support above that point, it would seem they do recognize it.

That said, I'm happy for the higher levels to still be there.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> They should accept that most games end around 13/14th level.
> 
> higher level could just be improvements/more usages/more targets of abilities that you gained in first 10/11 levels.



So, 4th ed then?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> But WotC has never known what to do with them, and they're still there.




It seems to me that TSR didn't really have an idea what to do with them either.  And it isn't like D&D is the only game that runs into trouble at the upper end of its power curve.

I submit that _the players_ don't really have a solid, consistent idea of what they want out of play at that level either.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> And here I was hoping for 10th level spells for full casters at level 19...



becuse that is what everyone wants MORE spells and MORE power to the casters


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Condense abilities from 20 levels to 13(suggested Tier4), where most games end(or long before)
> last 6 levels just expand on already gained abilities.



if you took everything but prof and HD/HP that a 20th level fighter gets and give it to the 10th level fighter (so 4 attacks a bunch of subclass features and some extra indomitable and even an extra feat) the fighter still wont have the options and versatiltity or even power of a 9th level wizard cause nothing there equals a 5th level spell


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> we would be so lucky, that will never happen as fighters must be weak or wizards will have to grow up and admit they are not living gods or unliving if they ascent to lichdom.



I fail to see the logic in these assertions. To each his own I guess. I am on the camp that wizards and other casters are on the relatively weak side now. I would rather see them with lower HP but more spell slots. And spells should do way more damage.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> It seems to me that TSR didn't really have an idea what to do with them either.  And it isn't like D&D is the only game that runs into trouble at the upper end of its power curve.
> 
> I submit that _the players_ don't really have a solid, consistent idea of what they want out of play at that level either.



I disagree. TSR reserved high levels for kingdom-building and keeping high-level they felt should be in the game but largely out of reach for PCs.  After 9th level or so, you're supposed to re-focus your efforts on the big picture, and leave the life of an adventurer behind for the most part.  That idea wasn't popular so it was gradually dropped, leaving us with the high level mess we have now.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if you took everything but prof and HD/HP that a 20th level fighter gets and give it to the 10th level fighter (so 4 attacks a bunch of subclass features and some extra indomitable and even an extra feat) the fighter still wont have the options and versatiltity or even power of a 9th level wizard cause nothing there equals a 5th level spell



And this is a good thing.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Given that they have almost no adventure support above that point, it would seem they do recognize it.
> 
> That said, I'm happy for the higher levels to still be there.



don't get me wrong, I like it too.
There should always be an option to continue to the next campaign with same charcters. 
Just, the goodies need to come sooner


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> becuse that is what everyone wants MORE spells and MORE power to the casters



Yes and no.
These should come with a cost. A higher exp requirement to level. But that has been abandoned a long time ago.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> So, 4th ed then?



To quite.
after you got certain number of at-will, encounter, daily, that number stayed the same. You got new powers instead of old ones.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

They could take a page from the OSR.  In ACKS, leveling ends more or less at 11 with the PCs engaging in kingdom-building at that point.  High level spells are now rituals you have to find or create.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> To quite.
> after you got certain number of at-will, encounter, daily, that number stayed the same. You got new powers instead of old ones.



Except a lot of the new powers were the same power with higher numbers.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I disagree. TSR reserved high levels for kingdom-building




With respect, in AD&D they gave you some followers, and told you jack about how to play kingdom building.

"They knew what to do with it, but didn't actually do it," seems an odd assertion.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 20, 2022)

Ideally, you take the interesting capstones (like Wizard signature spells) and move them to the "real-game" endpoint of about 12th level.  Than you give flashy, meaningless capstones (like the Paladin super saiyan transformation) at 20 so those levels have some sort of goal.

But really, 5e is kind of set up this way already.  Levels 11+ are pretty sparse in terms of novel features for classes.  Spell progression mostly stops, you only get one higher level slot every 2 levels.  

The most compelling change would be moving some of the interesting subclass features in the teen levels into the core levels, and then making teen level subclass features into incremental improvements (more uses, higher numbers, not new features).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> don't get me wrong, I like it too.
> There should always be an option to continue to the next campaign with same charcters.
> Just, the goodies need to come sooner




So, if you give the same goodies, but sooner, then you're just hitting the same problem earlier.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> I fail to see the logic in these assertions. To each his own I guess. I am on the camp that wizards and other casters are on the relatively weak side now. I would rather see them with lower HP but more spell slots. And spells should do way more damage.



i am taken aback... I have seen people argue they are not OVER powered (and I disagree) but I have never seen someone say they are too weak?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> With respect, in AD&D they gave you some followers, and told you jack about how to play kingdom building.
> 
> "They knew what to do with it, but didn't actually do it," seems an odd assertion.



They certainly could have done a better job, I admit.  That's why I suggested ACKS as a good implementation of those ideas.  I still think its the best use of higher levels.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> And this is a good thing.



why?  Why is it good that no martial character without magic even at 20th level can have the versatility and power of a 5th level spell useable by 1/3 the game at level 9?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Yes and no.
> These should come with a cost. A higher exp requirement to level. But that has been abandoned a long time ago.



that doesn't work either. And if you look at the 2e (I don't know about 1e) charts it didn't even work then.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> why?  Why is it good that no martial character without magic even at 20th level can have the versatility and power of a 5th level spell useable by 1/3 the game at level 9?



If the game shifted away from the dungeon at that point, emphasizing non-personal combat stuff, and martial classes had more features throughout to choose from, this would not be as much of an issue.  Level Up covers a lot of this.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Except a lot of the new powers were the same power with higher numbers.



yeah kinda. I think that a power that you attack upt to 3 targets for 1W that yyou can trade out at level 17 to instead hit up to 4 targets for 2w could just be the same power with a rider "at level 17 increase to..."

4e was rushed and very raw. It had GREAT ideas (and is the best edition of the game so far for me) but it needed work.  Essentials started to get it better, and some 5e improvments and ideas grafted back on to a 4e frame work would have improved it more.  Having said all of that I still think WotC abandoning the good of 4e to step backwards for 5e will always be a soar spot for me and my friends... I really hope someday 6e will take the 4e ideas and some bits of 2e, some 5e ideas and rework them all into my perfect edition... I can live in hope


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> With respect, in AD&D they gave you some followers, and told you jack about how to play kingdom building.
> 
> "They knew what to do with it, but didn't actually do it," seems an odd assertion.



Yeah, I think WotC took that most people (atleast those talking at cons and on the old TSR message boards and BBS) kept playing level 13 like level 4 just with more power and learned the wrong lesson.  instead of "We need good advice on how the game changes in the second half and really to double down on why" they took it to mean "Lets just give them what they do anyway."


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

Exactly.  The game went in the opposite direction than what was intended, and we've been scrambling to make that work ever since.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Ideally, you take the interesting capstones (like Wizard signature spells) and move them to the "real-game" endpoint of about 12th level.  Than you give flashy, meaningless capstones (like the Paladin super saiyan transformation) at 20 so those levels have some sort of goal



I am super big on not giving the wizard more... but I WOULD be fully on board with moving signature spell and spell mastery lower in exchange for the higher level spells.

move wizards (while everyone) on to either the warlock or artificer frame and you have a lot more room for either class features or mini feats for the class (Invocations and infussions... but do things like those for every class)


----------



## Shardstone (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am super big on not giving the wizard more... but I WOULD be fully on board with moving signature spell and spell mastery lower in exchange for the higher level spells.
> 
> move wizards (while everyone) on to either the warlock or artificer frame and you have a lot more room for either class features or mini feats for the class (Invocations and infussions... but do things like those for every class)



Ideally all full casters should have one mystic Arcanum slot per day that can cast a 6 through 9th level spell depending on your caster level. K don't see why a wizard or any PC should have an individual 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level slot.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am super big on not giving the wizard more... but I WOULD be fully on board with moving signature spell and spell mastery lower in exchange for the higher level spells.
> 
> move wizards (while everyone) on to either the warlock or artificer frame and you have a lot more room for either class features or mini feats for the class (Invocations and infussions... but do things like those for every class)



I would totally be on board on capping all casters to 5th level spells, and give wizards earlier signature spell and spell mastery in exchange.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i am taken aback... I have seen people argue they are not OVER powered (and I disagree) but I have never seen someone say they are too weak?



Too weak for what they should do at the exp they have. The problem is not that the martial are not as versatile as the casters. It is that the martials level at the same pace as the casters. The difference in exp chart was there for a good reason.



GMforPowergamers said:


> why?  Why is it good that no martial character without magic even at 20th level can have the versatility and power of a 5th level spell useable by 1/3 the game at level 9?



Simple. Magic is magic.
Over the years, the differentiation between the leveling of martials and casters got gutted. This leads us to this problem where for the same exp, one class gets better versatility than the other. Martials should've get some trade offs such as: "A bit more skills, bonuses to social skills/challenges. A bit more bonuses with weapons or being encouraged to have varied weapons for different situations." 

Now, fighters are stuck being one trick poneys. Choose the fighting style you want. Choose the corresponding weapon and that is all. I would have liked to see fighters with more than one fighting style (beside champions I know) and having to actually be able to be great at more than one fighting style.



GMforPowergamers said:


> that doesn't work either. And if you look at the 2e (I don't know about 1e) charts it didn't even work then.



Ho but it worked. It really worked. Most campaign would end around level 11. Check the exp chart of 1ed. 
The fighter would be 11th level, and be around 69 hp assuming only +1hp/level (average).
Our MU would be 12th, would have 32 hp. The average fighter would have specialized in a weapon for +3/+3 and at this level, gauntlet of ogre's power were not to wild to imagine. This fighter would attack about 2 times per round, and assuming long sword +2 would do on average 16 points of damage killing the mage in one round and hits were almost assured as with the long sword, the fighter was +2 to hit unarmored opponents.. Now, almost impossible to do. Everyone almost always have at least +2 hp/level... Ho... And good luck to the MU to cast if that fighter was in hand to hand...


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, if you give the same goodies, but sooner, then you're just hitting the same problem earlier.



I believe that main culprit is higher level spells.
That is why they need to stay at the levels they are.

most features of classes(except spells) that are gained at levels 13-20 would not break anything if they are gained at levels 9-13.
Maybe, if possible with some lighter version, then improved after few levels.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Simple. Magic is magic.



I could have maybe talked about HP inflation (I am fully down for lower them) maybe even the getting different xp and having different charts but you already admitted you were comparing an 11th level fighter to a 12th level wizard (with 6th level spells)... but this one statement "Magic is magic" means we will neve see eye to eye, and there is no point trying.

a 7th level fighter should not be magic... but he should be a superhuman paragon. All classes should be balanced off having a similar level of versatilty and power... and you just will never see that.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> I would totally be on board on capping all casters to 5th level spells, and give wizards earlier signature spell and spell mastery in exchange.



If we are using spell points and only have spells to level 5, but at later levels you could only upcast lower level spells to levels 6-9 that could be interesting variant.

just reduce spell costs of levels 6,7,8,9 from 9,10,11,13 to 8,9,10,11 as upcasting really sucks.


----------



## TwoSix (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> If we are using spell points and only have spells to level 5, but at later levels you could only upcast lower level spells to levels 6-9 that could be interesting variant.
> 
> just reduce spell costs of levels 6,7,8,9 from 9,10,11,13 to 8,9,10,11 as upcasting really sucks.



Definitely doable.  Or to make it even simpler, you can leave the spell progression alone and simply truncate class spell lists at level 5.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> Ideally all full casters should have one mystic Arcanum slot per day that can cast a 6 through 9th level spell depending on your caster level. K don't see why a wizard or any PC should have an individual 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level slot.



spell point variant. 
You can only create one spell slots for spells 6-9.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 20, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> it is more likely they just cut high levels completely as they have no idea what to do with them.



That is complete nonsense...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 20, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> I think they'll do what they did with 5e. Print the spells in as familiar a form as they can, create class abilities that really don't do anything in 90% of circumstances (but they fill a character sheet!), curve it so the math largely stops, then add some flashy finisher at level 20 that makes it look worth it for everyone. Then ignore it as much as you can and let the small minority of players who actually play at that level do whatever they want. It doesn't matter as long as they're satisfied enough not to complain. The real game dev stops at 13.




This however does make sense.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> If we are using spell points and only have spells to level 5, but at later levels you could only upcast lower level spells to levels 6-9 that could be interesting variant.
> 
> just reduce spell costs of levels 6,7,8,9 from 9,10,11,13 to 8,9,10,11 as upcasting really sucks.



I keep saying warlock and artificer...

the artificer has a ton of slots from 1st to 5th level but no 6+ spells but they get lots of cool features
the warlock gets 2 (for most of the game then 3 for a bit) spell slots that come back on a SR and level with them to a max of 5th... but then get a single spell of 6th 7th 8th and 9th they can cast 1/perday, 

not having 4 1st 4 2nd and 4 3rd level spell slots makes having the 1.day 6th level spell more palatable to me...


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 20, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> it is more likely they just cut high levels completely as they have no idea what to do with them.



This.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 20, 2022)

bedir than said:


> I'd give a greater chance of rolling 1s for an entire session than them cutting levels



I think that comment should be taken sarcastically rather than literally.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Yeah, I think WotC took that most people (atleast those talking at cons and on the old TSR message boards and BBS) kept playing level 13 like level 4 just with more power and learned the wrong lesson.  instead of "We need good advice on how the game changes in the second half and really to double down on why" they took it to mean "Lets just give them what they do anyway."






Micah Sweet said:


> Exactly.  The game went in the opposite direction than what was intended, and we've been scrambling to make that work ever since.




You two speak as if you have TEH TRVTH, the One True Way of high level gaming, or something.  As if you know the market better than anyone else.

Needless to say, I don't buy it.  I think you are rather focused on your own frustrated desires, and a little less on some of the limitations on high level gaming that aren't even about game design.  But, you know, I could be wrong.

So, I hope you two get together, and create an OGL product that rewrites high level D&D, and it is a smash hit!


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> You two speak as if you have TEH TRVTH, the One True Way of high level gaming, or something.  As if you know the market better than anyone else.
> 
> Needless to say, I don't buy it.  I think you are rather focused on your own frustrated desires, and a little less on some of the limitations on high level gaming that aren't even about game design.  But, you know, I could be wrong.
> 
> So, I hope you two get together, and create an OGL product that rewrites high level D&D, and it is a smash hit!



I said that the game was changed from what the designers originally intended, not from what was popular or what the market wanted.  I explained that it was shifted based on the lack of popularity of the original style, in fact.  That I happened to like the old way is not relevant to that point, and I never said it was.

I do think the OSR way for high levels is the best use of it; that's my opinion.  Level Up and ACKS both do a better job of this, so fortunately there's no need to make my own game.


----------



## Retreater (Jul 20, 2022)

Since 3rd edition was released, high level play has been about drastically increasing HP, more powerful spells, more magic items, etc. For the first 25-ish years of the game, the mechanical power of the characters did actually stop around 9th level. Higher level characters were assumed to have more impact on the campaign world, creating strongholds, ruling over empires, even ascending to godhood. 
The contemporary system has made high level play less interesting in some ways - it's just more of what you've already been doing for the entire campaign.  
But I don't think games back then or games today actually use any of the high level material anyway. 
What would make groups use the game material? Well, I think most campaigns end due to the time spent and complexities of high level play. 
I can't imagine a game where groups would ever use it that would still fit the power fantasy theme of D&D.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Jul 20, 2022)

Retreater said:


> Since 3rd edition was released, high level play has been about drastically increasing HP, more powerful spells, more magic items, etc. For the first 25-ish years of the game, the mechanical power of the characters did actually stop around 9th level. Higher level characters were assumed to have more impact on the campaign world, creating strongholds, ruling over empires, even ascending to godhood.
> The contemporary system has made high level play less interesting in some ways - it's just more of what you've already been doing for the entire campaign.
> But I don't think games back then or games today actually use any of the high level material anyway.
> What would make groups use the game material? Well, I think most campaigns end due to the time spent and complexities of high level play.
> I can't imagine a game where groups would ever use it that would still fit the power fantasy theme of D&D.



Good analysis. I prefer the old way, but it was never super-popular.  On the other hand, running the same style all the way to 20 doesn't really work either.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I could have maybe talked about HP inflation (I am fully down for lower them) maybe even the getting different xp and having different charts but you already admitted you were comparing an 11th level fighter to a 12th level wizard (with 6th level spells)... but this one statement "Magic is magic" means we will neve see eye to eye, and there is no point trying.
> 
> a 7th level fighter should not be magic... but he should be a superhuman paragon. All classes should be balanced off having a similar level of versatilty and power... and you just will never see that.



And this is where I differ.
Magic should be terrifying.
Only the bold, at la Conan, should face it. 
Magic takes time to master.
I am not a proponent of classes to be balanced. At least not by level. A wizard should have a harder time to level than the fighter and our fighter should not be as close hp wise as the wizard. Heck, the difference between a d6 and a d10 is only 2 points on average. At least, in 1ed, only martials could get that sweet +3 or more hp per level. In 5ed, I have seen wizard with more HP than their fighter... go figure!

And again, 5ed is great. Way better than its predecessors. But there are choices that should have been dropped. Class balance is a myth, an utopia that many entertains. Balance means only one thing. Blandness. Make the classes unbalanced but with different exp to level. Make it so that magic have a cost and all classes using magic must level at a slower pace. Martial will get their place not as the poor unlucky player forced to play the play the martial but will be a very good choice.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> You two speak as if you have TEH TRVTH, the One True Way of high level gaming, or something.  As if you know the market better than anyone else.
> 
> Needless to say, I don't buy it.  I think you are rather focused on your own frustrated desires, and a little less on some of the limitations on high level gaming that aren't even about game design.  But, you know, I could be wrong.
> 
> So, I hope you two get together, and create an OGL product that rewrites high level D&D, and it is a smash hit!



um.... did you iss the part you quoted where i litterally said I THINK... not I KNOW?!?!



> I think you are rather focused on your own frustrated desires,



since you used the same words "I THINK" should this be labled as you "speak as if you have TEH TRVTH, the One True Way of "

cause again I didn't even try to hide it was all what I thought. 

I don't know how to express to you that what I think may or may not be fact, but we can not prove either way and in order to talk about our opinions we need to express what we think...



> So, I hope you two get together, and create an OGL product that rewrites high level D&D, and it is a smash hit!



tbh I don't think (not know not ultimate fact, think) that we agree on the answers even if we see a similar problem... so that most likely wont happen.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Jul 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I disagree. TSR reserved high levels for kingdom-building and keeping high-level they felt should be in the game but largely out of reach for PCs.  After 9th level or so, you're supposed to re-focus your efforts on the big picture, and leave the life of an adventurer behind for the most part.  That idea wasn't popular so it was gradually dropped, leaving us with the high level mess we have now.



the problem with that is the party sort of where being pulled apart by their differing high-level world responsibilities, it is however not a bad idea as at a high level you can logically change how things get done in the kingdom or whatever, I would mix the stronghold gameplay with the Avengers save the world stuff to make high level even worth playing worst case going into a dungeon for a particular magic item is still on the table.



Helldritch said:


> And this is where I differ.
> Magic should be terrifying.
> Only the bold, at la Conan, should face it.
> Magic takes time to master.
> ...



your suggestion is not inherently bad but its times in dnd sailed away in 3e people do not like having classes level faster than each other, and most modern fantasy does not portray magic as dangerous as that it self evolved out of magic as something evil which outside of frow backs or survivers from older times is dead these days or at least draw backs that matter.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> And this is where I differ.
> Magic should be terrifying.
> Only the bold, at la Conan, should face it.
> Magic takes time to master.
> I am not a proponent of classes to be balanced.



and this is why we will not ever see eye to eye...


Helldritch said:


> At least not by level. A wizard should have a harder time to level than the fighter and our fighter should not be as close hp wise as the wizard. Heck, the difference between a d6 and a d10 is only 2 points on average. At least, in 1ed, only martials could get that sweet +3 or more hp per level. In 5ed, I have seen wizard with more HP than their fighter... go figure!



I do agree with you on this though...
in my perfect world we would take the HD system of 5e and cut it down... give everyone 1d code lowerHP (so d4 wizard d8 fighter) give everyone 3HD at 1st level (maxed so 12hp wizard 24 fighter) and then only give additional HD at odd levels and take the 2e post level 10 numbers for even numbers... but No CON bonus to hp gained... so a 2nd level wizard and fighter would have 13 and 27 respectfully... then at level 3 variables start as wizards get 1d4 and fighter get 1d8 each.    But I would keep the spending HD gives back HD+con mod hp (the healthier you are the faster you recover not the more damage you can take) and make more 4e style healing "Sppend a HD and get this bonus" and "Heal as if you spent a HD"


Helldritch said:


> Class balance is a myth, an utopia that many entertains. Balance means only one thing. Blandness.



this is back to we just wont see eye to eye


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 20, 2022)

I think the best approach is the Epic 6 type approach, just adapted for high levels.

At some point in the game (maybe 11th or 13th level somewhere in there) you stop gaining levels. But then you gain abilities (or feats or whatever) that you choose from a list to further upgrade your character.

We already have this with their epic abilities in the DMG, all they need to do is expand it. Further, they could classify them into buckets, mundane and various states of supernatural. This gives you the dial for players who want grounded high level fighters (like a Beowulf) vs cusp of supernatural warriors (Captain America) vs full superhero (Thor). Just pick abilities from the list you consider appropriate for your game.


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> I think the best approach is the Epic 6 type approach, just adapted for high levels.
> 
> At some point in the game (maybe 11th or 13th level somewhere in there) you stop gaining levels. But then you gain abilities (or feats or whatever) that you choose from a list to further upgrade your character.
> 
> We already have this with their epic abilities in the DMG, all they need to do is expand it. Further, they could classify them into buckets, mundane and various states of supernatural. This gives you the dial for players who want grounded high level fighters (like a Beowulf) vs cusp of supernatural warriors (Captain America) vs full superhero (Thor). Just pick abilities from the list you consider appropriate for your game.



E6 was great for 3.5e as number there went totally crazy later on.

E9 would be great stop point for 5E if you want that.

single 5th level slot for casters, 3rd level spells for half casters, proficiency bonus of +4, most classes also get cool stuff at level 9.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> E6 was great for 3.5e as number there went totally crazy later on.
> 
> E9 would be great stop point for 5E if you want that.
> 
> single 5th level slot for casters, 3rd level spells for half casters, proficiency bonus of +4, most classes also get cool stuff at level 9.



probably 10th then just because people like those nice round numbers.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> I think the best approach is the Epic 6 type approach, just adapted for high levels.
> 
> At some point in the game (maybe 11th or 13th level somewhere in there) you stop gaining levels. But then you gain abilities (or feats or whatever) that you choose from a list to further upgrade your character.
> 
> We already have this with their epic abilities in the DMG, all they need to do is expand it. Further, they could classify them into buckets, mundane and various states of supernatural. This gives you the dial for players who want grounded high level fighters (like a Beowulf) vs cusp of supernatural warriors (Captain America) vs full superhero (Thor). Just pick abilities from the list you consider appropriate for your game.





Horwath said:


> E6 was great for 3.5e as number there went totally crazy later on.
> 
> E9 would be great stop point for 5E if you want that.
> 
> single 5th level slot for casters, 3rd level spells for half casters, proficiency bonus of +4, most classes also get cool stuff at level 9.



Epic levels already kind of work that way now for 21+ you just get xp then a special epic boon and/or feat... I got a warllock up to having 3 or 4 of those epic boons once.

Taking that idea and moving it to 9, 10, or 11 may be for the best 

((THIS IS ENTIRELY OPNION THE ONLY FACT IS WHAT HAPPENS OVER 20)


----------



## Horwath (Jul 20, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> probably 10th then just because people like those nice round numbers.



yeah.
10th level is also great. also lots of features that are nice.
But I would keep it at that. lvl11 goes into next tier with level 6 spells and for lots of classes if a jump in power.

after level 10, you gain an ASI(feat) or you can take a level in another class and get that class features and normal multiclass, but no raising in level or extra HPs and HDs. 

Maybe you can get some extra health if you gain levels in a class with higher HD.
I.E. 10th level wizard advances in E10 version, and instead of ASI or feat, takes a level of fighter.
Gains features of a fighter as normal multiclass and 4 HPs as 1st level fighter has 10 HP vs wizard 6, and if taken more, every level gain 2 HP, difference from wizards 4 per level to fighters 6.


----------



## Jer (Jul 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> With respect, in AD&D they gave you some followers, and told you jack about how to play kingdom building.
> 
> "They knew what to do with it, but didn't actually do it," seems an odd assertion.



And the thing is they DID actually do it - for BECMI, in the Companion set. Where they had Dominion management rules and the War Machine for that kind of mid-high level activity.  They just never did it for AD&D IIRC - which I've always found kind of odd.

(Now it's been decades since I've looked at those rules and even longer since I actually used them in a campaign, so the rosy memories of my youth that say they worked ok are probably wrong - or at least missing all of the parts we ignored to get them to work.  But they did have them! They tried to fulfill that promise somewhere!)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> I am not a proponent of classes to be balanced. At least not by level. A wizard should have a harder time to level than the fighter



okay XP talk...

a lot of people just compare the charts, like everyone got the same XP.  about 2 years into 2e for us we met someone that showed us we missed a rule and made level comparisons even harder. Class based XP.





now XP was tracked sepretly... so I had a high level like 13/7 thief wizard because I stole spell books that were worth a ton of GP and as such XP.

edit and HD used to have people complain about 'kill stealing'

fighter fights 3 rounds against the warlord, the wizard throws a SoD and kills it... nobody gets HD xp... or worse yet 2 fighters against 3 enemies trying to get the 'kill shot in' to get the 20,30, maybe 60xp for it.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

Jer said:


> And the thing is they DID actually do it - for BECMI, in the Companion set. Where they had Dominion management rules and the War Machine for that kind of mid-high level activity.  They just never did it for AD&D IIRC - which I've always found kind of odd.
> 
> (Now it's been decades since I've looked at those rules and even longer since I actually used them in a campaign, so the rosy memories of my youth that say they worked ok are probably wrong - or at least missing all of the parts we ignored to get them to work.  But they did have them! They tried to fulfill that promise somewhere!)



They worked out quite well. 
One thing is often forgotten is the fact that high level play should almost always be planar hopping. At this point, the characters are supposed to be legends and the threats of the mundane world should not be sufficient for them. Gods might ask them to thread where they are not allowed because of ancient pacts and edicts. But it is not always so. At least, not all adventures should be the end of the world...


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay XP talk...
> 
> a lot of people just compare the charts, like everyone got the same XP.  about 2 years into 2e for us we met someone that showed us we missed a rule and made level comparisons even harder. Class based XP.
> View attachment 254486
> ...



Yep. And?
That is exactly what I am talking about. But remember that back then, the backstab ability was at best meh... You needed to be in the back and unnoticed. Unless able to become invisible, you were good for one backstab per fight. If a DM was generous, you could backstab once every two or three rounds depending on circumstances and do not forget that you had to divide your experience by two and then apply it to each classes if applicable.
So in your thief example. You stole a spell book worth 10,000 gold. That does not mean 5000 xp for both thief and wizard. Only for the thief. And if your exp would bring you more than one level you would lose that exp. (I don't quite remember if it was 1xp shy of next level or just flush to the level though. Could check later.) This means that a 2nd level thief finding/stealing this book, would lose 3500xp. 

But yes, this way of doing things was more to my taste too. Good job on bring up that part.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Yep. And?



and it doesn't work as well.


Helldritch said:


> That is exactly what I am talking about. But remember that back then, the backstab ability was at best meh...



I don't know double or tipple damage was pretty good but 4 or 5 times modifiers got pretty awesome


Helldritch said:


> you were good for one backstab per fight.



yup... 1 big hit, then sit back and relax or play secondary fighter.


Helldritch said:


> had to divide your experience by two and then apply it to each classes if applicable.
> So in your thief example. You stole a spell book worth 10,000 gold. That does not mean 5000 xp for both thief and wizard. Only for the thief. And if your exp would bring you more than one level you would lose that exp. (I don't quite remember if it was 1xp shy of next level or just flush to the level though. Could check later.) This means that a 2nd level thief finding/stealing this book, would lose 3500xp.



I don't remember the cost of everything. I remember the number and levels of the spells got the price up for the book. I also remember theives leveling almost everygame even multi classes ones if they were trying hard enough... other classes had boom or bust things and as I said above it lead to issue... who got that kill?  did that spell help or just deal damage?

you were compareing a fighter to a wizard... and saying the wizard was 1 level higher, but it could be 2 or 3 if they got to use big spells and as such stole kills from the fighter while getting some for themselves... 


Helldritch said:


> But yes, this way of doing things was more to my taste too. Good job on bring up that part.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Jul 20, 2022)

I think it's pretty bold to assume XP is going to last much longer as a primary assumption, much less assume we're going to make XP progression more difficult to use and frustrating for the players to experience (yay! everyone but me levels! I'm sure going to keep playing this character that hinders my progression for a long, long time!).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I think it's pretty bold to assume XP is going to last much longer as a primary assumption, much less assume we're going to make XP progression more difficult to use and frustrating for the players to experience (yay! everyone but me levels! I'm sure going to keep playing this character that hinders my progression for a long, long time!).



I think I had more tolerance for that when I was younger


----------



## Mind of tempest (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think I had more tolerance for that when I was younger



I had it in video games when I was young, I am nearing my mid-twenties I have little patience left, gods I feel old.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think I had more tolerance for that when I was younger



For us, I feel like it was a factor of living on the same campus.

I vividly remember standing around at the end of the night, waiting for the DM to total up the XP plus and bonuses someone might have earned and writing them down on our sheets. Then we walked across the way to our dorms and stayed up another two hours on AIM or playing Smash Brothers.

Then I remember one night, years later we're at the DM's house, I've got a 30 mile drive ahead of me, a couple others are going 20 the other direction and the DM; she's suddenly like 'why am I keeping you for this? How about I say you leveled and everyone gets to go home'.

And no one in our group ever used XP again.


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> and it doesn't work as well.
> 
> I don't know double or tipple damage was pretty good but 4 or 5 times modifiers got pretty awesome
> 
> yup... 1 big hit, then sit back and relax or play secondary fighter.



A good thief with great equipment could do a few backstabs in a fight. But unless he got lucky, it was usually one or none. Using a short bow (since the thief's AC was not very good) or resorting to thrown daggers/darts was usually the best possible outcome unless multiclassed. Otherwise, the thief was in deep s**t.



GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't remember the cost of everything. I remember the number and levels of the spells got the price up for the book. I also remember theives leveling almost everygame even multi classes ones if they were trying hard enough... other classes had boom or bust things and as I said above it lead to issue... who got that kill?  did that spell help or just deal damage?



Most exp would come from the gold (1ed) anyways and exp from monsters was almost abysmal. Since gold would be shared equally, it meant that whomever got a kill did not went up as fast as you might remember. 



GMforPowergamers said:


> you were compareing a fighter to a wizard... and saying the wizard was 1 level higher, but it could be 2 or 3 if they got to use big spells and as such stole kills from the fighter while getting some for themselves...



This is not what I remember. The highest level member of any group was usually the thief (unless low level and a druid was there...) and above level 5 the thief could be higher than the average by 3 levels! And if the thief was especially good in take risks bonus for traps and chests (AKA Stealing the treasure before it was shared), you could add another level. The slowest class to acquire level because of kills was exactly the wizard (then the illusionist for obvious reasons). This was a bit alleviated in 2nd edition, but in that edition, all kills were shared equally. Leaving only the table you so graciously shared with us (and which I had all but forgotten) to bring a bit discrepancy in the levels in a group.


----------



## Blue (Jul 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Now we have 4 tiers of play. Somewhat, it's kind of blurry but it works as marks of power jump of PC's
> 
> T1: 1-4
> T2: 5-10
> ...



I'm still hoping they stay with their "compatible", and that means not redoing the classes to move power bumps forward.  I don't see value in reworking things just for the symmetry of matching when proficiency increases.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 20, 2022)

Not really enamoured with the premise of the OP but as to the commentary about getting rid of high levels. I would be strongly opposed to that. Just because there are there does not oblige you to play them and removing them does not guarantee that they will be replaced or what replaces them will be any good.
The biggest issue is that to reach high level one has run a campaign for a long time already. This increases the chances of the campaign ending due to real world issues. 
This has the effect to denying DM the practise of playing high level play. We have pretty much mastered the other stuff by seeing it often but not so much the high level stuff. I have only managed a 1 to 20 campaign once and that was my last one and the lack of experience was definitely an issue. 
Having watched Matt Mercer running high level play has been and education and I agree that is best approached as mini campaigns. 
Finally the old TSR high level play of strongholds and domain management is a separate game. It can be bolted on top of D&D at any level and can operate at a number of levels of abstraction. From the highly abstract version Strongholds and Followers by Matt Colville to a full blown economic system and wargame.
All it really needs is a wargame from WoTC that integrates with PC characters and then any one of the third party Stronghold systems could be used.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 20, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Most exp would come from the gold (1ed) anyways and exp from monsters was almost abysmal. Since gold would be shared equally, it meant that whomever got a kill did not went up as fast as you might remember.



Warriors get bonus xp for the things they kill


----------



## Helldritch (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Warriors get bonus xp for the things they kill



Sure, over the course of an adventure it represents what? 10% at most? And that 10% is very generous because they need to get the killing strike if you read and interpret the meaning to the letter. And these kills would be shared with the second fighter in the group.


----------



## Jer (Jul 20, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay XP talk...
> 
> a lot of people just compare the charts, like everyone got the same XP.  about 2 years into 2e for us we met someone that showed us we missed a rule and made level comparisons even harder.



What? What is this?  This is a prank right?
(Goes to shelf, looks up Table 34 in the 2e DMG)
Huh.  That's ... that's a thing.  That's absolutely a thing that they put into a rulebook.  Huh.

I will admit that 2e was not my thing - BECMI and 1e were much more common in my pre-3e D&D days - but none of the 2e games I ever played ever gave out XP for anything other than for monsters, the new-fangled "story award" that 2e introduced, and the occasional "good roleplaying XP bonus".  Except for the one guy who still insisted on giving out XP for treasure no matter what the 2e developers did or didn't put into the rulebook, insisting that they must have left it out by mistake. I don't think think I've ever seen that table before.  Or if I did my brain blocked it out because I wouldn't want to contemplate ever using it in a game. Just - wow.



GMforPowergamers said:


> edit and HD used to have people complain about 'kill stealing'



Now some conversations I've had about old D&D games make more sense.  Their DMs weren't jerks, they were just following the rules as written. 

You've rocked my world.


----------



## Shardstone (Jul 20, 2022)

Really you could have a few things for levels 11-20.

You could have them be advanced versions of the classes with a new subclass you pick at 11th level.

You could have an E10 system as an alternative, where you get feats instead of leveling benefits starting once you hit 10th level. Get up to 10 boons this way (still cap at 20th) or just let people go forever, etc.

You could create a dynamic faction roleplaying game and give each player a "leader" version of their class from 11th-20th level. Sorcerer become Sorcerer-Kings, Fighters become major conquerors or demigod heroes, clerics are fighting alongside angels and dealing with heavenly/infernal factions, and so on.

You could create a magic system progression past 10th level, where your class determines what magic item you get instead of a level up, and each level is a quest to get these magic items or evolve them or unlock their power, etc. 

There is just so much you could do that, in my opinion, would be more popular with the mainstream base and give DMs and tables a lot more power to play their version of D&D if we just moved away from the current model to a slightly more modular one that more fits the reported play experience.


----------



## tetrasodium (Jul 21, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Not really enamoured with the premise of the OP but as to the commentary about getting rid of high levels. I would be strongly opposed to that. J*ust because there are there does not oblige you to play them* and removing them does not guarantee that they will be replaced or what replaces them will be any good.
> The biggest issue is that to reach high level one has run a campaign for a long time already. This increases the chances of the campaign ending due to real world issues.
> This has the effect to denying DM the practise of playing high level play. We have pretty much mastered the other stuff by seeing it often but not so much the high level stuff. I have only managed a 1 to 20 campaign once and that was my last one and the lack of experience was definitely an issue.
> Having watched Matt Mercer running high level play has been and education and I agree that is best approached as mini campaigns.
> ...



They are there and I use them, most of my games last till low to mid teens in 5e with 3.x/pf often starting a couple levels in & running slightly higher. a condensed 1-10 or whatever  with dangerous early levels & all of the trash ribbons replaced with solid abilities normally reached at higher levels that switched over to the occasional epic boon or whatever would mean all of those high CR monsters are suddenly dangerous & players need powerful magic items rather than two rounds would be a significant improvement for all three level ranges.

instead of encounters being a gaggle of ultra high CR baddies just for them to last till round 2-3 I'd only need a couple or less & I could be generous(or not) with awesome magic items to my players


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 21, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> They are there and I use them, most of my games last till low to mid teens in 5e with 3.x/pf often starting a couple levels in & running slightly higher. a condensed 1-10 or whatever  with dangerous early levels & all of the trash ribbons replaced with solid abilities normally reached at higher levels that switched over to the occasional epic boon or whatever would mean all of those high CR monsters are suddenly dangerous & players need powerful magic items rather than two rounds would be a significant improvement for all three level ranges.
> 
> instead of encounters being a gaggle of ultra high CR baddies just for them to last till round 2-3 I'd only need a couple or less & I could be generous(or not) with awesome magic items to my players



I do not understand the point you are making here.


----------



## Magister Ludorum (Jul 22, 2022)

Most my games last until level 16-20. I've never had trouble running high level D&D, and my players love it, even the ones playing fighters and rogues.


----------



## squibbles (Jul 23, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> [...] TSR reserved high levels for kingdom-building and keeping high-level they felt should be in the game but largely out of reach for PCs.  After 9th level or so, you're supposed to re-focus your efforts on the big picture, and leave the life of an adventurer behind for the most part.  That idea wasn't popular so it was gradually dropped, leaving us with the high level mess we have now.





GMforPowergamers said:


> Yeah, I think WotC took that most people (atleast those talking at cons and on the old TSR message boards and BBS) kept playing level 13 like level 4 just with more power and learned the wrong lesson.  instead of "We need good advice on how the game changes in the second half and really to double down on why" they took it to mean "Lets just give them what they do anyway."





Umbran said:


> [...] I submit that _the players_ don't really have a solid, consistent idea of what they want out of play at that level either.



So, I'm no expert, as I wasn't playing (or alive) in the heyday of OD&D, but my understanding is that domain play was _on its face_ the sensible way for high level games to go, based on the way D&D was originally played.

If you're in a player-directed west marches sandbox style game with the standard barony/minor kingdom setting, PCs that get to 9th level become de facto power players in the game world. They are higher level and have more resources and magic gear than the local leadership and, because they've been running amok, profiteering, and making friends and enemies, they have lots of ideas for how they want to remake said barony/minor kingdom in their own image. Domain rules were just a way of making the game that players were already engaging in more functional.

However, lots of players wanted D&D to do epic high fantasy, a la dragonlance, with darklords and macguffins, and, once the game moved in that direction, there was no natural reason for players to care about domains anymore (though I'm sure some people still did, even in the later style of game).

A lot of the wierdness of old D&D stuff is like that. The rules made sense for the game that people were playing at the time. Here's a video about that.



UngainlyTitan said:


> [...] the old TSR high level play of strongholds and domain management is a separate game. It can be bolted on top of D&D at any level and can operate at a number of levels of abstraction. From the highly abstract version Strongholds and Followers by Matt Colville to a full blown economic system and wargame.
> All it really needs is a wargame from WoTC that integrates with PC characters and then any one of the third party Stronghold systems could be used.



Strongholds and Followers, if I understand correctly (never read it) adds the stronghold experience to a more modern and drama-facing version of D&D, so it might actually be doing something different than the old wargaming style. Regardless, you're right that both are secondary systems with different advancement mechanisms layered over the base rules.

But though you could play domains at any level, they still probably make the most sense for characters of middling power. 1st level fighters are basic mooks in a wargame-style battle whereas archmagi and high priests that can potentially take on gods are sortof beyond caring about kingdom-level warfare, i.e. the BECMI progression makes a certain amount of sense.



Shardstone said:


> Really you could have a few things for levels 11-20.
> 
> You could have them be advanced versions of the classes with a new subclass you pick at 11th level.
> 
> ...



Super cool ideas. I like all of them.

The one with class progression via magic items would make it SO much more intuitive to conceptualize what a high level fighter is and why he/she makes sense as the equal of an archmage.


----------



## squibbles (Jul 23, 2022)

Jer said:


> If they were going to separate tiers of play by proficiency bonus increase they would have done it back when they released 5e.  It was the absolute most natural way to do those breakdowns but they chose to not do it that way.
> 
> And the reason for that break wasn't the proficiency bonus I suspect - I think it was spell slots.  Levels 5-10 gets you up to level 5 spells and no higher - and I think that's the determiner for where that second tier ends and where the next tier starts. At level 11 the full casters get to start casting 6th level spells - and 6th level spells are where the special rules on spellcasting start to come into play.  Sorcerers only get to use spell points to buy up to 5th level slots, spell progression is basically one 6+ slot per level from 11-20, etc.
> 
> I think that the expectation is that the thing that differentiates "high level play" from "mid level play" is the casters getting access to 6th level spells. That's where a lot of folks feel their games start to change.  Getting an extra +1 to proficiency bonus isn't actually enough of a change to the power level to change the feel of the game, but unlocking those higher level spells definitely can be depending on the group.





Horwath said:


> yeah, about mechanics of 6th level spells that are only available to full casters I agree, but 6th level spell really are not that special.
> 3rd level is a big boost in power and 5th level spells. 7th level spells are bigger jump from 6th that 6th level are from 5th level.
> So, yeah, new tier should be at 3rd level spells, 5th level spells, 7th level spells
> and finally 9th level spells.




I'm a bit late in replying to these posts, but this is a part of 5e's design that's really interesting to me.

The convention that everybody gets power spikes at the change of tier levels--5th, 11th, and 17th--felt really elegant to me since I read about it in a blog back at the beginning of 5e's life cycle (can't for the life of me remember where, sadly). For 5th level it works great; fly, fireball, spirit guardians, and conjure animals are huge, and they pair excellently with all the fight-y classes getting extra attack. For 17th level it works about as well as everything else at high levels (barbarians get an extra damage die on crits and a 6th rage. What?!?)--but it clearly makes sense for 17th level to be the last cut point.

11th level is weird, though. Most fight-y types get a solid power spike, with some ranger and monk subclasses being a bit iffy. And, as @Jer points out, lots of class features, like sorcerer's font of magic or warlock's pact slots, cut off at 5th level spells, suggesting that 6th level spells are supposed to be a major step up for 11th level PCs. But... as @Horwath points out, they kinda aren't. 5th level spells aren't crazy strong--excepting a handful, like wall of force and animate objects--and 6th level spells aren't crazy strong either. As a result, the 11th level power spike is not terribly coherent.

I wouldn't be opposed to the tier jump being at 9th level for 5th level spells, or 13th level for 7th level spells, but that would also take a lot of changes elsewhere to be an improvement.

I'm thinking I may create a spinoff thread about how 11th level PC tier could be improved.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 23, 2022)

squibbles said:


> Strongholds and Followers, if I understand correctly (never read it) adds the stronghold experience to a more modern and drama-facing version of D&D, so it might actually be doing something different than the old wargaming style. Regardless, you're right that both are secondary systems with different advancement mechanisms layered over the base rules.
> 
> But though you could play domains at any level, they still probably make the most sense for characters of middling power. 1st level fighters are basic mooks in a wargame-style battle whereas archmagi and high priests that can potentially take on gods are sortof beyond caring about kingdom-level warfare, i.e. the BECMI progression makes a certain amount of sense.



Strongholds and Followers is basically a lightweight domain and wargame addon. The wargame element is highly abstract, the domain element less so but still fairly lightweight. The whole thing is additive and I would agree best suited to tier 2 and above.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jul 23, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Strongholds and Followers is basically a lightweight domain and wargame addon. The wargame element is highly abstract, the domain element less so but still fairly lightweight. The whole thing is additive and I would agree best suited to tier 2 and above.



S&F work just fine for low level play, assuming a campaign where low level players can haul away significant amounts of treasure. In practice, though, you are right, starting around tier 2 is likely where stronghold building would start. 

In my campaign the party started in levels 3-5 but that was because they had a ruined keep they could restore for a lower amount of GP to get their level one stronghold. 

I really like the stronghold rules in S&F.  Not really a fan of the wargame. I found the war rules to be pretty boring in practice and we only played one sessions using them. We still use the unit costs and upkeep for units but thats more for attracting and maintaining units for securing certain areas as the party makes progress against the enemy.


----------



## Rogerd1 (Jul 24, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> it is more likely they just cut high levels completely as they have no idea what to do with them.



I agree and tiers make more sense than levels anyway.

It would make more sense, to me anyway, to remove class abilities (keep the base ones), but provide a list that people can choose from - like Runequest Heroic Abilities, to bespoke their characters. In the same way you don't need different magic users, they can just be Feats / Edges, that state that they have a pact, arcane, or artificer etc.

As it stands, the strength of lifting etc is absolute garbage, and quite frankly incorporating Shadow of the Demon Lord scales would make more sense, and include a sense of fantasy supers (I like that kind of thing), and powers in a similar way to True20, Modern Age being two examples. Then make magic separate to this.



Horwath said:


> And here I was hoping for 10th level spells for full casters at level 19...



I know that Eren Godslayer has level ten spells, for what it is worth.


----------

