Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Thalion94518 Jul 20, 2014 18:58:08	Saw this on another forum.   Next goes to 20 levels.   I'm wondering if you feel you need all 20 levels.  I'm not here to debate whether it's necessary to HAVE all 20 levels.  I figure if someone is going to use them, then they're necessary.  But will YOU foresee using them?   As for myself, I don't.  I've never played a campaign that reached the maximum level set up by the system.   The longest campaign I played in went for over 10 years.  We played 1e and my character ended up 13th level.  That's the highest I've ever levelled a character.   I've played high level adventures before, but we created high level characters just for the game.  For me, I just couldn't get into it because I felt no connection to that character.  Still, I understand the appeal that high level play has for people.   I don't know what the sweet spot is for Next yet, but I doubt my campaign will make the upper (or even mid) teens.  I want to keep my campaign in that sweet spot (whatever it is) as long as possible.   So I personally don't need 20 levels.
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Jul 20, 2014 19:27:11	I have always held to the idea that my campaigns shall persist for so long as they are entertaining to me and the players involved, and that usually means that it isn't the range of levels that determines start or finish, but the story being told and whether it is "done" or not.   I foresee only using levels 1 and 2 a few times here and there (such as when running published adventures, and for my first home-written campaign, plus potentially any campaigns in which most or all of the players are trying out classes they haven't played before), and starting at level 3 the majority of campaigns.   I also forsee some campaigns covering only a portion of the level range because their story is short, most campaigns reaching level 20 or near to it because such a task no longer takes such an extremely long period of play to achieve, and at least one campaign will have need of rules for exceeding level 20 because it's story is long and the players are enjoying their characters too much to retire them.   So I don't need 20 levels, or really any particular number of levels - I just need the game not to stop me (such as by completely breaking down mechanically) from playing for however long I should choose to while still allowing the players to gain levels.
#3 Orethalion Jul 20, 2014 19:46:21	Thalion94518 wrote:
#4 Zardnaar Jul 20, 2014 19:52:29	As I DM I rarely run games over 10th level. As I player I think I made it to level 12 once.
#5 pukunui Jul 20, 2014 20:01:30	Isn't Eberron meant to be a low-level setting, with few NPCs above 10th level or so? I'll be curious to see how they handle that aspect of the setting in its 5e incarnation.   As for me, I've rarely made it past 12th level in any RPG. One time I joined an ongoing 4e campaign that was already in the mid 20s and we made it all the way to 30, but that was only a few levels' worth of play for me. The others had started at 1st level, though.
#6 Karnos Jul 20, 2014 20:04:42	15 or so is enough for players in most games, but...   Big bad evil guys are often classed NPCs if the players are reaching level 10 or 12, the big bad evil guy needs to be sufficiently higher to serve as a real challenge.  It's possible to just artifically boost the evil boss guy, but many groups like to follow consistent rules for players and NPC and so it is nice to have the rules already defined for higher level characters.   Then there is the XP tables- 5e has leveling occuring much faster than many prior editions.  Maybe level 20 will actually be obtainable for many groups now, given the accelerated leveling pace, perhaps it will be needed as a real player goal.
#7 Alex_ Jul 20, 2014 20:05:38	Thalion94518 wrote:
#8 cranebump Jul 20, 2014 20:06:42	Not at all, and I shudder to think how ridiculous the challenges need to be at that level.
#9 R_Dragoner Jul 20, 2014 20:10:40	We had fun in the past running high level campaigns such as with planar travel and taking on demon lords and such.
#10 Shiroiken Jul 20, 2014 20:11:52	No one "needs" 20 levels. In fact, I've only seen a few games ever come close to the "maximum" level of any edition.   I've found that most campaigns (except some in my younger days) were really story based. One primary story arc defines the campaign (usually designed by the DM), with several minor story arcs (usually created by player actions). Once the primary story arc is completed, the campaign should end, regardless of level. If there are any unresolved minor story arcs, the DM should wrap them up in the epilogue. To continue on past this is like a really good TV show that has run a few seasons too long.   TBH, I actually wished they would have provided an open-ended system, like OD&D and 1E AD&D. That way people don't feel a pressure to reach any specific point, but games can also continue as long as desired.
#11 Alex_ Jul 20, 2014 20:11:53	pukunui wrote:
#12 TheZigZagist Jul 20, 2014 20:33:43	Hard to say this time around with bounded accuracy and all. Previous editions we usually went to 10th or 12th before a reboot, but we also ran at x4 the listed xp to level slowing the progression down to keep the game in our sweet spot longer. Made it to the Immortals Set once. . .Once. lol Just too sureal for some I guess. I'm sure I don't need 20 lvls, not sure how often I'll use 20 lvls, might bump the xp chart up x4 again. Only time will tell.
#13 Nautilus Jul 20, 2014 20:32:02	Of course. My needs expand to include all available levels.
#14 MechaPilot Jul 20, 2014 20:33:55	As long as there is some method for advancing the character's abilities, I don't really need any levels.  Give me a way to spend xp gains on individual traits or improved HPs or or improved spellcasting or raising my prof bonus and I'm fine without any level advancement.
#15 Rastapopoulos Jul 20, 2014 21:12:44	I'm more a fan of the 2nd Edition tunning of levels.   In 2e we do have 20 levels, but levels 1 to 10 are what you'd expect this days to be the 1-20 range. Beyond level 10 in 2e you were entering the range of "epic levels" (to use a common modern term).
#16 Brimleydower Jul 20, 2014 21:39:15	I like the variation in play that high level offers. Getting there can take a while if you're doing the haul all the way from first level, but those characters are usually the most memorable in my experience.
#17 Tony_Vargas Jul 20, 2014 22:36:36	I don't see much need for the first two levels.  Really, it's not the number of levels in total, but the number of levels that are playable.  It not that I need not than six playable levels before needing to scrap the campaign and start over (I can always just slow or even halt exp awards), it's just that if the game presents me with 20 levels I'd prefer they all be useable.
#18 Lawolf Jul 20, 2014 22:43:08	I would much rather have 10 good levels worth of game play than having levels 1-4 be absolute crap with no real options at all, levels 5-10 being good, levels 11-16 being decent, and levels 17+ being unworkable horribly balanced godwizard paradise.
(Reply to #18) AaronOfBarbaria	Lawolf wrote:
#20 Qmark Jul 20, 2014 23:35:35	The game should have theoretically infinite levels. What a character is expected to do at level 12051 is anyone's guess, but it would be nice to be able to do so.
#21 Saelorn Jul 20, 2014 23:54:44	I like having 20 levels for context, even if I never want to play beyond level 10.
#22 ankiyavon Jul 20, 2014 23:58:47	It's unlikely, but I might.     The highest level character I've ever played that started from 1 made it to 17th level, in 2E.  (It took many years of playing multiple times a week; this was when I was a teenager playing with my brothers.)     I also played in a 4E campaign that went from 1-18, but we were leveling every few sessions in that game, so it took much less time.   (You may say '18 is higher than 17!' True.  But 17 was much closer to the max level of 2E than 18 is to the max of 4E.  Further, 17th level in 2E took such a vastly greater amount of playtime than my 18 did, it's higher level in my head.)   So going 1-20 (or close to it) is far from impossible for me.
#23 JohnLynch Jul 21, 2014 0:26:15	I definitely see the worth of levels 1-2. I'm hoping to run the starter set next month as an introduction to 5th edition and am looking to run Part 1. It looks like it should fit in a 3 hour session (may have to cut out a fight if they spend a lot of time roleplaying). The fact it perfectly encapsulates level 1 is a nice boon too. Also level 1 and 2 are useful as gateways to some of the better class features of a class and helps tone down multiclassing. That said I expect I'll be starting most campaigns at level 3. The flavour of a Paladin swearing their oaths at level 3 rubs me the wrong way and doesn't really fit in well with how I'm envisioning Paladins working in my campaign setting. So I expect I'll be sticking with level 3 as the starting point. Although as mentioned I'll be starting the starter set at level 1 along with starting any official adventure paths at the official level as well.   I expect most campaigns to span level 3-15. Up to level 10 was the sweet spot for 4th ed for me. Most campaigns in Pathfinder end shortly after level 12 and as mentioned before the threats you have to start facing can be significantly different to the feel then what the campaign would start out as facing at level 1-3. Having a political city-based campaign suddenly take on demon lords and deities feels like Fonzi ridin a motorbike over a shark.   That said we'll have to wait and see. With 4th ed we did play Against the Giants which started at Paragon tier. In that regard I could definitely see a campaign starting around 11th level and continuing to level 20 (assuming high level is playable in this edition). In such a scenario I see no reason we couldn't have 1 campaign run level 1-10 and then another campaign run 11-20 with players given the option of using the same characters.
#24 Acrilos Jul 21, 2014 0:47:28	20 levels are fine because characters do not gain a lot of stuff each level. Besides, there will certainly be a module in a few years to make epic characters beyond 20th level as we had in 3rd edition.   The only thing I regret if 20 is to be the BIG limit is that some features gained at 20th level are awesome and will not be used most of the time in my groups.   I usually make the end of a campaign coincide with the maximum level and my players like to start a new group when they reach max level. So they will at most be able to use those 20th level features for one final adventure.
#25 tehsquirrely Jul 21, 2014 1:10:03	Most games I've been in or ran stop somewhere in the low teens more often than not. That said sometimes it's fun just to tool around with super high level stuff, and sometimes it's fun to play unbearably high levels, but not all the time. I like the option to have as many levels as I could care for, and now that multiclassing is back I don't see a reason not to bring back another high level play or epic level handbook type supplement as some point.
(Reply to #20) AaronOfBarbaria	Qmark wrote:
(Reply to #15) Azzy1974	Rastapopoulos wrote:
(Reply to #2) Azzy1974	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#29 frothsof Jul 21, 2014 4:16:40	Yes, next question
#30 Mephi1234 Jul 21, 2014 4:30:19	frothsof wrote:
#31 Emerikol. Jul 21, 2014 4:54:37	Karnos wrote:
#32 SwampDog Jul 21, 2014 9:02:13	Saelorn wrote:
#33 Chakravant Jul 21, 2014 9:29:19	On one hand, I do not need levels at all.  I can adjudicte when my players advance in power better than an arbitrary chart can.  Assuming the game has levels though, 20 is not enough.  I've played characters all the way up to levvel 150 in earlier editions of D&D.  20 or even 30 is grossly insufficient for my needs.
#34 Chakravant Jul 21, 2014 9:31:59	Qmark wrote:
#35 DavidArgall Jul 21, 2014 11:51:08	Living Greyhawk 3e had a cap of 16.  However, when they imposed it, they found they had to extend it to 18 for those who were already at or over the limit.  Had they not put in the limit [and printed adventures for those levels] there would have been PCs well above 20th.  So there is player demand for epic level.      It's to be remembered that a level limit is an excuse to quit.  What reason is there to play on when you are top level and already have the best toys?  And according to one rumor, 5e is designed to be finished in a school year, which would be hard on our long term games as it is.  That would not be helped if the limit is evel lower.       On the other hand, Pathfinder Society is doing fine on 12 levels, which suggests 5e can survive on lower level limits too.       As to my own case, I have gotten into epic levels, but not often.  Doing a lot of DMing kept the levels down.  If we decide to give DMs XP, we will have several pushing level 20 in short order.
#36 The_Jester Jul 21, 2014 13:19:02	In most of my games, 10 levels is more than enough.
#37 Brock_Landers Jul 21, 2014 13:35:46	Definitely, some campaigns go for many years, I have DMed as high as 17th level (took years to get there).
#38 hunterian7 Jul 21, 2014 14:12:08	My group is pretty die-hard. We always game to the maximum level.  In 4th we reached 30th level twice- a feat quite extraordinary in of itself.  We played two campaigns side by side and it took 4 years. Epic play in 5th will be interesting in how it's implemented- especially with bounded accuracy.
#39 frothsof Jul 21, 2014 17:00:45	Its not just about how high u made it in this or that campaign. Without high level PCs you cant play a lot of the classic adventures. I mean, Isle of the Ape? Vault of the Drow? Dragon Mountain? And good luck tackling the og Temple of the Frog from Blackmoor with anything less than 12th level PCs and an army of henchmen. 30 was too much, but i think 20 is just right.
#40 Plaguescarred1 Jul 21, 2014 17:19:08	I dont need 20 levels and all my campaigns have ended way below that cap. But this may change with 5E considering the faster XP progression.   While I prefer a 20 to a 30 level cap for the core rules, i hope a supplement will be released for those who like epic level play 21+ as an option.