What's the big deal about lvl 20 builds?

[danzibr]

What the title says.

I've never been in a campaign past like level 13 or something. For that matter, why stop at 20? It seems like if you get to 20 you might as well keep playing and go epic. After a while you'd just have to say, "Continue taking levels in Fighter" or whatever you want to go with.

I dunno, to me it seems like when someone asks for build advice instead of throwing something 20 at them asking what levels they'll actually be playing the build at.

[Sarco_Phage]

Because a lot of campaigns start at 20th level.

[danzibr]

Because a lot of campaigns start at 20th level.
Whoa... I've never experienced this. I guess I am just a noob though.

[Arundel]

Level 20 is the maximum level for a standard game. Once you go epic everything is kind of wonky and broken, so it is not useful for normal theoretical builds. You shouldn't look at level 20 builds as a starting, but a blueprint. The idea isn't that you start fully fleshed, it is that you build up to it. You are just planning out your house before you start putting up board.

It is perfectly reasonably to start playing at level one with a plan for a level 20 build.

[Curmudgeon]

The rules of the game change significantly at level 21. Level 20 is as far as you can go with the basic rules.

[kamikasei]

Build advice should first check the expected start and end levels for the game, agreed.

Why stop at level 20? Because epic is, well. Yeah. Harder to plan for?

Why go all the way to level 20? Well, probably a lot of it is just habit and convention, but notionally a good 1-20 build should be playable all the way through and has the advantage that if you start playing at one point in the progression you can be confident of your ability to contribute at later levels rather than worrying about sabotaging yourself with poor build choices after the game's starting levels.

[Keld Denar]

D&D 3.5's prereq system makes character planning important if you ever hope to qualify for one or multiple PrCs throughout the life of a character. Thus, we plan. As long as we are planning, we might as well plan the build through to it's logical conclusion. Most people don't play epic, simply because epic gets...wonky, and 3.5 isn't the best system for emulating that level of play. Thus, level 20 is a good stopping point for build planning (also, the rules shift for post 20 leveling).

Now, if a player requests a build to start or end by a certain point, that makes it a bit easier and changes some of the contrainsts, but most of the time, its just easier to plan 1-20.

[danzibr]

Thanks for the replies.

I could have phrased this a bit differently. I meant two things:

1) How often do people actually climb all the way to 20?

2) What's the purpose of builds which are late-bloomers?

From my own experience, the answers would be no and there is no purpose, respectively. I can see you'd want to do a late-bloomer if you actually start at high levels, but how often does that happen?

[Keld Denar]

Define a "late bloomer". Is level 4 later? 6? 8? 12? 15?

It really depends. I can't think of a lot of builds that really need 15 levels to "come into their own". Many builds you find on the forums are decent from level 1 on. Some have some saggy spots, like a lot of gish builds in the 3-6 level range, but most full caster or full BAB builds tend to be relatively straightforward all the way through.

[danzibr]

Define a "late bloomer". Is level 4 later? 6? 8? 12? 15?

It really depends. I can't think of a lot of builds that really need 15 levels to "come into their own". Many builds you find on the forums are decent from level 1 on. Some have some saggy spots, like a lot of gish builds in the 3-6 level range, but most full caster or full BAB builds tend to be relatively straightforward all the way through.
The guy I played that was a late bloomer was a Kobold Swiftblade. The DM gave out little wealth and I actually ended up never getting Slippers of Battledance. I'm guessing he wouldn't bloom until... 10ish. I'd have to dig up the build. But if you start at level 1, being totally not useful until level 10 isn't fun.

[Keld Denar]

A gish. Yea, gishes are notoriously saggy about the middle, especially gishes that lose a lot of caster levels (like the Swiftblade). You are just starting to tap into your burgeoning spellcasting but falling behind in your melee toughness and ability.

[Psyren]

A build doesn't feel "complete" to me until it says what you do with every level up to 20.

Some do take a while to "bloom," but the really good ones are useful the entire way through. (Like Druid 20, natch :smalltongue:)

[Curmudgeon]

2) What's the purpose of builds which are late-bloomers?
Some classes offer significant features starting fairly late. An example is the Rogue special abilities, which first become available at level 10. The Savvy Rogue feat exists only to augment these abilities, and the first feat slot for that is level 12. That's pretty late, but the combination of the Crippling Strike ability and Savvy Rogue feat gives the Rogue the capability of dealing STR damage to creatures that are immune to the main lower-level Rogue ability (sneak attack).

Another Rogue special ability is Skill Mastery, allowing you to "take 10" on all mastered skills, at all times (including during combat). Savvy Rogue changes that to "take 12". Add the Education feat (all Knowledge skills are class skills for all your classes) and Knowledge Devotion feat (bonuses to attack and damage creatures based on Knowledge check associated with that creature type) and starting about level 14 or so the total AB for a Rogue will become about 1 more than class level ─ making the Rogue effectively a (better than) full BAB class.

So the Rogue class is a good example of a "late bloomer", where it takes quite a while, yet the payback is capabilities that make it both stronger and more interesting to play.

[Psyren]

Warlocks are also late-bloomers - they can craft nearly any item in the game, but don't gain the ability to do so until level 12. And any PrCing you do will delay this ability.

[ericgrau]

It would make more sense if these builds had progression from 1-20, but I recently saw one that was fairly lousy until level 12. Suggested for a player to use in a real game. Ugh, wth man. It was super complicated and yet you could literally do much better with fighter 11 until that point. Maybe warrior 11 if played as intended.

[Crow]

A good level 20 build is built so as to be effective and fun to play all the way from 1st to 20th. These are the builds that are most useful when people are looking for general build advice. Also, doing a 1-20 build is useful when people don't specifiy the levels that they are going to be playing at.

A lot of times though, people are asking for advice relating to characters who are going to start at levels higher than first. With these builds, having tricks and features that don't come on line until a given level are ok, since play will begin on or after that level anyways.

I'm not sure I understood the original question, but hopefully the above makes sense.

[Greenish]

Warlocks are also late-bloomers - they can craft nearly any item in the game, but don't gain the ability to do so until level 12.On the other hand, EB is pretty solid offense at earliest levels, and some of the early invocations are nifty.

[Talya]

I played in a campaign that lasted 5 years and ran from levels 4 to 18. We sorta hoped to get to 20, too. We may yet revisit it. Still, we got close enough to 20 to say "Yeah, it's important to ensure your build remains useful at every stage of play."

[Telonius]

Thanks for the replies.

I could have phrased this a bit differently. I meant two things:

1) How often do people actually climb all the way to 20?

2) What's the purpose of builds which are late-bloomers?

From my own experience, the answers would be no and there is no purpose, respectively. I can see you'd want to do a late-bloomer if you actually start at high levels, but how often does that happen?

1. Most campaigns I've ever been in, actually. I might be the exception, but my groups tend to run a lot of the Adventure Paths (Age of Worms, Shackled City), and those are designed to take you from 1-20.

2. Same purpose as Thief in FF1. :smallbiggrin: A little more seriously, those sorts of builds are *usually* best for campaigns that start at a bit higher level. That does happen fairly often.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Eight of my last ten or so campaigns made it all the way to 20th, and while one of them started new characters at 10th (it was a continuation of a prior campaign I'd run, with some returning PCs and some new ones) the others all started the PCs at no higher than 3rd, so long-term planning is indeed important. Late blooming builds can be good for one of two reasons, I've found. The first is that you're starting out high enough that it doesn't matter or you'll be starting one level or so below the "changeover" so you get to have your powerup in-game.

The other is that you're in a party that needs a high-level powerhouse due to party composition but doesn't at the lower levels. For instance, in one of the campaigns I mentioned I was playing as the party buffer. We had a 7-person party containing, among other things, an archer, a warlock, and a paladin, who had excellent staying power and did quite well on their own at the lower levels; excessive amounts of buffing would have been overkill, so I stuck to healing and other support more than layering on buffs. I meandered my way through war weaver and spellguard of Silverymoon, picked up some bloodline levels, and otherwise built up my buffing power over time. When we hit 14th level or so, the massive ongoing influx of demons and yuan-ti we'd been dealing with finally came to a head and started a war that the party was somewhat ill-equipped to handle, so suddenly the ass-kicking party members needed a bit of help with their job...and suddenly there I was, ready to buff them up to extents that would have ticked off the DM a few levels ago but were plenty appropriate now.

[Tetrasodium]

It would make more sense if these builds had progression from 1-20, but I recently saw one that was fairly lousy until level 12. Suggested for a player to use in a real game. Ugh, wth man. It was super complicated and yet you could literally do much better with fighter 11 until that point. Maybe warrior 11 if played as intended.

Sometimes with partial builds like that it's just someone throwing their general idea out to see if they are making any obvious mistakes from the get-go. I recently did one to 13ish for a game starting at 3 with a rogue build that dips fighter for that reason. It could probably have been more powerful as straight fighter, but the group needed a rogue and needed something fighter-like due to existing party makeup. Giving up the skillpoints would have defeated the purpose it needed to fill just to improve the secondary party weakness it wanted to help fill by doing the fighter dip briefly enough improve the secondary without harming the primary party need it was designed to fill (rogue skills) in the process. Because nobody asked much of anything beyond the brief summary of party dynamics I gave, it wasn't important to give the full details for the build. The build only went as high as it did because there were a few things I wanted to be able to be sure I could get (if desired) based on party development beyond level 3, but it was already going pretty far out on the branching limb of future events & cementing too much would be harmful to it's beneficial flexability

[AMFV]

I'm fond of having an end goal in mind for a character. For me, it helps role-playing as I can figure out how I think the character should be developing. Also it gives me a greater sense of reward as I meet wickets for my eventual world dominating build. Obviously this is my personal opinion, but that is why I'm fond of them.

[Corolinth]

I played in a campaign that lasted 5 years and ran from levels 4 to 18. We sorta hoped to get to 20, too. We may yet revisit it. Still, we got close enough to 20 to say "Yeah, it's important to ensure your build remains useful at every stage of play."I'd be willing to bet money that your party's "builds" were a lot less important to your overall ability to be effective and useful than you realize.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'd be willing to bet money that your party's "builds" were a lot less important to your overall ability to be effective and useful than you realize.Usually bets with money on the table are based on something that's verifiable and objective. I guess you could be betting that the DM will admit to setting encounters based on group optimization level?

Like Psyren said, if the OP gives no restrictions, it's best to lay out a plan from level 1 to level 20. If it sags anywhere, it's good to mention that. Also, if one is lazy but still wishes to give build advice, a level 20 build (properly presented) implicitly gives you the levels 1-19 builds, whereas a level 1 build does not necessarily lead to any particular level 20 build.

[Elric VIII]

I'd be willing to bet money that your party's "builds" were a lot less important to your overall ability to be effective and useful than you realize.

Your powers of deduction must be unparalleled to come to such a solid conclusion with such limited information. :smalltongue:

Although, how is one expected to become "effective and useful" without building a character geared toward a certain goal?

[Groverfield]

Warlocks are also late-bloomers - they can craft nearly any item in the game, but don't gain the ability to do so until level 12. And any PrCing you do will delay this ability.

They have "caster level" to get the feats early, and they can use scrolls in place of actually knowing the spells, or acquire assistance from another caster that has that spell (DMG 282.)

[pilvento]

In my case we started lvl 1, about 3 years ago, we are 18 now, playing 2 nights a week.

And i think like the others, since 21+ rules are kinda "wonky" and considering that normal progresions (classes) en at lvl 20, its normal to build and plan characters that way acomplishing your campain (aka saving the plane or something) makes you EPIC, there is the capstone.

[Yora]

In 12 years of playing, I've never played up to 20th level, and I think nobody I played with had reached level 20 in other campaigns either.

I once played in a campaign that reached 13th level, and once very early ran a game in which the PCs reached 11th.
But usually campaigns never go beyonf 10th, most end much more earlier.

[Xtomjames]

I want to first address a few notions on here that seem to be a bit incorrect.

Epic level rules really don't change that much compared to the standard class levels. In fact except for a few changes for continuing to level in a single class (like becoming a level 21 sorcerer) leveling really isn't affected. In most cases people, once reaching epic level in game or if they start out at level 20 multiclass into another base or prestige class and continue to level in that class as if they were leveling normally.

As for how broken the game is, this again is highly dependent on the DM and players. Not to mention making epic level monsters isn't difficult in the slightest.

However, to answer the OP's question. 20th level characters tend to offer the most flexibility and capabilities in game within a standard game. There is often something about having the power to hit 18 people in a single round doing massive damage to each of them, or being able to cast wish spells at your own will that sort of push people to reach that higher level.

In "in game" terms it's the goal of the PC, to reach that state that is most capable of accomplishing the goals or quests.

Until you play in a 20th level campaign it's hard to imagine the fun one can have playing that powerful of a character. And having a DM who can set up traps that can defeat a level 20th character and bring into affect monsters that can actually threaten such a character only makes it more exciting.

[Curmudgeon]

Epic level rules really don't change that much compared to the standard class levels.

Epic Save Bonus: A character’s base save bonus does not increase after character level reaches 20th.
...
Epic Attack Bonus: Similarly, the character’s base attack bonus does not increase after character level reaches 20th.
...
For spellcasters, caster level continues to increase after 20th level. However, spells per day don’t increase after 20th level. The only way to gain additional spells per day (other than the bonus spells gained from a high ability score) is to select the Improved Spell Capacity epic feat.
...
Characters don’t gain any new class features, because there aren’t any new class features described for these levels. Class features with a progression that slows or stops before 20th level and features that have a limited list of options do not improve as a character gains epic levels. Likewise, class features that are gained only at a single level do not improve.
...
Epic Spell: Spells that are different from common spells. Epic spells are usually custom-made. Epic spells do not take up normal spell slots, but instead are gained and used under a completely separate progression.
Seems like a lot of rules changes to me.

[Psyren]

In addition to Curmudgeon's post, you're also allowed to resume progressing 10-level PrCs that you had prior to level 21. Epic Spells also have an entire massive set of rules just for them - their creation, storage, casting, interaction with other effects like antimagic etc. Epic Skill Checks also add more rules to the system, though with cheese many of these can be achieved pre-epic.

[Talya]

Usually bets with money on the table are based on something that's verifiable and objective. I guess you could be betting that the DM will admit to setting encounters based on group optimization level?


Your powers of deduction must be unparalleled to come to such a solid conclusion with such limited information. :smalltongue:


Heh.

Actually, he was the DM.

To be fair, even without the artifact my (intentionally-weakened by sub-optimal multiclassing for flavor at character creation) sorceress had acquired that boosted her into stratospheric power levels, I was already holding back so as to not overshadow our much-less-than optimized paladin, ranger and very poorly played cleric. I got to let loose a little more when the paladin and cleric quit and were replaced by a pair of better-built clerics and a rogue.

Anyway, my DM corolinth missed the point. I'm not arguing for high levels of optimization, throughout. I'm arguing that yes, people do play campaigns that hit all levels of the game, so planning out your class to be effective at every level, rather than only now, or conversely only at 20, is not a bad idea.

[Psyren]

They have "caster level" to get the feats early, and they can use scrolls in place of actually knowing the spells, or acquire assistance from another caster that has that spell (DMG 282.)

I'm a bit rusty on my item creation rules, but wouldn't you need a scroll of the spell for each day of the item's creation?

[Amphetryon]

Maybe I missed this in a previous comment, but for a lot of "late bloomer" builds, they're perfectly viable in a campaign that starts just past what Keld calls their "saggy spot". While the PHb seems to presume that games all start at 1st level, a sizable minority don't play that way, instead playing a campaign within a set level range, so that they can, for example, go dragon hunting without having to slog through hordes of kobolds to be strong enough to play the levels they're interested in.

A build that's presented at 20th level, with a good breakdown of where it struggles, where it really blossoms, and where it might break the game gives a prospective player a good "expected playability range". Builds that excel from levels 7 - 12 are almost ideal for a game that's going to start at 6th and expected to end by 13th, for example.