how many of you actually play at level 20?

[sideswipe]

it is as simple as the question seems.

a large amount of people feel that past about level 10 things get really stupid in the amount of power you can achieve. even without optimising. a level 17 wizard still has wish and meteor swarm.

i personally have only ever played most of my adventures at level 1-5 with a few going to 8-9 and only 2 or 3 campaigns where we have started at 10 and gone to around level 12 max. the average campaign unless level 1 start would only see 2-3 level ups.

everyone on this board seems obsessed with "at level 20 you will get x level spells and this and that" on there builds. even when people post saying they are level 2-3 and not in a long term game they still post level 20 builds that might not come to real power before about level 8.

so, really, what level do you usually play at? and what would you expect the length of a campaign to be? and how many levels would you advance?

[Pluto!]

I have played a character past level 15 in all of maybe five games. Most of my games start at level 1-3 and the majority of games last 4 sessions or so, rarely past level 6, with the more invested long-running campaigns pushing into the low teens.



20 Level Breakdowns are the standard more or less because they represent completion - it's all the information you need to play the build at any point that the game still works. You aren't going to run into the level 12 feat slot and have to start winging the feat choice at the table - and that's a good thing, because 3e's prerequisite chains punish feat, level, and maneuver choices that haven't been carefully mapped.

And, building on that, giving level 20 builds in response to build requests is the standard more or less because that format is the standard, and leaves a pretty easy way to judge one Slayer build with 8th level Powers, 7th level maneuvers and 18 BA at level 20 versus another Slayer build with 9th level powers, 6th level maneuvers and 16 BA, where comparing one 20 level build and an unfinished 10 level build is more abstract.



On late-blooming builds, you're right - Ur-Priest would be a terrible class to pitch for someone whose game doesn't expect to break level 10 - but I'm not sure how often those sort of suggestions take place.

[nedz]

Level 20 is just a convent benchmark for many builds — especially Gishes

I have played through to levels 15 and 18

[fishyfishyfishy]

I have played in maybe 20 or so games during the 5 years I've been playing/DMing. Due to the fact that the majority of those games were short duration single adventure style games instead of full fledged campaigns, only 2 reached above level 10. One we reached level 15, and the other went all the way to level 22. Both were incredibly fun but the games kind of fell apart because the DM was inexperienced and couldn't handle high level play. I am the DM for my group and it is currently level 10 and it could go as long as 15 or maybe higher, depending on how the game progresses. I love high level play. There's always much more at stake than at lower levels.

[Chaosvii7]

I've played to level 20 twice - one of the campaigns even got to around level 23. Unsurprisingly, those were two of my most favorite characters in two of the most well-lived campaigns. I've played other games to the max level(I've done a full-length 4e Gamma World campaign, but that's a little different because you only go to 10 in that - incidentally, we went to 15 in that game.) The most current high-level character I have running around is level 15, who with any luck should level up tomorrow. The GM has stated that she intends for the game to reach at least level 20, if not go into 21 or 22.

Again, the level 20 mark is usually just to flesh out what a full character to look like. Most builds come online long before that, and very few come online AT level 20, due to the fact that it's either going to signify the end of the game or it's just not going to happen. There are also variants that discard the 20-level system such as E6.

[137beth]

Usually if someone specifies a level then people will post a build that is that level.
If they don't specify a level, people will usually post a 20 level build...with the expectation that you can take only the first few levels. If the game starts at level four, you can just take the first four levels of a 20 level build. Then, you can continue using it when you level up.

If people just posted one-level builds, then anyone whose campaign goes higher than level one who wanted help would need to ask again. It's easier to give all the potentially needed information at once.

[Karnith]

My group got tired of low-level play fairly quickly, so most of our games were played in the levels 6-15 range. We've had three games games reach the 15-20 range, and one epic game (well, one that lasted for more than a single session).

People generally present builds up through level 20 for convenience - it shows a progression through most of the levels that one would actually expect to see in a game. Benchmarks are generally met by 20th level, but the goal of getting 9th-level whatevers (spells, powers, maneuvers, or what have you) isn't generally a focus on making a build good at 20th-level specifically, but rather an attempt to make sure that a character has access to relevant abilities throughout her career. Generally speaking, a character with relevant (i.e. 9th level) spells/powers/maneuvers/etc. at 20th level is probably going to have relevant spells etc. at most levels.

[weckar]

Since we tend to play on an 8 to 12 session cycle, our games usually only get to 2 or 3 level-ups. Organized play will do that.
Personally, I prefer playing in the level 8-10 range.

When presenting 20-level builds, I think they should be generally justifiable at every level, or at least ever 5 levels.

[Vogonjeltz]

Do you think posting up to a level 20 build puts on rose colored glasses, as if the average reality (ending before 15) were the consideration, than some classes would be more appealing than others?

Ie a wizard looks good at 20, but a Barbarian looks better at 8

[Eldonauran]

I am currently running a game for 21st level characters with my local group. We've been playing the same set of characters since level 3. I normally start characters at level 1 but this is a ... unique game combining undead monster races and gestalt rules from 3.5e with Pathfinder mechanics.

I like to plot out a 20th level progression for characters I make but rarely do I follow the build after that character sees play. The build is a template created in a vacuum. The character does not remain static upon exposure to a game environment. Mine adapt and change.

[137beth]

Generally speaking, a character with relevant (i.e. 9th level) spells/powers/maneuvers/etc. at 20th level is probably going to have relevant spells etc. at most levels.

*cough*Truenamer and at-will Gate*cough*.

Yea yea, you said 'generally':smalltongue:.

[PraxisVetli]

In my group, we almost always play to 20, and 1 in 3 goes epic.

We never really have a problem, probably because if someones a wizard and someones a fighter, the wizard'll tone it down and the fighter will sploosh when we show them warblade :P

[Karnith]

Do you think posting up to a level 20 build puts on rose colored glasses, as if the average reality (ending before 15) were the consideration, than some classes would be more appealing than others?
Not really. While there are certainly builds that suffer at low levels and take off at higher levels (e.g. Gishes and theurges without early entry), most good builds (and most higher-tier classes) are playable throughout their levels, particularly when the build is based on a subsystem like spellcasting, manifesting, or maneuvers. Similarly, most classes that aren't great at high levels are extremely front-loaded; there's a reason you don't see more than a few levels of classes like Fighter, Swashbuckler, or Monk very often.

Also, I would take Wizard 8 over Barbarian 8 any day of the week. If you wanted a good point of comparison, you'd need to go lower than that; Barb 2 v. Wizard 2, maybe.

*cough*Truenamer and at-will Gate*cough*
Yeah, I know, I was thinking of Healer when I wrote that. It's still pretty apt for most builds, I think.

[Pluto!]

Do you think posting up to a level 20 build puts on rose colored glasses, as if the average reality (ending before 15) were the consideration, than some classes would be more appealing than others?

Ie a wizard looks good at 20, but a Barbarian looks better at 8

I agree there are classes whose relative power-levels drop as they progress (eg. Crusaders, Incarnates, Savage Ghaeles, Monks), and some that only get comparatively stronger the longer in their progressions that they go (eg. Ur-Priests, Divine Minds), but I think generally speaking, a Swashbuckler, a Crusader, a Druid and a Beguiler will have approximately the same relative power levels from level 5 to level 15, and that will hold for most builds and configurations, unless something really tricky and combo-reliant is going on.

[Talar]

I have a 23rd level character, and myself and another player had to convince people that this was getting stupid powerful, especially after the 52 million gold we each received. Hte problem that happened is that we rotated DM's late game and there was little regulation/agreement between the DMs at the end. Playing high levels is possible but it takes a good and experienced DM for those levels to be fun. So playing at those levels is just more effort.

[Curmudgeon]

I rarely play below level 12, and I like the game up to the mid-20s (with Epic spellcasting forbidden, that is).

[atemu1234]

I rarely play below level 12, and I like the game up to the mid-20s (with Epic spellcasting forbidden, that is).

I get that Epic Spellcasting is overpowered, but for the love of god, it's supposed to have the DM make sure every single spell they make is as far from broken as possible. Quite frankly, if you've got a halfway decent DM, they'll just let you know whether the spell they're making is good or no. It's not like no one has control.

[eggynack]

I agree there are classes whose relative power-levels drop as they progress (eg. Crusaders, Incarnates, Savage Ghaeles, Monks), and some that only get comparatively stronger the longer in their progressions that they go (eg. Ur-Priests, Divine Minds), but I think generally speaking, a Swashbuckler, a Crusader, a Druid and a Beguiler will have approximately the same relative power levels from level 5 to level 15, and that will hold for most builds and configurations, unless something really tricky and combo-reliant is going on.
I don't think the logic here works, primarily due to your use of the term "relative power levels." Relative power level is, y'know, relative. Druids will have a reasonably static power level relative to wizards, generally lowering as the game continues towards a higher emphasis on list, and a continuously rising power level relative to fighters, as the same holds true here.

[BWR]

Highest level I've played is 19th. At that point the DM admitted he was tired of spending hours crafting encounters that were over in ten minutes of game time. Most of the rest of us agreed that while it was fun to play high-level at least once, it's generally more fun at lower levels.
I have a number of 20th level equivalents in a classless/levelless d20 variant, but they are mainly NPCs at this point - partially because they are too powerful to meaningfully challenge in combat type encounters without the encounter being realm threatening as well, partially because they are so high status that only idiots would openly challenge them, partially because challenges are political and hidden, but mostly because it's far more interesting to have less powerful characters build themselves up.

I'm running a Mystara game (on hold) and the PCs (currently level 16) will be attempting to achieve Immortality, so they will level to 20 and do whatever adventures necessary to ascend.

[Karnith]

I get that Epic Spellcasting is overpowered, but for the love of god, it's supposed to have the DM make sure every single spell they make is as far from broken as possible. Quite frankly, if you've got a halfway decent DM, they'll just let you know whether the spell they're making is good or no. It's not like no one has control.
If you aren't breaking it, though, Epic Spellcasting is pretty bad; it costs hundreds of thousands, occasionally millions, of gold to develop spells that are rarely usable in-combat, don't scale, and take a lot of work (read: high DCs and therefore high cost) to make as effective as non-epic spells. It has a few niches (long-term buffs can work all right), but it's not generally very good if you aren't using silly mitigation tricks.

[nedz]

I get that Epic Spellcasting is overpowered, but for the love of god, it's supposed to have the DM make sure every single spell they make is as far from broken as possible. Quite frankly, if you've got a halfway decent DM, they'll just let you know whether the spell they're making is good or no. It's not like no one has control.

Epic spells under Rule 0 are probably OK, they're essentially plot points, it's the Epic Spellcasting system which people complain about.

[Anxe]

Most of my campaigns start at 1st level. One started at 4th and one other started at 10th. 1st level starts have reached up to 8th level at the highest. The 4th level start got up to 12th. The 10th level start is at 18th and still going.

I guess my group feels like you need a really good reason to not start at 1st level. That's the beginning after all!

[Brookshw]

The bulk of my games go into the high teens and I dont think 20's that rare. I also don't mind running epic. Longest game, lvl 1 to 35, players as lesser-intermediate dieties, last game, level 7 to 27 and I would have kept going if not for players with RL issues.

[Emperor Tippy]

Quite often. Level 15+ is generally my preferred level range.

Although it should be noted that we generally play with a full set of custom rules for post level 20 characters that pretty much totally rewrites the epic rules.

[Pluto!]

I don't think the logic here works, primarily due to your use of the term "relative power levels." Relative power level is, y'know, relative. Druids will have a reasonably static power level relative to wizards, generally lowering as the game continues towards a higher emphasis on list, and a continuously rising power level relative to fighters, as the same holds true here.
Maybe.

A general consistency in how the classes' power levels compare to one another is a pretty central thought in the tier system that's pretty widely accepted around these parts - people don't talk about Fighters being tier 3 at level 1, and tier 6 at level 20, for instance, because at any cross section in the Fighter's career, it's modeled to have a pretty consistent range of capabilities against the other classes.

It's an idea that gets a little loose, and not one I'd defend too adamantly, partly due to the exceptions like the ones mentioned earlier, partly due to its choppiness at very low levels, and partly because it's pretty wrapped up in the ever-terrible Tier Talk.

[Kantolin]

Most games I've run with my main group started at 4-6ish and ended at either level 20 or slightly epic levels (capping at 26).

My friends will often start lower, so our overall start range is 1-6ish. We then usually do get up to either 16 or slightly epic.

So yes, the majority of our games go up to 20 or a bit more. Of course, we tend to play at alarmingly low optimization levels, so things do get wonky there.

[Krazzman]

Longest campaign so far:
Level 6 to 12 elven rogue.
Then level 6 to 11 Human Sorcerer in PF (which is on hiatus as the dm switched roles with his wife)
The switch game level 1 to 5 currently, still running.
Else:
Level 1 to 5 on multiple occasions and a level 2 to 5 SWSE still ongoing campaign (currently on vacation break).

In earlier games
one-shots which most of the time started and ended on level 2/3/4.
and some games where we managed to go level 1 to 3.

Then we had some level 10 or level 14 one shots.

I would really like to play a E6 or a campaign that actually reached something higher than level 8.

[prufock]

I've run a game from 1-20 before, and I'm currently running one that should go from 1-21. I have played a campaign at level 17-19, and a one-shot at level 21.

[dysprosium]

I have never actually played a character at Level 20. Sadly when I am not the DM the game does not get that far.

I have been the DM for quite a few Level 20 and beyond characters.

[RustyArmor]

Our group goes roughly from 1-15 range. Any higher then that the martial types easily clear tarrasque type HP in a single round of combat but if your monsters/npcs does even a 5th of that damage you just dropped said warrior. PC wizards/clerics/druids really start to show off that T1 power doing them cheesy combos and cheer they won the encounter, but scream and yell and nearly throw books at you if your npc wizard/cleric/druid does the same combos. Though lots of people enjoy the rocket tag, our group is not a fan of it.

[LordBlades]

Most of the time it'sin the 6-12 range, occasionally going as low as 4 and going ip to 14-15 once.

[stack]

I get dizziness and shortness of breath past 6, hands shake at 8.

[137beth]

If you aren't breaking it, though, Epic Spellcasting is pretty bad; it costs hundreds of thousands, occasionally millions, of gold to develop spells that are rarely usable in-combat, don't scale, and take a lot of work (read: high DCs and therefore high cost) to make as effective as non-epic spells. It has a few niches (long-term buffs can work all right), but it's not generally very good if you aren't using silly mitigation tricks.

I think it would be a lot better if there were some sort of low-cost retraining mechanic. Pretty much any epic spell can benefit from being adjusted with higher numbers once you've got some more gold and bonuses to spellcraft, but RAW there is no way to do it other than by recreating it from scratch, and letting your old version go to waste. If you were allowed to upgrade already-developed spells, it would be somewhat better. It still takes a lot more work to really fix, but epic spellcasting is fixable (then again, pretty much any system is at least partially fixable...people found certain elements of the SUE system that were fixable).

[VoxRationis]

My group usually plays at low to mid levels. We tried playing an epic level campaign before, but it kind of fell through. I favor a more sword-and-sorcery feel to my campaigns, though.

[TSED]

Quite often. Level 15+ is generally my preferred level range.

Although it should be noted that we generally play with a full set of custom rules for post level 20 characters that pretty much totally rewrites the epic rules.

I am genuinely curious what those rules are! I know a lot of people on the forums (heck, on the internet in general) respect you and would also be interested in them; would you consider posting them sometime?

Alternately, have you posted them in the past? If so, you should make them easier to find!

[Asteron]

Quite often. Level 15+ is generally my preferred level range.

Although it should be noted that we generally play with a full set of custom rules for post level 20 characters that pretty much totally rewrites the epic rules.

I'd be interested to see those. I am currently co-DMing a game that is set to go into epic and I really don't like the current RAW... Any way I could get a copy of those?

[ahenobarbi]

I play mostly in 6-12 range. I like 10+ because there is much more interesting mechanics then but when building a character I usually plan to 20 levels to avoid problems with wondering what I should do next (and I plan builds to be work at least decently at all levels they see play).

I'll repeat what others wrote: level 20 ist mostly because of fllowing reasons:
* To make sure the build won't run into any serious mechanical problems before epic (when you have 20 level build you can check if it works at any given level). (Good example for that is a Risen Martyr class - if you take it the character is removed from game in 10 levels - something you might want to avoid)
* To avoid trouble when you level (because you know what to choose each time you level).

[Adverb]

I've been playing for 20 years and I've never seen a campaign stick around past level 14. I guess I know flaky people?

[Andion Isurand]

Here are some bits from of my house rules and custom errata (http://magerune.blogspot.com/2011/10/houserules-and-custom-errata.html) that pertain to epic spellcasting.

Epic Level Handbook, pages 71 to 102
Any portion of text that mentions "final Spellcraft DC" is amended as follows:
"The final Spellcraft DC of any given epic spell, must match or exceed the single highest Base Spellcraft DC found among the seeds it incorporates."

Lost Empires of Faerûn, page 44
The Seed: Mythal is amended as follows:
"Mythals are unique. Any epic spell that is developed to incorporate the mythal seed, may only have one instance of itself in effect at any one time. Only the most recent casting applies."

[Azraile]

only a meteor swarm???

gezee if you got a friend with coporative meta magic you can throw out a repeated, split ray, twin, empowered, maxamised, shaped meteor

and hit some one with 16 death rays doing 33 damage a peace, and blasting them with 16 more the next round if there still standing there.....

lol

[DeadMech]

I've played in four campaigns. All of them started at level 1. Only two of them have progressed past the first battle. Both times with goblins come to think of it. Neither got much beyond that.

Stupid non committing internet players and gms.... *grumble grumble*

[SiuiS]

My current game has me at roughly level 40-68. There was a lot of retraining and cosmic reintegration, so I've changed race and class a good bit, and now there's a divine rank involved from some nifty stuff in Faerie, and I'm sitting at (I think) 20 racial hit dice for an archfey, divine array base stat modifiers, racial casting as a bard used with ultimate magus to get a ridonkulously outrageous casting capacity (CL 206 at last reckoning) and the necessary feats to have seven spells a round, six of them as free actions which can be used as interrupts, provided they are of 9th level or lower.

My compatriot is a fiend lord sorcerer shadow magus who is orchestrating the slow, subtle decay of reality so we can destroy all existence; he intends to escape the cosmos and I intend to re-boot it without the corrupting influence we purged. We are aided directly by Asmodeus who will likely betray us but stands to finally achieve true freedom. The caveat is that due to shenanigans I perceive multiple simultaneous realities, including the AU where a past misadventure came back to bite us, Asmodeus stole my unborn child and raised it, and it killed him and concurred hell, realigning the multiverse in the process. The insanity of dealing with three or four simultaneous Real and True existences is holding us back and hopefully destabilizing the axis mundi in Mechanus will stop enough of them that we can truly focus on out goal. In the meantime I've been inscribing the components for a great spell working into laws of reality so that cyclical events will operate like metaphysical clockwork and focus tremendous energy to power the spells that will undo creation.
During all this I have no idea what my compatriot did but expect it runs counter to my schemes.


High level D&D is fun. It's as much abstract simulation as it is dungeon delve game though.

[RedMage125]

I've played a game that went as high as 18, and the DM combined the two groups he was running into one absurdly large group of about 8 or 9 people, none of us over 18 (some 17 or even 16).

And then he threw the Tarrasque at us.

I honestly had a blast. As the only arcane caster in the party who could cast Wish (The Sorcerer from the other group was level 17), I got to "finish" it. I didn't kill it though. I had a carefully worded and written out wish, short version of which is that I bound a portion of Big T's life essence, specifically the part tied to its wake/sleep cycle, into a shaft of crystal. only if the crystal were intentionally shattered could Big T ever awaken again. My character was loathe to slay a unique monster which had clearly been created by the gods for some purpose, even if he didn't know what it was, and did not want to extinguish its life from the world. I then took that shaft of crystal to an NPC Wizard, who was the consciousness of an Elven High Mage in the height of Myth Drannor's power. You see, a Staff of the Magi does not need Epic feats to craft (technically, even Craft Epic Staff can't do it). It's a minor artifact because the methods to create it have been "forgotten", and only ancient magical empires knew how. I had this NPC help me use the staff as the core for a Staff of the Magi. It could still be broken, but even if my character was killed, anyone who killed me would likely covet the staff to use it, not to destroy it. And I would never tell anyone the secret of the staff's core...

Apart from that, I had a roommate who decided to do an Epic level "prologue" to a game he was going to run. namely because, as the OP mentions, not a lot of people get to play that high. So everyone made level 30 characters. Some heroes, some villains. The story was that a world-threatening invasion was beginning, and our characters had to stop it. I was among the group of "villains". A bunch of Neutral Evil humans who all had 10 levels of Ur-Priest (some supplemented by Warlock, others by Sorcerer, etc.). They hated the gods, and were dedicated to the supremacy of mortals (with them at the top, of course), and they called themselves the Bruderschaft Der Mensch, which is German for "the Brotherhood of Man". And they had a vested interest in not seeing the world destroyed by abominations. I left for Boot Camp after the prologue bit. As I understand it, the DM then started the rest of the players off at low levels, hundreds of years later, with the world itself shaped by the impact of what we had done. Basically, certain goals we failed to achieve affected the world one way, and goals we did achieve had other lasting effects.

[ericgrau]

It's usually levels 5-10, though sometimes higher or lower. I do find it pretty dumb when key parts of a build don't come online until level 15. It really should be viable from the start while improving towards the end, and anything past where the campaign might stop is just gravy. That should add on as much as possible, but it should have zero impact on earlier decisions which should not wait for it.

So ya, the common standard is to talk about what builds are at level 20 because that's supposedly when they end. But it shouldn't be the standard at all. We need to make it a habit or common request for the OP to post roughly what level he thinks the campaign will start and end at. Anything past that isn't even worth planning for at all until it's confirmed that the campaign will go farther. And the build should be viable right at the very first level being played.