levels 10+ need a fix

[LucianoAr]

we are about to hit level 11 with our party and i couldnt be less excited. the only classes that have cool stuff are full casters (and even that is dubious). the rest of the classes get crappy things like an extra dice here or there, an extra attack here or there.

its not the thrill of the first 9 levels where you get significant upgrades to skills, features or subclasses around every corner

perhaps it needs further subclasses, or prestige like classes for lvl 10+

all in all, what do you guys think about this? anyone playing in this range? our DM is considering letting us use Prestige classes from 3.5 cause he thinks exactly like us

[Madfellow]

I think after level 10 it becomes less about what cool new abilities you get as a character and more about what kind of an effect you start to have on the world around you. Level 11 is when the DMG suggests PCs start getting lands and titles and such, becoming major movers and shakers in the world.

[zingbobco000]

I disagree with your statement, many different classes have amazing abilities past level 10. Ok so maybe level 11 might be a bad level for non-casters but that doesn't mean that all of 10 - 20 is bad. For example, with rogue, your sneak attack increases again, and you get the ability to never roll a 10 or lower on a skill. Take that for stealth and you will have around advantage (from boots or cloak or what-have-you) a +13 to stealth (assuming expertise) so you will always get a 23 or higher WITH ADVANTAGE! I think what you're saying is that fighters specifically are bad, which I also disagree with. You get another (possibly two more with action surge) attack in a single round, that adds so much DPR if that is what you're trying to go for. I am only saying level 11 as well, if you decide that 10+ for non-casters isn't fun at all then don't play 10+ as a non-caster, begin to take levels in cleric, or bard if you believe that non-caster levels of 10+ are bad. I think that you are approaching this the wrong way, you shouldn't say: "Woah, casters get so much more then I do at level 11!" (which they might it all depends on your campaign) you should instead say: "Man, an extra attack per round! Never getting below a 10 with stealth! These are insane benefits that will drastically increase the power level of my character!" That's just what I think and voices from other playgrounders might be better to hear as well.

[silveralen]

I didn't personally notice this in my games.

Full casters obviously get big spells as mentioned.

Half casters usually get impressive features (ranger lvl 11 more so than paladin, but still both are cool imo) and start getting access to unique class spells that are pretty awesome.

Monk has some cool stuff as levels go up, prof on all saves+rerolls seemed like a big thing. Fighter has his third attack which is cool for people who enjoy the fighter class.

Rogue and barbarian have some nice stuff around 14 if I recall as well, and some cool capstones.

What classes are you playing as, and what features in particular bore you?

[pwykersotz]

I think Prestige Classes are a bad idea...but I don't disagree that there are fewer shinies and more "progression" in the later levels. Maybe you could do an exchange instead. Any level where you do not gain new spells and your ability gives you only a numeric increase to an existing ability, select from a whitelisted group of abilities from the DMG monster creation section on pages 280-281 instead. (I'd blacklist any that have an adjustment attached, personally.) If you're a high powered campaign, add one straight out instead. It might give your less spell-focused characters something more while still using the constructs of the 5e system.

That's just an idea though. I'm curious what others have to say.

Edit: Seeing some of the other replies, I'll throw in that I have no opinion on right or wrong here, as my campaigns haven't reached that level yet. :smallsmile:

[Rfkannen]

Multiclass! Getting bored as a fighter? Maybe you take a couple levels of rogue. Possibly your barbarian takes up the art of stealth. Your rogue starts worshiping trees!

[CrusaderJoe]

Yes they do, however and I say this lightly, it may be have designed this way on purpose.

Not just magic getting nice things but the idea that most people won't play levels 12+ and thus you only need to make the game workable on a base level and not on a playable level.

Like cars, yeah you can get them to speeds of 150 mph but if you actually do it then you will probably lose control or the car will break down (not to mention legal stuff mind you).

You just need to appear to have a certain level of ability at those higher levels, very little people will actually use it.

The base rules and math of 5e is awesome, however the classes are mostly lacking.

[grub]

I am looking forward to Reliable Talent for my Rogue. Never failing (besides rolling a 1)on my chosen skills sounds pretty cool.

[heavyfuel]

I disagree as well...

Fighters just got access to their unique ability, a 3rd attack. No other class does that...
Rogues got reliable talent, which is basically a better version than "take 10" that also works in combat. This means you'll never be spotted by the Passive Perseption of your enemies, unless they have Expertise in the skill.
Paladins now deal a wopping 2d8 damage for every attack. They can also TWF better than any class, even without the Fighting Style.

Sure, the Monk, Barb and Ranger don't get things that are too nice, but all other classes do


I am looking forward to Reliable Talent for my Rogue. Never failing (besides rolling a 1)on my chosen skills sounds pretty cool.

Barring a houserule, a nat 1 is only an auto fail for attacks. Also, even with the houserule, Reliable Talent should overcome it, since it says you treat the dice as a 10.

[obryn]

I disagree as well...

Fighters just got access to their unique ability, a 3rd attack. No other class does that...
Rogues got reliable talent, which is basically a better version than "take 10" that also works in combat. This means you'll never be spotted by the Passive Perseption of your enemies, unless they have Expertise in the skill.
Paladins now deal a wopping 2d8 damage for every attack. They can also TWF better than any class, even without the Fighting Style.

Sure, the Monk, Barb and Ranger don't get things that are too nice, but all other classes do
That's all depth, though. None of it is an expansion in breadth, which is what the OP was (justifiably, IMO) looking for.

After a certain point, non-casters just get better at doing the same things they've been doing for the past 10 levels, while casters get a broader selection of new stuff.

[heavyfuel]

That's all depth, though. None of it is an expansion in breadth, which is what the OP was (justifiably, IMO) looking for.

After a certain point, non-casters just get better at doing the same things they've been doing for the past 10 levels, while casters get a broader selection of new stuff.

To be fair, that's always been true, except for 4e, where casters pretty much got the same short end as everyone else. They still fixed it, somewhat, this. Now you only get a single 6th level spell until yu reach lv 19, which isn't going to happen in most campaigns. So they can do a bunch of nice stuff, once per long rest.

Also, at lv 11, you should be stocked with at least a few magic items, even if your DM isn't keen on giving them away. So you should have access to other stuff besides what your class gives you.

[CrusaderJoe]

Also, at lv 11, you should be stocked with at least a few magic items, even if your DM isn't keen on giving them away. So you should have access to other stuff besides what your class gives you.

No. 5e doesn't work this way, the only thing you are garenteed is what your class gives you.

Sometimes not even that.

[rollingForInit]

No. 5e doesn't work this way, the only thing you are garenteed is what your class gives you.

Sometimes not even that.

You're also not guaranteed to ever get to fight or kill monsters or go on adventures or do anything besides 100% RP in a tavern. And you're never guaranteed to get to do anything side from a 100% combat-focused dungeon crawl. You're never guaranteed to end up in a situation where you have to use skills at all, ever. Also a Wizard is not guaranteed to ever get a chance to use powerful AoE spells.

You're not really guaranteed to anything. Which is why you should be playing with a group and a DM that has the same expectations. Do you think D&D is boring as hell if there are no magical items? Don't play with a DM that doesn't want to give out any magical items.

As for the topic ... the Fighter is designed to be easy and not have a lot of overhead. Obviously it isn't going to get tons of complex abilities, especially the Champion. The Fighter hits things hard. That's it, unless you go Eldritch Knight. The Barbarian gets useful features at higher levels. Doesn't it get a Fly speed while raging at some point? Rogues get really high damage, better skills, better resistances. Fighters and Rogues also get more feats than the rest, which opens up a lot of doors. Rogues get to act more at the start of combat. Rangers (Hunters at least) get pretty great fighting and defensive abilities. Paladins get cool stuff, and one of the coolest level 20 abilities.

If you don't like the idea of single-classing for 20 levels ... then don't. Multiclass.

[CrusaderJoe]

You're also not guaranteed to ever get to fight or kill monsters or go on adventures or do anything besides 100% RP in a tavern. And you're never guaranteed to get to do anything side from a 100% combat-focused dungeon crawl. You're never guaranteed to end up in a situation where you have to use skills at all, ever. Also a Wizard is not guaranteed to ever get a chance to use powerful AoE spells.

You're not really guaranteed to anything. Which is why you should be playing with a group and a DM that has the same expectations. Do you think D&D is boring as hell if there are no magical items? Don't play with a DM that doesn't want to give out any magical items.

As for the topic ... the Fighter is designed to be easy and not have a lot of overhead. Obviously it isn't going to get tons of complex abilities, especially the Champion. The Fighter hits things hard. That's it, unless you go Eldritch Knight. The Barbarian gets useful features at higher levels. Doesn't it get a Fly speed while raging at some point? Rogues get really high damage, better skills, better resistances. Fighters and Rogues also get more feats than the rest, which opens up a lot of doors. Rogues get to act more at the start of combat. Rangers (Hunters at least) get pretty great fighting and defensive abilities. Paladins get cool stuff, and one of the coolest level 20 abilities.

If you don't like the idea of single-classing for 20 levels ... then don't. Multiclass.

Random note, base 5e is actually made under the assumption of no magic items. That was what I was referring too. The classes are made under this assumption, this isn't an opinion or anything, it is just how they made it.

[silveralen]

Random note, base 5e is actually made under the assumption of no magic items. That was what I was referring too. The classes are made under this assumption, this isn't an opinion or anything, it is just how they made it.

I think it's clear that's not entirely true at this point. It's built so that magic items aren't required, not with the expectation magic items won't exist. This is more akin to earlier editions of DnD (basic through second) where magic items were not explictly required but without whom some issues could crop up.

There is also the idea that, if you have a problem with higher levels not having enough cool stuff in your opinion, you should probably employ the optional rules which create additional rewards, such as magic items (or others if you spring for the full DM guide). It's like complaining about a lack of character customization but disallowing feats, you seem to be fighting the system when it provides you with tools made to address the issue you have.

[LucianoAr]

That's all depth, though. None of it is an expansion in breadth, which is what the OP was (justifiably, IMO) looking for.

After a certain point, non-casters just get better at doing the same things they've been doing for the past 10 levels, while casters get a broader selection of new stuff.

thanks obryn for seeing my point. =)

its indeed what i mean. just doing extra damage or a better % at doing stuff is ok but not enough. i want to be able to do different stuff.


maybe i should be playing a different rpg... cause just doing "i attack" every round, no matter how high the % to hit or how much damage, is not enough for me.

[silveralen]

thanks obryn for seeing my point. =)

its indeed what i mean. just doing extra damage or a better % at doing stuff is ok but not enough. i want to be able to do different stuff.

maybe i should be playing a different rpg... cause just doing "i attack" every round, no matter how high the % to hit or how much damage, is not enough for me.

Or a different class. You quite clearly would enjoy certain styles of classes more than others, and just as clearly you seem to have chosen a class ill suited towards your own enjoyment.

The latter point is bit oversimplified. Everyone has access to more than straight unmodified basic attacks, and if rules like feats are allowed your actions can be further modified as well as various resource abilities. Some classes are less obvious about this than others, but it's there for the vast majority.

I think the problem is one you have with your character, not the edition. I suggest trying a different one now that you are more familiar with the edition.

[obryn]

Or a different class. You quite clearly would enjoy certain styles of classes more than others, and just as clearly you seem to have chosen a class ill suited towards your own enjoyment.
That's presuming that such a class exists, though? If you want a fighty dude with options, you don't have many choices right now in 5e.

This is fortunately something that could be fixed with more classes or more subclasses. But it's not something that exists right now.

[LucianoAr]

Or a different class. You quite clearly would enjoy certain styles of classes more than others, and just as clearly you seem to have chosen a class ill suited towards your own enjoyment.

The latter point is bit oversimplified. Everyone has access to more than straight unmodified basic attacks, and if rules like feats are allowed your actions can be further modified as well as various resource abilities. Some classes are less obvious about this than others, but it's there for the vast majority.

I think the problem is one you have with your character, not the edition. I suggest trying a different one now that you are more familiar with the edition.

perhaps you are right.

however, which classes can do something different than "i attack"? (besides Full Casters) im playing a rogue btw, i just cant play without cunning action anymore.

obryn again makes my point. i want to be able to fight and not just shoot stuff from the back, but theres no options for martials (with the only exception being the battlemaster)

[TheOOB]

I understand OP's problem, but it's working as intended. In previous editions(3rd Mostly) you had to wait sometimes quite awhile to get key abilities for your class. Many classes got their best abilities at higher levels where most people will never reach. 5e front loads the abilities so you get enough for your class to play like your class early, and most classes get most of their abilities by the early double digits, and after they they mostly just refine themselves and get more powerful and less broad.

If you want new abilities, you can always multiclass, which will likely sacrifice some power, but will give you lots of versitility. Some classes are also more smple than others, champion fighter, for example, is very simple to play, whereas a paladin is a little more complicated but still a big tough warrior.

PrC's I'm not inherently against, but WotC would have to be careful about implementation. Most things you would make a PrC for would be better handled with "archtypes" for specific classes. a PrC would have to be something that gives you unique abilities that cannot be represented as an expansion to an existing class, yet isn't worth a whole 20 levels to form it's own class. Further I'd say most of these theoretical PrC's should be accessable at lowish levels, as there is no point in keeping a character defining ability from the players until the campaign is over half over.

[obryn]

(with the only exception being the battlemaster)
Battlemaster needs help, too. If you don't like Rogue, it won't be much better. Remember with a Battlemaster, you are picking from the same list of maneuvers from Level 3 to Level 20, so at higher levels you're just picking the maneuvers you rejected multiple times before. It's less than thrilling.

There's also issues with the number of maneuvers they can use per short rest, IMO, but that's a secondary argument.

[pwykersotz]

perhaps you are right.

however, which classes can do something different than "i attack"? (besides Full Casters) im playing a rogue btw, i just cant play without cunning action anymore.

obryn again makes my point. i want to be able to fight and not just shoot stuff from the back, but theres no options for martials (with the only exception being the battlemaster)

I take it homebrew with the features I suggested is not desired?

[Kurald Galain]

we are about to hit level 11 with our party and i couldnt be less excited. the only classes that have cool stuff are full casters (and even that is dubious). the rest of the classes get crappy things like an extra dice here or there, an extra attack here or there.

I concur that this is an issue in 5E's design, and as a result I'm not really interested in playing any martial classes in this game. Then again, all players have their favorite and least favorite class, don't they?

[Person_Man]

I agree that its an issue. I haven't really played any high level games yet, but in general I let players replace any cruddy class abilities with abilities from other sub-classes or classes that seem reasonable for that level that don't increase your raw numbers (AC/to-hit/damage/saves/etc). But you're not allowed to take an ability another player has, and non-full casters get a lot more flexibility in this then full casters. Seems to work fine so far.

[CrusaderJoe]

perhaps you are right.

however, which classes can do something different than "i attack"? (besides Full Casters) im playing a rogue btw, i just cant play without cunning action anymore.

obryn again makes my point. i want to be able to fight and not just shoot stuff from the back, but theres no options for martials (with the only exception being the battlemaster)

Anytime I make a core melee character such as a cleric I always put in two levels of rogue... Makes it fun.

That utility of disengage/dash has been immeasurable.

[rollingForInit]

Random note, base 5e is actually made under the assumption of no magic items. That was what I was referring too. The classes are made under this assumption, this isn't an opinion or anything, it is just how they made it.

No, 5e is made so that magical items aren't technically required to hit or not be hit in terms of weapons and armor, given the bounded accuracy, and that the characters don't have to stockpile tons of items to keep up. The game is still designed under the assumption that magical items will exist in some regard. That's prett clear if you read MM or DMG. For instance, under the DMG's recommendations for starting at higher levels, there are a number of magical items recommended even for the "low magic campaigns". There may or may not be fancy Wands of wondrous power, belts of Storm Giant Strength or legendary +3 swords with lots of abilities, but the assumption is that at least some manner of magical weapons will exist at higher levels. Just browse through the MM to see how many monsters resist or are completely immune to non-magical weapons. Several classes even get similar functions, e.g. the Warlock's Pact Blade is treated like a magical weapon, the Moon Druid's beast form claws, and so on. Some classes, such as the rogue or the fighter, would be completely gimped in comparison when fighting higher-level monsters, if they don't have any magical weapons.

You can play games without magical weapons at higher levels if the DM chooses or designs the monsters with that in mind, since the stats are bounded and cannot get ridiculously high, but it's not really the default.