Tiers of play, let´s see if I can explain myself

[Miele]

Hello everyone,

I keep reading on these forums that "most campaigns end at level 10-12" or very similar examples. First question is: is this true? Do people keep "restarting"? Nobody playing a years-long story with the same character? Why epic levels are less interesting? (I know they are way harder to DM, usually for lack of experience).

It seems to me that, for whatever reason, the second half of the game is not often played, yet a lot of the discussions about balance, dpr, etc. while interesting in a vacuum are hardly relevant to the majority of players, because if classes gain and lose terrain while they level up, either they are comparable only at 20 or they are perfectly calibrated level by level (and we don't see it ;) ).

I mean: I played D&D´s every edition since the 80s, I also played several MMOs, I'm not a stranger to theorycrafting or discussions about classes (one could argue what's the point in a game like D&D, but that's another topic completely), but certainly discussing over an incomplete set of data seems moot, doesn't it?

Another point: do you believe that multiclassing seems way more than an option in this edition? I remember (wrongly?) that in the past one traded power for versatility, but in 5e I have the impression that one trades just a bit of time, by delaying access to some features, for quite a lot of power, because 1 to 3 level "dips" offer so much.

[Aett_Thorn]

So I'm not going to touch on the multiclassing part, because I feel like that's been handled a lot on these forums, but did want to respond to your first part.

I know that for the groups that I play with, once you get into the higher tiers of play, level 11+ or so, finding consistent challenge for the party can be a bit difficult, without making it seem like there is a world-ending threat every other day. Sure, you can throw in some one-off monsters and small dungeons and stuff, but why is this group of high-level adventurers sticking together without some sort of reason to? In addition, I know that my groups tend to enjoy creating new characters, and seeing how they play and how their personalities shape out. It gets a bit stagnant playing the same character for years at a time, and so while we might come back to those characters after a break, starting up something new can feel good and fun.

[nickl_2000]

I've played with my current group for about 6 years now. In that time we have played a few campaigns.

1) levels 1-6, finished the campaign. We intended to go higher in a different campaign, but the DM really wanted to run a different module that started at 1
2) levels 1-4, city campaign. PCs were retired for the same reason as #1 (we were going to play Storm King's Thunder, but DM wanted to play Dragonheist)
3) levels 1-17. Played through the entire campaign, PCs retired at the end
4) levels 1-5, Dragonheist. PCs still exist and will be going to Mad Mage within a month
5) Levels 1-3, Curse of the Crimson Throne converted to 5e. The campaign is expected to go somewhere between 15 and 17.

We are actually switching back and forth between campaigns 4 and 5 right now as the two DMs have time to prepare and convert the adventure, both of these are expected to go into tier 4.


So, take what you will from that. In our case, most of the times PCs are retired is that we play through a campaign all that way through and the DM wants to run a module that starts at 1 rather than one that continues on from previously earned levels.

[LudicSavant]

Hello everyone,

I keep reading on these forums that "most campaigns end at level 10-12" or very similar examples. First question is: is this true? Do people keep "restarting"? Nobody playing a years-long story with the same character? Why epic levels are less interesting? (I know they are way harder to DM, usually for lack of experience).

I tend to go from low to high level. Currently in a game where we started at tier 1 and are currently at level 15 and going strong.

[DeTess]

I've finished two major 5e campaigns. One went 1-20, the other 1-10.

I DM'd that second campaign, and had made it clear to my players in advance that the campaign wouldn't go beyond level 10-12 or so. We ended up only just reaching level 10 over the course of the game, but if we'd spend a lot of time at level 12 I'd have started introducing boons, extra ASI's or other things as a way of progression. The reason I capped it at that point was because the world I'd designed just wasn't really compatible with high tier 3 and tier 4 gameplay. This game was about investigating the remnants left behind by a precursor race and travelling through often hostile terrain, and high-level abilities (in particular magic, but the sheer amount of survivability on martials would cause problems as well) would make the hostile terrain irrelevant, and make the artifacts left behind by the precursors seem a lot less powerful, ancient and strange.

I could definitely see myself running a higher level game if I can come up with an appropriate theme (the one I played in was all about killing the ancient draconic god-emperor, so it made sense to go the full distance), but not every game should go all the way to high level, in the same way that not every game should start at level 1. And there's nothing wrong with that. If anything, trying to fit a concept of a game or world suited for level 10 to a level 20 party will cause issues, as the players will either destroy the concept entirely (likely making things un-fun for the DM, and quite probably for the players as well), or the GM will have to no-sell a lot of abilities to the point that it feels like railroading.

[Tanarii]

Apparently it's very true. WotC apparently did studies* and stuff. They based their entire speed of level advancement scheme around the concept.

It's also very true that people, especially internet people that like to play the builds mini-game, still like to make 20 level builds. Often they won't "come online" until after a campaign may have ended. From what I've seen, one of the first questions a good optimizer asks when someone posts a build help thread is "what level is the campaign going to".

Multiclassing is optional for multiple reasons. But the most important are:
- it lowers the bar for entry into the game.
- it's not balanced

All you have to do is play in AL for a little while, and you can see how poorly multiclassing and feats are for balance. No DM should be forced to house rule NO for multiclassing and feats. Instead they are given the option to selectively say 'sure, that particular multiclassing or feat is fine'.

*citation needed :smallsmile:

[OldTrees1]

Hello everyone,

I keep reading on these forums that "most campaigns end at level 10-12" or very similar examples. First question is: is this true? Do people keep "restarting"? Nobody playing a years-long story with the same character? Why epic levels are less interesting? (I know they are way harder to DM, usually for lack of experience).

In 5E our group has been running modules. We have had 1-10, 1-15, 1-15(with plans for 15-20), and currently in a 1-15. 5E has an anchoring effect due to it being harder to start at higher that 1st.

In 3E our group regularly went from ~5 to ~15 but we still used the levels 1-4 and 16-20 on occasion.


It seems to me that, for whatever reason, the second half of the game is not often played, yet a lot of the discussions about balance, dpr, etc. while interesting in a vacuum are hardly relevant to the majority of players, because if classes gain and lose terrain while they level up, either they are comparable only at 20 or they are perfectly calibrated level by level (and we don't see it ;) ).

I mean: I played D&D´s every edition since the 80s, I also played several MMOs, I'm not a stranger to theorycrafting or discussions about classes (one could argue what's the point in a game like D&D, but that's another topic completely), but certainly discussing over an incomplete set of data seems moot, doesn't it?

While knowledge of higher levels is not as precise/widespread as knowledge about lower levels, it is not incomplete.


Another point: do you believe that multiclassing seems way more than an option in this edition? I remember (wrongly?) that in the past one traded power for versatility, but in 5e I have the impression that one trades just a bit of time, by delaying access to some features, for quite a lot of power, because 1 to 3 level "dips" offer so much.

Multiclassing in 5E is better designed than in 3E. It is another valid option, just like single classed characters work.

You are trading one feature for a different feature. If you multiclass you gain a (presumably synergistic) lower level ability at the opportunity cost of the higher level ability you would have gained. A character than is split A7/B3 traded the features of A8-10 for the features of B1-3. This is the desired structure of a level by level multiclass system. All you need to do is make every level, or at least most levels, worthwhile and level appropriate. Then multiclassing becomes selecting a synergistic lower level ability at the cost of a higher level ability. For Tiers 1-2 this seems to work in 5E.

2nd level gives Innovations.
3rd gives pacts and 2nd level spells.
4th is an ASI
5th is 3rd level spells
7th is 4th level spells
8th is an ASI
9th is 5th level spells
2nd is 1st level spells and a Fighting style
4th is an ASI
5th is extra attack and 2nd level spells
6th is Aura of protection
7th is Ancients aura
8th is an ASI
9th is 3rd level spells

[Dork_Forge]

On the restarting front I think it's a mix of things, some people don't like doing to higher levels because of the lack of challenge in some cases, others have a hard time getting a game to go that long. I've yet to find a DM that doesn't become unreliable or drop off the face of the earth at some point, the longest games I'm in are the ones I DM myself. This could be however due to not having a friend group IRL to base games off of, D&D was unheard of in my area until a little game shop opened a few years ago, I'd probably have had better luck if i was 10-15 years older.

[KorvinStarmast]

Most of my high level play (Beyond level 11) has been in play test and one shots.

We have a suspended campaign that has PC's of level 14/15 ish. If that gets back underway I am not sure how far it will go. I'd love to get my Fighter / CHampion to level 15.

Our original campaign hit level 7 and died; we had expected, from the DM, that it would probably last to about level 12 unless he got really inspired for "other planes" type stuff. RL got that one. And then it got our GM with the hardest of obstacles to overcome: they adopted a couple of kids, and that's way more important than RPGs.

My brother's campaign takes forever due to RL and scheduling.
We are about two years into it, I Co DM, and I don't think he's all that keen on trying to create Tier 3 challenges. We have had three PCs already retire around level 6; 8 is as far as any PC has gotten.

And we started a parallel campign from level 1 again for the nights when he can't DM. I run that one. I recommended to everyone that we start at level 3, and they all wanted to start from scratch. So we did.

[Waazraath]

Hello everyone,

I keep reading on these forums that "most campaigns end at level 10-12" or very similar examples. First question is: is this true? Do people keep "restarting"? Nobody playing a years-long story with the same character? Why epic levels are less interesting? (I know they are way harder to DM, usually for lack of experience).

It seems to me that, for whatever reason, the second half of the game is not often played, yet a lot of the discussions about balance, dpr, etc. while interesting in a vacuum are hardly relevant to the majority of players, because if classes gain and lose terrain while they level up, either they are comparable only at 20 or they are perfectly calibrated level by level (and we don't see it ;) ).

I mean: I played D&D´s every edition since the 80s, I also played several MMOs, I'm not a stranger to theorycrafting or discussions about classes (one could argue what's the point in a game like D&D, but that's another topic completely), but certainly discussing over an incomplete set of data seems moot, doesn't it?

Another point: do you believe that multiclassing seems way more than an option in this edition? I remember (wrongly?) that in the past one traded power for versatility, but in 5e I have the impression that one trades just a bit of time, by delaying access to some features, for quite a lot of power, because 1 to 3 level "dips" offer so much.

First question(s): yes, for 5e true. Haven't gotten beyond tier 2 yet. The assuption you make is wrong though: yes, playing a years long story with the same character (3.5 years longest running campaign), but once all players start having responsible jobs and families with young kids, you don't get to play every week 6 hours straight anymore. So you advance 2 levels per year =P In earlier editions of the game, I played plenty of higher level campaigns, both in advanced up to 15 or something (if I recall well), 3.x several up to 10-15, both as a player and a DM.

Second question: at my tables it's optional. I think only 1 explicitly allowed them, others not at all or only on a case by case base. It can be a (very) powerful option in this edition, but then again, the editions as a whole is balanced good enough that this doesn't pose a real problem, unless you get a balance problem within the party (between different characters). Some folks might just need it for roleplaying reasons, that their wizard turns to fighthing with a sword, others to squeaze all mechanical benefits out of a build as possible. Neither is 'good' or 'bad' (depends on the game and party and context), but being an optional rule makes a lot of sense to me.

[MrStabby]

So at my main table we have had a 1-6, a 1-8, a 1-15, a 3-13 a 10 and a 20

So more representative of lower levels - though as there were new starters some of the lower level stuff was siplicity rather than desirability. There is a consensus that play is most fun between about levels 8 and 12; characters can get cool stuff but themost egregious power gulfs between classes are still in the future.

[Davo]

The vast majority of my characters have never made it to level 10.

I had one character in the early 80s who died a lot, and we only had reincarnation, so he came back as different races and had to wind up taking different classes. That was a LOT of fun over the course of two years, and he still didn't have more than about 15 character levels. All of my other AD&D characters petered out well before level eight.

Interim editions were hit and miss, but never more than a three-month campaign, and never higher than level six or seven.

With 5E, I played AL for about a year but never got past Tier I. Last year I had a nine-month campaign, and my Warforged Warlock got to level eight before the DM had to stop. I just started a new campaign, all of us at first level, when the local comic/game shop reopened. Fingers crossed. :)

[Xervous]

I suspect a big part of general play sticking to 1-10 comes from GMs wanting to keep playing the same game. A hole in the ground ceases being an obstacle at some point, long distance travel becomes irrelevant past a point, enemies that have no ranged capabilities and can’t fly are reduced to gimmicks past a point. Rather than deal with the changing game they just turn back to the level range that works for the stories they want to tell (or as I might press, are capable of running)

[heavyfuel]

For me, having fresh new characters every year is the most attractive point of not having 1-20 campaings. The dynamics definitely do get stale after being with same characters doing (roughly) the same thing and acting (roughly) the same way for 15 levels.

Another reason is the massive power gap that starts to appear in beyond Tier 2. Those are the levels where casters get massive power boosts, while martials get a bit more damage. The power gap definitely exists before that, but it's not as pronounced.

Then there's the fact that a lot of challenges DMs associate with being challenging, no longer are. Unless you want to go Elder Scrolls Oblivion and have high level bandits everywhere, a lot stuff just isn't a challenge any longer.

Social Challenges become rarer as the number of NPCs you can't just buy becomes smaller. Exploration challenges completely disappear. So the pool of "common" challenges drastically drops, to the point that unless there's a high level NPC or very high CR creature involved, then you might as well not bother, and these things don't feel as special as they should when you need a dozen of them to fill out a single adventure day.

And on top of that, the combat encounters start taking FOR EVER. Because damage scales much much slower than HP with levels/CR, a fight that previously took 3 rounds, now takes 6. When rounds are 10 minutes each, you can see how it adds up over a single adventure day.

So yeah, I do think it's right to say most games end near the beginning of Tier 3, because a lot of people don't like dealing with these issues.


As for the Multiclassing question, I'll say that - given how many games end before high levels - it's mostly not worth it. Some combinations are great, but these get the spotlight for being the few good examples of multiclass among a sea of mediocrity.

Getting 3 or 4 levels into another class is not a small delay of your main class' features. It's a massive shift in time. It's often the difference between having a feature and not having it. It's the issue with the Sorcadin. It's really strong, but by the time it comes online, the campaign is likely ending.

As such, I don't mind multiclassing and consider it to be up to the player. I just ban stuff I think is broken (which usually involves the Warlock)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Compared to what I have mostly played in the past (2e) there is a massive change in the pace of leveling, particularly above level 10 in 5e. In 2e there was no expectation that characters were going to get much beyond that without massive commitment, whereas in 5e groups can reach tier 3 fairly quickly. I think this is largely responsible for the issue you bring up.

[Man_Over_Game]

First question(s): yes, for 5e true. Haven't gotten beyond tier 2 yet. The assuption you make is wrong though: yes, playing a years long story with the same character (3.5 years longest running campaign), but once all players start having responsible jobs and families with young kids, you don't get to play every week 6 hours straight anymore. So you advance 2 levels per year =P In earlier editions of the game, I played plenty of higher level campaigns, both in advanced up to 15 or something (if I recall well), 3.x several up to 10-15, both as a player and a DM.

There is some truth to that. Economic issues are requiring people to work more often than a decade ago. It's what's lead to the decline of MMORPGs in favor of more instance-based multiplayer gameplay where you just hop on and play a 30min round of Fortnite/CoD/League (and maybe a followup round if you have more time) instead of playing a long-term MMO that requires a 2hour investment to get anywhere. In addition, most games have to be faster-paced than before, in order to get the same level of intensity in a reduced window of time (and many MMOs failed to adapt to this need and have died out). Consider how Clans as a multiplayer mechanic have started dying out, and how Idle phone games are on the rise.

People just have less free time than they used to (well, not necessarily right now due to COVID, but you get what I mean).

Thinking about it, this could be a major reason why 5e is so successful despite the lack of content and complexity that something like 3.5 had. 5e takes a lot less investment, and so it fits most people's schedule better to play something you had to read once than it is to study the equivalent of a college credit's worth of text. When tables eventually couldn't come up with enough time/players/resources to play 3.5, they naturally went for the next best thing, and *surprise* it didn't have these problems.

I doubt it was considered during 5e's development, but that's some real 4D Chess playing if it was.

[ThatoneGuy84]

My group pretty regularly hits mid-high level.

Last few campaigns where.
1-14
1-20 (massive dungeon crawl, was fun)
1-8 (played HODQ) sidebarred chars for Rise later
3-17
Currently
3-??? - Currently playing weekly

[Waazraath]

People just have less free time than they used to (well, not necessarily right now due to COVID, but you get what I mean).


Well, I was refering to my personal situation; over 10 years ago I was in college, and was much more flexible in how to arrange my time. If I was busy, or wanted to 'waste' a day gaming I could just take some cold canned corn, thrown in some pickled onions and mayonese, and call it "dinner". If I would do that now, my wife and kids would not a approve. And that's just one example in how life got less flexible (though no less fun), but of course there's work that's less flexilbe (and more hours) than college, etc. etc.

But you might be right in general this is an issue as well; I'm not sure if a working person on average spends more time working in 2020 then in e.g. 2005, that will differ per country of course. But here in my country in any case, a lot of stuff that was done back then by the government has become "own responsibility" (e.g. taking care of elderly and people with disabilities has become less an affair off the state, and more of the individuals/family members/kids). So yeah, less free time.



Additionally, as for DM'ing on highter levels: it does get more annoying in my experience. As said, I don't have the experience in 5e, but plenty in older editions, and with the increase of character level, the stuff you have to take into account increases exponentially. If a party can suddenly abandon quest and simply teleport to the other end of the world in search for another, you do have a problem if you want encounters to make sense and rooted in a larger story (not just pick a balor or similar from the nearast MM that happens to be there), nor want to railroad the whole party in a way that such a decesion isn't possible. Of course, improvising is part of the job, but it gets progressively harder. This touches the first point, "lack of time". High levels ask (thus) for more prep time, and few DM's in my vicinity (me included) have a lot of that atm.

Having said that, this isn't the reason we didn't do tier 3/4 yet in 5e, that's just... that we're taking it really slow.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Published adventures:

Lost Mines of Phandelver, 1-5
Tyranny of Dragons, 1-7 and 8-15
Princes of the Apocalypse, 1-15
Curse of Strahd, 1-10
Tomb of Annihilation, 1-11
Storm King's Thunder, 1-11
Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, 1-5
Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage, 5-20
Out of the Abyss, 1-17
Ghosts of Saltmarsh, 1-12
Rime of the Frostmaiden, 1-12
Dragons of Icespire Peak, 1-5
Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus, 1-13


So there are two adventures that end above level 15 and two more that end at 15. Storm King's Thunder, realistically, runs from 5-10 or so rather than starting at level 1, so there's three adventures that start at level 5 or higher, and one of those is a direct sequel to one that starts at level 1. So there are ten adventures that end at level 13 or earlier. Because of AL play, there are more games being played directly out of book than ever before, so it's worth considering that.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Published adventures:

Lost Mines of Phandelver, 1-5
Tyranny of Dragons, 1-7 and 8-15
Princes of the Apocalypse, 1-15
Curse of Strahd, 1-10
Tomb of Annihilation, 1-11
Storm King's Thunder, 1-11
Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, 1-5
Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage, 5-20
Out of the Abyss, 1-17
Ghosts of Saltmarsh, 1-12
Rime of the Frostmaiden, 1-12
Dragons of Icespire Peak, 1-5
Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus, 1-13


So there are two adventures that end above level 15 and two more that end at 15. Storm King's Thunder, realistically, runs from 5-10 or so rather than starting at level 1, so there's three adventures that start at level 5 or higher, and one of those is a direct sequel to one that starts at level 1. So there are ten adventures that end at level 13 or earlier. Because of AL play, there are more games being played directly out of book than ever before, so it's worth considering that.
I'd also add that any group with reasonable experience and modest optimization can play through these at comfortably 1-2 levels below what is listed.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'd also add that any group with reasonable experience and modest optimization can play through these at comfortably 1-2 levels below what is listed.

Right, and some of the time taken and consequently experience gained will depend on the DM's and the group's tolerance for wandering. Tomb of Annihilation, for example, was a fun game for a bit, but we ended up losing interest in the hex-crawl aspect of it and skipping a lot of random encounters and stuff.

[Miele]

Thanks everyone for the answers, they were quite enlightening.

Let's say I want to run a Forgotten Realms campaign, starting from level 1, is there a temporal timeline to follow (roughly) to combine 2 or 3 modules if I want to play the distance and make a long storyline?

Lost mines of Phandelver was the first I had in mind, but it's not a mandatory choice. I have most books and can always get the ones I miss quite quickly (it's nice having friends whose job is to distribute comics, gadgets and gaming products to a whole country, serious discounts and immediate availability are quite a boon!).

Can I chain LMoP into Hoard of the Dragon Queen in your opinion? What would follow after that?

I'm asking because I played most of my campaigns in Mystara (original BECMI D&D world, honestly it' an amazing setting) and few stand alone adventures in FR, while I know the world decently well (I've read books and novels over the years), I'd prefer to get a few suggestions regarding a possible timeline.

Given that in Mystara we did pretty much everything ever printed, plus several homebrew stories, it'd be cool to start a massive campaign in FR for a change.
Some of my friends have played with me for 3 decades, we did 1 to 36 in original D&D, up to and including Wrath of the Immortals and the Hollow World. We retired the characters when they reached goodhood, so I guess it was quite epic (it took us several years, even if we played a lot more back then). We played Dragonlance with AD&D 2nd edition ruleset, then a ton of homebrew worlds. Don't ask why we never got knee-deep in FR, I wouldn't be able to answer honestly...

[heavyfuel]

I'd also add that any group with reasonable experience and modest optimization can play through these at comfortably 1-2 levels below what is listed.

Indeed. QuicklyRainbow mentioned SKT being played from lv 5, but my group of 3 players (1 fewer than the recommended) played from lv 1 and had little trouble even with me, the DM, making every encounter harder than as presented in the book.

[Man_Over_Game]

Thanks everyone for the answers, they were quite enlightening.

Let's say I want to run a Forgotten Realms campaign, starting from level 1, is there a temporal timeline to follow (roughly) to combine 2 or 3 modules if I want to play the distance and make a long storyline?

Lost mines of Phandelver was the first I had in mind, but it's not a mandatory choice. I have most books and can always get the ones I miss quite quickly (it's nice having friends whose job is to distribute comics, gadgets and gaming products to a whole country, serious discounts and immediate availability are quite a boon!).

Can I chain LMoP into Hoard of the Dragon Queen in your opinion? What would follow after that?

I'm asking because I played most of my campaigns in Mystara (original BECMI D&D world, honestly it' an amazing setting) and few stand alone adventures in FR, while I know the world decently well (I've read books and novels over the years), I'd prefer to get a few suggestions regarding a possible timeline.

Given that in Mystara we did pretty much everything ever printed, plus several homebrew stories, it'd be cool to start a massive campaign in FR for a change.
Some of my friends have played with me for 3 decades, we did 1 to 36 in original D&D, up to and including Wrath of the Immortals and the Hollow World. We retired the characters when they reached goodhood, so I guess it was quite epic (it took us several years, even if we played a lot more back then). We played Dragonlance with AD&D 2nd edition ruleset, then a ton of homebrew worlds. Don't ask why we never got knee-deep in FR, I wouldn't be able to answer honestly...

I've got a few things that might interest you:

https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/EL2_SKT_AppA_0821.pdf
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/105799/45619
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/51990/45619
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/143097/45619

[kazaryu]

Hello everyone,

I keep reading on these forums that "most campaigns end at level 10-12" or very similar examples. First question is: is this true? Do people keep "restarting"? Nobody playing a years-long story with the same character? Why epic levels are less interesting? (I know they are way harder to DM, usually for lack of experience).

It seems to me that, for whatever reason, the second half of the game is not often played, yet a lot of the discussions about balance, dpr, etc. while interesting in a vacuum are hardly relevant to the majority of players, because if classes gain and lose terrain while they level up, either they are comparable only at 20 or they are perfectly calibrated level by level (and we don't see it ;) ).

I mean: I played D&D´s every edition since the 80s, I also played several MMOs, I'm not a stranger to theorycrafting or discussions about classes (one could argue what's the point in a game like D&D, but that's another topic completely), but certainly discussing over an incomplete set of data seems moot, doesn't it?

Another point: do you believe that multiclassing seems way more than an option in this edition? I remember (wrongly?) that in the past one traded power for versatility, but in 5e I have the impression that one trades just a bit of time, by delaying access to some features, for quite a lot of power, because 1 to 3 level "dips" offer so much.

i think that its likely the reason most campaigns end at low level is more due to instability in peoples schedules. i doubt its common to start a campaign at lvl 11. most campaigns probably start around lvl 3. and by the time that group has worked up to lvl 11-12 something happens, schedules shift, and player disperse. or burn out occurs. or...well, any number of things. essentially the longer a game goes on for, the more likely it gets interrupted.

its also likely that enough people simply don't enjoy the high tier of play for very long, and as such deliberately don't play there. i don't know if its a majority by any means, but its probably a significant percentage to shift the needle, so to speak.

as for multiclassing, you have both types. you can multclass and trade power for versatility. but you can also multiclass to optimize. however, i think typically the reason its so attractive is lackluster capstone features, more than the appeal of low level features. (with notable exceptions of course: like a 1 lvl dip into hexblade or a 1lvl life cleric dip for a support focused druid.) but like, if you take a look at a wizard, there's really no reason to go above lvl 18. you already have your 9th level spells. the lvl 20 feature is...trash. at least relative to being lvl 20. so why not drop 2 levels in tempest cleric. now you can max out a lightning or thunder damage spell 1/sr. you get 'free' hellish rebukes. you can now do a bit of healing. in fact a single lvl cleric dip gets you 2 extra spells that are always prepared. they're lvl 1 instead of lvl 3 but still. you're not even giving up all of your own capstone.

That being said, at least in 5e, any class is full *viable* all the way to lvl 20 as long as you don't deliberately gimp yourself (i.e. leave your primary stat at a 14). and optimized characters are...better than them, noticably so, but also not by enough that typically an optimized character will completely overshadow most PC's. except for Darkness/DS warlocks..they overshadow everyone...literally.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Thanks everyone for the answers, they were quite enlightening.

Let's say I want to run a Forgotten Realms campaign, starting from level 1, is there a temporal timeline to follow (roughly) to combine 2 or 3 modules if I want to play the distance and make a long storyline?

Lost mines of Phandelver was the first I had in mind, but it's not a mandatory choice. I have most books and can always get the ones I miss quite quickly (it's nice having friends whose job is to distribute comics, gadgets and gaming products to a whole country, serious discounts and immediate availability are quite a boon!).

Can I chain LMoP into Hoard of the Dragon Queen in your opinion? What would follow after that?

I'm asking because I played most of my campaigns in Mystara (original BECMI D&D world, honestly it' an amazing setting) and few stand alone adventures in FR, while I know the world decently well (I've read books and novels over the years), I'd prefer to get a few suggestions regarding a possible timeline.

Given that in Mystara we did pretty much everything ever printed, plus several homebrew stories, it'd be cool to start a massive campaign in FR for a change.
Some of my friends have played with me for 3 decades, we did 1 to 36 in original D&D, up to and including Wrath of the Immortals and the Hollow World. We retired the characters when they reached goodhood, so I guess it was quite epic (it took us several years, even if we played a lot more back then). We played Dragonlance with AD&D 2nd edition ruleset, then a ton of homebrew worlds. Don't ask why we never got knee-deep in FR, I wouldn't be able to answer honestly...
I really think this depends on what your group likes and playstyles. Out of the Abyss for us was great and by itself would get you most of the way. We attempted Dungeon of the Mad Mage after Dragon Heist, but it was just too much of a crawl (and maybe some of the other issues associated with high level crept in) so we packed it at about level 13. I think DotMM may have been good for us after OotA if we only had to play 5 or so levels.
Ghosts of Saltmarsh was also good, but we were done at 11th; also you'd have to fluff a bit to make it fit with the settings of other published content

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Indeed. QuicklyRainbow mentioned SKT being played from lv 5, but my group of 3 players (1 fewer than the recommended) played from lv 1 and had little trouble even with me, the DM, making every encounter harder than as presented in the book.

What I mean by that is that is that the introduction says the adventure is intended for a party of either level 1 or level 5. There's guidance in the book for starting at level 5, which boils down to "skip Chapter 1 and get straight into the stuff with the giants". The content in Chapter 1 has some relevance to the plot, but it's not critical and mostly serves to get your level 1 party to a place where they can have encounters with giants that aren't CR + 4. The meat of the adventure is really all contained in that 5-10 band.

(That said, I do actually like Chapter 1. It's fun. It's filler, but it's good filler.)


I really think this depends on what your group likes and playstyles. Out of the Abyss for us was great and by itself would get you most of the way. We attempted Dungeon of the Mad Mage after Dragon Heist, but it was just too much of a crawl (and maybe some of the other issues associated with high level crept in) so we packed it at about level 13. I think DotMM may have been good for us after OotA if we only had to play 5 or so levels.
Ghosts of Saltmarsh was also good, but we were done at 11th; also you'd have to fluff a bit to make it fit with the settings of other published content

Saltmarsh is intended to be a series of one-shots that assemble easily into a campaign. Out of the Abyss can include a nice break around level 7-9, if I remember right, where the party leaves the Underdark. If you wanted to assemble some stuff together into a 1-20 game, you could do something like:

Lost Mines/Starter Set, ending at level 3 or 4 instead of 5 -> Out of the Abyss, beefing up the initial drow encounters and the difficulties of the Underdark to make it dangerous for a level 4/5 party if necessary -> leave Underdark around level 7 per the guidance in OotA -> do a few modules from Saltmarsh or Tales from the Yawning Portal -> re-enter the Underdark as per the guidance in OotA at level 9 -> play through OotA -> follow either the Into the Demonweb Pits or the Gromph's Grimoire prompts at the end to continue through level 20. I personally like the latter option, and you might be able to do something with modules from Princes of the Apocalypse in that level 7-9 space and use Vizeran as the followup Big Bad, leaning into his affiliation with the Elder Elemental Eye. There are also conversion guides for Expedition to the Demonweb Pits that could be helpful for an extension of Out of the Abyss.

[Pex]

If most games end at levels 10-12 I think it's because they started at level 1, and by the time level 12 happens real life ends the game. The game has been playing for over a year, maybe two. New jobs, moving, new babies, getting married, something happens such that the game can't happen anymore. If it's just one player it continues. If it's more than one player or the DM the game is over. It can unfortunately also be the case the players/DM stop liking each other for whatever reason.

Power level has minimal relation to why the game ends.

[heavyfuel]

What I mean by that is that is that the introduction says the adventure is intended for a party of either level 1 or level 5. There's guidance in the book for starting at level 5, which boils down to "skip Chapter 1 and get straight into the stuff with the giants". The content in Chapter 1 has some relevance to the plot, but it's not critical and mostly serves to get your level 1 party to a place where they can have encounters with giants that aren't CR + 4. The meat of the adventure is really all contained in that 5-10 band.

(That said, I do actually like Chapter 1. It's fun. It's filler, but it's good filler.)

Ah, that makes sense.

I completely forgot about the "start from level 5" part, but now I remembered.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I would say it’s mostly commitment on the players part and creative burnout on the dms. Most of my campaigns have died before level 5 simply because people stop being interested or get bored or schedules clash. Currently I have two campaigns barely surviving due to clashes. I’ve had 8 campaigns die on me so far, and the members of one of the campaigns has pretty much completely changed with only 3 of the original 7 members still playing and 3 new members, 2 of whom are from a different campaign that died. We can only play maybe once every two weeks because things clashing and when we do, maybe three people turn up, 4 if I’m lucky.
The other campaign I’ve just started so I don’t know how that is going to go. Also only one of those campaigns has gotten past level 5 and that’s dead now. The highest level surviving campaign, the most consistent player is level 4, most of the others are level 3.

[Dark.Revenant]

Frankly, it's all the above and more.


Life situations change (marriage/divorce, social stuff, new job or promotion, family emergency, illness, injury, a falling-out, etc.)
Times change (pandemic, global recession, etc.)
Official adventure content for high tiers is minimal
Official challenges (monsters) for high tiers are limited and often poorly designed
Fewer class features are gained at high tiers
Class balance gets messy at high tiers (you're supposed to level up more quickly once you reach tier 3, but many groups don't do this)
Groups have less experience with high tiers and might not like them
It's more difficult to run and play at high tiers
Combat takes longer at high tiers
Story beats that work at low tiers likely won't work at high tiers, and vice-versa
Escalating challenges/threats into high tiers sometimes just doesn't work, narratively
Story continuity can be lost when transitioning tiers
Keeping characters fresh for a long time is difficult
The group can get bored of the campaign if it overstays its welcome


I'm currently Level 6 in a 1-15 game, Level 5 in a 4-20 game, Level 14 in a 1-??? game, and running for Level 15 in a 3-20 game.

My previous 5e D&D campaigns ended at Level 11 in a 1-??? game (DM life situation change), Level 10 in a 1-10 game (finished), Level 9 in a 1-??? game (DM life situation change), running for Level 5 in a 3-??? game (DM life situation change), running for Level 6 in a 2-??? game (DM life situation change), Level 11 in a 5-20 game (group life situation change), and a whole bunch of games that failed in tier 1 shortly after the campaign started.

[HappyDaze]

5E has an anchoring effect due to it being harder to start at higher that 1st level.

Why do you feel this way? What makes it harder to start at a higher level in 5e than in previous versions?

Our last game started at 3rd level and there was no anchor I could detect. I've also made characters as high as 14th level for joining into an ongoing game, and it wasn't particularly hard for me.

[OldTrees1]

Why do you feel this way? What makes it harder to start at a higher level in 5e than in previous versions?

Our last game started at 3rd level and there was no anchor I could detect. I've also made characters as high as 14th level for joining into an ongoing game, and it wasn't particularly hard for me.

Clarification: I said "anchoring effect" not "anchor". Just to be clear, those are different nouns.

Starting equipment is the way it is harder in 5E. It is not a boulder, but it does create a small bias towards starting at 1st. Due to the anchoring effect, this normalizes starting at 1st level even more than it was in prior editions. As a result, in Princes of the Apocalypse and in Curse of Strahd we could have started at 3rd, but we started at 1st.

[Pex]

Clarification: I said "anchoring effect" not "anchor". Just to be clear, those are different nouns.

Starting equipment is the way it is harder in 5E. It is not a boulder, but it does create a small bias towards starting at 1st. Due to the anchoring effect, this normalizes starting at 1st level even more than it was in prior editions. As a result, in Princes of the Apocalypse and in Curse of Strahd we could have started at 3rd, but we started at 1st.

That doesn't make sense. Beginning at level 3 you have your starting equipment. Then the DM fiats you have X amount of gold more to buy stuff, such as better armor or a healing potion or two. The bias to start at level 1 is because 1 is the beginning of counting. The game does say you can start at higher level. Beginning players should start at level 1 to learn the game. Veterans already know to start at a higher level if they want to.

[Tanarii]

That doesn't make sense. Beginning at level 3 you have your starting equipment. Then the DM fiats you have X amount of gold more to buy stuff, such as better armor or a healing potion or two.
If the DM fiats using WotCs recommendation, starting below level 5 just nets you starting equipment.

[heavyfuel]

If the DM fiats using WotCs recommendation, starting below level 5 just nets you starting equipment.

This is true. An unexperienced DM recently wanted us to start his game at level 4, and when asked how much gold we had, he just pointed at a DMG table that said from levels 1 through 4 you had only your starting equipment. When every single player argued that it's quite absurd that our characters had been adventuring for 3 levels and acquired not single CP of extra wealth, he then allowed us more appropriate wealth.

I don't even blame the DM, he was litereally folloing the stupid book.

Damn, I miss WBL guidelines...

[OldTrees1]

That doesn't make sense. Beginning at level 3 you have your starting equipment. Then the DM fiats you have X amount of gold more to buy stuff, such as better armor or a healing potion or two.

Just checking up front: I have used the word "harder" rather than the word "hard". Did you notice and account for that? I don't want a miscommunication to escalate.

You just explained how higher level starting equipment is harder in 5E than in prior editions. 3E's WBL system did require a more robust wealth system, but it is easier than "1st level gold + DM fiat".

Hence while we could have started at 3rd level, we ended up starting at 1st level. Cause -> Effect -> creates a bias -> increases normalization -> increases the anchoring effect.

This is not to say there are not other contributing factors to the anchoring effect. However I was only talking about what I was talking about. So you will forgive me for not talking about what I was not talking about.

[HappyDaze]

This is true. An unexperienced DM recently wanted us to start his game at level 4, and when asked how much gold we had, he just pointed at a DMG table that said from levels 1 through 4 you had only your starting equipment. When every single player argued that it's quite absurd that our characters had been adventuring for 3 levels and acquired not single CP of extra wealth, he then allowed us more appropriate wealth.

I don't even blame the DM, he was litereally folloing the stupid book.

Damn, I miss WBL guidelines...

It's quite possible that they blew all of their "earned" wealth on potions of healing or spellcasting services, or replacing lost/stolen/destroyed pieces of starting gear. There is no guarantee that 4th level adventurers will have any more gear than 1st level adventurers, and they might even have less

[heavyfuel]

It's quite possible that they blew all of their "earned" wealth on potions of healing or spellcasting services, or replacing lost/stolen/destroyed pieces of starting gear. There is no guarantee that 4th level adventurers will have any more gear than 1st level adventurers, and they might even have less

Yes, it's also possible that they found a million gold pieces while adventuring. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's sensible to say it happened. Especially considering the rest of the campaign was pretty easy mode, I find it hard to believe we would've spent that much gold.

Isn't it FAR more sensible to say that PCs starting at lv 4 should be closer to the Lv 5 wealth than to the Lv 1 starting wealth?

Or should PCs only gain massive amounts of treasure upon crossing over to a new tier, and have zero treasure from the remaining levels?

[HappyDaze]

Yes, it's also possible that they found a million gold pieces while adventuring. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's sensible to say it happened. Especially considering the rest of the campaign was pretty easy mode, I find it hard to believe we would've spent that much gold.

Isn't it FAR more sensible to say that PCs starting at lv 4 should be closer to the Lv 5 wealth than to the Lv 1 starting wealth?

Or should PCs only gain massive amounts of treasure upon crossing over to a new tier, and have zero treasure from the remaining levels?

I get it. I totally get it. You can't stand playing by the rules, so you pressured your DM into giving in. FME, the DM caving-in is a sign that game is quite likely to crash.

[heavyfuel]

I get it. I totally get it. You can't stand playing by the rules, so you pressured your DM into giving in. FME, the DM caving-in is a sign that game is quite likely to crash.

"Pressured"

Yeah, that's exactly how my friends and I treat each other

Btw, it was a short quarentine campaign that was ran from start to finish, no crashes

Also, the rules say the DM decides, not some table: "Starting equipment for characters above 1st level is entirely at your (the DM's) discretion."

[HappyDaze]

"Pressured"

Yeah, that's exactly how my friends and I treat each other

Btw, it was a short quarentine campaign that was ran from start to finish, no crashes

Also, the rules say the DM decides, not some table: "Starting equipment for characters above 1st level is entirely at your (the DM's) discretion."

But you didn't like the answer you were given, so you pushed until you got what you wanted.

[heavyfuel]

But you didn't like the answer you were given, so you pushed until you got what you wanted.

I think you're stretching the definition of the verb "push" when all we did was say things like "hey man, we're level 4. It kinda makes more sense if we have a bit more gold" followed by "huh, I guess you're right" by the DM.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It's quite possible that they blew all of their "earned" wealth on potions of healing or spellcasting services, or replacing lost/stolen/destroyed pieces of starting gear. There is no guarantee that 4th level adventurers will have any more gear than 1st level adventurers, and they might even have less

That would seem... unlikely. It doesn't track with any published adventure or with the existing WBL guidelines. You're describing a very specific game.

[Tanarii]

The argument in favor of he DMG way is starting PCs at higher level should start with less equipment than if they got it through play. Basically, if you want it, earn it.

Of course, the same could be said for the levels. :smallamused:

[HappyDaze]

That would seem... unlikely. It doesn't track with any published adventure or with the existing WBL guidelines. You're describing a very specific game.

You've never had PCs defeated and robbed of their gear? Bad guys can knock the PCs unconcious at 0 hp too.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

You've never had PCs defeated and robbed of their gear? Bad guys can knock the PCs unconcious at 0 hp too.

I've had it happen, yes. Have I had it happen such that the party couldn't recover their gear but could get replacement starting quality gear and could proceed to have a couple dozen more encounters but not get anything new or exciting? No.

I'm not sure a thing that happens at 5 or 10% of tables is the best guideline for starting a campaign.

[Warwick]

But you didn't like the answer you were given, so you pushed until you got what you wanted.


Also known as 'communicating'. Players not only can but should convey to the GM what kind of game they want to play. That includes things like "we're not interested in playing shirtless vagrants."

[HappyDaze]

Also known as 'communicating'. Players not only can but should convey to the GM what kind of game they want to play. That includes things like "we're not interested in playing shirtless vagrants."

And game masters can and should say no sometimes. Kick a few players to the curb from time to time to keep things interesting.

[heavyfuel]

And game masters can and should say no sometimes. Kick a few players to the curb from time to time to keep things interesting.

"Can and should say no sometimes" yes. "Must say no, otherwise they are clearly being pushed" no.

[OldTrees1]

And game masters can and should say no sometimes. Kick a few players to the curb from time to time to keep things interesting.

Perhaps it would be wise to take a moment and consider, maybe your depiction of heavyfuel's group does not match reality. You accused heavyfuel's group of something, but someone with first hand knowledge of the actual events seems to strongly disagree with your accusation. Given the information imbalance, I would think it was time to reconsider the accusation.

To me it sounds like the group had a conversation and the GM reached a decision. The GM saying "yes" in one particular instance does not mean they break your rule of "GMs can and should say no sometimes".

[HappyDaze]

Perhaps it would be wise to take a moment and consider, maybe your depiction of heavyfuel's group does not match reality. You accused heavyfuel's group of something, but someone with first hand knowledge of the actual events seems to strongly disagree with your accusation. Given the information imbalance, I would think it was time to reconsider the accusation.

To me it sounds like the group had a conversation and the GM reached a decision. The GM saying "yes" in one particular instance does not mean they break your rule of "GMs can and should say no sometimes".

Perhaps not.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Perhaps not.

:smallconfused:

[HappyDaze]

:smallconfused:
It's OK for people to disagree, and despite what some say, that itself doesnt require agreement.

[OldTrees1]

Perhaps not.


It's OK for people to disagree, and despite what some say, that itself doesnt require agreement.

Fair enough. I just see no evidence to support your accusation, and it is causing a bit of heat, so I thought I might as well give a reason (& excuse) to cool things down.