Halting Level Progression at 8/12/X

[Bjarkmundur]

Are there any guides on this, or blags that talk more about how or why you should stop the standard progression at a certain point? I'm really interested in the idea. I used to have something saved, but I seem to have lost it. I don't even know what it's called when people do this, so I can't google anything xD

[OldTrees1]

The keyword you were looking for was "E6" which is the short name the gamestyle "Epic 6" 3E used for stopping leveling at level 6.

I checked the first 3 interesting threads for "5E E6" and here is the one I thought fit best:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?374560-E6-(and-other-level-caps)-in-5e-D-amp-D

That should be enough to remove your blocker and unlock your own google fu.

[Psyren]

I'd recommend stopping at 14 as most classes or subclasses get a nice ability there that could function as a "capstone," e.g. the Monk finally becoming good at all saving throws. This also means you get two more levels to enjoy the level 12 ASI / feat.

[dafrca]

This subject does raise some questions for me:

Does a character class need a "capstone" ability? Could they just max out and stop?

Could leveling just stop giving all new stuff after a point and maybe just give a much reduced number of bonuses (example just off the top of my head: after 10th level you get a single HP plus your CON bonus rather than a whole dies worth? ) thus allow a slight progression but much reduced?

Should part of the shift be to slow the pace of leveling as well as adding a cap?


Not saying any of these are a good idea, just questions the subject made me think about.... :smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

This subject does raise some questions for me:

Does a character class need a "capstone" ability? Could they just max out and stop?

IMHO: No, they don't need a capstone, but the last level should not be a dead level either. Let each level have a level's worth of features the player values.

However, it is better to ask your playgroup.

[Psyren]

I think a capstone is an element of game design that is more about "feel" than "need." Having something extremely cool and thematic to aspire to feels good, even if you never actually get there in most campaigns. And the ones where you do and use it to start taking on ancient dragons and archliches and such, those are the ones that stick with you long after the game is over.

[Amnestic]

11th is a pretty solid stopping point imho:

Full casters: 6th level spells.
Rogue: Reliable Talent.
Fighter: Extra Attack #3
Paladin: Improved Divine Smite
Monk/Ranger: Subclass feature
Barbarian: Relentless Rage
Warlock: Mystic Incarnum (6th) + 3rd spell slot
Artificer: Spell Storing Item.

Most of these are notable powerboosts.

The "weakest" of these in my eyes are potentially Monk/Rangers (depending on subclass) and Barbarian - you might consider trading Relentless Rage out for either Persistent Rage or Unlimited Rages, if you wanted to make adjustments.

[JellyPooga]

E6 in 3rd edition was a very interesting idea that I never reallg got to explore in actual play. In 5e, it might be interesting to condense 2 levels of class features into a lower level paradigm. After all, the big problem with high levels tends not to be class features, so much as HP bloat and high level spellcasting causing massive imbalance in the dynamic of play.

By way of example, look at the 17th lvl. Thief feature that give you an extra turn compared to the 3rd level spell Haste. Not exactly the same, but close. Giving greater weight to going up a level in lieu of artifical HP and other number gains might go a long way toward giving a greater sense of actual advancement while simultaneously curbing the attrition game that hurts the relevance or threat of "low level" encounters.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

11th is a pretty solid stopping point imho:

Full casters: 6th level spells.
Rogue: Reliable Talent.
Fighter: Extra Attack #3
Paladin: Improved Divine Smite
Monk/Ranger: Subclass feature
Barbarian: Relentless Rage
Warlock: Mystic Incarnum (6th) + 3rd spell slot
Artificer: Spell Storing Item.

Most of these are notable powerboosts.

The "weakest" of these in my eyes are potentially Monk/Rangers (depending on subclass) and Barbarian - you might consider trading Relentless Rage out for either Persistent Rage or Unlimited Rages, if you wanted to make adjustments.

If a group were going to do something like this I'd generally agree this is about the time to do it. The main reason is that 7+ level spells change the nature of the game in ways that can be really challenging. At the least they fundamentally alter the way adventuring happens in ways some groups won't like.
That said we've played to the end of tier 3 in numerous campaigns and found it workable. I have thought about the idea of continuing progression, but limiting casters to 6th level spells with upcasts where slots permit. That seems workable, though I'd think the result from the players' end would be a bunch of multiclassing of full casters to get the perks of low level abilities.

[sithlordnergal]

11th is a pretty solid stopping point imho:

Full casters: 6th level spells.
Rogue: Reliable Talent.
Fighter: Extra Attack #3
Paladin: Improved Divine Smite
Monk/Ranger: Subclass feature
Barbarian: Relentless Rage
Warlock: Mystic Incarnum (6th) + 3rd spell slot
Artificer: Spell Storing Item.

Most of these are notable powerboosts.

The "weakest" of these in my eyes are potentially Monk/Rangers (depending on subclass) and Barbarian - you might consider trading Relentless Rage out for either Persistent Rage or Unlimited Rages, if you wanted to make adjustments.

May I suggest level 12 instead of level 11. An ASI makes for a really fine capstone, especially if you allow feats. You won't get into 7th level spells, you'll be a nice even number, and you'll get 3 ASIs instead of just 2.

EDIT: Allowing level 12 also helps out Monks and other MAD classes. They can max out one ability and boost their secondary one to an 18.

[JellyPooga]

If a group were going to do something like this I'd generally agree this is about the time to do it. The main reason is that 7+ level spells change the nature of the game in ways that can be really challenging. At the least they fundamentally alter the way adventuring happens in ways some groups won't like.
That said we've played to the end of tier 3 in numerous campaigns and found it workable. I have thought about the idea of continuing progression, but limiting casters to 6th level spells with upcasts where slots permit. That seems workable, though I'd think the result from the players' end would be a bunch of multiclassing of full casters to get the perks of low level abilities.

Personally I think 6th level spells have gone far beyond the "game breaking" point you claim of 7th lvl. spells. For me, I like capping things at 6th level, maybe going as far as 8th. 3rd and 4th level spells are already fundamentally changing the dynamic of play, but there are very few class features above that level that do the same (exceptions include some of the high level Warlock features, including but not limited to Mystic Arcanum as well as some Wizard subclass features). Skipping the superfluous levels that do little except adding HP and numerical bloat and offering a condensed version of classes without the 'dead levels' and ribbon feature levels is an attractive proposition to me.

For example;
The Rogue in 6 levels.

Lvl.1 - Sneak Attack (1d6), Expertise, Thieves Cant
Lvl.2 - SA (3d6), Cunning Action, Subclass Feature (1)
Lvl.3 - SA (5d6), Uncanny Dodge, Subclass (2)
Lvl.4 - SA (7d6), Evasion, Subclass (3), Expertise
Lvl.5 - SA (8d6), Reliable Talent, Slippery Mind
Lvl.6 - SA (10d6), Subclass (4), Evasive, Stroke of Luck

Perhaps there is some wiggle room for whre or when features are acquired, but you get the idea. For a spellcasting class, I see no reason spell level and class level can't be synonymous. E.g. The Wizard.

Lvl.1 - Lvl.1 spells, Subclass (1)
Lvl.2 - Lvl.2 spells
Lvl.3 - Lvl.3 spels, Subclass (2)
Lvl.4 - Lvl.4 spells, Subclass (3)
Lvl.5 - Lvl.5 spells
Lvl.6 - Lvl.6 spells, Subclass (4)

[Amnestic]

May I suggest level 12 instead of level 11. An ASI makes for a really fine capstone, especially if you allow feats. You won't get into 7th level spells, you'll be a nice even number, and you'll get 3 ASIs instead of just 2.

EDIT: Allowing level 12 also helps out Monks and other MAD classes. They can max out one ability and boost their secondary one to an 18.

A not unreasonable suggestion. It's essentially the same class features for the vast majority of classes except for barbarian (1 extra rage), monks (1 extra ki point) and sorcerers (1 extra sorcery point).

My reasoning for doing it at 11 is because of the capstone situation mentioned before. The idea (as I understood it) behind E6(or E11/12 in this case) would be that you'd still get boons/rewards at certain exp milestones, which would likely include ASIs/Feats, and stopping at your big capstone 'feels' more appropriate than stopping on an ASI - at least in my mind.

The difference between 11 vs 12 though in practical, mechanical terms is minor, so either would work basically the same way. It'd be table/DM preference.

[Yakk]

Here is a quick one based off Hybrid/Gestalt rules.

You start out at level 1/1 with 2 classes. You have one HD from each class. You advance 2/1, 2/2, 3/2, all the way to 6/6.

HP from HD are 2 from d6, 3 from d8, 4 from d10 and 5 from d12 (reduced 2). You gain con bonus times your highest level, not your HD. At level 1 you also have a size based HD (d8 for medium, d6 for small, d10 for powerful build).

You must match the multiclassing stat rewuirements for both classes.

Some abilities combine differently:
Armor: If your armor proficiencies are more than 1 apart, get 1 less armor proficiency than your highest. So a fighter/rogue has medium armor proficiency. Otherwise gain the highest armor proficiency. You are proficient in shields only if both classes are proficient in shields.

Spellcasting: Know spells/cantrips/etc are independent. Slots are not; you have the slots of the best class you have advanced as.

However, if you have spellcasting from 2 classes, you gain overcharges equal to the highest level spell the weaker spellcasting class could cast. Overcharge can increase the level of a spell slot for the purpose of "at higher levels" clauses, and are recovered on a long rest. Overcharge can cast spells at a higher effective slot than you have, but doesn't let you cast higher level spells.

So a Sorcerer 5/Wizard 5 has 3 overcharges, which can be used to cast a L6 (11d6) fireball with a 3rd level slot. A Sorcerer 5/Ranger 5 has 2 overcharges.

Extra Attack: When you get extra attack a 2nd time, you advance the non-spellcasting class features of one of your classes by 1. You can change this when you gain a level, but cannot lose a feature you gained. So a Paladin 5/Fighter 5 can have +cha to saves (Paladin 6 feature).

Pact Magic + Spellcasting: For every pact magic slot, you lose one normal spellcasting slot (starting with your best slots). So a Warlock 5/Wizard 5 has 2 L3 pact slots and 0 L3 Wizard slots.

Skill Proficiencies: Each class grants 1 fewer skill.

Save Proficiencies: Pick 3 from your two classes. If you pick one twice, your proficiency bonus in that save is doubled.
...

At level 1 you are slightly more competent. Your HP for a LX/X character is pretty close to a baseline character; about 10% more.

A 6/6 medium sized Barb/Paladin with 16 Con has (6*5+6*4+6*3+3) HP, or 75. A L6 Barbarian with 16 Con has 65 HP.

A 1/1 Barb/Paladin with 14 con has (6+4+3+2)=15 HP, while a L1 Barb with 14 con has 14.

A Wizard/Sorcerer with 12 con at 1/1 has (2+2+3+1)=8 HP, compared to 7 baseline L1 wizard or ssorcerer.

No other multiclassing should be permitted.

What you get out of this is a lot of meaty level ups. There are 9 level ups from 1/1 up to 6/6.

Spells are capped at L3.

If you want advancement beyond that, up to L10:
Spellcasting/Pact magic: Full casters gain an Overcharge instead of advancing slots at 7 and 9 (which lowers the max spell level you can learn). You cannot overcharge a slot over L9. Everything else is unchanged.

Spells are capped at L4. Fighters can hit extra attack 3 only if paired with another extra attack class.

10/10 is 18 "levels" beyond 1/1, providing a large number of level ups; basically a full campaign.

A Sorcerer 10/Bard 10 has the slots of a L8 normal PC, and 8 overcharges.

...

The goal is a lot of meaty advancements, while keeping the PCs at at most slightly above T2 power. A few more ASI, options, etc.

A Paladin/Sorcerer 10/10 would have L 8 sorcerer casting, medium armor, 4 ASIs, 5 overcharges, extra attack.

A Barbarian(Bear) 10/Fighter(Champion) 10 would have 3 attacks, rage, heavy armor+resist all but psychic, 19-20 crit range.

An EK/Bladedancer has 3 attacks (with 1 a cantrip)+BA attack, L8 wizard casting, 4 overcharges, medium armor.

A Druid(Moon)/Bearbarian 10/10 has CR 3 forms.

A Sorcerer 10/Wizard 10 has L8 casting with 8 overcharges, 10 sorcery points, 5 arcane recovery.

A Warlock 10/Sorcerer 10 has 4 overcharges, 2 L4 short rest warlock slots, L8 sorcerer casting without L4 slots, 10 metamagic.

[Bjarkmundur]

Yeah, 12 really seems to be the sweet spot, at least in terms of getting rid of HP bloat and ridiculous spells.

I'm a little bit underwhelmed regarding implementation, but I guess there isn't much reason to add a custom advancement system. you can just manually hand out the rest of the class and subclass features to your players one at a time, as if they were boons or quest Rewards, or just say "alright, this is were we all multiclass.

If there's anyone who I feel might benefit from a custom advancement system, it's the spellcasters. If number changes and spells are the problrm, can't you just remove high level spells (but still grant high level spell slots) and stop numbers from advancing?

[Yakk]

L 5-6 is L 3 spells, a nice "top off" level.

L 4 spells include Banishment, Dimension Door, Divination
L 5 spells include Teleportation Circle, raise dead, telepathic bond
L 6 spells include contingency, transport via plants, true seeing, commune, etc
L 7 spells include teleport, resurrection, plane shift, etherialness, simulacrum
L 8 spells include earthquake, demiplane, clone
L 9 spells include true resurrection, wish, true polymorph, foresight

If you want a traditional adventuring game with traditional solutions, you want to cap out at L 3 spells, maybe level 4, with at best limited access to higher level stuff. Like, rare individual spell scrolls (not for sale) with a high cost and risk of failure.

The goal I had above (with the hybrid system above) is to stretch out the L 1-8 range a bunch to allow for slower progression, but still with meaningful features and advancement at each level, and having to do a minimal amount of custom home brewing or DM adjudication.

While it is true that you can handle progression by handing out individual boons, that puts extra load on the DM and gives the players less control and understanding of what comes next for their PC.

[Sception]

If you want to push the idea of a big capstone level then you could stop at level 11 but also add in the level 12 ASIs a level early.

Or you could say character who reach the max level get a bonus ASI regardless of class levels, so a multiclass character who might otherwise be shy on ASIs would at least be sure to get one at the end.

[dafrca]

If you want to push the idea of a big capstone level then you could stop at level 11 but also add in the level 12 ASIs a level early.

Or you could say character who reach the max level get a bonus ASI regardless of class levels, so a multiclass character who might otherwise be shy on ASIs would at least be sure to get one at the end.

You bring up an interesting thought, if one is changing the "level cap", why not create their own chart rather than attempt to use the existing chart and find a cut of point?

[stoutstien]

You bring up an interesting thought, if one is changing the "level cap", why not create their own chart rather than attempt to use the existing chart and find a cut of point?

Mostly for familiarity purposes. Players and DMs alike tend to know what E12 would mean because it has a basis on a scale that is understandable and defined. You start rearranging the scale then you might as well write up a whole new system.

[Bjarkmundur]

You bring up an interesting thought, if one is changing the "level cap", why not create their own chart rather than attempt to use the existing chart and find a cut of point?

My thoughts exactly. I kinda started this thread expecting to find one....

[Yakk]

You bring up an interesting thought, if one is changing the "level cap", why not create their own chart rather than attempt to use the existing chart and find a cut of point?
Less work? Having to write new advancement charts for every class sounds like a pain.

[Bjarkmundur]

Less work? Having to write new advancement charts for every class sounds like a pain.

Well..........

[Psyren]

Mostly for familiarity purposes. Players and DMs alike tend to know what E12 would mean because it has a basis on a scale that is understandable and defined. You start rearranging the scale then you might as well write up a whole new system.


Less work? Having to write new advancement charts for every class sounds like a pain.

+1. And all the monsters are already designed roughly in line with the current scale.

[dafrca]

+1. And all the monsters are already designed roughly in line with the current scale.

And yet the call is to change the scale. :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

And yet the call is to change the scale. :smallbiggrin:

The scale hasn't changed as much as the range. The relationship between the PC's level(s) and CR, wealth, and the rest of the metrics are intact.

Epic style games aren't for everyone or every game. Supposedly you wanted a more grim sword and sorcery style game and decide to don't want magic to become too powerful. Using a set level cut off is a quick and easy way to do it.

[Yakk]

Well..........
Oh I get it! It is fun to fiddle.

Just finishing the fiddling and getting a good polish is the less fun part.

[Dark.Revenant]

Yeah, I don't get what the fuss is about. You just begin and end your campaign at the levels you feel are appropriate for it. That's what just about every printed module already does.

[Psyren]

And yet the call is to change the scale. :smallbiggrin:

My point is that you'd have to change both. If you alter the abilities characters get between 1-12, you'd also need to look at the monsters that challenge that range - and if you don't, you run the risk of encounters more easily becoming too trivial or too difficult. That's a lot of work when you can simply just say "you get what you get from 1-12, and we're using monsters from CR 1-15 to challenge that (who are already, for the most part, calibrated to that range.)

[Amnestic]

Yeah, I don't get what the fuss is about. You just begin and end your campaign at the levels you feel are appropriate for it. That's what just about every printed module already does.

Sometimes the story you and your players want to tell will be longer than the levels you're comfortable with. Even if you run a milestone leveling game, that means you're suddenly stretching the distance between levels to an unrewarding degree.

It's something I've given a lot of thought over for one of my games: the players are running through the story of Baldur's Gate 1+2, which means that if they're not level capped they'll be beyond epic level by the time they reach the end of Throne of Bhaal's story. Do I cap it at a certain point for ease of myself, and somewhat my players also? Find alternative progression paths? Pseudo-gestalt leveling? Do I let it go high level? How do I handle it at high level when you've got Wishing/Divine Interventioning getting thrown around?

I don't have to settle on an answer for a good long while, but it's nevertheless something to think about, and I don't think it's 'wrong' to cap it at 11th or 12th level. Whatever works for your players+DM.