Is level 12 the actual capstone of this game?

[Spo]

Been playing for roughly 4 years pretty consistently in various tables/campaigns multiple times a week. Of the dozens of campaign/games I’ve played, I can count on one hand the number of times our party broke level 12 (in one of those games we actually started at level 12).

When reading build guides, I pretty much have stopped reading them when they theorycraft beyond the first dozen levels (it also seems a lot of the written modules I have been exposed to cap at level 12 as well).

I realize it becomes a challenge for dms to run games when characters can do amazing things at high levels (the last several levels of our Mad Mage campaign was nuts).

What percentage of your games continue beyond level 12? What is the secret ingredient that keeps players/Dms interest in going beyond 12 levels with the same characters in the same world?

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's a relatively common thing for published adventures to end at that level and I hear it's a common stopping point (for several reasons) for most groups.

I've had 1 campaign go beyond t3, which I'm a player for. We entered a long hiatus at reaching 19th level and are hopefully continuing near the end of this month.

In my experience, which again is only supported by this one campaign, it takes a long time to reach these higher levels even at the relatively rapid pace it felt like we were leveling. This campaign is slightly over 3 years old, a party member has been married since, another had a child, I moved houses. Life seems to be the biggest obstacle in playing through these later tiers.

Edit: As for why I think we've managed to keep this campaign in our minds despite the hiatus, it's because the DM has done a lot to make our characters feel unique and powerful. He also enjoys running more complex monsters so our characters continue to be challenged despite having abilities well beyond the standard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've not had a campaign end "early" for anything but real life issues. Having groups who work together well and are invested in the setting beyond just the campaign is really the key (speaking as a DM). Nothing else really matters.

[MrStabby]

I think each group is different. I broadly agree with the overarching sentiment, but find the cut-off a bit later. Usually level 13 is kind of OK then level 14 sees a little play then the DM closes the campaign.

But yes, support for higher level campaigns is a bit more limited, exciting new abilities are sparse and honestly the game changes.

Most of my players would rather start a new campaign at level 4 than continue past level 14... so that's what we do.

[Lyracian]

Well the campaign I am running is just reaching the three year mark and the players are level 15. We started with the aim of going to Level 20; I have enough planned out to get 17 and some ideas for Tier 4.

Most of the other games I have played in are based on published modules which end around the 10 to 12 mark.

There is also the issue of just keeping a group running that long. Life changes like marriage ands change stuff. We dropped out of almost all our RPG groups by the time our daughter was 3 as could not keep up with them. A decade later we started to build new gaming groups.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I ran an XP leveling campaign from 1 to 20. The crew was pretty grounded but it worked.

They traded Black Razor for their Wizard's life. We ended up with Lolth and Drzzz't as the bad bad guys. I tell you the party could have taken them but the Bard went Murder Hobo and got sold out by his baby mama's father.

Our player character deaths did slow down after level 12 but Azerak from Tomb of Horrors got a couple.

Every so often you just need a good Lich, Illithilich, or Bard NPC that isn't too dumb not to keep a couple minions about to scare the daylights out of the party.

[Mastikator]

I've had campaigns end at level 5 and oneshots at level 15.

I think the issue with T3 campaigns is that some DMs struggle with upping the stakes, the DMG tells you what the players should be up against at each tier of play and makes it clear that by 11 it should be something equivalent to saving the world, and 17+ it should be saving many worlds. Pulling off something like that can be hard, however the game provides the option for that via tiers of play.

The actual capstone is 20.

[Samayu]

Been playing for roughly 4 years pretty consistently in various tables/campaigns multiple times a week. Of the dozens of campaign/games I’ve played, I can count on one hand the number of times our party broke level 12 (in one of those games we actually started at level 12).

When reading build guides, I pretty much have stopped reading them when they theorycraft beyond the first dozen levels (it also seems a lot of the written modules I have been exposed to cap at level 12 as well).


Same. I've played in two campaigns that went to L16. One was Mad Mage, and the other was a homebrew, where the final boss battle was deity. Only one of us survived, and I wonder if the campaign would have continued if all of us had lived.

[Tanarii]

Yes.

Based on data/feedback that mid-levels were where most folks enjoyed playing, WotC intentionally designed the game to focus on Tier 2 play (which is why it takes the most relative XP to level within). Thats also why their adventure paths are written the way they are. They later claimed they had the data to back up that it was working as expected, most "campaigns" (single party games) do end in low Tier 3.

[Marcloure]

I've had campaigns end at level 5 and oneshots at level 15.

I think the issue with T3 campaigns is that some DMs struggle with upping the stakes, the DMG tells you what the players should be up against at each tier of play and makes it clear that by 11 it should be something equivalent to saving the world, and 17+ it should be saving many worlds. Pulling off something like that can be hard, however the game provides the option for that via tiers of play.

The actual capstone is 20.

The lack of official adventure that goes beyond the 12th level doesn't help in making an example of what a high level campaign should be about. I am a bit out of the loop with the latest modules, but as far as I know, Dungeon of the Mad Mage is the only one that goes all the way to 20, and it doesn't involve saving the world in any way or form.

[animorte]

The lack of official adventure that goes beyond the 12th level doesn't help in making an example of what a high level campaign should be about.
This is where some of the problems are at. It would likely help if they published more high level content, but I kind of understand why they don’t. If the majority of your players don’t get to higher levels for one of many reasons irrelevant to your content (real life stuff), why spend the money on producing it?

[clash]

Anytime I theory craft a character I always look at the build at multiple level anyways regardless of how long the campaign is going but yes many campaigns never go that high.

My general rules:
Concept needs to be online by level 3
Needs to keep up at level 5
Fully realized by level 11
Everything after that is gravy. I rarely plan that until I reach that point.

[animorte]

Anytime I theory craft a character I always look at the build at multiple level anyways regardless of how long the campaign is going but yes many campaigns never go that high.
This is why I think many people are encouraged, with build advice, to build for what seems fun to you along the way, maybe plan a couple levels in advance. You’re never guaranteed to reach that 9th level spell slot (unless it’s a high level one-shot).

[Witty Username]

Let see,
We have 3 games going, 2 on hiatus:
The active 1 started at 4th I think and is currently at 6ish
The two dormant ones:
Started at 2nd level I think and went inactive about 9th level (DM, me, needed to recover from burnout)
And the other actually started at 12th level, and we reached the end of our DMs story arc at 17th level.

I personally think d&d does best at very high level play, and very low level play. Both I feel do the best for player creativity, and get into the things that can't be replicated by other games well.

[Psyren]

I think the "issue," if you can call it that, is that we're spoiled for choice. Generally by 12-14 I'm not only close to the end of the metaplot we've been following for months, I've also pulled off whatever it is my original build idea was intended to do and I'm ready to try one of the myriad other build ideas I have bouncing around. And that number is going to shoot up once OneD&D debuts with new stuff and new versions of old stuff, because I'm confident my group will allow mixing and matching with 5e content for at least the first couple of years.

Sure, I wouldn't mind taking more builds all the way to 20 - but ultimately, I have plenty of fun stopping when the adventure does and moving on. Even if WotC doesn't make as many, I'm sure there are plenty of high-level modules on DMsGuild, or at the very least guidance to juice up a mid-level one within the community.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Being a bit more helpful than my last post, I'm going to reflect on the groups I've had that went through at least T3. Each group is named in setting lore, so those are the names I'll use.

One meta point first--frequency is crucial. A group that plays every week consistently is much more likely to get to higher levels than one that plays irregularly or less frequently. Simple math--the chance of real-world disruption scales with real-world time, not level or sessions played. High frequency risks burnout, but can also help interest stay up if things are moving along. My longest 1-20 took just over a year, playing almost every week (~60 sessions), although my current high-level game will take longer (we're level 15, almost exactly 1 year in, and have ~17 sessions left to 20 based on our leveling pattern of 4 sessions/level).

Catalysts (2015-ish, 4 players): 1-20. Strongly arc-based--there wasn't a "BBEG" of the whole campaign. Instead there were shorter "arcs": ~1-3-ish, 4-6-ish, some intermediate stuff until about 7, then 8-10. Then a single longer arc from 11-18 or so, but with mini-arcs inside of it. Then a short 19-20 romp. Only the 19-20 romp (which is non-canonical in the setting) involved real threats to the world/planes.

Wild Cards (2019-2020, 4 players): 1-16, with some doubling up between 9-12 (a side campaign with different characters). Also quite arc-based. 1-5, 6-9-ish (then a break), then 10-16 pretty straight. This one had more of a running thread throughout, with themes starting early on and the BBEG starting to get involved in the second arc. But it was only tangentially about that until right near the end. The BBEG did want to change the world, so I guess they saved the world?

Enigma (2020-EOY 2021, started with 6 players but 2 dropped by session 2 and one joined, then one dropped at the second arc). Also arc-based. 1-4, then a set of mini arcs through about 6, then 7-8, 9-12, 13-17 and then a couple real short arcs for T4. Mostly character-driven arcs, but with a recurring BBEG defeated by the end of T3. T4 was wrapping up character stuff. No world-ending plots--the BBEG thought he could pull off something big (replacing Death), but would not have succeeded. Would have made a real mess and started a lot of wars if he'd gotten that far, however. Did overthrow a god by getting it to break some rules and then whooping its avatar's behind in public.

Tempus Machina (2022-present, same 4 players as Enigma ended with, started at level 3). Currently level 15. This one has (gasp) also been arc-based, but with a more central Situation to resolve. But lots of pieces. BBEG is a Sealed Evil in a Leaky Can, but there's been a lot of side stuff to get to the point of dealing with it. If the SELC got out, it would be cataclysmic, but they've (spoilers) already mostly ruled out that option unless they try to go big and then fail hard.

I've had...15 other campaigns (not counting non-canonical things and one-shots) in my world. Of those, one ended prematurely due to unanticipated real life stuff (took a month hiatus and then no one responded). All the others were time-boxed to about 12 (short) sessions (ie a school year), which at accelerated leveling got to levels 6-8 most of the time. So far only 3 have started above level 1 that I remember: my current two (Tempus Machina and Half Measures, which is only at about level 5) both started at 3; Southern Heroes (the side quest for Wild Cards) ran 9-12 to give me a chance to plan the next arc for the main group (as well as shift some characters around that had stopped making sense to continue).

So it seems that for me, the secret really is an arc-based structure with at most a loose "BBEG" in the background for most of it. Lotsa side quests, personal missions, all with tiny threads that link back to the main situation. And very little forward planning in any detail--I only really start planning arcs as they're approaching the end of the previous one. And I only know when that is because the timing ends up signaling it. I only do detail planning one session ahead, and tend to look 2 sessions ahead for looser detail. Beyond that? Yeah, not gonna happen. And most of my planning is really worldbuilding. Most of the final details get ad-libbed on the spot in reaction to what people say and do.

[Kane0]

Yes, but actually no.

Real life, the comfort zone and the expectations of published adventures stack the deck against the chances of getting from tier 1 to tier 4 with the one game, but there is nothing stopping you from starting in tier 2, 3 or 4 except inertia.

[Psyren]

Yes, but actually no.

Real life, the comfort zone and the expectations of published adventures stack the deck against the chances of getting from tier 1 to tier 4 with the one game, but there is nothing stopping you from starting in tier 2, 3 or 4 except inertia.

I don't think "nothing except inertia" is entirely fair; if you're relying primarily on official modules/adventures for example, then there are indeed fewer to choose from that start above T1, and fewer still that will get you all the way to T4. Sure you can grab one and crank up all the encounters manually, but one could argue that erodes the primary benefit of using a module in the first place - especially for a sandboxy module where you can't be sure which routes the players will take - meaning you will ideally want to juice up every encounter, even the ones they'll never actually see, just in case. That's a nontrivial amount of work, and that's before we get to other variables like treasure, player attendance, skill level, etc. And all that's just one pillar.

[Kane0]

I don't think "nothing except inertia" is entirely fair; if you're relying primarily on official modules/adventures for example, then there are indeed fewer to choose from that start above T1, and fewer still that will get you all the way to T4. Sure you can grab one and crank up all the encounters manually, but one could argue that erodes the primary benefit of using a module in the first place - especially for a sandboxy module where you can't be sure which routes the players will take - meaning you will ideally want to juice up every encounter, even the ones they'll never actually see, just in case. That's a nontrivial amount of work, and that's before we get to other variables like treasure, player attendance, skill level, etc. And all that's just one pillar.

Yeah thats fair, its slim pickings for official adventures at the upper end of the level range. So thats one avenue that isnt as juicy, but not the only one available.

[Psyren]

Yeah thats fair, its slim pickings for official adventures at the upper end of the level range. So thats one avenue that isnt as juicy, but not the only one available.

Very true - I would suggest to the OP that they do some digging on DMs Guild (or encourage their DM to do so) if high-level campaigns are something they're interested in.

[Arkhios]

"Someone's been playing Solasta: Crown of the Magister, eh?"

Just kidding. While the game above seems pretty good to me (haven't played it further than 4th level yet), there's some truth in this assessment.

If you look at how most classes are designed, they have the majority of their class abilities (including spell slots) at 10th level already.
Especially full-casters have it quite clearly, as the spell slots for 6th to 9th level spells are quite low in number as a whole and individually, and actual class features are few and far between.

In the B/X -version of the game, the base rules only covered levels up to 14th, so it may be intentional legacy to emphasize level progression to a level bit lower than 20, while still keeping the possibility open for higher level progression. Up to 20th level is imho, quite reasonable absolute cap level, though. At that point, most characters should have their maximum hit points at or very close to three digits, and that's a lot.

[Kane0]

"Someone's been playing Solasta: Crown of the Magister, eh?"


Hey now, what level is BG III up to at this point?
Either way, i hope both eventually get into the high levels.

[Arkhios]

Hey now, what level is BG III up to at this point?
Either way, i hope both eventually get into the high levels.

Honestly, I don't know about BGIII. Last time I checked from some wiki (or some such) for details about it, there were information for up to 5th level or so. I haven't bothered with the early access, because I prefer my games as complete as possible :P

[EggKookoo]

In my experience, the game feels different in tier 1 & 2 than it does in tier 3 & 4. Not better or worse, but different. Many players start in tier 1 and enjoy the feeling of power they get as they move through tier 2. Then tier 3 comes and it's just... different. They want that sense of discovery back, so it becomes a choice between moving on through higher levels of a character they feel like they know pretty well, or starting over with something new.

Lower tiers are also easier to DM for most, so the DM is more motivated to let the players start over than to keep coming up with extended content.

Personally, I find the lower tier game more fun, both to run and to play. If I want a superhero game I'll play Champions or something. I like D&D as, I dunno, Conan+ or something along those lines.

[Amnestic]

Hey now, what level is BG III up to at this point?
Either way, i hope both eventually get into the high levels.

It was originally quoted as stopping at 10, but Sven has since said they're going beyond that, so at least 11. People are expecting 12 as the capstone now, with a rough level range of Act 1: 1-5, Act 2: 6-10, and Act 3: 10-12.

Early access is still capped at 5.

[Psyren]

If BG3 does well, it's highly likely that DLC will push it further into T3 if not to T4. Similar to how Neverwinter Nights received DLC that got it to epic.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having groups who work together well and are invested in the setting beyond just the campaign is really the key (speaking as a DM). Regular participation makes a difference as well. I wish I could play my Salt Marsh group once per week, but RL does not allow for that.
Some campaigns end when the DM loses energy.
In my brother's world, they all just leveled up to 12. I have run them through Hill and Frost Giant adventures (TotYP) and have given them hooks into the major political shenanigans going on between the Cloud, Fire and Storm giants for the struggle of who leads giant kind into the future. The captive Storm Giant lady (I made her the daughter of the Storm Giant King who lives under the ocean on the other side of the world where my brother hasn't even created that part of the world yet, we are working on that together) and her rescue was the key to the Frost Giant's adventure. Rather than have them leap right into Fire Giants (brother and I took a while to figure out where they even are in his world) I am doing a few of the candlekeep mysteries as we figure out who is going to show up for the next six months.

Attendance is becoming an issue for a few of the players, and this DM has already told that group that he's about at the end this run ... I need to play my warlock for a while with this group when my brother can DM again. The same players in both campaigns, so once my batteries recharge I can get them up and running at the Fire Giants.

Your ability to avoid DM burnout is impressive. :smallsmile:

[da newt]

I've been playing mostly AL, and we currently have a T3 campaign running (which is rare). As the game gets into the upper levels, it changes some as the power creep can get really aggressive. It gets hard to challenge the party and balance encounters (especially with parties of 6 or 7 PCs) and the written modules are very undertuned. It also gets difficult to get through a module in 3 or 4 hrs, which can make scheduling difficult.

I must admit, I find levels 10-14 to be about my sweet spot. As you go up from there things get too big for my personal taste - I prefer PCs to be special people but not godly powerful.

[Kane0]

If BG3 does well, it's highly likely that DLC will push it further into T3 if not to T4. Similar to how Neverwinter Nights received DLC that got it to epic.

It was an expansion pack, but those are pretty much extinct now.

[Psyren]

It was an expansion pack, but those are pretty much extinct now.

I don't disagree, but my point remains - DLC is how such extensions are delivered now, assuming the game ends up being successful enough to warrant such.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't disagree, but my point remains - DLC is how such extensions are delivered now, assuming the game ends up being successful enough to warrant such.

Larian is more likely to do enhanced editions, a later release that iterates on feedback from the initial release and usually adds a pretty significant amount of content. For d:os 1+2 they were free upgrades as well.

I will say though, Hasbro is likely to have their fingers in the monetization options for the game, a paid expansion is definitely a possibility.

[Psyren]

Larian is more likely to do enhanced editions, a later release that iterates on feedback from the initial release and usually adds a pretty significant amount of content. For d:os 1+2 they were free upgrades as well.

I will say though, Hasbro is likely to have their fingers in the monetization options for the game, a paid expansion is definitely a possibility.

I can't speak for DOS1 as I never played it, but the extra stuff Larian released for DOS2 Definitive didn't have much in the way of additional story iirc. Plenty of QOL (like the new difficulty options and ability to run from fights) and polish, but little to nothing new narratively. So while I give Larian props for releasing that stuff for free, I don't think Hasbro asking them to charge for story DLC would be unfair either.

This is of course all hypothetical though until the game actually comes out.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I can't speak for DOS1 as I never played it, but the extra stuff Larian released for DOS2 Definitive didn't have much in the way of additional story iirc. Plenty of QOL (like the new difficulty options and ability to run from fights) and polish, but little to nothing new narratively. So while I give Larian props for releasing that stuff for free, I don't think Hasbro asking them to charge for story DLC would be unfair either.

This is of course all hypothetical though until the game actually comes out.

DOS1 had a nearly entirely redone closing act. I very rarely make it past act 3 when I replay DOS2 because I prefer modded multiplayer and save files become unstable bordering on unplayable at the end of act 2. I do know a bit of act 3 and 4 received changes and the final encounter is a bit different though, in addition to the significant amount of grab bag content that made some community mods into official add ons.

I don't think it would be unfair either to be clear, it is heavy speculation though, we don't know yet if the narrative will even allow for that kind of extension. If, when the game does release, we learn that the ending is open to that, is say it's a shoe in for it.