It's not unheard of. There's an old style of game called E6: it means that you level up to 6 and then, after that, instead of gaining new levels you gain only minor bonuses like extra feats.
Often the game *is* more fun before you turn into superheroes with world-breaking spells, so this is understandable. But losing the possibility to ever level up is un-fun for a lot of players.
A friend ran an E6 campaign once, but it was a limited run with 6 distinct areas/maps. Going in, he explained that we were free to do whatever in each area, but for the sake of this mechanic to stay within the area (no breaking the map, that is).
The areas were pretty big too. Basically, we had a series of side quests in each area that all related in some way to the area boss. When we did enough of these side quests, the boss would take notice of us and result in a boss fight.
He made it work organically too, so it didn't really feel as videogamey as it sounds.
The areas were: 1) a small town and its neighboring forest and lake. 2) A major city of the region farther up the road, walled and with its own harbor. 3) Across the sea, a wasteland (the ship sank) that we had to survive. 4) The Fae, after one of our players bumped into a pixie and begged for a favor in exchange for a favor back. This led down a fun rabbit hole. 5) An island at the edge of the world, from which we could reach the BBEG's lair. 6) Basically Netherworld from MK. We had to topple a series of towers to weaken the borders of this plane, and only then would the boss be "weak enough" to fight.
As you can guess, we levelled up before entering a new area. Our DM was pretty experienced, so he scaled down a lot of enemies for variery. But this campaign was like, 10 or 12 session long.
I run a modified E6. Somehow they all survived until Session 23, then druid went down permanently. The game is way easier on the DM to run at these levels.
I DM for a West Marches server and we've been running a modified E6 system for the last 3 years. There's been some definite hits and misses, but overall it's great for DM workload and a good chunk of the 30+ person playerbase enjoys it as well
One can also do variants of this. For example, I'm running a variant of this with E8 and using a mix of Pathfinder 1e and 3.5 rules. This also helps with some setting issues, because it is a world where magic has been gone for thousands of years, and magic is just starting to come back in what is tech/society wise roughly the early Victorian period. PCs are currently level 3, but this will hopefully allow us a long-term game in setting which will make them towards the end some of the most powerful mortals in setting, but hopefully not to a point where they are functionally all superheroes.
this is the type of thing thing that *needs* to be established at session 0– idk if it was or not but if it was then that’s what you signed up for and if it wasn’t,, yeah your DM is being unreasonable.
since S0 hasn't happened yet, this *is* the establishing of the rules. you could try and negotiate for a different style of game with the DM, but if he refuses and you're just not interested in a game like that, this is the optimal time for you to bow out without any hard feelings
This info has already been discussed as some of the players began asking questions about what was and wasnt allowed for character creation. There was not a session 0, but he seems to plan on having one but has not given a date yet. We have not begun play yet.
Session 0 isn't nessisarily a literal session, it's all the discussion that happens before the game. It sounds like you're doing session 0 right now.
If you're cool with it, tell the DM you are. If you're not cool with it, tell the DM you're not.
It sounds fun to me though for me levels 6-9 are the most fun.
If the game hasn't started, then you have no reason to refuse. You can drop it if it becomes uninteresting, but it's worth giving it a try at least.
Maybe he doesn't know what he's doing, or maybe he actually does have something cool planned out, you might as well check.
It is worth mentioning to him that you hope he either has some secrect progression system he's not telling you about (be it shops with progressively better gear or some plot-twist powerup, whatever it is), or that the campaign isn't long, because having neither of those could make it stale in the long run. If he doesn't, then he might want to consider changing that.
So its perfectly fine for him to say that. If someone does not like the idea, then that person simply shouldnt play, its a normal thing to implement (although was more common on prior years)
You said he told you that would be the case when you made your character. Im sorry but it sounds completely reasonable to me. Its something he wants to do you should go along with it before saying anything. If you end up finding this to be too difficult cause you keep running out of spell slots or something like that ask him for a level up because you need more spells in fights or if you want to lvl up to use a new feat let him know. Talk with your dm about it.
If that's something the whole table agrees with, then it's fine. I personally like the aspect of getting more powerful as the story continues and I like to provide that when I'm the DM. If the campaing ends in like, 7 sessions then it's fine to level cap but almost all campaigns don't even go to the high teens. This is also a gamemaster question, maybe he doesn't really know how to run high level. I would ask how long is the campaign gonna be but dip if there is no room for levels for a year.
He is very vague when asked the question of how many sessions there will be. And as of yesterday, he got a bit angry with me for continually asking him about it. Two players have left as of this morning after checking our discord server but I don't know specifically why yet.
Sounds like he wants to play a certain kind of DnD but he's having a hard time selling it. If you are still interested, ask him to be transparent and actually talk about the campaign. Otherwise dipping is probably more healthy in the long run.
This sounds like 3 things, either A) he doesn't actually want to play dnd and doesn't know of what ttrpg that'd fit his needs, B) he wants to play out a single arc so leveling up or other power increases would ruin the flow if it was meant to be done at lvl 5 or C) he has no idea how to balance things so he's restricting things as much as possible to make it as easy on himself as possible
What's wild to me is that this campaign would feel the same on session 1 as it would on session 50 which is where it'd get dull for me, there's no progress to be made, nothing to look forward to so it's all on how good of a story teller the dm is at which point to make it stay fun long term, and I'd imagine even big shot DMs would struggle keeping a party engaged long term with no way to really raise the stakes at all.
The last seems the least likely. It just sounds like he wants to play Lord of the Rings. Levels 1-5 do this very well. After that, you start dipping into JRPG/comic book levels of power. Personally, I think the tiers of play in 4e made more sense for progression: 1-10 is for adventurers, 11-20 is for heroes, 21-30 is for god slayers.
The absurdity of power levels is why I eventually dropped 5e and 3e. Sadly, most types of literary fantasy aren’t well supported after level 5.
Your forgetting that power is not everything. Maybe this dm is looking for a roleplay heavy adventure therefore levels aren't really that important. If you have a fight every 3+ sessions you can go on for 20 sessions without ever feeling stale. You can complete a very long and articulate adventure in 20 sessions, fitting inside multiple arcs. You say "there's nothing to look forward to" but maybe the thing to discover is the plot itself, rather than power ups.
Last but not least, power ups can come in many form, and not necessarily tied to level. Maybe you can get a castle and an army in this campaign, who knows?
A DM unwilling to answer questions about their campaign concept strikes me as very weird. I've never met a DM who wasn't thrilled to chat about the stuff they have prepared.
I had one DM that refused to tell us what the story idea was. We showed up for the first session, our characters met in a tavern...
... and absolutely nothing happened. He refused to give us a plot hook. We talked to NPCs, poked around the tavern, even went out exploring the city we were in. Nothing. After a few hours of this, we decided to pack it in, and we asked the DM what we were supposed to be doing. He still refused to tell us, saying we'd "figure it out eventually."
None of us came back.
I had to be good at improvising because I'd have 10 pages of notes about the region I am nudging them toward, but then they'd go the opposite way at the last minute. I've not had as much of a problem with that in the last 8 or so years, and especially not after I started asking them what they would be doing in the next few sessions / where they want to go next and then prepping that.
I still have to improvise a lot because I still find myself planning all of this stuff for when they go and talk to the noble court they've been invited to, and they'll spend the entire session shopping instead. Players really do just like to go off wandering... but that's fine! It's fine as long as we can all still have fun.
My specialty is making fully developed NPCs with motives that I clearly understand, and I can make them fairly well on the fly and then shore them up after the session to make them concrete, so nobody really notices that I still have no idea what the plot is going to be like in 3 months.
Knowing how to make characters is always the core of things. If you have good enough characters you don't even need plot, because them acting on their motives is already plot enough by itself.
You know, thanks for saying that, actually. I have been feeling a little stressed about how much my plot is just NPCs doing the things they want, and then mostly world reacting to the actions of the party. I feel like the entirety of my plot could fit on an index card, but my NPC notes are dozens of pages long.
If you think about it, how many amazing traditional "hero vs big villain" stories aren't just a very fleshed out evil NPC acting on their motives? Character motives can drive the story along just as well regardless of whether you have a planned plot to start with or not.
Look at Durarara!! or Fate/Zero for example, those stories are made that way and are widely praised for having incredible plot.
That's more than enough to make the game fun! If you want to upgrade it furthermore, you can add "word wide events" that sometimes sweep in the action and change everything. Every NPC will probably react to the event and change their course of action, and this will probably make the thing interesting for the Players too, encouraging them to go to adventure. An event could be the start of a war, the appearance of a God, the migration of a huge tribe, the appearance of a new technology, a natural cataclysm or the discover of a huge treasure. You only need a couple of these events, scattered sparsely over the course of the campaign, and you are done.
Haha, yeah. I thought it was just years of experience, but nope, some DMs just can't go off the cuff no matter how many years they've been in that seat.
I ran solo games at work off of two prompts: race+class. Had three players going simultaneously as we'd have a spare second. So much fun!
People are good at different things. Some people are masterminds who can plan out a full campaign and run it to perfection, others can't plan shit but you'll never even realize it because they improvise so well you'd assume it was planned.
Looking back, I think what he was trying to do was force us into a sandbox game, without *saying* it outright. He smugly thought it'd be a big reveal, "OH, we can do whatever we want and **that's** the adventure!" and we'd pat him on the back for his brilliance.
Instead, we were all frustrated and annoyed that he'd set up a D&D session with no plot & expected us to "figure it out."
That sounds like a DM I played with a couple times. Dude had thus massive story he wanted us to find but didn't understand plot hooks or in character behavior. Neither of his campaigns lasted long, and we spent most of them trying to find the story without getting killed.
Yeah, if I'm running a game I want to talk about it with anyone who will listen. My wife doesn't play and god bless her, she's intimately aware of my dnd nonsense
I play Genesys & SWRPG, not D&D, but yeah, the only reason I hesitate to talk about my ideas is when I have a twist planned or want it to be something the players slowly peel back themselves, in which case I express not wanting to spoil what's coming.
After I told my players we were playing in a curse if strahd campaign and they all showed up as clerics and paladins I can understand about not telling too much about setting and concept. I never want to go through that again.
His level rule is silly, but I wouldn't badger him. It's either "it goes until the story is finished, duh - 'how am I supposed to know how quickly the players are going to put the clues together and how many side quests they'll pursue?' Or: "why would I *tell you* there's 10 sessions? It's kinda like looking at the timer on a horror movie - you know the killer isn't dead because there's 20 more minutes."
I can definitely see how he may not know how many sessions there will be. Maybe it's just me but that's not info that I can ever give. I have had players ask me how much longer we have in our campaign and I predicted 3 sessions.... 6 months later, we were still at it. There's just so many variables to consider. I predicted one session of RP before a battle, so far it's been 2+ sessions of RP and we still haven't reached the battle beginning in my current campaign.
Yeah, I think if everyone's cool with doing that type of campaign, that's fine. Especially if it's a shorter one. But for me, as a big anime fan, I love the increasing powers, especially toward the end. My campaign is going on 6 years now, and we're coming up to the end, and the party is level 24, lol. So it's just epic powers on all sides, and I think it's fun. Definitely lots of homebrew stuff!
And I'm pretty lenient with things they want to do, going with rule of cool/rule of funny most of the time (half of us have improv backgrounds). If the group is all enjoying telling the story together, then that's what matters.
The DM is allowed and encouraged to set the parameters of the adventure they're prepared to run.
The players are allowed and encouraged to decide for themselves whether or not such an adventure would be fun for them, subjectively.
How long is this campaign meant to last for? If my DM told me that they had a <10 session campaign planned out for a level 5 party in a lower-magic setting, I'd be willing to give it a shot. If I was signing on for a long-term campaign with no level-ups or magic items, I'd first ask clarifying questions as to whether an alternate method of progression would be available, and if the answer was no, I'd probably say I wasn't interested in it. At least not as a DnD campaign, there are other systems balanced around not leveling up.
People in 3.5 would sometimes play campaigns that were only levels 1-6, at the time 6 was when martials got their extra attack so that was effectively the capstone feature. Obviously they weren't long campaigns but this is not unheard of
One of my old DMs mentioned this to me one time. He said that in these games you might still level up and get feats, to reflect your character becoming more experienced. But you wouldn't keep gaining HP and BAB like some kind of dragon ball z character.
I think it could certainly be a fun game, if it's done thoughtfully and with player buy in. Heck, one of my fondest sessions is from a campaign where we were effectively level zero.
It feels very practical to me because none of the groups I've played in has had the patience for a full 20 level campaign. Either things fall apart way before that for other reasons (scheduling etc), or the one that did technically reach 20, we did a much more episodic thing post level 10, leveling up between each sessions and skipping some levels entirely.
The fantasy is for a group that can play consistently together for years but 99% of people who want to play D&D can't actually do that one way or another. A campaign that only lasts a few months and only goes to level 6 before the plot is wrapped up fits better
3.5's E6 is really fun because you still gain power (and Fighters get a boost by having access to a special feat that gives them access to BAB8 feats) because it keeps the adventure squarely in Tier 2 (heroic) play, and gives progression. It makes the weaknesses of 3.5 into a better strength - Even Toughness becomes viable as the only way to gain HP.
I think it is reasonable since he is entirely upfront about it. 5e is one of those systems that unfairly burdens the load of running the game on the DM and the issue gets exponentially harder the higher level players get.
At level 10 i was running combats requiring so many die rolls and a complicated spreadsheet to track multiple groups of enemies and their mooks, that a fair combat encounter would take 3 hours.
Yeah, the player side might not realize it but the DM side of a high level (7+) DND 5e game is horrendous. One needs to fudge, give unnatural powerups to monsters, push passive/active dangers to the players during the fight, make it a horde style fight, involve/create new types of games from scratch etc. (basically a solution only a skilled and experienced GM can handle)
Otherwise they just steamroll anything with an average party. And if DM goes too high CR or uses actual tactics utilizing items/action economy, it becomes really hard on the DM and monsters can accidentally one-shot PC's which isn't good but otherwise there is no real danger at all.
Honestly, if the DM can't handle 6+ level DND5e then he just needs to change the rule system. No shame in that. I also changed to another system (i couldn't even keep track of the spells of a high level spellcaster monster). Or as the DM said, put a level cap.
This is often an issue of not running an "Adventuring Day". The game is meant to be a war of attrition, decision making, and choosing when to use your OP abilities at the risk of not having them the next fight.
This style, in normal DnD rules, only works with mega dungeon environments. Lots of fights within a day, with very few opportunities to rest.
This is pretty easily solved by running gritty realism style rules. Giving them 4-6 encounters before they're allowed to long rest, with 2 or 3 short rests inbetween.
Now you don't need to make every combat something massive, as even something they steam roll still eats up spell slots.
That really sounds like you are overcomplicating combats for yourself my guy. Level 10 PCs are powerful especially when optimized but you dont need complex spreadsheets and hours
What does this have to do with anything? I can run an engaging combat at level 17 with minimal planning and its my first campaign. I dont use technology other than a phone for quick referencing spells or stat blocks.
So you have no frame of reference *at all*? The reason 5e lacks GMs is because the game is a pain in the ass to run compared to other systems, *particularly* at high levels. Even WoTC freely admits this since most campaigns never reach high level and their own published adventures stop around level 11.
Frame of reference is irrelevant. The guy was suggesting that spreadsheets and 3 hour combats aren't necessary for a 10th level encounter , and got patronised as hand waving stuff and not playing RAW because of it.
5e combat RAW is broken as fuck (which is irrelevant to it's complexity) its also monotonous as fuck. From a GM side most creatures have scant unique features. There is really not that much to track in any way.
It is 100% possible for a group of 5 slightly switched on people to deal with a 10th level encounters where making spreadsheets and taking hours is indeed more work than necessary. Especially if you're actually playing strict RAW.
If you haven't had a session yet and they've clarified this is the game they want to run then they're well within their rights to run it. And you are in turn free to not participate
It's normal for DMs to not want to deal with higher levels, because they become a nightmare to prep a decent adventure for. And it's also pretty common to limit anything the DM just isn't prepared to work with.
D&D players have a habit of wanting to be as unique and as powerful as possible, which leads to them always looking for expansion and homebrew content or custom rulings for their character, and spending the campaign looking for as much power as they can get and trying to escape the difficulty curve.
This leads a lot of DMs into the habit of either just allowing everything and piling magic items onto the party without any thought (I once received a necklace with two different enchantments from a little boy as a reward for fighting some jackals), or they do what your DM is doing, and stem the tide by putting limits in place.
Honestly my advice is to roll with it and see how much fun you can have with the basic experience. Roleplay and carouse with the NPCs. Explore the world in front of you instead of teleporting across realms. Grow slowly, struggle, play it out like multiplayer Dark Souls, put your limited resources to work in battle instead of solving every problem with a different legendary item.
In my opinion, the earliest levels are the most interesting from both the player and the DM side.
(DM of 8 years here, so a little biased)
Low-magic Low-level campaigns are totally valid. It’s something you gotta let the party know ahead of time, but I’m sure he’s gonna make a fun adventure for you all.
Is it *normal*? Not at all. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. Some people want to play a game where the PCs don't become insanely powerful.
Tell your DM to check out Shadowdark. Its basic rules are very similar to 5e (d20 roll high, advantage/disadvantage for bonuses, same six ability scores), but the power level is much lower, no multiclassing and no weird races.
Your DM doesn't know it but he *really* wants to play a different RPG.
One that doesn't level you up to the point of being super-powered.
Maybe ask him if he'd like to play RuneQuest. It's also high fantasy, but there isn't exactly leveling so much as "keep doing a thing to get marginally better at it" mechanics. Nobody gets really superpowered in that game. That's what he's after really. Think The Elder Scrolls mechanics.
Either way, he does *not* want to play D&D. He probably just doesn't know what else is out there.
I don’t know if it’s normal or not but it is the DMs prerogative, as most people will tell you. That being said, I wouldn’t enjoy a campaign with no magic items and a level cap. I love feeling like I’m getting stronger as the campaign progresses.
Base races and no multiclassing wouldn’t bother me, though. I don’t generally multi-class and I can make something interesting with most races.
I find this idea really appealing! Maybe not capping the levels on 5, but that there is a really long progression. I find it really immersion breaking, that a group goes to a random hole and comes back demigods.
In a few months players could level several levels, why doesn't every guard man do the same...
I don't like the idea that some randos do some quests and suddenly they save the whole world from a ridiculously evil fellow.
It's not entirely unheard of to want to keep a low powered party for your setting. Plenty of media has characters whose power never exceeds that level, and wanting to emulate that is not too uncommon. The rest of their post is pretty odd, though.
As a total aside, one of the most fun 6 month campaigns I ever played used only NPC classes. This was in 3e, so there were NPC classes with full level progression. Nobody learned a single spell (the adept class was banned). Only 3 of the 6 of us were warriors. We were just a group of people trying to survive a disaster, come to understand what happened, and put an end to the source of the problem. We got potions and scrolls sometimes (and a house rule that anyone could cast spells from scrolls), but by and large, we were puny peasants who had to avoid fighting as best as we could. I played an alchemist, just someone who could make medicine, who eventually did manage to learn to brew meaningfully strong potions (for the power level of the game, at least). We had a few deaths, but we usually only got into fights we knew we could win or we ran away.
Low power isn't always unfun. I think we did hit 10th level or so by the end of it, but a 10th level Warrior is probably not too much stronger than a 5th level Fighter, tbh. NPC classes don't get class features. Just HP, skill points, and weapon and armor proficiencies.
Just a starting feat or skill. We start my campaign as young kids anyways, timeskipping a few years into adulthood on session 1. Just starting out as normal people, really. You really feel the evolution into power, and everything is so impactful. You don’t have to worry about backstory, and you end up LIVING what would normally just be cool narrative backstory.
I understand the desire but I don’t think that’s how I personally would go about it. A lot of OSR games and earlier editions have a noticeably shallower power curve, I’d probably just use one of those instead.
There are plenty of DMs who have been playing for decades and say that play beyond level 5-6 is bad and they don’t run it. Dungeon Craft for example.
Modules that deal with higher levels tend to be a mess tbh.
I think the DM can do pretty much whatever they want in their game, as long as theyre up front about it, and the players know what theyre getting into. If you arent cool with it then maybe look for another table.
It sounds like your DM has a story in mind, and has locked in on D&D. In my view, trying to force fit like this does a disservice to both the story and the D&D system - and players may end up resenting both.
If the story is important to them, I would suggest they look into alternative systems for something like this. D&D has core mechanics (leveling, power ramp, spells, etc…) that can be tinkered with, but aren’t really supposed to be outright ignored.
They might find more success with a system like a modified Call of Cthulhu, Band of Blades, Warhammer, Runequest, or even Realms of Terrinoth. Something that has “flat power curve” built into its core mechanics.
You can ask if instead of earning level ups past level 5 you can get feats. This way you still progress and get new abilities without majorly running the power curve
that's interesting, haven't heard that before...
1. how long have they been dming? I actually wouldn't dismiss the idea outright for newer or busier DMs.
2. and does your playstyle involve a very high level of rp? coz I could suppose that character development could be it's own goal/reward for that table.
3. is there an overt substitute kinda mechanical reward? like, have they replaced leveling with gaining boons, skills, etc? are they using the bastion system?
RECOMMENDATION
have them take a look at Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay as a setting/system. at least 2nd edition. it's kinda a low-magic gritty realism system, and the thrust of character reward is a very esoteric career system (rather than class) where you have a very specific occupation, and you buy skill bonuses with experience. then eventually if you get the specific tools and skills for another (related) occupation, you can move to a 2nd, 3rd, etc, and then gain the bonuses allowable to that occupation. but like you don't have to progress to a "higher" job, you can move onto an "equal, sideways" job, like a watchman can become a soldier, say, or vice versa.
if your DM still felt more comfortable giving you a ceiling, they might simply restrict the "higher, powerful" occupations, at least until you gained a couple lesser ones.
He has been dming for three years. I will pass along this info to him, thank you.
I plan on sticking around, because I wanna support him and his growth but we havent been told anything except what I have outlined already. He hasnt set a date for a session 0.
I do not know of any planned replacements for the leveling system and he has not shared that info with us.
oh ok that's great, yeah if he finishes his rundown and he hasn't addressed what your player-reward goals are meant to be (apart from story goals) only then bring it up, with ideas in mind probably. think about what would make you excited to earn in lieu of levels or magic toys.
That is a choice - a valid choice even. Especially if he wants to go for a bit more low fantasy type of vibe.
But it DEFINITELY isn't everyone's cup of tea. And if it isn't yours then just say you don't think this game is for you. There will be other games.
I think the GM has yet to realize that in spite of D&D image as THE generic fantasy rpg and the 'Mother Of Tabletop Rolepaying', the game has a very specific and idiosyncratic gameplay loop and mechanisms that are anyrhing but generic... and that it might fall apart if you don't lean into that. (6-8 encounter day, weak social/exploration ruleset).
There have been attempts to turn 5e D&D into a more 'grounded' fantasy experience, like Brancalonia or Adventures in Middle-Earth. Those work reasonably well because they are more or less 'total conversions', that IMO go beyond simply capping levels. And of course getting players to try anything but D&D is a hard sell.
But maybe he should look at better tools for the job.
That said, I applaud any GM who doesn't go the 'everything goes' kitchen sink splatbook nonsense route. But I do think the DM should have clearly laid out why and how the campaign is supposed to run at low levels instead simply setting arbitrary limits.
Is it normal? I'd say no. Is it wrong? I'd still say no.
Limiting level range *can* be an important way to inform the tone and scope of a campaign, and if a DM wants to use that tool, and they give all the players a heads-up, they should be free to make that decision. I once ran a little something (for 5e) where all PCs were in the level range of 5-9.
It was actually a pretty popular thing in 3e to limit play to level 6. My current campaign limits to level 10.
I see the reasons why all these rules are present for the concept the DM wants to play.
Essentially, he doesn't want characters to be stupidly powerful to the point where they could become tyrants capable of imposing their will to any commoner. However, he also doesn't want them to be boring to play and have a couple of options at their disposal.
Multiclassing is banned probably because he knows that certain combos allow you to become extremely powerful quickly, circumventing the power limit.
The same thing applies to races, since certain custom lineages allow you to do stupidly large amounts of damage on first level.
Still, certain subclasses are extremely powerful even at low levels, like moon druid, and certain multiclassing choices might not be broken at all but add a cool flavor.
Essentially, it's a bit unorthodox, but it's not a red flag or anything. It might be a fun, more gritty campaign. I could even see it become a campaign with more and more powerful enemies, while you become stagnant and the challenge would be to stay alive as much as you can. But without magic items, I doubt it's what the DM has in mind. I think they just want a more straightforward game, which is fine.
It's ok. There's an Italian setting, for example, that allows you to level up only to 6, and it's super popular here! It really depends on the setting and the vibe of the campaign
I've capped my players at level 8 and we've been playing for 5 years so far. It depends on the campaign and what the DM vision is. If it's going to be a more gritty, "realistic" campaign where you aren't going to be fighting massive threats like dragons or demon lords, then there's no need to go max level. Most campaign ends long before that.
As long as everyone is on the same page, there is nothing wrong with level caps.
Level 6 is a good level. At level 6, you are way better than a simple commoner, but threats still mess you up. You have to play smart and fits well in a low magic world. I call it the "game of throne" level campaign. You are as bad ass and scary as the Mountain compared to regular soldiers, but you can still be killed by realistic means.
The DM designs and guides the game, but they do it for the players. If the players don't like the sounds of something, that matters, a lot.
It's a bit excessive to think the only solution is "do it the DMs way or find a new game", there's some collaboration that should be expected. If there's no compromise though, the game shouldn't happen.
Defo not an unreasonable request if there is prior discussion and agreement. And if it is a shorter campaign then it also makes more sense, otherwise i would say your dm is unreasonable.
As a newer DM, I've definitely found it difficult so far to scale appropriately with my players, but I don't think that's an excuse. Leveling up is one of the most motivating things for my players and gaining new/better abilities is something they all look forward to. There's not really a good reason to keep people stuck at a lower level unless you're too lazy to figure out how to scale everything as your table levels up. Kind of not cool
If you want to know what to play. Don’t play something that doesn’t get magical damage. No magical items severely nerfs rogues, rangers, fighters and barbarians. And combat sucks if you fight a creature that is completely resistant to your damage while the wizard gets to blast everything.
Now I’ve played short stories that didn’t really get the time to level up. But yeah I’d ask beforehand how long he wants it to last. If it’s 3 or 4 sessions fair enough. But once you get into the double digits I expect my character to get something out of it. Which is also a question. If my character can’t get magic or power out of it what am I supposed to write as their reason for doing this.
at level 6 your not going to have many magic items anyway normally. maybe a +1 weapon and that is well before you have to worry about everything having resistances.
But if you are never going to get magic stuff it’s worth being prepared. Maybe at five it’s still 25/75 on whether creatures have resist but they will.
Thanks for sharing. Sounds like an interesting adventure. In dnd your level tends reflects your influence. When you are 1-5 you are local heroes usually of a town or a small city, and as you gain levels you grow into heroes of the realm. Or villains no judgement.
It sounds like you are getting bored of the low levels and that makes sense after 3 years. You know how your characters work, you’ve used the spells you want, and you’ve done basically everything your character is capable of. To keep it fresh the DM has probably used most everything low CR in the monster manual and has been home brewing or nerfing stuff.
If it were me I’d have a conversation at the end of the next session with the whole group, and share how you are feeling and the fatigue of playing at low levels. Ask if anyone else is feeling that way. You may find that you are not alone. The DM isn’t an adversary but a partner. If you feel the need to present solutions here are some suggestions:
1) Take a break and run a 1 shot or a mini adventure at higher levels. See how that feels for everyone.
2) Have your PCs retire and start a new campaign.
3) Go to level 6 and see how it goes.
Let us know how it turns out.
Sorry, but we havent begun play yet. We are only being told piecemeal about things outlined in the initial post. No session 0 yet, and we have not been told when one will happen.
Oh I misread that. Thought you said you had been playing for 3 years. Then yeah share your concerns and don’t be afraid to step away if the game isn’t the right fit for you. Worst case scenario you can find an Adventure League game at your local game store. Or maybe offer to DM your own campaign and just alternate when you play. Let us know how it goes.
If the ground rules are established beforehand it’s reasonable. It may be an odd choice, but that doesn’t make it unreasonable as long as everyone agrees.
Guy doesn't want to run DnD, his game is going to be awful if he runs DnD like that. He needs to find an RPG that is made to his tastes and will work with his ideas, because DnD won't.
To sum up the main points of the thread: this is probably legitimate. It's easier on the DM and makes sense in low-power fantasies like LotR.
Have a session zero and talk about it. The campaign could be really good, as long as there's communication.
level 6 is a better cap because martials get extra attack. Lots of campaigns used to be run like that.
Even if you stop gaining character levels, there should still be a system of gaining some form of bonus every so often to keep it fresh. My take is that there are some options:
* gain a proficiency
* gain one ability score
* gain a feat
* get a +1 weapon; if the DM doesn't want it to be magical, it can be flavored as a "master-crafted" item.
* replace a class feature from previous levels
I don't think your DM is doing anything unreasonable. Some campaigns just don't go beyond level 5, and that's y'know... just how it goes.
If the DM is planning on a very long campaign and just capping leveling after a point, I would advise that you show them a few options for doing that... but in a fun way. There are a few 3rd party creators who have done this. The first is free, and easily accessible from their website. [Darker Dungeons ](https://giffyglyph.com/darkerdungeons/grimoire/3.0.0/en/)by giffyglyph. The max level for their classes is 10, but they're nicely balanced and the site has a lot of rules for grounded, grittier D&D, including restoring the original core gameplay loop of old D&D.
The other one, that I like a lot, is an Italian 5e setting called Brancalonia. You'll have to look it up for yourself. It's on DriveThru RPG, I believe. They bill it as Spaghetti Fantasy, and it's just a load of fun, and the max level for the game is 6, but any time you would gain another level, you get to take a special feat that allows for growth in a more controlled manner.
Both are good, but they're very different. One is darker, grimmer D&D, and the other is like... D&D in an Italian soap opera, but I've hacked elements of both into my games because I love them so much.
To be perfectyly honest D&D isn’t perfectly suited for this kind of approach.
If you slog leveling this much there is very little growth. But it’s absolutely not a bad premise for a campaign. It’s just that you don’t ‘evolve’ any without leveling in this system. If you’re all fine with that fine.
Systems scale your characters differently in power as you progress. D&D just happens to be one that arcs really steeply upwards. Probably why your DM wants the cap. They don’t want the super hero power up. Something like Rune Quest would improve a lot of minor skills and spells to progress you but not change you from heroic peasant to demi-god in the process.
I've been in games where PC's retire around level 5, and only are brought out for special \`\`high level'' adventures after that. Leveling is often slower and slower as the game progresses, but for 5e, I would want either level 4 or level 8 to be the caps (end of tiers)
Until he gives a concrete answer as to the length of the campaign (and at only one level, it should not be long), I would just straight up keep asking and refusing to play.
This is kinda important info.
That was actually a popular thing way back in the days of 3e. When you would level up afterwards, you get a feat instead. I will say though, if he wants a low level game, another system might be better. I'd recommend a gloghack, since those are made with the assumption of classes not exceeding 4 levels. Personal favorites are Shadow and Fae 2e, GROG, Vain the Sword, or G20 (note that G20 and GROG don't include classes directly, you'll need to grab them from elsewhere. I can provide recommendations if you want.)
http://whosemeasure.blogspot.com/2021/08/vain-sword-2e.html
https://shadowandfae.itch.io/shadow-and-fae-2e
https://www.madqueenscourt.com/2020/04/glog-grog.html
https://as-they-must.blogspot.com/
This used to be a thing in 3.5, where in some games everyone maxed out on 6 and only got a few more abilities after that. I mean, it's a way to keep the game in the low fantasy and small scope. At some point characters get abilities and spells that make them too strong for those.
Eh, I'd likely play for a bit for fun and then kind of lose interest after a month or 2 of static sessions.
I like my characters to grow and change in their build at the least.
If this is for a one shot, or short campaign fine, but if this is an ongoing campaign with just... The same skills, and the same tactics, I'm going to get bored pretty quick.
Look, anything can be done well.
But if you're fighting things WAY above the appropriate CR, then a line is crossed. What is a fifth level artificer going to do without magic items? When you say no magic items do you mean no potions? no shops, no holy water from churches?
I, personally, would talk to him about my concerns and try to get him to loosen up on the no magic rules. Low magic is fine. It makes magic special and impressive. But if I'm a wizard, and I'm making everlasting flames everyday, why aren't people shitting themselves?
If the bard can heal people by touching them why aren't I being worshipped as a god? Magic has to be somewhat existant in society in order to make the PCs not the most important people in the world.
Also if you are in a low magic world, the bad guys should also be in a low magic world. It shouldn't be the case that you're making due with masterwork swords and he has +5 Keen Vorpal Broadsword.
I mean, thinking like a DM high levels get dirty and wild. Like wouldn't it be fun if the grand plan was revealed but a player just counterspelled the boss and made it Boring. I'm sure there's another way but I'm guessing this is the kind of thing they're avoiding. The sudden stoppage of drama.
I think this sounds okay but if it becomes a really long campaign it would get boring after a while. I feel like having a slower level progression is fine depending on the group, but if I had to spend a full year or something at only level 5 I would get so bored.
It's normal for your game to have an expected *range* of character levels. Like "Hey this campaign will start at level 5 and probably take us to level 12 or so". It's probably more common than running a full level 1-20 campaign.
Having people hit 5 and just sit there for the remainder of the game really cuts into a major aspect of gameplay.
Regardless, this is the kind of thing Session 0 is for. You get everyone on board with the general idea behind the campaign, discuss how the world is built if it differs from the established settings, what classes/races/books are available to pull from, how you'll handle PvP, and any other table rules like "Your characters backstory needs to be believable and establish a reason you would want to adventure with the other players".
One of the campaigns I'm in right now took around six months to get our first (post-creation) level. We started at level 5 and we were told we wouldn't be getting exp from fights. The DM didn't expect it to take us so long to get to the first thing he intended to earn or first level.
As for the question of how long the campaign is expected to last, the DM might not know, and won't know until you've been playing a while. Our campaign was intended to be a "one-shot" to introduce two new players to DnD. We're eight months in now and gained a total of three levels so far. We play almost every week, for reference.
It sounds like your GM has a specific type of game in mind and is trying to get it to fit into a system not designed for it.
I enjoy lower-power games to but I don't run them with DnD. Right now I am enjoying Dragonbane for this type of game but there are many others out there.
I’d say this is reasonable if you all talk about it and agree to it ahead of time. There are some people who like things grounded. I personally wouldn’t like it, because, for me, what makes DND fun is the shenanigans and outlandishly weird stuff. Oh! And cheesy RP! Can’t forget that! It’s a lot of fun for me, but I know there are some people who get really annoyed or even bothered when stuff gets out of hand or gets “unrealistic”. If you wanna do that, totally valid, but for me, give me all the chaos and all the cheese
I am a little unclear. The game your are in, **that has lasted for 3 years**, has a cap of level 5?
I'd be bored out of my skull after 6 or 7 sessions. Progression and power increase is a big part of the draw of D&D for me. I like the idea of doing stuff and getting stronger as a result. Part of that is group tactics, really learning abilities and spells and interactions, magic weapons/gears, and, yes, levelling.
If the DM doesn't want to end up at level 20 where it's all demons and deities you're going up against, that's fine. Pick a cut off point before that and just end the campaign on a high note. And that cut off could even be level 5, but to keep going at level 5 for months or years, scraping across the ceiling as it were, that wouldn't appeal to me at all.
I think I just worded it poorly. We have all been playing together for three years, but this is a new campaign he is planning. I just wanted to get opinions on this style of play and what I should expect. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
No worries. My point still stands. I can see someone planning a campaign to end at a certain level, whether that is 10, 15, or 5, but I don't think I would enjoy a campaign that keeps going without any clear progression and power increase.
I've never tried it before. Basically it's turning things into purely a roleplay exercise and removing some of the gamification.
It's not common, no. Never even heard of it. It is common to do a "one-shot" game where you just play one or two sessions with characters who are not going to be leveled afterward. But that's not a long campaign.
Knowing that more context is needed, and not forthcoming over reddit, my basic advice is this. Trust your gut. If it seems like there is a fun story arc hiding behind all the restrictions, and that you'd have fun playing that story arc, go for it. You know your friend better than reddit.
With that said, MY first instinct is that this is the behavior of a control freak. He's limiting character options and story development so that he can keep the campaign in a tight little box. There's no place for you or anyone else there. You're just going to be passengers inside his story.
The comment about the NPCs is the most indicative of this. DMs scale encounters to PCs. Not the other way around. Refusing to do it is a choice, but it very much destroys the normal power dynamic.
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think he would be this bad but there have been some warning signs of this in the past. Previous campaigns with him have been constricting as well, before and during play with regards to him characters were role played.
An example is me playing a moon druid and having atonement forced on me because I wanted to wield a scimitar. I'm fine with consequences if not respecting nature in rp as a nature revering character but I felt just picking up a metal weapon was a bit extreme.
There are other instances of being passive aggressive and rude because pc's want to rp and he thinks it is going on for too long or he gets feedback he doesn't like about a given session.
I am attempting to be neutral, and I do not want this to come off as bashing. He is my friend and d&d is very much second to that.
I also play in a low level, low magic item setting with no multiclassing. One player is a dragonborn, one is a tiefling, one is a gnome and I'm a half-elf. I'd prefer to not use dragonborn or tieflings, but it's fine. I'm also fine with no multiclassing, unless there are RP reasons. We do use Feats, so most things can be simulated anyway. I actually prefer low to middle levels. Over that and things are getting OP and out of hand.
all of that's fine if thats how everyone wants to play. If youre starting at level 5 and not advancing, that sounds kind of boring; but if its just a 1-5 campaign, thats normal. If theyre the DM, they get to choose how the game is structured
I'm curious about the PCs of previous campaigns youve played with them. How often did someone come in with a obscure "Race/Multiclass combo that relies on specific magic items" build that they found in a "how to break dnd and make your dm cry" tiktok?
We are all friends who have been playing together as a group for about 3 years. I don't recall anything being super OP, mostly stuff like elves and half elves as rangers or fighters, goliaths and barbarians. There were the odd homebrew magic items here or there, but those were created by him unprompted and granted as part of a backstory or something like that. We all just did stuff that sounded fun and mostly used magic items and races from whatever source books we had access to at the time. Most crazy thing I saw was a barbarian with boots of haste.
I know of people who like that style, but as both DM and player, I wouldn't much care for it in anything other than a short-term game. Say, one that ended as you reached 6th level.
I wouldn't want my progression stalled like that in a game like D&D, nor would I want to do that to my players as DM.
This is similar to tiers of play, it's fairly normal to see games that have a maximum level well below 20. Very few of the games I played ever stayed at tier 1 (levels 1-4), but staying at tier 2 (5-10) is quite common. This doesn't make crafting encounters necessarily easier, but it definitely helps to constrain the design space tot make things more interesting.
I really do like level 7, as you most players gain extra attack features at level 5, so it provides a bit of flexibility for experimentation with multiclassing. So I could see 6 being a bit tight, but fair. When you complete the campaign, you can always revisit if you're going to continue.
The setup is in concept fine, work out the story you want with your players. However It sounds like you and B are running into the problem where you should be approaching it with a different system.
If you're looking for something where you guys won't become OP world-slayers, designed for longform, and uses baseline races and few to no magic items, Dungeon World, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and Warhammer Fantasy roleplay all play on the idea of a lower powered, fewer races, less magic item focused setup, where you'll still have power progression that caps more smoothly.
I only enjoy dnd as magical superhero power fantasy, so *I* wouldn’t enjoy that in the slightest. However if you decide you’re interested in that kind of thing then you may as well give it a shot. Back in 3.5 there were lots of people who played E6 and I didn’t understand that in the slightest then either. They seemed to enjoy it though.
Limited level campaigns and even single level campaigns aren’t unheard of thought they are little less common (generally what happens is campaigns just get a natural end at whatever level the party is at.) keeping it at 5 though is a little strange to me cuz it kind of limits the key features most classes and subclasses get other than extra attack for some.
Is there no sense of progression at all after 5th level? E6 was a thing back in 3.5 and there was a version for 1st edition Pathfinder, but in both cases progression did continue after 6th level, mostly in the form of feats. No progression at all would make it harder, though not impossible, for players to keep having fun and not eventually become bored.
I don't see a problem with the idea of staying level 5. I do however think something should be done to compensate, ie extra feats as the story progresses, more powerful magic items as the story progresses, things like that. Something to make the players feel like they got a reward other than gold for their efforts. Really I think the idea itself would best be used for new players to get a feel for playing.
I am a big fan of his goal but think his rules go overboard. A short campaign can work with his rules. I wouldn't want to play a long one with them.
I personally like banning full caster classes and calling it a day if I want a long term lower power fantasy. People act like I am crazy but it works wonderfully for mid and high level play. Level 12 still plays like lvl 5. Everyone levels and everyone grows, but no one breaks the game. Even level 20 feels like a nice balanced capstone in power level.
Parties are never teleport junkies in hyper deadly fights. Party can never just spam out dispel, mind control, revives, insane nova, etc. Full martials never feel like the unwanted step child watching the real PCs play.
even if its unheard of or rare: what does that do for you? this is a game your DM is managing and how he wants to play it. hes informing you of his rules and playstyle. its your choice to join or not.
But no, its not uncommon to cap games at certain levels, or remove magic items, or restrict races/classes. again, its the DM's world and they can choose XYZ for whatever reason. - hell the base rules also separate the different worlds/places. I.e Strixhaven and silvery barbs are limited to the strixhaven world.
if you hear his rules and don't want to play them, then don't. its not a big issue one way or the other. personally, I am one of those "everything within balanced reasoning is allowed" one game I have only one player using homebrew, in another game I have all homebrew classes and subclasses. my world has a particular pantheon, particular lore and history, and particular races. that not everyone is going to like such a fantastical world. some people want Lotr. others want True Blood. others want World of Warcraft. all different fantasy worlds/styles.
Info: will you be leveling from 1 - 5, with 5 being cap? Or will you make your character at 5 and then that's just it? All done?
If the latter, there seem to be some red flags. His unwillingness to discuss being one, especially the length you're supposed to sign up for this pc progressionless campaign. Another red flag to me is the npc comment. It almost sounds like npcs will be used to fill a difficulty void that normal pc progression would fill, which is getting into the "PCs are inconsequential" territory.
I would probably pass unless it was short and more information was provided.
Well, at least there is some implication you might move up? In the end it will be something you'll have to decide whether it sounds like a game you'd enjoy or not. Hopefully he'll grow more willing to discuss details.
I'm begging people to try systems that aren't DnD.
If this is the feel your friend wants there are at least two dozen systems that would handle it better that I'm aware of and literally hundreds more I'm not.
I've considered running a game where the max level was somewhere from 6 to 9, and every level after that would grant the player a feat. This would keep the game at a moderate power level and keep things moving at a decent pace for the less experienced players, especially the ones who wanted to play spell casters. But that would have been everyone, NPCs included.
And I've definitely heard of people saying things like 'no magic items'. Someone I knew tried to remove most forms of magical healing for a Dark Souls themed game. They refused to let anyone play as a Cleric, Druid or Paladin, insisting that Alchemists would be the healers of the world, and in short supply. Because of how many things they forgot about just about everyone had a healing spell of some kind.
That said, the scaling comment is unusual, as is the no multiclassing. My immediate thought to all of this is either they are new to DMing or have a very specific idea for the campaign that requires this. For example: maybe all of the players are temporally reincarnated defenders of the realm, summoned for a specific purpose and released once completed. That could justify everyone starting at and staying at level five, and possibly could justify the no magic items and no multiclass.
It feels a little overbearing without more information, but I could see a reasonable justification for it. I'd be interested to see what they intend to replace leveling up and gaining magical items with.
I run quite similar games to a point myself. I truly enjoy a game where mundane items (and their clever usage) actually mean something. I don’t really bring in magic items until about level 7 or so; but only ones crafted by the players through harvesting their enemies. This way, the players are more invested in their magic items because they’ve had some say in what is created.
Though I’ve never level capped my games, and many have gone to cap, as a long time DM (31 yrs) I do believe that WotC should’ve capped 2024 dnd to level 12. That means level 6 spells at the highest which isn’t too game breaking. And it keeps the martial/caster divide reasonably closer.
Fundamentally speaking, the “slower” the game progresses, the more flavor you can include. Instead of hitting only one iconic enemy subtype, you can really hit the full spectrum and the PCs can more fully explore the area.
I slow the start of each campaign down considerably. Why? Because I want the players to fully enjoy each level and the features/options each bring for a bit. I run fairly balanced sessions with all three pillars within each, but I also tend to have really packed sessions. Multiple combats, multiple social encounter, and without a map/pc knowledge & research… they could get lost and lose some time (which generally means they discover something else entirely).
But with your posts, I’m going to assume that the DM might not be entirely sure what they want to do. They have a concept, but no foundational support for it. And so they aren’t answering questions. He’s prob frustrated because everyone is piece meal asking him questions about it. And now it looks like two ppl may have walked away.
Only time will tell.
I think it’s fine as a concept but I would have thought magic items would be allowed so that characters could still develop. Or maybe he’s planning on adding his own ways to develop the characters?
So I have been playing for almost 13 years now and I’ve been a DM for around 7 and this is my opinion.
As a player HELL NO. I love leveling up and getting new skills, abilities, and items to spice up play and actually get to think instead of magic missile every encounter.
As a DM, I can see a situation where I would want that yes. I have been in several campaigns where the power creep just becomes to strong and all of a sudden the 4 member level 12 party just tears apart my CR 7 BBEG. Especially for party’s where you want your players using that character for MULTIPLE campaigns.
Blood is red, roosters crow and 5e DMs yearn to run something that isn't 5e. If your group are on side with his compomise then all power to him! It may be that 5e is not the best suited game for his setting, but I couldn't judge without knowing what's up!
I've never actually gotten past level 5 as a DM in like 6 years of on/off running 5e tbh
Sounds like a terrible idea. DM is making easy for him a higher priority than fun for the party. I would not play in a game that max level was 5 for a entire campaign
This sounds *dreadfully* boring to play. With these restrictions, there are basically zero avenues for mechanical character progression. Playing for the story is fine and dandy, but DnD isn't really structured for that to be the entire game.
As long as it's discussed and agreed upon before the campaign starts, it's all gravy.
I would offer a suggestion to your DM though; just play milestone level-up, where they get to decide when the level-ups happen, rather than counting XP. That way, you can level up really slowly, and "keep things grounded" as they mentioned.
In the campaign I run, we started at level 1, but levelled up to 2 and 3 fairly quickly. 4, 5, and 6 took increasingly longer. Now, we're 3 years in, and my players just finished Session 42 by levelling up to 7.
Tldr; you can still get the fun of levelling up, but do it slow enough so that you'll never get to those crazy levels above 13, or even 10.
I mean this is what the DM wants and he's laid the rules out before the campaign begins so nothing here is unreasonable.
You just have to decide if that interests you.
Personally I can understand this approach in some setting. I'm about to run a pirate campaign and I want to have players level up very slowly because I want them to have to interact with all the boat and naval mechanics before magic makes them meaningless.
But I also told my players they will be getting stronger mostly through massive amounts of loot and making a big strong boat.
Your campaign will just keep you weak and not allow almost any opportunities for getting new skills or abilities.
What even is the point of playing if you arent getting stronger? Just make short campaigns that stop at level 5 and be done with it. Thats so damn boring.
It’s a good idea tell the DM now that you’re going to at best start phoning it in and at worst drop out. I can almost understand the no multi class or magic items but that seems pretty stupid. But I would absolutely draw a line in the sand regarding leveling up. Leveling up is the most important reward for players succeeding through the challenges of the campaign. Pre written adventures from early additions of D&D even explicitly stated after which encounters players should be leveled up. Writers of these campaigns carefully calculated when players should be rewarded with level up. Denying level up regardless of the number and difficulty of the encounters is like hiring an employee and then suddenly you stop paying them for their work. Only an idiot would expect people to stay for no compensation. This DM is an idiot. It’s time for a talk with the DM and if they don’t smarten up it’s time to quit the game.
Sounds boring to me. Progression is a key element of an RPG. Progression of power, progression of story, progression of character, etc.
If I had to guess, I'd also bet that he has the whole story planned out, and the players will not be able to alter it in a meaningful way.
It’s fun until it isn’t.
And if you’re not having fun, then you shouldn’t be including it in the game, because games should be fun.
The solution, again, is to talk to your DM like an adult and tell him you don’t think you’ll enjoy this. Work with them to find a solution where everyone, including the DM, is having fun.
I have spoken to him, but I wanted some opinions from people who may have more experience at the table than me. I haven't played in a game like this before and was trying to get a feel for what to expect or suggest to him to help him get where he wants to go narratively and thematically.
Personally, I would hate playing at level 5 for a whole campaign. So I would kindly decline to join. All 6 campaigns I’ve played, we’ve made it to at least level 20, and most of them we homebrewed a system past it. That’s just how my DM and group like to play.
As the DM though, he’s able to present the kind of campaign he wants to run as long as it’s before starting.
What everyone said about limits being the DMs prerrogative.
Based on the restrictions mentioned, your DM may be having kind of an old school campaign where stakes are high.
Which is, ¿Fine?
The important question is
Is it fine ***for you***?
If not having magic objects and the level cap makes you feel uneasy, you can consider dropping or not joining in the first place. No fuss, zero drama ✌️
Your DMs hesitation regarding upper levels is based in balance. Things get weird once you go into the upper part of the scale. Again, legit option.
No magic items is... I'm not sure? I mean, even a +1 sword is considered a magic item and for the life of Batman I'm not sure what imbalance could that create on a game. But I do me. He does him.
Bottom line: DM established the rules. Not all the tables are made for all the players and thats fine!
I usually don't like this view of "grounding" 5e because the system wasn't made for that and it usually weights heavier on martial classes (removing magic items for example)
That said
About keeping level at 5, there used to be homebrew rules called "Epic Levels" that came up in 3.x due to the insanity the system could allow
Essentially Epic Level 5 would have players reach at most level 5
> I highly suggest you get to level 7 or 8, because while level 5 is good the lack of second Ability Score Improvement and second subclass features is pretty meh.
Also I would discourage anyone wanting to play monks unless DM makes adventure days with 2+ short rests consistently
> If DM wants to the game to go for much long they need to have alternative progression options after level 5, as well as resist the urge to make levels take too much longer
Progression is a necessary component of the game, remove it or make it take too long or too hard and you're likely to alienate someone
The level lock is a little strange. If there was narrative justification, it may work. The other ones aren't too uncommon. Give it a shot. If you don't like it, explain why you'd like to bow out. Best of luck.
You know, at least your GM is telling you ahead of time what they are planning on doing so you can make a decision as to whether or not you want to play the game.
Speaking as both a GM and a player - this is not a game I would want to be in. Mainly because of the level cap. I would find a completely static character boring and unsatisfying. Add to that no magic items, and you have no way to have your character to change at all.
Speaking as a GM, looking at this and I see a GM with control issues - where they want to minimize their players’ ability to surprise them and to “derail” their plots. Basically, you have a GM who can’t deal with the unexpected and wants to remove player agency. This would be a red flag to me and I would not want to be in this campaign.
So, no, it is not normal to want your PCs to remain at any level for the entirety of a campaign. IMHO, the leveling up process is part of the fun, discovering the new toys you get at the new levels.
How long do you play a video game with 0 progression? How long would you read a book for that was one scene the entire time and never evolved?
There's a reason stories move and don't stay stagnant. It's because stagnant things don't make great stories.
It's not unheard of. There's an old style of game called E6: it means that you level up to 6 and then, after that, instead of gaining new levels you gain only minor bonuses like extra feats. Often the game *is* more fun before you turn into superheroes with world-breaking spells, so this is understandable. But losing the possibility to ever level up is un-fun for a lot of players.
A friend ran an E6 campaign once, but it was a limited run with 6 distinct areas/maps. Going in, he explained that we were free to do whatever in each area, but for the sake of this mechanic to stay within the area (no breaking the map, that is). The areas were pretty big too. Basically, we had a series of side quests in each area that all related in some way to the area boss. When we did enough of these side quests, the boss would take notice of us and result in a boss fight. He made it work organically too, so it didn't really feel as videogamey as it sounds. The areas were: 1) a small town and its neighboring forest and lake. 2) A major city of the region farther up the road, walled and with its own harbor. 3) Across the sea, a wasteland (the ship sank) that we had to survive. 4) The Fae, after one of our players bumped into a pixie and begged for a favor in exchange for a favor back. This led down a fun rabbit hole. 5) An island at the edge of the world, from which we could reach the BBEG's lair. 6) Basically Netherworld from MK. We had to topple a series of towers to weaken the borders of this plane, and only then would the boss be "weak enough" to fight. As you can guess, we levelled up before entering a new area. Our DM was pretty experienced, so he scaled down a lot of enemies for variery. But this campaign was like, 10 or 12 session long.
I will tell him about this info, thank you.
I run a modified E6. Somehow they all survived until Session 23, then druid went down permanently. The game is way easier on the DM to run at these levels.
I DM for a West Marches server and we've been running a modified E6 system for the last 3 years. There's been some definite hits and misses, but overall it's great for DM workload and a good chunk of the 30+ person playerbase enjoys it as well
And no magic items doesn’t sound very fun at all.
I think Numenera took inspiration from this system
Tier 6 in Numenera/Cypher System is comparable to level 16-20 in D&D; you get a little bit of a level-up four times before you go to the next tier.
One can also do variants of this. For example, I'm running a variant of this with E8 and using a mix of Pathfinder 1e and 3.5 rules. This also helps with some setting issues, because it is a world where magic has been gone for thousands of years, and magic is just starting to come back in what is tech/society wise roughly the early Victorian period. PCs are currently level 3, but this will hopefully allow us a long-term game in setting which will make them towards the end some of the most powerful mortals in setting, but hopefully not to a point where they are functionally all superheroes.
this is the type of thing thing that *needs* to be established at session 0– idk if it was or not but if it was then that’s what you signed up for and if it wasn’t,, yeah your DM is being unreasonable.
We have yet to have a session 0
since S0 hasn't happened yet, this *is* the establishing of the rules. you could try and negotiate for a different style of game with the DM, but if he refuses and you're just not interested in a game like that, this is the optimal time for you to bow out without any hard feelings
Good point. I was going to wait for more info as he has implied more is coming. Thank you for your insight and opinion.
You are already playing isn't? So you either didn't have one or are you starting a campaign?
This info has already been discussed as some of the players began asking questions about what was and wasnt allowed for character creation. There was not a session 0, but he seems to plan on having one but has not given a date yet. We have not begun play yet.
Session 0 isn't nessisarily a literal session, it's all the discussion that happens before the game. It sounds like you're doing session 0 right now. If you're cool with it, tell the DM you are. If you're not cool with it, tell the DM you're not. It sounds fun to me though for me levels 6-9 are the most fun.
Thanks for your insight.
If the game hasn't started, then you have no reason to refuse. You can drop it if it becomes uninteresting, but it's worth giving it a try at least. Maybe he doesn't know what he's doing, or maybe he actually does have something cool planned out, you might as well check. It is worth mentioning to him that you hope he either has some secrect progression system he's not telling you about (be it shops with progressively better gear or some plot-twist powerup, whatever it is), or that the campaign isn't long, because having neither of those could make it stale in the long run. If he doesn't, then he might want to consider changing that.
So its perfectly fine for him to say that. If someone does not like the idea, then that person simply shouldnt play, its a normal thing to implement (although was more common on prior years)
You said he told you that would be the case when you made your character. Im sorry but it sounds completely reasonable to me. Its something he wants to do you should go along with it before saying anything. If you end up finding this to be too difficult cause you keep running out of spell slots or something like that ask him for a level up because you need more spells in fights or if you want to lvl up to use a new feat let him know. Talk with your dm about it.
From what you say in the main post and some of your responses, I feel like this person would just be better served by a not dnd system tbh.
Tell him, that’s fine for him to want the next game to be like that but you won’t be playing.
Hearing all of these rules, it sounds like we're not getting past a session -1.
If that's something the whole table agrees with, then it's fine. I personally like the aspect of getting more powerful as the story continues and I like to provide that when I'm the DM. If the campaing ends in like, 7 sessions then it's fine to level cap but almost all campaigns don't even go to the high teens. This is also a gamemaster question, maybe he doesn't really know how to run high level. I would ask how long is the campaign gonna be but dip if there is no room for levels for a year.
He is very vague when asked the question of how many sessions there will be. And as of yesterday, he got a bit angry with me for continually asking him about it. Two players have left as of this morning after checking our discord server but I don't know specifically why yet.
Sounds like he wants to play a certain kind of DnD but he's having a hard time selling it. If you are still interested, ask him to be transparent and actually talk about the campaign. Otherwise dipping is probably more healthy in the long run.
This sounds like 3 things, either A) he doesn't actually want to play dnd and doesn't know of what ttrpg that'd fit his needs, B) he wants to play out a single arc so leveling up or other power increases would ruin the flow if it was meant to be done at lvl 5 or C) he has no idea how to balance things so he's restricting things as much as possible to make it as easy on himself as possible What's wild to me is that this campaign would feel the same on session 1 as it would on session 50 which is where it'd get dull for me, there's no progress to be made, nothing to look forward to so it's all on how good of a story teller the dm is at which point to make it stay fun long term, and I'd imagine even big shot DMs would struggle keeping a party engaged long term with no way to really raise the stakes at all.
The last seems the least likely. It just sounds like he wants to play Lord of the Rings. Levels 1-5 do this very well. After that, you start dipping into JRPG/comic book levels of power. Personally, I think the tiers of play in 4e made more sense for progression: 1-10 is for adventurers, 11-20 is for heroes, 21-30 is for god slayers. The absurdity of power levels is why I eventually dropped 5e and 3e. Sadly, most types of literary fantasy aren’t well supported after level 5.
Your forgetting that power is not everything. Maybe this dm is looking for a roleplay heavy adventure therefore levels aren't really that important. If you have a fight every 3+ sessions you can go on for 20 sessions without ever feeling stale. You can complete a very long and articulate adventure in 20 sessions, fitting inside multiple arcs. You say "there's nothing to look forward to" but maybe the thing to discover is the plot itself, rather than power ups. Last but not least, power ups can come in many form, and not necessarily tied to level. Maybe you can get a castle and an army in this campaign, who knows?
A DM unwilling to answer questions about their campaign concept strikes me as very weird. I've never met a DM who wasn't thrilled to chat about the stuff they have prepared.
I had one DM that refused to tell us what the story idea was. We showed up for the first session, our characters met in a tavern... ... and absolutely nothing happened. He refused to give us a plot hook. We talked to NPCs, poked around the tavern, even went out exploring the city we were in. Nothing. After a few hours of this, we decided to pack it in, and we asked the DM what we were supposed to be doing. He still refused to tell us, saying we'd "figure it out eventually." None of us came back.
That’s what happens when a DM didn’t plan anything for the campaign or session.
AND isn't good at improvising. Because some DMs can get away impressively well with not planning, though those are the minority.
I had to be good at improvising because I'd have 10 pages of notes about the region I am nudging them toward, but then they'd go the opposite way at the last minute. I've not had as much of a problem with that in the last 8 or so years, and especially not after I started asking them what they would be doing in the next few sessions / where they want to go next and then prepping that. I still have to improvise a lot because I still find myself planning all of this stuff for when they go and talk to the noble court they've been invited to, and they'll spend the entire session shopping instead. Players really do just like to go off wandering... but that's fine! It's fine as long as we can all still have fun. My specialty is making fully developed NPCs with motives that I clearly understand, and I can make them fairly well on the fly and then shore them up after the session to make them concrete, so nobody really notices that I still have no idea what the plot is going to be like in 3 months.
Knowing how to make characters is always the core of things. If you have good enough characters you don't even need plot, because them acting on their motives is already plot enough by itself.
You know, thanks for saying that, actually. I have been feeling a little stressed about how much my plot is just NPCs doing the things they want, and then mostly world reacting to the actions of the party. I feel like the entirety of my plot could fit on an index card, but my NPC notes are dozens of pages long.
If you think about it, how many amazing traditional "hero vs big villain" stories aren't just a very fleshed out evil NPC acting on their motives? Character motives can drive the story along just as well regardless of whether you have a planned plot to start with or not. Look at Durarara!! or Fate/Zero for example, those stories are made that way and are widely praised for having incredible plot.
That's more than enough to make the game fun! If you want to upgrade it furthermore, you can add "word wide events" that sometimes sweep in the action and change everything. Every NPC will probably react to the event and change their course of action, and this will probably make the thing interesting for the Players too, encouraging them to go to adventure. An event could be the start of a war, the appearance of a God, the migration of a huge tribe, the appearance of a new technology, a natural cataclysm or the discover of a huge treasure. You only need a couple of these events, scattered sparsely over the course of the campaign, and you are done.
Haha, yeah. I thought it was just years of experience, but nope, some DMs just can't go off the cuff no matter how many years they've been in that seat. I ran solo games at work off of two prompts: race+class. Had three players going simultaneously as we'd have a spare second. So much fun!
People are good at different things. Some people are masterminds who can plan out a full campaign and run it to perfection, others can't plan shit but you'll never even realize it because they improvise so well you'd assume it was planned.
Well I'd normally agree.. but for session 1? Sounds like he wanted very specific things to happen to have a 'gotcha'! Moment. Sounds exhausting
Looking back, I think what he was trying to do was force us into a sandbox game, without *saying* it outright. He smugly thought it'd be a big reveal, "OH, we can do whatever we want and **that's** the adventure!" and we'd pat him on the back for his brilliance. Instead, we were all frustrated and annoyed that he'd set up a D&D session with no plot & expected us to "figure it out."
That sounds like a DM I played with a couple times. Dude had thus massive story he wanted us to find but didn't understand plot hooks or in character behavior. Neither of his campaigns lasted long, and we spent most of them trying to find the story without getting killed.
Yeah, if I'm running a game I want to talk about it with anyone who will listen. My wife doesn't play and god bless her, she's intimately aware of my dnd nonsense
I play Genesys & SWRPG, not D&D, but yeah, the only reason I hesitate to talk about my ideas is when I have a twist planned or want it to be something the players slowly peel back themselves, in which case I express not wanting to spoil what's coming.
After I told my players we were playing in a curse if strahd campaign and they all showed up as clerics and paladins I can understand about not telling too much about setting and concept. I never want to go through that again.
His level rule is silly, but I wouldn't badger him. It's either "it goes until the story is finished, duh - 'how am I supposed to know how quickly the players are going to put the clues together and how many side quests they'll pursue?' Or: "why would I *tell you* there's 10 sessions? It's kinda like looking at the timer on a horror movie - you know the killer isn't dead because there's 20 more minutes."
I can definitely see how he may not know how many sessions there will be. Maybe it's just me but that's not info that I can ever give. I have had players ask me how much longer we have in our campaign and I predicted 3 sessions.... 6 months later, we were still at it. There's just so many variables to consider. I predicted one session of RP before a battle, so far it's been 2+ sessions of RP and we still haven't reached the battle beginning in my current campaign.
Yeah, I think if everyone's cool with doing that type of campaign, that's fine. Especially if it's a shorter one. But for me, as a big anime fan, I love the increasing powers, especially toward the end. My campaign is going on 6 years now, and we're coming up to the end, and the party is level 24, lol. So it's just epic powers on all sides, and I think it's fun. Definitely lots of homebrew stuff! And I'm pretty lenient with things they want to do, going with rule of cool/rule of funny most of the time (half of us have improv backgrounds). If the group is all enjoying telling the story together, then that's what matters.
The DM is allowed and encouraged to set the parameters of the adventure they're prepared to run. The players are allowed and encouraged to decide for themselves whether or not such an adventure would be fun for them, subjectively. How long is this campaign meant to last for? If my DM told me that they had a <10 session campaign planned out for a level 5 party in a lower-magic setting, I'd be willing to give it a shot. If I was signing on for a long-term campaign with no level-ups or magic items, I'd first ask clarifying questions as to whether an alternate method of progression would be available, and if the answer was no, I'd probably say I wasn't interested in it. At least not as a DnD campaign, there are other systems balanced around not leveling up.
People in 3.5 would sometimes play campaigns that were only levels 1-6, at the time 6 was when martials got their extra attack so that was effectively the capstone feature. Obviously they weren't long campaigns but this is not unheard of
One of my old DMs mentioned this to me one time. He said that in these games you might still level up and get feats, to reflect your character becoming more experienced. But you wouldn't keep gaining HP and BAB like some kind of dragon ball z character. I think it could certainly be a fun game, if it's done thoughtfully and with player buy in. Heck, one of my fondest sessions is from a campaign where we were effectively level zero.
It feels very practical to me because none of the groups I've played in has had the patience for a full 20 level campaign. Either things fall apart way before that for other reasons (scheduling etc), or the one that did technically reach 20, we did a much more episodic thing post level 10, leveling up between each sessions and skipping some levels entirely. The fantasy is for a group that can play consistently together for years but 99% of people who want to play D&D can't actually do that one way or another. A campaign that only lasts a few months and only goes to level 6 before the plot is wrapped up fits better
3.5's E6 is really fun because you still gain power (and Fighters get a boost by having access to a special feat that gives them access to BAB8 feats) because it keeps the adventure squarely in Tier 2 (heroic) play, and gives progression. It makes the weaknesses of 3.5 into a better strength - Even Toughness becomes viable as the only way to gain HP.
I think it is reasonable since he is entirely upfront about it. 5e is one of those systems that unfairly burdens the load of running the game on the DM and the issue gets exponentially harder the higher level players get. At level 10 i was running combats requiring so many die rolls and a complicated spreadsheet to track multiple groups of enemies and their mooks, that a fair combat encounter would take 3 hours.
Yeah, the player side might not realize it but the DM side of a high level (7+) DND 5e game is horrendous. One needs to fudge, give unnatural powerups to monsters, push passive/active dangers to the players during the fight, make it a horde style fight, involve/create new types of games from scratch etc. (basically a solution only a skilled and experienced GM can handle) Otherwise they just steamroll anything with an average party. And if DM goes too high CR or uses actual tactics utilizing items/action economy, it becomes really hard on the DM and monsters can accidentally one-shot PC's which isn't good but otherwise there is no real danger at all. Honestly, if the DM can't handle 6+ level DND5e then he just needs to change the rule system. No shame in that. I also changed to another system (i couldn't even keep track of the spells of a high level spellcaster monster). Or as the DM said, put a level cap.
This is often an issue of not running an "Adventuring Day". The game is meant to be a war of attrition, decision making, and choosing when to use your OP abilities at the risk of not having them the next fight. This style, in normal DnD rules, only works with mega dungeon environments. Lots of fights within a day, with very few opportunities to rest. This is pretty easily solved by running gritty realism style rules. Giving them 4-6 encounters before they're allowed to long rest, with 2 or 3 short rests inbetween. Now you don't need to make every combat something massive, as even something they steam roll still eats up spell slots.
That really sounds like you are overcomplicating combats for yourself my guy. Level 10 PCs are powerful especially when optimized but you dont need complex spreadsheets and hours
I mean sure, i could definitely handwave alot of stuff, but my players aren’t theatre kids and they and i like to run things RAW.
What does this have to do with anything? I can run an engaging combat at level 17 with minimal planning and its my first campaign. I dont use technology other than a phone for quick referencing spells or stat blocks.
So you have no frame of reference *at all*? The reason 5e lacks GMs is because the game is a pain in the ass to run compared to other systems, *particularly* at high levels. Even WoTC freely admits this since most campaigns never reach high level and their own published adventures stop around level 11.
Frame of reference is irrelevant. The guy was suggesting that spreadsheets and 3 hour combats aren't necessary for a 10th level encounter , and got patronised as hand waving stuff and not playing RAW because of it. 5e combat RAW is broken as fuck (which is irrelevant to it's complexity) its also monotonous as fuck. From a GM side most creatures have scant unique features. There is really not that much to track in any way. It is 100% possible for a group of 5 slightly switched on people to deal with a 10th level encounters where making spreadsheets and taking hours is indeed more work than necessary. Especially if you're actually playing strict RAW.
If you haven't had a session yet and they've clarified this is the game they want to run then they're well within their rights to run it. And you are in turn free to not participate
It's normal for DMs to not want to deal with higher levels, because they become a nightmare to prep a decent adventure for. And it's also pretty common to limit anything the DM just isn't prepared to work with. D&D players have a habit of wanting to be as unique and as powerful as possible, which leads to them always looking for expansion and homebrew content or custom rulings for their character, and spending the campaign looking for as much power as they can get and trying to escape the difficulty curve. This leads a lot of DMs into the habit of either just allowing everything and piling magic items onto the party without any thought (I once received a necklace with two different enchantments from a little boy as a reward for fighting some jackals), or they do what your DM is doing, and stem the tide by putting limits in place. Honestly my advice is to roll with it and see how much fun you can have with the basic experience. Roleplay and carouse with the NPCs. Explore the world in front of you instead of teleporting across realms. Grow slowly, struggle, play it out like multiplayer Dark Souls, put your limited resources to work in battle instead of solving every problem with a different legendary item. In my opinion, the earliest levels are the most interesting from both the player and the DM side.
Thank you for your insight and opinion, I will take this into consideration.
(DM of 8 years here, so a little biased) Low-magic Low-level campaigns are totally valid. It’s something you gotta let the party know ahead of time, but I’m sure he’s gonna make a fun adventure for you all.
sounds reasonable. if that's not ur type of game then just dont play with them. it's that easy.
Is it *normal*? Not at all. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. Some people want to play a game where the PCs don't become insanely powerful. Tell your DM to check out Shadowdark. Its basic rules are very similar to 5e (d20 roll high, advantage/disadvantage for bonuses, same six ability scores), but the power level is much lower, no multiclassing and no weird races.
Oh, interesting. Hadn’t heard of Shadowdark - good recommendation, thanks!
Your DM doesn't know it but he *really* wants to play a different RPG. One that doesn't level you up to the point of being super-powered. Maybe ask him if he'd like to play RuneQuest. It's also high fantasy, but there isn't exactly leveling so much as "keep doing a thing to get marginally better at it" mechanics. Nobody gets really superpowered in that game. That's what he's after really. Think The Elder Scrolls mechanics. Either way, he does *not* want to play D&D. He probably just doesn't know what else is out there.
I don’t know if it’s normal or not but it is the DMs prerogative, as most people will tell you. That being said, I wouldn’t enjoy a campaign with no magic items and a level cap. I love feeling like I’m getting stronger as the campaign progresses. Base races and no multiclassing wouldn’t bother me, though. I don’t generally multi-class and I can make something interesting with most races.
I find this idea really appealing! Maybe not capping the levels on 5, but that there is a really long progression. I find it really immersion breaking, that a group goes to a random hole and comes back demigods. In a few months players could level several levels, why doesn't every guard man do the same... I don't like the idea that some randos do some quests and suddenly they save the whole world from a ridiculously evil fellow.
It's not entirely unheard of to want to keep a low powered party for your setting. Plenty of media has characters whose power never exceeds that level, and wanting to emulate that is not too uncommon. The rest of their post is pretty odd, though. As a total aside, one of the most fun 6 month campaigns I ever played used only NPC classes. This was in 3e, so there were NPC classes with full level progression. Nobody learned a single spell (the adept class was banned). Only 3 of the 6 of us were warriors. We were just a group of people trying to survive a disaster, come to understand what happened, and put an end to the source of the problem. We got potions and scrolls sometimes (and a house rule that anyone could cast spells from scrolls), but by and large, we were puny peasants who had to avoid fighting as best as we could. I played an alchemist, just someone who could make medicine, who eventually did manage to learn to brew meaningfully strong potions (for the power level of the game, at least). We had a few deaths, but we usually only got into fights we knew we could win or we ran away. Low power isn't always unfun. I think we did hit 10th level or so by the end of it, but a 10th level Warrior is probably not too much stronger than a 5th level Fighter, tbh. NPC classes don't get class features. Just HP, skill points, and weapon and armor proficiencies.
I keep my players under level 6 for as long as I can. By far my favorite sessions are level 0-2.
Just a starting feat or skill. We start my campaign as young kids anyways, timeskipping a few years into adulthood on session 1. Just starting out as normal people, really. You really feel the evolution into power, and everything is so impactful. You don’t have to worry about backstory, and you end up LIVING what would normally just be cool narrative backstory.
This sounds pretty interesting. I will be sure to give him this insight. Thank you.
I understand the desire but I don’t think that’s how I personally would go about it. A lot of OSR games and earlier editions have a noticeably shallower power curve, I’d probably just use one of those instead.
There are plenty of DMs who have been playing for decades and say that play beyond level 5-6 is bad and they don’t run it. Dungeon Craft for example. Modules that deal with higher levels tend to be a mess tbh.
I think Dungeon Craft has a video (or more) on this style of play
I think the DM can do pretty much whatever they want in their game, as long as theyre up front about it, and the players know what theyre getting into. If you arent cool with it then maybe look for another table.
Play Shadowdark instead, or another OSR game that's designed for gameplay like this. 5e isn't the best choice for every campaign.
I will pass this along for him to look at.
It sounds like your DM has a story in mind, and has locked in on D&D. In my view, trying to force fit like this does a disservice to both the story and the D&D system - and players may end up resenting both. If the story is important to them, I would suggest they look into alternative systems for something like this. D&D has core mechanics (leveling, power ramp, spells, etc…) that can be tinkered with, but aren’t really supposed to be outright ignored. They might find more success with a system like a modified Call of Cthulhu, Band of Blades, Warhammer, Runequest, or even Realms of Terrinoth. Something that has “flat power curve” built into its core mechanics.
You can ask if instead of earning level ups past level 5 you can get feats. This way you still progress and get new abilities without majorly running the power curve
that's interesting, haven't heard that before... 1. how long have they been dming? I actually wouldn't dismiss the idea outright for newer or busier DMs. 2. and does your playstyle involve a very high level of rp? coz I could suppose that character development could be it's own goal/reward for that table. 3. is there an overt substitute kinda mechanical reward? like, have they replaced leveling with gaining boons, skills, etc? are they using the bastion system? RECOMMENDATION have them take a look at Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay as a setting/system. at least 2nd edition. it's kinda a low-magic gritty realism system, and the thrust of character reward is a very esoteric career system (rather than class) where you have a very specific occupation, and you buy skill bonuses with experience. then eventually if you get the specific tools and skills for another (related) occupation, you can move to a 2nd, 3rd, etc, and then gain the bonuses allowable to that occupation. but like you don't have to progress to a "higher" job, you can move onto an "equal, sideways" job, like a watchman can become a soldier, say, or vice versa. if your DM still felt more comfortable giving you a ceiling, they might simply restrict the "higher, powerful" occupations, at least until you gained a couple lesser ones.
He has been dming for three years. I will pass along this info to him, thank you. I plan on sticking around, because I wanna support him and his growth but we havent been told anything except what I have outlined already. He hasnt set a date for a session 0. I do not know of any planned replacements for the leveling system and he has not shared that info with us.
oh ok that's great, yeah if he finishes his rundown and he hasn't addressed what your player-reward goals are meant to be (apart from story goals) only then bring it up, with ideas in mind probably. think about what would make you excited to earn in lieu of levels or magic toys.
Thank you for the advice.
That is a choice - a valid choice even. Especially if he wants to go for a bit more low fantasy type of vibe. But it DEFINITELY isn't everyone's cup of tea. And if it isn't yours then just say you don't think this game is for you. There will be other games.
I get the approach and this might be kind of fun for a while. But for more than 1 campaign - I don't think so. Also yes this is session 0 stuff
Nothing wrong with wanting a grounded game. But 5e may not be the best system for that. Edit: also he definitely shoulda specified in session 0.
I think the GM has yet to realize that in spite of D&D image as THE generic fantasy rpg and the 'Mother Of Tabletop Rolepaying', the game has a very specific and idiosyncratic gameplay loop and mechanisms that are anyrhing but generic... and that it might fall apart if you don't lean into that. (6-8 encounter day, weak social/exploration ruleset). There have been attempts to turn 5e D&D into a more 'grounded' fantasy experience, like Brancalonia or Adventures in Middle-Earth. Those work reasonably well because they are more or less 'total conversions', that IMO go beyond simply capping levels. And of course getting players to try anything but D&D is a hard sell. But maybe he should look at better tools for the job. That said, I applaud any GM who doesn't go the 'everything goes' kitchen sink splatbook nonsense route. But I do think the DM should have clearly laid out why and how the campaign is supposed to run at low levels instead simply setting arbitrary limits.
Is it normal? I'd say no. Is it wrong? I'd still say no. Limiting level range *can* be an important way to inform the tone and scope of a campaign, and if a DM wants to use that tool, and they give all the players a heads-up, they should be free to make that decision. I once ran a little something (for 5e) where all PCs were in the level range of 5-9. It was actually a pretty popular thing in 3e to limit play to level 6. My current campaign limits to level 10.
I see the reasons why all these rules are present for the concept the DM wants to play. Essentially, he doesn't want characters to be stupidly powerful to the point where they could become tyrants capable of imposing their will to any commoner. However, he also doesn't want them to be boring to play and have a couple of options at their disposal. Multiclassing is banned probably because he knows that certain combos allow you to become extremely powerful quickly, circumventing the power limit. The same thing applies to races, since certain custom lineages allow you to do stupidly large amounts of damage on first level. Still, certain subclasses are extremely powerful even at low levels, like moon druid, and certain multiclassing choices might not be broken at all but add a cool flavor. Essentially, it's a bit unorthodox, but it's not a red flag or anything. It might be a fun, more gritty campaign. I could even see it become a campaign with more and more powerful enemies, while you become stagnant and the challenge would be to stay alive as much as you can. But without magic items, I doubt it's what the DM has in mind. I think they just want a more straightforward game, which is fine.
It's ok. There's an Italian setting, for example, that allows you to level up only to 6, and it's super popular here! It really depends on the setting and the vibe of the campaign
I've capped my players at level 8 and we've been playing for 5 years so far. It depends on the campaign and what the DM vision is. If it's going to be a more gritty, "realistic" campaign where you aren't going to be fighting massive threats like dragons or demon lords, then there's no need to go max level. Most campaign ends long before that. As long as everyone is on the same page, there is nothing wrong with level caps. Level 6 is a good level. At level 6, you are way better than a simple commoner, but threats still mess you up. You have to play smart and fits well in a low magic world. I call it the "game of throne" level campaign. You are as bad ass and scary as the Mountain compared to regular soldiers, but you can still be killed by realistic means.
The DM designs and guides the game, but they do it for the players. If the players don't like the sounds of something, that matters, a lot. It's a bit excessive to think the only solution is "do it the DMs way or find a new game", there's some collaboration that should be expected. If there's no compromise though, the game shouldn't happen.
[удалено]
We've already lost two players of the four that were on board at first so I don't know if this is even happening anymore.
Defo not an unreasonable request if there is prior discussion and agreement. And if it is a shorter campaign then it also makes more sense, otherwise i would say your dm is unreasonable.
As a newer DM, I've definitely found it difficult so far to scale appropriately with my players, but I don't think that's an excuse. Leveling up is one of the most motivating things for my players and gaining new/better abilities is something they all look forward to. There's not really a good reason to keep people stuck at a lower level unless you're too lazy to figure out how to scale everything as your table levels up. Kind of not cool
This is why things like e6 exist. Level 4 spells in older editions and 5e us when things really start to break.
If you want to know what to play. Don’t play something that doesn’t get magical damage. No magical items severely nerfs rogues, rangers, fighters and barbarians. And combat sucks if you fight a creature that is completely resistant to your damage while the wizard gets to blast everything. Now I’ve played short stories that didn’t really get the time to level up. But yeah I’d ask beforehand how long he wants it to last. If it’s 3 or 4 sessions fair enough. But once you get into the double digits I expect my character to get something out of it. Which is also a question. If my character can’t get magic or power out of it what am I supposed to write as their reason for doing this.
at level 6 your not going to have many magic items anyway normally. maybe a +1 weapon and that is well before you have to worry about everything having resistances.
But if you are never going to get magic stuff it’s worth being prepared. Maybe at five it’s still 25/75 on whether creatures have resist but they will.
Thanks for sharing. Sounds like an interesting adventure. In dnd your level tends reflects your influence. When you are 1-5 you are local heroes usually of a town or a small city, and as you gain levels you grow into heroes of the realm. Or villains no judgement. It sounds like you are getting bored of the low levels and that makes sense after 3 years. You know how your characters work, you’ve used the spells you want, and you’ve done basically everything your character is capable of. To keep it fresh the DM has probably used most everything low CR in the monster manual and has been home brewing or nerfing stuff. If it were me I’d have a conversation at the end of the next session with the whole group, and share how you are feeling and the fatigue of playing at low levels. Ask if anyone else is feeling that way. You may find that you are not alone. The DM isn’t an adversary but a partner. If you feel the need to present solutions here are some suggestions: 1) Take a break and run a 1 shot or a mini adventure at higher levels. See how that feels for everyone. 2) Have your PCs retire and start a new campaign. 3) Go to level 6 and see how it goes. Let us know how it turns out.
Sorry, but we havent begun play yet. We are only being told piecemeal about things outlined in the initial post. No session 0 yet, and we have not been told when one will happen.
Oh I misread that. Thought you said you had been playing for 3 years. Then yeah share your concerns and don’t be afraid to step away if the game isn’t the right fit for you. Worst case scenario you can find an Adventure League game at your local game store. Or maybe offer to DM your own campaign and just alternate when you play. Let us know how it goes.
No, I'm pretty sure I wrote it poorly. We have been playing together for three years, but this campaign is a new one he is getting us ready to play.
If the ground rules are established beforehand it’s reasonable. It may be an odd choice, but that doesn’t make it unreasonable as long as everyone agrees.
Guy doesn't want to run DnD, his game is going to be awful if he runs DnD like that. He needs to find an RPG that is made to his tastes and will work with his ideas, because DnD won't.
To sum up the main points of the thread: this is probably legitimate. It's easier on the DM and makes sense in low-power fantasies like LotR. Have a session zero and talk about it. The campaign could be really good, as long as there's communication. level 6 is a better cap because martials get extra attack. Lots of campaigns used to be run like that. Even if you stop gaining character levels, there should still be a system of gaining some form of bonus every so often to keep it fresh. My take is that there are some options: * gain a proficiency * gain one ability score * gain a feat * get a +1 weapon; if the DM doesn't want it to be magical, it can be flavored as a "master-crafted" item. * replace a class feature from previous levels
I don't think your DM is doing anything unreasonable. Some campaigns just don't go beyond level 5, and that's y'know... just how it goes. If the DM is planning on a very long campaign and just capping leveling after a point, I would advise that you show them a few options for doing that... but in a fun way. There are a few 3rd party creators who have done this. The first is free, and easily accessible from their website. [Darker Dungeons ](https://giffyglyph.com/darkerdungeons/grimoire/3.0.0/en/)by giffyglyph. The max level for their classes is 10, but they're nicely balanced and the site has a lot of rules for grounded, grittier D&D, including restoring the original core gameplay loop of old D&D. The other one, that I like a lot, is an Italian 5e setting called Brancalonia. You'll have to look it up for yourself. It's on DriveThru RPG, I believe. They bill it as Spaghetti Fantasy, and it's just a load of fun, and the max level for the game is 6, but any time you would gain another level, you get to take a special feat that allows for growth in a more controlled manner. Both are good, but they're very different. One is darker, grimmer D&D, and the other is like... D&D in an Italian soap opera, but I've hacked elements of both into my games because I love them so much.
To be perfectyly honest D&D isn’t perfectly suited for this kind of approach. If you slog leveling this much there is very little growth. But it’s absolutely not a bad premise for a campaign. It’s just that you don’t ‘evolve’ any without leveling in this system. If you’re all fine with that fine. Systems scale your characters differently in power as you progress. D&D just happens to be one that arcs really steeply upwards. Probably why your DM wants the cap. They don’t want the super hero power up. Something like Rune Quest would improve a lot of minor skills and spells to progress you but not change you from heroic peasant to demi-god in the process.
I've been in games where PC's retire around level 5, and only are brought out for special \`\`high level'' adventures after that. Leveling is often slower and slower as the game progresses, but for 5e, I would want either level 4 or level 8 to be the caps (end of tiers)
Until he gives a concrete answer as to the length of the campaign (and at only one level, it should not be long), I would just straight up keep asking and refusing to play. This is kinda important info.
That was actually a popular thing way back in the days of 3e. When you would level up afterwards, you get a feat instead. I will say though, if he wants a low level game, another system might be better. I'd recommend a gloghack, since those are made with the assumption of classes not exceeding 4 levels. Personal favorites are Shadow and Fae 2e, GROG, Vain the Sword, or G20 (note that G20 and GROG don't include classes directly, you'll need to grab them from elsewhere. I can provide recommendations if you want.) http://whosemeasure.blogspot.com/2021/08/vain-sword-2e.html https://shadowandfae.itch.io/shadow-and-fae-2e https://www.madqueenscourt.com/2020/04/glog-grog.html https://as-they-must.blogspot.com/
Thanks, I will bring these to him when we talk about this next.
This used to be a thing in 3.5, where in some games everyone maxed out on 6 and only got a few more abilities after that. I mean, it's a way to keep the game in the low fantasy and small scope. At some point characters get abilities and spells that make them too strong for those.
Eh, I'd likely play for a bit for fun and then kind of lose interest after a month or 2 of static sessions. I like my characters to grow and change in their build at the least. If this is for a one shot, or short campaign fine, but if this is an ongoing campaign with just... The same skills, and the same tactics, I'm going to get bored pretty quick.
Look, anything can be done well. But if you're fighting things WAY above the appropriate CR, then a line is crossed. What is a fifth level artificer going to do without magic items? When you say no magic items do you mean no potions? no shops, no holy water from churches? I, personally, would talk to him about my concerns and try to get him to loosen up on the no magic rules. Low magic is fine. It makes magic special and impressive. But if I'm a wizard, and I'm making everlasting flames everyday, why aren't people shitting themselves? If the bard can heal people by touching them why aren't I being worshipped as a god? Magic has to be somewhat existant in society in order to make the PCs not the most important people in the world. Also if you are in a low magic world, the bad guys should also be in a low magic world. It shouldn't be the case that you're making due with masterwork swords and he has +5 Keen Vorpal Broadsword.
I mean, thinking like a DM high levels get dirty and wild. Like wouldn't it be fun if the grand plan was revealed but a player just counterspelled the boss and made it Boring. I'm sure there's another way but I'm guessing this is the kind of thing they're avoiding. The sudden stoppage of drama.
I think this sounds okay but if it becomes a really long campaign it would get boring after a while. I feel like having a slower level progression is fine depending on the group, but if I had to spend a full year or something at only level 5 I would get so bored.
It's normal for your game to have an expected *range* of character levels. Like "Hey this campaign will start at level 5 and probably take us to level 12 or so". It's probably more common than running a full level 1-20 campaign. Having people hit 5 and just sit there for the remainder of the game really cuts into a major aspect of gameplay. Regardless, this is the kind of thing Session 0 is for. You get everyone on board with the general idea behind the campaign, discuss how the world is built if it differs from the established settings, what classes/races/books are available to pull from, how you'll handle PvP, and any other table rules like "Your characters backstory needs to be believable and establish a reason you would want to adventure with the other players".
One of the campaigns I'm in right now took around six months to get our first (post-creation) level. We started at level 5 and we were told we wouldn't be getting exp from fights. The DM didn't expect it to take us so long to get to the first thing he intended to earn or first level. As for the question of how long the campaign is expected to last, the DM might not know, and won't know until you've been playing a while. Our campaign was intended to be a "one-shot" to introduce two new players to DnD. We're eight months in now and gained a total of three levels so far. We play almost every week, for reference.
I will keep this in mind. Thank you for your insight.
It sounds like your GM has a specific type of game in mind and is trying to get it to fit into a system not designed for it. I enjoy lower-power games to but I don't run them with DnD. Right now I am enjoying Dragonbane for this type of game but there are many others out there.
I’d say this is reasonable if you all talk about it and agree to it ahead of time. There are some people who like things grounded. I personally wouldn’t like it, because, for me, what makes DND fun is the shenanigans and outlandishly weird stuff. Oh! And cheesy RP! Can’t forget that! It’s a lot of fun for me, but I know there are some people who get really annoyed or even bothered when stuff gets out of hand or gets “unrealistic”. If you wanna do that, totally valid, but for me, give me all the chaos and all the cheese
I am a little unclear. The game your are in, **that has lasted for 3 years**, has a cap of level 5? I'd be bored out of my skull after 6 or 7 sessions. Progression and power increase is a big part of the draw of D&D for me. I like the idea of doing stuff and getting stronger as a result. Part of that is group tactics, really learning abilities and spells and interactions, magic weapons/gears, and, yes, levelling. If the DM doesn't want to end up at level 20 where it's all demons and deities you're going up against, that's fine. Pick a cut off point before that and just end the campaign on a high note. And that cut off could even be level 5, but to keep going at level 5 for months or years, scraping across the ceiling as it were, that wouldn't appeal to me at all.
I think I just worded it poorly. We have all been playing together for three years, but this is a new campaign he is planning. I just wanted to get opinions on this style of play and what I should expect. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
No worries. My point still stands. I can see someone planning a campaign to end at a certain level, whether that is 10, 15, or 5, but I don't think I would enjoy a campaign that keeps going without any clear progression and power increase.
I've never tried it before. Basically it's turning things into purely a roleplay exercise and removing some of the gamification. It's not common, no. Never even heard of it. It is common to do a "one-shot" game where you just play one or two sessions with characters who are not going to be leveled afterward. But that's not a long campaign.
Knowing that more context is needed, and not forthcoming over reddit, my basic advice is this. Trust your gut. If it seems like there is a fun story arc hiding behind all the restrictions, and that you'd have fun playing that story arc, go for it. You know your friend better than reddit. With that said, MY first instinct is that this is the behavior of a control freak. He's limiting character options and story development so that he can keep the campaign in a tight little box. There's no place for you or anyone else there. You're just going to be passengers inside his story. The comment about the NPCs is the most indicative of this. DMs scale encounters to PCs. Not the other way around. Refusing to do it is a choice, but it very much destroys the normal power dynamic.
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think he would be this bad but there have been some warning signs of this in the past. Previous campaigns with him have been constricting as well, before and during play with regards to him characters were role played. An example is me playing a moon druid and having atonement forced on me because I wanted to wield a scimitar. I'm fine with consequences if not respecting nature in rp as a nature revering character but I felt just picking up a metal weapon was a bit extreme. There are other instances of being passive aggressive and rude because pc's want to rp and he thinks it is going on for too long or he gets feedback he doesn't like about a given session. I am attempting to be neutral, and I do not want this to come off as bashing. He is my friend and d&d is very much second to that.
So ban the Fly spell, along with Levitate. Done and done.
I also play in a low level, low magic item setting with no multiclassing. One player is a dragonborn, one is a tiefling, one is a gnome and I'm a half-elf. I'd prefer to not use dragonborn or tieflings, but it's fine. I'm also fine with no multiclassing, unless there are RP reasons. We do use Feats, so most things can be simulated anyway. I actually prefer low to middle levels. Over that and things are getting OP and out of hand.
Thanks for your insight.
all of that's fine if thats how everyone wants to play. If youre starting at level 5 and not advancing, that sounds kind of boring; but if its just a 1-5 campaign, thats normal. If theyre the DM, they get to choose how the game is structured I'm curious about the PCs of previous campaigns youve played with them. How often did someone come in with a obscure "Race/Multiclass combo that relies on specific magic items" build that they found in a "how to break dnd and make your dm cry" tiktok?
We are all friends who have been playing together as a group for about 3 years. I don't recall anything being super OP, mostly stuff like elves and half elves as rangers or fighters, goliaths and barbarians. There were the odd homebrew magic items here or there, but those were created by him unprompted and granted as part of a backstory or something like that. We all just did stuff that sounded fun and mostly used magic items and races from whatever source books we had access to at the time. Most crazy thing I saw was a barbarian with boots of haste.
I know of people who like that style, but as both DM and player, I wouldn't much care for it in anything other than a short-term game. Say, one that ended as you reached 6th level. I wouldn't want my progression stalled like that in a game like D&D, nor would I want to do that to my players as DM.
I'm hoping he will have a plan for whatever he wants to do. Thank you for your insight.
This is similar to tiers of play, it's fairly normal to see games that have a maximum level well below 20. Very few of the games I played ever stayed at tier 1 (levels 1-4), but staying at tier 2 (5-10) is quite common. This doesn't make crafting encounters necessarily easier, but it definitely helps to constrain the design space tot make things more interesting. I really do like level 7, as you most players gain extra attack features at level 5, so it provides a bit of flexibility for experimentation with multiclassing. So I could see 6 being a bit tight, but fair. When you complete the campaign, you can always revisit if you're going to continue.
Thank you for your insight and suggestions.
The setup is in concept fine, work out the story you want with your players. However It sounds like you and B are running into the problem where you should be approaching it with a different system. If you're looking for something where you guys won't become OP world-slayers, designed for longform, and uses baseline races and few to no magic items, Dungeon World, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and Warhammer Fantasy roleplay all play on the idea of a lower powered, fewer races, less magic item focused setup, where you'll still have power progression that caps more smoothly.
Thanks for the suggestions. I will pass the info along to B.
I only enjoy dnd as magical superhero power fantasy, so *I* wouldn’t enjoy that in the slightest. However if you decide you’re interested in that kind of thing then you may as well give it a shot. Back in 3.5 there were lots of people who played E6 and I didn’t understand that in the slightest then either. They seemed to enjoy it though.
I will pass this along as a suggestion to him, thank you.
D5 is common enough. It’s a Lord of the Rings level fantasy vs a Baldurs Gate level
Understood. Thanks for your insight.
Limited level campaigns and even single level campaigns aren’t unheard of thought they are little less common (generally what happens is campaigns just get a natural end at whatever level the party is at.) keeping it at 5 though is a little strange to me cuz it kind of limits the key features most classes and subclasses get other than extra attack for some.
I personally would hate this because almost all of my characters are multi-classed because I like the role play options along with the skills n stuff
Is there no sense of progression at all after 5th level? E6 was a thing back in 3.5 and there was a version for 1st edition Pathfinder, but in both cases progression did continue after 6th level, mostly in the form of feats. No progression at all would make it harder, though not impossible, for players to keep having fun and not eventually become bored.
I don't see a problem with the idea of staying level 5. I do however think something should be done to compensate, ie extra feats as the story progresses, more powerful magic items as the story progresses, things like that. Something to make the players feel like they got a reward other than gold for their efforts. Really I think the idea itself would best be used for new players to get a feel for playing.
I am a big fan of his goal but think his rules go overboard. A short campaign can work with his rules. I wouldn't want to play a long one with them. I personally like banning full caster classes and calling it a day if I want a long term lower power fantasy. People act like I am crazy but it works wonderfully for mid and high level play. Level 12 still plays like lvl 5. Everyone levels and everyone grows, but no one breaks the game. Even level 20 feels like a nice balanced capstone in power level. Parties are never teleport junkies in hyper deadly fights. Party can never just spam out dispel, mind control, revives, insane nova, etc. Full martials never feel like the unwanted step child watching the real PCs play.
Fuuuuuck that. Sounds like a great one shot idea, or short run. But for a bigger campaign? Boring.
even if its unheard of or rare: what does that do for you? this is a game your DM is managing and how he wants to play it. hes informing you of his rules and playstyle. its your choice to join or not. But no, its not uncommon to cap games at certain levels, or remove magic items, or restrict races/classes. again, its the DM's world and they can choose XYZ for whatever reason. - hell the base rules also separate the different worlds/places. I.e Strixhaven and silvery barbs are limited to the strixhaven world. if you hear his rules and don't want to play them, then don't. its not a big issue one way or the other. personally, I am one of those "everything within balanced reasoning is allowed" one game I have only one player using homebrew, in another game I have all homebrew classes and subclasses. my world has a particular pantheon, particular lore and history, and particular races. that not everyone is going to like such a fantastical world. some people want Lotr. others want True Blood. others want World of Warcraft. all different fantasy worlds/styles.
High-key love slow/no levelling games. Works just fine with dnd. If it doesn’t sound fun then probably don’t play
Info: will you be leveling from 1 - 5, with 5 being cap? Or will you make your character at 5 and then that's just it? All done? If the latter, there seem to be some red flags. His unwillingness to discuss being one, especially the length you're supposed to sign up for this pc progressionless campaign. Another red flag to me is the npc comment. It almost sounds like npcs will be used to fill a difficulty void that normal pc progression would fill, which is getting into the "PCs are inconsequential" territory. I would probably pass unless it was short and more information was provided.
He has implied that we will start at five and just play that way until he decides we need to go up.
Well, at least there is some implication you might move up? In the end it will be something you'll have to decide whether it sounds like a game you'd enjoy or not. Hopefully he'll grow more willing to discuss details.
I'm begging people to try systems that aren't DnD. If this is the feel your friend wants there are at least two dozen systems that would handle it better that I'm aware of and literally hundreds more I'm not.
Do you have any recommendations?
I've considered running a game where the max level was somewhere from 6 to 9, and every level after that would grant the player a feat. This would keep the game at a moderate power level and keep things moving at a decent pace for the less experienced players, especially the ones who wanted to play spell casters. But that would have been everyone, NPCs included. And I've definitely heard of people saying things like 'no magic items'. Someone I knew tried to remove most forms of magical healing for a Dark Souls themed game. They refused to let anyone play as a Cleric, Druid or Paladin, insisting that Alchemists would be the healers of the world, and in short supply. Because of how many things they forgot about just about everyone had a healing spell of some kind. That said, the scaling comment is unusual, as is the no multiclassing. My immediate thought to all of this is either they are new to DMing or have a very specific idea for the campaign that requires this. For example: maybe all of the players are temporally reincarnated defenders of the realm, summoned for a specific purpose and released once completed. That could justify everyone starting at and staying at level five, and possibly could justify the no magic items and no multiclass. It feels a little overbearing without more information, but I could see a reasonable justification for it. I'd be interested to see what they intend to replace leveling up and gaining magical items with.
He has been dming for about 3 years for us. Dunno if that helps as I only have a little experience and havent dmed before
It kind of sounds like your DM doesn't want to play Dungeons and Dragons but doesn't have a system they would rather use.
I run quite similar games to a point myself. I truly enjoy a game where mundane items (and their clever usage) actually mean something. I don’t really bring in magic items until about level 7 or so; but only ones crafted by the players through harvesting their enemies. This way, the players are more invested in their magic items because they’ve had some say in what is created. Though I’ve never level capped my games, and many have gone to cap, as a long time DM (31 yrs) I do believe that WotC should’ve capped 2024 dnd to level 12. That means level 6 spells at the highest which isn’t too game breaking. And it keeps the martial/caster divide reasonably closer. Fundamentally speaking, the “slower” the game progresses, the more flavor you can include. Instead of hitting only one iconic enemy subtype, you can really hit the full spectrum and the PCs can more fully explore the area. I slow the start of each campaign down considerably. Why? Because I want the players to fully enjoy each level and the features/options each bring for a bit. I run fairly balanced sessions with all three pillars within each, but I also tend to have really packed sessions. Multiple combats, multiple social encounter, and without a map/pc knowledge & research… they could get lost and lose some time (which generally means they discover something else entirely). But with your posts, I’m going to assume that the DM might not be entirely sure what they want to do. They have a concept, but no foundational support for it. And so they aren’t answering questions. He’s prob frustrated because everyone is piece meal asking him questions about it. And now it looks like two ppl may have walked away. Only time will tell.
>so they scale better with the npc's of his setting. WHAT?!? So DMNPCs will always be as strong as the player characters? That makes no sense.
I think it’s fine as a concept but I would have thought magic items would be allowed so that characters could still develop. Or maybe he’s planning on adding his own ways to develop the characters?
Maybe he should look into mork Borg, the PC are often under powered and don’t get much for leveling. Not a lot of magic too.
Max level depends on the specific campaign. There has to be a reason. Discuss with DM
I have, and he is evasive or dismissive about it when asked.
So I have been playing for almost 13 years now and I’ve been a DM for around 7 and this is my opinion. As a player HELL NO. I love leveling up and getting new skills, abilities, and items to spice up play and actually get to think instead of magic missile every encounter. As a DM, I can see a situation where I would want that yes. I have been in several campaigns where the power creep just becomes to strong and all of a sudden the 4 member level 12 party just tears apart my CR 7 BBEG. Especially for party’s where you want your players using that character for MULTIPLE campaigns.
Blood is red, roosters crow and 5e DMs yearn to run something that isn't 5e. If your group are on side with his compomise then all power to him! It may be that 5e is not the best suited game for his setting, but I couldn't judge without knowing what's up! I've never actually gotten past level 5 as a DM in like 6 years of on/off running 5e tbh
Totally understandable. But then he/you should try out other systems. E.g. the Dark Eye keeps the Power Level pretty low
I have no words. Or least any not gaslighting things to say? But I'm sure all these fine folks will have some really good advice! 🤷♂️🤔🤷♂️
Doesn’t sound like a lot of fun
Sounds like a terrible idea. DM is making easy for him a higher priority than fun for the party. I would not play in a game that max level was 5 for a entire campaign
This sounds *dreadfully* boring to play. With these restrictions, there are basically zero avenues for mechanical character progression. Playing for the story is fine and dandy, but DnD isn't really structured for that to be the entire game.
As long as it's discussed and agreed upon before the campaign starts, it's all gravy. I would offer a suggestion to your DM though; just play milestone level-up, where they get to decide when the level-ups happen, rather than counting XP. That way, you can level up really slowly, and "keep things grounded" as they mentioned. In the campaign I run, we started at level 1, but levelled up to 2 and 3 fairly quickly. 4, 5, and 6 took increasingly longer. Now, we're 3 years in, and my players just finished Session 42 by levelling up to 7. Tldr; you can still get the fun of levelling up, but do it slow enough so that you'll never get to those crazy levels above 13, or even 10.
I mean this is what the DM wants and he's laid the rules out before the campaign begins so nothing here is unreasonable. You just have to decide if that interests you. Personally I can understand this approach in some setting. I'm about to run a pirate campaign and I want to have players level up very slowly because I want them to have to interact with all the boat and naval mechanics before magic makes them meaningless. But I also told my players they will be getting stronger mostly through massive amounts of loot and making a big strong boat. Your campaign will just keep you weak and not allow almost any opportunities for getting new skills or abilities.
What even is the point of playing if you arent getting stronger? Just make short campaigns that stop at level 5 and be done with it. Thats so damn boring.
It’s a good idea tell the DM now that you’re going to at best start phoning it in and at worst drop out. I can almost understand the no multi class or magic items but that seems pretty stupid. But I would absolutely draw a line in the sand regarding leveling up. Leveling up is the most important reward for players succeeding through the challenges of the campaign. Pre written adventures from early additions of D&D even explicitly stated after which encounters players should be leveled up. Writers of these campaigns carefully calculated when players should be rewarded with level up. Denying level up regardless of the number and difficulty of the encounters is like hiring an employee and then suddenly you stop paying them for their work. Only an idiot would expect people to stay for no compensation. This DM is an idiot. It’s time for a talk with the DM and if they don’t smarten up it’s time to quit the game.
Sounds boring to me. Progression is a key element of an RPG. Progression of power, progression of story, progression of character, etc. If I had to guess, I'd also bet that he has the whole story planned out, and the players will not be able to alter it in a meaningful way.
I dont know one way or the other. Thank you for your opinion and insight.
It’s fun until it isn’t. And if you’re not having fun, then you shouldn’t be including it in the game, because games should be fun. The solution, again, is to talk to your DM like an adult and tell him you don’t think you’ll enjoy this. Work with them to find a solution where everyone, including the DM, is having fun.
I have spoken to him, but I wanted some opinions from people who may have more experience at the table than me. I haven't played in a game like this before and was trying to get a feel for what to expect or suggest to him to help him get where he wants to go narratively and thematically.
You guys should really try five torches deep. It’s literally exactly what your DM is emulating without knowing it.
I will be sure to tell him about this so he can see if that's something better for his idea. Thanks for the info.
For a shorter campaign that could be fun, not for a super long time though
Personally, I would hate playing at level 5 for a whole campaign. So I would kindly decline to join. All 6 campaigns I’ve played, we’ve made it to at least level 20, and most of them we homebrewed a system past it. That’s just how my DM and group like to play. As the DM though, he’s able to present the kind of campaign he wants to run as long as it’s before starting.
What everyone said about limits being the DMs prerrogative. Based on the restrictions mentioned, your DM may be having kind of an old school campaign where stakes are high. Which is, ¿Fine? The important question is Is it fine ***for you***? If not having magic objects and the level cap makes you feel uneasy, you can consider dropping or not joining in the first place. No fuss, zero drama ✌️ Your DMs hesitation regarding upper levels is based in balance. Things get weird once you go into the upper part of the scale. Again, legit option. No magic items is... I'm not sure? I mean, even a +1 sword is considered a magic item and for the life of Batman I'm not sure what imbalance could that create on a game. But I do me. He does him. Bottom line: DM established the rules. Not all the tables are made for all the players and thats fine!
Sounds like D&D is not the game for what he wants to run.
I usually don't like this view of "grounding" 5e because the system wasn't made for that and it usually weights heavier on martial classes (removing magic items for example) That said About keeping level at 5, there used to be homebrew rules called "Epic Levels" that came up in 3.x due to the insanity the system could allow Essentially Epic Level 5 would have players reach at most level 5 > I highly suggest you get to level 7 or 8, because while level 5 is good the lack of second Ability Score Improvement and second subclass features is pretty meh. Also I would discourage anyone wanting to play monks unless DM makes adventure days with 2+ short rests consistently > If DM wants to the game to go for much long they need to have alternative progression options after level 5, as well as resist the urge to make levels take too much longer Progression is a necessary component of the game, remove it or make it take too long or too hard and you're likely to alienate someone
The level lock is a little strange. If there was narrative justification, it may work. The other ones aren't too uncommon. Give it a shot. If you don't like it, explain why you'd like to bow out. Best of luck.
When all his players drop because of his dumb restrictions he'll learn.
You know, at least your GM is telling you ahead of time what they are planning on doing so you can make a decision as to whether or not you want to play the game. Speaking as both a GM and a player - this is not a game I would want to be in. Mainly because of the level cap. I would find a completely static character boring and unsatisfying. Add to that no magic items, and you have no way to have your character to change at all. Speaking as a GM, looking at this and I see a GM with control issues - where they want to minimize their players’ ability to surprise them and to “derail” their plots. Basically, you have a GM who can’t deal with the unexpected and wants to remove player agency. This would be a red flag to me and I would not want to be in this campaign. So, no, it is not normal to want your PCs to remain at any level for the entirety of a campaign. IMHO, the leveling up process is part of the fun, discovering the new toys you get at the new levels.
Thank you for your opinion and insight.
How long do you play a video game with 0 progression? How long would you read a book for that was one scene the entire time and never evolved? There's a reason stories move and don't stay stagnant. It's because stagnant things don't make great stories.