For me, level 5 is where characters get interesting. That's the point where a particular class starts doing what it's known for being good at. Thieves/Rogues get better sneak attack damage, fighters start getting additional attacks (or additional feats, weapon proficiencies, or other bonuses), mages get access to Fireball, priests start getting the really good offensive spells to counterbalance their already formidable healing abilities...
Level 5 is where, as a player, I start feeling like a real adventurer, like the training wheels are off and I'm finally surviving on my own in the world. I don't feel like my DM has to hold my hand.
At the same time, Level 5 isn't so powerful that you can't find a decent challenge. Level 5 characters start facing giants, stronger undead, even some younger dragons. Level 5 adventuring is "iconic" adventuring, if you think about the sorts of dangers that are typically faced by characters in books. At level 5, you have your first encounter with a deadly assassin (Challenge 8 in 5e), whom you'll need to track down and defeat over the course of an adventure. At level 5, you're finally taking on the warlord from that hobgoblin clan that's been terrorizing the coast. At level 5, you're finding your first magic items, and learning that the world is just a little bit bigger than you realized.
Level 5 is where it's at for me. I wish all my D&D games could be level 5 forever.
I absolutely agree that 1-10 are the best levels, for all the reasons mentioned above.
Also, in the 'reality' of PnP it takes a heck of a lot of real time to get to that level and either boredom or DM fatigue starts to set in, which is when everything tends to get silly (ridiculous weapons needed to fight outrageous monsters etc.).
Personally, I don't think I've ever taken a character beyond 11 or 12 as at about that level we would invariably decide to chuck it all in and start a new game in a different scenario.
I agree with what @Dee posted. I think 5th is pretty much where things start getting interesting. I find that "For me", most games only provide level 1-4 as more or less an introduction to the game. Even BG I feel at least allows for the player to rush fairly quickly through those levels.
As a side note, in the DragonLance supplement, it was upon reaching level 5 that your wizard took 'The test' and prior to that was considered an apprentice. I've always played my wizards that way. Up until level 5, I always had a master and then I graduated.
To fully answer the OP's question, again "For me", I find that between 7-15 to be the most fun for my play style. I like higher levels more, but appreciate getting there as well. Although I enjoy the 'Epic' levels, I find that they generally require a much different strategy and it is more about removing/debuffing strategies than anything else.
I'd have to start be saying "it depends!" Different games, different DMs have different tempos and different comfort zones. Generally I'm happiest as a player when I feel capable, but not invincible.
To put that into numbers; I'll say the game usually works best from about 3-12. But I'm happiest from about 5-9.
I like what @atcDave put. And it really does depend on the campaign/adventure/DM.
As far as PC games, I always hated that a lot of games start you out in the sewers killing rats. While I understand the thinking that you gotta kill a lot of rats to appreciate when you are killing Demons, it still just seems painful to actually go through it.
While this may seem a bit of a stretch, one of my all time favorite games was God of War. Within the very first 5 minutes of the game, you are fighting a Kracken. That was EPIC. And it only goes up from there, but you never feel like you are fighting rats, nor do you not appreciate your progression. That was the way to make a game in my opinion.
I guess I'm okay with the occasional epic rat battle as part of the new character learning curve. But no doubt, I also really appreciate any type of game that can mix it up a little and provide a different sort of introduction.
What I like about very high levels is to show the villains that I'm as badass as them. How epic would it be if you could challenge Sarevok to a duel, instead of charging the whole party?
about levels 5-10 is my favorite point both as a player and a DM. Because it's at that point where the party starts having the means to do some absolutely extraordinary things while at the same time being pushed to the absolute limits and forces players to actually think, "OH GOD, HOW AM I GOING TO LIVE THROUGH THIS!" I've had players take down creatures FAR outside their experience level by making them plan and strategize properly. Cause, as a DM, when I'm not making the mundane parts of the adventures lives an absolute hell for my own amusement I really do want to see them succeed.
Depends on the edition and DM. In 3.5, the high CR enemies are pretty crazy (3.0 was much kinder usually), so plenty of DMs will not be well prepared to keep track of everything. However, I think in general by lvl 5 or 6 you should be reaching high enough level you aren't challenged by a party of Goblins, so the enemies get more interesting. You can afford to get hit by this time, often a few times. Very low levels suck unless your DM is very good and pulls punches (ie rolls in secret to fudge as needed), its too easy for TPK to happen at lvls 1 - 3. In 3.5, lvl 10 imo is a big benchmark level... you should be shaping up into whatever you hope to end up as. Even absurd munchkin builds should start being fun by lvl 10.
In summation, anything after lvl 3, though you need progressively more talent to DM to keep everything from bogging down.
2-8. I like the whole "starting out as a weak character who dies as soon as a kobold sneezes on him" thing, though level 1 is very hard to survive because one or two freak rolls can end you. But after level 8, I find it gets too silly. Even level 8 characters are pretty godlike, but when you've got hitpoints in the hundreds, and are adding 10-14 to your attack rolls, there isn't much that can still challenge you.
That's actually one of the reasons I'm going off D&D as a gaming system...it just isn't brutal, dangerous, and scary, enough at higher levels, especially when the players know how to powerbuild.
@Squire Fifth Edition actually makes that a little bit better, though like any other RPG system, above a certain threshold it's hard to keep characters from seeming invincible.
I did notice, looking through the Monster Manual, that a lot of enemies that used to be balanced for level 8-12 are now being targeted for levels 2-6. It seems like they want you to face (generally) more dangerous enemies at lower levels, so that by the time you're facing the ancient dragons of the world, they really do feel like the sorts of enemies that could easily destroy a kingdom, and you as heroes really do feel like the only ones who can stop them.
Fights tend to last longer at higher levels, is the thing that you notice most. But that's typical for any RPG video game as well--the more formidable the foe, the more health they have, and the better-equipped you need to be in order to defeat them (unless, like me, you wait until you're level 99 and just X-cast Ultima until the end credits roll...).
For 2nd edition, I'd say it gets really good somewhere around 5 or so, and stays that until somewhere like 13-15. Sometime soon after their mages just become a bit silly. I feel like the system really wasn't designed with actually using 9th level spells in mind.
The game really wasn't designed for high level spells to be used. I think the most common expectation back in the late 70s was; if your group gamed once a week, you'd make level 9 in about a year, and a level or two a year after that. I don't know what the "official" take on that may have been; but I do know from articles in Dragon and Polyhedron Magazines this was a common expectation among players. The higher level stuff existed mainly so players would know what sort of things the ultimate powers of the world were capable of. 16th level was something for Gods and Kings, not players. There were all sorts of disparaging nick names for players who thought they should have such a character. There were occasional "high level adventures" published, but usually that just meant "over 10th level" or it was a one off, tournament sort of thing. This started to change some years after 2E was first published. Not surprisingly, if the rules allowed for 20th level characters someone was going to end up playing one. So gradually more rules and provisions were added. But it was always a retrofit, and I think it never really worked very well.
Comments
Level 5 is where, as a player, I start feeling like a real adventurer, like the training wheels are off and I'm finally surviving on my own in the world. I don't feel like my DM has to hold my hand.
At the same time, Level 5 isn't so powerful that you can't find a decent challenge. Level 5 characters start facing giants, stronger undead, even some younger dragons. Level 5 adventuring is "iconic" adventuring, if you think about the sorts of dangers that are typically faced by characters in books. At level 5, you have your first encounter with a deadly assassin (Challenge 8 in 5e), whom you'll need to track down and defeat over the course of an adventure. At level 5, you're finally taking on the warlord from that hobgoblin clan that's been terrorizing the coast. At level 5, you're finding your first magic items, and learning that the world is just a little bit bigger than you realized.
Level 5 is where it's at for me. I wish all my D&D games could be level 5 forever.
Also, in the 'reality' of PnP it takes a heck of a lot of real time to get to that level and either boredom or DM fatigue starts to set in, which is when everything tends to get silly (ridiculous weapons needed to fight outrageous monsters etc.).
Personally, I don't think I've ever taken a character beyond 11 or 12 as at about that level we would invariably decide to chuck it all in and start a new game in a different scenario.
In 3/3.5 some characters need quite a lot of levels until playing them becomes actually fun.
As a side note, in the DragonLance supplement, it was upon reaching level 5 that your wizard took 'The test' and prior to that was considered an apprentice. I've always played my wizards that way. Up until level 5, I always had a master and then I graduated.
To fully answer the OP's question, again "For me", I find that between 7-15 to be the most fun for my play style. I like higher levels more, but appreciate getting there as well. Although I enjoy the 'Epic' levels, I find that they generally require a much different strategy and it is more about removing/debuffing strategies than anything else.
To put that into numbers; I'll say the game usually works best from about 3-12. But I'm happiest from about 5-9.
As far as PC games, I always hated that a lot of games start you out in the sewers killing rats. While I understand the thinking that you gotta kill a lot of rats to appreciate when you are killing Demons, it still just seems painful to actually go through it.
While this may seem a bit of a stretch, one of my all time favorite games was God of War. Within the very first 5 minutes of the game, you are fighting a Kracken. That was EPIC. And it only goes up from there, but you never feel like you are fighting rats, nor do you not appreciate your progression. That was the way to make a game in my opinion.
In summation, anything after lvl 3, though you need progressively more talent to DM to keep everything from bogging down.
That's actually one of the reasons I'm going off D&D as a gaming system...it just isn't brutal, dangerous, and scary, enough at higher levels, especially when the players know how to powerbuild.
I did notice, looking through the Monster Manual, that a lot of enemies that used to be balanced for level 8-12 are now being targeted for levels 2-6. It seems like they want you to face (generally) more dangerous enemies at lower levels, so that by the time you're facing the ancient dragons of the world, they really do feel like the sorts of enemies that could easily destroy a kingdom, and you as heroes really do feel like the only ones who can stop them.
Fights tend to last longer at higher levels, is the thing that you notice most. But that's typical for any RPG video game as well--the more formidable the foe, the more health they have, and the better-equipped you need to be in order to defeat them (unless, like me, you wait until you're level 99 and just X-cast Ultima until the end credits roll...).
I don't know what the "official" take on that may have been; but I do know from articles in Dragon and Polyhedron Magazines this was a common expectation among players.
The higher level stuff existed mainly so players would know what sort of things the ultimate powers of the world were capable of. 16th level was something for Gods and Kings, not players. There were all sorts of disparaging nick names for players who thought they should have such a character.
There were occasional "high level adventures" published, but usually that just meant "over 10th level" or it was a one off, tournament sort of thing.
This started to change some years after 2E was first published. Not surprisingly, if the rules allowed for 20th level characters someone was going to end up playing one. So gradually more rules and provisions were added. But it was always a retrofit, and I think it never really worked very well.