D&D changes every 5 levels by design...

Presto2112 · Feb 8, 2007

Nyaricus said:
Neat stuff, and makes sense.

My players hate me for always starting them off at low level though

cheers,
--N

One of my players was like that, too. But after our last session, I got a fantastic compiment via email from this player:

I think a good time was had by all, I know I enjoyed myself. It definitely made me reasses my hatred for all things 1st level. I look forward to the next game (when when when) as well as the division of the treaure.

It gave me grinnage all day.

Ry · Feb 8, 2007

Pretty much sums up why I leave my games capped at level 8.

Schmoe · Feb 8, 2007

Wulf Ratbane said:
And another things-- also probably mentioned in the Sweet Spot.

To me, this illustrates the fundamental flaw with Adventure Paths as we currently know them:

I believe that most people (yes, most) are going to be unhappy with about 50% of the content. It's going to drag down the way any given AP is viewed, as a success or not. I think an AP that focused on extended play through 5 or 10 levels, instead of 20, while perhaps missing a certain portion of the market, would overall be considered a much greater success by its target market.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with "most" people, but I definitely agree that a lot of people will be put off by a large portion of any campaign that stretchs from levels 1 to 20.

Schmoe · Feb 8, 2007

kyloss said:
But what if I want an Ice cream cake , or birthday cake flavored ice cream?

Citizen, please be mindful that Computer has provided you with all the options you need. You are not classified for any further information. Further inquiries along this line may require investigation.

Schmoe · Feb 8, 2007

Wulf Ratbane said:
I knew there was a reason I felt like a genius again today.

Sit down.

Take a deep breath.

It will pass.

Wulf Ratbane · Feb 8, 2007

Schmoe said:
Sit down.

Take a deep breath.

It will pass.

Usually about the time I actually set pen to paper, actually.

Still... within the confines of my shower: Soooper Genius.

MerricB · Feb 8, 2007

thedungeondelver said:
Disagree. D&D of any stripe should do what the DM wants it to do. If the game is gritty all the way up to 9th level, then that's the DM's prerogative.

It's all in how you run your campaign.

However, the changing nature of spells available really do change the campaign. If you permit magic-users and clerics, there are some points where the game will change just based on their capabilities.

Cheers!

MerricB · Feb 8, 2007

T. Foster said:
The idea of D&D being "four, four, four games in one!" is cool (even if I have no desire to play two of them) but is at least somewhat at odds with the standard "20 level campaign-arc" model -- the idea that you're not supposed to just pick the one game you like and stick with it, but are instead expected to play all four, in order.

Indeed.

The game should, IMO, include more advice (and/or alternate rules) to facilitate narrower one, two, or three-style campaign-arcs for those who prefer them.

That'd be really great. What I find astonishing is that none of the designers have really written about this before - although it may just be my inattention. Seeing Ryan Dancey's post was illuminating.

I think there's an assumption in AD&D (1e) play that a campaign will go from 1st to 12th level and then stop, thus meaning the balance between the classes and races holds up over the entirity of the game (MUs more powerful at later levels, demihumans best at early levels...) The 3e design is for all PCs to be "equally" effective at any given level, although the implementation isn't perfect.

However, the change in the game depending on what level you are is real; BECM D&D had a changing structure based on the PCs position in the world, although I don't know how well that mapped to the spellcasters' abilities. AD&D had it by default, due to the acquisition of powerful spells. (A fighter gaining levels really doesn't change much in what they can do, just in how good they are at it, but the magic-user and cleric change significantly.)

Cheers!

eyebeams · Feb 8, 2007

buzz said:
This is the best campaign-building advice I have ever read.

It'd be really nice if comments like these and Mr. Danceys were in the DMG. WotC, please take note.

If you visit anyone good at cold reading you can get an unlimited amount of similar advice.

Herobizkit · Feb 8, 2007

rycanada said:
Pretty much sums up why I leave my games capped at level 8.

Do your players ever go crazy that there is no longer any chance of advancement? I know I would.

Personally, I enjoy my games from 7-15th. Especially with PrCs being thrown into the mix, it would be aggravating as hell not to be able to reach the full 10-level progression that they were meant to be.

Also, I tend to multi-class like crazy, and being capped at level 8 would just seem redundant for any kind of mutli-classing.