[D&D Design Discussion] Preserving the "Sweet Spot"

[DrNilesCrane]

Also, if you define the sweet spot as, that point beyond which spells become too "wahoo" -- then why is 10th the cutoff? At 10th level you've got teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift -- four of the biggest game-changing spells there are. You've also got the presence of "save of die" spells like dominate person, hold monster, baleful polymorph, slay living, and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Just throwing this out there: a part of the difficulty with some of these spells (i.e. teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift) is that they extend the use of magic beyond the short range, tactical (i.e. combat or combat related) to regional/world/multiverse, which eventually defines the game. A fighter or rogue at 20th level is still affecting his or her immediate area and has abilities relatively easy understand and adjudicate (although with some number creep), vs. a high level caster, which (with the enormous variety of spells and their game defining effects) defines what kind of adventures can be run, how they are run, how the party travels, what happens when they die, etc.

High level play really feels like a different beast in my respects, but I'm not a fan of level capping myself. I think dropping the "defining" spells mentioned in this thread is a solution, combined with scaling other spells to run comparably to other class abilities (and perhaps making the casters--specifically wizards/sorcerers--able to do more than just cast) might be a solution. [It's something I'm trying in my current 6 Elements campaign, but we've only playtested high-level play with our rule variants as opposed to running it up to 20th...we tend to level a bit slower on purpose].

Interesting discussion - I'm looking forward to reading more.

 

[Maniac]

You might have to restrict or ban a few items but I think a level cap would take care of most of the problems. The level cap would prevent certain item creation feats from being available and also prevent certain items from being made at all because certain spells won't be available.

Adhering to the treasure limits per level in the DMG would help as well.

You might even want to go lower than those treasure limits.

Look at Dark Sun for example. Characters began at 3rd level but had access only to weapons, armor and equipment made from subpar materieal like bone and obsidian. You were happy just to get a [I[metal[/I] sword. So you still got the fun of getting new stuff but by starting so low you don't end up with any game breaking equipment.

M.

 

[BryonD]

Before I even opened this thread I was thinking the limit spell casters to 1/2 thing.

I think that and a limit on # of attacks for fighters would go a very long way to getting the job done.

As far as gear, the limit of caster level should play a big role in setting that. If caster levels are cut in half then the ability to make magic items would also be greatly constrained. Thus the number of them would plummet and the price would skyrocket. Which seems to be exactly what a lot of people want.

As an aside, that is flaw in the current D&D approach. A ring of protection +1 is only worth 2000 gp. And yet it can only be made by a person who both a) is a 12th level caster and b) bothered to spend a feat on Forge Ring. Just how many magic rings will there really be? Even in somewhere like the Realms? And don't these wizards have better things to do with their time than craft 2,000 gp rings?
Supply and demand is out the window and the price of each is according to its ability.

Seriously though, if you cut caster levels in half the price for magics should go up by at least an order of magnitude. Which is where a system of lesser qualities such as Maniac mentioned or maybe as presented in Heroes of High Favor: Half Orcs, could be good adders. And an expanded masterwork sysem ala Black Company is also a very good option.

 

[Geoffrey]

According to WOTC research, most D&D campaigns don't last for more than 20 sessions. Capping level advancement at 10th level makes sense in this regard. Most campaigns, assuming they start with 1st-level characters, never reach levels 11-20 anyway. Further, isn't 3.5 edition written with the assumption that characters will rise in level every fourth session on average? That means the average campaign is ending with characters at only the 6th level. Why not start characters at 4th level and cap it at 10th level? That would better fit the average campaign (20 sessions long or less), plus the whole campaign would be spent in the "sweet spot".

 

[VirgilCaine]

True - I don't mean to say that good answers to those questions don't exist, just that (in my view) NPC clerics should be asking them. I also like having evil temples offer to bring your buddy back - no questions asked. For Free. For some reason the PC's never take them up on it...

Understood, but the way you phrased it made it sound like no cleric would cast the spell at all.

3. Travel spells (Teleport, Planeshift, etc.) are a problem only if overused. Planeshift is easy to fix: simply rule that it puts you back on any plane at the same place you last left it...this still allows parties to plane-hop but removes it as a travel spell.

Precise accuracy as to a particular arrival location on the intended plane is nigh impossible. From the Material Plane, you can reach any other plane, though you appear 5 to 500 miles (5d%) from your intended destination.

Uh, how is this a travel spell?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hi Wulf!

I'm assuming that you don't want to stray too far from baseline D&D (classes, levels etc)?

If you did, then it might be interesting to divide up the clumpy 'level' benefits over a period of time, and then stretch out that period of time - so it takes longer to go from 7th to 8th, but you have more frequent minor power bumps than you would if you were levelling up normally.

An alternative which your questions brought to mind is inspired by the 1e games that we used to play and love. In our games levels 6-9 were probably the sweetest spot. As you remember, level advancement used to take forever in those days, and the bad news part of that was that it took months and months of gameplay and hundreds of encounters to raise that level.

But it wasn't that important. Why not?

For us, it was because of all the in-game rewards. Not mechanical rewards that came from increasing class level. Instead it was making money. Getting houses and eventually castles built. Earning noble titles and ruling over the land. Leading armies, founding temples and such.

These were all activities that were intimately tied in with the campaign world, and increased our investment in the campaign world. We were less interested in gathering xps (because there wasn't any benefit immediately in sight!) and more interested in making our mark in the world by gathering and spending money and influence.

So if I wanted to start and run a campaign to try and really hit my old sweet spot, I'd probably start all PCs at 5th/6th level, slow down xp advancement by a factor of 10, and ensure that there was lots of money and social interaction.

If I wanted to write some rules to support this, I'd put a lot of thought into rules for increasing social influence in one or more groups (including how more influence with some groups might reduce your influence in others), and simple rules for running businesses, raising castles, attracting followers, leading troops and so forth.




I imagine these ideas might be a little too 'off the wall', but your original question made me consider how much fun my friends and I used to have with PCs who had essentially static levels for most of their careers.

Cheers

 

[EricNoah]

For me the sweet spot is actually pretty big -- levels 2 through about 13 or so. I do appreciate having the info on higher level spells and monsters, though -- they can be an important part of plot building and world building. It's handy to know that a "wish" or a "demon prince" can be part of the game (and how it works, mechanically) even if they don't directly intersect with the PCs abilities or encounters. I think as long as my players know that I will not be running the game through the higher levels, but on a more limited scale, and as long as they don't mind, I can play with D&D as it is and not worry about the high end.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Lanefan said a lot of what I was going to say.... except, more specifically than I was going to say it... I think that point of ruiniation of the sweet spot got hit upon right in the original conversation... That being those specific spells (teleport, commune, fabricate, raise dead, and some others) that make you (the DM) change the way that you prepare for the game. Changing the way that thos specific spells are handled (either when they become available, or how they work) could go a long way towards maintaining the sweet spot in the D&D...

Between 3.0 and 3.5 they already made an attempt to do this with teleport by giving it a per caster level range. They also changed disintegrate from a save or die to a save or take a butt-load of damage. More changes along these lines could be helpful for some of the spells. Others may have to be chucked entirely. Of course, I don't really have any specific, or helpful, ideas as to how these problem spells could be changed to make them less problematic... or even a surefire way as to how to identify those spells...

And... I'm not even talking about reducing the pervasiveness of magic... or its power level... or what have you. Most of the spells, particularly those that will have a direct and immediate effect on an encounter (that is, direct damage, battlefield control, and other 'power' spells), can be left just as they are... It is only those few spells that have been identified as trouble-makers and maybe a few more that are as-yet unidentified that need to be changed at all.

Later
silver

 

[Treebore]

I know you don't want to hear this, but I solved most of the problems brought up in this thread by switching to Castles and Crusades. However, I like grim n gritty and save or die spells, so those are still there in my C&C games.

Some things I realize need to happen to balance out higher level play, and maybe in turn extend the sweet spot, is to get rid of straight out immunities. Change it to a DR type of system. Limited to one point of DR/character level.

Eliminate immunity to poisons. At higher levels poison is pretty much just a temporary nuisance anyways. So why make it totally useless by allowing immunity. Don't even use a DR type system for poison.

CAP HD!! Is definitely a needed part of the solution for "balooning" issues.

I see lethality as a very necessary part of keeping the game worth playing, so deadly stays in my games. Its also why you need to get rid of immunities.

Get rid of stat enhancing spells. Those should stay totally under control of the DM and be uncommon to rare.

Accept the fact that if 20th level 9th level spell casters exist in your game it is a HIGH magic game, period. Then run and design your camapign world in a way accepting of this reality. Have lots of high level NPC's. They keep each other in check and from over running the world. They also keep high level PC's in check. You need them, so make and use them.

Plus this allows you to make lots of teleportational dead areas, because you have lots of NPC's, dead and long gone, or alive, creating these areas. Plus make temples sacrosanct. If PC's or NPC's violate the sanctity of holy ground they will have a deific hammer of destruction slam down on them in some manner up to the creative DM. Me? I use nasty holy curses that severely cripple characters, forever.

The only time temples can be invaded/robbed is when holy wars have been declared, passed down from the gods at war themselves. They protect you from the divine curses you would otherwise be hit with.

Anyways, that is some of how to extend the "sweet spot" and deal with power creep. The way I like things to be, anyways.

 

[Treebore]

I'll attempt to refrain from making this a pro-high level adventuring argument as per Wulf's request. I acknowledge the game changes significantly from 10th level on. It essentially becomes a supers game from my perspective.

Here are some solutions/ideas I have contemplated for extending the sweet spot:

• 4th level spells and above must be discovered by the PCs. These spells are treasure, and something - a relic, tome, etc. must be carried to cast these spells.
• No attacks beyond the second for PCs.
• Limit the number of bonuses available - as suggested above.
• Make the manufacture of magic items of a certain level require components beyond wealth. For example, any armor or weapon beyond +2 was required to be made of Uberstahl in my latest campaign - an exceptionally rare ore.
• Impose armor penalties on flying and give it a test - much like swimming.
• Impose a chance of a 1 Con penalty on raise dead on the caster.

Good ideas, but to address Wulf's overall problem you have to fix the scale of power progression from bottom to top. You can't "fix" the sweet spot without fixing how that range of the "sweet spot" was created in the first place. IE, the rules as a whole.