If most DMs prefer low-mid levels...why have levels?

[Warbringer]

For me, the progession from low to high levels is part of the whole D&D experience. It is fun and fascinating to watch the PCs grow from a bunch of nobodies who run from Alchemical Zombie Chicken(TM) to great and mighty heroes who have slain dragons, speak to kings as peers and possibly have saved the world once or twice.

add.. usually before the end of summer

 

[howandwhy99]

Most pre-3E adventures written simply were not designed to account for high level play. If, in the past, there were more successfully published adventures for a 3rd edition power-level party of 15-20, then we would see similar adventures today. Part of the problem was the how older rule systems handled high level play. The rules tended to break down and many simply expected retirement before high level spells came into play.

I also think high level play, along the power levels we see today, wasn't popular 30 years ago. This was pre-Dragonball Z era.

The other difficulty is the structure of adventures for the last 20 years. They are designed with certain assumptions on how they will challenge the characters. As a party of 20th level adventurers can "magic" away nearly any kind of assumption, the adventures themselves become difficult to predict. Most high level adventures published now tend to be a small string of high level encounters with the bulk of the text referring to tactics and statblocks.

 

[Hussar]

On another note - in general most schticks in the game require so many pre-reqs that you have no chance of going outside of your schtick (whatever it might be) to be diverse. AEG does it well (Mike Mearls rocks the house) with 3-5 level prestiges that allow you to build-in your schtick without having to blow every single feat you're likey to ever have just to use a single weapon. If you think making a Warrior that specializes in Bullrush is diversity - your campaings probably suck. Hate to break it to you.

So, because a single character cannot master a number of roles, feats are bad? That you can have multiple characters that are extremely different doesn't equate with diversity in characters?

Sure, if I played an NPC class with a single feat, yeah, that wouldn't be terribly effective. Fortunately, most people play PC classes and when they play fighters they are capable of taking a number of paths to become effective. I'm not quite sure why my fighter would stop taking new feats after the first two or three to get improved bull rush.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Agent Oracle Ahh this one is a treat. Now I'm deluded because I don't play D&D the way others do...

So by your assumption of how I play an abstraction is apparent - I must assume (and I say this because of your "I believe" etc.) that all those that see HP in some fashion different than your 'vision' are "Deluded."

Ahh, the wonder of quotation marks, taking posts from honest to sarcastic in a fraction of a moment.

What's wrong with an experienced veteren meleeist being able to connect with a greater number of blows? What if i have a veteren 'dodgist' that gets nailed every hit because we're both 15th level and our representative offensive and defensive trees do not match each other IN-SCALE to the slightest mathematical degree? If you can do this without gear, I would be impressed. Maybe I'm just deluded since Armor is an abstraction as well... and after all it makes you harder to hit? I can see that wearing a suit of platemail makes one far harder to hit. Riiiight.

(scoff) a 'veteran dodgist'. Honestly. If they made it to 15th level, they are BOTH veterans of avoiding being hit. If the meleeist wasn't proficient at avoiding dying, he wouldn't have made it to 15th level.

Now, if you want mechanical degrees in which armor can keep pace (or even outstrip) melee advancement, may i suggest researching Armor Twinks? people who have obtained ungodly high armor classes, in addition to other benefits that reduce chance of being hit? (like invisibility, concealment, darkness, etc. etc. etc.) There are easy ways to neutralize even the highest level combatant.

Now, I realize you're being fascetious about platemail... but I'll humor you.

It actually makes you easier to hit, in that it reduces your Dexterity bonus to AC (Not as agile with a steel-belted spine) And yet, this is also abstract. Higher AC from armor represents a greater chance of avoiding damage from connecting blows, because the armor presents an obstruction. The polearm blade skitters off one of your pauldrons, or the arrow bounces off the Curass. Perhaps the Glaive to the Greaves had no power, but the Sword in the Solerettes struck soundly.

I need a strategist because *you* have stupid players? I'm not making the connection.

No, you need a strategist, and stay with me on this one, because EVERYONE needs a strategist. Tacticians are worth far more than their weight in gold when it comes to games. A tactical GM can only improve the player's experience. I heartily recommend the works of Sun Tzu to anyone with a stomach for ancient philosophies.

Only that the very developers of the CR system have said it's broken. If you'd like to get a detailed description why - go to Monte Cook's site, or Sean Reynolds. Hate to burst your bubble.

Well, i went to Monte's Site, but found bupkis about his thoughts on CR's. Ditto for Sean Reynolds. (Though the Gamer Soaps are hilarious) Maybe you'd be so kind as to point to which rant or rave you are talking about?

The number of existing feats does not equate to usable feats does not equate to diversity. Granted I don't play 2e anymore - but if you want *character diversity* you will never beat Options and Powers in 2e.

You keep referencing this book, and yet, i cannot find this book. Perhaps you could provide a link to more information on Options and Powers? it's been out of print for a long time, and it's hard to argue "character diversity" against a defunct system from a dead book, made by a bought-out company, when you no nothing about it beyond it's existence...

On another note - in general most schticks in the game require so many pre-reqs that you have no chance of going outside of your schtick (whatever it might be) to be diverse.

Wait, when did we start discussing feng shui?

Oh, wait, sorry. You're still thinking feats, but calling them schticks. Okay, three points.

One: As characters level, their divergence from "Warior specializing in bullrush" grows. Each extra character level is an opportunity to change and grow.

Two: D&D, by bundling like abilities into levels not only allows, but also encourages diversifying abilities for additional abilities. Unlike in a point-buy system where, often, taking a step off your progression to gain additional powers away from the core of your build only yields a weaker overall build than the remainder of the group, in the level-based D&D it's possible to take that level in (class X) without falling behind the rest of the group. Often, taking a single level in another class can even improve upon the original build, or open them up to a wide array of exotic specialized classes which FURTHER diversify their abilities.

Three: Long feat chains, (Which i assume you're kvetching about) provide a logical progression of characters towards a especially effective combat style, I see no difference between this and achieving a Fu schtick like "Integration of the Clouds" in Feng Shui... (Which has the prerequisite of 8 other Schticks!)

your campaings probably suck. Hate to break it to you.

Ah, now we get to the real mudslinging.

IMHO: Character diversity lies as much in the players as it does in the underlying mechanics, if not moreso. If player J wants to play a fighter specializing in bull rush, then player J is gonna do that, regardless of if it's D&D, AD&D, 3.5, Wushu, Feng Shui, GURPS, Exalted, nWoD, oWoD, Conan, C&C, CoC, Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft, world of Synibarr, or FATAL!

... okay, maybe not FATAL. (can't even wrap brain around playing that game.)

But, in any event. Your milage may vary. Whatever you feel like. You feel like.

 

[Tenbones]

Heh, you call me deluded out of nowhere - rant and rave your fanboy party-line and you criticize me for being sarcastic? Wow.

You're the best player - EVER.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Arrr, matey! How can ye be keelhaulin' the higharrr levels if they not be? Shiver me timbers.

 

[airwalkrr]

(reply to OP)

Without 9th level spells to shoot for, there is no reason to adventure.

 

[Henry]

Agreed. That's how I see HP as well, or with another image, at high level, you've got the same amount of "health" as anybody else from any level. That's just that there are more subdivisions between "Full Health" and "Dead" because you are more experimented at taking blows, brushing off some hits etc.

Just make sure you describe the occasional minor nick or scratch from hit point loss; otherwise, the people using poison on their blades are going to be highly upstet.

 

[Odhanan]

Just make sure you describe the occasional minor nick or scratch from hit point loss; otherwise, the people using poison on their blades are going to be highly upstet.

Absolutely, it's a question of description. Attacks delivered with some special effect requiring scratches and such will be described a tad differently. "Your opponent stabs at you with is dagger. This is not a subtle maneuver, and you manage to dodge the force of the blow (loss of 1 HP), but you are suprised at his speed. Before you realize it, you feel your shirt becoming wet and cold at your side. Just a scratch... (roll Fort Save) but already the cold is spreading throughout your body...(poison)"

 

[Agent Oracle]

Heh, you call me deluded out of nowhere - rant and rave your fanboy party-line and you criticize me for being sarcastic? Wow.

You're the best player - EVER.

A) I said you shared a delusion. Not that you were deluded.

B) this is the internet: Everything comes out of nowhere.

C) Rant? I thought I responded in a civil manner to your inflammatory comments, especially when you were deliberately being dense about the abstract nature of base attack bonuses and armor classes.

D) Rave? It's one game system, among many, many, many, many, many, many systems. And while i like playing D&D, I'd also love playing Something-tan, Feng Shi, Four colors, Promethian, or any of a wide variety of other games. I just think that there is nothing wrong with the level system of D&D. It works. It works for D&D very, very well.

E) Fanboy? Again with the freaking mudslinging! Are you even capable of approaching this logically?

F) Party-Line? Hey, I'm a registered independent voter. Diversity is the spice of life. I never said I only played D&D.

G) I'm willing to wager you didn't even read my complete post.

H) Adding a smiley at the end only goes so far