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

jmucchiello said:

You can't keep high level magic and keep playing the same types of stories as you had at first level. I'm also saying that the natural progression is to change to a different type of story.

Click to expand...

We've already conceded, several times-- in fact several before you even joined the thread-- that is the default "solution" for high level play.

The thread is supposed to be about stretching the amount of time you can play out those old plots without being low-level magic. I say this is impossible.

Click to expand...

Then I hope you're done here.

Wulf Ratbane said:

Then I hope you're done here.

Click to expand...

Nice way to make a guy feel wanted. So far only Chieromancer's last post contained anything like useful advice to broaden your sweet spot without nerfing spells/magic. Before I joined the thread every post was about limiting magic. I'll leave now so you can go back to implementing teleportation sickness and other spell nerfs.

Dorloran said:

I'm just trying to suggest that if we were perhaps to acknowledge that as characters get better, the world gets tougher, there might be a way to scale back the advancement of both. As Wulf has pointed out, it doesn't make sense that the game mechanics world gets tougher because the PCs get better.

Click to expand...

I'm replying to you as well as someone else above who said, in essence, "the players move on to tougher dungeons."

There is certainly room for a variety of challenges as the PCs move up in levels.

The problem is that there is granularity at the low and mid levels that is lacking in the high levels. At high levels, you lose the granularity of the d20 roll; you lose the granularity of attack rolls, AC, and hit points; and so on. Instead, high level play is very often a boolean exercise: who goes first; who can hit the high ACs (at all), who doesn't roll a 1 on their saving throw. There are all sorts of challenges-- indeed, I think, the majority of them-- that are all-or-nothing affairs.

Part of that is due to the d20 system itself-- there's only so much variance on a d20, so when bonuses reach a certain point, it breaks.

And part of it is due to the magnitude of attacks and spells that become "save or die" affairs-- maybe not across the whole party, but from character to character.

The move from 3.0 to 3.5 addressed this problem by trying to restore some of the granularity to the all-or-nothing spells: disintegrate, harm, etc.

And granularity isn't restricted to just combat. Teleport 3.5 is more granular than teleport 3.0, because it has distance limitations; it's no longer necessarily a case of "Not there, there."

Divination/Commune can be made more granular by limiting the amount, scope, or usefulness of the answers; it shouldn't be a case of "You know nothing, and now you know everything."

(And I've noticed that some folks' solution to mortality/resurrection is to make death itself more granular.)

jmucchiello said:

So far only Chieromancer's last post contained anything like useful advice to broaden your sweet spot without nerfing spells/magic.

Click to expand...

Yep, brilliant post. I'll get to it.

OK, I sense this thread is getting back on track so I might as well jump back in.

jmucchiello said:

The thread is supposed to be about stretching the amount of time you can play out those old plots without being low-level magic. I say this is impossible. You can't keep high level magic and keep playing the same types of stories as you had at first level. I'm also saying that the natural progression is to change to a different type of story: one where teleports and commune live in harmony with your plot. If you can't do this, you can't play at high level.

Click to expand...

As Wulf pointed out (in the way only Wulf can ), I think everyone has agreed that this is what happens in a traditional D&D campaign. Once you start tinkering with the core system, especially with regards to magic, you aren't running a "traditional" D&D campaign anymore.

And I'm perfectly fine with that.

I think something that gets lots in these mechanical discussions is the type of campaign, play style, challenges, etc you are trying to emulate with the rules. The rules should fit the story, not vice versa.

I think WotC is quite guilty of this lately. They have made a conscious decision to design for the Gamist only. I say a better design uses a Storyteller mindset to determine what rules are necessary, and then to design those rules with a Gamist in mind. In other words, fluff first, then crunch.

Which is one of my biggest problems with by-the-books D&D: It forces you to play a certain way. I want to be able to tell stories without having to worry about the PC's being able to teleport to wherever they need to go. Core D&D is crunch first.

In core D&D, the level range (i.e. the Sweet Spot) in which this type of story is possible, and in which the d20 roll is more relevant, is around 5-8 (give or take a level or two).

So if the stories you want to tell are lower-magic than the core rules, so be it. If you need to change the rules to extend your sweet spot and call it a low-magic campaign, go for it. And perhaps my goal for this thread is different than everyone elses. I do think that extending the sweet spot of the core rules without substantial changing is incredibly difficult. It's not impossible, but it's certainly easier to remove or change bigger chunks of the rules than rethink the whole system (like what Cheiromancer suggested - great post by the way).

What if you simply slowed down the access to spells of higher levels?

For example, a Wizard 8 would only know spells of levels 1 through 3.
Caster level for these spells would be the same.
Spell slots would be the same.
So the 4th level spell slots could be used for metamagic enhanced spells or just lower level spells if no metamagic feats are selected.
Give L1 spells at CL1, L2 at CL4, and new spell levels every 4 caster levels thereafter.

Cheiromancer said:

That's my primary suggestion for preserving the sweet spot: Find ways of encouraging broad advancement and slowing narrow advancement.

Click to expand...

Are we just talking skills here? Or would you include BAB and caster level?

You could very easily increase the cost of a skill rank the higher it gets. (Say, 1:1 through 10 ranks, then 3:2 for ranks 11-15, and 2:1 for ranks 16+.)

(see attached image.)

And something similar for BAB and caster level.

But I think that's a pretty hefty redesign.

That's my second suggestion to preserve the sweet spot. Magic should only encroach on the core competencies of nonspellcasters when there is a high opportunity cost involved in its use.

Click to expand...

I have to digest this a bit more. I could use more examples.

But if shadow walk allowed these same skills to be used (at least to some degree) then it would be good. (Journeys in shadow being hazardous journeys, requiring sharp eyes and ready blades.) A little judicious fiddling (e.g. time in shadow seems to take days, but you get to your destination instantaneously) and you can probably something that has all the good features of teleport without much adverse affect at all on the game.

Click to expand...

Man, that's cool.

Wulf Ratbane said:

I have to digest this a bit more. I could use more examples.

Click to expand...

I guess what he meant is to add complications to the "offending" spells that cost the caster more than a spell slot, a few material components and maybe a few XP. Tangible examples can be found in older editions, where spells actually aged the caster, cost him Constitution permanently, etc. That used to instill a hefty respect into the casters (and their players) whenever they really had to use those spells.

In another vein, it could simply mean adding roleplaying complications to the use of a spell, like the example of shadow walk showed. I'd recommend checking out e.g. the Iron Kingdoms Character Guide on how travel magic is handled there (a chance of an Infernal taking an interest in the travelling caster and attaching itself to the transport in progress), as well as healing and resurrection magic.

jmucchiello said:

Teleport: I admit, it would be nice if the RAW had more anti-teleport spells besides the 8th level dimension lock.

Click to expand...

You mean "besides the 6th level forbiddance."

Cheiromancer said:

Some of the problems seem to arise from over-specialization on the part of PCs.

Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is the combination of control over your own advancement and the system heavily rewarding specialization.

This reminds me of Runequest (old version, haven't seen Mongoose's new). RQ's skill advancement is more organic: if you succeed at using a skill during an adventure, you get an "experience check" next to the skill on your sheet. After the adventure, you roll for each "check", and if you FAIL at the skill roll you get to increase the skill by 1d6% (in other words, it's harder to increase a skill you already have a high level in). You could also use downtime to practice skills you specifically wanted to increase, but that was either inefficient or expensive.

This leads to most characters having a bunch of common skills at 60-70% or so after a while - those common skills being the ones all characters have use for (e.g. perception skills, survival skills in a wilderness-based campaign), with their specialty skills being more along the 80-90% range, and those being differentiated from character to character (the warrior leaves picking locks to the thief, so he doesn't advance in that skill).

I'm not sure how to translate this into D&D, but it's worth thinking about.