30 Levels

[Waldorf]

There is no 'better' version of D&D, only marketing forces trying to convince us that the newest version is somehow better than the last.

 

[Grazzt]

(EDIT: Never mind, no need to belabor the point.)

At any rate, if memory serves, my black box Basic D&D "Master" set (coincidentally ALSO released in 1984) went up to level 36, so I don't see how 30 levels is some sort of new-fangled heresy.

Correct. D&D went up to level 36.

 

[Shade]

I'm excited about the inclusion of 21st-30th levels in the core.

Maybe this time monster power levels can be set from the beginning of the edition, so the archfiends, archomentals, and whatnot are actually more powerful than their minions right out of the gate.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Sounds like the Everquest role-playing game.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I can't wait for 5th edition so we can see 40 levels!

Thank you for pointing out the Spinal Tap reference. I was not making the connection and it was bugging me as to where I had heard something like that before.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm pretty uncertain about the 30 levels.

No matter how good your system is, if you stretch it so far, its going to break down. People see that all the time at high levels now.

Now they might be able to improve the experience 1-20, but now tacking on 10 more levels just seems to aggravate the problem.

 

[jodyjohnson]

It sounds like 4e lst level will be more like 3.x 3rd. and the high end 4e 25-30 will be more like 3.x 17-20+.

And 4e gargantuan Orcus will be CR 34 allong with the other 1e MM outsiders that will likely make a showing in the 4e MM.

A lot of the cool iconic monsters will start showing up pre-10th and be viable as opponents into the 20s (mariliths, balors, pit fiends, beholders).

 

[T. Foster]

I don't get this at all (the decision to extend the game to level 30, not the Spinal Tap reference, which I thought of independently before reading this thread). Is the game going to be rebalanced so 3E's 20 levels are equivalent to 4E's 30, or are 3E's Epic levels going to be integrated into 4E's core rules? In the former case, what's the point? Extra granularity (was anybody really asking for even more granularity in D&D)? In the latter, it seems like a move in exactly the wrong direction from where I'd have liked to see D&D go -- as is in 3E, the shape of the game changes so much past level 10 that I have essentially no interest in playing those levels; if things now go out to level 30 then instead of 1/2 the game that I have no desire to play it's now 2/3 of the game that I have no desire to play. Perhaps more detail will clear this up, but as it currently stands I just don't get this decision at all...

 

[Evilhalfling]

Fishooked
it has been a long time since I saw spinal tap - but I can place the conversation now that someone pointed it out to me.
im going back to work now.

 

[mxyzplk]

30 levels- bah!

I don't think I've played a character over level 15 in forever. Every campaign I've ever played in starts at low (1-3) level and goes up from there, finally stopping around L12 in favor of something new. If I were them I'd focus more on making each level count (a feat per level rather than 1/3, etc.) rather than worrying about higher levels.