Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DM-Rocco" data-source="post: 3440360" data-attributes="member: 14451">Oh, I agree with you on that, but don't you think it is harder for a DM to maintain control in the current edition when the players can not only tell youthat you are wrong but can site the page and bring up the errata on-line.  While you can over rule them as a house rule effect, you can't affect the sheer amount of weight they have on their side; can you?I had such aspirations once as well, Planescape was my favorite.  You have my empathy.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" />  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Well, that is the long version or what I was trying to say.  I for one found the PHBII and the DMGII great books for different ways to look at the game and set a great tone for the players and the DMGII wasn’t even weighed down with feats, spells and classes.Even though I think the Epic rules are completely broken, I would love to see a workable Epic spell creation chart or system.  Please let me know if you ever see this through.I don’t know about that.  Certainly 3.0 + has many options for higher level play, including the Epic rules, but there was some stuff for the 1st edition guys to advance to high levels.  The Basic game had a bit more, even going into the Immortal rules” but AD&D did have a few modules for higher level play and Dungeon Magazine had modules for AD&D characters up to level 25+ once.  I think the misconception stems from when Gary Gygax announced once that if you made it to level 10, you might consider taking on a God, but there is not much more to do.  However, his games where more intense and he held his players to a higher standard than the rest of us most likely did.Dragon Lance had strict rule, which they broke for the villains, about not being able to go over level 20 and 2nd edition had a whole book, the name escapes me, about high level play.  I think the high level play is expanded more in the current edition, but there were many sources back then to deal with those who wanted high level play too.  The ultimate high level play took place in a fictional idea of a 100th level adventure entitled The Throne of Bloodstone, a 1st edition module.  You can’t even play such a thing today with 3.0 +.I know, I tried.  A year or so ago I tried to get a group of like minded people together on ENWorld and make a new 100th level module.  You can’t do it.  The epic rules, and the bulk of the D&D 3.0 + rules, greatly out balance the idea.  The thread fell part.Anyway, I think you are right about 3.5 being more for play above 10th level, maybe.  But the games mathematics start to break down around 13th-15th level in a way that 1st edition really didn’t.  I’M NOT CLAIMING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, IT IS MY OPINION (shouting is for the benefit of the peanut gallery) just that I think 3.5 tends to unbalance at higher levels and that there were options for higher level play in AD&D.  I know, I have the character vault to prove it.</blockquote>

Verification