Castles of Crystal, Wars of Genocide!

Hello SHARK
SHARK said:
Greetings!

Castles of Crystal, Wars of Genocide!

It has occured to me that many people are apprehensive about epic level play. I don't really see why there is so much trepidation, for it seems to flow naturally from the rules. What have you done to transition the party into epic-level play? What problems have you encountered with epic level play? Semper Fidelis,

SHARK



With no knowledge of the ELH.
Before reading this thread i would`ve answered, it`s a matter of taste, but after it i would say it`s a matter of taste and how the world is build.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Greetings!

Great stuff Volaran! I think you are understanding the dynamics in the right way, indeed.:)

I have been playing D&D since 1978 and running my current campaign world for essentially over 15 years now. I have always had the pleasure of having highly intelligent, ambitious, aggressive, and highly creative and innovative long-term players. For example, my friend Mark. Mark is the kind of guy who is famous for two key things: One, is that he is always tinkering with ways that the magic system in the game can be used and exploited to the maximum. He is literally a nightmare wizard player! A fun nightmare wizard player, but a nightmare wizard player nonetheless! Two, is he is always seeking to maximize not only the magical resources at his disposal, but also the mundane resources to the maximum as well. Then, my group of gung-ho, hard-charg'in Marines! Can you imagine what it is like DMing for a group of six, or eight, or ten U.S. Marines? They tactically optimize every resource and every person in the squad to be the most efficient killing machine that mowes through virtually any enemies that you throw at them. They cooperate instinctually, lay their lives on the line, and hammer their way to victory through superior tactics, committment, overwhelming firepower, superior resource management, and ruthless focus on achieving victory.

Then, I have a range of friends that have influenced my thinking, including my wife, as she is very good with resource management, playing wizards and druids, and in creating effective alliances and family dynasties.

For example, the premise in the game books is that a four-person party is assumed to do all of these great things. Hmmph!:) I have players, and I play as well, as a hard charging, resource maximizing, creative, aggressive player. In my friend Dragonblade's campaign, I play four player characters; a male human 15th level wizard; a male human Barbarian 10/Fighter 5; a male high elf fighter 15; a male human fighter 10/paladin 5.

Each of these player characters of mine have approximately 16 cohorts, a cadre of leader and support followers, and 75-100 well-equipped troops under their command.

Now, as you can imagine, if you design the adventure for four 15th level characters, you are going to be hammered, because I am maximizing my characters abilities to the fullest extent--magically, socially, financially, and so on. I have characters in my own campaign that *in a single generation* created a caravan company that specializes in wagons enchanted with refrigerator and freezer storage, thus allowing the long range trade and importation of fruits and vegetables through all seasons through a great diverse range of climate. This corporation alone has created huge amounts of constant treasure for this wizard and his family. This wizard has then poured these huge resources into magical research to create more fantastic magic items. Now, imagine this magic and wealth creation amplified by the family members for one, two, three, ten generations?

How would such effect the campaign world? I then assume that other people in the campaign world are doing similar things, and that this would make drastic and powerful changes in the way the campaign world looks like and operates. I don't see how, for example, without the DM making a huge "Director's Intervention" that a typical medieval D&D world, with all the magic inherent in the system, somehow remains the same, generation after generation, you know? The economy stays the same, the magic level, somehow, stays the same, wizards stay in their towers and really do nothing, and priests who have the power to make real lasting changes throughout all of society somehow manage to stay the same as well. My thinking says, ok, maybe for one or two, or three generations it stays that way, but beyond that, I don't see how it can. Human beings, let alone other dynamic races, are always ruthlessly pursuing real, dramatic, and sweeping progress. It is from these sets of assumptions that I said, ok, fine. Lets run with it. Use all of the rule books to the maximum. Use the horrible monsters, the dragons, the demonic hordes, and the half celestials. Perhaps the only thing I rule zero is the resurrection and raise dead and reincarnation spells. I use a system of fate points instead, which serves to create a more heroic environment.

I think these kinds of assumptions need to be thought about, and as you mentioned Volaran, need to be taken into account in a fully comprehensive manner if one is going to operate in a epic-level environment that is challenging, fun, logical, and balanced.

What do you think?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
 


Hey SHARK! Glad to see you back posting, hope your computer woes are mostly behind you.

What I think a major difference in SHARK's world from standard D&D world is can be summed up as this:

I don't think SHARK's world was ever developed to be a D&D world!

Let me explain - From what I understand, SHARK used Rolemaster for many years and his world really formed under that system (correct me if I'm wrong). IIRC, Rolemaster was VERY open-ended, both in levels and skill. I remember playing it years ago and recall hit percentages far over 150%, etc. So basically, it's a world designed without limits.

Now, look at any current D&D world and it's players. Not only was the world designed for older editions levels of characters, but players of old editions are still "stuck" in the mindset of older editions.

What do I mean? I'll explain some more - we are used to 1st level fighters being town guards. Anything else seem subtly "wrong" to us. None of the world deal with the scope of things that it would need multiple high double (or triple) level characters to deal with, not even Forgotten Realms (that isn't mean as a bash). Why? Because it just wasn't that common in old editions to see that high of a level.

SHARK, I've said it before and I'll say it again: You really need to get with Nat d20 Press and put out a book. Something like a World Builders Guide/Campaign Guide dealing with:

1) What needs to be in a setting to expand into high level play.
2) Answer the common question of "If there are so many high level people, why isn't someone else taking care of that problem?"
3) Campaign Scope - leading up to epic play and transitioning into it. How to get your players involved and dealing with challenges appropriate for their levels.

I think alot of us are lacking in the above skills simply because we've never either experienced play at that level or DM'd play at that level, and many DM's out there find themselves on unfamiliar ground at that point (I think I will when my players ever pass 20th).

Heck, it doesn't have to contain any reference to the Epic Rules at all so you wouldn't have to worry about violating WotC IP.

Glad to have you back, I missed discussions like this! BTW, how did the Defend a Moutnain Fortress go? We haven't heard anything.
 

SHARK said:
Greetings!

Great stuff Volaran! I think you are understanding the dynamics in the right way, indeed.:)

Then, I have a range of friends that have influenced my thinking, including my wife, as she is very good with resource management, playing wizards and druids, and in creating effective alliances and family dynasties.



Now, as you can imagine, if you design the adventure for four 15th level characters, you are going to be hammered, because I am maximizing my characters abilities to the fullest extent--magically, socially, financially, and so on. I have characters in my own campaign that *in a single generation* created a caravan company that specializes in wagons enchanted with refrigerator and freezer storage, thus allowing the long range trade and importation of fruits and vegetables through all seasons through a great diverse range of climate. This corporation alone has created huge amounts of constant treasure for this wizard and his family. This wizard has then poured these huge resources into magical research to create more fantastic magic items. Now, imagine this magic and wealth creation amplified by the family members for one, two, three, ten generations?

How would such effect the campaign world? I then assume that other people in the campaign world are doing similar things, and that this would make drastic and powerful changes in the way the campaign world looks like and operates. I don't see how, for example, without the DM making a huge "Director's Intervention" that a typical medieval D&D world, with all the magic inherent in the system, somehow remains the same, generation after generation, you know? The economy stays the same, the magic level, somehow, stays the same, wizards stay in their towers and really do nothing, and priests who have the power to make real lasting changes throughout all of society somehow manage to stay the same as well. My thinking says, ok, maybe for one or two, or three generations it stays that way, but beyond that, I don't see how it can. Human beings, let alone other dynamic races, are always ruthlessly pursuing real, dramatic, and sweeping progress. It is from these sets of assumptions that I said, ok, fine. Lets run with it. Use all of the rule books to the maximum. Use the horrible monsters, the dragons, the demonic hordes, and the half celestials. Perhaps the only thing I rule zero is the resurrection and raise dead and reincarnation spells. I use a system of fate points instead, which serves to create a more heroic environment.

I think these kinds of assumptions need to be thought about, and as you mentioned Volaran, need to be taken into account in a fully comprehensive manner if one is going to operate in a epic-level environment that is challenging, fun, logical, and balanced.

What do you think?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I have a similar background bit to my own campaign world.

The basics being Magic is 3x better on offense and its cumulative

I assumed logical construction of magic items and cam up with this
Magic items don't break or wear out normally.If I make a geejaw of geejawing it will outlast me by many years.

Since swords don't break in combat unless hit by a stronger magic weapon I assume that they are protected outside of combat too. I make a +2 sword, the next generations makes a +2 sword and so on.Pretty soon you have a whole lot of +2 swords!

Another example

Why make Wands of Cure Light Wounds (GP 750) when they can make a Healstone (Cure Minor Wounds at will usuable by anyone) that will last pretty much forever and can heal an army if needed!

Yeah it takes a while but if you had 10 healstones they could heal 1000 wounded 4th level warriors (down half, about 15 points) in about 6 hours. That includes time to pass the stones around !

This has a profound effect on my game world and I think for me and my players and unwanted one. I can run adventures like that (and have) in 3e and GURPS its just no one but me has fun

As soon as I start explaining the basis of small unit (and the units have to be small or they fry) tactics the players eyes glaze over.

Epic for us would be a journey into the underworld not a giant war against absurd forces.

When we did our world building we took all that stuff into account and realized we didn't like the results.

We want Cavalry Charges, Pike Walls, and Seiges not Dragons, Bulletes and Tunnel Beasts backed up by demonic legions and Magetillery

I think this is because our group is 2 historians, a renfaire guy, 1 actor and a couple casuals.

on the whole we want a renfaire middle ages and not a wahoo level of magic

While I would enjoy SHARKS games (a lot) I am the only one in my group that could as I understand and appreciate what its about.

I would say before you plunk money down for the Epic Handbook and start to building you should realize that a lot of magic will change your world massivly if you use it

If you want to handwave the effects away, go for it.
Just understand a "realistic" epic campign isn't going to just be a few minor wizards in towers. It will be different, very different

As for me I am going the opposite way, my next campaign is dropping Evocation and Conjuration mostly. Low Magic and Low Monster seems more fun for me than Epic YMMV of course
 

Now, having said that, when I look over the skill ranks and abilities of a 1st level character, whether they are a commoner, expert, fighter, cleric, wizard, and so on, I just don't accept the popular assumption that 90% or what not of a population are 1st level, or certainly no higher than 3rd.
If we ignore Skill Ranks and Feats -- that is, if we look through first-edition lenses -- then 1st-level characters seem perfectly reasonable, and 3rd-level characters seem downright heroic. After all, a 3rd-level Fighter has three times the Hit Points of a typical soldier, and a 3rd-level Wizard can paralyze with a touch or take on the guise of anyone he meets. Non-adventurers are just 0-level characters. We assume they're perfectly competent at whatever they do; they just can't fight.

Once we introduce Skills and Feats though, everyone seems incompetent. Without quite a few Ranks in quite a few Skills, characters aren't much better than unskilled commoners.

(Actually, this carries over to BAB too. A 1st-level Fighter who's supposedly trained through adolescence doesn't hit his target much more often than anyone else; his BAB is +1.)

Without all the Feats appropriate to his specialty, an archer isn't much better at archery than any other soldier, and a knight isn't much better on horseback.
 

I'm convinced.

1st level is far weaker than a "typical person" should be, under 3e rules.

I leaning towards the average adult hovering between 3rd and 5th level their entire lives.
 

I thinks the problem lies in the spiralling of power in 3E, it is far more exponential than previous editions. How do characters of different levels interact with each other, when those at the upper echelons of power are godlike (and that's before even going epic - heck even 10th level characters are insanely powerful compared to the common man). Changing the level of the average NPC certainly helps but in the end PC's will still get to the point where even a squad of fifth level fighters are nothing more than a nuisance. In an epic campaign armies have little use, in the end numbers count for little compared to level.
 

That's why it makes sense to up the level of the average commoner.

According to CR's, a character 2 levels higher than another is supposed to be twice as good, no?

Personally, I think there are just too many levels in 3e.

20 levels of advancement are designed for players who want their characters to be measurably better than they were last week.

And then they add Epic Levels?!?!?

It's just a matter of taste, but I like the idea of 12th level being near the pinnacle of human (and demihuman) echievement, but I guess Epic level does have that "Epic" feel. Duh.
 

I enjoy epic levels. The problem that many people have with epic level play is they assume that is synonomous with high levels of power and magic with epic NPCs abound. (like that "planar metropolis" that was featured in the Epic Level Handbook) In my homebrew that I'm working on, epic level characters are figures of legend; few mortals have ever reached epic levels. Currently there is only one epic Npc in my world (an epic level wizard "darklord"). I'm thinking of running a campaign in which the PCs must rise in levels until they are powerful enough to challenge the darklord. (Ok, I know it sounds cliched, but it works!;) )
 

Remove ads

Top