Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 2997602" data-attributes="member: 141">I think we need rules that encourage players to develop a broader range of competencies rather than to intensify a few competencies.  This would bring about fewer automatic successes (since PCs wouldnt max particular competencies into the stratosphere, or at least not so quickly) but PCs would still get gamist cookies (new competencies) at regular intervals. The d20 would be more relevant for a longer period of the campaign.Some degree of automatic success would begin to become apparent as the PCs get to higher levels.  After all, they are improving their skills, and that means some challenges will become very easy; the narrow advancement is not stopped, merely slowed.  And the PCs would start to adventure in areas where the DCs are higher, so it might appear as if the challenges are automatically scaling.  But both trends would be much less dramatic if PCs took a broader approach to advancement.That's my primary suggestion for preserving the sweet spot: Find ways of encouraging broad advancement and slowing narrow advancement.The other issue hinges on the role of magic in higher level campaigns.  The discussion here can get easily diverted into a high-magic/low-magic kind of question, which I don't think is what I want to do.  What I think one has to do is make sure that a spellcaster's highest level spells are high magic, but his lower level spells are low-magic.  I.e. more spells need to have their effectiveness capped based on what nonmagical approaches to the same problem are capable of doing.  I am thinking here mostly of spells that encroach on the core competencies that involve skills.Since high level spell slots have a high opportunity cost, the "encroaching" spells can be better than other classes when they are first available, but should drop in relative effectiveness thereafter.  A 3rd level wizard should be able to do more with a knock than a 3rd level rogue, but an 18th level rogue could open things that an 18th level wizard's knock won't touch.  This would ensure that a character's skills remain relevant over time, but magic is still available when the d20 roll turns up badly.  If the 18th level rogue can't open the door, the wizard might have to disjoin it, say.  9th level spells have a high opportunity cost, so our rule of thumb says that it can outperform the rogue in the rogue's area of special competency.The same principle applies to magic items.  When the item's gp value si such that it requires a substantial fraction of the PC's wealth, then it should give a pretty dramatic advantage; even allowing the owner to overshadow another character in a particular core competency.  But this advantage should diminish as the relative value of the item does.  Clever ways of capping items should be found.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.A corollary to this suggestion is that magic that encourages the use of the core competencies of other classes need not have a high opportunity cost.  One reason teleport is bad is that the competencies that are used in cross-country travel (Survival to forage for food, Spot and Listen during the night watch, the ability to sleep in armor, etc.) become irrelevant.  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.</blockquote>

Verification