D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Hussar]

but we are comparing wizards here and being able to reach beyond 11th is a huge advantage with that particular class.

How many campaigns actually went beyond name level? I mean, it was name level for a reason.

Oh, and let's not forget that pretty much every xp table maxes out at around 12th. After that, it's flat progression and +1-3 hp/level.

Please please please don't use the "well how many games actually get that far" line to justify an argument. I can tell you that our games went to 20 but that's not the point. The point is that the game is geared for levels 1 through 20 and being able to have access to high level spells trumps any advantage an elf may have.

Now if I remember correctly, an elf had to get a 25 intelligence to max out and that was an optional rule and not a core one.

Umm, no. The game is most certainly NOT geared for levels 1 to 20. I have absolutely no idea where you get that. The changes in 3e, with the idea that 1-20 was viable was a huge shift and was actually a pretty big selling point for the edition. Never minding the fact that if the game was meant to go 1-20, how do you explain 1e AD&D Monks (max level 17) and Druids (max level 14)?

What in AD&D would lead you to believe that the game was geared for levels 1 to 20? Dragonlance ended at 18th. IIRC, pretty much nothing in Greyhawk was even close to these levels. Basic/Expert rules capped out at about 17th or so, with the Master, Companion and Immortal rules picking things up from there. Rules that came much, much later in the cycle.

Quick, name three AD&D 1e modules for levels 18-20. We'll play a little game. For every Level 18-20 module produced by TSR, I'll name 3 for levels 8-10. We'll see who runs out first.

BTW, just checked. High elves (as per the Unearthed Arcana rules - not optional rules) hit 17th level with a 22 Int. 10th with an 18 Int. Additionally, there is an important note:

mportant: The level limits given and implied in the sub-tables may be exceeded by 2 in all cases where (a) the character is single-classed and (b) the class in question could be a multi-classed choice for that character. Examples: A hill dwarf fighterlcleric with 18 strength can advance only to the 8th level as a fighter, while a hill dwarf with the same strength who was a fighter only could advance as high as 10th level.

So, our elf in question gets 12th level right out of the chute and a grey elf gets 13th.

Please, if you're going to actually try arguing mechanics, try to get the actual mechanics correct. I've been on the wrong end of this conversation WAY too many times to try to say stuff without basic fact checking first.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hussar actually pointed this out in his post. The level limit for an elf in Gygax's PHB is 11th with 18 INT; my guess, relying on memory without the book in front of me, would be that this drops to 9th level if INT is 16 or lower. But how many AD&D games hit that level cap? Very very few; which was Hussar's point.

And once we get to UA or 2nd ed AD&D those level limits are increased.

This is not a factor in OD&D, where elves could reach (I think) 10th or so level as wizards.

But Hussar could equally make his point with respect to a half-elf wizard (8th level in Gygaxian AD&D, higher in 2nd ed, which will see you through most AD&D campaigns); or a dwarven fighter (9th level in Gygaxian AD&D, and I think as high as 15th in 2nd ed); or any sort of demi-human thief, none of whom except half-orcs had level limits.

Yeah, the level limits were pretty high. Even if the campaign DID go well beyond 12th level though once you had hit that plateau where you had 6th level spells the rest wasn't going to do that much for you anyway. Most characters by that point were doing less adventuring per-se and mostly other sorts of stuff, which didn't particularly focus on more hit points or spells or whatever. Lacking 7th-9th level magic? Kinda limiting, but not much.

Vastly more important though was what sort of a trade was it anyway? Some hypothetical power at some level you were vanishingly unlikely to reach anyway. In return you got a LOT by being MCed into fighter (or cleric or thief) plus the minor but still useful racial abilities. Honestly resurrection wasn't THAT big a deal. Sure characters died, but in general we didn't waste money on res anyway. In fact IIRC the actual disadvantage was no being raised AT ALL, you had to be reincarnated, which was amusing but rarely a good idea. Mostly it all just didn't matter that much. If the campaign was progressing fast and you were creating a replacement character then humans usually seemed more attractive, as you'd be more likely to hit higher levels, and raising such a character was more likely to be feasible. IME though level 1 starting parties often consisted of elves, dwarves, and halflings with nary a human in sight.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How many campaigns actually went beyond name level? I mean, it was name level for a reason.

Oh, and let's not forget that pretty much every xp table maxes out at around 12th. After that, it's flat progression and +1-3 hp/level.



conversation WAY too many times to try to say stuff without basic fact checking first.

Well it is still part of the game and lots of people went well past 11th. Yes the xp tables only do go up about 12 in most cases, but that isnt because the game is supposed to end there. The spell progression table for wizards goes up to level 29. Wizards only get up to 5th level spells at 11th level. So a human wizard who gets to 18th can have a huge advantage (having spell levels 6-9).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How many campaigns actually went beyond name level? I mean, it was name level for a reason.

Oh, and let's not forget that pretty much every xp table maxes out at around 12th. After that, it's flat progression and +1-3 hp/level.



Umm, no. The game is most certainly NOT geared for levels 1 to 20. I have absolutely no idea where you get that. The changes in 3e, with the idea that 1-20 was viable was a huge shift and was actually a pretty big selling point for the edition. Never minding the fact that if the game was meant to go 1-20, how do you explain 1e AD&D Monks (max level 17) and Druids (max level 14)?

What in AD&D would lead you to believe that the game was geared for levels 1 to 20? Dragonlance ended at 18th. IIRC, pretty much nothing in Greyhawk was even close to these levels. Basic/Expert rules capped out at about 17th or so, with the Master, Companion and Immortal rules picking things up from there. Rules that came much, much later in the cycle.

Quick, name three AD&D 1e modules for levels 18-20. We'll play a little game. For every Level 18-20 module produced by TSR, I'll name 3 for levels 8-10. We'll see who runs out first.

BTW, just checked. High elves (as per the Unearthed Arcana rules - not optional rules) hit 17th level with a 22 Int. 10th with an 18 Int. Additionally, there is an important note:



So, our elf in question gets 12th level right out of the chute and a grey elf gets 13th.

Please, if you're going to actually try arguing mechanics, try to get the actual mechanics correct. I've been on the wrong end of this conversation WAY too many times to try to say stuff without basic fact checking first.

I have to agree. Internal and external evidence suggests that D&D in general was created with the idea in mind that somewhere between 9th and 12th level characters pretty much 'topped out'. The original OD&D books had only up to level 6 spells, and the bard and assassin both were level capped at 14th IIRC in Blackmoor, with the later Monk being level capped at 17th. In all cases name level, followed by the flat part of the XP chart was a bit before that. Demi-human level limits in OD&D were also quite low. AD&D 1e followed pretty closely this same pattern, though it adopted the higher spell levels added in Eldritch Wizardry (which were rather hinted at being generally designed for super powered NPC bad guys, though PCs were in theory able to achieve them).

Additionally there is the evidence of actual play in both Dave and Gary's games. Dave once commented that he gave out 2 pizzas to players that made it to 20th level in any of his games. Gary likewise stated that Robilar was the only 20th level PC in Greyhawk. Regardless of the post-hoc "wizards are balanced by higher levels" silliness the actual evidence is that the game was designed to encompass play up to about 14th level as a practical limit, with only rare characters exceeding level 12. 1e AD&D in fact really didn't play all that well past about 12th level. 2e clearly envisaged play up to the mid/high teens, but the system still worked poorly past about level 12. The very few really high level modules which were published are pretty educational in this respect.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well it is still part of the game and lots of people went well past 11th. Yes the xp tables only do go up about 12 in most cases, but that isnt because the game is supposed to end there. The spell progression table for wizards goes up to level 29. Wizards only get up to 5th level spells at 11th level. So a human wizard who gets to 18th can have a huge advantage (having spell levels 6-9).

6th level spells actually at 11th. Note too that while a Human has no level limits you STILL must have a high INT to cast high level spells, 18 for 9th level, 16 for 8th, etc. In general MOST magic users probably qualified for 7th level spells, so they'd only be limited at 15th level on that point, but it was still a significant limitation.

Critically 6th level includes Enchant Item and several other fairly key magic user spells. Certainly its nice to have the higher level ones, but again, VERY VERY few characters seem to be intended to achieve those lofty heights, which weren't even incorporated into the original game at the start. IME level limits were a relatively minor issue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

6th level spells actually at 11th. Note too that while a Human has no level limits you STILL must have a high INT to cast high level spells, 18 for 9th level, 16 for 8th, etc. In general MOST magic users probably qualified for 7th level spells, so they'd only be limited at 15th level on that point, but it was still a significant limitation.
.

I could certainly be wrong on this, It has been a while since I have played AD&D but pretty sure 11th level wizards only get up to fifth level spells on the chart. Sure ability scores matter as well. But it should be remembered the default method for AD&D was roll 4d6 and take the lowest, so getting a 17 or even an 18 wasnt outrageously rare. It only takes a 16 to get 8th level spells, which are a heck of a lot better than 5th level spells. Even if they are just getting getting 7th level spells, that is still much better than fifth level spells (or sixth level spells for that matter). Either way, I personally tended to stay away from demihumans because of things like level limitations. In fact, most people in my experience tended to only pick a spellcaster if they had the Int to get to high level spells. So in practice I think most human wizards you saw in play tended to be ones with access to 8th or 9th level spells if they reached high enough level.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I could certainly be wrong on this, It has been a while since I have played AD&D but pretty sure 11th level wizards only get up to fifth level spells on the chart. Sure ability scores matter as well. But it should be remembered the default method for AD&D was roll 4d6 and take the lowest, so getting a 17 or even an 18 wasnt outrageously rare. It only takes a 16 to get 8th level spells, which are a heck of a lot better than 5th level spells. Even if they are just getting getting 7th level spells, that is still much better than fifth level spells (or sixth level spells for that matter). Either way, I personally tended to stay away from demihumans because of things like level limitations. In fact, most people in my experience tended to only pick a spellcaster if they had the Int to get to high level spells. So in practice I think most human wizards you saw in play tended to be ones with access to 8th or 9th level spells if they reached high enough level.

'Full' casting classes in AD&D have a very simple rule of thumb, half your level rounded up, that's the highest level spell you have. You get a 2nd level spell at 3rd, 3rd level spell at 5th, etc. Druids are the only exception, they gain lower level spells faster (but their spells are in general a bit less potent than cleric spells, plus they don't fight as well). 'half-casters' are all unique, though they do follow the same "get a new spell level every 2 levels" pattern in general.

It was pretty rare to get an 18 on 4 dice. On 3 dice it was 1/6^3, or one in 216 rolls. It was 2x as likely with 4d6 keep 3, or 1 in 108. Your chances of getting ONE 18 out of 6 stats was thus roughly 1 in 20 characters, not all that common at all. 17s are about 5x more common IIRC but still on average your chances of getting even one stat above 14 with 4d6 keep 3 is about 50/50. Of course not all DMs used this method, and fewer allowed "any order". I think its fair to say that characters with a 16 prime req weren't exactly super rare, but they weren't the rule either. That means MOST wizards probably never could cast level 9 spells, and many were stuck topping at level 7. Still better than your 1e elf wizard (who in all fairness needed an 18 to hit 11th at all), but the differences are still not as stark as one might imagine.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

All you needed was a 19 Int to cast 9th level spells if I remember correctly.

Now Hussar I'm still not sure where you are getting your info from but game goes from level 1 to 20 so the game is in fact geared for it. You can't ignore levels in order for your argument to be valid. The games default is 1 through 20 so my argument remains perfectly valid and correct. Having access to 4 more levels of spells trumps the elf all day long.

 

[Bedrockgames]

'Full' casting classes in AD&D have a very simple rule of thumb, half your level rounded up, that's the highest level spell you have. You get a 2nd level spell at 3rd, 3rd level spell at 5th, etc. Druids are the only exception, they gain lower level spells faster (but their spells are in general a bit less potent than cleric spells, plus they don't fight as well). 'half-casters' are all unique, though they do follow the same "get a new spell level every 2 levels" pattern in general.

.

I am looking at at the chart from the phb for 1st edition and it says 11th level wizards get fifth level spells.

 

[innerdude]

For every point in a game where the system makes one choice obviously more versatile or more potent than other choices you do 2 things. A player is always tempted to choose the more potent choices. More importantly IMHO is just that certain possibilities are closed off.

I don't disagree with this. In the GURPS games I've played in with a group different than the one I'm GM-ing now, it was pretty much expected that your character WILL have the High Pain Threshold and Combat Reflexes advantages, and Hit Location skill. If your character didn't have those things, the GM would just sadly shake his head, and say, "Good luck in combat, buddy."

I mean, sure I COULD have built my character without that stuff, but by so doing I was immediately at odds with the style of play the GM preferred. So I understand 4e's design intent here---don't force a player to make choices right out of the gate that WILL conflict with the intent of the system. If you're going to offer choices, make them meaningful to the in-play dynamic.

Of course, the assumption behind both of these scenarios IS IN FACT THE ACCEPTED PLAYSTYLE. If my GM focused his GURPS games on more NPC interaction and political intrigue than combat, suddenly those advantages / skills make far less sense. If you want D&D to have more "drift" possibilities away from heroic adventuring, then codifying 4e's style of balance becomes more problematic.

For example, I find it interesting that never once have I heard anyone clamoring for an "E6" variant of 4e---because such a variant runs nearly counter to the accepted playstyle intent of 4e generally. I mean sure, you can make 4e "gritty" if you want to I suppose. The question becomes, why would you want to when there's other stuff that does it better?

I think the question here really comes down to, if the rules allow you to make "sub-optimal" characters for the game's assumed playstyle, is that okay or not, and how transparent should the rules be about the resulting consequences in play? The answer to that question will come down to the individual GM / group's desires.

To be honest, I much prefer Savage World's approach, where the system assumes that the baseline competence for all characters is slightly higher, and the "cap" of competence is lower than D&D. Savage Worlds doesn't say it explicitly, but it's pretty implicit in the design and play at the table that the rules create a character progression equivalent to D&D levels 3-9, or maybe 2-10. And for me, this is a perfectly acceptable trade-off---improved balance through baseline competency, with the understanding that I'm never going to playing "epic, high level D&D" games.

If D&D 3e hard-capped everything at level 15, fixed the baseline spell save progression, updated some broken spells, made mundane characters more versatile, and generally restricted casting effectiveness, I'd play that game. (Hmmm, no wonder I like Fantasy Craft so much---it's pretty much that game.) But if I can't have that game, I'd much, MUCH rather have D&D Next absolutely NAIL levels 3-9, or 2-10, be so PERFECT in their implementation of those levels, and enjoy them for what they are, than worry about what's happening on the "high end."

But that's obviously just my preference.