NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3270707" data-attributes="member: 18280">Fixed that for ya.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> An inability to make a challenging encounter for a 20th level character with CR 10 foes seems more a failure of imagination than a failure of rules IMHO.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Seriously, though, you seem to be thinking of a campaign model that is a lot less challenging than the one I use.  Which is fine.  To each his own pudding.  I doubt very much that you would enjoy the sort of game that I do.When you die in my game, you don't get to come back at APL.  And, if you're not careful, you may well die.  Raise dead isn't easy to come by.  You aren't guaranteed average wealth by level -- you get what you find, what you make, and what you earn.  I dish out 1/2 normal XP.  The 1-level dip, when used, is used before 5th level (generally) because there is no guarantee that you'll be making it to 20th, and because it can help you survive to 6th.  Rust monsters are more than a one-trick pony, and so is everything else....which means that creatures can, and will, stack the odds in their favor. The one thing that you have convinced me of is that, in the years I have been playing this game (in various editions since 1979, in 7 states [2e in California and Rhode Island] and 2 countries [US and Canada]) I have been extraordinary lucky in encountering literally hundreds of players with whom, regardless of edition, everything clicked.  I've run games with as few as 1 player and as many as (about) 15 using 1e with no problems.  With 3e, I've run games for as few as 1 player and as many as 9.  Again, no problems.I think you mistake "the system" for the campaign style you prefer, or for the default campaign style outlined in 3e.  The system is more hearty than that.  Campaign assumptions vastly affect what is, or is not, powerful in a given game.  You respond to the notion that your assumptions might not be universal with "Completely untrue."  This isn't unconvincing merely because "I don't like your arguments" but because it isn't an argument at all....no matter how many ways you reword it in a single paragraph.Completely untrue. Foes who are an appropriate level challenege him, and the question of his power is salient. Foes who are below that appropriate level are nuisances at best, and mostly completely irrelevant. For a 20th level wizard character (for example) a CR 10 foe is totally outclassed in such a way that having the ability to fight one with a sword is completley meaningless. The foe is no challenge at all, no more than killing a mouse would be to you, so whether he has some other way of dealing with it or not is a question of no import.The above is simply saying the same thing over and over again.  This to the statement "What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play".  You ignore that Challenge Rating in and of itself is an imperfect method of determining what opponent would challenge a party of four PCs with a set standard of wealth used in a fairly narrow way assuming that the encounter was a relatively straightforward combat encounter wherein each character can bring all of his abilities to bear.As an obvious example, if a game world contained antimagic zones ala the Forgotten Realms, then the ability to cast spells within those zones is meaningless and the one-level dip is critical.....especially if the party otherwise contains no heavy fighter types.When you are right (weapon specialization was allowed to all fighters and rangers in UA, multi-classing must have caused a fair percentage of players problems, level dipping is not the way to ULTIMATE POWER) I'll be happy to say so.  However, simply repeating your stated opinions as though they were facts ad infinitum ad nauseum isn't convincing.(I've done the same, of course, but I am sure no one is convinced by that either.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> )So, if you want to convince me, then you will need a better line of argument.  If you don't want to convince me, then you don't need anything.....after all, I certainly don't care if you personally find my statements "less than persuasive".  I am responding to what you write for my own benefit, and for the (dubious) benefit of others, lest they come to the erroneous conclusion that since some statements remain unchallenged they must be true, and their own personal experiences therefore somehow false.In any event, it is a frequent internet argument technique to make a claim of a single case, then attempt to prove that single case untrue, thus trying to demonstrate that the larger case is untrue.  That is simply fallicious reasoning.  Unless the statement being made is "At 20th level, all single dips show a clear benefit"....which, in my case at least, it is not.My position can be summed up as:"One or more level dips, when taken, can provide an immediate benefit that aids a character in survival now with little or no (or shall I say, debateable?) long-term cost." and "Given that it is easier to balance three things than fifty-three things, the sheer number of options in 3e make unbalanced combinations more probable to exist (including race, class, template, feats, skills, spells, and equipment); in fact, greatly unbalanced combos do exist, both in greater number and with greater potential balance problems than in 1e".Caveat to the 2nd point:  "This is a logical extension of more options, and given that more options are a good thing, the balance problems are well within tolerance under the eye of a vigilant DM and/or gaming group."Clear enough?RC</blockquote>

Verification