Does anybody do non-overpowered gaming anymore? I'm working on a campaign where the Fighter is a Prestige class. The core classes are all comparable to the Warrior or the Noble in the DMG. There is power to be had in this world, but the PCs don't automatically get a fast-track to the biggest and baddest character classes. Is this so unusual that I might as well pack up and move to the center star of Orion's belt?
Does anyone do non-overpowered anymore?
- Thread starter Dogbrain
- Start date
Crothian
First Post
Of course people do. I have players that just take feats and don't hunt for the best ones. We play fighters and rangers well past sixth level and few people take prestige classes. They give away magical items, even the rare and powerful ones. Soon a few of them will have high levels then ACs.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Nope, I did the opposite: all NPCs have PC Class levels and beefed-up NPC class levels. The way I represent "not powerful" is by using the mechanic called "low level". (I eliminated the Commoner, Adept and Warrior classes.)
Average NPC level is 10th. Yep, average. There are already Epic-level people out there. PCs start at 3rd level, since before that they're considered "Apprentices"... unable to survive out in the world alone.
By 10th level, I expect PCs to have made a name for themselves.
By 20th level, I expect PCs to be world-renowned heros.
By Epic levels, I expect them to actually save the world once or twice.
I consider it "powering-up" the setting to match the power-level of the PCs, instead of lowering the power level of the PCs. Either way, it's good to have your PCs playing in a setting that matches their personal power level.
-- N
Average NPC level is 10th. Yep, average. There are already Epic-level people out there. PCs start at 3rd level, since before that they're considered "Apprentices"... unable to survive out in the world alone.
By 10th level, I expect PCs to have made a name for themselves.
By 20th level, I expect PCs to be world-renowned heros.
By Epic levels, I expect them to actually save the world once or twice.
I consider it "powering-up" the setting to match the power-level of the PCs, instead of lowering the power level of the PCs. Either way, it's good to have your PCs playing in a setting that matches their personal power level.
-- N
EricNoah
Adventurer
I wouldn't call it common, no. But I've been toying with a campaign setting where "clerics" and "wizards" have to start with a certain amount of expertise in certain skills (say, Decipher Script and Knowledge: Arcana for the "wizard" and profession: clergy and knowledge: religion for clerics, for example) before they can take those character classes. So they would start out as Experts in order to build up those skills. I'm also imagining that 10th level is about as high as a character can go in this setting.
Not that one way is inherently superior, of course; it all depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell.
Not that one way is inherently superior, of course; it all depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell.
blackshirt5
First Post
I prefer a higher powered game.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
If you consider the basic classes of the game to be 'overpowered', then I think you'll probably find yourself in minority. Do your players know about your plans for this campaign? What do they think? Obviously if it's something all of you like, more power to you but I'd be interested in why you'd think a class like the Fighter would be 'overpowered'.Dogbrain said:
Altalazar
First Post
The standard campaign world is neither over- nor under-powered.
And power is all relative anyway - if every bartender is a retired arch-mage, then the characters being high level and having a great deal of personal power won't necessarily get them very far.
If commoners all have one hit point and almost no one has a character class, then a group of second level fighters with sharp swords could be considered "overpowered" in that world.
So what do you mean by "overpowered?" Magic? Being able to accomplish things with skills and attacks with more than a miniscule chance of success?
What sort of challenges do you envision? How is the challenge different for a group of crappy-classed characters fighting kobolds as opposed to a group of well-classed 5th level characters fighting gnolls?
I do realize it takes greater creativity and skill on the part of the DM when you have to deal with characters who aren't all grovelling in the dirt, happy to have a +1 dart as their sole magic item as a 12th level adept, but then after a while, one has to ask what is the point of even having levels, then? I mean, if you REALLY want to do a low-power campaign, why not eliminate experience entirely - just have everyone be a zero level commoner with no money and no advancement and adventure that way? If low-power == good, then that ought to be the best campaign EVER!
But really, you just play what you find to be fun. If grovelling in the dirt while your world dominates the players is fun for all, go for it!
And power is all relative anyway - if every bartender is a retired arch-mage, then the characters being high level and having a great deal of personal power won't necessarily get them very far.
If commoners all have one hit point and almost no one has a character class, then a group of second level fighters with sharp swords could be considered "overpowered" in that world.
So what do you mean by "overpowered?" Magic? Being able to accomplish things with skills and attacks with more than a miniscule chance of success?
What sort of challenges do you envision? How is the challenge different for a group of crappy-classed characters fighting kobolds as opposed to a group of well-classed 5th level characters fighting gnolls?
I do realize it takes greater creativity and skill on the part of the DM when you have to deal with characters who aren't all grovelling in the dirt, happy to have a +1 dart as their sole magic item as a 12th level adept, but then after a while, one has to ask what is the point of even having levels, then? I mean, if you REALLY want to do a low-power campaign, why not eliminate experience entirely - just have everyone be a zero level commoner with no money and no advancement and adventure that way? If low-power == good, then that ought to be the best campaign EVER!
But really, you just play what you find to be fun. If grovelling in the dirt while your world dominates the players is fun for all, go for it!
Gothmog
First Post
Yep Dogbrain, I've been running a low-powered campaign for the last 12 years now. I find it more rewarding to DM and play a lower-powered campaign- too much magic is a crutch for ONLY using magical methods and brute force to solve problems. You put those same players in a modern or no-magic game, and they are clueless as to what to do- they approach everything from a medieval "hack & sack" mindset, or from the viewpoint of having tons of magic and resources. This is just bad playing IMO, and leads to much more one-dimensional characters.
IMC, the PCs are now 9-11th level, and only one has a PrC (a homebrewed one). They have about 1/3 the GP value of items listed in the DMG for their level, and it hasn't been too much of a problem to ensure monsters and encounters are appropriate for that group. The highest total plus on a weapon is +2 (including special abilities), and I usually make up all my own magic items rather than using the DMG ones. So it can be done, and done well for a long-term game, but it take a little more work. But its really worth it.
IMC, the PCs are now 9-11th level, and only one has a PrC (a homebrewed one). They have about 1/3 the GP value of items listed in the DMG for their level, and it hasn't been too much of a problem to ensure monsters and encounters are appropriate for that group. The highest total plus on a weapon is +2 (including special abilities), and I usually make up all my own magic items rather than using the DMG ones. So it can be done, and done well for a long-term game, but it take a little more work. But its really worth it.
Similar Threads
