Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7430077" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Ok, I can see that. I thought about it, but honestly...in my home campaign nobody has yet managed to breach 7th level. I think after that there has been 1, maybe 2, 5th level...and handful of 4th, and quite a few 3rd. For me, 3rd level seems to be the real meat-grinder for PC's. I think the Players get a false sense of superiority or capability and it ends up killing them.If anyone ever got to 18th+ level..yeah, I could see it being &quot;overpowered&quot;. Hmmm...perhaps&nbsp; &quot;Spell Level Squared&quot; would work better? (1 for 1st level, 4 for 2nd, then 9, 16, 25, 36, 47, 64 and 91 for 9th level). Maybe tack on &quot;+5&quot; just to keep low level spells from being replenished like candy. Problem is that once you do it upper teens, I can see &quot;magical healing&quot; being the norm where the cleric just uses his healing spells or powers or whatever. And then there's magic items at that level.Anyway, just another thought. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Ahh...yeah, you thought of that part too. But, at least with my campaign, 4th +/- seems to be the max level anyone gets to. As for NPC's, I don't have very many high level ones at all. &quot;High Level&quot; in my campaign ('normal' world of Generika), is about 10th. I think the PC's encountered ONE NPC who was 14th? Scratch that. They encountered one who was 11th...his boss was 14th (then never met him; they were both clerics).High level gets wonky in 3.x+ game systems, if you ask me. I played 2 years of 3.x, about&nbsp; 1 year of PF, and 3.5 years of 5th. Compared to about 30 years of AD&amp;D 1e (and Hackmaster 4th; not the newest/latest version). So you can see where my &quot;DM'ing brain&quot; slots the word &quot;powerful&quot;, &quot;high level&quot;, &quot;epic&quot;. Yup. I agree. I didn't put much thought into it...just a sort of &quot;what I would come up with on the fly during a game&quot;. That, combined with nobody hitting 8th level or higher, well, it would be fairly balanced then. Make full arcane casters more &quot;oomphy&quot;, sure, but that's never really bothered us TOO much. Easy enough to just tweak during the testing phase.Ahh...I did say &quot;full Arcane casters&quot;; so no Knight Errant, Bard, etc. Another thing I didn't think I had to mention was the whole kettle of fish that allowing Feats and Multiclassing could bring. But I don't use those options in my campaign, so it never entered my mind honestly.Point 1...I only would allow FULL Arcane casters this option.Point 2...I re-jiggered the idea above in this post with the whole &quot;Spell Level Squared (+5)&quot; thing.Point 3...This would be a &quot;tweaking&quot; factor as testing in play developed. I could easily see a Spell Level Cap too. I agree that 5th would be the absolute highest.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 7430077, member: 45197"] Hiya! Ok, I can see that. I thought about it, but honestly...in my home campaign nobody has yet managed to breach 7th level. I think after that there has been 1, maybe 2, 5th level...and handful of 4th, and quite a few 3rd. For me, 3rd level seems to be the real meat-grinder for PC's. I think the Players get a false sense of superiority or capability and it ends up killing them. If anyone ever got to 18th+ level..yeah, I could see it being "overpowered". Hmmm...perhaps "Spell Level Squared" would work better? (1 for 1st level, 4 for 2nd, then 9, 16, 25, 36, 47, 64 and 91 for 9th level). Maybe tack on "+5" just to keep low level spells from being replenished like candy. Problem is that once you do it upper teens, I can see "magical healing" being the norm where the cleric just uses his healing spells or powers or whatever. And then there's magic items at that level. Anyway, just another thought. :) Ahh...yeah, you thought of that part too. But, at least with my campaign, 4th +/- seems to be the max level anyone gets to. As for NPC's, I don't have very many high level ones at all. "High Level" in my campaign ('normal' world of Generika), is about 10th. I think the PC's encountered ONE NPC who was 14th? Scratch that. They encountered one who was 11th...his boss was 14th (then never met him; they were both clerics). High level gets wonky in 3.x+ game systems, if you ask me. I played 2 years of 3.x, about 1 year of PF, and 3.5 years of 5th. Compared to about 30 years of AD&D 1e (and Hackmaster 4th; not the newest/latest version). So you can see where my "DM'ing brain" slots the word "powerful", "high level", "epic". Yup. I agree. I didn't put much thought into it...just a sort of "what I would come up with on the fly during a game". That, combined with nobody hitting 8th level or higher, well, it would be fairly balanced then. Make full arcane casters more "oomphy", sure, but that's never really bothered us TOO much. Easy enough to just tweak during the testing phase. Ahh...I did say "full Arcane casters"; so no Knight Errant, Bard, etc. Another thing I didn't think I had to mention was the whole kettle of fish that allowing Feats and Multiclassing could bring. But I don't use those options in my campaign, so it never entered my mind honestly. Point 1...I only would allow FULL Arcane casters this option. Point 2...I re-jiggered the idea above in this post with the whole "Spell Level Squared (+5)" thing. Point 3...This would be a "tweaking" factor as testing in play developed. I could easily see a Spell Level Cap too. I agree that 5th would be the absolute highest. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification