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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6123559" data-attributes="member: 22424">Surely it's not beyond them to pick a representative set of levels?One of the great weaknesses of 4e was that although they had their tiers defined, they never quite locked down exactly what the tiers actually meant. One of the great weaknesses of 3e was that although the game effectively had tiers, they never actually spelled this out (never mind getting as far as locking down what they actually meant).If they're wise, WotC are spending some significant time calibrating the levels of their PCs against the capabilities of "everyone else" so that they can build a coherent universe. What level is the average guard? What level is the king's champion? If the PCs need a high-level priest to cast raise dead for them, is that one in ten, one in a thousand, one in a million? At what level do PCs (without using explicit magic) go from "this is theoretically possible" to "this is simply impossible"?Once they've got that, it should be reasonably clear what the default definitions of low-, medium-, and high-level are. (And, as an added bonus, once they've got that, they can then provide DMs with meaningful advice for how to change those defaults for their game.) If they fail to do that, then there's no point in them defining tiers because they're just names with no meaning. Or, worse, we're back to the insanity of the game regularly throwing up 20th level Commoners in any settlement of sufficient size.</blockquote>

Verification