If most DMs prefer low-mid levels...why have levels?

[reanjr]

I agree and have agreed for many years. But what are you gonna do? People like leveling their characters.

 

[Ry]

I love levels. I find it extremely helpful to be able to distinguish young, inexperienced adventurers (levels 1 & 2) from accomplished veterans (levels 3-5) and epic-level adventurers (level 6). System works great.

Oh, did I mention my level cap?

 

[Agent Oracle]

D&D3.x does not scale well. No group uses 3.x straight out of the box (and if you do, your GM will have to adjust the output of gear one way or another for balance) and each group has their own house rules to help balance their campaign for maximum impact in that sweet-spot (I agree with levels 5-13).

Before i begin:

Yarr!

That saidm here's the rebuttal.

I dare to disagree. I play 3.5 without any house rules that mess with the base system. Now, i do allow my players to use Swashbuckling cards, which add to the system, not change it.

The scaling issues inherent to D&D are apparent post Level-12. Melee characters will rarely miss a target (which illuminates the broken Armor Class System),

Ahh, another one of the misconceptions of the deluded: that a HP loss = blood shed. I believe that HP loss is more abstract, representing a genera "fatiguing" of the target, which, as it progesses leaves them open to more fatal wounds. An axe swing could go wide, but if the target overexerts himself dodging, that could be HP loss. We just use "to-hit" as an expression that's easier to say than "Roll to-see-if-you-fatigue-him-from-having-to-deal-with-an-agressive-meleeist"

Also, what's wrong with an experienced, veteran meleeist being able to connect with a greater number of blows?

assuming you're using only WotC material (which I find to be uninspired on average) your caster-fanboys usually wipe the floor with most reasonable encounters.

Casters wiping the floor with reasonable encounters? Clearly, you need a strategist I've had a 16th level caster completely shut down by a measly Kobold sorcerer with only six levels. The encounter was a large group of kobolds, the wizard went in for a fireball (because it's just a bunch of kobolds, why waste a bigger spell?), and the kobold sorcerer (who was hiding on the sidelines) counterspelled. Causing the Caster's fireball to sputter without He tried another fireball, (which the sorcerer also counterspelled). The wizard announced "it's an anti-magic zone!" and cut and run, taking the cleric with him. The Bard watched for a few rounds, then when a group of kobolds turned towards him, he too fled. The fighter charged... into set pikes.

One dead fighter: fourteen dead kobolds, three routed players, all from an encounter that was two CR's below them

CR -system? Useless.

I disagree The CR system is a lot easier way to gage the power of monsters in comparison to the players than any previous explanation. And since D&D is primarily about fighting monsters, it's better than any other system i've ever seen for expressing combat.

Feats - great idea, poor implementation. Everyone gets pigeonholed into one-trick pony status.[/quote]

Another disagreement. With feats, even just using Core WotC books (as I do) you see tremendous player diversity! far more than was seen in any previous edition of the game.

So back to the original question - Why have levels?

Because they work.

I still can't help but feel their flavor of d20 is bland compared to some of the other companies in the field - Green Ronin and AEG for that matter.

I'm definitely looking forward to 4e. Bring it on.

Well, in my opinion, D&D has something special that no other rule set has ever accomplished: core rules D&D is more versatile than any other rules system. it allows people to create their own worlds, unlike, say WoD which has established history and geography, or WFRP, where you are fate's bitch... It's a wide open, adaptable world. Accessible to anyone. The personality is not meant to come from the books, it's meant to come from the users!

And 4e can take as long as it wants getting here.

 

[jmucchiello]

Gaining levels is an artifice.

When you level - you're in essence buying a set of abilities with your xp.

It's been done. You want this: Buy the Numbers.

D&D3.x does not scale well. No group uses 3.x straight out of the box (and if you do, your GM will have to adjust the output of gear one way or another for balance) and each group has their own house rules to help balance their campaign for maximum impact in that sweet-spot (I agree with levels 5-13).

I and many others would vehemently disagree. Our 27th level characters have wealth at about the guidelines suggested. Prep for about 6 encounters (2 on Sunday, the rest the following sessions) took me 1 hour on paper (I thought about what would happen for several hours over the course of a few weeks before my turn at DM's chair). I expect the players to just reach 28th level when this part of the story arc completes. The only significant house rule we have is we aren't using the epic spell system (and that is because there is a time crunch in the story so the spellcasters can't take 71 days to research an epic spell).

The scaling issues inherent to D&D are apparent post Level-12. Melee characters will rarely miss a target (which illuminates the broken Armor Class System), assuming you're using only WotC material (which I find to be uninspired on average) your caster-fanboys usually wipe the floor with most reasonable encounters. CR -system? Useless. Feats - great idea, poor implementation. Everyone gets pigeonholed into one-trick pony status.

Melee characters are supposed to hit with their first shot. That's how you get rid of those 500 hit points everyone has without combat taking 6 weeks. Casters have to overcome SR and saving throws. A typical 9th level spell has a DC of around 30 in our game. Most saving throws for critters of CR 27 are between +20 and +40. Casters who rely on save or die spells tend to be ineffective on average. Yeah, sometimes they take out one opponent in the first round. That's why you stage combats with multiple opponents.

As for the CR system, those 2 combats I mentioned before lasted 2 and 3 rounds (for a total of 5 rounds). One PC (out of 6) died. The first fight was against a single opponent of CR28. 2 rounds is typical for a EL equal to effective party level. 6 ECL27 characters is a party of around EL28 last I checked. The second combat was against 5 CR22 and 1 CR25 and the party couldn't rest between encounters. I'd say the results of these two encounters were about average based on the CR rules.

2ed was HORRIBLY broken - far worse than 3.x, but that was partly due to being overgrown and overdeveloped. It FORCED players and GM's to customize their game from the truckload of content out there. The systemization of 2ed was barely there. However, when the Options and Powers books came out, ...

Wow, I played in two campaigns both lasting 5+ years and going from 5-13+ level (we always skipped 1-4). And a 3rd game lasting 4 years that went from 12th-17th level (everyone played newly installed barons in a frontier section of Mystara converted to AD&D). We had a good time and rarely compained about anything being broken. Why? No kits. In fact, we only used the original 2e hardcovers. No options books. Just PHB, DMG, various MC, ToM and that's about it. The core system was just a cleaned up 1e. Whenever we imported stuff from the complete books, we ended up throwing them out because they were bad. Eventually we stopped looking at the complete books (except for fluff like character ideas -- you could play a bard in the style of one of the kits, you just couldn't get the bonuses from the kit).

... something interesting happened - something that could with a lot of work be applied to 3e.

See my first paragraph. Spence already did it.

 

[WizarDru]

D&D3.x does not scale well. No group uses 3.x straight out of the box (and if you do, your GM will have to adjust the output of gear one way or another for balance) and each group has their own house rules to help balance their campaign for maximum impact in that sweet-spot (I agree with levels 5-13).

Allow me to join the chorus of those who run 3.X straight out of the box. Our only remaining house-rule is that you if you roll a '1l for hit points, you get to reroll it once. We've always adhered to the equipment guidelines as written, as well.

Melee characters will rarely miss a target (which illuminates the broken Armor Class System), assuming you're using only WotC material (which I find to be uninspired on average) your caster-fanboys usually wipe the floor with most reasonable encounters. CR -system? Useless. Feats - great idea, poor implementation. Everyone gets pigeonholed into one-trick pony status.

I suspect that my players would argue against that point. You may have had no success with the CR system, but I certainly don't find it useless. On the contrary, I find it very helpful for a baseline. At high levels, you need to adjust it some around the relative threat to the party, but that doesn't invalidate it, in my eyes. It merely makes it a much better benchmark than purely eyeballing it.

One thing that no one has pointed, that Monte Cook highlighte years ago, is that levels are part of the carrot-and-stick philosophy that makes levels so appealing. Every level potentially offers something to the character and a very tangible change to your character, even if it's only slightly better saves and a hit point or two. Don't underestimate how powerful a draw that is. In a levelless system like GURPS, getting a few points in drips and drabs just isn't that exciting, compared with taking a new level in D&D. The change is much more dramatic...and if it's immediacy somewhat tests the verisimilude form some folks, that a small price to play for a proven game mechanic IN A GAME.

As to Japanese RPGs making levels seamless, it should be noted that often those levels are very static. Yes, I got another level of Lord in Fire Emblem or Sora gets another level in Kingdom Hearts...they're really just artificial constructs. You have no control over the levelling process, and since all the enemies scale at roughly the same time, it's not really the same as a level in D&D. It's nice, but it's really not nearly the same kind of experience.

So back to the original question - Why have levels?

It's a good question, really. 2ed was HORRIBLY broken - far worse than 3.x, but that was partly due to being overgrown and overdeveloped. It FORCED players and GM's to customize their game from the truckload of content out there. The systemization of 2ed was barely there. However, when the Options and Powers books came out, something interesting happened - something that could with a lot of work be applied to 3e.

Turning all class specific abilities into point-bought abilities that you purchase upon "leveling", you could, actually, have the versatility of creating the type of character you want (possibly doing away with Prestige classes since everyone is customized within the boundaries of what the GM allows). 3.x Options and Powers? 4e? Who knows. Interesting idea. I think d20 can be pushed a lot further than the current flatland systemic idiosyncracies that cause games to fracture post 13th level anyhow. WotC quality is slowly getting better, and more dynamic... SLOWLY (I credit Mearls on this. He GETS IT). I still can't help but feel their flavor of d20 is bland compared to some of the other companies in the field - Green Ronin and AEG for that matter.

I'm definitely looking forward to 4e. Bring it on.[/QUOTE]

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I've run 2 games starting at levels 1 or 2 till about +20 since 3.X came out.
The hardest part about running a high level game is coming with original and interesting adventure ideas for the PCs. By the time you've run a game that long you're a master at making NPCs and monsters and other crunch (at least I was).

I guess what I'm saying in response to the OP is that as long as a substantial percentage of D&D gamers enjoy high level games D&D should continue to support them.

 

[kolikeos]

as a dm i really do preffer low-mid level games, but as a player i always strive for the ultimate power

 

[Odhanan]

Ahh, another one of the misconceptions of the deluded: that a HP loss = blood shed. I believe that HP loss is more abstract, representing a genera "fatiguing" of the target, which, as it progesses leaves them open to more fatal wounds. An axe swing could go wide, but if the target overexerts himself dodging, that could be HP loss. We just use "to-hit" as an expression that's easier to say than "Roll to-see-if-you-fatigue-him-from-having-to-deal-with-an-agressive-meleeist".

Agreed. That's how I see HP as well, or with another image, at high level, you've got the same amount of "health" as anybody else from any level. That's just that there are more subdivisions between "Full Health" and "Dead" because you are more experimented at taking blows, brushing off some hits etc.

 

[A'koss]

Agreed. That's how I see HP as well, or with another image, at high level, you've got the same amount of "health" as anybody else from any level. That's just that there are more subdivisions between "Full Health" and "Dead" because you are more experimented at taking blows, brushing off some hits etc.

In my book all Hits = Wounds, otherwise you have to deal with exceptions - wounds that deliver poison, disease, wounding effects... basically any hit devilered special effects. HPs are the skills that allow you to turn getting your head lopped off to a nasty cut on your neck.

 

[Tenbones]

Heh well allow me to clear up some of the assumptions about my post.

I'm not complaining about d20. Otherwise I wouldn't be using it. Nor am I accusing all of the "straight out of the box d20 players" baby-killers for doing so. Not at all.

I'm posting my opinions based on general concensus of:

- the various publications I've written for various d20 publishers (basically all the big ones).
- the tournaments I run locally with a steady group of players (some who have played D&D with me since 1979), along with a rotating cast of young gun min/max power-gamers.
- general love of playing the game.

so let me address the points of interest in terms of equal opportunity internet-opinionism

jmucchiello

and many others would vehemently disagree. Our 27th level characters have wealth at about the guidelines suggested. Prep for about 6 encounters (2 on Sunday, the rest the following sessions) took me 1 hour on paper (I thought about what would happen for several hours over the course of a few weeks before my turn at DM's chair). I expect the players to just reach 28th level when this part of the story arc completes. The only significant house rule we have is we aren't using the epic spell system (and that is because there is a time crunch in the story so the spellcasters can't take 71 days to research an epic spell).

Well someone is GMing you right? If you're getting gear that's "guideline suggested" that's the act of your GM(s) keeping game balance for the type of campaign he's running - Not the rules magically working by themselves. And yes, my comment was meant 'in general' - and yes I see you have a house rule. Which as meager as it shows - no one goes by the book 100% of the time. Which is all I'm illustrating.

You can vehemently disagree (why you would care how others run their games enough to 'vehemently disagree' is probably the problem) all you want. Again - the point is not everyone runs the same type of game. Which leads me to the next assumption...

Melee characters are supposed to hit with their first shot. That's how you get rid of those 500 hit points everyone has without combat taking 6 weeks. Casters have to overcome SR and saving throws. A typical 9th level spell has a DC of around 30 in our game. Most saving throws for critters of CR 27 are between +20 and +40. Casters who rely on save or die spells tend to be ineffective on average. Yeah, sometimes they take out one opponent in the first round. That's why you stage combats with multiple opponents.

We call this bad-scaling. Don't take my word for it - ask Sean, Ryan and Monte (that's Reynolds, Dancey, and Cook you can shoot them all emails easily enough) since they pointed it out from day 1 of v3.5. Of course the golden rule applies and I support your adherence to the party-line: but it doesn't change the fact that its broken.

Wow, I played in two campaigns both lasting 5+ years and going from 5-13+ level (we always skipped 1-4). And a 3rd game lasting 4 years that went from 12th-17th level (everyone played newly installed barons in a frontier section of Mystara converted to AD&D). We had a good time and rarely compained about anything being broken. Why? No kits. In fact, we only used the original 2e hardcovers. No options books. Just PHB, DMG, various MC, ToM and that's about it. The core system was just a cleaned up 1e. Whenever we imported stuff from the complete books, we ended up throwing them out because they were bad. Eventually we stopped looking at the complete books (except for fluff like character ideas -- you could play a bard in the style of one of the kits, you just couldn't get the bonuses from the kit).

You've had some decent campaigns then I take it? (for the record - my 1e-2e campaign started in 1983 and ended in 1995, my 3ed campaign started the day it came out and is still going) I think that's great - shows that you can work with what's thrown on the table. But again, you're making my point - you're using what *you* qualify as 'good material' to make *your* campaign what *you* want it to be. So in the same breath where you're making the assumption I'm making some kind of harsh criticism of 3.x (that it has scaling problems which it does) you're saying that you never complained about 2e (and neither did I) that you simply disregarded the things *you* didn't like. Well, guess what? That's what I do in 3.x So how are we talking about different things? I use 3.x, I'm merely pointing out what's been stated by the very people who created the system - /shrug.

Agent Oracle

Ahh this one is a treat. Now I'm deluded because I don't play D&D the way others do...

Ahh, another one of the misconceptions of the deluded: that a HP loss = blood shed. I believe that HP loss is more abstract, representing a genera "fatiguing" of the target, which, as it progesses leaves them open to more fatal wounds. An axe swing could go wide, but if the target overexerts himself dodging, that could be HP loss. We just use "to-hit" as an expression that's easier to say than "Roll to-see-if-you-fatigue-him-from-having-to-deal-with-an-agressive-meleeist"

Also, what's wrong with an experienced, veteran meleeist being able to connect with a greater number of blows?

So by your assumption of how I play an abstraction is apparent - I must assume (and I say this because of your "I believe" etc.) that all those that see HP in some fashion different than your 'vision' are "Deluded." While I do thank you for explaining that uniquely strange concept for me, it should bear out that HP are an abstraction representative of whatever you want them to be. I do find it amusing that swinging an axe can make someone more tired than someone slapping with an open hand and neither of them actually making physical contact by your iron-clad definition (yes the tongue is in the cheek).

What's wrong with an experienced veteren meleeist being able to connect with a greater number of blows? What if i have a veteren 'dodgist' that gets nailed every hit because we're both 15th level and our representative offensive and defensive trees do not match each other IN-SCALE to the slightest mathematical degree? If you can do this without gear, I would be impressed. Maybe I'm just deluded since Armor is an abstraction as well... and after all it makes you harder to hit? I can see that wearing a suit of platemail makes one far harder to hit. Riiiight.

Casters wiping the floor with reasonable encounters? Clearly, you need a strategist I've had a 16th level caster completely shut down by a measly Kobold sorcerer with only six levels. The encounter was a large group of kobolds, the wizard went in for a fireball (because it's just a bunch of kobolds, why waste a bigger spell?), and the kobold sorcerer (who was hiding on the sidelines) counterspelled. Causing the Caster's fireball to sputter without He tried another fireball, (which the sorcerer also counterspelled). The wizard announced "it's an anti-magic zone!" and cut and run, taking the cleric with him. The Bard watched for a few rounds, then when a group of kobolds turned towards him, he too fled. The fighter charged... into set pikes.

One dead fighter: fourteen dead kobolds, three routed players, all from an encounter that was two CR's below them

I need a strategist because *you* have stupid players? I'm not making the connection.

I disagree The CR system is a lot easier way to gage the power of monsters in comparison to the players than any previous explanation. And since D&D is primarily about fighting monsters, it's better than any other system i've ever seen for expressing combat.

Only that the very developers of the CR system have said it's broken. If you'd like to get a detailed description why - go to Monte Cook's site, or Sean Reynolds. Hate to burst your bubble.

Another disagreement. With feats, even just using Core WotC books (as I do) you see tremendous player diversity! far more than was seen in any previous edition of the game.

The number of existing feats does not equate to usable feats does not equate to diversity. Granted I don't play 2e anymore - but if you want *character diversity* you will never beat Options and Powers in 2e.

On another note - in general most schticks in the game require so many pre-reqs that you have no chance of going outside of your schtick (whatever it might be) to be diverse. AEG does it well (Mike Mearls rocks the house) with 3-5 level prestiges that allow you to build-in your schtick without having to blow every single feat you're likey to ever have just to use a single weapon. If you think making a Warrior that specializes in Bullrush is diversity - your campaings probably suck. Hate to break it to you.

Why use levels?

Because they work.

Work for what? I didn't say NOT to use levels - I simply pointed out that Levels (like you're apparently fond of militarizing: ARE AN ABSTRACTION). Ease off the throttle, chucky, that's it... ease off, you're only grinding metal... (1xp if you can ID the ref). You don't write for d20, it's not your fault the system has it's awkward places - every system does. Just remember: ITS OK. We're just gaming!

Well, in my opinion, D&D has something special that no other rule set has ever accomplished: core rules D&D is more versatile than any other rules system. it allows people to create their own worlds, unlike, say WoD which has established history and geography, or WFRP, where you are fate's bitch... It's a wide open, adaptable world. Accessible to anyone. The personality is not meant to come from the books, it's meant to come from the users!

Thankfully the internet is here and we can hear your opinion, and my opinion, and everyone elses opinion. I'm personally glad that we have you here as a representative that has played every system ever created and are able to pronounce to everyone that D20 is the greatest system ever made - and that you obviously know more than most of the people that write it. Any other tips for us up and comers?