It's No Longer A Joke

[I'm A Banana]

So you've never had a gamer "tell you about their character" before? You know, the Half Demon Paladin Priest of Bane who is 42nd level & has Tiamat as a lap dragon, rules over Dmjimsworld & summer's in the Demon Web Pits, cause you know Lloth is hawt! You didn't know that some people had already "beaten D&D"?

Yeah, sometimes I miss Edena, too....

 

[Plane Sailing]

All versions of D&D (except 3.x) had a point where you stopped gaining 'meaningful' levels.

Because +3 HP isn't meaningful compared to +1 HD.

But that was a problem with the fighter rather than anything else.

Wizards kept getting spells
Illusionists kept getting spells
Clerics kept getting spells
Druids kept getting spells
Rangers kept getting spells (admittedly they got worse from OD&D ->1e ->2e)
Paladins kept getting spells
Thieves... well, they were pretty much as badly off as the fighters.

Almost every class kept getting better (and the fighters still got their +1BAB per level, which was much more significant than the +3hp).

 

[Wolfspider]

Yeah, sometimes I miss Edena, too....

What happened to Edena?

 

[Hussar]

Following on from my post to Hussar...

That is an interesting question, and I wonder whether it represents a change in the underlying philosophy of D&D over the years.

When I used to play in the 70's and very early 80's, we played the game for as long as someone wanted to run adventures/maintain a campaign and nobody ever considered potential "level maximums" as an issue. This is probably because level advancement was so slow that you only gained a level about once in every 20 sessions or so, after hundreds of encounters so character objectives were much more 'story based' if you will.

Since 3e, I suppose, "gaining a level" has come more to the forefront in terms of character objectives. It is much, much more attainable (by design) and as a result can easily become much more of a character objective (heck, I know that when I play 3e I'm much more focussed on the 'gaining a level' bit than ever before ).

So the question of "what if you want to want to go to 31st level" is an issue for the 'level driven' game, but perhaps not so much for the 'story driven game'.

Does that make sense?

Cheers

Y'know, after Quasqueton's thread about leveling through the modules, I thought that we could say that the whole leveling after dozens of sessions was less than accurate. YMMV of course.

I guess it's because we played a lot of modules. Gaining a level was always in the forefront of our minds.

Just out of curiousity Plane Sailing - did no one ever play demi-humans in your games? That was one of the big reasons we capped campaigns.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hey, sounds like a poll would be fun!

I've made a poll here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225949

 

[Plane Sailing]

Y'know, after Quasqueton's thread about leveling through the modules, I thought that we could say that the whole leveling after dozens of sessions was less than accurate. YMMV of course.

I guess it's because we played a lot of modules. Gaining a level was always in the forefront of our minds.

Just out of curiousity Plane Sailing - did no one ever play demi-humans in your games? That was one of the big reasons we capped campaigns.

We rarely played modules, we just had dungeons and/or ongoing campaigns. It was definitely dozens of sessions for us though.

Demi-humans were rarely played - even though we had a house rule that removed level limits for demi-humans

 

[Simon Marks]

But that was a problem with the fighter rather than anything else.

Wizards kept getting spells
Illusionists kept getting spells
Clerics kept getting spells
Druids kept getting spells
Rangers kept getting spells (admittedly they got worse from OD&D ->1e ->2e)
Paladins kept getting spells
Thieves... well, they were pretty much as badly off as the fighters.

Almost every class kept getting better (and the fighters still got their +1BAB per level, which was much more significant than the +3hp).

Except... they don't.

I mean, at 20th level the spell charts stop (or some arbitrary number) at that point Wizards, Illusionists, Clerics etc. stop gaining spells.
Druids capped at ... 18th? Illusionists at something like 16th?

In AD&D the fighter attack tables stopped, spell tables stopped and really... nothing much changed. Yeah, you went up levels - but eventually it meant nothing.

I played Throne of Bloodstone adventures with 100th level dual classed characters. Really, it was no different to playing 20th level characters except the fights took longer.

Meaningful levels ended in AD&D much earlier than 30th. Same in BECMI D&D. Same in OD&D.

3.x had 'open ended' levels - but it's the exception.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Except... they don't.

I mean, at 20th level the spell charts stop (or some arbitrary number) at that point Wizards, Illusionists, Clerics etc. stop gaining spells.
Druids capped at ... 18th? Illusionists at something like 16th?

So?

The discussion was about progression stopping at 'name' level, which was about 9th-11th level.

So in that context... they do

 

[drjones]

So...in 4e what happens if you want to go to 31? Or 32? Or 50?

Nothing, those levels are undefined in the rules.

But this is not an MMO so you can make whatever you want to happen at level 31. You will, however, be off the reservation totally so any problems you have with balance/source material whatever is entirely your problem.

I would guess some third party will release the 'Super Epic Mega Deity Rulestraviganza Tome' that will continue things for the people with the patience to want to play the same character for a million fights but who knows how good/balanced it will be.

 

[Simon Marks]

The discussion was about progression stopping at 'name' level, which was about 9th-11th level.

Not the discussion I was involved in! The one I was involved in was about the fact that there was a level cap at all not if the level cap was 'name level'

So, yeah - you still progress beyond name level; but there is a sort of level cap in all editions of D&D where you stop gaining meaningful levels.