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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5036214" data-attributes="member: 7635">Then what IS a good limit?Name level? 15th? Perhaps there really isn't ANY cap and you get 100th level PCs? The problem is not only does everyone accelerate at different speeds, they hit speedbumps at different levels. A thief, for example, loses his shtick (traps, sneak, backstab) to magic right around the time he gets reliable in using it. A mage starts piss-poor but rocks at high level. A dwarf fighter is generally better than human fighter; heck a HALF-ELF is a better fighter than a human, if you never reach level limit. A druid's level 14 cap isn't much of a barrier if the game ends at 11th level; but then again why have 9th level spells if a magic-user's never going to cast them? (Don't say NPC's; if HL spells were made for NPCs only, they wouldn't need rules for them.) Personally, I do think most D&D games should be able to accommodate some general assumed "range" of play and make rules to keep the players equal (if in separate unique niches) thoughout that range. If D&D goes 1-20, it should be balanced enough that all reasonable choices (aka all offered in the core book) should be PLAYABLE 1-20. If its lower (1-15, 1-12, or 1-7) then balance the game with those assumption in mind (giving humans something to account for level-limits that will never come up, bumping up thief skills at low-level, or even giving M-U's more starting power since they no longer have the long-run to look forward too)It doesn't need to be 4e "all classes run on the same engine" balance, but it does need to make a token nod to the concept someone will want to play an elven thief and NOT suck at high level because of racial limits or class obsolescence.</blockquote>

Verification