Should Level Top Out?

[the Jester]

Hmm. I'm very interested in "unscaled" worlds -- where bonuses have diminishing returns, and an experienced PC has more tricks & better defenses rather than merely being able to hit a higher number than a green PC.

This whole thread is actually some preliminary research for what I'm referring to as "dnd jazz edition"- a project I'm working on to take the best of each edition, along with some innovations of my own, to make my personal "perfect or as close as I can come" version of the game. One of my big design goals is to make it feasible for a broad range of levels to operate together; ergo, I have to flatten the math curve. So, no 1/2 level bonus in dnd jazz!

 

[Dice4Hire]

Hmm. I'm very interested in "unscaled" worlds -- where bonuses have diminishing returns, and an experienced PC has more tricks & better defenses rather than merely being able to hit a higher number than a green PC.

I like point buy systems for this, where buying higher levels gets far far more expensive.


This is jsut not true in D&D and never really has been, unless you count xp, which really should not be counted in 3.X and 4E, as it merely scales with level.

 

[Barcode]

I still don't care for high-level play, so limits are irrelevant to me except for providing a better sense of absolute scale. In that sense I like them.

I don't really benefit from materials aimed at going beyond-30, but I am not opposed to them existing. That is, unless they divert attention from products and articles I would rather have. I would hope that any WotC development resources assigned to addressing the problem of beyond-30 play are proportionate to the relative number of players that need such resources - that is, pretty small.

Sounds like a good niche for a third party producer to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Frank Mentzer's Immortals rules are that, retaining key touch-points with D&D. They are essentially a very high-powered "comic book super-hero" kind of deal. At an even further point, I think the D&D premises and rules systems are likely to become pretty irrelevant to matters of significance.

WotC's old The Primal Order rules weren't too bad, IMHO.

RPGnet : The Inside Scoop on Gaming

 

[Ariosto]

I've seen mention (all positive) of The Primal Order before, and maybe someday I'll get my hands on a copy.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I like the idea of a soft level cap. In my current 3.5 game, the general idea I have hashed out is that level 20 is the cap for mortals, but PCs can go beyond that through a special quest that would move them beyond the mortal threshhold. Sort of like the transition from 36th level to immortality in BECMI, except that there's probably something between super-powerful mortal and godhood.

(As a side note, I think 4th edition's epic destinies reflect what I'm looking for pretty well - you can go beyond 20th level, but you can't really be considered a mortal anymore. I'll probably nick the epic destinies stuff for 3.5 if/when it comes to it.)

From a mechanics perspective, while I prefer a cap that can be broken on occasion, I think the idea of a level cap is a good one. Otherwise the big baddies of the game lose some of their bite. For example, the tarrasque loses a lot of its appeal if epic-level characters are running around rampant in the setting.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Sure, I'm all in favor of a level cap. In fact, I ran an E8 game that went quite nicely. Right now I'm working on a d20 project that's putting a final cap of level 10 and a spell level cap of 5th level.

While plenty of people want "unlimited" leveling, my experience has been that most GMs start a game at level 1 to 3 and it usually never manages to make it past around 8. I'm not saying my experience is common, but based on both my experience and what feels like fun to me... yup, that's where I'm drawing the line.

Now I'll note that this is somewhat system dependent. Given that this is ENWorld it makes sense that the OP is talking about D&D, but I think it's important to be clear about it. So for 3.x yeah, I'm going with a Level 10 cap. Rules Cyclopedia... I'd be willing to try running it uncapped, at least for a while. I never GMed it, only played, so I don't have a good feel for things from the other side of the screen.

Tunnels & Trolls, probably uncapped.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think it makes sense to put a cap, at least on "traditional" leveling. At some point, you just get higher and higher bonus, but can you think of a fundamental change?

I think it makes more sense to "broaden" the horizon of the character.

For example, at 31st level, you can get new (heroic) encounter and daily powers and an at-will from a new class. At 41th level, you select a second Paragon Path. At 41st level, you select a second epic destiny. And so on.
You might still gain hit points, but probably at a slower pace. (between 1-4 by role or class). You (and also monsters) do no longer increase your half level bonus. (Topping at +15, for monsters the level bonus tops at +30, and they also gain the same small rate of hit points).

The nice thing is that you could do this even earlier - you could create an E10 or E20 instead of the regular "E30".

 

[frankthedm]

Hmm. I'm very interested in "unscaled" worlds -- where bonuses have diminishing returns, and an experienced PC has more tricks & better defenses rather than merely being able to hit a higher number than a green PC.

Have you tried Savage Worlds?

 

[Raven Crowking]

If nothing else, it means not having to hear about Monty's 98-th level Thri-Kreen Fighter/Monk/Psion/Sorcerer.

I really don't have a problem with the level cap, and if you disagree with me you're a bad person and probably kick puppies.

Strange.

I agree with you, and I am a bad person who kicks puppies........


RC