Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 1725405" data-attributes="member: 4049">I agree with you to a point.  From what I've read, the rationale for a 20th level cap is based upon the contention that most games peter out after a two year max for the players.  With this attitude in place, the 3ed designers incorporated a system that speeds up experience progression and allows access to higher level spells fairly early.  This makes sense from a strict game perspective as there is a maximum cap that should be reached within a "reasonable" timeframe as determined by gaming research.This does not take into consideration the "realities" of a campaign setting in which two years of gaming may be six months of in-game time or ten years of in-game time.  This is where the dilemma begins.I do think that, for the sake of simplicity, there should be a threshold level that is typically considered the peak of mortal achievement.  Really, if one is using core rules, a 15th level character is quite powerful.  There are only few creatures in the Monster Manual that can truly challenge a party of four 15th level characters and most of these monsters are fantasy standards (dragons, the upper most outsiders and undead).  However, if a game world supports other realities and if the gods are accessible at some point, a 20 level cap doesn't help much at all.  And, what if a game lasts longer than two years?  Should the participants always expect a new game to begin because the transition to epic wasn't a clean one?  Should the DM not create a world that is completely fleshed out from the lowliest mortal lifeform to the greatest of gods and be able to allow mortal PCs to continue on into immortality and legend?On the other hand, I think that 20 level limit is ideal for many gamers.  Simply put, many gamers are not interested in epic play.  While I suspect this is often the case due to a lack of understanding and exposure to quality epic play and the superficial appearance of monte-hauling and power gaming, I also think that for some it's a matter of taste.  Some people just aren't interested in such high level games and the associated challenges (which I think are compounded by the very fast experience progression in 3ed... although a competent DM can work around that). Now, this issue of NPCs...  I honestly think most NPCs would peak out at around 5th level in most traditional games.  How many NPCs are running around trying to rescue princesses, fight orc hoards, or steal the dragon's treasure?  Most aren't.  Most are tending to their farms, raising families, making ends meet, and so on.  They're not really challenging themselves to learn and grow because they don't need to... and probably don't want to.  I have no problems with a peak of 10th level for the typical town leader.  It shows that, at some point, she decided that she was better served and served better by protecting/defending/scaring the people of a town.  She would be the strongest person in the area and could maintain her control until such time she died or decided to retire/leave.  Does this make sense within a world that actively supports epic play?  If it's handled properly by the DM, yes it does.  In my setting, The Godspell, there are plenty of epic PCs.  However, most have no idea they exist.  Some are traveling the planes; others are conducting research.  Some are hibernating or comatose; others are ruling incognito.  Then there are those are watching out for the machinations of rivals and supposed allies, while there are also those keeping some terrible creature/god/cosmic entity out of the world.  Simply put, they often don't have the time or inclination to start stomping around most of the setting.  When they do, they either rule as gods on "earth" or they fight with other similarly ranked powers while lesser mortals run for cover and/or take sides.  While there would need to be (or ought to be) epic NPCs, I don't think there needs to be a wholesale adjustment of levels.  Not for all games.  Some games, like mine, continue to work just fine with a low level assumption for NPCs in an epic world.The town lord doesn't necessarily continue to progress in levels unless there's a good reason for such a progression.  If the PCs are constantly going out and adventuring while the town lord sits at his keep doing nothing but taking in tax revenue, I don't think there's any reason for him to progress in levels.  Of course, other NPCs will progress in levels if they are actively involved in adventuring.For example, in a campaign I ran, there was a lord who did progress in levels at a rate equivalent to the PCs because he was doing more than just sitting in his keep (so, the PCs caught up to, but never equalled or exceeded, his levels).  In the same campaign, there were established leaders who did not progress in levels.  It all depends.What we need to see across the net and in print is more support for epic play.  Dicefreaks offers this...  I'm not sure who else does.</blockquote>

Verification