D&D 5E The high-level play I'm hoping for.

[the Jester]

If you are changing the default then you are in the realm of GM fiat or even homebrew.

Do you understand that 4th edition goes to 30?

Perhaps I missed it, as this is a huge long thread full of words and stuff, but I don't think you've addressed my earlier response to your "required levels" shtick.

So, let's lay it out again:

First, why does only the PH count as rules text? A rule that has explicitly applied to every edition that has a DMG is "In case of contradictions, the later rules text trumps the earlier text". And the DMG always comes after the PH. Therefore, the DMG's text about "you can play whatever levels you want" is actually a bit of rules text that, technically, supercedes the fact that the tables in the PH go up to 30.

Which doesn't even address the absurdity of the idea that just because it's in the books, you MUST include it in your campaign. 4e edged closer to that philosophy than previous editions, yes, but still explicitly gave the DM the word that he didn't have to.

Anyway, would you say that "you are in the realm of GM fiat or even homebrew" if you run a one-shot adventure at a convention that doesn't feature the full swath of levels in the PH? Because that's the exact same thing as running a campaign from 1st to 6th (or 1st to 20th) level, in terms of not going to 30.

Do you think a game is equally removed from the rules if I ban a class, say monks, or if I say, "We don't have dwarves in this world"? Is a 1e game "homebrewed and in the realm of GM fiat" because it doesn't go up to 29th level? And where does 3e say that it only goes to level 20? I could be wrong- I'd need a citation- but I don't think it does, anywhere, ever, in 3.0 or 3.5

Why all this focus on going up to level 30? Who is holding a gun to your head- and your players'- and forcing you to play above 1st if you don't want to?

And more- why do you care if other people want to play high levels differently than you? If the game supports your style and theirs, why don't you celebrate the fact that more people get what they want? And yes, you CAN play epic-level 4e without fighting gods or arch-devils; you CAN keep it to orc hordes and high-level villainous humans if you want. It's surprisingly easy. Trust me- I'm running epic 4e, and while sometimes it's all gods and demons, at other times it's high level necromancers, death priests and troglodyte zombies galore. Both work; both are supported; you aren't left out. Why is it important to NOT support the guys who want their gods statted and available to kill (which, I'll remind you, is a tradition going back to at least 1e)?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Perhaps I missed it, as this is a huge long thread full of words and stuff, but I don't think you've addressed my earlier response to your "required levels" shtick.

So, let's lay it out again:

First, why does only the PH count as rules text? A rule that has explicitly applied to every edition that has a DMG is "In case of contradictions, the later rules text trumps the earlier text". And the DMG always comes after the PH. Therefore, the DMG's text about "you can play whatever levels you want" is actually a bit of rules text that, technically, supercedes the fact that the tables in the PH go up to 30.

Which doesn't even address the absurdity of the idea that just because it's in the books, you MUST include it in your campaign. 4e edged closer to that philosophy than previous editions, yes, but still explicitly gave the DM the word that he didn't have to.

Anyway, would you say that "you are in the realm of GM fiat or even homebrew" if you run a one-shot adventure at a convention that doesn't feature the full swath of levels in the PH? Because that's the exact same thing as running a campaign from 1st to 6th (or 1st to 20th) level, in terms of not going to 30.

Do you think a game is equally removed from the rules if I ban a class, say monks, or if I say, "We don't have dwarves in this world"? Is a 1e game "homebrewed and in the realm of GM fiat" because it doesn't go up to 29th level? And where does 3e say that it only goes to level 20? I could be wrong- I'd need a citation- but I don't think it does, anywhere, ever, in 3.0 or 3.5

Why all this focus on going up to level 30? Who is holding a gun to your head- and your players'- and forcing you to play above 1st if you don't want to?

And more- why do you care if other people want to play high levels differently than you? If the game supports your style and theirs, why don't you celebrate the fact that more people get what they want? And yes, you CAN play epic-level 4e without fighting gods or arch-devils; you CAN keep it to orc hordes and high-level villainous humans if you want. It's surprisingly easy. Trust me- I'm running epic 4e, and while sometimes it's all gods and demons, at other times it's high level necromancers, death priests and troglodyte zombies galore. Both work; both are supported; you aren't left out. Why is it important to NOT support the guys who want their gods statted and available to kill (which, I'll remind you, is a tradition going back to at least 1e)?

Only a few words are needed so I will say it. Rules are not the same as guidelines.

 

[Halivar]

Only a few words are needed so I will say it. Rules are not the same as guidelines.

3.5 DMG has rules for levels 21-30, not guidelines.

EDIT: Furthermore, if you consider everything in the DMG and MM to be guidelines and not rules, then your consideration is at odds with the intentions of those books, and your not following them constitutes a house rule. Depending on how much you ignored them, a homebrew game. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Mistwell]

Only a few words are needed so I will say it. Rules are not the same as guidelines.

There is nothing about the 3.5 DMG pg 206-209 rules that is more in the tone of "guideline" than "rules". It's pretty clearly rules. Very specific, very detailed rules. The only thing "optional" about them is the same option all versions of the game have for all rules, and that is you can opt to not use any rules.

I think you're trying to find a fine distinction here that simply doesn't exist, or if it does, it's so fine as to be meaningless for the point you're attempting to make (which was not phrased in an even vaguely "fine" distinction). Both games go to level 30, both have rules for levels 20-30, and neither "encourages" it more than the other in any meaningful manner (unless you want to argue 3.5 became such a ponderous game at high levels, with wizard spell lists that lasted for pages, that many just didn't want to deal with it - which might be true).

 

[the Jester]

Only a few words are needed so I will say it. Rules are not the same as guidelines.

Well, this isn't a very elaborate answer. I was hoping for something that maybe gave a little more enlightenment about where the lines on your position fall- it is honestly very unclear to me why you think that there's something so fundamentally different about high-level 4e play when it enables the same kinds of play that every previous edition has, and when every previous edition has enabled the same kinds of play that it does.

Examples: Epic 4e versions of low-level monsters; early-edition stats for gods (killable, no less), Tiamat, Orcus, etc.

I'm pretty well convinced that you are convinced that there's a qualitative difference somewhere but I am not entirely understanding where that difference lies.

Also, I will repeat my position that it's better for the game as a whole if it supports your type of high-level play as well as the Thor-killing style; and I'll reiterate my confusion as to why that idea rubs you so wrong. Then again, it's quite possible that there are areas where support for a playstyle not mine grates on me, and I'm not aware of it- the pace of nonmagical healing is a likely suspect here.)