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

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

How does this even make any sense? The only sense I can make of it is that the 4e books (?) somehow grant me a stick to say to my players:

"NO YOU WILL CONTINUE SHOWING UP TO GAME SESSIONS WHEN YOUR CHARACTERS ARE LEVEL 23 OR ITS STRAIGHT TO THE COME AND GET IT GULAG WITH YOU! YOU CANNOT GO TO THE MOVIES OR REMODEL YOUR KITCHEN!"

Whereas in prior editions, the books (?) only granted me the milquetoast authority to request:

"Hey guys...can we maybe keep playing this campaign now that you're level 23?"

I have yet to see this stick. Maybe you got a special Gestapo Collector's Edition that sold only a few copies to exclusive clientele (of which I am clearly not!).

I just love it when these lame ass answers come out because it shows you don't have an actual argument.

I would you to actually go and read the 3rd edition books, followed by the 4th edition ones. After 20 play is in a totally separate book that is, by default, optional. I mean if we actually want to use your ridiculous line of reasoning, then level 2 to 20 is purely optional. 4th edition, by default, has three tiers and it is assumed these tiers will all be reached. This ain't about GM fiat.

 

[Sage Genesis]

(snip) nor is there a section talking about the epic tier being optional.

Uh... yes there is. It's in the 4e DMG, in the Campaigns chapter.

Here, let me quote the fragment that is most explicit about this:
"You don’t have to take a campaign all the way to 30th level. Ending it at 10th or 20th level can be just as satisfying."

There's more to it than just that, it goes on a bit about what your options are, what it would mean, and some advice on making the decision. So... yeah, the epic tier is explicitly optional right there in the core.


Again, you are free to dislike 4e. Nobody would care about that. But this thing you're doing right now? You're speaking falsehoods. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not doing so intentionally, but you really ought to stop doing it.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would you to actually go and read the 3rd edition books, followed by the 4th edition ones. After 20 play is in a totally separate book that is, by default, optional. I mean if we actually want to use your ridiculous line of reasoning, then level 2 to 20 is purely optional. 4th edition, by default, has three tiers and it is assumed these tiers will all be reached. This ain't about GM fiat.

@pemerton has recently been derided for using language that allegedly made his message difficult to discern. Never, not once, have I been unable to understand what he has written. However, your use of optional utterly escapes me. I truly have no idea what you're talking about because you are applying a meaning here for that word that I can't get my head around. And you're writing in "plain" (non-obfuscatory...even though I don't feel that pemerton writes in obfuscatory language) language.

I literally have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you can help. All of the vast, vast masses of groups out there that skip levels 1-3 (or more), or start play at any other level besides 1 (sometimes as high as name level), what happens to them? What is going on with them? Clearly they've deemed levels 1-3 (or much higher) as optional as they aren't playing them, yet those levels are obviously in the core books. I'm one of them in fact. Nothing has ever happened to me (that I'm aware of). I'm unaware of any D&D Illuminati branding me as heretical (although this may have happened without my knowing). My books haven't been repoed by TSR or WotC ninjas in the night.

What exactly are you saying? What is the implication you are trying to make with this qualification of optional vs (presumably) required when referring to levels of play?

 

[the Jester]

I just love it when these lame ass answers come out because it shows you don't have an actual argument.

I understand his argument just fine: There is no magic requirement that anyone play above 21st level. Heck, there's no magic requirement that anyone play above 1st level, or that anyone play below 30th. You can play the game any way you want- and you always could.

IIRC the magic-user's spells by level chart went up to about 29th level in the 1e PH.

But really, boiling it down, it really seems like you're arguing that everyone should play the same high-level orc-killing game that you want. What's wrong with having support for all the players who like to kill gods too? It's not like it stops your game from happening, but not having that support does stop other people from playing what they like. Just because it isn't for you doesn't mean that it is somehow wrong for D&D or something.

I would you to actually go and read the 3rd edition books, followed by the 4th edition ones. After 20 play is in a totally separate book that is, by default, optional. I mean if we actually want to use your ridiculous line of reasoning, then level 2 to 20 is purely optional. 4th edition, by default, has three tiers and it is assumed these tiers will all be reached. This ain't about GM fiat.

Levels 2 to 20 ARE purely optional. There is no "required" level in D&D. I've run 1st level one-shots, 5th level one-shots and 17th level one-shots. I've played in tons of one-shots, too. Are you arguing that those don't count as D&D? For example, a tournament with pregenerated characters in which you play a classic tournament module, say Tomoachan? Because that's exactly how a lot of early D&D gaming was.

Who cares if there is support for something you're not into in the books if it's something that tons of D&D players do love, and something that has been a part of D&D since the very early years? Epic monsters- demon princes, arch-devils, superpowerful dragons, evil kings with armies- those go back a long way, and I see no good argument for leaving them out now.

 

[Cadence]

then level 2 to 20 is purely optional.

Both the 1e and 2e DMGs strongly encourage starting everyone at 1st level, but do mention starting them higher. In any case, it seems to have been commonly done in practice when a DM wanted to run a module that didn't match the level of the most recently played characters.

In PF, all of the levels seem fairly optional. The section on wealth has things about starting after 1st level. There's a whole section in "Ending the Campaign" in Chapter 12 about designing your game to stop at a specified level below 20, or to continue beyond 20.

Since they've always been in "Core" rule books, is having Gnomes in one's game world required, or optional?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Both the 1e and 2e DMGs strongly encourage starting everyone at 1st level, but do mention starting them higher. In any case, it seems to have been commonly done in practice when a DM wanted to run a module that didn't match the level of the most recently played characters.

In PF, all of the levels seem fairly optional. The section on wealth has things about starting after 1st level. There's a whole section in "Ending the Campaign" in Chapter 12 about designing your game to stop at a specified level below 20, or to continue beyond 20.

Since they've always been in "Core" rule books, is having Gnomes in one's game world required, or optional?

Of course race choice is an option that you the player has. Core rule books work under a default assumptiom that keeps everyone on the same page. Pure optional has always been labled so. I am not talking about the everything is optional rule. You can stop at any level you want but that's not what we are talking about. 3rd edition went to 20 and it was assumed you would make it to 20. Then they created the Epic Level Handbook which tells you it's an optional product. The core rules don't assume you are going to have an epic game. 4th edition is different. It is assuming you will start at level 1 and finish at 30. The PHB goes straight to 30.

 

[Cadence]

In my opinion, 3rd edition, while you could fight gods and everything else under the sun, you could fight orcs at really high level because of class levels and hit dice. You could fight a squad of 25HD orcs for example, and still challange your party. There was never an emphasis on working your way up to finally killing the gods or the demon lords like I felt from 4th edition.

Does this concern relate to how each DM views 25 HD things in their particular world set up? What's the practical difference in power between a 25th level wizard and a demi-god? If it's a cosmological thing, couldn't you simply make the demon lords and gods the equivalent of the Maia (like Gandalf and the Balrogs) in the hierarchy, or maybe even the Valar, and still have Iluvatar out there and untouchable?

I'm more worried about what having roaming parties of 25HD orcs says about the world's power structure. Does that 25HD good guys are also out there and the characters aren't that special?

I think @Wyckedemus; summarized this concern nicely...

I want Level 18 heroes in D&D Next to be able to fight wars against normal orc hordes alongside the towns, militias, and armies they are helping. The flatter math/Bounded Accuracy of 5E lets the orcs be low level monsters that still challenge the heroes, without having to justify why hordes of Level 18 orcs exist and why they haven't conquered the world beforehand. <snip>

In my epic 4E (FR) and 3E (Eberron) games, the heroes scaled way beyond the people of the world, which helped in causing a disconnect from said world. <snip> And the game mechanics/rules of the universe supported that way of thinking as logical. When it really wasn't.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Uh... yes there is. It's in the 4e DMG, in the Campaigns chapter.

Here, let me quote the fragment that is most explicit about this:
"You don’t have to take a campaign all the way to 30th level. Ending it at 10th or 20th level can be just as satisfying."

There's more to it than just that, it goes on a bit about what your options are, what it would mean, and some advice on making the decision. So... yeah, the epic tier is explicitly optional right there in the core.


Again, you are free to dislike 4e. Nobody would care about that. But this thing you're doing right now? You're speaking falsehoods. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not doing so intentionally, but you really ought to stop doing it.

That's called GM fiat and does not apply here. Do you see that written in the PHB? Don't bother looking because you won't find it. You can stop at level 3 if you choose to do so. You are going to have to come up with a more compelling argument than that.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Does this concern relate to how each DM views 25 HD things in their particular world set up? What's the practical difference in power between a 25th level wizard and a demi-god? If its a cosmological thing, couldn't you simply make the demon lords and gods the equivalent of the Maia (like Gandalf and the Balrogs) in the hierarchy, or maybe even the Valar, and still have Iluvatar out there and untouchable?

I'm more worried about what having roaming parties of 25HD orcs says about the world's power structure. Does that 25HD good guys are also out there and the characters aren't that special?

I think @Wyckedemus; summarized that concern nicely...

What Wyck proposes is what I would rather have if given the choice.

 

[Cadence]

What Wyck proposes is what I would rather have if given the choice.

Would having a chapter on E6, E9, E12, and E18 (or whatever) in the rule book, in addition to the 20+ set-up, be a good way of handling this? That way groups that don't want god killing can decide what their world looks like in terms of power structure, choose the appropriate epic level, and be able to keep playing when they get there without needing to retire. And the groups that want a ladder to heaven can do that too.