The talismanic lure of high levels

[mmadsen]

That said, what is it about being 20th level that makes it so important? Various reasons I've seen mentioned:

• you need it to generate a character who's super-competent compared to the norm; they can beat up mooks and even above-average opponents without too much trouble
• the extra skills and feats are needed to represent all the personality or background traits they'd have picked up
• being limited to fewer levels implies they're handicapped or useless in some way

The third point you cite does indeed "seem like rather a flimsy rationalisation" -- but I haven't noticed anyone making it, at least not explicitly.

Competency is defined on a campaign-by-campaign basis; what's super-competent in one campaign might be just average in another (Sea Wasp, where are you?). You could reduce the default ceiling of 20 levels to, say, 10 levels, and everything would shift to match: instead of a 20th level character representing the best in the world at their chosen field, it would be a 10th level one. All the above statements would now apply to the 10th level cap, demonstrating that 20 levels is, essentially, arbitrary.

Except that it isn't purely arbitrary, because it's not simply an ordinal scale of who's best, who's second-best, etc. We know what "normal" is (+0), and we roll a d20 for skill checks. If "super-competent" means +10, then super-competent only beats normal ~86% of the time. If "super-competent" means +20, then super-competent beats normal every time.

Imagine if we set the "arbitrary" level cap at 2nd level; it would have quite an effect!

Getting extra skills and feats is perhaps a fairer reason, but it would be much easier to just hand out these things at a faster rate per level, rather than keeping things the same and changing everything else to match the reduced level of magic.

That's certainly an equally valid approach (changing everything except magic vs. changing magic), but I'm not sure it's easier. Isn't it pretty easy to, say, remove the Cleric, Wizard, etc., and just use the Bard? Or make the Cleric and Wizard into Prestige Classes requiring a few levels of Expert first?

 

[S'mon]

>>"Let me put it more simply. Suppose that you are running a campaign, and for whatever reason, you decide to run a module. Are you going to pick a 20th levelmodule to run against a 1st level party? Are you going to pick a 1st level module to run against a 20th level party. The D&D world scales because the GM scales it. If they didn't they would be a bad GM."<<

Well, maybe I'm a bad GM... hmm, no.
I think being a good GM involves giving the PCs opportunities to face overcomable challenges, so yes I agree somewhat. I'll start a campaign with a scenario set for roughly the party's level. But I will run scenarios -4 or +4 to the party's level - sometimes they have easy fights, sometimes they barely survive, or die. And I don't expect them to jump on every apparent plot-hook right away. They could go assault Mt Fire tomorrow, but they now that they'd probably die. In a few levels, they might have a chance. The wise player knows when to fight, and when not to fight. In the real world Signallers aren't sent to do a Special Forces operation (unless things are really desperate!) or vice versa, and likewise IMC, the PCs aren't sent on obviously suicidal missions unless something fishy is going on. And truely 'random encounters' are not tailored to the party - the red drago doesn't vanish when the peasants stroll by on the road, only to leap on the lvl-20 PCs. If he's there at all, he's there for everyone. Most likely he's not there - else there wouldn't be any peasants.

 

[Piratecat]

At level 10, the road has orcs. These are passed over with a "encountering and dispatching a few orc brigands along the way, you arrive at..."
At level 13+ the PCs are Greater Teleporting anyway, so it doesn't matter what the road has.

Actually, at levels 13+, those orcs have been trained and organized into a deadly force by a mysterious third party. The adventurers almost don't notice until too late because they just don't take the road any more.

 

[Pants]

That said, what _is_ it about being 20th level that makes it so important?

Personally? 20th level is important because I've never run a 20th level character, nor have I ever run a game featuring 20th level PC's. It is the traditional ceiling of D&D, when the players are 'the best of the best.' They are out saving the world, because they are some of the few who can.

Then again, I may finally get a chance to run/play in a game that has gotten up to 20th level and I may absolutely hate it, but at least I'll be able to say 'I played up to 20th level.'

 

[Brother MacLaren]

- Teleport sends you to one of 8 fixed locations, instead of being a go-anywhere spell.

Hong, are these 8 locations chosen by the caster or are they eight special locations in the world (nexus points, etc.)?

The former kind of resembles "Lloyd's Beacon" from the Might and Magic series.
Personally, I'd have liked to see a little more gradation in magical travel. Fly should be more than one level above levitate (maybe a concentration-only fly spell at L3) and teleport should be more than one level above Dimension Door (either a fixed-location spell like yours or a long-casting-time spell at L5)

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The third point you cite does indeed "seem like rather a flimsy rationalisation" -- but I haven't noticed anyone making it, at least not explicitly.

I had posed the question of why should anyone hold-back their character just because other people have the misguided belief that low magic must equal low levels.

Or make the Cleric and Wizard into Prestige Classes requiring a few levels of Expert first?

Cuts into the ability to overcome Spell Resistance.

 

[hong]

Hong, are these 8 locations chosen by the caster or are they eight special locations in the world (nexus points, etc.)?

The former kind of resembles "Lloyd's Beacon" from the Might and Magic series.

8 fixed moongate locations, choose one when you cast the spell. It's the Britannia of the Ultima 4/5 CRPGs, actually.

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/britannia

 

[Piratecat]

Note: from here on out, bickering carrying over from the other low magic thread will be summarily deleted. One already has been. If you want to post, please do so politely and without hostility.

 

[el-remmen]

But for many people it is the low magic itself that is the flavor thing that they want to achieve and levels has nothing to do with it.

There can still be +5 Holy Swords and Staff of the Magi and what have you, it is just that PCs aren't going to making them with any kind of ease.

It is not that no one should be able to cast (hhh, what's a sixth level spell?) Bigby's Forceful Hand, but that when someone actually casts the spell it has some actual awe and mystery involved, even if it is the PCs who are casting it - because in this setting few people get to ever do that and those few people have to defend the world against those other few that can and abuse that power.

"Low Magic" isn't just about mehcanics, it is about theme, stories, ambience, etc. . . Basically when it comes down to it the way I control this is by having set rules for how mages get more spells (which makes them have to choose 1) less often and 2) carefully) and by having clerics be held personally responsible by their god (and their servants) for how each and every one of their spells is used and not abusing or over-suing that power. Rarely, are you going to have someone use cure light wounds on someone if a few days rest is an option, because that is the societal assumptions - at least in the part of the world I am running games in currently - perhaps some other part of the world sees things differently, but you can bet it would just be another way of thinking that has a similar result. . . .

So, I want a "low magic" world (heck, I have a low magic world) where there are 14th level wizards who can toss around 10 HD fireballs, they just don't very often, because revealing your power is a good way to have someone coem and try to foil your plans and all of those who were "flashy" and braggarts are all killed off by more subtle minds before they reach 6th level or what-have-you.

I could go on and on about this stuff, but basically it is not just a matter of I don't want people to be 11th level - It jus ttakes longer to get there and it is harder and there are lessons to be learned and harsh consequeces for the lives of those who follow those paths. . .

get me?

 

[Snoweel]

I'm not sure what point you're making here.

My point is that in the other thread, you said

It is a matter of scale, WITHIN a given campaign.

yet in this thread, you say

I'm unaware of any CR 10 obstacle that would require DC 43. Spotting an invisible creature 20 feet away is DC 24. Following tracks that are a week old, over hard ground, is a base DC of 27. Crafting a complex or superior item is DC 20. Opening a good lock is DC 30.

The DCs you offer are static; they are unrelated to the relative levels of either the PCs or NPCs.

Scale has nothing to do with it.