WOTC's research on gaming groups

[el-remmen]

I don't think I've ever been involved in a campaign that ran past 12th-level or so, even when we started at 5th level. Things like +1 BAB and 1 more rank in a skill just aren't very exciting. Aside from prestige classes (and I'll throw a nod in here for legendary classes), there just aren't that many exciting options for levels 10-20.

Sounds like the problem is with the DM or the campaign not the rules - who cares what you get? what matters is that the adventures are exciting and the character personalities and histories develop.

As one of my players often says - "I would play in a campaign where everyone was 10th level and no one ever went up any levels."

perhaps that is a bit extreme - but it shows an attitude towards the game that I have - which is to say story advancement over character advancement.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Are you trying to hijack this thread just to prove your "role" playing roxxors more than someone else's "roll" playing?

 

[Roland Delacroix]

That's what the research showed. Except I thought campaign length was 11 months (but I'm hazy on that one after all this time).

Monte, yer making me look bad. I frequentlly refer people to you as the fount of D&D wisdom now that WotC has (debatably) gone to hell in a handbasket.

Sounds like the problem is with the DM or the campaign not the rules - who cares what you get? what matters is that the adventures are exciting and the character personalities and histories develop.

As one of my players often says - "I would play in a campaign where everyone was 10th level and no one ever went up any levels."

perhaps that is a bit extreme - but it shows an attitude towards the game that I have - which is to say story advancement over character advancement.

OOPS! Looks like i've been playing D&D wrong. Thanks for setting me straight. Anything else you'd like to condescend to me about?

 

[el-remmen]

Are you trying to hijack this thread just to prove your "role" playing roxxors more than someone else's "roll" playing?

All I'm saying is that I am suspicious when people are so concerned about "the get" any any given level - shows me that they are not being challenged/entertained in other ways.

I really don't see "not getting enough stuff" past 10th level being the reason games tend to be "re-started" - has a lot more to do with the changing nature of life's schedules and relationships, I bet.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I don't think I've ever been involved in a campaign that ran past 12th-level or so, even when we started at 5th level. Things like +1 BAB and 1 more rank in a skill just aren't very exciting. Aside from prestige classes (and I'll throw a nod in here for legendary classes), there just aren't that many exciting options for levels 10-20.

Definitely; pure number pumping is horribly dry. Spellcasters get cool new spells but the rest of the character types really need Prestige classes (or LCs...) to stay interesting. Fortunately there's quite a few options for PrCs nowadays.

Personally I have a problem with the juiced feats solution. Making a feat that gives you, let's say +9 HP if your BAB is +9 or better means that you no longer have this thing called feats; now you have these different things called 1st level feats, 3rd level feats, and so on since the only "cost" is that you need to take certain feats at higher level. And that makes all those feats you took at first level fairly insignificant.

There are some good reasons for doing this but if d20 is going to go that way it ought to go that way full force and simply have a breakdown of the different feats you can get at different levels. Alternately, start giving characters feat points every few levels and the number of points you get increases as you go up in level. This way you can spend 3 of your 9th level points on that uber-feat or break them up for a few weaker feats. One justification for going this route is that it's essentially the way spellcasting classes work right now.

 

[Spatula]

I don't think I've ever been involved in a campaign that ran past 12th-level or so, even when we started at 5th level. Things like +1 BAB and 1 more rank in a skill just aren't very exciting. Aside from prestige classes (and I'll throw a nod in here for legendary classes), there just aren't that many exciting options for levels 10-20.

* Rogue - unique special abilities
* Barbarian - damage reduction, greater rage
* Monk - unique special abilities
* Fighter - even more feats (although most characters have probably run out of things to take at this point)
* Paladin, Ranger - okay, not so much
* Everyone else - amazingly powerful spells

And paladins and rangers do get new stuff past 10th level, although none of it is very exciting. So aside from those two classes, I don't see a lot to complain about.

Your thing about there being no high-level feats isn't true, anyway, even if you're only looking solely at WOTC's products. MOTW, for example, has several such feats.

 

[Kilmore]

Does this research factor in 1. Starting campaigns at higher than first level? and 2. Campaigns that go to pieces after one or two sessions?

Are these factored into the average, or do campaigns have to last longer than a session or two to be considered?

 

[Spatula]

Personally I have a problem with the juiced feats solution. Making a feat that gives you, let's say +9 HP if your BAB is +9 or better means that you no longer have this thing called feats; now you have these different things called 1st level feats, 3rd level feats, and so on since the only "cost" is that you need to take certain feats at higher level. And that makes all those feats you took at first level fairly insignificant.

So all feats should be available at first level? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Power Attack isn't rendered insignificant by the existance of Whirlwind Attack. Scribe Scroll isn't useless because Craft Wand exists.

 

[2WS-Steve]

So all feats should be available at first level? I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Power Attack isn't rendered insignificant by the existance of Whirlwind Attack. Scribe Scroll isn't useless because Craft Wand exists.

No, all the feats in the PHB seem right to me; or at least none of them seem overpowered (some are underpowered of course). It's the move to include special feats in the splatbooks such as the ones that grant +9 hit points instead of the +3 granted by regular Toughness. Wouldn't you feel a bit annoyed at that 3 hit point feat plaguing your character sheet once you hit 9th level and could have a 9 hit point feat?

The feats that do have BAB and Caster Level Prereqs in the PHB aren't really more powerful (or at least much more powerful) than the lower level feats; Whirlwind attack requires several other feats so its real cost comes from having to devote so many of your feats. Perhaps wands are a bit better than scrolls but rings certainly aren't better than wondrous items or amrs and armor yet those have different level reqs. My guess is that those level reqs are there mainly for flavor.

 

[DDK]

Please remind me where I said that additional prestige classes are bad. As the designer of the first few prestige classes, and the guy who wrote the article on how to design them, I find it weird that I would have taken the stance that people should stop making them.

I can remembering saying that many prestige classes are bad (particularly in the early days). And I can remember saying that obligatory (filler) prestige classes are bad. I can even remember saying that certain types of prestige classes (those geared solely for one class, for example) are bad.

And...

Originally posted at http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly9.html
The original design intention behind them was to allow DMs to create campaign-specific, exclusive roles and positions as classes. These special roles offer abilities and powers otherwise inaccessible to PCs and focus characters in specific, interesting directions.

The key there -- the one that's now often missing -- is that these are supposed to be DM-created tools, to lend specificity and actual mechanics to the details of your world.

I guess I read that as being, "THERE'S TOO DAMN MANY PRESTIGE CLASSES... and they all suck." But then, that's my opinion so I guess I read between the lines and interpreted it how I wanted to. But having said that, I still reckon that's the crux of what you originally meant, but hey, I understand, it's economics...