WOTC's research on gaming groups

[the Jester]

Someone should have told the designers this, then. Essentially the game supports levels 1-10, and now 21+. The highest prerequisite for a feat is BAB 9+, (2) BAB 8+, and (2) Spellcaster level 12th+. Prestige classes are about the only nod to 10th-20th levels.

I believe there are a couple of feats in MotW that require BAB +12 or +15.

 

[hong]

Some of the things you potentially suggest, however, could potentially discourage multiclassing. (Requiring, say a BAB of 15+ means a fighter/wizard can't get it until 10/10 level.)

For _this_ particular example, I don't see why it's a problem. A fighter/wiz doesn't get their power just from feats. They also get it from spells, and there seem to be no qualms on WOTC's or anyone else's part to publish more and more spells for all levels.

When you come down to it, putting out a load of 6th-9th level spells also "discourages" multiclassing in much the same way as feats with high prereqs. If you're a spellcaster, there's that many more reasons to stick with one class than would otherwise be the case.

In any case, not having lots of high-level feats isn't a bug, it's an opportunity. It means people like me get to run riot with feat ideas for 12th+ level fighters with 4 attacks per round and enough super powers to stand up to dragons.

 

[JeffKCT1966]

well, let me give what I think is a good example of the difference between 2E and 3E... our last big 2E campaign was set in Kalamar (yes, we had the old version from Kenzer)... It was a terrific campaign that lasted about a year where the party ended up saving the world from eternal darkness. The group's halfing thief was the highest level at the end of the campaign at 10th level with the big award for ending the campaign/saving the world at the end. My human ranger ended up at 9th, and the elven fighter/mage was like 8/9 (gotta love those 2E XP progressions!!)

We recently finished a 15 month long 3E campaign, also set in Kalamar. Most of the group ended up just getting into Epic Levels, with the highest party member being the human fighter/ranger at 23rd, I believe.

So, it is quite different, and the guys never got bored with their PCs in the teen levels. (I was out of action for the beginning of the campaign due to work commitments, so my PC came in at a high level.)

 

[Piratecat]

Feat-wise, one of the things that worries me slightly about high-lvl pre-req. feats (BAB 15+) is that barring their place on the end of a feat chain, a high lvl character gets their power effectively for being no more than high level. I've always assumed that high lvl characters are balanced, and that this balance is predicated on existing power levels of feats. If that changes, it throws off high level play a little.

My campaign has been going on for 10 or so years, 3e for the last three, all with the same PCs. PCs range from 16th-20th lvl. Of the eight active characters, only two don't have a prestige class. I don't know about power level, but it's proven to be a wonderful tool for codifying campaign-specific organizations into actual rules.

 

[Umbran]

It would be interesting to have that study run again now and see what effect 3E has had on the perodicity of restarts.

I'd think it'd be a bit too soon for it to be comparable. The first year or year and a half after 3E's release would be filled with the masses of people picking up the game and fiddling around with it. That's not the same situation as the mostly stable mass of gamers who had been playing 2E for years, rendering comparisons of questionable use.

 

[incognito]

.

Of the eight active characters, only two don't have a prestige class.

PC: If you saw a class in the PHB that was so good, that 6 of 8 characters took mutliple levels in in, would it raise your eyebrows with regard to that class's balance?

I know it would raise mine....

I am very wary of allowing characters to attain Prestige Classes. While wonderful in concept, they typically allow Characters to become "Mary Janes" (a term used for a character that is good at everything).

The only one I have had luck with (as a DM, an as a co-player) so far is the Elementalist - probably becasue energy resistance is easy to come by, so it really is for flavor.

The Shadow Dancer, and the Dwarven Defender were a power gaming nightmare.

 

[el-remmen]

I think the point is (and Monte correct me if I am wrong) is NOT that there are TOO MANY prestige classes period - but that DMs allow too many in their games.

Prestige Classes should be specific and perhaps unique to a setting - they should be special and a DM should go through what is available to him/her and decide which ones will be allowed and which ones will not be.

For example - no shadow-dancers in my setting and no dwarven defenders - but I do have Breach Gnomes - which are a version of dwarven defender unique to gnomish culture in Aquerra - no Drunken Masters, no devoted defenders, etc. . . but about a dozen I made up or converted to fit my setting. . .

It is a GM's job to exert some control over the setting and maintain consistancy and verisimilitude - allowing any old PrC because it was printed in a book without considering how it fits the game/story is a sign of bad DMing.

 

[drnuncheon]

It is a GM's job to exert some control over the setting and maintain consistancy and verisimilitude - allowing any old PrC because it was printed in a book without considering how it fits the game/story is a sign of bad DMing.

I've got a semi-opposing view on PrCs than a lot of other posters seem to.

For me, the world is a big place, and there's room for a lot of stuff out there. If a player is interested in a particular PrC, I'll do everything I can to find a way to fit it into the game - and being (IMHO) an inventive and creative guy, I do pretty well. My tabletop campaign features the very first Spellsword - a warrior mage who is developing his abilities based on a very incomplete understanding of the elven bladesinger art. He'll be quite surprised when he meets a real bladesinger...and so will the bladesingers!

If I happen to know of a PrC that would fit the character, I suggest it to them and if they're interested, find a way to work them into the story. That's what's happening right now in my game - an NPC is basically tutoring one of the PCs in the ways of a certain PrC that the character doesn't even know exists.

If there isn't an existing one that fits the character right, I'm not afraid of sitting down with the player and making a new one - the Planar Envoy I posted in House Rules a while back was created in just that way.

I don't think that rigidly defining the PrCs available is the best way to handle the issue of setting consistency and verisimilitude - it strikes me as much the same kind of thinking that led to racial class/level limits back in the older editions. I hate thinking in terms of "you can't do that" - I much prefer "what possibilities does this open up?"

J

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: .

PC: If you saw a class in the PHB that was so good, that 6 of 8 characters took mutliple levels in in, would it raise your eyebrows with regard to that class's balance?

I know it would raise mine...

He's not saying that 6 out of 8 characters have the same prestige class, you know.

And if you're going to lump all PrCs into one class, well...8 out of 8 characters have multiple levels in core classes! Those core classes, they must be powergaming nightmares!

J

 

[Piratecat]

Exactly. The analogy is faulty, I think.

The six PCs in question have seven prestige classes between them. Four describe 2nd edition "cool character quirks" in 3e terms, two describe organizations that exist in my campaign, and one (alienist) is just plain cool. I haven't seen any balance problems as a result, and I try to be fairly cognizant of those.