# [D&D Design Discussion] Preserving the "Sweet Spot"



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

I was having a conversation with GlassJaw the other day about preserving or extending the "sweet spot" of Dungeons and Dragons.

Bear with me, because I need to run through the course of our conversation-- the high points.

1) There was a poll here a while back and there is a pretty good sized chunk of folks who find mid-level play to be the most engaging and rewarding part of D&D play. I think if you couple that with low-level play, most of the best D&D is done right here. (Please don't use this as an opportunity to extoll the virtues of high-level play if you disagree.)

2) A slightly-less-than-arbitrary "cap" to the sweet spot is 10th level. I consider mid-level play to be around 5th-8th level; 10th level play is where we start to really get the "wahoo!" factor. Consider the difference when the pinnacle of spellcraft is Raise Dead, Teleport, Commune. Just shy of these potentially game-breaking spells is the "sweet spot." Perhaps "game-breaking" is too harsh; but certainly campaign altering.

3) We're not necessarily talking about a low-magic game, here. We enjoy the spells and magic items, we just don't enjoy them at high level. It's a lot more work for the DM to run a high level game. Strangely enough, the more options the PCs have, the fewer options the DM has to challenge them. It's the "D&D Arms Race."

4) One of the most telling exercises is to compare, side by side, a low- or mid-level adventure and a high-level adventure, for example from Dungeon magazine. Most of the interesting story is at the low levels, and the high level play becomes an exercise in plane-hopping from one huge over-the-top fight to another. (I've oversimplified to capture the "essence" of my point.)

Anyway, on to the discussion:

How do you extend the "sweet spot?" 

Where would you "cap" the game? 

And how would you do it in such a way as to give the players the same "real time" rate of advancement/improvement as the current rules provide?


----------



## riprock (Aug 3, 2006)

I don't think high levels are a problem if the players continue to encounter challenges.

I think monsters with class levels are a great idea.  Likewise monsters with templates are a great idea.  Both of those can extend the challenge level.

Eventually, you can take missions among the gods instead of among the rabble in the tavern.  

In fact, I recommend watching Harryhausen's "Jason and the Argonauts" and "Clash of the Titans" for examples of heroes encountering divine forces.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 3, 2006)

For people who don't want magic in particular to 'blow out' as it seems to do, according to many, the good advice that is often given on forums could apply to this perceived problem too.

That is, enforce a rule that disallows characters to take more than one level of any full spellcasting class in a row. This way, magic is held back yet still 'omnipresent', as it were. Big woohoo stuff just isn't there until very high levels indeed.

Only one way, but it works.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

riprock said:
			
		

> I don't think high levels are a problem if the players continue to encounter challenges.
> 
> I think monsters with class levels are a great idea.  Likewise monsters with templates are a great idea.  Both of those can extend the challenge level.
> 
> ...



 First response. Amazing.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> That is, enforce a rule that disallows characters to take more than one level of any full spellcasting class in a row. This way, magic is held back yet still 'omnipresent', as it were. Big woohoo stuff just isn't there until very high levels indeed.
> 
> Only one way, but it works.




That's functionally the same as one of my thoughts, which was to cap any single class at 10th level. So you could multiclass wizard 10 / cleric 10, for example.

But I think I would want a solution that doesn't _just_ handicap the spellcasters.


----------



## Greenstone (Aug 3, 2006)

After DMing more than a few campaigns in D&D and AD&D (one lasting over 10 years, from levels 5-15, but with a homebrew rules system), I agree that in 3.5 (or any incarnation of D&D) there is a definite 'sweet spot' for DMs. I also agree that the end of the sweet spot usually means that battles become continent- (or plane-) hopping battles that are widespread in their consquences.... and a pain to DM.

As direct comments on your points:

1) Agree. For me the split is basically...

Level 1-3: PCs find 'themselves', battle minor threats, learn how these threats have at their root some larger evil, or a BBEG, etc. Travel within one realm or small locale.
Level 4-7: PCs take on bigger and badder foes nearer and nearer to the 'source' of the evil, travel between various nations/realms.
Levels 8-12: Plot builds towards the inevitable confrontation with the BBEG. PCs embark on worldwide travel and/or travel to other planes.
Levels 13-15: The climax...

Sounds very formulaic I know, but look at the AoW and Shackled City Adventure Paths, or even the old DL modules... all seem to fit within that pattern (granted the Adventure Paths 'extend' the last phase to level 20...)

2) Again, fully agree. The campaign I'm starting soon for my kids (11 and 7) will run from levels 1-9, with the climax their ascension to the dizzy hgeights of 10th level... . This because I know that they want a 'classic' fantasy campaign in the vein of  Shannara, Willow, the D&D movie, etc. Planar travel will, I think, be too 'alien' for them - it is more a 'staple' of D&D's own created reality than mainstream fantasy, IMHO.

3) Agreed. But notice how you state "It's a lot more work for the DM to run a high level game... the more options the PCs have, the fewer options the DM has to challenge them...". I believe (although I've DMed and not played for my entire 20 years in RPGs. so maybe I'm wrong) that perhaps for players there is no 'sweet spot'... that they would happily watch the DM squirm all the way to Epic levels... .

4) Already agreed to this in (1)... .

So I'm not adding much other than my agreement and perhaps sympathy from a fellow DM... and one whose current 'adult' campaign will cap at 15th level, as will the next two in planning... 

However, what I could suggest (and what I plan on doing in the future) is retiring those 15th level heroes, and then using them for one-off adventures, weekender specials, guest appearances in the campaign, and so on. Or maybe even saving three or four groups of them and then running one mother-of-an-adventure where (for example) 15 or so 15th-20th level PCs take on the 'worst' the DM can throw at them, perhaps to become gods, perhaps to go out in one unforgettable blaze of glory, perhaps to battle each other in some kind of cosmic 'winner takes all' arena of the gods... I've always thought that the toughest adversary for any PC over 15th level is another PC over 15th level  

And now you've got me thinking, so I'm off to pursue that idea... .Thanks!

_Peace on Earth will mean the end of civilisation as we know it._


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 3, 2006)

I dont cap, the campaign goes on as long as there are good adventures to be had. Sometimes we opt for fast or slow advancement as the setting warrants. Our ravenloft game of 3 years got to the mighty level of 7 or so. Our Al-Quadim game went to 17ish. My current oathbound game is set to continue to 25+ to free the grey stranger. For me, the sweet spot varies by what kind of game we want. 

Playing with arcana evolved rules has helped keep the casters from getting grotesquely out of bounds. Ditching raise dead, and implementing a luck score that goes down each time you would ordinarily die keeps things a bit more playusible as well.


----------



## Harlekin (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's functionally the same as one of my thoughts, which was to cap any single class at 10th level. So you could multiclass wizard 10 / cleric 10, for example.
> 
> But I think I would want a solution that doesn't _just_ handicap the spellcasters.





If you combine that with a low number of magic items for the non-spellcasters, you might not weaken the spellcasters too much, especially for the next few levels. 

Of course you could also go the brute force route and ban/weaken the most anoying spells.

One thing that you did not mention that also bothers me once you pass 10th is how long it takes to resolve a fighter's combat round, rolling at least 3 attack rolls etc. Full attacks get to be a pain in the neck at some point.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf captured the major points of our conversation but I wanted to highlight my interest on this issue.

If you take a look at the essence of the "challenge" in D&D, it basically boils down to bigger numbers.  The players get bigger mods so the "challenges" have to as well and vice versa.

But if the increase in challenge is a linear progression throughout the lifetime of the characters and/or campaign, i.e., the "challenge" is the same regardless of the level of the characters, why is there a need to make the numbers so cumbersomely high?

I define the "sweet spot" as the point in which the DM can challenge the party with a wide range of encounters and the PC's have the resources needed to overcome those challenges.  The sweet spot is also the point at which these encounters and challenges can be resolved in a timely and efficient manner so as to keep the game moving and to maintain the story.

At the early levels (1-3ish), the characters are relatively fragile.  The options a DM has is more limited as these levels because a single encounter can destroy an entire party.  

At the higher levels, the DM may have a wide range of encounters in which to challenge the party but the nature of the challenges changes.  In high-level play, the numbers are much larger overall so the game plays slower.  Also, with spells that Wulf mentioned, it becomes more difficult to preserve story elements or even maintain certain plots.  For example, just read the outlines of the three Adventure Paths.  They all invariably end up with the characters plane-hopping and teleporting as story arcs.

A low-magic ruleset does address many of these issues but I don't think it's necessarily a low-magic vs high-magic/standard D&D decision.

If we go back to the "essence" of the challenge in D&D as I mentioned earlier, it's all about bigger numbers, i.e. more "stuff".  Part of our conversation that Wulf didn't mentioned was the design philosophy behind 3ed.  Just looking at the nature of the rules and the subsequent supplements, it is primarily about the numbers.  Bottom line: people want more "stuff" as they level-up.  3ed, at its core, is about increasing your character's power in one way or another.

And I'm fine with that.

What I don't like, however, is that in doing so, I feel 3ed sacrifices the DM's ability to tell certain stories (or at least forces his hand) and makes the game cumbersome.

The challenge, as I see it, is the following:

1.  Maintain the challenge as the players progress without "numbers bloat".
2.  Provide rewards to the players that don't necessarily just increase the numbers.
3.  Keep the numbers in check so they don't restrict the flow and pace of the game.
4.  Make the game easier for the DM to run but not over-simplified so as to limit his options.
5.  Allow the DM to advance the story arc as the characters advance without being forced to deal with certain "campaign-changing" spells, powers, abilities, etc.

Wulf and I discussed some possible solutions but I'll hold off on discussing those for now.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 3, 2006)

I don't know that I would cap.  I'd try to flatten the power-curve instead.  One of the best things about GT (and more so with Mythic Tales) (see how I suck up  ) is that every level you have the opportunity to grow your character.  This doesn't have to lead to power-creep, if done well it just adds flexibility and flavor.  Everyone hates 7th level enough already.

Move the game-breaking magics to 19th/20th. Make wishes and teleporting and summoning the princes of hell the pinnacle of the non-epic game.  Make penalty-less resurrection a true miracle instead of a common occurrence. 

Tweak the HP mechanic a little so that there was more gradation between 1 hp / -1 hp / dead.  Add more permanent damage effects (and if needed corresponding healing magic) to fill the gap for clerics and keep them relevant and mid-to-high levels.

Change spell progression so that multi-classing doesn't kick casters in the teeth quite so much.  A spell progression similar to BAB/Saves could take care of that -- give pure casters 1/1, hybrids 1/2, pure melee 1/4 or something.


----------



## painandgreed (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> How do you extend the "sweet spot?"
> 
> Where would you "cap" the game?
> 
> And how would you do it in such a way as to give the players the same "real time" rate of advancement/improvement as the current rules provide?




My plan is to try a different XP chart and go to an exponential climb. Doubleing the Xp needed for each level is a little much. I'm looking at making it 1000 Xp for 2nd level and then x1.6 for each level after that. That means for a bit quicker climb in the first couple of levels but then becoming longer between levels later.  So, I wouldn't cap, but rather just slow down the rate of advancement at higher levels. A good deal of the trouble with high level play isn't the play or powers itself, but rather the DM and the players are given too much too quickly. Slow it down and I think that it will be easier to handle.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> A low-magic ruleset does address many of these issues but I don't think it's necessarily a low-magic vs high-magic/standard D&D decision.




Nope, it's not really a low-magic issue. I have no problem with the style and feel of the normal, full-on, magic-infused Dungeons and Dragons-- _up through about 10th level._

Maybe I need to restate the design challenge just to clarify my own thoughts.

1) The rules and options available _will_ dictate the style and feel of your game.

2) You want to capture the feel of the "sweet spot" play-- about 1st-10th.

3) You want your campaign to last, in real time, about the same amount of time as a normal "Adventure Path" that covers 1st-20th. 

but here's the kicker:

4) When you stretch out the amount of time it takes to get from 1st to 10th level, you must still provide the same pace of regular character advancement ("cookies") as normal play. If your players are accustomed to levelling up once every 3rd session or so, you still need to be providing them that same incentive pace.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> My plan is to try a different XP chart and go to an exponential climb. Doubleing the Xp needed for each level is a little much. I'm looking at making it 1000 Xp for 2nd level and then x1.6 for each level after that. That means for a bit quicker climb in the first couple of levels but then becoming longer between levels later.  So, I wouldn't cap, but rather just slow down the rate of advancement at higher levels. A good deal of the trouble with high level play isn't the play or powers itself, but rather the DM and the players are given too much too quickly. Slow it down and I think that it will be easier to handle.



 Not picking on you, but that's exactly the approach I am talking about NOT doing. Just slowing down the rate of XP doesn't work, because it doesn't provide the players with the regular feedback of advancement to keep the game interesting.

(And I mean advancement in a Gamist sense. Ignore this comment if you don't know what I mean. Fnord.)


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 3, 2006)

I've heard that for a lot of DMs the game starts to feel out of their control once spellcasters get to levels where "travel" spells come into play and then definitely feels unwieldy when "save or die" spells are most prevalent.  There are a few other things DMs sometimes mention (the increased need to be quick with mathematics, for instance) but those seem to be the primary two, from what I have heard and read.  To many, it simply seems like such a very different game that it doesn't integrate well with what they have planned during earlier levels.  I think that some (optional?) rules to adjust those spells (and related effects) might make it easier for those DMs who prefer low- through mid-level play but would definitely irk those who regularly enjoy (and even prefer) high level play.  It may be something that is best handled as rules adjustments for particular settings (e.g. In the world of blah-blah there is no planar travel because no other planes exist, teleportation works dangerously strange, and any type of death magic brings on only a death-like state that . . .).  Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 3, 2006)

> At the higher levels, the DM may have a wide range of encounters in which to challenge the party but the nature of the challenges changes. In high-level play, the numbers are much larger overall so the game plays slower. Also, with spells that Wulf mentioned, it becomes more difficult to preserve story elements or even maintain certain plots. For example, just read the outlines of the three Adventure Paths. They all invariably end up with the characters plane-hopping and teleporting as story arcs.




True, but, then again, Rapan Athuk and the World's Largest Dungeon do not and both go up into the high teens for levels.  

You don't necessarily have to do the planar hopping bit at high levels, but, then again, at high levels you can.  It's always nice to get some traction out of those spells that don't get used a lot.

I would point out that this trend of planar hopping at high levels certainly isn't anything new either.  Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Isle of the Ape jump to mind.  I think it gets to the point where the players are so powerful, that it's maybe a good idea to broaden their horizons a bit.

However, it's still a pain in the butt to create adventures for.  

There is another option.  Simply restart campaigns at "name" level.  I've found it takes me about 4 to 6 sessions to gain a level, which means that a 10 level campaign would last me about a year.  That's not a bad run for a campaign.  Run for a year and then try something new.  Keeps things fresh at least.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> 1) The rules and options available _will_ dictate the style and feel of your game.




Correct.  You basically have to determine the "end-game" style you want to establish and then work backwards.  Once you have done that, you can also determine the pace of advancement and the pace at which the characters gain new abilities.



> True, but, then again, Rapan Athuk and the World's Largest Dungeon do not and both go up into the high teens for levels.
> 
> You don't necessarily have to do the planar hopping bit at high levels, but, then again, at high levels you can.




While I don't think using two massive dungeon crawls is a good example, you are correct.

However, even if you your high-level campaign is of the planar variety, the options available at that level still dictate the style of the campaign, even if they don't dictate the story arc itself.  You still have things like Raise Dead and Commune as Wulf mentioned.  Spells like that go a long way in establishing what constitutes a challege.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 3, 2006)

Is the goal to extend the time spent playing 1-10, or is the goal to extend the sweet spot so that it continues into later levels?  Is that second option even possible?  I think my response would be to try to re-imagine those items that are too "wahoo" for you - I think those are things like teleport, raise dead, etc, as well.  Then maybe you could continue to capture the sweet spot feel while continuing to advance all the way to 20th level.  This could be accomplished by capping those "wahoo" areas, while leaving the other bits intact (which a lot of people already do).


----------



## Dorloran (Aug 3, 2006)

Man, am I glad to see this thread!  It hits on THE problem that my group and I have been struggling with ever since we finished the RttTEE about two years ago.

Here are some thoughts I have had, in no particular order.

Start PCs at 1st level, but give them 5th level hit points.  That’s all they ever get, then, unless they take feats (Toughness), raise their CON, etc.  I think that this would open up the range of encounters for characters and the DM would not be so beholden to EL or CR.  You wouldn’t have to worry about wiping out the low level party, an Ancient Red Dragon would really be horrific, but it could still be placed in the bullpen of monsters available to fight, really pushing the characters to use their wits to overcome it.  

Cap character advancement at around 6th or 7th level, when classes get most of their good perks.  PCs would not advance beyond that, though you might use something like the Epic level concept of still allowing feat selection as characters progress.  You could also make a tweak to the spell casting rules to allow for finding, learning, and casting the odd high-level spell, though at great risk (can you say, Spell Burn??)

You could slow down progression using a different XP chart (like the one in the Wilderlands campaign, that more closely mimics 1E/2E advancement).  This solution seems inelegant, though, especially if used alone.

I have always wondered why skill DC increases with CR while skill points increase too.  I go up a level, I increase my ranks in certain skills.  But the DC goes up by level, too, until you have a DC/skill rank arms race.  Having been raised on both 1E and 2E, I still cringe when the rogue calls out, “I got a 34 on my Search for traps roll.”  That’s just too high.  Why not keep the Search DC for a secret door at, say, 20, and have slow down the skill rank progression?  If you wanted to keep the mechanic of increasing ranks in certain skills, it should be retained only for character development purposes (I ran into Gord, and he showed me a thing or two about disabling poison needle traps).  The bonuses would remain low, though.

The DND Basic Game has an interesting approach to this problem, I think.  The DCs remain pretty static, but so do the skill ranks.  All the rank/bonuses are given at character creation.  Elves get bonuses in Search, etc.  Humans get a +2 to any single skill.  Rogues, the masters of skills, get a +4 bonus to everything.  Etc.  You could raise numbers through feats, increased ability scores.

Actually, the above is the same for AC.   My BAB goes up, my opponent’s AC goes up.  Why is that necessary?  I ran some numbers back in 2E.  I took what I considered the most common monsters PCs would encounter at 1st, 3rd, 9th, 12th, etc. levels and tried to figure the chances that a fighter, thief, cleric, and MU would have to hit at each level.   The percentage remained pretty much the same.  So again, why the numbers race?  If I get a +15 to hit at 15th level, and the monster’s AC is up to 30, that gives me a 30% chance to hit.  If I’m first level with a +1 and the monster’s AC is 16, that gives me a 30% chance to hit.  Why this illusion of progress?  (Maybe a similar study would be interesting for 3.5E.)

Although, I agree that leveling up is important and players need rewards of some kind.  Maybe a reward in Status or Reputation, a role playing reward rather than a mechanical, numerical reward?

What we’ve been struggling with is keeping mid-level play, which we agree is the most interesting and challenging and most fun to DM, yet still having a system that allows character growth, customization, and rewards for the players.  Gee, that seems pretty simple…?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 3, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I've heard that for a lot of DMs the game starts to feel out of their control once spellcasters get to levels where "travel" spells come into play and then definitely feels unwieldy when "save or die" spells are most prevalent.




To this I would add the ability to raise the dead - so three categories of spells - Travel spells, Raising the Dead, and Save or Die.  I don't think there's any strong reason (beyond tradition, which is a strong force) to have _any_ of those three things in the game.  Not meaning that they're bad, but rather that you could pull them out without losing any of what I think is essential to a fantasy RPG (for example, fireball-ish spells ARE vital to the genre, in my view).  These things could be taken out of the spell lists and added to a category of "very rare" magics - powerful rituals, requiring unique and very rare components, etc.  Maybe you can't Plane Shift - but you can find a portal that will allow you to traverse the planes.  You can't Raise Dead - but you can quest to the land of the dead to bring your dead friend back (and in the meantime adopt rules systems that make death less common, perhaps).


----------



## Mallus (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> When you stretch out the amount of time it takes to get from 1st to 10th level, you must still provide the same pace of regular character advancement ("cookies") as normal play. If your players are accustomed to levelling up once every 3rd session or so, you still need to be providing them that same incentive pace.



Does this have to be some form of mechanical advancement? What about characters accruing influence, enemies, a greater engagement with the setting? 

There's a big difference between a 10th level fighter and a 10th level fighter who commands an army embroiled in a civil war.

I guess to do agree that character development needs a mechanical component, even if its just new items. Like Pavlov's dogs, D&D players are trained to expect that --and I count myself among the dogs, despite how much I claim to interested in "story".

Here's what I'm planning to do w/the game I currently run. The party's 9th level. The setting isn't really set up to accomodate epic-style play. So I'm just going to cut down the XP awards, and hopefully I can make up for it in other areas.


----------



## Eltharon (Aug 3, 2006)

I see the Sweet Spot as a place where you can run most adventures. Even whimpy minions are still annoying, but characters can face off against more nasty beasts without being reduced to small floating atoms.

What would be nice, in my opinion, is a system that kept advancment more...subdued. As an example from other RPGs:
Warhammer RPG: Even at high levels, your character doesn't have alot of wounds (hp). A failed parry can cause an angry goblin to take down a knight (though its very unlikely)
GURPS: From what I can see, (i've never played it) HP and damge remain close enough to get the whole "one hit, kill" system, while keeping high level characters more powerful.

From looking at the two exaxples, I think the HP is the biggest non magical problem. (magic is a problem too, but I try and keep tranporting spells to a minimum)
With HP as an unchanging stat, then even high level characters are toned down to the exent where the basic minions they face doesnt have to be 12th level.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 3, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> To this I would add the ability to raise the dead - so three categories of spells - Travel spells, Raising the Dead, and Save or Die.





Strange, IMO, but "life restoring" magic and high-level divinations (although both are referenced above) are not ones I hear or read about a lot as being game breakers.  Perhaps the gp cost for life-restoring spells offsets the benefit enough?


As another offbeat solution, one could be more lavish with XP penalties for high-level spells (and effects), thus keeping your PCs in the "sweet spot" by attrition.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 3, 2006)

Great post Kid.  I particularly liked this:



			
				Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> These things could be taken out of the spell lists and added to a category of "very rare" magics - powerful rituals, requiring unique and very rare components, etc.  Maybe you can't Plane Shift - but you can find a portal that will allow you to traverse the planes.  You can't Raise Dead - but you can quest to the land of the dead to bring your dead friend back (and in the meantime adopt rules systems that make death less common, perhaps).




What this does is not remove these elements from the game but move them from readily available to making them *gasp* story-based elements.  Doing this puts the control back into the DM's hands.

And part of my motivation is to give control back to the DM.  Instead of having to jump through flaming hoops to design _around _these types of spells (like trying to justify why a dungeon prevents teleporting for example), it allows him to introduce these things on his terms.

While this addresses part of what is being discussed in this thread, I still think there is an issue of number creep in the game.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Aug 3, 2006)

> I've heard that for a lot of DMs the game starts to feel out of their control once spellcasters get to levels where "travel" spells come into play and then definitely feels unwieldy when "save or die" spells are most prevalent.




I'm currently DM'ing the "Shackled City" AP, and the characters are all about 6th level, and I know tghat the "Save or Die" mechanicsm WILL come up, and I'm dreading it.  (The travel-spells, too, but not nearly as much, since Caulrdon is mostly a self-sustaining setting.)

And my fears were exacerbated when we had out last session of the high-level campaign I play in.  We have in the party: 13th level Witch, 13th level Hexblade, 14th level Bard, and 15ht level Wizard.  Most of us are "standard" adventurers; not "inefficient" by a long shot, but not "optimized" either.  Except for the Wizard, who is optimized beyond compare.  

What gets me the most? The player of the wizard is an AWESOME guy, but the CHARACTER is, as they say, "teh suck".

So, we have a fight with an adult green dragon (approx CR13, I would guess), who managed to surprise us, and get off his breath attack.  No-one went down, but the Witch (me) and the Wizard were hurting.  So far, so good; we seem pretty evenly matched vs. the dragon.

The wiard gets healed, the Hexbalde unleashes her aura of unluck, the Witch casts "Feeblemind" (her one big "power" spell; she's more of a utility character) which the creature saves against, and the Bard sings.  Still OK.

The wizards casts "Disintegrate".  (One of his many "Save or Die" spells.)

"Oh, well, he won't get past the SR", we think- until we do the math and realizes he pretty much AUTOMATICALLY exceeds it!

So... "Oh, well! He's a dragon.  He can't fail that save!"  And we look on as the "1" hits the table for the save.

And that's it. 
A battle that was supposed to challenge the party (and probably WOULD have challenged 3/4's of the party normally!!) is now a note in the books, and an extremly unsatisfying enounter in my eyes.  Extremely anti-climactic for all involved but the Wizard.

The DM pretty much stated "That's the last CR13 encoutner you guys will have".  So now, to challenge one memeber of the party, he'll have to up the ante, which is that much more dangerous to us "lesser" members of the party.  

I don't think anyone's in the "Wrong" here, it's just a frustrating situation, and one I as a DM will likely have to face in the next few months.  (And yes, I _could_ selectively "fudge", btu I'm not a fan of that solution.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Aug 3, 2006)

I think that I would do 3 things:

1) relocate some of the travel and divination (IE, 'skip the adventure' ) spells to higher levels.  And make Teleport caster-only (IE, no taking your buddies with you, restricting taking your friends along to Greater Teleport.  This keeps the exploration/discovery part of the game going for longer.  For example, in my last homebrew game, I made Teleport a 6th level, caster-only spell, and Greater Teleport 8th level.

2) double the XP required to level

3) At the midpoint between each level, the PC gets a bonus feat

This keeps the feeling of progress, and allows more feats (and I think feats are one of the funnest parts of D&D 3.X), but stretches out the midpart of the game.

Ken


----------



## SpiralBound (Aug 3, 2006)

If you feel that characters are advancing in levels and powers too quickly and are rapidly leaving your definition of the "sweet spot", then there's a real simple solution to this:

Lower the XP rewards & slow down the handing out of new spells, magic items, magical weapons, etc.  Don't "punish" the players and suck out all the fun, but even a 1/2 or 1/4 reduction in the XP and the rate or power of magical treasure encountered will do wonders.  Also, sprinkle in more adventures that don't directly have loads of XP-granting results.  If you compare running sessions that always end with a big combat to running 2-3 sessions with character and setting driven events of investigation, exploration, and intrique, with the finale session of that adventure or chapter of the adventure being a climatic battle, then you'll see large differences in the rate that players advance and thus the game will stay in the sweet spot longer.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Aug 3, 2006)

You know, we must have different groups...my players just LOVE it when the bad guy rolls a 1 on a save.  

And keep in mind, there are much lower level spells that effectively end encounters if the bad guy can't make his save.  Glitterdust and Stinking Cloud, for example.




			
				ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> The wizards casts "Disintegrate".  (One of his many "Save or Die" spells.)
> 
> "Oh, well, he won't get past the SR", we think- until we do the math and realizes he pretty much AUTOMATICALLY exceeds it!
> 
> ...


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 3, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Strange, IMO, but "life restoring" magic and high-level divinations (although both are referenced above) are not ones I hear or read about a lot as being game breakers.




How is the consequence of death not a major design decision for any rules system?  

Same goes for divinations.  I've read MANY modules in which the author details at length either how to address the casting of such spells or how some factor within the module prevents their usage.  Gaining instant knowledge, whether through asking some divine being a direct question, scrying, etc is a potential pain in the arse for the DM, especially if they are trying to keep something a secret or want something to be revealed later in the story.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Is the goal to extend the time spent playing 1-10, or is the goal to extend the sweet spot so that it continues into later levels?




I guess I would say the goal is to extend the feel of "sweet spot" play for as long as possible, ideally for as long as you expect the campaign to last, which could be indefinitely.

That's obviously a different and much greater challenge than what I've actually presented, which is simply to sustain it for a finite period, roughly equal to the lifespan of a normal (1-20, non-epic) game.



> This could be accomplished by capping those "wahoo" areas, while leaving the other bits intact (which a lot of people already do).




This is what I have done in my current campaign: Before play even began, I did the following:

1) Banned Divination unless the questions were asked to me in downtime (so I could prepare mysterious answers)

2) No Teleport.

3) No Raise Dead.

Now, as it turns out, we're now approaching 10th level and I am prepared to relax these somewhat-- Teleport along ley lines/power nexuses only, or with serious consequences (post-teleport _confusion_), for example; and Raise Dead only if the PCs cast it themselves (it is not a service that can be bought).

I don't mind Teleport if it is used as a means of travel, and not the preferred battle strategy.

I don't mind Raise Dead if it is restricted to "climactic" play.

I'll also echo what someone else said above-- I think typical high-level D&D play is a genre unto itself, without any familiar literary analog. I think that's why I have such a hard time getting into it.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 3, 2006)

I think that high-level dnd is a fundamentally different game than low-level is.  If everyone enjoys that game, then high-level campaigns can continue to be fun without much tweaking.  This requires a sort of mental adjustment from fantasy-style gaming to supers-style gaming, really; after all, high-level pcs in 3e can fly, have amazing superhuman abilities, etc, etc.  

The easiest way to enlarge the sweet spot if you don't like the transition from fantasy to WHEEEE!!!!! is prolly simply to slow down the rate at which you award xps.  Otherwise, eliminating some key spells and abilities might do the trick (really, take out teleportation and rez magic and you're halfway there).  In fact, trimming the spell lists to a few spells per level is one of the techniques that I used in setting up a low-magic experiment that I ran a while back.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Strange, IMO, but "life restoring" magic and high-level divinations (although both are referenced above) are not ones I hear or read about a lot as being game breakers.  Perhaps the gp cost for life-restoring spells offsets the benefit enough?




Glad to have you comment, Mark.

Raise Dead is a _really_ hard spell to balance, in my opinion.

On the one hand, you can't eliminate the "ultimate consequence" from the game, or the game loses its dramatic tension-- and that's bad for story.

On the other hand, you can't keep replacing the protagonists, cause that's also bad for story.

And you definitely don't want "being brought back to life" to become as mundane as a _Light_ spell. That's also bad for story.

That's why I wouldn't mind Raise Dead so much at the pinnacle of play, and only provided the PCs cast it themselves.


----------



## spunky_mutters (Aug 3, 2006)

The main problems with high-level play, as mentioned before, are the introduction of certain game-changing magics, and the growing ac/bab and dc/save discrepancies.

In our latest game I'm trying a system where I award normal XP, but it is divided into two pools. The main pool is used for levelling, and is always the same for every party member. The other pool (and the % of XP that goes into this pool increases with level) is used for various other things (crafting, paying off raise dead pentaly XP, buying skills, feats, stat bumps or action points). The goal is to stretch out that sweet spot before the mage takes control of the game, while still giving players incremental advancement.

They're at 3rd now, so it's a little early to see how it's going to play out, but I haven't had any problems yet.


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf said:
			
		

> And how would you do it in such a way as to give the players the same "real time" rate of advancement/improvement as the current rules provide?




Looking at this from a strictly mechanical POV, this is where things gets sticky. 

Earlier editions of D&D created this elongated sweet spot through the use of diminishing returns (increasing amounts of experience for the next level), but the desire to keep a sense of quick advancement rules that out.

That leaves us (assuming we don't want to gut the current system wholesale) with incremental leveling - or simply doubling the number of levels available but reducing the gain at each step. Maybe PCs get hit points every odd level (or half level), with increases in BAB on the evens. Likewise, Saves might get broken up into Good saves increasing at odd with Weaks at even, spells begin gained on the evens, and skill points broken up into halfs. The trick would be in smoothing out the advancement curve.

Personally, I would prefer to simply tweak the experience tables, but I know that wouldn't fly with your criteria.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 3, 2006)

the Jester said:
			
		

> slow down the rate at which you award xps.




A few people have mentioned slowing down the rate of advancement but this solution is really contingent on the players and who you are designing for.  Are you designing for a group primarily concerned about role-playing and story or are you designing for "the average gamer"?

If it's the latter, slowing down the rate of advancement isn't a good solution and will most likely bore that type of gamer.  The vast majority of gamers fall into the "average/casual" category.  This type of gamer wants to see quantifiable proof of advancement (cookies) and wants to see them at a reasonable pace.  Slowing down the rate at which these cookies are distributed will only cause this player to lose interest.

A system that would allow a player to gain more options for their character but at the same not significantly increasing their power would be ideal.  I'm not sure what a system like this would look like at the moment but I am intrigued by the enhancement system in D&D Online.

Basically each level is broken up into 4 ranks.  At each rank, the player can choose from a list of enhancements that is based on their race, class, and level.  I don't really like how they are implemented in DDO because they mainly just grant increased modifiers but I think the mechanics are worth exploring.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 3, 2006)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> How is the consequence of death not a major design decision for any rules system?





Who said that?  That's a huge leap away from what I posted (or did you teleport? ).  I simply said I don't hear or read about "life-restoring" magic (and high-level divinations) as being game breakers.  I gave a possible reason for "life-restoring" magic not being perceived as a game breaker as being the gp cost offsetting it, but posed that as a question.  There may be more reasons than that, I suppose.




			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Same goes for divinations.  I've read MANY modules in which the author details at length either how to address the casting of such spells or how some factor within the module prevents their usage.  Gaining instant knowledge, whether through asking some divine being a direct question, scrying, etc is a potential pain in the arse for the DM, especially if they are trying to keep something a secret or want something to be revealed later in the story.





I guess, but I don't hear or read about it a lot as being a game breaker.  As a possible reason, maybe a lot of information not really being known to the deity or source (entity) being asked through the divination (_commune_, etal)?  I think some DMs allow for divinations and scrying to be a lot more powerful than they truly are and/or forget to have NPCs take precautions against them.  There should probably be more information for DMs on how to handle these things.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Not picking on you, but that's exactly the approach I am talking about NOT doing. Just slowing down the rate of XP doesn't work, because it doesn't provide the players with the regular feedback of advancement to keep the game interesting.
> 
> (And I mean advancement in a Gamist sense. Ignore this comment if you don't know what I mean. Fnord.)




Break it up? You could change the numbers around. 2nd level is now 3th level, and now 2nd level increasing hp, saves, and BAB, and 3rd level gives class abilities like Sneak Attack and spellcasting levels. (You'd have to make it so that you could only multiclass every other level). That way you get double the time in the levels you want, and you would still get the fun of updating the character sheet.


----------



## RedWick (Aug 3, 2006)

What happens if you cap out the as given class advancement past, say, 9th or 10th level?  Past that point, you use different rules to determine what kinds of perks the PCs receive.  Non-linear saves, BAB  and HP progression.  Skills that stop advancing past having 10 ranks in them.  Past level 10, give the PCs something like feats (or some other definable means of progression) they can use to buy class skills, BAB/saves, skill ranks, more HP.  That way the cookie of gaining a level is maintained, but the effect of numbers bloat is lessened.

How about having spells that you have to actively go out questing for (as opposed to automatically gaining more per level)?  Maybe even including a mechanic for having spells past 5th level buring/disappearing out after using them (they might be powerful, but you have to be judicious when you use them otherwise they might be not be available when you really need them).  What really is the difference between a low level damage spell and a high level one, other than the number of dice being rolled and the higher save DC?

I'll post more thoughts as they come to me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Glad to have you comment, Mark.
> 
> Raise Dead is a _really_ hard spell to balance, in my opinion.
> 
> ...





Two thoughts, please.

One being that there are a great number of players (DMs included) that don't look at RPGing as a "story" per se.  I like to think that I am more of a story-wrangler, myself, in that when all is said and done, what has ultimately unfolded is a tale of sorts.  But a lot of gamers really do play the game as a series of unending challenges that get progressively tougher (mathematically) and simply gathering resources to face them is the goal (including "life-restoring" magic).  If part of the goal with 4E (and I know we aren't specifcally discussing that here but I think it is germane) is to attract more of those types of players (away from their computer-based games), then I think we will see more of that sort of design.


The second thought I am prompted to make by your reply is to build a once per year and once per character clause into the spell.  To wit, no character's body and mind can take being yanked back from the void more than once in their lifetime and no caster can do the yanking (sorry Eric's Grandma  ) from the void more than once in a certain time period, say a year as an example.  But, again, I'm more for these things being setting contingent.  I like the idea of the rules being less specific and allowing the setting to place further parameters.


----------



## painandgreed (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Not picking on you, but that's exactly the approach I am talking about NOT doing. Just slowing down the rate of XP doesn't work, because it doesn't provide the players with the regular feedback of advancement to keep the game interesting.
> 
> (And I mean advancement in a Gamist sense. Ignore this comment if you don't know what I mean. Fnord.)




Then how about adding new things in there to advance in. There are other things like reputation, status, and social standing that can be hard to be advanced and can have noticable values and effects, yet aren't always related to XP or level. About the time they slow down in normal advancement would be about the time that they would begin to want lands, title, and minstrels singing their names. This goes along with the person who earlier pointed out that there is a large difference between a 10th level fighter and a 10th level fighter leading an army. At lower levels, dangle carrots they can't get due to low reputation, social standing, or simple political power that will cause them to want it later. If you're a DM that only gives out XP for combat and not RP, then offer other rewards for RP whcih will slow down their advancement through combat, although still leave them with the choice of which to follow after.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> One being that there are a great number of players (DMs included) that don't look at RPGing as a "story" per se.  I like to think that I am more of a story-wrangler, myself, in that when all is said and done, what has ultimately unfolded is a tale of sorts.




I like to think of myself as more of a story sundae artist, where a satisfying story is the cherry on top of an enormous, sloppy, treasure-drizzled scoop of dead bad guys.

Anyhow-- instead of story, maybe I should have said "continuity?" A sense of "ownership" or "investment" in the character?



> But a lot of gamers really do play the game as a series of unending challenges that get progressively tougher (mathematically) and simply gathering resources to face them is the goal (including "life-restoring" magic).




Guilty...



> If part of the goal with 4E (and I know we aren't specifcally discussing that here but I think it is germane) is to attract more of those types of players (away from their computer-based games), then I think we will see more of that sort of design.




I agree it's germane. I also see it as a pretty natural evolution from 3e. As far as I am concerned 3e is pretty clearly designed for that kind of "Gamist" experience. It _can_ serve adequately for Narrativist or Simulationist games, of course; but then again I'll use my vice grips to pound a nail when my hammer isn't handy.



			
				painandgreed said:
			
		

> Then how about adding new things in there to advance in. There are other things like reputation, status, and social standing that can be hard to be advanced and can have noticable values and effects, yet aren't always related to XP or level.




I am not sure you can "design" cookies (or is it carrots now? Carrots is good too...) along these lines. I am not saying that perks like this can't exist or won't appeal to certain kinds of players, but again I think it's a round peg/square hole kind of thing with respect to the design of d20. 

I can't imagine, for example, an entry on the 3rd level bard table that says, "You gain a Romantic Interest!"

By "can't imagine it" I mean it doesn't seem to be a meaningful carrot when you look at it alongside new spells, feats, BAB, skill points, and other "tangible" mechanics. It doesn't "fit" inside the established (gamist) mechanics (the level playing field) of Dungeons and Dragons.



> About the time they slow down in normal advancement would be about the time that they would begin to want lands, title, and minstrels singing their names.




I guess 1e was a lot better with regards to awarding this kind of advancement; but again, it's not really a tangible mechanic so it's pretty hard to design or codify.


----------



## Barak (Aug 3, 2006)

Interestingly, me and one of my players are sorta having this argument, in an extremely passive-aggressive fashion.

I'm running the WLD right now.  Through no prompting of my own at all, the players are staying in areas that were "set" for characters of 7-9th level.  They are at 9th level.  By RAW, they should have levelled by now.  But I'm not using XP, I'm levelling them when it's good for the balance/fun of the game.  They are already running over most of the encounters, since they are at the highest cusp the place was created for, and they have somewhat more equipment than normal (not overly much, truly).  

The majority of my players are fine with that.  They are having fun with the encounters/combat, are enjoying their characters evolving, etc.  Two of them (brothers, btw), are somewhat less enthusiastic.  Not surprisingly, one is a "powergamer".  And by far the most "effective" character.  They are antsy about the lack of levelling lately.  

I think they believe it's because they think I think I can't handle high-level play.  That's not true, it's because them being higher level would really make the current part of the dungeon a complete cakewalk.  I -do- think they are at about the best levels of the game, but I did know that they'd go all the way to 20th level when I started running the WLD, and I assume they will.  But anyway.  One of the brothers, perhaps to assuage his brother's desire of even more extreme powergaming, perhaps to show me that high-level wasn't that bad, decided to start running a game, in which we'd -start- at 20th level.  With all WotC books available.  

Well.  I made my character, and I doubt we'll play for very long.  When started from low-level, I do think playing through level 20 can remain in the sweet spot.  Most "killer" high-level characters don't have a very high survival rate at lower levels, so it remains balanced.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 3, 2006)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> And my fears were exacerbated when we had out last session of the high-level campaign I play in. We have in the party: 13th level Witch, 13th level Hexblade, 14th level Bard, and 15ht level Wizard. Most of us are "standard" adventurers; not "inefficient" by a long shot, but not "optimized" either. Except for the Wizard, who is optimized beyond compare.
> 
> And that's it.
> A battle that was supposed to challenge the party (and probably WOULD have challenged 3/4's of the party normally!!) is now a note in the books, and an extremly unsatisfying enounter in my eyes.  Extremely anti-climactic for all involved but the Wizard.
> ...




So, a lucky shot with a spell and the DM jumps to conclusions about the parties challenge level? I mean, it's a _dragon_--SR AND a good Fort save can't stop bad luck. What a jumpy DM.

Where are the healer and the skill monkey in that party, anyway?

If you don't like save-or-die effects, use more Gargantuan sized zombies.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Aug 3, 2006)

> So, a lucky shot with a spell and the DM jumps to conclusions about the parties challenge level? I mean, it's a dragon--SR AND a good Fort save can't stop bad luck. What a jumpy DM.
> 
> Where are the healer and the skill monkey in that party, anyway?




1) Sghould've stated that this ISN'T the first time that it's happened.  It's simply the first time an opponent died on the FIRST ROUND.  This was the "straw that broke the camels back".  We've all been tacitly feeling that way for some time.  It's essentially a "Wait for the creature to fail-it's-save" fest in every combat, depsite some unique attempts by the other players in each combat.   It's not "Bad Luck" if the same thing happens eveery battle.

2) NPC healer, no "skill-monkey" per se.



> If you don't like save-or-die effects, use more Gargantuan sized zombies.




It's not my call.
I'm playing, not DM'ing.  (Of course, these gargantuan zombies would probably net us more XP than a single dragon, anyway!)


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 3, 2006)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Wulf captured the major points of our conversation but I wanted to highlight my interest on this issue.
> 
> If you take a look at the essence of the "challenge" in D&D, it basically boils down to bigger numbers.  The players get bigger mods so the "challenges" have to as well and vice versa.
> 
> But if the increase in challenge is a linear progression throughout the lifetime of the characters and/or campaign, i.e., the "challenge" is the same regardless of the level of the characters, why is there a need to make the numbers so cumbersomely high?




_If_ leveling up is only about bigger numbers and everything scales up in lockstep, then maybe there is not much point.

Levelling up can bring:
(1) Quantitative rewards.
(2) Qualititative rewards.

#1 done simplistically is just running faster and faster to stay in the same place.  #2 done simplistically leads to the "problem" of Teleport, Plane-hopping, potent Divinations, and Gate.

It is possible to straddle these two by consciously offering more variety and worrying less about whether an encounter or scenario is a genuinely life-threatening challenge or not.  FREX, an army of 1000 trolls may not actually be a physical threat to a 15th level party, but it can still be fun and interesting to see how the PCs would try and handle dealing with it when cities and people they care about may be in danger.


----------



## Slobber Monster (Aug 3, 2006)

I've been thinking lately that the feel of the higher level game might be changed for the better without screwing up balance just by shifting a number of spells and effects up a level. If you shift every planar ally/binding, travel and raise dead spell up one spell level then you delay its entry into the game by two character levels ...yet those spells still retain enough value to be worth taking. Of course you'd need to recalculate the pricing for a number of magic items, fiddle with the Summon Monster lists and tweak some CR's, but it seems like a manageable amount of work.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 3, 2006)

My Midwood campaign is still very low level -- no one over level 2 at this point -- but I've been thinking about this myself. I might go with an XP table that goes up in an exponential pattern, rather than being so much of a straight line.

Ironically, I think 4E will enable this, as OGL publishers republishing 3E will need to create their own XP and advancement tables, and I suspect many of them will put in a more harsh XP table instead of the comparitively rapid one in 3E. The Fork is coming!


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 3, 2006)

Along these lines, there are a couple of things that I feel like pointing out, again, all from my point of view:

-Prior editions did a good job of balancing out some of the "wahoo" elements with sizeable dollops of risk.  I remembering winning a battle against a powerful wizard because he teleported himself waist deep into the floor of his tower.  We stole the ring off his fingers.  Haste was balanced by aging.  Polymorph Other was balanced by the risk of taking on the mental state of an animal.  There are more examples I could come up with.  I personally _liked_ that kind of touch, and would like to see more of it.  I like the idea of magic as dangerous, unpredictable, and although you might be able to master world-shattering magic, you might just be better off not doing so.

-On the other hand, 3E does better at having fewer "save or die" mechanics.  They've been toned down, though not enough for my liking.  I don't like having my character's life depend on the roll of one die.  Or the lives of the foes I face, either.

-Taking Raise Dead out of the game requires rebalancing the risk of death.  Action Points are one good way to manage this - you can spend them to make saves, etc.  I also like the concept, in Skull & Bones, of "rolling the bones" - I don't have the book, but I've had the concept explained to me, so forgive me if I'm in factual error - when you "die" you roll on a table, and various bad things happen to you, but then you're basically stabilized and alive.  Kind of a "nine lives" concept - you don't die, but you might lose a limb, or an eye, or gain an impressive scar, or a limp...  the list goes on.  You get a negative effect, but effect hopefully adds character to your PC, instead of ending him.

-Another point about Raised Dead - I limit it in my games via role-playing considerations.  Think about it: If you're a cleric being asked to raise someone, why would you?  If he's been acting counter to your religions beliefs, he's not worthy.  If he's been acting in accordance to your beliefs, he's in heaven, and who would want to be brought back from there? If he's not a believer in your religion, why would you even consider it?  All taken together, this means Raise Deads should be rare.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 3, 2006)

For me, what truncates the "sweet spot" are the following issues:

1)  Lack of PC dependance on outside forces.
2)  Certain die rolls become over-significant (save or die).
3)  "Numbers bloat".

Looking at a number of adventures from the past few issues of _Dungeon_, I can see that the lower level adventures have a hook or a plot that captures my interest to a greater degree than the high level adventures. These are adventures that have familliar and/or classic tropes that we all* enjoy playing. What makes them so difficult to adapt to a higher level game is that either the magic circumvents the adventure (see #1, _ speak with / raise dead_ vs. the murder mystery) or the characters can simply endure the obsticles (see #3, fighter / ranger vs. the orc horde). Sometimes this can be worked around by changing some assumptions. Soren Thustrup's Circle of Rites is a good example of a murder mystery that takes into account the abilities of higher level characters. Who the killer and victim are is fairly easily discovered, but the "why" is the meat of the adventure.

As far as "save or die" spells go, what is the real problem with them? It reduces a combat to a couple of key rolls. Even so, there are some cirumstances where that isn't a problem if the situation can be addressed in the short or long term. Petrification isn't so bad. It takes the character out of action indefinatly, but can be fixed through a number of means. Whether or not it is a long or short term problem depends on the resources of the party at the time. While this is also true of character death and _raise dead_ we have thematic problems with death being "so easily fixable". Conditions short of death, petrification, insanity, imprisonment, &c., we as players and DMs seem to accept far better when the local Miracle Max fixes them with a wave of his hand. Also, there needs to be some kind of partial effect for a successful save. My current favorite is ability damage. Petrification damages dexterity, insanity - wisdom and disintegration - constitution. Also, adapting the _holy word_ model for some spells is appropriate. Effects are graded dependant on the difference between caster and target and a successful save moves you one or two steps up the chart.

One way I would address number bloat is to limit the stackability of spells. Named bonuses are the way to go, but I would trim it further still. Five common and maybe three rare types of bonuses would be sufficent, I think, to allow some variation in what spells or items are chosen. Also, higher levels spells give improved bonuses, not additional layering of bonuses. The 6th level version of _Cover My Tukas_ gives the same type of bonus as the 2nd level version as well as duplicating the effects of the 4th level _Save My Bacon_. This minimizes the alterations to the character sheet, number of spells to check a _dispel magic_ against and the caster can still cast the lower level versions on other party members or himself when the spell is lost.

So, to widen the sweet spot I would:

1) Challenge my assumptions. There are just some adventures that need to be rethought for high level characters. Scotland Yard did not pester Sherlock Holmes with the average murder.

2) Reduce the situations that require single, critical rolls. This will require changing some spells.

3) Redefine some abilities so that there is some obsolescence at higher level. 14th level parties should not even consider casting _bless_.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 3, 2006)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Does this have to be some form of mechanical advancement? What about characters accruing influence, enemies, a greater engagement with the setting?
> 
> I guess to do agree that character development needs a mechanical component, even if its just new items. Like Pavlov's dogs, D&D players are trained to expect that --and I count myself among the dogs, despite how much I claim to interested in "story".




Well this isn't just a problem with D&D, all games have their "sweet spot" and are tied to advancement. We all want our splinters of our personalities to grow and develop regardless if we are playing D&D, RuneQuest, Vampire, Cyborg Commando or Traveller.


----------



## painandgreed (Aug 3, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I am not sure you can "design" cookies (or is it carrots now? Carrots is good too...) along these lines. I am not saying that perks like this can't exist or won't appeal to certain kinds of players, but again I think it's a round peg/square hole kind of thing with respect to the design of d20.
> 
> I can't imagine, for example, an entry on the 3rd level bard table that says, "You gain a Romantic Interest!"
> 
> ...




Unearthed Arcana has a reputations system IIRC. Not sure off hand how it is handled but there is a reputation score. Most nobility systems involving titles have descrete levels also. 

Easiest way to look at them from a gamist point of view is to look at the reputation system in WoW. Certain quests or actions get you reputation with certain groups. Once your reputaitons gets to a certain point, more quests open up, items become for sale. As your rep increases more quest open up and items get cheaper. Items being typically the more powerful magic. In D&D it could represent title and lands which is basically an annual income as well as a base of operations. The important missions are only given out to people that have already proved themselves, so they can't just jump in, compelte one quest, and then earn their reward. They have to start at the begining, doing adventures and proving their loyalty which might be easy but gain no or less XP and treasure.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 3, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> -Another point about Raised Dead - I limit it in my games via role-playing considerations.  Think about it: If you're a cleric being asked to raise someone, why would you?  If he's been acting counter to your religions beliefs, he's not worthy.  If he's been acting in accordance to your beliefs, *he's in heaven, and who would want to be brought back from there?* _If he's not a believer in your religion, why would you even consider it?_  All taken together, this means Raise Deads should be rare.




PCs. Crazy people devoted to their deity who want to fight evil some more...or who can't be spared yet from the mortal struggle against evil. 10th level Heroes aren't a dime-a-dozen.

Because he's needed back here, the NPC's Good church can bring him back to fight evil some more, and the temple to his Good deity is hundreds of miles away?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 3, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> PCs. Crazy people devoted to their deity who want to fight evil some more...or who can't be spared yet from the mortal struggle against evil. 10th level Heroes aren't a dime-a-dozen.
> 
> Because he's needed back here, the NPC's Good church can bring him back to fight evil some more, and the temple to his Good deity is hundreds of miles away?




True - I don't mean to say that good answers to those questions don't exist, just that (in my view) NPC clerics should be asking them.  I also like having evil temples offer to bring your buddy back - no questions asked.  For Free.  For some reason the PC's never take them up on it...


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 3, 2006)

Lots and lots of things to reply to here; please pardon the verbosity... 

1. Define the "sweet spot".  In our old 1e games, it was from about levels 3-7.  With various tweaks and revisions to the 1e system, I think we've expanded it to about levels 3-9, but I'd still like to see it go a bit higher, say to 12-ish.  In 3e, much has been done to smooth things out, including the sweet spot...now, I think one could argue there's about the same amount of "sweetness" from about 1-15, which is good, but that "sweetness" isn't as sweet as the old 1e 3-7 range.  Make sense?  OK, so how to either expand it (in older editions) or sweeten it (in newer)?

2. _Commune_ is a game-breaker from the DM's perspective, assuming deities to actually be the almost-all-knowing beings they're intended to be.  It is very hard to design an adventure with any sense of mystery when the mystery can be shattered (or the puzzle can be solved) with judicious casting of one spell.  I despise nerfing spells, and nerfing the deities themselves is just not an option.  So, all that's left is to raise its level; in 1e I'd make it 7th (as high as Cleric spells can go) and in 3e it goes to 8th or 9th.

3. Travel spells (_Teleport, Planeshift_, etc.) are a problem only if overused.  _Planeshift_ is easy to fix: simply rule that it puts you back on any plane at the same place you last left it...this still allows parties to plane-hop but removes it as a travel spell.  _Teleport_ is not a problem in 1e - the small risk of instant death tends to make people use it in emergencies only, and there's limits to what can be carried.  Put the risk back in, and problem mostly solved.

4. _Raise Dead_ being available is not a problem *if* there's some chance that it will not work and-or *if* there's some overarching limit on how many times a character can come back.  1e handled the risk very well (Con-based survival % roll) and the limit not so well (can come back once per each point of starting Con., too high, in most cases).  3e just has you lose a level, with no risk of it failing and no limit (not to mention that in 3.0 the spell is ridiculously cheap; 3.5 at least fixed this); this makes it too easy.  There has to be some mechanism available to revive dead characters, unless you as DM never plan on killing any; the Raise-with-risk works fine for me, even when the party can cast it in the field.

5. Level advancement rates.  Obviously, slowing them down prolongs the sweet spot in any edition...so, particularly if you're playing 3e, slow them down; either by changing the actual bump points or by giving out less ExP per encounter.  For those who've posted that their players "expect" the frequent gratification that advancement brings, I'll just be a curmudgeon and say that you as DM need to challenge those expectations - harshly, if necessary - right at the start of the campaign...and if the players balk, too bad for them.

6. Save-or-die is not a problem, and to some extent happens at all levels; it's only at the higher levels it becomes named as such.  At 1st level, it's save (find the pit trap) or die (fall in and hit the spikes).  At 5th level, if a bigass Giant swings at you, it's save (he misses) or die (he hits).  At 9th, you're targeted with _Slay Living_; save or die.  It's all the same, really.  More important is there need to be other ways to die than all-or-nothing spells at high levels to keep the sense of threat in play; the simplest thing here is limit AC somehow (no idea how).

7. One thing that hasn't come up yet but is also relevant is treasure.  Part of what makes the sweet spot sweet is that you've got *some* stuff as a PC, but you're hungry for more.  At higher levels, often the PC's have most or all of what they need, so the hunger is gone.  One obvious suggestion is don't give out as much, but this is no fun.  Instead, I suggest to give it out, but have it break/wear out/melt/etc. more often - easy come, easy go, and fun if the items sometimes release wild magic surges when they go.   Oh, and do away with magic shops if you have 'em; the only magic for sale would normally be stuff other parties don't want, and if other parties don't want it, chances are your party doesn't either. "What's for sale in Neverwinter?"  "Well, you find the same +3 Footman's Pike that was for sale last time you were here; oh, and someone must have killed a Giant, because there's a suit of real nice +4 Hide Armour that just came on the market.  If you're at least 13' tall, it'll fit you..."  If they know the usual way they're going to find what they want is to adventure for it, adventuring maintains a bit more allure. (I'll admit I'm guilty of blowing this one...badly...)

All that said, the sweet spot is going to vary group by group to some extent.  Some groups like nothing more than the sheer terror of trying to run 1st-level characters through a dangerous adventure, and by the time they're 5th it's not sweet anymore.  Other groups think anything less than 10th is just preamble, before the real fun starts.  As long as there's at least a vague agreement within the group, all's good.  But I'm interested to note that others here have also pointed to the 3-9-ish range as being "sweet"; I agree. 

Lanefan


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 3, 2006)

I would like to warn that any discussion which uses poll data from EN World as a data point is... pretty far removed from reality. EN World is a tiny, tiny fragment of the D&D populace, and the people who respond to poll on EN World is an even smaller fragment. So just because some people in a poll said they liked playing up to 10th level and no higher doesn't make that the case for "everyone" who plays D&D.

Also, if you define the sweet spot as, that point beyond which spells become too "wahoo" -- then why is 10th the cutoff? At 10th level you've got teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift -- four of the biggest game-changing spells there are. You've also got the presence of "save of die" spells like dominate person, hold monster, baleful polymorph, slay living, and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

So if the sweet spot is supposed to avoid game-changing spells -- then 10th level is too high. But perhaps 8th level is also too high, because of other less obvious game-changing spells, so we move down to 6th level. And so forth.

Perhaps it is necessary to accept that the game of D&D changes every time the PCs level up?


----------



## Maniac (Aug 3, 2006)

Much power in high level play comes from Magic Items - especially for the non-spell casters.
Capping the availability of powerful magic items reduces the power level and number crunching of the higher levels but still leaves a "sweet spot" level of magic around.

You would need to increase costs for these items or outright ban item creation feats to prevent players from circumventing the limits.  

Powerful magics might take the place of artifacts and become story elements.

Alternatively, making more one-shot or charged items might work too though that may add to complexity as bonues would frequently changes.

M.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 3, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I would like to warn that any discussion which uses poll data from EN World as a data point is... pretty far removed from reality. EN World is a tiny, tiny fragment of the D&D populace, and the people who respond to poll on EN World is an even smaller fragment. So just because some people in a poll said they liked playing up to 10th level and no higher doesn't make that the case for "everyone" who plays D&D.




Nothing is ever designed for "everyone".  The fact that there are 2 people (Wulf and myself) justifies a discussion (even when there are more than that involved in this discussion).  And whoever said any system has to be for everyone anyway? 



> Also, if you define the sweet spot as, that point beyond which spells become too "wahoo" -- then why is 10th the cutoff? At 10th level you've got teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift -- four of the biggest game-changing spells there are. You've also got the presence of "save of die" spells like dominate person, hold monster, baleful polymorph, slay living, and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.
> 
> So if the sweet spot is supposed to avoid game-changing spells -- then 10th level is too high. But perhaps 8th level is also too high, because of other less obvious game-changing spells, so we move down to 6th level. And so forth.




There are two design directions you can take to address these spells.  One is to just remove them from the game altogether.  The other is to limit when they beocme available to the players.  As it stands now, they become available at the middle levels.  But what if they were only available at the end?  This would be the same as capping advancement at 10 and doubling the XP needed at each level.  



> Perhaps it is necessary to accept that the game of D&D changes every time the PCs level up?




I do.  And I also accept the fact that it changes in a way that I don't like, hence this thread.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 3, 2006)

Maniac said:
			
		

> You would need to increase costs for these items or outright ban item creation feats to prevent players from circumventing the limits.




You might have to restrict or ban a few items but I think a level cap would take care of most of the problems.  The level cap would prevent certain item creation feats from being available and also prevent certain items from being made at all because certain spells won't be available.

Adhering to the treasure limits per level in the DMG would help as well.


----------



## pogre (Aug 3, 2006)

I'll attempt to refrain from making this a pro-high level adventuring argument as per Wulf's request. I acknowledge the game changes significantly from 10th level on. It essentially becomes a supers game from my perspective. 

Here are some solutions/ideas I have contemplated for extending the sweet spot:

4th level spells and above must be discovered by the PCs. These spells are treasure, and _something_ - a relic, tome, etc. must be carried to cast these spells.
No attacks beyond the second for PCs.
Limit the number of bonuses available - as suggested above.
Make the manufacture of magic items of a certain level require components beyond wealth. For example, any armor or weapon beyond +2 was required to be made of Uberstahl in my latest campaign - an exceptionally rare ore.
Impose armor penalties on _flying _ and give it a test - much like swimming.
Impose a chance of a 1 Con penalty on _raise dead_ on the caster.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Also, if you define the sweet spot as, that point beyond which spells become too "wahoo" -- then why is 10th the cutoff?




It's a good question, one I'd be happy to answer in detail-- unless the question is rhetorical. 

For now I'll just say there are a lot of good reasons (and a lot of d20 design "hints") that point to 10th level, and not just where spellcasters are concerned (though that is a big part of it).



> At 10th level you've got teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift -- four of the biggest game-changing spells there are. You've also got the presence of "save of die" spells like dominate person, hold monster, baleful polymorph, slay living, and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.
> 
> So if the sweet spot is supposed to avoid game-changing spells -- then 10th level is too high.




I think that the existence of these 'game breaking' spells at "end game" is appropriate to the style and feel of the game I want to run.

I think that the existence of these spells at "mid game" is not appropriate.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 3, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> No attacks beyond the second for PCs.




Interesting. We had the same thought.



> Impose armor penalties on _flying _ and give it a test - much like swimming.




Can you expand on that?


----------



## DrNilesCrane (Aug 3, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Also, if you define the sweet spot as, that point beyond which spells become too "wahoo" -- then why is 10th the cutoff? At 10th level you've got teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift -- four of the biggest game-changing spells there are. You've also got the presence of "save of die" spells like dominate person, hold monster, baleful polymorph, slay living, and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.




Just throwing this out there: a part of the difficulty with some of these spells (i.e. teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift) is that they extend the use of magic beyond the short range, tactical (i.e. combat or combat related) to regional/world/multiverse, which eventually defines the game.  A fighter or rogue at 20th level is still affecting his or her immediate area and has abilities relatively easy understand and adjudicate (although with some number creep), vs. a high level caster, which (with the enormous variety of spells and their game defining effects) defines what kind of adventures can be run, how they are run, how the party travels, what happens when they die, etc. 

High level play really feels like a different beast in my respects, but I'm not a fan of level capping myself.  I think dropping the "defining" spells mentioned in this thread is a solution, combined with scaling other spells to run comparably to other class abilities (and perhaps making the casters--specifically wizards/sorcerers--able to do more than just cast) might be a solution.  [It's something I'm trying in my current_ 6 Elements _ campaign, but we've only playtested high-level play with our rule variants as opposed to running it up to 20th...we tend to level a bit slower on purpose].  

Interesting discussion - I'm looking forward to reading more.


----------



## Maniac (Aug 3, 2006)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> You might have to restrict or ban a few items but I think a level cap would take care of most of the problems.  The level cap would prevent certain item creation feats from being available and also prevent certain items from being made at all because certain spells won't be available.
> 
> Adhering to the treasure limits per level in the DMG would help as well.




You might even want to go lower than those treasure limits.

Look at Dark Sun for example.  Characters began at 3rd level but had access only to weapons, armor and equipment made from subpar materieal like bone and obsidian.  You were happy just to get a [I[metal[/I] sword.   So you still got the fun of getting new stuff but by starting so low you don't end up with any game breaking equipment.

M.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 3, 2006)

Before I even opened this thread I was thinking the limit spell casters to 1/2 thing.

I think that and a limit on # of attacks for fighters would go a very long way to getting the job done.

As far as gear, the limit of caster level should play a big role in setting that.  If caster levels are cut in half then the ability to make magic items would also be greatly constrained.  Thus the number of them would plummet and the price would skyrocket.  Which seems to be exactly what a lot of people want. 

As an aside, that is flaw in the current D&D approach.  A ring of protection +1 is only worth 2000 gp.  And yet it can only be made by a person who both a) is a 12th level caster and b) bothered to spend a feat on Forge Ring.  Just how many magic rings will there really be?  Even in somewhere like the Realms?  And don't these wizards have better things to do with their time than craft 2,000 gp rings?  
Supply and demand is out the window and the price of each is according to its ability.    

Seriously though, if you cut caster levels in half the price for magics should go up by at least an order of magnitude.  Which is where a system of lesser qualities such as Maniac mentioned or maybe as presented in Heroes of High Favor: Half Orcs, could be good adders.  And an expanded masterwork sysem ala Black Company is also a very good option.


----------



## Geoffrey (Aug 3, 2006)

According to WOTC research, most D&D campaigns don't last for more than 20 sessions. Capping level advancement at 10th level makes sense in this regard. Most campaigns, assuming they start with 1st-level characters, never reach levels 11-20 anyway. Further, isn't 3.5 edition written with the assumption that characters will rise in level every fourth session on average? That means the average campaign is ending with characters at only the 6th level. Why not start characters at 4th level and cap it at 10th level? That would better fit the average campaign (20 sessions long or less), plus the whole campaign would be spent in the "sweet spot".


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 3, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> True - I don't mean to say that good answers to those questions don't exist, just that (in my view) NPC clerics should be asking them.  I also like having evil temples offer to bring your buddy back - no questions asked.  For Free.  For some reason the PC's never take them up on it...




Understood, but the way you phrased it made it sound like no cleric would cast the spell at all.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> 3. Travel spells (_Teleport, Planeshift_, etc.) are a problem only if overused.  _Planeshift_ is easy to fix: simply rule that it puts you back on any plane at the same place you last left it...this still allows parties to plane-hop but removes it as a travel spell.






			
				wwwd20srd.org said:
			
		

> Precise accuracy as to a particular arrival location on the intended plane is nigh impossible. From the Material Plane, you can reach any other plane, *though you appear 5 to 500 miles (5d%) from your intended destination.*




Uh, how is this a travel spell?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 3, 2006)

Hi Wulf!

I'm assuming that you don't want to stray too far from baseline D&D (classes, levels etc)?

If you did, then it might be interesting to divide up the clumpy 'level' benefits over a period of time, and then stretch out that period of time - so it takes longer to go from 7th to 8th, but you have more frequent minor power bumps than you would if you were levelling up normally.

An alternative which your questions brought to mind is inspired by the 1e games that we used to play and love. In our games levels 6-9 were probably the sweetest spot.  As you remember, level advancement used to take forever in those days, and the bad news part of that was that it took months and months of gameplay and hundreds of encounters to raise that level.

But it wasn't that important. Why not?

For us, it was because of all the in-game rewards. Not mechanical rewards that came from increasing class level. Instead it was making money. Getting houses and eventually castles built. Earning noble titles and ruling over the land. Leading armies, founding temples and such.

These were all activities that were intimately tied in with the campaign world, and increased our investment in the campaign world. We were less interested in gathering xps (because there wasn't any benefit immediately in sight!) and more interested in making our mark in the world by gathering and spending money and influence.

So if I wanted to start and run a campaign to try and really hit my old sweet spot, I'd probably start all PCs at 5th/6th level, slow down xp advancement by a factor of 10, and ensure that there was lots of money and social interaction.

If I wanted to write some rules to support this, I'd put a lot of thought into rules for increasing social influence in one or more groups (including how more influence with some groups might reduce your influence in others), and simple rules for running businesses, raising castles, attracting followers, leading troops and so forth.




I imagine these ideas might be a little too 'off the wall', but your original question made me consider how much fun my friends and I used to have with PCs who had essentially static levels for most of their careers.

Cheers


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 3, 2006)

For me the sweet spot is actually pretty big -- levels 2 through about 13 or so.  I do appreciate having the info on higher level spells and monsters, though -- they can be an important part of plot building and world building.  It's handy to know that a "wish" or a "demon prince" can be part of the game (and how it works, mechanically) even if they don't directly intersect with the PCs abilities or encounters.  I think as long as my players know that I will not be running the game through the higher levels, but on a more limited scale, and as long as they don't mind, I can play with D&D as it is and not worry about the high end.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Aug 4, 2006)

Lanefan said a lot of what I was going to say....  except, more specifically than I was going to say it...  I think that point of ruiniation of the sweet spot got hit upon right in the original conversation...  That being those specific spells (teleport, commune, fabricate, raise dead, and some others) that make you (the DM) change the way that you prepare for the game.  Changing the way that thos specific spells are handled (either when they become available, or how they work) could go a long way towards maintaining the sweet spot in the D&D...

Between 3.0 and 3.5 they already made an attempt to do this with teleport by giving it a per caster level range.  They also changed disintegrate from a save or die to a save or take a butt-load of damage.  More changes along these lines could be helpful for some of the spells.  Others may have to be chucked entirely.  Of course, I don't really have any specific, or helpful, ideas as to how these problem spells could be changed to make them less problematic...  or even a surefire way as to how to identify those spells...

And...  I'm not even talking about reducing the pervasiveness of magic... or its power level...  or what have you.  Most of the spells, particularly those that will have a direct and immediate effect on an encounter (that is, direct damage, battlefield control, and other 'power' spells), can be left just as they are...  It is only those few spells that have been identified as trouble-makers and maybe a few more that are as-yet unidentified that need to be changed at all.

Later
silver


----------



## Treebore (Aug 4, 2006)

I know you don't want to hear this, but I solved most of the problems brought up in this thread by switching to Castles and Crusades. However, I like grim n gritty and save or die spells, so those are still there in my C&C games.

Some things I realize need to happen to balance out higher level play, and maybe in turn extend the sweet spot, is to get rid of straight out immunities. Change it to a DR type of system. Limited to one point of DR/character level.

Eliminate immunity to poisons. At higher levels poison is pretty much just a temporary nuisance anyways. So why make it totally useless by allowing immunity. Don't even use a DR type system for poison.

CAP HD!! Is definitely a needed part of the solution for "balooning" issues.

I see lethality as a very necessary part of keeping the game worth playing, so deadly stays in my games. Its also why you need to get rid of immunities.

Get rid of stat enhancing spells. Those should stay totally under control of the DM and be uncommon to rare.

Accept the fact that if 20th level 9th level spell casters exist in your game it is a HIGH magic game, period. Then run and design your camapign world in a way accepting of this reality. Have lots of high level NPC's. They keep each other in check and from over running the world. They also keep high level PC's in check. You need them, so make and use them.

Plus this allows you to make lots of teleportational dead areas, because you have lots of NPC's, dead and long gone, or alive, creating these areas. Plus make temples sacrosanct. If PC's or NPC's violate the sanctity of holy ground they will have a deific hammer of destruction slam down on them in some manner up to the creative DM. Me? I use nasty holy curses that severely cripple characters, forever.

The only time temples can be invaded/robbed is when holy wars have been declared, passed down from the gods at war themselves. They protect you from the divine curses you would otherwise be hit with.

Anyways, that is some of how to extend the "sweet spot" and deal with power creep. The way I like things to be, anyways.


----------



## Treebore (Aug 4, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> I'll attempt to refrain from making this a pro-high level adventuring argument as per Wulf's request. I acknowledge the game changes significantly from 10th level on. It essentially becomes a supers game from my perspective.
> 
> Here are some solutions/ideas I have contemplated for extending the sweet spot:
> 
> ...





Good ideas, but to address Wulf's overall problem you have to fix the scale of power progression from bottom to top. You can't "fix" the sweet spot without fixing how that range of the "sweet spot" was created in the first place. IE, the rules as a whole.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 4, 2006)

DrNilesCrane said:
			
		

> Just throwing this out there: a part of the difficulty with some of these spells (i.e. teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift) is that they extend the use of magic beyond the short range, tactical (i.e. combat or combat related) to regional/world/multiverse, which eventually defines the game.  A fighter or rogue at 20th level is still affecting his or her immediate area and has abilities relatively easy understand and adjudicate (although with some number creep), vs. a high level caster, which (with the enormous variety of spells and their game defining effects) defines what kind of adventures can be run, how they are run, how the party travels, what happens when they die, etc.




That's a really good observation!


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 4, 2006)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> According to WOTC research, most D&D campaigns don't last for more than 20 sessions. Capping level advancement at 10th level makes sense in this regard. Most campaigns, assuming they start with 1st-level characters, never reach levels 11-20 anyway.




Yes, but levels 11+ are where I want to _play_. The fondest memories I have of gaming are when I was running a 1e game at around 12th level and again at 16th+ level. I enjoy the aspects of higher level play. My frustrations come in when I have difficulty in ajudicating combats and other things when my PCs are only at 6th level in 3e. Part of the problem is that I'm 20 years older and I don't know the rules of 3e forward and back like I did 1e.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 4, 2006)

Re Planeshift:


			
				VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Uh, how is this a travel spell?



The 5-to-500 miles off-target bit is a 3e addition.  1e does not define it; my game is 1e-based, and it's used there as a travel spell by plane-shifting out from one place to another plane, then back to the desired destination.  Sure, it takes 2 castings, but so what.

Lanefan


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 4, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Eliminate immunity to poisons. At higher levels poison is pretty much just a temporary nuisance anyways. So why make it totally useless by allowing immunity. Don't even use a DR type system for poison.




Immunities in general make me twitch.  Everything is damned well immune to something, it seems.  I'd tune down the immunities to just merely resistances in most cases.  I see no reason for a Fire Giant to be utterly immune to Fire, for example.  Resistance 20, sure.  Maybe even higher.  But very few things should truly be immune to stuff.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 4, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> The only time temples can be invaded/robbed is when holy wars have been declared, passed down from the gods at war themselves. They protect you from the divine curses you would otherwise be hit with.




What prompted this? I guess evil religions are major antagonists in your campaign, then?


----------



## Victim (Aug 4, 2006)

DrNilesCrane said:
			
		

> Just throwing this out there: a part of the difficulty with some of these spells (i.e. teleport, raise dead, commune, and plane shift) is that they extend the use of magic beyond the short range, tactical (i.e. combat or combat related) to regional/world/multiverse, which eventually defines the game.  A fighter or rogue at 20th level is still affecting his or her immediate area and has abilities relatively easy understand and adjudicate (although with some number creep), vs. a high level caster, which (with the enormous variety of spells and their game defining effects) defines what kind of adventures can be run, how they are run, how the party travels, what happens when they die, etc.




Is that really true though?  Certainly, a high level fighter or rogue generally doesn't have the strategic capability that a caster does.  However, I think that high powered "mundane" characters also change the strategic situation.  A highly skilled rogue or bard can dig up pretty much any secret, use social skills to amass financial or political power, etc.  Having characters able to chew up frontline army units in a standup fight changes adventures almost as much as high end magic.

Spells are just the most egregious offenders.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 4, 2006)

If you give the players cool things to spend their XP on, you'll have both your cookies system and something that slows down the rate of level advancement.

-blarg


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 4, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Re Planeshift:
> The 5-to-500 miles off-target bit is a 3e addition.  1e does not define it; my game is 1e-based, and it's used there as a travel spell by plane-shifting out from one place to another plane, then back to the desired destination.  Sure, it takes 2 castings, but so what.
> 
> Lanefan




So if it doesn't say you _can't_ choose the exact spot you appear, you can? 
That's crackheaded.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 4, 2006)

Wulf, are we talking 'redesign the game system' here, or 'change the way we play 3E?'

I don't have much for the latter. For the former, you mentioned the idea of stretching out the powers gained at 10th level so you get them at 20th instead, but still having the same number of nifty upgrades at each new level.

Consider the Book of Nine Swords that just came out. You get new tricks and special attacks at each level. You could add 'teamwork abilities,' which wouldn't be amazing on their own, but if you added them to each class, it could add a lot of depth to gameplay as you level up.

Imagine a hypothetical game that goes from 1st level to 5th.

*1st - Young Kid.*
You can only really succeed by teamwork, and only against modest threats (like an orc, or a tiny imp). Spellcasters only get mild utility spells, which only shine in niche situations (like levitate small objects, which is seldom better than just picking them up; or creating light, which seldom is better than just using a torch), and can only use them a few times before expending their power.

*2nd - Everyday Person.*
You're strong enough to handle a modest threat by yourself, or you can work together to handle tougher challenges (like an ogre, or zombies). Spellcasters can use utility spells several times without becoming too strained, and start to be able to actually do things people can't normally do (like levitate themselves, create illusions, or make people resistant to certain attacks), though not often.

*3rd - Local Hero.*
You're a hero in the eyes of normal people. You're strong enough to take on tough threats by yourself, and as a team you can handle mighty foes (like giants) or magical ones (like elementals). Spellcasters can alter reality (charming minds, shapeshifting, shooting lightning), though doing so strains them.

*4th - Famous Bad-Ass.*
You're able to kick the ass of creatures that could terrorize a town of normal people. As a team, you're capable of even slaying a dragon or fighting a demon. Spellcasters  can alter reality with ease, and when necessary can summon magic with permanent effects (reshaping terrain, traveling in an instant what would normally take weeks of hiking, or seeing the future).

*5th - Superhero.*
You wrestle dragons bare-handed, casually discuss prophecies like they're everyday affairs, and don't use doors because you can teleport through walls. You still need teamwork to handle the occasional horde of demonic mind flayers, but the warriors can fell hundreds of warriors, and the mages can control time and space, and even bring back the dead.


I'm sure in each of those categories you could have several stages of power. Or even if you didn't, you could just have a wide variety of abilities to get at each level, X of which must be mastered before you can go to the next level. Like in Boy Scouts, when you had to have X merit badges before you could get Tenderfoot, 2nd Class, 1st Class, Star, Life, or Eagle?


----------



## Treebore (Aug 4, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> What prompted this? I guess evil religions are major antagonists in your campaign, then?





They certainly can be. I generally let the players make a "temple" become their enemy, though. I prefer it when my players set themselves up for death. Besides, I often have "temple wars" going on and off in the background of my campaigns, if they are hanging out in decent sized town/cities.

My campaigns aren't static. It is assumed there are millions of things and events going on around the campaign world that the PC's have nothing to do with. The only way they get any wind of these things is through news and gossip. If they want to get involved in anything they have to decide to look into it.

Otherwise we stick to the module or homebrews story arc. If that means I have an NPC priest ask them to help out a church, that one or two of the PC's belong to, because they are involved in a "holy conflict" with the temple of evilness (insert desired god) and are getting their behinds handed to them, well, thats the fun of a game that takes place in a fluid campaign world.

Stories and adventures just come out of the woodwork on their own. Its another reason I buy so many modules and subscribe to Dungeon magazine. I look at them like reading a newspaper of the news that no one hears about, and decide where it takes place in my campaign world and what other effects it may have.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 4, 2006)

Without drastically changing the game (e.g. spreading out gains so that one level today equals four widely spaced "sub-levels" tomorrow -- but with fewer perks at each sub-level, players may lose interest.  What wizard wants to wait 5 levels to get 2d level spells?)  I see really only a few options:

1.  With player concurrance, reduce XP awards and treasure.  This means you do more adventuring between levels, but you do gain power more slowly.  This can be balanced a bit by allowing players to still make their own magic items, and by adding things (power components, other materials) that can add small increments of capability without being new levels or requiring rebalancing.

2.  Agreeing to dispense with XP, and just gaining a level when everyone feels it is time.  If no one is too greedy with magic, you can adventure forever at whatever your favorite level is.

3.  Restart the campaign at the beginning once you reach the level cap.  You spend more time at low-mid levels if you never play high levels.  

Frankly, I find 1 + 3 to be the best solutions to me -- slowing advancement by the right amount means I'm ready to explore new ideas or a new campaign by the time we start to advance outside the "sweet spot" -- and it still allows the game itself to be built for folks who have different perceptions of what the sweet spot is than I do.


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 4, 2006)

I think I'd keep advancement the same, but limit advancement in any one class to 10th level.  There are good high level spells, though, and casters should retain efficiency at higher levels, so some thought would have to go into that.  Removing damage caps from some spells would help, as might spending lower level spells to metamagic higher level spells.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 4, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> They certainly can be. I generally let the players make a "temple" become their enemy, though. I prefer it when my players set themselves up for death. Besides, I often have "temple wars" going on and off in the background of my campaigns, if they are hanging out in decent sized town/cities.
> 
> My campaigns aren't static.




My thinking was that not being able to destroy temples of enemy gods would make any conflict between temples very static...since the enemy can create food and water and cure disease...


----------



## pogre (Aug 4, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Good ideas, but to address Wulf's overall problem you have to fix the scale of power progression from bottom to top. You can't "fix" the sweet spot without fixing how that range of the "sweet spot" was created in the first place. IE, the rules as a whole.




Not sure I agree with that. I think you can address how the game changes at 10th level by looking at what changes it. The trick of course is still giving the PCs the sense of progression. Further, I think it is possible in a 3E framework. I don't claim to have *the* answer, but I reject that it is not possible.

I will admit I have a slightly different view from Wulf in that I do not like an "end game" that marks the climax of the campaign. I start every campaign off with the high hope that it will last for the next 20 years. Wulf's view may be more mature in that it recognizes inherent problems with progression in a truly open-ended situation - I don't know.

However, where our ideas do meet is extending the "sweet spot" to 20th level. I just do not want to stop the campaign there - he does.

Wulf - I'm still thinking about the mechanics of _flying_ a bit. I will give you a more solid answer on that later. I will admit _flying_ is a spell that used to bother me a lot more than it does now.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 4, 2006)

Ok, I dident read everything, but i read alot of it. 

Anyone read Beserk? no really. If you look at how that story is layed out, it give a good templit for how a 1-20 level game could work. The bbeg is basicly a god, but through sheir will, the PCs fight to live on. Inharently its a low magic level campain. The only caster comes into play many many issues into the story. At first, in the story magic doesent exist. Or atleast out of reach. Then bit by bit demons and magic iteams make thier way into the story. You could look at zod as the first fought monster, but soon after, mega huge Killer deamons the size of large buildings are common place. Basicly its done in the way the story is told. Unatutural creatures become more common place as Grafith slowly opens the the demon world into the real world. 

anyway its worth a read and is excelent for alwayse increaseing the level of combat.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 4, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> An alternative which your questions brought to mind is inspired by the 1e games that we used to play and love. In our games levels 6-9 were probably the sweetest spot.  As you remember, level advancement used to take forever in those days, and the bad news part of that was that it took months and months of gameplay and hundreds of encounters to raise that level.
> 
> But it wasn't that important. Why not?
> 
> ...




I've just thought - another thing that I'd do is completely ditch the 'expected wealth by level' guidelines, and throw out all the flavourless '+2 blah blah' magic items.

That way PC's don't end up with a whole bag of +1 this, +2 that, +2 the other items and instead have their rod of lordly might or staff of fire at levels when they can enjoy using them.

I've recently thrown out the 'expected wealth' guidelines in my own campaign, and just allowed the PCs to find cool and interesting stuff in the adventures, and it has worked out wonderfully (the look on their faces when they realised that they had a ring of 1 wish was tremendous, and the point at which they used it was superb).

Cheers


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 4, 2006)

*Gah...*

Unfortunately, I don't have time to look at all of the new messages since I was reading this thread last night, but I wanted to post this before I have to go.

I was thinking (as on option), that you could split the spells levels into two, weak and strong (thus spells like magic missile, which people argue are too strong, now are in the right spot), and extending the pattern. So, instead of getting 9th level spells at 17th and 18th respectively, wizards and sorcerers would get the weak 6th level spells at 19th and 20th. The 5th level " game breakers " would be pushed back to 15th or 17th level, depending on if they were accounted weak or strong for their level...
Paladins would get their strong 3rd level spells, same with rangers. Also, maybe you could limit attacks to one per round, and only be able to make more using the one extra at -2 (or -5) to both type mechanic. Anyway, that's all for now. I'll check the thread more thoroughly later.
By the way, NPCs could still use normal progression... especially dragons... this would make dragons *really* mean bastards!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 4, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'll also echo what someone else said above-- I think typical high-level D&D play is a genre unto itself, without any familiar literary analog. I think that's why I have such a hard time getting into it.




You might want to give Stephen Erikson a shot.  There's some very good high level play in there.


----------



## philreed (Aug 4, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> 2.  Agreeing to dispense with XP, and just gaining a level when everyone feels it is time.  If no one is too greedy with magic, you can adventure forever at whatever your favorite level is.




What I've been thinking is an advancement system in which you play a number of adventures equal to your current character level and then gain a new level.

So play one 1st-level adventure and you're now second level. Play two 2nd-level adventures and you're now at third level. Repeat.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 4, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> I will admit I have a slightly different view from Wulf in that I do not like an "end game" that marks the climax of the campaign. I start every campaign off with the high hope that it will last for the next 20 years. Wulf's view may be more mature in that it recognizes inherent problems with progression in a truly open-ended situation - I don't know.
> 
> However, where our ideas do meet is extending the "sweet spot" to 20th level. I just do not want to stop the campaign there - he does.




Well, no. To be honest with myself, the reason I want it to stop is because-- _under the current rules_-- by 20th level I have long since passed the point of actually enjoying the game. 

Prolong the sweet spot and I am certainly willing to play indefinitely.

[EDIT/ASIDE: My wife plays in my current game. She keeps asking me when the game "ends." She likes the game from a tactical standpoint, she likes rolling dice, she likes killing monsters and finding treasure. Yet she can't grasp the concept of a game that doesn't end.]

However-- big however-- actually designing a ruleset that is extensible to infinity without breaking is a much bigger task (read: impossible) than designing to a finite end game.

Any kind of system where the "power ups" are additive breaks eventually. 

One might say that it can only work if you flatten the power curve-- but, and this is the reason I started this thread-- there is a point where the curve becomes so flat that the incremental cookie falls below the necessary threshold to maintain (Gamist) player interest.

The only possible solution, an opinion repeated here several times, is to find the apex of that curve and ensure that the game (and the players) matures out of a Gamist experience to a Simulationist or Narrativist experience at the exact right time. Your game might fall apart here. Hopefully it does not.

I'm not _satisfied_ with that answer. I am, at heart, a Gamist, I would like to find a Gamist solution that extends infinitely. I am realizing it doesn't exist.


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 4, 2006)

As far as slowing the pace of the game down but still doling out rewards, I have seen "one feat per level" work out successfully (with some restrictions -- DM is looking for something fun and cool, not something that just adds yeat +2 more to the one trick pony you've been raising since it was a colt).  I have also seen "hero points" used in a similar manner.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 4, 2006)

Another thought.  Just agree to an aribtrary cap like "when the average level of the party is 10th" and then wave the magical "they all become NPCs" wand and have the players roll up new characters, in another part of the gameworld.

The NPCs might be occasionally known, or not.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 4, 2006)

_I asked -- why is 10th level the sweet spot cutoff?_


			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's a good question, one I'd be happy to answer in detail-- unless the question is rhetorical.
> 
> For now I'll just say there are a lot of good reasons (and a lot of d20 design "hints") that point to 10th level, and not just where spellcasters are concerned (though that is a big part of it).



I am interested to hear what these are; i.e., it wasn't just a rhetorical question.



> I think that the existence of these 'game breaking' spells at "end game" is appropriate to the style and feel of the game I want to run.
> 
> I think that the existence of these spells at "mid game" is not appropriate.



Why not? 

Do you want the period from (low level --> mid game) play the same as the period from (mid game --> high level)? Because I will certainly grant you that in baseline D&D, that is not the case.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 4, 2006)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> Yes, but levels 11+ are where I want to _play_.



Me too. So I'm only in this discussion out of morbid curiosity.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 4, 2006)

The cap at 10th level reminds me of the blue Expert Set.  I definitely enjoyed it more than the Companion Set; Expert felt more coherent.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 4, 2006)

Sounds like you want to keep a healthy chunk of power-upping at each level, but want to eliminate binary effects from impeding story-telling.  First level and twentieth aren't that different in that regard:

1st:  "Whoops, greataxe."  This is when hit points don't count for much, and saving throw modifiers are so puny as to make the saving throw mechanic irrelevant.  Anyone being hit in the face with a greataxe at level one is probably going to be out of the combat.

20th:  "Whoops, Baleful Polymorph/Confuse/Wail of the Banshee."  Hit points, while not irrelevant, are so huge at this point that saving throw effects are more useful and game-affecting.

Similarly, with higher levels come other binary effects.  Along with "Oh, you're dead" come "Oh, we're there" and "Oh, she's alive again."

Hit points, traveling, and quests to resurrect party members all have something in common - they extend the story in a way that has continuity, for lack of a better word.  There's something in between 40 hit points and -10; there's something in between the Keep on the Borderlands and the Mines of Chaos, there's something in between the Paladin falling in battle and his body being carried in the back of a cart pulled by galloping horses to the temple of Pelor while the army of orcs batter down the gates to the city.

But there's nothing between alive and Slay Living, there's nothing between being in Verbobonc and suddenly being in the Inner Fane of Tharizdun, and there's nothing between being dead and then being slapped on the shoulder by the Pope of St. Cuthbert, who coincidentally happens to be your adventuring companion, and whose Asmodeus-concussing just got interrupted by your inconvenient death. ("Dude, you took time away from my buffing!")

During the "sweet spot," hit points are relevant and the loss of them is scary and suspenseful, making saving throws is suspenseful, travelling is a story, and death is something to be feared, but isn't completely insurmountable.

Don't make it take longer to level, just try to make hit points more relevant, saves more relevant, travel more relevant, and death more relevant.  Consider nerfing spells such as Confuse (make the chance of acting normally a higher percentage) and Slay Living (maybe it hacks off 50% of the target's HP this round, and the other 50% the next, with a cool-looking purple lightning bolt connecting the caster's hand and the target), assign quests to resurrections (*"Bring Us Hextor's Umbrella Rack,"* intones the Solar assistant to Heironeous, *"We Shall Into It Insert An Amusing Device.  Upon Completion, We Shall Bring Your Barbarian Back To The Realm Of The Living.  Again."*), or make it so that Wizards can only teleport once a day and are exhausted after doing so.  Maybe Flesh to Stone takes five rounds to finish, with a more debilitating effect each round, and is stopped by the death of the caster.  

And I wouldn't make it so that you only get new hit points at fifth level, but new spells at sixth, IMO.  That may work for others, but I'd feel cheated as a player myself.


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 4, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> ...One might say that it can only work if you flatten the power curve-- but, and this is the reason I started this thread-- there is a point where the curve becomes so flat that the incremental cookie falls below the necessary threshold to maintain (Gamist) player interest...




Let's approach this from a different tack. This is one of those "all about Wulf" threads (though your sentiments and mine are very, very similar), so I want to get some info before tackling things more head on.

Think back to 1e for me - where exactly did the level cookies get small enough for you to no longer be interested as a Gamist?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 4, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> Wulf's view may be more mature...




Whoa.  Never thought I'd read that!


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 4, 2006)

Wulf said:
			
		

> I'm not satisfied with that answer. I am, at heart, a Gamist, I would like to find a Gamist solution that extends infinitely. I am realizing it doesn't exist.




I think those two things are irrevocably at odds.  A Gamist, at heart, wants to 'win'.  RPG players either have to 'grow' (and I don't mean this pejoratively) out of that mindset, resolve themselves to endless repetition (eg Diablo or WoW), or watch the power curve get so out of hand that the game falls apart (Rifts).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 4, 2006)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Let's approach this from a different tack. This is one of those "all about Wulf" threads (though your sentiments and mine are very, very similar), so I want to get some info before tackling things more head on.
> 
> Think back to 1e for me - where exactly did the level cookies get small enough for you to no longer be interested as a Gamist?



 I was never _really_ a player in 1e. DM only. 

Not that that stopped me from playing "solo" and just rolling up random dungeons, combats, and treasure.

Although, even with players, that was often all there was to it. 

In those days I don't think I/we measured success by character advancement, per se, but on how many of the old modules were completed.

So, essentially, the campaign was over when the characters advanced beyond the highest level of any of the dungeons I owned (with the top end being either Queen or Tomb).

I don't really think it's all that useful to benchmark my desires as a player now to what engaged me when I was 10, 12, 16...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 4, 2006)

we used to play with a system of giving everyone 3 rolls for hd. you pick the highest. all monsters and enimies get 3=d4 4=d6 6=d8 8=d10 10=d12. It made combat last longer and high level play wasent too bad. at high level thier were never one bbeg. he alwayse had backup.


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 5, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I was never _really_ a player in 1e. DM only.
> 
> Not that that stopped me from playing "solo" and just rolling up random dungeons, combats, and treasure.
> 
> ...




Fair enough - I know I didn't really have a style that "gelled" until well into the 2e days. So, let's skip forward to there: how did you measure a successful campaign in 2e? Was it the same as today? Different? How?


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 5, 2006)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> If you take a look at the essence of the "challenge" in D&D, it basically boils down to bigger numbers.  The players get bigger mods so the "challenges" have to as well and vice versa.
> 
> But if the increase in challenge is a linear progression throughout the lifetime of the characters and/or campaign, i.e., the "challenge" is the same regardless of the level of the characters, why is there a need to make the numbers so cumbersomely high?



I'm not sure that _higher_ numbers are the problem.  Many people have noted how quickly _Mutants & Masterminds_ plays, for instance, and there the characters are all superheroes.  In D&D, high-level characters don't simply have higher numbers; they have _more_ numbers.


			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> In high-level play, the numbers are much larger overall so the game plays slower.  Also, with spells that Wulf mentioned, it becomes more difficult to preserve story elements or even maintain certain plots.  For example, just read the outlines of the three Adventure Paths.  They all invariably end up with the characters plane-hopping and teleporting as story arcs.



Yes, certain spells fundamentally change the flavor of the game and render "normal" plots meaningless.  Eliminate them from your next campaign.

Redefine -10 hp to be _gravely wounded_ rather than _dead_, and rename _raise dead_ to _cure grave wounds_, and you get around the "easy resurrection" problem.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 5, 2006)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> Fair enough - I know I didn't really have a style that "gelled" until well into the 2e days. So, let's skip forward to there: how did you measure a successful campaign in 2e? Was it the same as today? Different? How?




Hmm. It's been a while. 

I was running a game for college buddies. And I know I wasn't really using the 1e adventures all that much. 

I don't remember much but two things occur to me:

1) Nobody ever really got "bored" with the campaign...

2) ... despite the fact that I think 2e provided fewer regular cookies.

But then I don't really remember much about the campaign(s).

The only truly memorable experience was running Tomb of Horrors concurrently with another DM at another table on the other side of the room. When you died at one table, you moved over to the other table to keep playing... And we were competing with each other to kill off the one annoying player that nobody wanted at their table.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 5, 2006)

I don't know if I could seperate out style from circumstance.  In 1e, we played largely at lunch with a bunch of schoolmates who didn't really associate outside of school.  That really lent itself to the 'run a module' style of play.  Sometimes players kept characters from module to module, sometimes they dropped one to play something different.   Outside of school, we tended to system hop *a lot*.  A game would stay on the radar for a few months, then we'd get bored or someone would get really psyched about some new system, and we'd start over anew.  

In college, we gravitated to something more recognizeable as a 'campaign', but that was because we all lived in the same dorm and could get togther to play more often and for much longer at a sitting.  The environment promoted continuity.  We still system-hopped, but it became easier to run multiple campaigns at once, so that became less disruptive, too.

*sniff* Now I'm getting all weepy and nostalgic for the good old days, when we waited with baited breath for the next module release. *sniff*

I wonder how much real-time pacing plays into the cookie situation.  If its 13 encounters between 'cookies', the cookies seem more 'fresh' (to stretch a metaphor) if you're gaining them every 2 weeks realtime instead of every 2 months.

The system we stuck with longest in junior high/high school was SPI''s old DragonQuest, where XP was awarded per every four hours of play-time.  The game's advancement system left a lot to be desired in retrospect, but it kept the cookies coming at a regular pace without being overly reliant on combat encounters.


----------



## pogre (Aug 5, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, no. To be honest with myself, the reason I want it to stop is because-- _under the current rules_-- by 20th level I have long since passed the point of actually enjoying the game.
> 
> Prolong the sweet spot and I am certainly willing to play indefinitely.
> 
> I'm not _satisfied_ with that answer. I am, at heart, a Gamist, I would like to find a Gamist solution that extends infinitely. I am realizing it doesn't exist.




I guess that's where I was trying to indicate our divergence. All I meant was as long as the sweet spot is there - you're in. I'm willing to play on....

I am willing to sacrifice some of the playability of the game to keep it going - even when the basic gameplay changes significantly.

One of the reasons I came into 3E from WFRP was the ceiling characters always seemed to hit in WFRP. You spend about 3,000 XP in WFRP and that's about all you could do. My players never seemed ready to let go of their characters, but even they could see the writing on the wall and we had numerous retirements. I have some grand schemes about huge campaign arcs taking years to play, but I too am finding a new kind of ceiling in D&D. Really its the sweet spot you are discussing here.

Honestly, I'm starting to believe hitpoints is one of the big culprits.

But, you could be right - it may not be solvable.


----------



## Eltharon (Aug 5, 2006)

I think HP is the biggest problem, easily. Magic can be "capped", so to speak. Limit raise dead to suitably epic moments, limit teleport, whatever, but HP are much more ingrained in thr system. And there comes a point where the only adventure that will make the 250 HP fighter (i've seen it. Dr 17/- as well) actually try is one that involves fighting dragons and pit fiends. And that gets old.
Unfortunatly, I have no idea how to solve the problem other then cutting severly down on HP progression after level one.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 5, 2006)

As some will remember, in early editions of the game HD were capped.


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 5, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> ...I don't remember much but two things occur to me:
> 
> 1) Nobody ever really got "bored" with the campaign...
> 
> ...




OK - based on this, I can see a few conclusions (you'd have to ask yourself a few more questions to narrow it down further):

1) Your 2e campaign(s) never left the sweet spot for the game.
2) The criteria you use to identify a rewarding RPG experince is different today than it was then.
3) 2e was a better game than 3e for your playing style.

There are, of course, others, but that's a start. To get more specific, I think you'd need to ask yourself questions like "when exactly was the first time I felt dissatisfied with my 3e experience (what level, adventure, etc - I imagine it was during your namesake's adventures through the first adventure path, but when?)," and "what levels did we rise to in 2e?"

Personally, my hunch is that you (like me) yearn for the days of name level, where teleporting, raising the dead, and killing with a word were truly pillar shaking events and PC advancement ground to a slow crawl, but you just don't know it yet.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 5, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm starting to believe hitpoints is one of the big culprits.




I've felt that way for years, and its one area in which I think 3e went the wrong way.  More HPs with stagnant damage leads to longer and eventually interminable fights.  Static HP with increased character capabilities leads to TPKs or pushover fights.  Increasing HP drastically and increasing character capabilities keeps fights manageable but increases the complexity and the variability.

There is an inverse curve between level and character vulnerability iI think, and there is another line that represents character capabilities.  The sweet spot lies around the intersection of the two, at the point where characters are neither liable to die in one swing, nor able to laugh while they jump off the 200' cliff.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 5, 2006)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> OK - based on this, I can see a few conclusions (you'd have to ask yourself a few more questions to narrow it down further):
> 
> 1) Your 2e campaign(s) never left the sweet spot for the game.
> 2) The criteria you use to identify a rewarding RPG experince is different today than it was then.
> 3) 2e was a better game than 3e for your playing style.






> I don't know if I could seperate out style from circumstance.




That has more of a ring to it.

I also just realized that in 1e, Wizards were about the only class with significant power advancement beyond 13th.


----------



## Victim (Aug 5, 2006)

I don't think the problem is HP.  HP means you won't die quickly vs weak attacks, but you still can lose.  Or, if healing is a non trivial problem, then you can win but take problematic amounts of damage.  AC or DR are the real culprit, once characters have reached enough HP that a lucky shot or two isn't crippling - which most characters have at the mid levels we're discussing, unless they're templated or something.  But those stats determine whether or not foes can feasibly hurt the character.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 5, 2006)

Gumby said:
			
		

> But there's nothing between alive and Slay Living, there's nothing between being in Verbobonc and suddenly being in the Inner Fane of Tharizdun...




How in the Nine Hells are your PCs going to get a view of the inner sanctum of an evil temple...that isn't under Forbiddance?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 5, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> How in the Nine Hells are your PCs going to get a view of the inner sanctum of an evil temple...that isn't under Forbiddance?



_Forbiddance_ doesn't get enough publicity.

I would be surprised if most published adventures even mention it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 5, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> _Forbiddance_ doesn't get enough publicity.
> 
> I would be surprised if most published adventures even mention it.




Thanks for reminding me, Wulf. As we speak I'm slotting that into the GenCon game I'll be running.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 5, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> How in the Nine Hells are your PCs going to get a view of the inner sanctum of an evil temple...that isn't under Forbiddance?



Just grabbin' examples in general that people can relate to, even if the rules aren't exactly right in this case.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 6, 2006)

I'm loving this topic...

From my perspective, to Wulf and Glassjaw there's a VERY important question we need to know the answer to first.  

How much do you want/are you willing to change the game?

Even something as simple as "can't go more than one level in a arcane/divine casting class per two levels" has profound ramifications to all kinds of villians, encounters, treasures, magic item values, and a sweeping impact to the CR/EL system.  (I love the idea, btw.)

I also concur that you've nailed a few of the key components of "game changers":

1) Ability to defy current laws of physics - shift planes, teleport, fly, levitate, etc.
2) Ability to define absolute truth - commune, divination, locate, irreconilably high skills
3) Ability to dismantle a character in one blow - poison, petrification, paralysis, unconsciousness, death
4) Ability to achieve absolutes - mordenkainen's, immunities, anti-, etc.

These are great examples of the constraints of high level 3.x D&D.  In addition, I would add to that list: 
1) Complexity of determining actions
2) Complexity of determining modifiers
3) Complexity of determining resolutions


----------



## ashockney (Aug 6, 2006)

*Simplest Changes*

Very different levels of impact can be had on the game.  If you want to try to save your 3.x game and expand your sweet spot, consider the following:

1) Give the players something to focus on from 10th to 20th that is NOT character development - ie, reputation, prestige, a stronghold, a dynasty, a legacy - in doing so, reduce the "scope" of your game by an enormous magnitude...do NOT make it a requirement to go to plane-hopping madness to encounter challenges and be challenged.  

2) Using the "arms race" approach, for every action you must develop and implement an equal and more powerful reaction.  As it relates to the list of "issues" posted above, your higher level opponents and players must have access to effective counter measures:

a) defy physics - high level area spells and effects that prevent effects
b) divine truth - high level skills, spells, abilities, and tactics that prevent this from happening (think high level mob bosses)
c) dismantle in one blow - ready access to life saving measures that negate these one-shot kill effects (see Deathguard from 2nd Edition)
d) absolutes - this one is a tough one to get around, however, I'd recommend feats and abilities that allow you to reduce immunities to high resistances

Doing these things will "change" your game, but extend your sweet spot.  It will require some work on your part and your players, but will offer a richer, more rewarding game for longer.  If you'd like some more specific details, I've done some of all of the above, and run two campaigns using/playtesting some ideas I've listed here.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 6, 2006)

*4ed recommendations*

To truly improve the core mechanics behind the game, and change the design with an eye towards improving gameplay and expanding the sweet spot for all of the "common man" gamists out there, I'd recommend the following:

All physics defying should be greatly increased in cost (higher levels), and reduced in effect (less duration, less confidence, less versatility).

All "information" gathering should become significantly less absolute and more on the 3.x developed method of: four levels of information that can be gained...(DC15, 20, 25, 35)

There should be very, very low (5% - 10% per campaign) chance of an instant character death effect in the game.

Rid the game of all absolutes.

In addition, to truly expand the sweet spot you need to:

Make all actions at all levels reserved to no more than two decisions and one die roll, period.

Combine "conditions" into levels of condition as demonstrated by each of the following categories that shape each combat action:
CONFIDENCE (MORALE+PREPAREDNESS)
READINESS (ABILITY+BELIEF)
AWARENESS (CONSCIOUS+SENSE)
CAPABILITY (OBSTACLE+ENGAGEMENT)
ADVANTAGE (ENVIRONMENT+SUPPORT)
TACTICS (MOVEMENT+ACTION)
TALENT (EQUIPMENT+SKILL)

Everything in the game can be rolled up into things that simply shift these 7 categories up or down that scale, and that ultimately would determine the outcome of each tactical decision (along with some random component).  This may be hard to understand without further explanation, but if you've ever played high level gaming, you will appreciate and understand that building a game where all skills, abilities, actions, environments, spells, feats, talents, all relate to one of 35 to 70 very specific conditions, and very clearly how they interact with each other is far superior to what we have today.

Doing these two things would solve all the problems of the existing high level game and make the sweet spot capable of growing to 20th level (easily) and possibily well beyond.

It will also take a complete fundamental re-write/overhaul of the entire engine that runs the game.

While you're in there tinkering, if I might add, I'd throw in one more pretty critical recommendation.  I think the focus  of the game (particularly at higher levels) would be FAR better served limiting the amount "combat" cookies you get, and supplementing them instead with what I'll call "legacy" cookies.  What makes a character immortal in this fantastic game we play?  The lengths by which their accomplishments can be measured.  There is no means (perhaps beyond gold pieces acquired), to measure such deeds today, outside of combat.  As anyone who has been a manager knows, having the resources, and doing something worthwhile with them is half the challenge, and so it should be for these characters.  An entire game-subsystem could and should be developed around wealth,  property, resources, knowledge, technological advancement, reputation, influence, allies, followers, strongholds, and kingdoms.  Think Settlers of Catan, Age of Empires, etc.

Now we're talking about a complete different "range" both in time and in "class levels" for a sweet spot to this fine brand.


----------



## green slime (Aug 6, 2006)

> 1. Maintain the challenge as the players progress without "numbers bloat".




Address this through tighter control of which modifiers are available, have a stricter control of what provides which kind of modifier, and keep them low. (basically fewer modifiers, lower numbers, logical progression).



> 2. Provide rewards to the players that don't necessarily just increase the numbers.




?? You can do this already?? Levels add numbers, while roleplaying provides other non-numeric benefits: associates, friends, land, deeds, titles, prestige. Do we need to have this broken down into rules? Surely that is counter to what you are trying to achieve?



> 3. Keep the numbers in check so they don't restrict the flow and pace of the game.




See point 1 above



> 4. Make the game easier for the DM to run but not over-simplified so as to limit his options.




See point 1 above.



> 5. Allow the DM to advance the story arc as the characters advance without being forced to deal with certain "campaign-changing" spells, powers, abilities, etc.




Basically, I made certain changes IMC, but I'm not certain about which spells and powers you think are campaign-changing. The presence of _everburning torches_ changes the flavour of a campaign.

Anyhow I made the following changes:
Removed or drastically altered all _raise dead_ type spells.
_Teleport_ spells are reduced in range, so it doesn't provide cross-continental travel. 
There are spells to counter teleport, and so it isn't such a mundane exercise.
_Shadow walk_ is now utilised (dangerous as it is), as are boats.
_Fly_ and _invisibility_ spells are drastically increased in spell level.
Removed the Ethereal plane.

Made it much more difficult to attain bonuses to skills via magic. DnD as is reduces the rogue to a sneak attack machine.

Reduced the number of spells providing bonuses overall, and made them more logical, and less stacking.

I made these changes because, I wanted to have a campaign where traditionally fantastic elements still remained achievable, (flight, invisibility, teleportation), and yet were not commonplace.

The basic problem ("without being forced to deal with certain "campaign-changing" spells, powers, abilities") being highly subjective, and as people's solutions vary wildly, we are left with just that: being forced to deal with camapaign-changing spells. Just because these spells are so very powerful, and affect people's understanding of the campaign world. Yet no one can agree on just how powerful, just what limitation, just how common, they should be.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 6, 2006)

ashockney said:
			
		

> As anyone who has been a manager knows, having the resources, and doing something worthwhile with them is half the challenge, and so it should be for these characters.  An entire game-subsystem could and should be developed around wealth,  property, resources, knowledge, technological advancement, reputation, influence, allies, followers, strongholds, and kingdoms.  Think Settlers of Catan, Age of Empires, etc.




You mean like Birthright?


----------



## pogre (Aug 6, 2006)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> You mean like Birthright?




Although the execution never thrilled me, I'm a big fan of the core ideas behind birthright.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 7, 2006)

Still waiting to hear about the game design clues that 10th level is the "sweet spot", per Wulf.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Still waiting to hear about the game design clues that 10th level is the "sweet spot", per Wulf.




10th level is not the sweet spot. By 10th level you've moved out of the sweet spot and you should be ready for the campaign's climactic conclusion.

Anyhow, here are the clues:

1) d20 Modern caps at 10th level.

2) Melee: BAB caps at 2 attacks/round (last gasp of an older cap). BAB "jumps" in relevance every 5 levels, so it's natural to look for break points on the 5's. 5th level is too low; 15th level is too high. 

3) Magic: 5th level spells are the first appearance of campaign-changing spells-- knowlege, travel, save or die, and raise dead.

4) Certain modifier caps at +10 (skills, magic weapons, caster level, etc.). Combined with the d20 system and the upper end of "reasonable" DCs. The higher the modifier, the less significant the d20 roll. 

And #4 ties back to #1-- it's something they figured out during the design of d20 Modern that they really should have applied to D&D, in my opinion. You can't (or shouldn't) simply keep raising the DCs at the same rate as the PCs, for the purpose of keeping the random d20 roll significant. The DCs for "easy" or "difficult" or "nigh impossible" should be fixed in place. The task doesn't change-- the PCs change. You shouldn't be sliding the DCs at the same time that the PCs are advancing. 

And, for the most part, D&D does this-- the DCs for certain tasks that are set down in the skill descriptions, for example, are fixed. But you will very often see adventures where the DCs of some tasks (Search, Disable Device, Open Locks-- monster AC!) are inflated simply because it is a higher level adventure.

You shouldn't do that.

But you also shouldn't let the modifiers to the d20 roll invalidate the randomness of the roll. 

D&D sees this problem and comes down on the side of sliding the DCs to keep the d20 roll relevant. 

Obviously I think a better solution to keep the roll relevant is to cap the modifiers.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 7, 2006)

Good insight, Wulf.

I think the skill system is the most 'broken' thing in 3ed for that and other reasons.  There is a bad combination of class skill lists, cross-class costs, cross-class caps, and low skill point allocation I think.  The scaling DCs are part of it, too.  It tends to reinforce the mindset that says you have to keep certain skills maxed at every level, and classes that don't have lots of skill points, or that have crucial skills as cross-class, are doomed to fall behind.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Anyhow, here are the clues:
> 
> 1) d20 Modern caps at 10th level.
> 4) Certain modifier caps at +10.



Those are strong clues, I agree.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> 2) Melee: BAB caps at 2 attacks/round (last gasp of an older cap).
> 3) Magic: 5th level spells are the first appearance of campaign-changing spells-- knowlege, travel, save or die, and raise dead.



These however are not strong clues, to me. 

For BAB to generate iterative attacks in a sensible way, it must do so on an integer that divides evenly into 20. The only choices are 2, 4, 5, and 10. I think the designers were right to go with the iteration at 5, rather than 10, because waiting to be 11th level before you get two attacks per round is not enough of a cookie for the melee classes.

Iteration at 2 would be ridiculous, and iteration at 4 is not sufficiently different from 5 to justify the extra attack per round coming into play at lower levels.

Regarding 5th level spells, they were ported over from 1e/2e, so I don't think the fact that they are 5th level is anything other than a historical artifact. Unless you would like to argue that the design of OD&D considered 5th level spells the appropriate level at which to introduce game-changing effects. Which would be an interesting argument to make, and relatively easy to verify (with Col Playdoh).



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You can't (or shouldn't) simply keep raising the DCs at the same rate as the PCs, for the purpose of keeping the random d20 roll significant.



It depends upon the kind of game you want to design. If you want to design a game in which the PCs eventually become as powerful as demigods, then the PCs *should* be able to automatically succeed at tasks with normal-level DCs -- i.e. the PCs should eventually have so many plusses (from skill ranks, ability scores, and magic) that the d20 roll *is* rendered irrelevant.

If you want to design a game in which the PCs are consistently faced with skill challenges that they have roughly a 50% chance to overcome, then the DCs need to scale up to keep the d20 roll meaningful.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And, for the most part, D&D does this-- the DCs for certain tasks that are set down in the skill descriptions, for example, are fixed. But you will very often see adventures where the DCs of some tasks (Search, Disable Device, Open Locks-- monster AC!) are inflated simply because it is a higher level adventure.



Then that is bad adventure design, not bad game design.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But you also shouldn't let the modifiers to the d20 roll invalidate the randomness of the roll.



Again, it depends upon what kind of game you're designing.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Regarding 5th level spells, they were ported over from 1e/2e, so I don't think the fact that they are 5th level is anything other than a historical artifact. Unless you would like to argue that the design of OD&D considered 5th level spells the appropriate level at which to introduce game-changing effects. Which would be an interesting argument to make, and relatively easy to verify (with Col Playdoh).




Feel free. I think it's self evident. 5th level spells were available at 9th level-- "Name Level." That was very clearly the point of apotheosis for the PC heroes.

Just to reiterate, I didn't mean to imply before that 10th level was the sweet spot. 10th level is the cap. I wouldn't want post-apotheosis play to last very long, but I certainly wouldn't deny it to the players.



> It depends upon the kind of game you want to design. If you want to design a game in which the PCs eventually become as powerful as demigods, then the PCs *should* be able to automatically succeed at tasks with normal-level DCs -- i.e. the PCs should eventually have so many plusses (from skill ranks, ability scores, and magic) that the d20 roll *is* rendered irrelevant.




No, the problem with D&D is that it is basically designed to satisfy the needs of probability and the needs of verisimilitude simultaneously-- _up through the sweet spot._

It's just that at high levels, that mechanic is broken.

A 6th level character has 9 ranks, probably +3 from ability score, and we'll give him a random +4 from either circumstance bonuses, magic items, tools, enhancement spells/items to his ability score, and miscellaneous skill boosters. 

Bottom line, I don't think it's unusual for a mid-level character to hit +15 with a "primary" skill check. It can slide back and forth a little bit based on other modifiers and as he levels through the sweet spot (5th-8th, in my opinion).

We have plenty of skills that are "pre-defined" as difficult in the DC25-30 range. Traps, locks, secret doors. Low-level characters can still hit these DCs by being lucky (or taking 20). High-level characters will hit them with more ease and/or regularity.

But the core game is pretty clearly pre-defined with a bias to the sweet spot.

Design Side Note[sblock]
It bugs me that I generally think of essential skills only in terms of the rogue. Does anybody really ever worry whether the cleric can hit DC25 Heal checks? The wizard and a DC25 Knowledge check? There need to be more "essential" skills for non-rogue classes. Either that, or ditch the whole system. 

Rodrigo also mentioned that the current system forces characters to max the essential skills. I don't think you can change that. 

Players will max skills, and giving them more skill points just means they'll max more skills. They won't spread them out.

So perhaps a better skill system would just give the PC a choice of skills that are always maxxed to his class level. Cut out the middleman.

I know-- choice is good. Even if it's just an option for a player to make a sub-par choice.

End of diversion.[/sblock]



> If you want to design a game in which the PCs are consistently faced with skill challenges that they have roughly a 50% chance to overcome, then the DCs need to scale up to keep the d20 roll meaningful.




What I _don't_ want is a game that has to change the underlying mechanics in order to accomodate high-level play.

High-level D&D just doesn't scale realistically. Or satisfactorily. 



> Again, it depends upon what kind of game you're designing.




I'm not sure, but I think we were designing a game that preserves the sweet spot.[/snark]


----------



## green slime (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'm not sure, but I think we were designing a game that preserves the sweet spot.[/snark]




But as we don't agree where or when this semi-mythical "sweet spot" occurs, how are we going to achieve that?


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 7, 2006)

You can steal the primary and secondary skills idea from Shadowrun if you want to broaden characters.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

green slime said:
			
		

> But as we don't agree where or when this semi-mythical "sweet spot" occurs, how are we going to achieve that?




Who's the "we" you're talking about?

If you aren't part of the consensus shown in this thread-- if the sweet spot is mythical to you-- find a different thread. 

Pretty sure I made that clear in the first post.

EDIT: Pardon the "attitude" on display there. It's not meant to be that snarky, just that I think the "sweet spot" and a desire to prolong it is a pre-requisite to this thread. Your "semi-mythical" comment rattled me and made me overlook the fact that we can reasonably differ on where the sweet spot is. Hope that's clearer.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Rodrigo also mentioned that the current system forces characters to max the essential skills. I don't think you can change that.




It's not the maxxing per se that's the problem.  I don't care if a rogue wants to be the best lockpicker in the universe.  It's the disparity between max that results from other factors that becomes problematic at higher levels, IMO.

At a certain point, DMs have to decide whether or not certain skill checks become irrelevant.  If you put a DC 30 Trap in a room, you're requiring a rogue of a certain level to disarm it, or placing it with the de facto intention of ensuring the party sets it off, because no secondary character (even a bard) is going to have the skill level necessary.  So it boils down to 'put trap in, rogue automatically succeeds' or 'put trap in, it goes off' because no one else can substitute.  Hence, the skill check becomes irrelevant.

Spot checks are the same way -- if you have it as a class skill, it's maxed, it it's not a class skill, after a certain point don't bother wasting skill points on it cause you'll never see the Xth level rogue that has hide as a maxxed class skill.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> At a certain point, DMs have to decide whether or not certain skill checks become irrelevant.  If you put a DC 30 Trap in a room, you're requiring a rogue of a certain level to disarm it, or placing it with the de facto intention of ensuring the party sets it off, because no secondary character (even a bard) is going to have the skill level necessary.  So it boils down to 'put trap in, rogue automatically succeeds' or 'put trap in, it goes off' because no one else can substitute.  Hence, the skill check becomes irrelevant.




Heh heh... DDO much?   

That's a very good post, though-- the kind of thinking that needs to be done on a very basic design level. It's a high-altitude view of the design. (As an aside, I think Mearls does a lot of thinking on this level.)

But to your DC30 problem-- I think this is the very definition of the sweet spot. A properly designed sweet spot ensures that there is no point _on the curve of the sweet spot_ at which something is an automatic success or failure. At the far ends of the curve (1st-2nd or 9th-10th) you would approach automatics.


----------



## Markn (Aug 7, 2006)

Sorry to jump in (and in some part this message is not related to the current discussion that is going on) but this is in response to the original post of extending the "sweet spot" of D&D.

I think there are two ways of extending the sweet spot.  One is campaign design, the other is rules/mechanics/options in the game.

For the first part, I really feel that the original dungeons and dragons (with the basic, expert, companion, master and immortal boxed sets) had one of the best campaign designs ever created.  Levels 1 - 3 were dungeon crawls, levels 4 - 13 ( I can't remember the exact level breakup so don't quote me on this part) were more dungeons/outdoor adventure, levels 14 - 20 were about attaining land and making a difference in the world, levels 21 - 28 were about making a bigger difference in the world and levels 29 - 36 were about becomming imortal (among other things).  The elegance of this system was that a DM had a starting and stopping point for each phase of the campaign.  Challenges seen on lower level were vastly different from higher levels.  It kept the whole campaign fresh during each stage and it tested PC's in ever aspect of their character.  It wasn't just focused on combat, it wasn't just focused on roleplaying, it wasn't just focused on the players being at the bottome of the power level, etc.  In and of itself, it allowed the DM to change the campaign play and challenges he threw at them.  During each "campaign phase" the PCs were at the bottom of the power level and rise to the top of that power level.  For example, in levels 14 -20 they would buy a piece of land, build it up, deal with other owners more powerful than them and then eventually reach equal power with those other land owners.  Then in the next "campaign phase" they would have to work with those same land owners to deal with threats on a country scale and deal with other political issues as well until they mastered that aspect.

In a nutshell, the campaign design allowed the character to reach a certain power level, then put them in a different environment where they were at the bottom of the power level and had to work their way back to the top again and so on and so on.  This made for a sweet spot at all levels of play due to the inherent no power - gain power - top of the power - repeat cycle.

DISCLAIMER - The problem with the above mentioned system is that not all groups wanted to attain similar goals and it would meet everyones playing style.  But lets ignore that for now shall we?!   

Now for the mechanic aspect of the game.  One issue I run into with higher level games is the amount of time required to prepare the game as a DM, particularly if I want a villain who is an NPC and not a monster.  I could spend 2 - 3 hours designing a session and have the PCs fly through the encounter based on something I hadn't anticipated in 10 minutes.  To me that is an issue.  The flip side however is that in 3/3.5 we are experiencing higher level game play more than at any other incarnation of D&D ever before.  This, then, is a testement to the current rules of the game in that they have already extended the sweet spot more than ever before.  

While I have no idea what could be done I like some of the suggestions mentioned by other posters in the thread.  One thing I do think needs to be done is reduce the buffs.  High level buff management is insane (both on the DM and player side).  I think it should be useful up to and including mid level play but beyond that it becomes a real bear to keep track of.

Anyway, that is my 2cp.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I think it's self evident. 5th level spells were available at 9th level-- "Name Level." That was very clearly the point of apotheosis for the PC heroes.



Ah, okay. Now I get it.



> Just to reiterate, I didn't mean to imply before that 10th level was the sweet spot. 10th level is the cap. I wouldn't want post-apotheosis play to last very long, but I certainly wouldn't deny it to the players.



Again, okay. I somehow lost track of the argument and thought that 10th level was the sweet spot. Now I understand -- it's the cap, like the equivalent of 20th level now.



> No, the problem with D&D is that it is basically designed to satisfy the needs of probability and the needs of verisimilitude simultaneously-- up through the sweet spot.
> 
> It's just that at high levels, that mechanic is broken.



I would debate that D&D is designed in any way to achieve verisimilitude (although don't we love to bandy that word about); I think it is designed to achieve the *illusion* of verisimilitude by being just barely plausible enough to conform to real-world constraints. Therefor, I don't see how high level play is any more broken than low level play, in regards to verisimilitude.



> It bugs me that I generally think of essential skills only in terms of the rogue.



As with many such issues in the game, the problem is magic. All non-rogue skills (and eventually, even the rogue skills) can be totally superseded by magic.

Need to stabilize a dying PC? Don't bother with that DC 15 Heal check, just cast _cure minor wounds_. Need to get the scoop on a mysterious enemy? Don't bother with the DC whatever Gather Information check, just cast _commune_ or _contact other plane_ or _legend lore_. Need to Use Rope? Don't bother with the skill, just cast _animate rope_ or _rope trick_ or _levitate_ as needed.

So I think that unless you totally eliminate magic from the game -- in which case I don't think it's recognizably D&D any more -- then skills will always be overshadowed by magic.



> High-level D&D just doesn't scale realistically. Or satisfactorily.



Can you explain what you mean by "scale realistically"? Also, I think that realistically/satisfactorily are two separate (possibly mutally exclusive) goals.



> A properly designed sweet spot ensures that there is no point on the curve of the sweet spot at which something is an automatic success or failure.



The question is, how much randomness is enough or too much? If the PCs always have a 50% chance of success, then some players might think that is too much randomness. So where do you draw the line?


----------



## green slime (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Who's the "we" you're talking about?
> 
> If you aren't part of the consensus shown in this thread-- if the sweet spot is mythical to you-- find a different thread.
> 
> ...




It's semi-mythical, because we can't pinpoint where it occurs, and we can't agree to it either. You point to 5th level spells being the apogee for you and your campaigns. For me, this occurs somewhere around 7th-8th level spells (I strongly dislike _mordenkainen's nuclear disjunction_). 

Why, for instance is a DC30 trap assumed to be some kind of representation for something other than the prerequiste for having a rogue in the party? Without the rogue, the trap is still negotiable, it is just going to consume party resources that are more difficult to replace. This fact is the same whether the trap DC is 10, 30, or 50. Because of the trapfinding class ability restriction on a large case (in the game) of traps, no sane non-rogue character will place skill points in the skill.

I'd like to see a prolonged "sweet-spot", and I'd have to say, of all the ideas presented in this thread, the most conducive to this (IMO), is the now "old" idea of restricting characters to spellcasting levels every other level. Which would mean that, for me, this would extend the game's "playability and enjoyability" into the 30's. 

That in itself might require some forethought, planning, and care regarding Epic level feats  and abilities.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 7, 2006)

*Alt 3*



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Heh heh... DDO much?
> 
> That's a very good post, though-- the kind of thinking that needs to be done on a very basic design level. It's a high-altitude view of the design. (As an aside, I think Mearls does a lot of thinking on this level.)
> 
> But to your DC30 problem-- I think this is the very definition of the sweet spot. A properly designed sweet spot ensures that there is no point _on the curve of the sweet spot_ at which something is an automatic success or failure. At the far ends of the curve (1st-2nd or 9th-10th) you would approach automatics.




If that is the case perhaps the game could benefit from logical caps?  For example 10 BAB, 10 Caster levels, 10 ranks in a skill.  Anything beyond that can be gained but at a ratio closer to 2:1.   As a DM you work within tighter constraints around CR for your monsters, capping out between 10 - 15.  I'd also mess with the party treasures table to keep the player loot more in check, and less of an impact to that curve.

If you simply did these things you could extend the average game out to 20 levels from 10 with very minor adjustments.  

Any comments on this, or my postings on the previous page?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Heh heh... DDO much?
> 
> That's a very good post, though-- the kind of thinking that needs to be done on a very basic design level. It's a high-altitude view of the design. (As an aside, I think Mearls does a lot of thinking on this level.)
> 
> But to your DC30 problem-- I think this is the very definition of the sweet spot. A properly designed sweet spot ensures that there is no point _on the curve of the sweet spot_ at which something is an automatic success or failure. At the far ends of the curve (1st-2nd or 9th-10th) you would approach automatics.




Yeah, I had more on that subject, but a stupid client started bugging me about his website not working.   

I was going to add that 30 is about the sweet spot for end-game at 10th level for challenging test.  A character with it as a maxed cross-class skill can hit it barely -- 20+6 CC ranks + 2 stat + 2 misc or item or whatever.  A character with it as a maxxed class skill will succeed 30% or maybe a little more since the relevant stat, etc. are likely to be higher.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 7, 2006)

I'd just like to chime in as one of the dissenters that 10th level is somehow outside the sweetspot. I've never had a problem with teleport, commune, raise dead or plane shift ruining my game. In fact, sometimes I think the sweet spot starts when these spells come into play. When Wulf mentioned removing or nerfing these spells in an earlier post I got a shot vinegar in my mouth. They are D&D to me and anything that messes with them messes with some of the fun.

My current game has a party of 6 28th level characters and I find making adventurers for them just as fun as I did when they were 3rd level characters. My secret is not to invest as much time in the starting area of the campaign because when 10th level arrives, the game must start to be larger to hold the characters. 

This thread should really be called Preserving the "Small World" Campaign. I agree that below 9th level the world is much smaller than after 9th level. But I disagree that this is in any way the sweet spot for D&D. It is just the sweet spot for Wulf Ratbane (and friends).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Ah, okay. Now I get it.
> 
> Again, okay. I somehow lost track of the argument and thought that 10th level was the sweet spot. Now I understand -- it's the cap, like the equivalent of 20th level now.




Exactly.

And for me, in terms of "apotheosis," the problem is that what should be the climax of the game-- the point at which the heroes have access to powers typically reserved to the gods-- is dragged out from 10th to 20th level.



> Therefor, I don't see how high level play is any more broken than low level play, in regards to verisimilitude.




I'm not having this argument again. It's settled, inasmuch as you're either in one camp or the other by now.



> Can you explain what you mean by "scale realistically"? Also, I think that realistically/satisfactorily are two separate (possibly mutally exclusive) goals.




For the most part, skills increase linearly alongside DCs as the task gets more difficult. 

And for the most part, the top end DC is 30, with some 35's and 40's occasionally. (For comparison, consider using the Climb skill to climb across a slippery overhang from underneath: DC30. That's impressive!)

There are points in the career of the D&D character where your skill _bonus_ doesn't track linearly-- there are big bumps and boosts. For example, your character's first access to a +5 skill item; and again when he finds a +10 skill item. Those are really big bumps.

(And problematic. You'll note that 3.0 didn't even have +5 items; they were all +10. Somebody wiser than me figured out that you really needed to flatten those bumps out a little bit.)

And at high levels, you'll typically rack up a lot of those big bumps-- not just skills, either, but also your BAB, your AC, your saving throws, etc. When they exceed +20, then the panoply of "fixed DC tasks" can become either automatic failures or automatic successes.

The dramatic tension is embodied in the d20 roll.



> The question is, how much randomness is enough or too much? If the PCs always have a 50% chance of success, then some players might think that is too much randomness. So where do you draw the line?




It's not a line, it's a bell curve. (And the bell changes shape and moves from PC to PC and task to task.)

The sweet spot is that portion of the curve that extends from just inside "always succeeds," reaches its apex at "50%", and tapers off on the right side just shy of "always fails."

And no, "1 always fails" and "20 always succeeds" isn't a satisfactory boundary on either end of this bell curve. I believe that's why it _exists_, but I don't believe it's working.

At least, it's not working for me.


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> So perhaps a better skill system would just give the PC a choice of skills that are always maxxed to his class level. Cut out the middleman.




Blue Rose (and True20?) take this approach.  I tried it on my players, but they didn't go for it.  Haven't devoted much thought to a middle ground.

It'd be nice, in a later edition of the game, to see skills integrated better.  Heal might be more useful if it actually restored hitpoints, and cure spells gave a bonus to heal.  Ditto anything that involves hiding, moving silently, finding out information, and so forth.  Some of this is already present (ie jump), but it's haphazard at best.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

ashockney said:
			
		

> If that is the case perhaps the game could benefit from logical caps?  For example 10 BAB, 10 Caster levels, 10 ranks in a skill.




That's what I have been considering.

But it's lazy. Not necessarily any easier or lazier than just removing problematic spells or just pulling the plug on the campaign around 10th level.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I'd just like to chime in as one of the dissenters that 10th level is somehow outside the sweetspot. I've never had a problem with teleport, commune, raise dead or plane shift ruining my game.




Outside the parameters of this thread... however...



> My current game has a party of 6 28th level characters . . .




Some folks have a hard time letting go. It's why we have fanfic.



> This thread should really be called Preserving the "Small World" Campaign.




That's an astute observation. It's more than that-- there are complaints regarding DCs and complexity of play to address, but those are much more readily addressed, I admit, than the "small world" feel.



> I disagree that this is in any way the sweet spot for D&D. It is just the sweet spot for Wulf Ratbane (and friends).




Gosh, I hope not. If everyone who agreed with me was my friend-- given that I'm so very often right-- it would cost me a bundle in birthday cards.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 7, 2006)

I didn't even get Snark(tm) with my Grim Tales order; I'm not holding my breath for a birthday card.

You can have "Big World" without teleport, raise dead, etc.  Harder to have 'Small World' with them, though it's possible with some tweaking.

The problem isn't the spells, it's their ready availability to PCs without cost or consequence.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And at high levels, you'll typically rack up a lot of those big bumps-- not just skills, either, but also your BAB, your AC, your saving throws, etc. When they exceed +20, then the panoply of "fixed DC tasks" can become either automatic failures or automatic successes.



This means to me that the fixed DC tasks should not be fixed. Or they are so beneath a hero's notice that of course he always succeeds. The hero shouldn't need to pick a weak lock after a certain level. It isn't heroic. OTOH, things like diplomacy and tumble should not have fixed DCs. It should not be just as easy for a 1st level rogue to tumble past an orc to avoid an AoO as it is for the same rogue to tumble past Orcus to avoid an AoO. Likewise, making peasents "friendly" through diplomacy should be easier than making Orcus "friendly". This is not a flaw in advancement, it is a flaw in the RAW. The RAW purports to be open ended for all levels of play. Thus all DCs should be opposed rolls or set based on the opponent in some way. The only place fixed DCs should exist is in places were as the characters gain in power success SHOULD become automatic.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I didn't even get Snark(tm) with my Grim Tales order; I'm not holding my breath for a birthday card.




Well maybe you should try being a little more _compliant_ for a change. You know. _When it counts._



			
				jmuchiello said:
			
		

> This means to me that the fixed DC tasks should not be fixed. Or they are so beneath a hero's notice that of course he always succeeds. The hero shouldn't need to pick a weak lock after a certain level. It isn't heroic.




But at the same time, random locks shouldn't suddenly skyrocket to DC45 just because the normal "high quality" DC30 lock is beneath contempt for the hero. It isn't _realistic._



> OTOH, things like diplomacy and tumble should not have fixed DCs. It should not be just as easy for a 1st level rogue to tumble past an orc to avoid an AoO as it is for the same rogue to tumble past Orcus to avoid an AoO.




You've zeroed in on a problem with Tumble and Diplomacy that has long ago been corrected by the player base. I don't know many people who still use unopposed checks for either of these skills.



> Thus all DCs should be opposed rolls or set based on the opponent in some way.




Whenever possible and practical, I agree. 

If I really _needed_ to challenge the party rogue with a DC45 lock, for example, and it was integral to the adventure-- penetrating a gnomish craftsman's lair, perhaps-- then I might set the DC based on the gnomish nemesis' Craft check.

That there exist DC20, DC30, DC35 locks really just means these are typical "craft" DCs achieved by locksmiths of varying skill.

But if I don't cap the Open Locks skill somehow, then eventually I reach one of two points:

1) Locks are made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle.

2) By coincidence, the heroes seem to tackle dungeons full of mastercrafted locks.

#2 is an instance of the world changing to accomodate the hero's existance-- almost the very antithesis of verisimilitude.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 7, 2006)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> The problem isn't the spells, it's their ready availability to PCs without cost or consequence.



And for some people this is not a problem at all.

They do have cost/consequence (mostly)
Raise dead: It's only as easy to cast as it is to find diamond dust. 
Commune: I don't nerf commune but I also tend to litter my campaigns with childish, self-centered, know-little, ancient-Greek-style gods. Sure, commune will get you truthful answers but the gods don't have all the answers and so sometimes you just get the gods true opinion on the matter. 
Plane Shift: Like raise dead, they need to find these tuning forks. Make them rare and PS is rare.
Teleport: I admit, it would be nice if the RAW had more anti-teleport spells besides the 8th level dimension lock.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But if I don't cap the Open Locks skill somehow, then eventually I reach one of two points:
> 
> 1) Locks are made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle.



Bingo. You are correct, sir. Just like road ambushes are meaningless when you can fly, and hide is meaningless when you can be invisible, and walls become obsolete when you can teleport, and hunting for food is meaningless when you have heroes' feast, and find the path makes tracking useless, and on and on. This is the standard complaint made by "low-magic" types. You claim not to be one, but I think you are. You want to play a certain style of campaign that is adversely affected by certain spells. The list of problem spells is similar to the low-magic type complaints (they usually throw in invisibility and fly).

(I'm not saying this in any way to belittle you or anyone else. There's nothing wrong with preferring low magic. Different styles of play are good. But at some point I think "you" should admit that you have a problem with the default magic level of D&D. And when I say you here I'm not referring to any specific poster. Just those that agree with Wulf  )

Picking a lock is neither heroic nor dramatic. Locks should be made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle. Tell me of a legendary story where a lock gets picked?

As players advance, older story templates are cast aside for new ones. Murder mysteries are hosed at 5th level when speak with dead exists. General mysteries go away with divination at 7th level and true seeing drives the nail into the coffin. Travelling the roads from town to town disappears with teleport. Leomunds secure shelter also puts a dent in travel stories. This is just how D&D is. It's how it always was. I played many 1e/2e games into the upper teens levels because that was where the fun spells were.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> This is the standard complaint made by "low-magic" types. You claim not to be one, but I think you are.




I claim not to be a low-magic type? I am sure that would come as a surprise to all the folks who purchased Grim Tales.

I _have_ said that this thread that this is not specifically a low-magic complaint, and it's not.



> But at some point I think "you" should admit that you have a problem with the default magic level of D&D.




And as I said above, I don't have a problem with the default magic level of D&D _up through the sweet spot._ And that's why you have not seen any complaint about invisibility or fly, or the availability of magic items, or alternate spell systems like "spell burn" and so on.

I've completed my low-magic paean, quite successfully if I say so myself. (I am sure my friends will agree.) This thread isn't about that.



> Picking a lock is neither heroic nor dramatic. Locks should be made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle. Tell me of a legendary story where a lock gets picked?




The Fellowship of the Ring.

You know, if I had to pick something iconic and genre-defining.

But you missed the point. I mean "dramatic obstacle" in the sense of "not a forgone conclusion."



> As players advance, older story templates are cast aside for new ones. Murder mysteries are hosed at 5th level when speak with dead exists. General mysteries go away with divination at 7th level and true seeing drives the nail into the coffin. Travelling the roads from town to town disappears with teleport. Leomunds secure shelter also puts a dent in travel stories. This is just how D&D is. It's how it always was.




You obviously haven't been playing it as a Gamist experience. Since the beginning of the thread we've had folks chiming in on how simple it is to fix this problem with D&D if we just change the focus away from the broken mechanics and concentrate on _story_, and I've been saying all along that the point of the _design exercise_ is to fix it within 3rd edition's decidedly Gamist framework.

You've just added another post suggesting to "tell different kinds of stories."

We are not speaking the same language.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 7, 2006)

I think to achieve what you're looking for it just boils down to be willing to push the numbers around (compressing the disparities across the board) and generating your own spell lists to accomodate.

Some suggestions for flattening the differences out...

1. Everyone gets +1 to each ability score every X levels. Dispense with stat boosting magic altogther short of minor/major artifacts. Because of this, X can be a fairly low number (every 3 or even 2 levels). Everyone gets a frequent cookie, disparities are under control.

2. Class based Defense bonus, Armor to DR. Keep the progressions between the classes nice and narrow and all magical enhancements to AC overlap.

3. Tighten up the BAB progressions a little as well as Saves. If you think too many attacks are being made per round, I was toying with the idea once of having a single BAB value for every character. You can make a single attack at this value or make multiple attacks by reducing the BAB by say... 4 for each additional attack. So you could make one attack at BAB +20, or two attacks at +16 each, or three attacks at +12 each, etc. Most won't risk more than a couple attacks per round unless they are very confident (vs mooks for example) and being able to clean them up quickly isn't a bad thing either.

4. Create your own spell list. You know what spells can potentially wreak havok on setting - clean 'em up, bump them up and remove them as you see fit. Sometimes just upping the casting times will prevent a lot of abuse. If teleport took an hour to cast (requiring a freshly prepared magical circle), then you don't have to worry about it's effects in combat. Further, you could add that teleport turns you into a great big glowing ball of light which you can see streaking across the sky towards it's destination. And if major divinations could only be cast on the holy days of your god (1/2 months say or only 1 commune per solstice) that will prevent a lot of abuse too. 

Just my 2 bits.


----------



## A'koss (Aug 7, 2006)

Just throwing some more ideas into the wind...

4. Don't ban resurrection, but have it at a cost. No stat or level penalties. You are now alive only because you are infused with divine energy. A finite supply of divine energy which you will burn out.

5. Skill checks: If there is magic and 240 HP characters in the world then don't be afraid of allowing skills to eventually transcend the mundane. PCs accumulate power in a way that quickly elevates them into "beyond mortal" status - accept it. All mortals have the spark of the divine that can be fanned with dedication (gaining levels). Perhaps allow classes to have more skill points, dump the cross-class skils but allow the skill maestros have a higher limit (4 or 5 ranks more perhaps) and to have access to "transcending the mundane" abilities with skills as they hit the higher levels that other classes cannot hope to accomplish.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 7, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> And for some people this is not a problem at all.
> 
> They do have cost/consequence (mostly)
> Raise dead: It's only as easy to cast as it is to find diamond dust.
> ...




Which, basically, is what we're talking about, just a matter of degree.  I'd prefer such spells to be 'at the speed of plot' as it were; instead (and this is a central tenet of 3e I think), players are encouraged to think of them as entitlements, and that if I don't let them have them, I'm ruining their fun.  Pushing these spells to the end of the curve still lets me introduce them on an ad hoc basis, but I don't have to plan around them, and they don't become common.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 7, 2006)

One thing I always introduce into my home-made campaigns is something stolen from Steven Brust's Dragaeran series of books.

The Morganti Blades.

These are essentially soul-stealing blades, and are used only when you absoultely positively have to have your opponent dead.  No resurrections.

Nodding to the ease of being raised from the dead in DnD with enough resources, the saying goes like this...

If you want to give someone a warning, send in an assassin to kill them.
If you want to really kill someone, send in an assassin with a Morganti Blade.

Of course, all those in power and with resources absolutely despise such things, so the ownership and use of them is highly illegal, probably more so than any other item.  By using Morganti blades in my games I can keep around any PC that died due to a poor roll or bad luck, but if its a cinematic BBEG battle he may be sporting a Morganti blade and then you know this battle is for keeps.

DS


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 7, 2006)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> One thing I always introduce into my home-made campaigns is something stolen from Steven Brust's Dragaeran series of books.




I've been borrowing Morganti blades for years.  I also swiped his 'puke on teleport' too.  Cuts down on the scry/buff/teleport technique if you've got a good chance of puking your guts out for several rounds after you arrive.

(As an aside, the next Vlad book, Dzur, comes out tomorrow!)


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 7, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I claim not to be a low-magic type? I am sure that would come as a surprise to all the folks who purchased Grim Tales.
> 
> I _have_ said that this thread that this is not specifically a low-magic complaint, and it's not.



But I say this thread is a quintessential low-magic complaint thread. You just complain later then most since you can handle invisibility and fly. The low-magic complaint threads also nash their teeth on the evils of teleport, plane shift, raise dead and commune. 

(Once again this is no indictment or finger waggling pomposity. There's nothing wrong with low-magic. I'm just trying to get you to see that all you've done is move the cutoff point for when magic becomes too much for you.)


> And as I said above, I don't have a problem with the default magic level of D&D _up through the sweet spot._ And that's why you have not seen any complaint about invisibility or fly, or the availability of magic items, or alternate spell systems like "spell burn" and so on.



You haven't proven to me that 9th level is past the "sweet spot". I say it stays sweet through to 30th level. In fact, it's somewhat bland before 10th level as compared to after 10th level.


> The Fellowship of the Ring.
> 
> You know, if I had to pick something iconic and genre-defining.



Huh? LOTR has no D&D rogue for whom a lock is beneath him. Which door do you refer to here? My Tolkein-fu is minimal.


> But you missed the point. I mean "dramatic obstacle" in the sense of "not a forgone conclusion."



No, I didn't miss the point. You can have all the dramatic obstacles you like. But when the characters are 20th level. Don't use a locked door for this purpose. Afterall, not only do the locks not stop the thief, but the wizard can passwall, dim door, teleport without error. The cleric can stone shape. And quite frankly, the fighter should be able to shoulder the door if you want a really heroic effect. 


> You obviously haven't been playing it as a Gamist experience. Since the beginning of the thread we've had folks chiming in on how simple it is to fix this problem with D&D if we just change the focus away from the broken mechanics and concentrate on _story_, and I've been saying all along that the point of the _design exercise_ is to fix it within 3rd edition's decidedly Gamist framework.



Gee, I thought I had a rep for being like 90% gamist. I don't see that the game is broken. You do. That is our disconnect. Until you can convince me that teleport, commune, and the rest of the 5th level spells you have a problem with but that I've never had a problem with for 25 years are _supposed_ to sour the game for me, we can't speak the same language.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 7, 2006)

Yeah, I'm going with some version of puke on teleport, I think. Fort save vs. nausea and Will save vs. confusion, with neither effect to last more than 2d6 rounds.

Overkill?


----------



## Mark (Aug 8, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm going with some version of puke on teleport, I think. Fort save vs. nausea and Will save vs. confusion, with neither effect to last more than 2d6 rounds.
> 
> Overkill?





Add in a chance of insanity for overuse of any magic and you've got a winner.  Static magic, like items that don't have one/off powers might also have some long-lasting effects but high level spells should come with a cummulative and progressively higher chance of driving the caster mad as a (tall-pointy) hatter.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 8, 2006)

What impact would it have if you replaced D20s with 3d6 and made all 3 be exploding?
You replace a wide linear range with a skewed bell curve over a wider overall range.

You could pull down high DCs a little and nudge open a window where a secondary character could do the heroic task with a really good roll.


----------



## Eltharon (Aug 8, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Huh? LOTR has no D&D rogue for whom a lock is beneath him. Which door do you refer to here? My Tolkein-fu is minimal.




There are some in The Hobbit, as i recall.
There is, of course, the Dwarven Magic door in FotR, but it doesnt get picked.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 8, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm going with some version of puke on teleport, I think. Fort save vs. nausea and Will save vs. confusion, with neither effect to last more than 2d6 rounds.
> 
> Overkill?




I'm not so sure... I'd make the mechanic more like Hold Person - you can Fort Save your way out of it.  I don't think I'd go with Confusion; I'd pick some other way of mimiizing the fighters.

In one 1E game I played in, Teleport involved travelling through an immensely cold transitive plane, and if you messed up, you could get caught between.  Perhaps a time delay based on familiarity, with cold damage accruing each round?  Or you could make it far realms based - then you've got your justification for the Puke/Confusion effect.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 8, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Huh? LOTR has no D&D rogue for whom a lock is beneath him. Which door do you refer to here? My Tolkein-fu is minimal.




That wasn't the set up.  The set up question you asked was "_Picking a lock is neither heroic nor dramatic. Locks should be made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle. *Tell me of a legendary story where a lock gets picked?*_"

I'm not sure if this is what Wulf meant by his reference to Fellowship, but the entrance to the mines of Moria were certainly blocked by a door that took a serious effort to overcome.  It wasn't a rogue picking a mechanical lock, but are all locks mechanical devices?  Just guessing that was what he referenced.

-------

But to the topic, I believe there is a sweet spot that even WotC recognizes.  For evidence, the RPGA's Living Greyhawk (which uses the rules pretty much as written) forcibly retires characters once they achieve 16th level.  It was once going to be open to 20th levels, then they put in 18th level retirement, then 17th level, and now once 16th level is reached... retired from the campaign.

And combat between 9th level and 15th level is one continuous series of all of the worst problems that have been described through various "high level play nightmare" threads.


----------



## Mark (Aug 8, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> But to the topic, I believe there is a sweet spot that even WotC recognizes.  For evidence, the RPGA's Living Greyhawk (which uses the rules pretty much as written) forcibly retires characters once they achieve 16th level.  It was once going to be open to 20th levels, then they put in 18th level retirement, then 17th level, and now once 16th level is reached... retired from the campaign.
> 
> And combat between 9th level and 15th level is one continuous series of all of the worst problems that have been described through various "high level play nightmare" threads.





That's some very telling data.  How is it that you have come by this?  Are you a regular RPGA DM?  Do you go to many of the big events?  Thanks!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 8, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> That wasn't the set up.  The set up question you asked was "_Picking a lock is neither heroic nor dramatic. Locks should be made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle. *Tell me of a legendary story where a lock gets picked?*_"
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what Wulf meant by his reference to Fellowship, but the entrance to the mines of Moria were certainly blocked by a door that took a serious effort to overcome.  It wasn't a rogue picking a mechanical lock, but are all locks mechanical devices?  Just guessing that was what he referenced.




Bingo.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 8, 2006)

Mark said:
			
		

> That's some very telling data.  How is it that you have come by this?  Are you a regular RPGA DM?  Do you go to many of the big events?  Thanks!



I was once a Shield Lands Triad member.  I have also authored four LG adventures.  I've been playing LG on and off since about 2001.

I used to go the Gencon when it was in Milwaukee, but when it was moved to Indy it was too far for me.  I go to the big LG events around my region.  I have always wanted to to go Origins, Winter Fantasy, Gencon (Indy and SoCal), but my wife looks down at spending money at such events when I can get my LG gaming done at home just fine and cheaply.

About the forced retirement.  The characters are not totally removed from ever being played again.  There is supposed to be a "high level" campaign for those retired characters.  The work on the high level LG campaign is still being done.

I don't have all of the information for *why* the forced retirement was put in place, I had left my Triad seat and briefly left the LG scene when the retirements were first being implemented.  The biggest reasons were spells; wish, limited wish, miracle, true resurrection, polymorph any object, time stop.  Authoring adventures for high level play is extremely problematic when everything needs to be accomplished in a 4 hour time slot.  I could go into all the other unique challenges of LG-style play, but the crux of everything is  that players and judges don't have the flexibility of "Rule Zero".  They play by the book, flaws and all.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 8, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I was once a Shield Lands Triad member.  I have also authored four LG adventures.  I've been playing LG on and off since about 2001.
> 
> I used to go the Gencon when it was in Milwaukee, but when it was moved to Indy it was too far for me.  I go to the big LG events around my region.  I have always wanted to to go Origins, Winter Fantasy, Gencon (Indy and SoCal), but my wife looks down at spending money at such events when I can get my LG gaming done at home just fine and cheaply.
> 
> ...





Thanks for the additional information! 




			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I could go into all the other unique challenges of LG-style play, but the crux of everything is  that players and judges don't have the flexibility of "Rule Zero".  They play by the book, flaws and all.





If you have the chance to post more, I think it would further enlighten the readers of this thread (myself included) to hear any more details you can recall regarding what slows down or mucks up high level play for RPGA LG events (and others, if you are aware of some).


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 8, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> If you have the chance to post more, I think it would further enlighten the readers of this thread (myself included) to hear any more details you can recall regarding what slows down or mucks up high level play for RPGA LG events (and others, if you are aware of some).



I think one of the best people to chime about LG and high level play would be Jason Buhlman, now with Paizo Publishing I believe.  He was on the Circle as the administrator of the Iuz metaregion.  His moniker on ENWorld I seem to remember, appropriately enough, is IuzTheEvil.  Or even any of the other Circle members would be good to speak to the matter.

I'll try to come up with some anecdotes, but honestly, everything already noted, especially save or die and travel spells, are what come most to mind... only more amplified in intensity and frequency.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 8, 2006)

Some of the problems seem to arise from over-specialization on the part of PCs.  If certain kinds of caps were imposed, then maybe players would broaden their capacities a little.  They would probably be just as powerful over all, but instead of one-trick ponies that are useless outside of their specialty, they would be able to handle a wider arrange of problems.

For instance, limiting the plus on magical items (to +3 base and another +4 in special enhancements, say) would mean more gold to spend on other items.  Gamists would be satisfied, since they still get treasure and magic, but they wouldn't be focussed on the +5 weapon, +5 shield, +5 armor or what have you.

If skill ranks were all cross-class after, say, 10 ranks, then (provided that DMs capped the task of various task DCs) characters might broaden their skill base instead of keeping everything maxed out.

If all abilities were capped at, oh, 24 (plus size modifers), then PCs wouldn't have to go crazy with the +6 items and +5 books.  Again, they could broaden their capacities.

Some magic items could give fixed benefits; like the way that Gauntlets of Ogre Power gave you an 18 strength.  This would be a fine bit of treasure for the fighter whose Str was 16 anyway.  A ring of jumping might allow the wearer to function as if he had 10 ranks of jump.  Or whatever.  If it was priced at 2500 gp (the same as the current +5 ring) then it could be a bargain for many characters who are ok with keeping their abilities within the sweet spot.

A few spells that cause headaches (especially ones that involve a lot of book-keeping) could be removed.  It's not like there's not enough spells to fill a spellcaster's repetoire.  But you'd have to use caution, or else you'd just be imposing a low-magic game on the players.  If you take away _teleport_ you might want to bring a _mass phantom steed_ at the same level, instead.  The players get to avoid many of the hassles of traveling across country on horseback, but the problem of _teleport_ can be delayed for a few levels.

Generally I see the solution to the sweet spot is to encourage players to broaden their characters, keeping them in the sweet spot, rather than raising them out of it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 8, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Eric Anondson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait a minute. The setup was that skill checks become meaningless versus static DC. Even a expensive DC40 lock is no match for a high level rogue. No drama. But the Mines of Moria is a lock that cannot be picked. It is totally unaffected by high skill checks. It proves my point. A locked door is not a dramatic obstacle. A magically barred entrance, bypassed by wit (as much as "speak 'friend' and enter is witty), is a dramatic obstacle**. I asked for a legendary story was a lock gets *picked*. Even Rapunsel, prototypical damsel locked in a tower, just lowers a "rope" to her rescuer.

Lock picking is really dramatic in TV shows because they can cut to the lock. Cut to the side kick. Cut back to the tools. Cut to the person picking the lock. Cut to a timer on the bomb that's about to go off. Cut to the sweat forming on someone's brow. Cut to the sidekick. They can swell the "hey, look, tension!" music. In a RPG, you roll a d20 and announce 36. It is not heroic. It is not dramatic. Perhaps you could use the UA rules for complex skill checks to add tension. Maybe that's what you need to make skill checks more dramatic.

** Serious effort? Speak 'friend' and enter? If genius Gandalf had once read the inscription out loud in Elvish the door would just open. Watch the movie version. Everyone including the audiance is bored by the heroes sitting around trying to solve a stupid puzzle. (But then puzzles vs players is a different thread, right?)


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 8, 2006)

This thread reminded me of complex skill checks.  They can go a long way towards making skill checks interesting, expecially with a little creative DMing.


Edit: *laugh* That's what I get for leaving a thread open for a few hours before replying - someone else says my piece before I do.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 8, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I don't have all of the information for *why* the forced retirement was put in place, I had left my Triad seat and briefly left the LG scene when the retirements were first being implemented.  The biggest reasons were spells; wish, limited wish, miracle, true resurrection, polymorph any object, time stop.  Authoring adventures for high level play is extremely problematic when everything needs to be accomplished in a 4 hour time slot.  I could go into all the other unique challenges of LG-style play, but the crux of everything is  that players and judges don't have the flexibility of "Rule Zero".  They play by the book, flaws and all.




Back in the day I was the original editor of the Living City Extra-planar campaign, as well as authoring the first three adventures. One of the expectations of that campaign was that (IIRC) characters that were being retired around 12th level would have an outlet.* One of the things that was decided was that there would be a level cap of 16th level as well, mainly for the spells mentioned above. Since Wish and Limited Wish were so open ended, and the players of the higher level characters had a certain reputation for cheeziness, it was decided to cap the game at that level regardless so DMs didn't have to worry about it. The rule set was 2e at the time. Also, the adventures for high level characters were eight hours rather than four.

* This was, in fact, the second high level campaign. The underdark campaign recieved such positive feedback that a second campaign was approved.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 8, 2006)

Just a point about the lockpicking, which I know is not particularly on topic.

I don't really have a problem with DC's scaling with character level.  It does make a certain amount of sense.  Higher level opponents have higher level resources available to them.  That means that they can hire better locksmiths/whatever, to craft locks and traps.  Really, I wouldn't expect the traps set in that lich's lair to be of the same or even close to quality as the traps set in that orc's cave.

Yes, it's somewhat wonky that the DC's scale with the players, but, perhaps that's the wrong way to look at it.  The DC's don't necessarily scale to the PC's but to the opponents.

Now, if Midburg, the small town, suddenly has DC 55 locks on every door, there had better be a bloody good reason.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 8, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Wait a minute. The setup was that skill checks become meaningless versus static DC.




No, the setup was this.



			
				joe said:
			
		

> Picking a lock is neither heroic nor dramatic. Locks should be made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle. Tell me of a legendary story where a lock gets picked?




It's not my fault that you didn't realize that RPG's single most influential literary work of fantasy uses a lock as a dramatic obstacle.



> A locked door is not a dramatic obstacle.




They spent an awful lot of time in the book and the movie convincing me otherwise.



> I asked for a legendary story was a lock gets *picked*.




Pardon my meta-game view of the issue.



> Lock picking is really dramatic in TV shows because they can cut to the lock. Cut to the side kick. Cut back to the tools. Cut to the person picking the lock. Cut to a timer on the bomb that's about to go off. Cut to the sweat forming on someone's brow. Cut to the sidekick. They can swell the "hey, look, tension!" music. In a RPG, you roll a d20 and announce 36.




You can't really be that obtuse. The die roll provides the dramatic tension in the d20 system. Very often-- almost always, in fact-- it's a single d20 roll. 

Otherwise we can carry this patently absurd argument across the entire game. Saving throws, attack rolls, skill checks... 



> It is not heroic. It is not dramatic.




The long history of natural 1's and natural 20's rolled at my table beg to differ. 

Cut to the DM announcing the DC. Cut to the player shaking his dice. Cut to the player's buddy saying, "Just don't roll a 1!" Cut to the other players yelling, "FOR CHRISSAKES DON'T JINX HIM!" Cut to the player's sweaty brow as he releases the die. Slow motion zoom on the die as it rolls around the table... 

and...

comes...

up...

1.

Cue the agony.


----------



## Victim (Aug 8, 2006)

I find skill checks boring too.  Basically, the player is irrelevant for most checks; his only involvement is to act as a die rolling engine.  Since there's no decisions to be made, there's nothing for the player to do.  Even a complex skill check is just more rolls without player input.  

Combat is a complex interaction between a number of factors that takes player input every round.  If you abstracted it into a single "Fight Things" check without the chance for meaningful player input, as most skill checks are, then it'd be boring too.  

Random =/ interesting.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 8, 2006)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> This thread reminded me of complex skill checks.  They can go a long way towards making skill checks interesting, expecially with a little creative DMing.




This is a mechanic that I think doesn't get used enough.  I found it very dramatic in a Serenity one-shot I ran last year.  (It's also more integrated into that system.)

But it doesn't totally address the 'automatic success / automatic failure' dilemma -- 5 successes for the rogue just means it will take him 5 rounds.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 8, 2006)

Skill checks do not have to fail on a natural 1.  So a high enough Open Locks skill means that even a '1' will succeed.

Also, the Rogue can choose to have that "take 10 on skills even if I am stressed out" ability, precluding low rolls.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 8, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Pardon my meta-game view of the issue.



Fine. I give up. Since you didn't address the fact that your example of getting around the locked door *didn't* require a skill check, you obviously aren't really reading what I'm writing. At no point during the "speak 'friend' and enter" encounter is any of the fellowship's players rolling a die to pick a lock. Thus this encounter is not a lockpicking exercise. It is a puzzle. Puzzles don't come down to skill rolls. Puzzles scale from 1st to 101st level. Your example is not an example of lockpicking in a legendary story. It is an example of a puzzle in a legendary story.

Regardless, if we can ignore the specific example of Moria, my assertion was that as the players become more and more heroic, the actions they perform change. Thus while a locked door is a dramatic obstacle for 1st level schlubs. A locked door is out of genre as a dramatic obstacle for 20th level uber-heroes. Knock is still a 2nd level spell, isn't it? By the RAW locked doors should not be a serious obstacle for parties with access to scrolls of 2nd level spells! Knock is still within the sweetspot, isn't it? A 4500 gp wand of knock that will open a whole lot of locked doors, chests, and the gates of moria is within reach of a party at 8th level with a little money pooling. Poof, there goes open locks as a useful skill. And that's without stone shape, dim door, passwall, teleport and I'm sure others. How many spells are you going to tweak to preserve the sweetspot?

Are there other 5th level spells that need work? Passwall? Permanancy? Sending? Spell Resistance? Telepathic bond? 
6th level: Analyze Dweomer? Antimagic Field? Find the Path? True Seeing? Wind Walk?

Becoming nauseated after teleport would just ruin my fun. I have a character who can cast two quickened spells in a round (28th level remember) and the look on everyone's face the first time I teleported in and out and still took an action inside was priceless. And I still consider that the sweetspot for fun games. The disconnect here is vast and so I'll bow out the thread if I make my next Will save.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 8, 2006)

*looks at Open Locks description* "_You can pick padlocks, finesse combination locks, *and solve puzzle locks*_." *shrugs*  


			
				jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Knock is still a 2nd level spell, isn't it? By the RAW locked doors should not be a serious obstacle for parties with access to scrolls of 2nd level spells! Knock is still within the sweetspot, isn't it? A 4500 gp wand of knock that will open a whole lot of locked doors, chests, and the gates of moria is within reach of a party at 8th level with a little money pooling. Poof, there goes open locks as a useful skill.



I don't agree with this analysis.  A _knock_ only undoes "two means of preventing egress".  If a door is locked, barred, and _arcane locked_, it will take two uses of the spell.  Two spells for the day, but if only one _knock_ was prepared... ?  A party with a rogue with maxed Open Locks could likely have saved those two spells... Resource management, and all that.

Spending treasure and XP for scrolls, well they might have been spent elsewhere when a skill could save the expenditure of both.  And with regards to the 4500 gp wand purchasing, to me, that is a matter of style of play if MagicMart is a shoppe around the corner and not indicative of anything with regards to the "sweet spot" as a matter of charcter level spread.  Not everyone plays with MagicMart.


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 8, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> *looks at Open Locks description* "_You can pick padlocks, finesse combination locks, *and solve puzzle locks*_." *shrugs*  ;.




Oh, come on.  Use of the open lock skill implies a mechanical aspect and/or a physical interaction that was wholly lacking in that "challenge".  Using Open Locks to solve word riddles is just ridiculous.  If you seriously consider that a "puzzle lock", then Bilbo could've used Open Locks against Gollum in the riddle game.

How many ranks in Open Locks does Gandalf have in your campaign anyways?


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 8, 2006)

Timely discussion in one respect: both the _Commune_ and _Teleport/Planeshift _ issues came up in my weekend games.

Travel spells are awful in one respect: it makes designing encounters (particularly encounters intended to repeat) anywhere other than the main dungeon a waste of time.  They also make it impossible to guess how long a party will take to finish an adventure and interact with the world again...if the dramatics of the story make it desireable that the Orcs invade 2 days before the PC's return to town, such that the party finds a battlefront where there shouldn't be one, travel spells become downright annoying.

_Commune_ is going up in level next campaign.  Period.  I don't mind a party paying for it to be cast in town, but having the ability to cast it in the field is a bit much unless you're bloody high level.

Lanefan


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 8, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> *looks at Open Locks description* "_You can pick padlocks, finesse combination locks, *and solve puzzle locks*_." *shrugs*



Surely you are not suggesting that players should roll dice rather than solve puzzles themselves. That is huge can of worms on this board.


> I don't agree with this analysis.  A _knock_ only undoes "two means of preventing egress".  If a door is locked, barred, and _arcane locked_, it will take two uses of the spell.  Two spells for the day, but if only one _knock_ was prepared... ?  A party with a rogue with maxed Open Locks could likely have saved those two spells... Resource management, and all that.



The point is maxing the skills is not heroic when there are dozens of spells that accomplish the same thing. When characters hit 10th level, a locked door is not a dramatic obstacle (Wulf's concept). It just isn't. There are so many ways through the locked door that you cannot expect anyone to remember going through the door after the game.


> Spending treasure and XP for scrolls, well they might have been spent elsewhere when a skill could save the expenditure of both.  And with regards to the 4500 gp wand purchasing, to me, that is a matter of style of play if MagicMart is a shoppe around the corner and not indicative of anything with regards to the "sweet spot" as a matter of charcter level spread.  Not everyone plays with MagicMart.



Wulf wants a normal D&D game by the RAW and thus buying/making wands is the expected style of play. This after all is not a low-magic setting. It is just a stretching of the proverbial sweet spot. And you don't need a MagicMart to spend time finding a wizard to commision a wand or to just make a wand yourself. The items are in the DMG and thus should be available to some reasonable degree if you are playing the RAW. If they aren't reasonably available you have drifted into a low-magic game setting. As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with a low-magic setting, but by the OPs words this thread is not a low-magic thread.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 8, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Oh, come on.  Use of the open lock skill implies a mechanical aspect and/or a physical interaction that was wholly lacking in that "challenge".  Using Open Locks to solve word riddles is just ridiculous.  If you seriously consider that a "puzzle lock", then Bilbo could've used Open Locks against Gollum in the riddle game.



To be fair, I'm sure "puzzle lock" in this context refers to something like a Chinese puzzle box. Opening the box is a puzzle. Solving the puzzle opens the lock. It does not refer to password riddles. If it did, Open Locks would be an Int-based skill.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 8, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Travel spells are awful in one respect: it makes designing encounters (particularly encounters intended to repeat) anywhere other than the main dungeon a waste of time.



On the way back maybe. You can't teleport somewhere you haven't been (reliably). So you can have all manner of encounters on the way to a new destination. No, it's Wind Walk not Teleport that makes "road" encounters obsolete.


> They also make it impossible to guess how long a party will take to finish an adventure and interact with the world again...if the dramatics of the story make it desireable that the Orcs invade 2 days before the PC's return to town, such that the party finds a battlefront where there shouldn't be one, travel spells become downright annoying.



Actually I find this works better the other way around. You put the Orc army one day out of town. If the party had hopped on horses and rode out the west gate they'd have found out the orcs were invading. Instead they teleport away and no one is warned of the orc invasion the next morning. The fact that you characterize this change in how teleport affects your storytelling as annoying is too me a lack of experience with teleport. If you just play it as written, you will eventually discover how to handle teleport, anticipate it better, and find new ways to tell your stories where they take teleport into account.


> _Commune_ is going up in level next campaign.  Period.  I don't mind a party paying for it to be cast in town, but having the ability to cast it in the field is a bit much unless you're bloody high level.



Fickle gods solve commune cold. Also, doesn't commune still say that higher powers don't like getting a telephone call each morning any more? If the party is overusing commune, eventually the deity remind the cleric which way their relationship is pointed. The cleric is the servant, right? Uppity servants are often chastised by their masters.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 8, 2006)

I don't get this argument of skills scaling with DCs....in general, DCs don't scale that much.

Jump...static dcs.
Swim....static dcs.
Climb....static dcs.
Tumble....static dcs.
Spot...static dcs...

Wait!! Before you throw the book at me for the last one, keep in mind that while yes spot vs hide will often scale with level...the standard roll a spot check to see something should be relatively static. But even so, only certain classes get hide as a class skill. A guy with max ranks in spot and a high wisdom should see most hidden characters, even high level ones.

At high level play, most ordinary skill checks should become automatic. That's the point!! Your heroes, you don't fail at doing the routine. That's why they can do the extraordinary.

If players find skill checks boring, then in my mind that's the players fault. Sure, a high level guy can open a lock in his sleep. Well then do it!! A fight breaks out in the room, you want to look cool, open that lock while fighting the monster at the same time.

Disabling a device is easy you say. Well...try changing the mechanisms of the device to your own triggering system, so you can turn an opponents device against him. 

The benefit of high level is that players shouldn't worry about the small stuff, so they can set their imaginations loose on the big stuff. Go wild I say. I mean, if a -20 if all it takes to let you do impossible things, start doing the impossible.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 8, 2006)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Oh, come on.  Use of the open lock skill implies a mechanical aspect and/or a physical interaction that was wholly lacking in that "challenge".  Using Open Locks to solve word riddles is just ridiculous.  If you seriously consider that a "puzzle lock", then Bilbo could've used Open Locks against Gollum in the riddle game.



Did you even see the [  ] I put in there?

*sigh* *shakes head*  I know it is a can of worms issue, I was being playful.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 8, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> At high level play, most ordinary skill checks should become automatic. That's the point!! Your heroes, you don't fail at doing the routine. That's why they can do the extraordinary.



I'm not alone!!! Bless you, Stalker0. They do the extraordinary. That's what I've missed in my argument. Heroes don't do the ordinary. They do the extraordinary. Most excellent.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 8, 2006)

> At high level play, most ordinary skill checks should become automatic. That's the point!! Your heroes, you don't fail at doing the routine. That's why they can do the extraordinary.




If you think success should be automatic, _you're in the wrong thread._ Period. This is me, politely showing the high level fans the door, again. 

If you don't think success should be automatic, _at any level of play throughout the planned campaign_, and you would like to discuss ways to preserve that feel of the game during which success is not automatic, this is the proper thread for that discussion.

Observe the difference between discussions of design changes versus discussions of whether or not the problem exists at all, or how much fun you're having in your high-level game.

There are plenty of folks here-- friends of mine, apparently-- who have remained sufficiently on-topic that we shouldn't have to put up with any more thread-jacking.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 8, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you think success should be automatic, _you're in the wrong thread._ Period. This is me, politely showing the high level fans the door, again.
> 
> If you don't think success should be automatic, _at any level of play throughout the planned campaign_, and you would like to discuss ways to preserve that feel of the game during which success is not automatic, this is the proper thread for that discussion.
> 
> ...




Wow, I actually didn't intend to threadjack...my point was that one way to stay in the sweet spot is with players actions. At low level, fighting an orc is a challenge. At 6th level, still in the sweet spot, its not. Opening a simple lock is a challenge at 1st level, not at 5th. Now once you get to 15-16th level, there aren't any locks that are a challenge, unless something weird is going on. However, the players themselves can make it a challenge, and an exciting one, but using their imagination to do the job more heroically. In this way, you don't need higher and higher dcs to challenge the players, some of the job is on their shoulders as well.


To get fully back on topic, I repeat what others have said, its high level magic that's the "problem." A high level fighter, no matter how strong, no matter how many attack he gets, is still a fighter. He just does more damage, maybe can attack more enemies, but he's still just a fighter. However a wizard can stop time, make wishes, summon unspeakable horrors, raise the dead, etc.

My group is now 11th level, and it really doesn't feel high level because we have no wizards or clerics. So while we are all pretty powerful, the type of game we are playing hasn't changed. The game only changes with spells like teleport, commune, raise the dead, etc as others have mentioned. Take these kinds of spells out, and the gameplay remains relatively the same.

Another "problem" as I see it, is that 3rd edition is a slave to formulaic progressions. A barb gets +1 bab every level, a fighter gets a feat every other level, etc. The problem with this is it makes classes hard to tweak to adjust for level differences. A high level barb needs a ton of magic items to compete against high level magic because all his class is given him is some more rages and some DR. If there were high level feats or class abilities that could actually give fighters magical abilities like energy resistances for example, they wouldn't need as much magic to do their jobs. This would allow the sweet spot ideal a little longer I believe, fighter types would have magic items but not be so very dependent on them like they are at high levels.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 8, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you think success should be automatic, _you're in the wrong thread._ Period. This is me, politely showing the high level fans the door, again.
> 
> If you don't think success should be automatic, _at any level of play throughout the planned campaign_, and you would like to discuss ways to preserve that feel of the game during which success is not automatic, this is the proper thread for that discussion.



I don't understand your complaint -- and I thought I was "on your side" as I read the thread up until now.

A high-level character should be able to easily -- even automatically -- overcome many obstacles that are serious challenges to lower-level characters.  The mighty-thewed barbarian should climb right up the cliff face, the king of thieves should pick a lock behind his back while debating his captors, the brave knight should smite footmen left and right while working his way through the fray to the enemy champion.

Those challenges aren't challenges any more -- and they demonstrate the hero's abilities.

_Other_ challenges should rise to match the hero's abilities, but not every, or most, challenges.  That's where we get to an almost "low magic" argument, because the best climber, swimmer, jumper, lockpicker, etc. is redundant next to a wizard with the right spell.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 8, 2006)

Well, how about making skill progress slower? Don't simply cap it, but make it harder, or more expensive, to raise a skill by another level after a character has arrived at a certain level of competence. The linear progress in skills is the reason why skills sky-rocket, at least through normal means. Either install some kind of check a character has to pass every time he wants to put a rank in a skill, which gets progrssively harder the higher he wants to go, or make it cost more skill points to go up a rank after some point. Make that point 5 ranks in any given skill if you want to start early, or 8 ranks if you want to start a bit later, to curb the high-level effect.

Additionally, limit the amount of magic that can add to your skill ranks, maybe as a function of how many skill ranks the character has in the skill by himself. Like saying "No magic can do more than double the natural competence of a person" or somesuch.

Problem is that, at some point, you either cap the game by a certain level, or you'll have to redesign a lot of the other stuff, too, like combat stats, magic, etc, if you want to keep the sweet spot beyond 10th level. And while I realize you already published your own take on d20 with Grim Tales, I was under the impression that you wanted to keep this thought experiment within the confines of the SRD, right?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 8, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> If there were high level feats or class abilities that could actually give fighters magical abilities like energy resistances for example, they wouldn't need as much magic to do their jobs. This would allow the sweet spot ideal a little longer I believe, fighter types would have magic items but not be so very dependent on them like they are at high levels.



I don't think this solves any "save or die" situation.  Something that a lot of higher level LG players do with their characters is to acquire every save boost as possible.  The best way to hold off save or die situations is to make sure your Fort, Will, or Ref saves are sky high.  _Cloaks of resistance_, _vests of resistance_, frequent multiclassing to grab to +2 saves at 1st-levels, all are popular items for high level characters purely because of save or die events.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 8, 2006)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I don't understand your complaint -- and I thought I was "on your side" as I read the thread up until now.




Ok, let me explain it like this.

If I start a thread titled, *"Who Loves Apple Pie? Let's Swap Recipes!"*

then I might expect a robust discussion on the thickness or flakiness of the crust, whether or not cinnamon and/or sugar is involved, and whether or not to serve the pie hot or cold, with or without ice cream.

But for the most part, I expect folks participating in the thread to agree on the basics of apple pie, and to come to the thread with recipes in hand.

What I don't want to happen is for folks to come into the thread with suppositions about _why_ I happen to like apple pie, or to tell me how awesome their cherry pie is, and then to have the temerity to show up without so much as a recipe for cherry pie, despite the fact that I wouldn't eat the goddamn nasty thing anyway.

I hope that puts the thread into the perspective I attempted in the first post.

---

The d20 system uses a d20 die as its means of conflict resolution. At its heart, it is a Gamist system. 

As levels increase, one of two things happens:

1) The d20 becomes less and less relevant as a means of conflict resolution. Other (non-Gamist) means of conflict resolution come to the forefront.

or

2) The relevance of the d20 is preserved by scaling the DCs (and challenges in other forms) in proportion to the heroes. This kills verisimilitude-- the world should not adapt to accomodate the heroes. 

A low to mid levels the d20 mechanic is preserved AND there is a sense of verisimilitude in the challenges the heroes face. This is the definition of the "sweet spot."


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 8, 2006)

Achilles had a tender heel, 
and Balder his missile-toe.
Grendel grappled and lost an arm, 
and to his momma he did go.

Gandalf stumped by a silly riddle 
till a halfling's words revealed.
Boromir blew his will save 
and so his fate was sealed.

The Nazgul tanked a Spot check 
On Eowyn's feminine charms,
All marvel at Gollum's precious balance
And how he bought the farm.

Han Solo failed a bluff check, 
when tumblin' Ani croaked.
Leia sensed Tarkin's motive and lied,
and Alderaan got smoked.

No matter how l33t you are,
Or what level you've achieved,
Or your lightsaber reads  'BMF' 
and you've grandiose plans conceived.

Even the best of 'em sometimes roll a '1',
Wtih results humorous and tragic.
The lowly orc a '20' can score
and make a hero haemorrhagic.

Thank you thank you, you've been a lovely audience.  Be sure to try the veal, and if you can, catch my act at GenCon.  Peace out!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 8, 2006)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> _Other_ challenges should rise to match the hero's abilities, but not every, or most, challenges.  That's where we get to an almost "low magic" argument, because the best climber, swimmer, jumper, lockpicker, etc. is redundant next to a wizard with the right spell.



Certainly magic can be used to do _magical_ things.  _Water walk_ and _water breathing_ (3rd levels) can negate need for Swim, _spider climb_ (Drd 2, Sor 2) can negate Climb, _fly_ (Sor 3, Travel 3) can negate Jump, _freedom of movement_ (4th level) can negate Escape Artist, a _hat of disguise_ can negate need of Disguise, _knock_ (2nd level) can negate need of Open Locks.  And when there is a possibility of enough preparation and availability of appropriate magic there ends up being little to challenge PCs besides mental puzzles to foil players.

Yet there are still moments when PCs don't get the preparation, these spells above lose possibility of being the factor they could be.  But there are only so many times the DM can throw surprise at PCs before it gets old and unfun.

Maybe a factor in the sweet spot, with regards to skill challenges, is the amount of preparation and aiding that PCs are allowed?


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 9, 2006)

Hmmm...maybe Iron Heroes (sans ARcanist) can preserve the sweet spot precisely because there is no guaranteed access to magic or magic weapons.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 9, 2006)

I think it's already been said in the thread, but preserving the "sweet spot" as defined may best be handled by capping allocated skill points in some way (max. 10 ranks or so per skill).  Now this number could still be affected by magic items, ability scores, etc., but 12th level characters (for example) couldn't have 16 ranks in a skill.

The d20 roll would still very valuable for skills this way.

Combat scales (IME) in such a way that mostly preserves the relevancy of the d20 regardless of level, although ranged touch attacks for wizards at high levels are "don't roll a '1'" affairs.  This could be corrected by having the wizard use his or her actual BAB + Dex instead of having the modifier be caster level + relevant casting class ability score.


I'm also curious, Wulf, how does Grim Tales perform at high (15-20) levels?  Are you satisfied with that high level game experience?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you think success should be automatic, _you're in the wrong thread._ Period. This is me, politely showing the high level fans the door, again.




Challenges of a certain level _should_ be practically automatic.  Heck, a first level rogue can automatically pick a normal lock - its just a matter of taking 20.  I don't see a need to create a chance of failure there.

And I don't think the LoTR example was a terribly good one - after all, the rogues failed and had to leave it to the Epic Level Wizard to solve.


----------



## mmadsen (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> As levels increase, one of two things happens:
> 
> 1) The d20 becomes less and less relevant as a means of conflict resolution. Other (non-Gamist) means of conflict resolution come to the forefront.
> 
> ...



I believe we can rephrase your point:  _As the heroes getting better, either the obstacles stop challenging them, or the obstacles get harder and harder, which isn't realistic._

I don't believe the heroes can get better and better without that issue arising -- unless they don't actually get better and better, but, say, get good at a broader and broader set of skills.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Combat scales (IME) in such a way that mostly preserves the relevancy of the d20 regardless of level




Yes it does, although I don't know that I wouldn't be happier if everything stayed in the same range as "very difficult" skills-- ie, both AC's and total AB's cap out in the 30-35 range.



> , although ranged touch attacks for wizards at high levels are "don't roll a '1'" affairs.  This could be corrected by having the wizard use his or her actual BAB + Dex instead of having the modifier be caster level + relevant casting class ability score.




Err, one of us has been playing the wrong way. We've always made ranged touch attacks with BAB + Dex.



> I'm also curious, Wulf, how does Grim Tales perform at high (15-20) levels?  Are you satisfied with that high level game experience?




Yeah, but that's a whole different ball of wax. I have a lot more control over what kinds of game-breaking wahoo make it into the campaign, by GT design.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2006)

I like it when the D20 becomes meaningless.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 9, 2006)

> _Water walk_ and _water breathing_ (3rd levels) can negate need for Swim, _spider climb_ (Drd 2, Sor 2) can negate Climb, _fly_ (Sor 3, Travel 3) can negate Jump, _freedom of movement_ (4th level) can negate Escape Artist, a _hat of disguise_ can negate need of Disguise, _knock_ (2nd level) can negate need of Open Locks.




Those spells really don't render skills irrelevant at the levels in the sweet spot.  Sure if you have _knock_ prepared you don't need a rogue.  But if you are 4th level, there's a serious opportunity cost involved in having _knock_ instead of something else.  Similarly for the other spells.  Now once you are throwing around 8th level spells, then sure, there is plenty of room for these utility spells to fill up your lower level slots.  But up to level 10 or so you can't just dispense with the skills without significant cost.

So how do you extend the sweet spot without neutering the magic system?  It would be nice to ensure that at some level there is an equilibrium between what spellcasters can do with their lower level slots and what the skilled PCs can do.  Have spells work better than skills when they are the highest level spell the caster can use, but fall behind as the skilled user gains levels (and keeps their scores maxed out).   Maybe _knock_ can only open locks with a DC of 25 or lower.  A wizard can exceed the rogue as long as both are 3rd level.  But when they are 18th level, the _knock_ is just a cheap parlor trick. Maybe _spider climb_ works like the Climb description says (+8 bonus, can take 10 even when threatened) and not like the spell description says.  And so on. 

Matching or exceeding spellcasters in a number of areas would be a decent goal for skilled PCs to have.  If the rogue can climb better than the _spider climb_ing wizard, and open locks that the wizard's _knock_ won't touch, then that's pretty good.  If he can also win long term allies with Diplomacy that the wizard can't get with _charm monster_, then things are really looking up.  Magic might provide another chance if the rogue fails the roll, or it might provide short term benefit, but skills should be more stable and reliable in the long run.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I believe we can rephrase your point:  _As the heroes getting better, either the obstacles stop challenging them, or the obstacles get harder and harder, which isn't realistic._




That is a terribly good rephrase.



> I don't believe the heroes can get better and better without that issue arising.




Again, that's my definition of the sweet spot. At the low levels, given the variance of the d20 roll, "average-tough stuff" is just inside "impossible." And at the high levels, the "average stuff" is just inside "foregone conclusion."


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I like it when the D20 becomes meaningless.




You're not my friend anymore.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> As levels increase, one of two things happens:
> 
> 1) The d20 becomes less and less relevant as a means of conflict resolution. Other (non-Gamist) means of conflict resolution come to the forefront.
> 
> ...



You see, I disagree with this premise. The *means* of conflict resolution is not affected at high levels. The *type* of conflicts is what changes. You don't send James Bond into an accounting firm to find irregularities in tax calculations. You don't read about King Arthur and the Quest to Darn his Wholy Socks.

The default assumption of the game is that the PCs go from nobodies to univrese-movers-and-shakers. Once you hit 10th level you no longer guard the caravan against bandits. Your story requires wider scope, grander scale. The game system demonstrates this by making fixed DC actions automatic. What you call a flaw I call a design feature. At some point the locked door becomes irrelevant. The players get to see their character attain a little bit of badass. The 1 HD orc is no longer fearsome.

I wasn't being argumentative about higher level spells. If you really want to make skills relevant at even higher levels, you have to deal next with 6th level spells. And so on. I don't see it working short of eliminating the higher level spells. I didn't realize this was threadjacking. I thought you really wanted to change the game without changing magic and preserving your nebulous sweetspot. But if all you are going to do is nerf high level spells, you aren't fixing the design. 

The design is fine. It allows for automatic success. Automatic success is in the rules. In fact, the RAW has rules to avoid needless skill checks. The rogue can take 10 to open locks. The designers of the game put this into the game to avoid needless skill checks and get on with the meat of the game.  At high levels, you no longer have open locks meat unless you import the good stuff. No, high level games move into a differ palette of flavors. (Okay, the food analogy is making me sick. I'll stop.)

Oh, and the world does not change to accomodate the growing power of the party. No, the party just can go into those parts of the campaign tha use to be marked "here there be dragons". If the 1st level party wanders into the lich's lair, they die. The lair is always there with its DC40 locks and DC40 fiendish traps. The difference is, the 10th+ level party might be ready to deal with it. The traps didn't get harder. Harder traps just became more likely to be encountered. How does this break versimilitude?


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 9, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> To be fair, I'm sure "puzzle lock" in this context refers to something like a Chinese puzzle box. Opening the box is a puzzle. Solving the puzzle opens the lock. It does not refer to password riddles. If it did, Open Locks would be an Int-based skill.




Yes, exactly.  A puzzle lock, yes.  No problems there.  But the door into Moria isn't a "puzzle lock", per se.  It's a riddle.  Decipher Script + a use for ranks in Speak Language.

Moot anyways; I thought Anondson was being serious but good-humored with the    , but apparently he was being sarcastic.  Or something that I wasn't supposed to take literally.


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 9, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Did you even see the [  ] I put in there?
> 
> *sigh* *shakes head*  I know it is a can of worms issue, I was being playful.




My bad.  I did see it; I thought it was your way of putting a good-humored spin on a serious point.

 
Nell.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Aug 9, 2006)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> although ranged touch attacks for wizards at high levels are "don't roll a '1'" affairs.  This could be corrected by having the wizard use his or her actual BAB + Dex instead of having the modifier be caster level + relevant casting class ability score.




As stated previously....you got that one horribly wrong.

Ranged Touch Attack=(BAB+Dex Mod) vs. Touch AC of target.  Add in an extra -4 if the target is in melee with someone else, which it normally is when I am firing them off.

DS


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You're not my friend anymore.



Anymore?  Crap, I went and missed it.  

Seriously, this thread started off with some good thoughts and then kinda went off course.

What are your thoughts for making the D20 stay meaningful for level 15 characters without changing the world around them?  Do you change the mechanics of the rolls?  the modifiers?  the DCs (apparently not, since this is part of the issue)?  Just story changes?  Other?


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 9, 2006)

Another idea would be for wizards to upgrade slots instead of recieving so many of them.

One of the differences between high level wizards and low level ones is that high level wizard don't run out of spells as often. If you upgrade slots, while wizards get more powerful magics the amount of resources they have avaiable remains the same as in the sweet spot.


----------



## Dorloran (Aug 9, 2006)

OK, so let me see if I understand something.

Skill points increase as characters level, and DCs increase by CR.  So, as according to the DMG, a DC 21 trap in a CR 4 dungeon is now DC 25.  Skill points increase, DCs increase, they cancel each other out, so that's a wash.

As my BAB increases by level, so do my opponents' AC--they cancel each other out, so that's a wash, too.

My Save bonuses increase as I level up, but so do the DCs.  That's a wash.

My HPs increase as I level up, but so does the damage.  Wash.

If we call these elements a wash, then, what's that leave us to work with?  Do we still level up our PCs?  If we do, what gets better?  Is there a way to work the DND system with rewards other than increasing numbers?  Are there other types of rewards that would keep players totally in what Wulf has defined as the Sweet Spot while giving them a sense of acheivement?  Are there other ways to allow the Heroic PC to influence his or her world in more and more profound ways while the world remains challenging?  Through continued accumlation of Feats?  Action Points?


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2006)

Hey Joe,

I can see both sides of this.  I completely agree with the way you are describing the game and high level play.  I have and will play that way. 

But I also like to play in games where there isn't a lich lair around every corner.  I don't understand why there is a need to debate whether or not this alternate approach is acceptable.  If you think we are stupid to play this way then you must be right.  Good enough?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 9, 2006)

Dorloran said:
			
		

> Skill points increase, DCs increase, they cancel each other out, so that's a wash.
> 
> As my BAB increases by level, so do my opponents' AC--they cancel each other out, so that's a wash, too.
> 
> ...



These truly *wash* when they increase equally.  Do they?  I don't believe they do.

The thing about save bonuses, even if they increase, the danger doesn't wash when it is a save or die effect even when the DC stays even with the save bonus increase rate.


----------



## Dorloran (Aug 9, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> These truly *wash* when they increase equally.  Do they?  I don't believe they do.
> 
> The thing about save bonuses, even if they increase, the danger doesn't wash when it is a save or die effect even when the DC stays even with the save bonus increase rate.





Actually, taken as an aggragate, I would argue they do increase equally.  The wizard might lag the fighter in BAB, but the difference is always the same, regardless of level.  The rogue is going to have better Reflex saves than the fighter, but that's always true, regardless of level.  And regardless of level, these differences remain about the same.  So that's what I mean by wash.

Also, I think we're actually agreeing.  The danger doesn't wash if the DC stays even with save bonus increase.  My question would be then, why have DCs and bonuses that keep increasing when they cancel each other out?

The increasing numbers in AC, skills, HP, Saves vs. the increasing numbers in BAB, DC, damage, and DC again make the increasing numbers unnecessary, except as a way to reward players for leveling up.  The increasing numbers leads to the "arms race" that several posters (like Wulf, I think??) find distasteful and cumbersome.

So, if the world should largely remain static (not increase in difficulty just to keep up with the PCs), shouldn't the PCs remain largely static in how they influence the world?  

I'm thinking level-up rewards like Action Points, that keep the heroes challenged by the world, but allow them to perform finite, measurable feats of heroics.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Err, one of us has been playing the wrong way. We've always made ranged touch attacks with BAB + Dex.




My bad - I was confusing the Bigby Spells & Mordenkainen's Sword (where your grapple/attack is caster level + wiz/sor ability) with the range touches.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 9, 2006)

> The increasing numbers in AC, skills, HP, Saves vs. the increasing numbers in BAB, DC, damage, and DC again make the increasing numbers unnecessary, except as a way to reward players for leveling up. The increasing numbers leads to the "arms race" that several posters (like Wulf, I think??) find distasteful and cumbersome.




But, the increases are never all as equal as you make them sound.  The attack bonus difference between a mage and a fighter doesn't stay the same, it increases.  Armor class in no way increases as fast as a fighter's BAB.  Saves do not increase uniformly as well.  While the wizard is giggling at will saves, the fighter is now a gibbering idiot, or worse, is not whacking the wizard.

The idea that it's all a wash because it scales uniformly is simply not accurate.  Within any given level or any given CR, there is a huge variation on all elements - AC, Saves, hit bonus, damage etc.  

And, to address an earlier point, no, the same trap doesn't suddenly increase in DC simply because you have a higher level dungeon.  You have a DIFFERENT trap with a higher DC.  In other words, in a higher level adventure, you have better quality traps.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 9, 2006)

Dorloran said:
			
		

> Actually, taken as an aggragate, I would argue they do increase equally.  The wizard might lag the fighter in BAB, but the difference is always the same, regardless of level.  The rogue is going to have better Reflex saves than the fighter, but that's always true, regardless of level.  And regardless of level, these differences remain about the same.  So that's what I mean by wash.



I don't think there is a wash here because while there is a Base Attack Bonus, the BAB is not the end all with regards to attack rolls.  You still have weapon quality (enhancement bonuses or masterwork), size bonus or penalty, Weapon Focus, charging, relevant ability score enhancements (and there are a whole bunch of problems here), bardsong, flanking, morale bonuses (_bless_, _heroism_, _greater heroism_, _hero's feast_, _righteous wrath_), luck bonuses (_divine favor_, _prayer_, _recitation_), haste bonus (_haste_).  It is everything that comes after the *base* attack bonus that causees higher levels to get cumbersome...

In lower levels the fighting classes are not far from the poor BAB classes in ability to hit, at higher levels it is folly for anyone but the best BAB classes to get into melee... unless they have spent precious rounds prepping.  And soon the DM feels (probably rightly) that he or she needs to present challenges equal to the best character's maximum ability.  At high levels, the attack bonus aggregate for all characters can vary wildly. Characters who can't muster an attack bonus equal to the best character's attack bonus might as well be a number of character levels lower equal to the difference. At high levels this difference can be large.

With saves, at lower levels the poor saves aren't so far apart from the good saves, but the difference between the poor and good saves spreads out significantly at high levels. Significant resources are needed to keep the poor save from falling further and further behind.  The poor saves are no longer just a weakness but an Achilles heal at high levels.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 9, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Hey Joe,
> 
> I can see both sides of this.  I completely agree with the way you are describing the game and high level play.  I have and will play that way.
> 
> But I also like to play in games where there isn't a lich lair around every corner.  I don't understand why there is a need to debate whether or not this alternate approach is acceptable.  If you think we are stupid to play this way then you must be right.  Good enough?



Dude, how many times did I say there's nothing wrong with low-magic style of play? Don't put words in my mouth, especially that I'm calling anyone stupid. I'm not.

The thread is supposed to be about stretching the amount of time you can play out those old plots without being low-level magic. I say this is impossible. You can't keep high level magic and keep playing the same types of stories as you had at first level. I'm also saying that the natural progression is to change to a different type of story: one where teleports and commune live in harmony with your plot. If you can't do this, you can't play at high level.

High level characters will never fear a town guard with a crossbow. They will _find the path _to hidden shrine/treasure vault/whatever. They will rest and recouperate in a _magnificent mansion_. They cast _heroes' feast_ every day just so they are immune to fear and poison and to make sure no one is diseased, the extra hit points and +1 AB and Will save is just icing on the cake. They collect diamonds for _raise dead_ religously. They have a lair with _hallow, private sanctum, and guards and ward_ already cast on it. They treat with demons and devils for breakfast. They travel the planes. They carry a fortune inconceivable to the common man in the belt pouch. They do favors for the gods. They are like gods among man.

And because of these things they do not check out the goblin village in the hills to see if they are massing for an assault on the village. They do not rid the village graveyard of its recent ghoulish arrival. They do not guard a caravan travelling on foot between to large towns. They do not break into the councilman's manor house to find out if he is skimming money off the tax dole. These kinds of characters do not face the same sorts of conflicts as the 1st level parties do. And this is why I say *mundane* skill rolls for high level characters are not dramatic.

If, in your view, that is not how high level play should be, you are playing the wrong game. That, I believe, is what high level D&D is. The only way to take high level characters back down to street level is to nerf magic bigtime because default D&D magic is what makes it possible to do all the things I said above. And by nerfing magic, you are reducing magic's influence on the game, i.e. low-magic gaming. In case I'm not clear, there's nothing wrong with low-magic gaming. It just isn't compatible with high level play using the RAW. Now, if Wulf wants to revise his OP and say low-magic solutions are now valid solutions, so be it. But I would love to see a non-low magic solution to the problem of high level play. I'm the devil's advocate. I say Wulf has set up an impossible situation. Nothing I have seen has changed my opinion.

Just because I rally for the high level game as is, doesn't mean I wouldn't mind seeing a more street level game without the power inflation. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with this thread. But I haven't seen any solutions that weren't low-magic solutions. For example:

Someone said something about feats that duplicated magic abilities. I wrote a PDF about doing that 3 years ago. 

Another concept would cut down spells available to the wizard. This just makes the wizard less able to be a utility man. The sorcerer just doesn't work if you cut down his spells per day.

Another idea I've kicked around is no advancement by level. Isn't really D&Dish though. It works though in my unreleased Simplified OGL Fantasy game that I will finish someday. It's a game system perhaps even grittier than Grim Tales. 

Arbitrarily capping skill points only makes the spell replacements more valuable.

I'm out of breath. (Figuratively of course) Oh, and I rolled a 15 on the die for my will save, what is the DC of this thread!!!


----------



## Dorloran (Aug 9, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I don't think there is a wash here because while there is a Base Attack Bonus, the BAB is not the end all with regards to attack rolls.  You still have weapon quality (enhancement bonuses or masterwork), size bonus or penalty, Weapon Focus, charging, relevant ability score enhancements (and there are a whole bunch of problems here), bardsong, flanking, morale bonuses (_bless_, _heroism_, _greater heroism_, _hero's feast_, _righteous wrath_), luck bonuses (_divine favor_, _prayer_, _recitation_), haste bonus (_haste_).  It is everything that comes after the *base* attack bonus that causees higher levels to get cumbersome...
> 
> In lower levels the fighting classes are not far from the poor BAB classes in ability to hit, at higher levels it is folly for anyone but the best BAB classes to get into melee... unless they have spent precious rounds prepping.  And soon the DM feels (probably rightly) that he or she needs to present challenges equal to the best character's maximum ability.  At high levels, the attack bonus aggregate for all characters can vary wildly. Characters who can't muster an attack bonus equal to the best character's attack bonus might as well be a number of character levels lower equal to the difference. At high levels this difference can be large.
> 
> With saves, at lower levels the poor saves aren't so far apart from the good saves, but the difference between the poor and good saves spreads out significantly at high levels. Significant resources are needed to keep the poor save from falling further and further behind.  The poor saves are no longer just a weakness but an Achilles heal at high levels.





I think the trees might be in the way of the forest.

What I'm trying to say (poorly, I guess) is not about BAB or HP or skill points in particular.  What I'm trying to point out is the numbers race, the "forest" part of my posts that everyone seems to have ignored in order to point out the "trees" of whether BAB and HP scale evenly.

The thread is supposed to address, I thought, the sweet spot and how to preserve it.  I'm just trying to suggest that if we were perhaps to acknowledge that as characters get better, the world gets tougher, there might be a way to scale back the advancement of both.  As Wulf has pointed out, it doesn't make sense that the game mechanics world gets tougher because the PCs get better.  To preserve the sweet spot and acknowledge that the world is the world, one place to start might be recognizing, then, that the world is static.  If, then, PCs were to remain relatively static--in the sense that as they advance, their ability to have profound influences on their world and the way they function in it and that they would remain challenged by it--then maybe we'd have some insight into how to prolong the desired sweet spot.

Thanks for the replies, and Cheers.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 9, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> The thread is supposed to be about stretching the amount of time you can play out those old plots without being low-level magic. I say this is impossible.



It may indeed be impossible without major reworking of everything, especially certain spells. It may be a Gordian knot or a problem, but I think it can be worked through.

IMO, I wish the "feel" of the high level play "sweet spot" was at some other level.  The inflection from Wulf's sweet spot to jmucchiello's sweet spot; say, at 20th level rather than 10th level.

I don't want that high level play to disappear, I just want it moved down the dial.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 9, 2006)

I think we need rules that encourage players to develop a broader range of competencies rather than to intensify a few competencies.  This would bring about fewer automatic successes (since PCs wouldnt max particular competencies into the stratosphere, or at least not so quickly) but PCs would still get gamist cookies (new competencies) at regular intervals. The d20 would be more relevant for a longer period of the campaign.

Some degree of automatic success would begin to become apparent as the PCs get to higher levels.  After all, they are improving their skills, and that means some challenges will become very easy; the narrow advancement is not stopped, merely slowed.  And the PCs would start to adventure in areas where the DCs are higher, so it might appear as if the challenges are automatically scaling.  But both trends would be much less dramatic if PCs took a broader approach to advancement.

That's my primary suggestion for preserving the sweet spot: Find ways of encouraging broad advancement and slowing narrow advancement.

The other issue hinges on the role of magic in higher level campaigns.  The discussion here can get easily diverted into a high-magic/low-magic kind of question, which I don't think is what I want to do.  What I think one has to do is make sure that a spellcaster's highest level spells are high magic, but his lower level spells are low-magic.  I.e. more spells need to have their effectiveness capped based on what nonmagical approaches to the same problem are capable of doing.  I am thinking here mostly of spells that encroach on the core competencies that involve skills.

Since high level spell slots have a high opportunity cost, the "encroaching" spells can be better than other classes when they are first available, but should drop in relative effectiveness thereafter.  A 3rd level wizard should be able to do more with a _knock_ than a 3rd level rogue, but an 18th level rogue could open things that an 18th level wizard's _knock_ won't touch.  This would ensure that a character's skills remain relevant over time, but magic is still available when the d20 roll turns up badly.  If the 18th level rogue can't open the door, the wizard might have to _disjoin_ it, say.  9th level spells have a high opportunity cost, so our rule of thumb says that it can outperform the rogue in the rogue's area of special competency.

The same principle applies to magic items.  When the item's gp value si such that it requires a substantial fraction of the PC's wealth, then it should give a pretty dramatic advantage; even allowing the owner to overshadow another character in a particular core competency.  But this advantage should diminish as the relative value of the item does.  Clever ways of capping items should be found.

That's my second suggestion to preserve the sweet spot.  Magic should only encroach on the core competencies of nonspellcasters when there is a high opportunity cost involved in its use.

A corollary to this suggestion is that magic that encourages the use of the core competencies of other classes need not have a high opportunity cost.  One reason _teleport_ is bad is that the competencies that are used in cross-country travel (Survival to forage for food, Spot and Listen during the night watch, the ability to sleep in armor, etc.) become irrelevant.  But if _shadow walk_ allowed these same skills to be used (at least to some degree) then it would be good.  (Journeys in shadow being hazardous journeys, requiring sharp eyes and ready blades.)  A little judicious fiddling (e.g. time in shadow seems to take days, but you get to your destination instantaneously) and you can probably something that has all the good features of _teleport_ without much adverse affect at all on the game.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 9, 2006)

Well, dealing with magic replacing skills is not that much of an issue...the right spell might be more effective than a skill check now and then, but how many times *can* that wizard/sorcerer cast _Knock_ in the first place? Even if they use all their available slots for that, and maybe a few of the higher ones, too, a rogue can go and open locks all day long, until he's caught or dies from a trap. The equalizer to potent magic is the fact that it is limited by some system (spell slots, spell points, fatigue, what have you), and while the wizard is quite flexible in using his spells for the most diverse situations, he only has so many. That was, and still is, part and parcel of the niche protection of D&D classes. The spells were the same throughout the editions, after all, but the wizard was always busy trying to fry monsters, shield himself from arrows, enchanting the fighter's sword, etc., to be a real negating factor towards skill checks.

Magical items now, they have the potential to make skill checks obsolete, if overused. This is a part where the DM can exercise some control, and actually should, even if it's just by obeying the DM's Guide in placing spellcasters by community size, and enforcing the standards of monetary values. Also, not every spellcaster will be able to create every kind of magical item, especially if it's something a bit off of standard items, as they also depend on the spell list of that caster.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Dude, how many times did I say there's nothing wrong with low-magic style of play? Don't put words in my mouth, especially that I'm calling anyone stupid. I'm not.



Over-react much?
I wan't putting words in your mouth.

Your points are completely valid for D&D but meaningless to the specific topic of this thread.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> You can't keep high level magic and keep playing the same types of stories as you had at first level. I'm also saying that the natural progression is to change to a different type of story.




We've already conceded, several times-- in fact several before you even joined the thread-- that is the default "solution" for high level play.



> The thread is supposed to be about stretching the amount of time you can play out those old plots without being low-level magic. I say this is impossible.




Then I hope you're done here.


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Then I hope you're done here.



Nice way to make a guy feel wanted. So far only Chieromancer's last post contained anything like useful advice to broaden your sweet spot without nerfing spells/magic. Before I joined the thread every post was about limiting magic. I'll leave now so you can go back to implementing teleportation sickness and other spell nerfs.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

Dorloran said:
			
		

> I'm just trying to suggest that if we were perhaps to acknowledge that as characters get better, the world gets tougher, there might be a way to scale back the advancement of both.  As Wulf has pointed out, it doesn't make sense that the game mechanics world gets tougher because the PCs get better.




I'm replying to you as well as someone else above who said, in essence, "the players move on to tougher dungeons."

There is certainly room for a variety of challenges as the PCs move up in levels. 

The problem is that there is granularity at the low and mid levels that is lacking in the high levels. At high levels, you lose the granularity of the d20 roll; you lose the granularity of attack rolls, AC, and hit points; and so on. Instead, high level play is very often a boolean exercise: who goes first; who can hit the high ACs (at all), who doesn't roll a 1 on their saving throw. There are all sorts of challenges-- indeed, I think, the majority of them-- that are all-or-nothing affairs.

Part of that is due to the d20 system itself-- there's only so much variance on a d20, so when bonuses reach a certain point, it breaks. 

And part of it is due to the magnitude of attacks and spells that become "save or die" affairs-- maybe not across the whole party, but from character to character.

The move from 3.0 to 3.5 addressed this problem by trying to restore some of the granularity to the all-or-nothing spells: disintegrate, harm, etc.

And granularity isn't restricted to just combat. Teleport 3.5 is more granular than teleport 3.0, because it has distance limitations; it's no longer necessarily a case of "Not there, there." 

Divination/Commune can be made more granular by limiting the amount, scope, or usefulness of the answers; it shouldn't be a case of "You know nothing, and now you know _everything_."

(And I've noticed that some folks' solution to mortality/resurrection is to make death itself more granular.)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> So far only Chieromancer's last post contained anything like useful advice to broaden your sweet spot without nerfing spells/magic.




Yep, brilliant post. I'll get to it.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 9, 2006)

OK, I sense this thread is getting back on track so I might as well jump back in.    



			
				jmucchiello said:
			
		

> The thread is supposed to be about stretching the amount of time you can play out those old plots without being low-level magic. I say this is impossible. You can't keep high level magic and keep playing the same types of stories as you had at first level. I'm also saying that the natural progression is to change to a different type of story: one where teleports and commune live in harmony with your plot. If you can't do this, you can't play at high level.




As Wulf pointed out (in the way only Wulf can   ), I think everyone has agreed that this is what happens in a traditional D&D campaign.  Once you start tinkering with the core system, especially with regards to magic, you aren't running a "traditional" D&D campaign anymore.

And I'm perfectly fine with that.

I think something that gets lots in these mechanical discussions is the type of campaign, play style, challenges, etc you are trying to emulate with the rules.  _The rules should fit the story, not vice versa._ 

I think WotC is quite guilty of this lately.  They have made a conscious decision to design for the Gamist only.  I say a better design uses a Storyteller mindset to determine what rules are necessary, and then to design those rules with a Gamist in mind.  In other words, fluff first, then crunch.

Which is one of my biggest problems with by-the-books D&D: It forces you to play a certain way.  I want to be able to tell stories without having to worry about the PC's being able to teleport to wherever they need to go.  Core D&D is crunch first. 

In core D&D, the level range (i.e. the Sweet Spot) in which this type of _story _is possible, and in which the d20 roll is more relevant, is around 5-8 (give or take a level or two).

So if the stories you want to tell are lower-magic than the core rules, so be it.  If you need to change the rules to extend your sweet spot and call it a low-magic campaign, go for it.  And perhaps my goal for this thread is different than everyone elses.  I do think that extending the sweet spot of the core rules without substantial changing is incredibly difficult.  It's not impossible, but it's certainly easier to remove or change bigger chunks of the rules than rethink the whole system (like what Cheiromancer suggested - great post by the way).


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2006)

What if you simply slowed down the access to spells of higher levels?

For example, a Wizard 8 would only know spells of levels 1 through 3.
Caster level for these spells would be the same.
Spell slots would be the same.
So the 4th level spell slots could be used for metamagic enhanced spells or just lower level spells if no metamagic feats are selected.
Give L1 spells at CL1, L2 at CL4, and new spell levels every 4 caster levels thereafter.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> That's my primary suggestion for preserving the sweet spot: Find ways of encouraging broad advancement and slowing narrow advancement.




Are we just talking skills here? Or would you include BAB and caster level?

You could very easily increase the cost of a skill rank the higher it gets. (Say, 1:1 through 10 ranks, then 3:2 for ranks 11-15, and 2:1 for ranks 16+.)

(see attached image.)

And something similar for BAB and caster level. 

But I think that's a pretty hefty redesign.



> That's my second suggestion to preserve the sweet spot.  Magic should only encroach on the core competencies of nonspellcasters when there is a high opportunity cost involved in its use.




I have to digest this a bit more. I could use more examples.



> But if _shadow walk_ allowed these same skills to be used (at least to some degree) then it would be good.  (Journeys in shadow being hazardous journeys, requiring sharp eyes and ready blades.)  A little judicious fiddling (e.g. time in shadow seems to take days, but you get to your destination instantaneously) and you can probably something that has all the good features of _teleport_ without much adverse affect at all on the game.




Man, that's cool.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I have to digest this a bit more. I could use more examples.




I guess what he meant is to add complications to the "offending" spells that cost the caster more than a spell slot, a few material components and maybe a few XP. Tangible examples can be found in older editions, where spells actually aged the caster, cost him Constitution permanently, etc. That used to instill a hefty respect into the casters (and their players) whenever they really had to use those spells.

In another vein, it could simply mean adding roleplaying complications to the use of a spell, like the example of _shadow walk_ showed. I'd recommend checking out e.g. the _Iron Kingdoms Character Guide_ on how travel magic is handled there (a chance of an Infernal taking an interest in the travelling caster and attaching itself to the transport in progress), as well as healing and resurrection magic.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 9, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Teleport: I admit, it would be nice if the RAW had more anti-teleport spells besides the 8th level dimension lock.



You mean "besides the 6th level _forbiddance_."


----------



## Staffan (Aug 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Some of the problems seem to arise from over-specialization on the part of PCs.



I think part of the problem is the combination of control over your own advancement and the system heavily rewarding specialization.

This reminds me of Runequest (old version, haven't seen Mongoose's new). RQ's skill advancement is more organic: if you succeed at using a skill during an adventure, you get an "experience check" next to the skill on your sheet. After the adventure, you roll for each "check", and if you FAIL at the skill roll you get to increase the skill by 1d6% (in other words, it's harder to increase a skill you already have a high level in). You could also use downtime to practice skills you specifically wanted to increase, but that was either inefficient or expensive.

This leads to most characters having a bunch of common skills at 60-70% or so after a while - those common skills being the ones all characters have use for (e.g. perception skills, survival skills in a wilderness-based campaign), with their specialty skills being more along the 80-90% range, and those being differentiated from character to character (the warrior leaves picking locks to the thief, so he doesn't advance in that skill).

I'm not sure how to translate this into D&D, but it's worth thinking about.


----------



## maggot (Aug 9, 2006)

The granularity of the spell system has always bothered me.  Without getting into the "low magic/high magic" discussion, look at the cure line of spells and the transporation line of spells by the best spell a caster of each level can cast:

1st - Cure Light Wounds (d8+1)
2nd - Cure Light Wounds (d8+2)
3rd  - Cure Moderate Wounds (2d8+3)
4th - Cure Moderate Wounds (2d8+4)
5th - Cure Serious Wounds (3d8+5)
6th - Cure Serious Wounds (3d8+6)
7th - Cure Critical Wounds (4d8+7)
8th - Cure Critical Wounds (4d8+8)
9th - Cure Critical Wounds (4d8+9) or perhaps Empowered Cure Serious (4.5d8+13.5)
10th -Cure Critical Wounds (4d8+10) or perhaps Empowered Cure Serious (4.5d8+15) or about 28 hp average [35 in the empowered case]
11th - Heal (110hp + all conditions)

Except for the fact there is a missing spell (cure fatal wounds?) at 9th, it scales rather nicely until 11th level where bam! you can cure 4 times as much and all conditions as well.  Why is the cure curve so clunky?  The same thing applies to the inflict/harm curve.

Now look at transport spells:
1st - Expeditious Retreat (run 30' more/round for 1 minute)
2nd - Expeditious Retreat (run 30' more/round for 2 minutes)
3rd - Levitate, Spider Climb, or Exp Retreat (so now you can bypass of climb checks)
4th - Same
5th - Fly (5 minutes at 60', or about 6000' if you hustle the whole time)
6th - Fly (6 minutes at 60', or about 7200')
7th - Dimension Door 680' or fly 8400'
8th - Dimension Door 720' or fly 9600' (a little under 2 miles in 8 minutes)
9th - Teleport 900miles

Does anyone else see the disconnect?  Shouldn't Teleport at 9th level be more like 1 mile/level, and then have greater teleports with longer distances at higher levels?

Same applies to the "remove condition" series of spells: once you hit, raise dead (remove death) there is not much more room to move (just like once you hit teleport 900 miles, you


----------



## VirgilCaine (Aug 9, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> You mean "besides the 6th level _forbiddance_."




Don't forget Unhallow and Hallow, which can have a dimensional anchor spell applied to them, and that "areas of strong physical or magical energy can make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible."

Which would explain why Control Weather is a Sor/Wiz, Drd, AND Clr spell. And why BBEGs prefer lairs in earthquake zones, next to volcanoes, or near portals to elemental planes...

Edit: 
You're forgetting maggot, that Teleport cannot take you anywhere you have not seen.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 9, 2006)

If you want to keep the d20 result important, just make sure that no total bonus ever becomes greater than +15 or so.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 9, 2006)

maggot said:
			
		

> The granularity of the spell system has always bothered me.
> .
> .
> .
> ...




Definitely some disconnect, but, with the move spells, there is "overland flight" which lets you move up to 64 miles in an 8-hour period.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 9, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> In another vein, it could simply mean adding roleplaying complications to the use of a spell, like the example of _shadow walk_ showed.



That example seemed to be a description of a lower level _astral projection_, minus the new body aspect. _Astral projection_ lets you bounce into the Astral plane and then pick any other plane in which to jump into.  Because you actually enter the Astral you can end up encountering astral denizens for your duration there until you choose your next destination.

Where _astral projection_ maintains a higher level step above Cheiromancer's _shadow walk_ is that with _astral projection_ the PCs manifests new bodies with duplicates of all equipment on their bodies, meaning death of the new body doesn't cause actual death... A built-in free _true resurrection_ as you will.



> I'd recommend checking out e.g. the _Iron Kingdoms Character Guide_ on how travel magic is handled there (a chance of an Infernal taking an interest in the travelling caster and attaching itself to the transport in progress)... .



Just wanted to say that Dark Sun also has something to bring to the table. In the _Defilers and Preservers_ accessory spells that accessed the planes (_etherealness_, _contact other plane_) forced the caster to make a % roll for success. Even after casting the spell, success for linking to an Outer or Astral Plane was only at 96–100%!  Plus if you rolled between 01–15 you were "Lost" in Dark Sun's barrier plane The Gray.  All other % results were failure to link.  To get out of The Gray, once per day you rolled you Int score or less on a % roll. If you failed you remain lost and The Gray saps your life permanently losing one point of Constitution per day.

% success for Inner/Ethereal plane was 66–100, and % lost in The Gray was 01–08. All other % results were failure to link.  Elemental clerics do not have to roll failure checks to connect to their patron element.

Similarly, Dark Sun players and DMs have long complained about magic that made the harsh world simply a background element rather than the hazard it should be.  Particularly _teleport_, this spell especially makes travel through the desert a nonissue.  However, on the bright side for this discussion the _create water_, and _create food and water_ spells were removed from universal cleric access and restricted to water clerics only.  In a desert world, this is pretty dramatic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 9, 2006)

Interesting thread.  I'm bookmarking it to examine in light of my own rules revisions.

RC


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

maggot said:
			
		

> The granularity of the spell system has always bothered me. /snip/
> 
> Does anyone else see the disconnect?  Shouldn't Teleport at 9th level be more like 1 mile/level, and then have greater teleports with longer distances at higher levels?
> 
> Same applies to the "remove condition" series of spells: once you hit, raise dead (remove death) there is not much more room to move (just like once you hit teleport 900 miles, you




Looks like you had more to say, but it doesn't matter. You NAILED it.

There is a HUGE difference in scale/granularity at 9th level and above.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2006)

That is a good point.

And the follow-up that he started toward was an implication that linear scaling of these higher end spells may be part of the problem as well.


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 9, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I think we need rules that encourage players to develop a broader range of competencies rather than to intensify a few competencies.  This would bring about fewer automatic successes (since PCs wouldnt max particular competencies into the stratosphere, or at least not so quickly) but PCs would still get gamist cookies (new competencies) at regular intervals. The d20 would be more relevant for a longer period of the campaign.  ...snip...
> 
> That's my primary suggestion for preserving the sweet spot: Find ways of encouraging broad advancement and slowing narrow advancement.



Which leads to - and augments - a corollary problem that also impacts the sweet spot: characters who can do everything by themselves and thus do not need the rest of the party.  At the 3-9 range, that's already been broadly defined as the sweet spot in most editions, the PC's *need* each others' abilities.  The wizards can't fight, but their spells are useful.  The thief can't cure, but nobody else can sneak.  And so on; thus the party has a built-in reason to stay together and at least try to get along.   But at higher levels, with what you suggest, the PC's abilities would start bleeding over into the realms of other classes.  Combine that with multiclassing (and don't get me started on that) and the inter-reliance is gone as each PC can to some extent do everything.

My suggestion here would be almost the opposite: make it harder if not impossible to gain abilities your class would not normally have, and really hack back on multiclassing...all to keep that inter-reliance that makes a party more than just a random collection of one-man bands.  People won't like this - it cuts back on character design freedom, for one thing - but I think it adds to the "sweetness", if that makes sense.

Lanefan


----------



## Slobber Monster (Aug 9, 2006)

The problem I see with a lot of the discussion about skill modifiers and DC's is that people are only taking into account very narrowly defined situations.

The common example given so far is Open Lock, where the highest DC lock in the PH is 40. So if your lock opening specialist has a +30 total modifier at high level, in a site based adventure he doesn't need to bother rolling to bypass a locked door in a quiet situation. A player who hasn't specialized in Open Locks has _no_ chance of bypassing the door (let's forget about magic for a moment, just for the sake of discussion), and the obstacle has become either trivial or impossible depending on party composition. The only way to force uncertainty for the skill specialist is to push the task further away from the dabbler, until the dabbling becomes irrelevant.

But I think this is the wrong way to approach it. Rather than scaling the base DC's indefinitely as levels go up, the better approach is to create _messier_ situations which bring multiple skills and abilities into play. Keep some opportunities around for the dabblers to better their position or solve a problem via the use of skill checks which fall into normal DC ranges. Pump the DC's of the really hard stuff for the specialists not by increasing the base DC, but by adding difficult circumstances.

A high level rogue shouldn't be sweating over spending a few minutes bypassing a well crafted lock in a static site. She should be racing against the clock to open a compartment holding a magical time bomb on a swaying ship in a raging storm while her allies fight off a horde of demons. The lock itsself would be the same DC 40 lock she picked 5 levels ago, but now she has to make DC 15 Concentration checks before trying and the Open Lock DC has been bumped with a +2 circumstance bonus due to conditions. If she's a truly uber unlocker then she could even add +20 to the DC to do it as a Move action so she can take a stab at a harrassing demon.

But that's just how the rogue would solve the problem. The situation can still be constructed so that other abilities will also do the trick. I guess it does require a lot of work constructing situations, especially compared to designing site-based adventures. So maybe it doesn't extend what some people are looking for as a sweet spot. But I still think skills work fine, and the bigger problem is their frequent obsolescence by magic.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

I wish to revise and extend my thoughts on skills.

1) Max rank is equal to character level.

2) You do not receive x4 skill points at first level.

These two things are related. I was wondering why 1st level characters get x4 skill points at first level. (In addition to just plain annoying me as an exception to the multiclassing rules...)

x4 skill points at first level could be designed for one of two things:

a) It could be necessary to bootstrap the character with an extra +3 above and beyond his level and ability modifier, in order to put certain DCs into reach, or

b) It was hoped that the players would use the x4 skill points to broaden the skill base. Of course, that's not what generally happens in practice-- players tend to keep their skills maxxed and not diversify much with extra skill points.

3) Every class receives 2 more skill points than normal-- so the classes that normally get 2/level get 4/level, and rogues get 10/level. This will encourage a broader skill base.

4) Skill rank costs go up at higher ranks. Ranks 1-5 are bought 1:1. Ranks 6-10 cost 2 skill points. Ranks 11-15 cost 3 skill points. Ranks 16-20 costs 4 skill points. 

5) Cross class skills? Not sure yet.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 9, 2006)

Interesting ideas. Some questions...







			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> 1) Max rank is equal to character level.



Any modification to how much ability scores affect skills?







> 4) Skill rank costs go up at higher ranks. Ranks 1-5 are bought 1:1. Ranks 6-10 cost 2 skill points. Ranks 11-15 cost 3 skill points. Ranks 16-20 costs 4 skill points.



Increasing costs will make ability score improvements that much more attractive.


----------



## Slobber Monster (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I wish to revise and extend my thoughts on skills.
> 
> 1) Max rank is equal to character level.
> 
> ...




The whole point of x4 skills and the level +3 cap is to allow 1st level characters to be competent at their core skills compared to an untrained person. Even then the difference between zero ranks and four ranks is only 20%. A person who is "good" at what they do should have at _least_ this much advantage on an ameteur. Failing to max (or nearly max) your core skills is a silly decision, both strategically and from a role-playing perspective. I think your change might be workable if you also granted to everyone at first level a free +2/+2 skill feat (e.g. Alertness) or a free Skill Focus.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> The whole point of x4 skills and the level +3 cap is to allow 1st level characters to be competent at their core skills compared to an untrained person. Even then the difference between zero ranks and four ranks is only 20%. A person who is "good" at what they do should have at _least_ this much advantage on an ameteur. Failing to max (or nearly max) your core skills is a silly decision, both strategically and from a role-playing perspective. I think your change might be workable if you also granted to everyone at first level a free +2/+2 skill feat (e.g. Alertness) or a free Skill Focus.




That's a Simulationist argument more than a Gamist one, although I see your point.

Anyhow, I was thinking Action Points. (But then I just love APs.)

I have more to say.

Having done the math with skills, now let's look at some other things that normally scale at a 1:1 ratio with character level, BAB and caster level.

I need to enlist the aid of someone better than me at formatting text, but here are the GOOD, AVERAGE, and POOR tables for levels 1-20, with the same escalating "costs" at 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20.

Seriously, don't even look unless you can help me format a table. 

[sblock]
Character Level		base	Good		base	Average		base	Poor
1		1	1		0.75	0		0.5	0
2		2	2		1.5	1		1	1
3		3	3		2.25	2		1.5	1
4		4	4		3	3		2	2
5		5	5		3.75	3		2.5	2
6		5.5	5		4.125	4		2.75	2
7		6	6		4.5	4		3	3
8		6.5	6		4.875	4		3.25	3
9		7	7		5.25	5		3.5	3
10		7.5	7		5.625	5		3.75	3
11		7.833333333	7		5.875	5		3.916666667	3
12		8.166666667	8		6.125	6		4.083333333	4
13		8.5	8		6.375	6		4.25	4
14		8.833333333	8		6.625	6		4.416666667	4
15		9.166666667	9		6.875	6		4.583333333	4
16		9.416666667	9		7.0625	7		4.708333333	4
17		9.666666667	9		7.25	7		4.833333333	4
18		9.916666667	9		7.4375	7		4.958333333	4
19		10.16666667	10		7.625	7		5.083333333	5
20		10.41666667	10		7.8125	7		5.208333333	5[/sblock]

So this offers the normal BAB progression from 1-5, then slows it down at 6-10 by half, 11-15 by one-third, and 16-20 by one-fourth. Again, same rate that skill ranks are slowed.

And I'd do the same thing with caster level, dividing classes up into Good (bard, cleric, druid, wiz, sor), Average (paladin, ranger), and Poor (barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue)-- off the top of my head. Caster level would be additive in the same way as BAB.

I gotta be honest, I'm not even sure what I'm looking at here. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Henry (Aug 9, 2006)

trying:


			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's a Simulationist argument more than a Gamist one, although I see your point.
> 
> Anyhow, I was thinking Action Points. (But then I just love APs.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Slobber Monster (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's a Simulationist argument more than a Gamist one, although I see your point.




I may have inadvertently presented it that way, but I have gamist interests at heart. If you flatten the first level skills too much then the skill guy doesn't get to meaningfully differentiate himself from the rest of the group. If a character is only 5-10% better at something than everyone else then it's pretty hard to notice unless it's something that comes into play all the time - like BAB.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

Would probably work if you just truncated all the decimals down to 2 places. Thanks.

One instant (big) problem I am seeing is that if the bonuses are additive, it's better to multiclass! You're better off as a Wiz10/Sor10 (caster level 7+7=14) than a Wiz20. 

Yeah, problem...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> I may have inadvertently presented it that way, but I have gamist interests at heart. If you flatten the first level skills too much then the skill guy doesn't get to meaningfully differentiate himself from the rest of the group. If a character is only 5-10% better at something than everyone else then it's pretty hard to notice unless it's something that comes into play all the time - like BAB.




Ah, now I got you.

It might be easier to impose a flat -2 "untrained" penalty than to give a free feat.

And of course there are still some skills that can't be used untrained at all.


----------



## Henry (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf, check my post above - I think I got your table correct, but I truncated the repeating decimals to save column space. In the future, the {CODE} square bracket vbulletin tag is a handy tool, and formatting it in a fixed width font like in notepad using courier new or System font, is a good way to go with tables.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> One instant (big) problem I am seeing is that if the bonuses are additive, it's better to multiclass! You're better off as a Wiz10/Sor10 (caster level 7+7=14) than a Wiz20.
> 
> Yeah, problem...



Why add the caster levels if they cast spells from different selections? Why consider caster levels like bonuses? I'm assuming one wouldn't add bard caster level with wizard caster level to get the result.  Or add cleric with wizard...  I'm a little


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Wulf, check my post above - I think I got your table correct, but I truncated the repeating decimals to save column space. In the future, the {CODE} square bracket vbulletin tag is a handy tool, and formatting it in a fixed width font like in notepad using courier new or System font, is a good way to go with tables.



 Yeah, that's got it.

I tried {code}, and {html}, and pasting the html directly in, but it didn't work out. I could still see all the <> brackets from the html code-- it didn't seem to resolve any code.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Why add the caster levels if they cast spells from different selections? Why consider caster levels like bonuses? I'm assuming one wouldn't add bard caster level with wizard caster level to get the result.  Or add cleric with wizard...  I'm a little




Two part question.

First, I wanted to add caster levels, because RAW aren't very friendly to multiclassing. That's a whole other discussion that's been had many times, culminating in the Mystic Theurge, etc.

Second part answer-- what I've presented doesn't matter. It's as much of a problem with BAB as with caster level. Ftr 7 / Bbn 7 / Rgr 6 would have a better BAB additively than a Ftr 20.

... back to the drawing board...

That'll teach me to think out loud!

Seriously, it's ugly in here under the hood.


----------



## Henry (Aug 9, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's got it.
> 
> I tried {code}, and {html}, and pasting the html directly in, but it didn't work out. I could still see all the <> brackets from the html code-- it didn't seem to resolve any code.




nope, the 
	
	



```
bracket - I didn't use it in my explanation earlier, but realized just now it'll show up fine as long as I don't use the closing [code] bracket. HTML code is turned off on the forums for security, I believe.
```


----------



## jmucchiello (Aug 9, 2006)

Pretend I'm someone else.... 



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Second part answer-- what I've presented doesn't matter. It's as much of a problem with BAB as with caster level. Ftr 7 / Bbn 7 / Rgr 6 would have a better BAB additively than a Ftr 20.



Actually the answer is on your chart. It says character level, not class level. So when the ftr-3/bbn-2 with the +5 BAB goes to ftr-3/brb-3, he consults the good column increase from character level 5 to character level 6 and becomes BAB +5.5. so by ftr-7/brb-7/rgr-6 he will be no different than the ftr-20.

On the othe hand, the ftr-8 or takes a level of sorcerer will only gain .25 BAB by going from level 8 to level 9 on the poor chart.

The flaw with this method of course is that ftr-1..ftr5/sor1..sor5 has a different bab than sor1..sor5/ftr1..ftr5. Or maybe it's not a flaw. Order of learning combat could affect total combat ability. (or you make the rule that you recalculate BAB every level using the most favorable progressions first regardless of the order they were gained. So the sor5 taking a level of ftr1 would reset bab to +1 for ftr1, +2 for level 2-5 on ht poor chart at levels 2-5 and +.25 for character level 6, yielding +3.25.)

Now my head hurts. Can't wait to see how this progression change affects Monsters.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 9, 2006)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Can't wait to see how this progression change affects Monsters.




I wouldn't change the monsters at all.


----------



## DeadlyUematsu (Aug 10, 2006)

Wow, maggot's insight was really on the spot.


----------



## Victim (Aug 10, 2006)

One major reason for 4 ranks at first level is to even out the effect of other mods.  If a character has 18 Dex, then the 4 ranks make the skill equal in importance to the stat.  Otherwise skill ranks are pretty worthless in comparison to stat mods and such.  It's like high level 3.0; who cares how many ranks a character has when +skill items are so cheap.  I think making skill ranks less important in the context of other modifiers makes the problem worse.



> Does anyone else see the disconnect? Shouldn't Teleport at 9th level be more like 1 mile/level, and then have greater teleports with longer distances at higher levels?
> 
> Same applies to the "remove condition" series of spells: once you hit, raise dead (remove death) there is not much more room to move (just like once you hit teleport 900 miles, you




The only disconnect is the lack of context in your post.

Evaluting Heal by comparing the amount it cures compared with other lower level spells is totally worthless.  Put the spells in their proper place.  How much a spell heals is irrelevant without considering how much damage enemies do and how many HP people have.  There's also opportunity costs: what else can a high level priest do with a 6th level spell and what else can he do with his turn.  Basically, healing spells have been losing ground on a character's HP since level 1: the cure progression goes up 1d8 per two levels and +1 per level.  Most characters gain way more than 1d4+1 HP per level, and by 11th level many will be gaining Con items to further increase their rate of HP gain.  Not to mention that damage has gone up quite a bit as well. In the context of the game, those smoothly scaling Cure X wounds become increasingly ineffective since damage and HP outpace them.  Heal needs to have a big jump to catch up.  Also, an 11th+ cleric can be doing a number of interesting and powerful things with his spells and time.  As the value of his other actions increase, the value of his healing options must increase in order for that choice to remain attractive.  If Heal was like 6d8+CL, it would suck unless everything else completely changed as well.

The problem with Teleport is that it's context is highly variable.  We can look at how tough the monsters are, how many HP people are likely to have, and what other stuff high level clerics can do to see where Heal fits.  But Teleport offers strategic movement, and there's no universal way to value that.  In Eberron, a 9th level 'port can take a character from Sharn to Wroat instantly.  But traveling from say Qbarra to the nearest city big enough to have a train station will take several days of teleporting.  And PCs have transport options that are much faster than walking and riding anyway.  So 100 mile/level might be required in a game of internation scope.  And, in that game, a 1 mile/level would be a cruel joke, like Drawji's Instant Summons.  But if your game takes place inside a small region, then Teleport might let your cross multiple countries in single jump.  If there's no other fast transit, then it becomes even more important.  And if the game is about going into the Dungeon from the Town, then going back to sell and heal, then a Teleport that goes a mile per level might be awesome since you can escape the Dungeon instantly while a 900 mile port might be campaign blowing.  Whether or not 900 miles is too much depends heavily on the campaign and setting.

Similarly, there's plenty of room of to go after raise dead.  Raise is expensive, both in money and since it costs a level.  It's slow to cast, and is subject to some restrictions.  The high level spells ease up on the restrictions and eventually the level cost.  Revivify has some harsh restrictions, but is fast and cheap.  And it's generally better not to die in the first, so there's plenty of room to work on preventing death.  Is the problem with Raise Dead that it allows the party to recover its combat losses, or that it can _ressurect the dead_ which can have far reaching consequences.  The truth is probably some of both.  But being able to save people who are say mostly dead is much less a change in scope than being able to pull people from the afterlife.

In one sense, there's very little room to go with most spells.  It's just a matter of making it easier, affecting more people/things, increasing the cap, or adding side benefits.  

Broadly competent characters need teams to adventure just as much as specialized ones, IMHO.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 10, 2006)

My take on the 4x was that it provided the character with the ability to round out the character by purchasing some skills related to culture/background.  

As for players just maxing out a limited number skills and not rounding out the character,I never had that problem. Then again, I require players to some spend points on background and cultural skills not related directly to adventuring.  

However, if eliminating the skill point modifier at first level, I would love to see the implementaton of something similar to the adolescene skills of RMSS and HARP. 

Edit:  Actually, I would like to see the adolescene skills implemented, but I wouldn't eliminate the skill point multiplier completely- maybe just reduce it to x2 or x3.   I would still keep the skill cap as it is in the phb rather than limiting it to level- in my opinion, limiting the cap to level- I prefer more variance at first level than you have a rank or you don't.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 10, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Two part question.
> 
> First, I wanted to add caster levels, because RAW aren't very friendly to multiclassing. That's a whole other discussion that's been had many times, culminating in the Mystic Theurge, .




Why not just have a base class that combines divine and arcane casting?  Caster level = class level. As for spellcasting progression, use 3.0 0-level multiclassing as a basis.

1st level 0/0 level spells as per 3.0 mutliclassnig
2nd level 1st level arcane and divine spells
6th level 2nd level arcane and divine spells
10th level 3rd level arcane and divine spells
14th level 4th level arcane and divine spells
18th level 5th level level arcane and divine spells

The result is that caster level improves, but the new spell levels are gained much slower.


----------



## ashockney (Aug 10, 2006)

The caster rule would seem to be as follows:
Divine and Arcane Caster Level must be equal to or less than Character Level divided by 2.

Caster Level grows as follows:
Primary Caster: +1 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Arcane Trickster, Archmage, Heirophant, Eldritch Knight, Loremaster, Thaumaturgist)
Hybrid Caster: +.66 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Bard, Assassin, Blackguard)
Partial Caster: +.40 Caster Level per Class Level (ie, Ranger, Paladin)

The decimal caster level progression charts could look like this:
0/1/2/2/3/4/4/5/6/6/7/8/8/9/10/10
0/1/1/2/2/2/3/3/4/4/4/5/5/6/6/6/7/7/8/8

The key to this rule would be that the player simply has to find "something else to do" if he can't improve his caster level, and meet the rules for character level divided by 2.  Either add a non-caster level/hybrid caster level/partial caster level or switch caster level classes between arcane and divine.

The only other game element change that would be required to facilitate this would be the impact of spell resistance.  Lowered caster levels would become unfairly harst at higher levels.  SR is meant in most instances to give a 50/50 chance for failure (ie, concealment), I think either implementing a flat rule such as this, or reducing the SR by 5 would also have about the same desired effect, and leave the "high end" SR still very challenging. 

For example, 14th level party is fighting a CR14 creature.  The best caster in the party is 7th level and can cast 4th level spells.  The creature has SR 24 (14+10=24), for the 7th level caster to break through it, they have to roll a 17 or higher.  Using the suggested modifier, of -5 from all SR in the book, the new roll required to overcome SR is a moderate 12 or higher.  At the high end, a 20th level party is fighting a CR 22 creature, with SR 32 (22+10), the party is CL 10.  They would need a 22 or higher (modified on their SR check).  Using the modified roll method, they would still need a 17 or higher, however, there is now a significant incentive to have Greater Penetration and/or use other spells that may help to lower the creature's resistance, or avoid using SR spells against them at all.  The way higher level plays, having solid defenses you can count on, such as SR would be of great benefit.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 10, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> As for players just maxing out a limited number skills and not rounding out the character,I never had that problem. Then again, I require players to some spend points on background and cultural skills not related directly to adventuring.





What does "require" mean in this context?


----------



## Greg K (Aug 10, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> What does "require" mean in this context?




Prior to character creation, I'll sit with a player and ask them what class or classes they are considering to play from the list of classes that I allow for the campaign. 

Once, I know what the player is considering,  I'll then work with the player to make the character fit into the setting by helping them tie the background to some specific region, culture, and/or organization as appropriate to the setting even creating a class variant if appropriate.  Once we have the background worked out, I'll require the player purchase a rank or two in one or two skills to reflect elements of the character background. For example: 

1. if the fighter or rogue was raised by priests, the player will need to spend a rank or two on Knowledge (Religion). 

2. If the character grew up a herder, I'll the character will need to put a rank or two into Handle Animal.

3. If the character spent time as a sailor, I'll require Profession (sailor).


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 10, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Prior to character creation, I'll sit with a player and ask them what class or classes they are considering to play from the list of classes that I allow for the campaign.
> 
> Once, I know what the player is considering,  I'll then work with the player to make the character fit into the setting by helping them tie the background to some specific region, culture, and/or organization as appropriate to the setting even creating a class variant if appropriate.  Once we have the background worked out, I'll require the player purchase a rank or two in one or two skills to reflect elements of the character background. For example:
> 
> ...




So, for instance, if someone is from a mountainous region you'll require a couple of ranks in Balance and Climb?  Do you also make those Class Skills for such a character?


----------



## Greg K (Aug 10, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> So, for instance, if someone is from a mountainous region you'll require a couple of ranks in Balance and Climb?  Do you also make those Class Skills for such a character?




Yes, if the character is from a mountain region balance and climb would be required.  

As for making required skills class skills, I use several options depending on the character background and player
1)   work with the player to create a class variant (actually I have many pre-written dating back to early 3.0) which alter the class skills for a given class by switching out skills.

2.) offer a feat which makes those skills always class skills regardless of class

3)  treat them as class skills for first level only.

For my next campaign, I am thinking of replacing 2) and 3) with something similar to d20 occupations- assuming we use DND.


----------



## maggot (Aug 10, 2006)

Sorry I got cut off yesterday, I was typing a post and had to go, so I just hit send.



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> Evaluting Heal by comparing the amount it cures compared with other lower level spells is totally worthless.




I disagree.  I think the fact that at 10th level you are healing for 4d8+10 and at 11th level you are healing for 110 is a big, unnecessary jump.  You can look at it either at the 10th level number is too low, or the 11th level number is too high.  To avoid the low-magic/high-magic argument, lets say that 11th level number is appropriate.  If 110hp/spell healing is correct for 11th level, why are you healing for 1/4 that one level earlier.  Are the CR11 monsters dishing out 4x damage over the CR10 monsters?  Unlikely.



> The problem with Teleport is that it's context is highly variable.




I think there ought to be room in the 9-level spell system (10 levels if you count cantrips) for a spell that allows teleport over a range of 1mile/level.  This spell is clearly better than dimension door so it cannot be 4th level, and it is clearly worse than Tecplot, so it cannot be 5th level.

Also the game takes a tremendous jump: at 8th level you can only walk and ride and maybe fly for a bit.  It will take days to travel 900miles.  Next level, you can go 900miles in an action.  I think that is too much of a jump.  Perhaps at 9th level you can go 9miles in an action, and at 11th level you can go 110miles with a 6th level 10miles/level spell, and at 13th level you can go 1300miles with a 7th level 100miles/level spell.  That would remove a lot of the disconnect.



> Similarly, there's plenty of room of to go after raise dead.




Much of the room after raise dead is created by the game itself.  You cannot be raised from the dead if you are killed by a death effect, you must use resurrection instead.  An arbitrary rule to make the 7th level spell more effective.  And then destruction (a death spell) has an added clause requiring the 9th level spell to undo it.  Why?


----------



## maggot (Aug 10, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It might be easier to impose a flat -2 "untrained" penalty than to give a free feat.




Excellent idea.  That (level+3) cap thing has always bothered me as ineligant.  I thought the reason was so at first level those with a class skill maxed get +4 and those with with the crossclass skill maxed get +2.  That is pretty eligant, but I'm williing to sacrifice it for a flat -2 if you are untrained.  That also encourages a bit of diversification.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 10, 2006)

I played in a campaign where we started character creation like Greg K described - it was one of the best I've ever experienced.  It requires amazing an Winging It skill on the DM's part, and it's well worth it.


----------



## Victim (Aug 11, 2006)

maggot said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think the fact that at 10th level you are healing for 4d8+10 and at 11th level you are healing for 110 is a big, unnecessary jump.  You can look at it either at the 10th level number is too low, or the 11th level number is too high.  To avoid the low-magic/high-magic argument, lets say that 11th level number is appropriate.  If 110hp/spell healing is correct for 11th level, why are you healing for 1/4 that one level earlier.  Are the CR11 monsters dishing out 4x damage over the CR10 monsters?  Unlikely.




No.  I'd say that the cure X wounds is weaker than heal is too good.  One reason for their weakness is that clerics can swap out of the Cure line, while they need to prep Heals.  So it's okay if they aren't as good as regular spells.  Also, the cure spells are designed to scale smoothly, instead of scaling for usefulness.




> I think there ought to be room in the 9-level spell system (10 levels if you count cantrips) for a spell that allows teleport over a range of 1mile/level.  This spell is clearly better than dimension door so it cannot be 4th level, and it is clearly worse than Tecplot, so it cannot be 5th level.
> 
> Also the game takes a tremendous jump: at 8th level you can only walk and ride and maybe fly for a bit.  It will take days to travel 900miles.  Next level, you can go 900miles in an action.  I think that is too much of a jump.  Perhaps at 9th level you can go 9miles in an action, and at 11th level you can go 110miles with a 6th level 10miles/level spell, and at 13th level you can go 1300miles with a 7th level 100miles/level spell.  That would remove a lot of the disconnect.




You could make the short teleport 4th level with some hefty restrictions or long casting time.  Or it could be 5th level without the inaccuracy and maybe some other side benefits - if you could port more allies or take willing creatures with you at range, it'd still be useful.  But yeah, without some extra benefit, it would suck as a 5th level spell.  The thing is, even without teleport around with its 900 miles, I think a 9 mile teleport without some extras would suck as a 5th level spell.  5th level spells can grant flight for extended periods, kill with a touch, turn people into animals - pretty classic stuff.  Saving a few hours hiking isn't usually going to be worth the spell.  Having a smooth mathematical progression isn't necessarily good if the spells it produces aren't useful enough to warrant their level.

There is a progression:  9th level spells have perfect transplanar travel, 7th level spells have perfect same plane travel and clumsy interplanar travel, and 5th level spells have clumsy world travel.  The problem isn't that there's no progression.  It's that the progression implies a change in scope which not everyone finds desireable.  At high levels planar stuff is supposed to be where the action is; mundane stuff is less important.  That's why most of the high level monsters are outsiders and such.  

That change in scope is part of the reason the sweet spot ends.  Making normal distance still significant while still making travel spells worthwhile should still be feasible though.  If teleporting only works between preset locations, then PCs can't go wherever, whenever.  If it's riskier, PCs will likely only use it when under considerable time pressure.  You could scale the teleport by size of the campaign so the effect is less relative to the distances involved in the campaign.  It could take longer for people to reform after teleporting so it's less viable
as an assassination move.



> Much of the room after raise dead is created by the game itself.  You cannot be raised from the dead if you are killed by a death effect, you must use resurrection instead.  An arbitrary rule to make the 7th level spell more effective.  And then destruction (a death spell) has an added clause requiring the 9th level spell to undo it.  Why?




The idea that spells have certain restrictions hardly seems entirely arbitrary to me.  You need a body to res someone?  It's not like Destruction is the only means of eliminating a body.  Spells hardly ever do "more."  Fireball is 1d6/level, so is the Delayed Blast Fireball.  If a level 20 caster wants to do 20d6 damage to one guy, he can just use Chain Lightning as a 6th level spell.  The higher level spells are just adding side benefits; DBF can Delay itself and does full damage to targets in an area for 1 level higher.  Horrid Wilting is 2 levels higher and still does the same damage, but it offers the ability to miss allies, non energy damage, and some tiny bonus against water creatures.  Similarly, the ressurection line improves in the side benefits.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 11, 2006)

So, in other words, Victim, there is no problem. Everything is fine?


----------



## mhensley (Aug 16, 2006)

I would love to see what Mearls or other D&D developers had to say about this topic.


----------



## Jarrod (Aug 16, 2006)

Resurrecting an old topic...

One of the earlier complaints was that DCs either remained static, and thus high-level PCs auto-succeeded, or they scaled and became unrealistic. Then there was an example of the high-level rogue picking a lock behind his back while debating with his captors. 

That's the solution - penalities. Given infinite time, both the low-level and high-level PC can get through a lock. However, the high-level PC can do it faster, while distracted, and chew gum simultaneously. 

A LARP game I used to play had a lock-picking mechanic based on wires and a buzzer. Picking a lock was a matter of getting everyone quiet, sitting down, doing a dry run, and going for it. Boooooring. Then one game decided to toss in a real challenge - pick the lock in the middle of a fight while the NPCs were _specifically_ gunning for you. That really separated the skilled from the unskilled. 

So that's my suggestion. Let the skill ranks rise, but start using more difficult situations and scaling up the penalties to suit. Make them pick the lock _fast_. Maybe the normal time used for all skills should be a minute (move and pick a lock in 6 seconds? Oy!) with a -20 for a standard action. Then you can toss in the party being chased by big baddies and needing to get through that lock _right now_. 


Oh, and spells should give skill bonuses instead of auto-succeeding. But that's another discussion.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 16, 2006)

Wulf, would you be interested in seeing a set of rules I wrote that nudge in the same direction you seem to be headed? I can email them to you.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 16, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Wulf, would you be interested in seeing a set of rules I wrote that nudge in the same direction you seem to be headed? I can email them to you.



 I am interested, but would prefer not to see anything too concrete from outside sources. 

The thread's still around for comment, though. 

re: Mearls-- I'd love to hear his thoughts as well. He's at the top of my list of designers that approach "the craft" in a way I totally dig (and respect).


----------



## Victim (Aug 17, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> So, in other words, Victim, there is no problem. Everything is fine?




No, I'm saying that prolonging the sweet spot by gimping characters isn't a good solution.  Making all levels 3-7 defies the whole point of advancing levels.

I'd consider the core problems to spiraling mechanical complexity, and forced changes in scope.

When a high level character has 8 attacks, ~10 different buffs which all modify different things, and uses a program on a graphing calculator to run his attack sequence, there's a problem.  Sure, you can front load much of that complexity by working out modified stats ahead of time, but then someone uses Greater Dispelling (which takes 10 die rolls ) and you have to recalculate.  So combat should be based around fewer rolls, and fewer modifiers.  Characters probably shouldn't have the array of choices of a high level caster each round, but probably should have more than 1-2 meaningful choices.  

Also, high level adventures fundamentally aren't the same as lower level ones.  You can't just scale things up, there's a ton of extra movement, information gathering, and attack modes that need to be taken into account.  Planar stuff is supoosed to become more important in the campaign, etc.  Changes in scope aren't necessarily bad; they can help keep the game fresh by offering new challenges.  But they do mean that players may get forced out of the stuff they enjoy the most.  So removing some of the built in changes could help.  

However, if your removing spells that force changes in scope - like the strategic movement in Teleport - then don't leave what's left a crippled ruin.  If something is a 5th level spell, then it should still be worth using as a 5th level spell.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 18, 2006)

Sorry, I went away to GenCon and then forgot to check this thread when I got back.  

[fanboy]I was hoping to see you there Wulf- I was hoping to get your autograph on Grim Tales and Slavelords of Cydonia!  Ah, well. [/fanboy]



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Wulf Ratbane said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not exactly.  My idea is that a wizard only has a few of his highest level spell slots, and so when he uses them the results have to be dramatic.  His can open a lock the thief can't open, kill a swarm that would have taken down the fighter, and so on.  He can be better than the rogue once a day because the rogue can use his skills all day long.  He can be better than the fighter once a day because the fighter doesn't have a limit on how often he can swing his sword.

My idea here is, well, it's important enough to get a color: Each character in a balanced party should be able to do some things better than any other character. 

I am advocating a broader range of skills, but I don't want each character to be a one man adventuring party.  If a character has a distinct role, they should still be able to keep it.  Which implies that this character's core competencies have to improve steadily, although perhaps more slowly than it does now.  But having *some* growth in peripheral competencies is not a bad thing; in fact, it should be encouraged.  If the half-orc barbarian has a -2 diplomacy modifier at level 1, that's OK; the half-elf bard can be the party's face man.  But at level 15 I think it would be great if the barbarian had a +5 diplomacy score or something.  He won't steal the bard's thunder when negotiating with the Githyanki ambassador, but he could maybe make friends with the local innkeeper.  Maybe he has a reputation score that can substitute for diplomacy ranks or something; he'd also need a DM who puts him in circumstances where he finds this competency valuable.  Players like to do cool things, and having an innkeeper be awed by Grunk the Savior of the City is kinda cool.

The wizard is a very special case.  I am thinking of the role of the wizard in areas where he infringes on the rogue (in skill use) or the fighter (killing things).  I see him as being a trump card for rare circumstances where the rogue and fighter are overmatched.  That means that the wizard's highest level spells should be able to outdo the rogue or fighter for as long as they are the highest level spell, but not for much longer.

At 3rd level the wizard's trump spells are things like _knock_ or _invisibility_ (for Open Locks or Hide), maybe _Web_ for dealing with large numbers of opponents.  He's better than the rogue's schtick or the fighter's schtick, but he can only do it a few times a day; most of the time he has to rely on those other classes.  They, in turn, find the wizard valuable for the times when their native skill is not quite enough.

Now suppose it is 11th level and _disintegrate_ is the "trump" spell to get through a door that the rogue can't open.  Or it can slay a lich whose DR is too tough for the fighter to kill- or maybe the lich's minions are holding the fighter off and the battle needs a _disintegrate_ to turn the tide.  Or something.  The wizard can only use _disintegrate_ a few times, and every slot he spends on it is a slot he can't spend on something else.  So it's ok that he can outdo another class at their own schtick- that's his trump function.

However, what about the 2nd level spell slots?  I think that while they trump a 3rd level character in another class, a 2nd level spell should not be able to trump an 11th level character.  I suggest therefore that _knock_ be capped at around what a 7th level rogue can do.   That's enough to make it impressive at 3rd level, but not so impressive later on.  (I am basing the 3rd-7th interval on the approximate size of the current sweet spot.  Great at level n, average at level n+4.)

The reason is that for an 11th level wizard his second level spell slots aren't very valuable.  And so their function should not be to outshine the other classes at what those classes do best, but are perhaps backups for routine use.  If the rogue is elsewhere the wizard might want to bypass a lock, or go unseen from point A to point B.  He should be able to as long as the task isn't too hard.

I don't think there are a whole lot of spells and mechanics that need to be tinkered with to cap them in this way.  And there might be lots of neat ways you could cap a spell.  For instance, you might add a character's BAB to their spot check to detect magical invisibility; this would allow _invisibility_ to be very good at lower levels, but not so hot against tougher opponents.  The idea is that the spell is very good when you first get it, but becomes relatively less spectacular as you get to higher levels.

To do this systematically, you'd have to identify a bunch of core competencies of each class, and see how magic steps infringes on them.  If a 3rd level spell is better than a 15th level character's core competency, then something needs to be done.  

Maggot's observation about granularity is very insightful.  There shouldn't be such huge jumps in how far characters can travel in a day, or how effective healing is.  Steady increases are enough to satisfy the needs of gamists, and the allow the campaign to adjust more gradually.  I think it might be these discontinuities that diminish the sweet spot.  _Teleport_ might be too big a change to the campaign as a 5th level spell, but if there was a _limited teleport_ at 5th and the regular _teleport_ at 6th, then the changes might be able to be assimilated more smoothly.

Again, I'm not advocating nerfing all the magic.  Wizards need cool things to do, and there needs to be new abilities added at regular intervals. In fact, new abilities like _fly_ and _teleport_ are really a wizard's primary role; their trumping function is definitely secondary.  So there needs to be a regular progression of new abilities.  But the progression can be spread out a little.  Gamists would be satisfied, but the stress on the campaign's sweet spot would be less.


----------



## Brother Richard (Aug 18, 2006)

*Solution*

My solution would be to use DDo's advancement and make leveling more xp.  This would be similar to the idea of gaining certain parts each level, but the DDO system is an already balanced system created for us.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 18, 2006)

Brother Richard said:
			
		

> My solution would be to use DDo's advancement and make leveling more xp.  This would be similar to the idea of gaining certain parts each level, but the DDO system is an already balanced system created for us.



Well, Living Greyhawk already has instituted an XP and reward system that is roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of the Core rules rate.

And the problem with play after about level 10 is still the same. *shrug*


----------



## Victim (Aug 18, 2006)

Brother Richard said:
			
		

> My solution would be to use DDo's advancement and make leveling more xp.  This would be similar to the idea of gaining certain parts each level, but the DDO system is an already balanced system created for us.




I disbelieve!


----------



## Brother Richard (Aug 18, 2006)

*My Opinion*

Once one hits level 10 spells break everything and I can't think of a way to fix that without destroying spellcasters.  I was just giving a system that makes level gaining longer, but gives some abilities every fifth of a level.  And yes i have read how to make games 10+ not broken, but name one that would really work that does not make casters completely useless.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 18, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> First, I wanted to add caster levels, because RAW aren't very friendly to multiclassing. That's a whole other discussion that's been had many times, culminating in the Mystic Theurge, etc.




I have an excellent solution to this problem, if you'd like to discuss it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 18, 2006)

Markn said:
			
		

> For the first part, I really feel that the original dungeons and dragons (with the basic, expert, companion, master and immortal boxed sets) had one of the best campaign designs ever created.  Levels 1 - 3 were dungeon crawls, levels 4 - 13 ( I can't remember the exact level breakup so don't quote me on this part) were more dungeons/outdoor adventure, levels 14 - 20 were about attaining land and making a difference in the world, levels 21 - 28 were about making a bigger difference in the world and levels 29 - 36 were about becomming imortal (among other things).  The elegance of this system was that a DM had a starting and stopping point for each phase of the campaign.  Challenges seen on lower level were vastly different from higher levels.  It kept the whole campaign fresh during each stage and it tested PC's in ever aspect of their character.  It wasn't just focused on combat, it wasn't just focused on roleplaying, it wasn't just focused on the players being at the bottome of the power level, etc.  In and of itself, it allowed the DM to change the campaign play and challenges he threw at them.  During each "campaign phase" the PCs were at the bottom of the power level and rise to the top of that power level.  For example, in levels 14 -20 they would buy a piece of land, build it up, deal with other owners more powerful than them and then eventually reach equal power with those other land owners.  Then in the next "campaign phase" they would have to work with those same land owners to deal with threats on a country scale and deal with other political issues as well until they mastered that aspect.




I'm not sure whether you dismissed this post (and my earlier comments along the same line) as being 'simulationist' and thus not meeting your 'gamist' priorities, but I think that is misunderstanding the point.

The point here is that the 3e rules don't really contain gamist support for elements of a campaign beyond killing things and taking their stuff. 

IMO the best way of extending the sweet spot is slowed advancement and introducing gamist support for other elements of a campaign - supporting the kind of things which Markn talks about from the basic/expert/etc D&D set.

Many of the people on ENworld who played 1e (as young adults and upwards) found lots of gamist fun in continuing adventures where levelling up wasn't providing the gamist buzz... so other things were.

You would probably draw some useful and interesting information from a thread asking people what made their 1e/2e games most fun, specifically which gamist elements most supported their inner gamist desires for 'cool new things' as time went by.

Regards,


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 18, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> [fanboy]I was hoping to see you there Wulf- I was hoping to get your autograph on Grim Tales and Slavelords of Cydonia!  Ah, well. [/fanboy]




My _autograph_? You call that fandom?

What you really should be doing is naming your firstborn after me. Trust me, there's playground security for a kid named "Wulf." I'll show up at the christening with iron-shod booties.

You goofball.

Drop me an email with your address. I'll sign two and send them to you, and you can give the two you have to a buddy.

I owe you at least that much for the awesomeness of _Chi-Rho._


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 18, 2006)

Email sent!

I'm glad you enjoyed the CHI-RHO formula.  Every so often something just seems to click, and that was one such time.  The multi-leveled pun is kinda scary though.  In a nice way.

And I think Wulf would be a great name for a kid.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 18, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I have an excellent solution to this problem, if you'd like to discuss it.



I'd like to see the discussion! 

I guess I haven't seen those past discussions because Wulf's quote—"_First, I wanted to add caster levels, because *RAW aren't very friendly to multiclassing*_"—seemed off.  Isn't 3.x quite about the most friendly rules system for multiclassing? The amount of level dipping I see is obnoxious. 2 fighter, 2 ranger, 2 monk, 1 barbarian, 3 paladin... maybe it is that the melee classes could use some touching up to make it less attractive, like the PHB2 alternate to Barbarian rage, berserker strength.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 18, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I'd like to see the discussion!
> 
> I guess I haven't seen those past discussions because Wulf's quote—"_First, I wanted to add caster levels, because *RAW aren't very friendly to multiclassing*_"—seemed off.  Isn't 3.x quite about the most friendly rules system for multiclassing? The amount of level dipping I see is obnoxious. 2 fighter, 2 ranger, 2 monk, 1 barbarian, 3 paladin... maybe it is that the melee classes could use some touching up to make it less attractive, like the PHB2 alternate to Barbarian rage, berserker strength.



 Friendly to non-caster multiclassing, oh very yes.

Friendly to caster multiclassing, emphatically no.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 18, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> How do you extend the "sweet spot?"
> 
> Where would you "cap" the game?
> 
> And how would you do it in such a way as to give the players the same "real time" rate of advancement/improvement as the current rules provide?




I don't know how to do it with the third sentence. When I did my long-term Arcana Unearthed game, I had a few goals in mind. I wanted longer low-level play because I was capping the game at roughly 16th level (that would be when they were tough enough to face down the BBEG) and because there were certain monsters I wanted to use for a longer time than would normally be the case. Also, because this was AU, with new classes, spells, and such I wanted the players and myself a longer time to become familiar with the differences before forging ahead into higher level play.

I set the campaign up in two parts. Part One was the unfolding of events, exploration, and giving the PC's time to become used to their new abilities. Part Two would occur, I anticipated, around tenth level; they'd have the power and abilities to turn things around and take the fight to the bad guys.

In Part One, the PC's got roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the XP per encounter (I also give XP for meeting certain goals and for roleplaying encounters as well - if you discover the evil duke is providing shipments to the enemy, you've 'defeated' him and get XP commensurate to the threat you risked). Once the PC's assembled enough information and power to take the fight to the enemy, the blinders came off and we moved to the normal rate of advancement so they could take a central role in the huge battles that were to come.

_Edit_: Of course, AU doesn't have a lot of the 'game breaking' spells, either. I just realized that, so perhaps my advice isn't all that useful to you.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 20, 2006)

So everyone but me has figured out how to preserve the sweet spot?  Or are they writing up a brilliant solution to the problem and plan to post it any time now?

If so, I'm waiting with bated breath.

edit: 

The idea that got me most excited was the idea of dropping the x4 to initial skill points.  Instead impose a -2 non proficient penalty to untrained rolls.  It makes it easy to broaden competency; I can see folks putting 1 point into all sorts of skills for a sort of minimum competency.

To this I might add a rule systematizing the synergy rule (5 ranks in two related skills means +2 to each; but only one such synergy bonus applies to any role) would mean that there would an incentive to achieve mastery in an area.  With 5 ranks + 2 synergy bonus + (ability bonus and/or masterwork tools and/or skill focus, whatever) a character could achieve 20 DC roles routinely.


----------



## Valvorik (Aug 20, 2006)

*Currently 15th level and okay*

Running a game where most PC's are 15th level (5 players) and it's working.

That said, have in place houserules similar to some suggested already and addressing various issues.  Would be a little much to post all (campaign bible is over 500 pages at this point), but some key ones:

- have reduced effectiveness of information guaranteeing spells (commune etc.) and travel spells (use MC's UA's version of teleport, cap all spells like phantom steed and windwalk at 100' speed so that nothing flies faster than air elemental);
- have revised raise dead/resurrection spells including removing true resurrection's "painless no loss aspect", all coming back from death is painful, have removed clone entirely as a means of creating playable replacement characters;
- have adopted WOTC's epic fixes to most "save or die" spells so that they're usually "save or uber damage";
- have adopated Arcana Unearthed variant death and dying rules with substantial house rules that ensure less character death but just as much of a brake on level advancement over time for taking damage = hp +10;
- have announced intent in next campaign to remove additional spells that "take the spotlight off skills", again modelled on MC's and some WOTC designer musings;
- apply rigorous connections of cultural and other backgrounds to prestige classes that avoids too much PrC'ing.
- add new feats from published sources and routinely do not add many that over-stack or are just "too good" in my view, same for new spells etc.

You will find if you look at Monte Cook's Unearthed Arcana that a number of "problematic" spells people have cited don't exist in that setting, a bit of a tip off.

I am blessed with players who voluntarily seek comprehensive character development as much as min/max objectives and who knowingly swerve from "power gamer" to "character I want to play".

I try to ration what sorts of accomplishments characters reach at different levels so that it would not be before 19+ that plane-spanning threats etc. figure.  E.G., one reason I revised "return to temple of elemental evil" and ran it for 15th level was that the scale of threat was such lower level characters should not be the ones dealing with it and even then intended the "worst outcome" to be disasterous on a regional scale and only threaten world on a longer time horizon that other forces could hope to counter.

All of that said, find lots of good discussion in this thread identifying issues to address if you want to "take adventures out of dungeon" and don't want to follow the WOTC path of moving high level adventures into plane hopping.


----------



## rounser (Aug 20, 2006)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But if I don't cap the Open Locks skill somehow, then eventually I reach one of two points:
> 
> 1) Locks are made obsolete as a dramatic obstacle.
> 
> ...



This actually answers a question that has been knocking around in my head for a while:

Q: How to prevent PCs from entering an area that they cannot handle at their current level?
A: Put a high DC lock on the door (and make it really hard to break)...or equivalent.  I'm open to suggestions on how you "fence off" a wilderness area by character level.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think that the high DC of the lock becomes a lot easier to swallow if the PCs have been hanging out to break into the "mystery dungeon" they found at first level, and finally manage to do so some ten levels later.

EDIT: I can see a major flaw in this plan.  It relies on the assumption that someone's maxing out Open Locks, and if they're not, they're not going to open the door "on schedule".  Still, better than nothing.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 20, 2006)

@Valvorik:Could you elaborate on the death and dying rules and how it relates to a brake on level advancement?  I don't own Monte's arcana unearthed (or evolved), though it really sounds interesting.

I wonder if a "not dead yet" rule might work.  I.e. a character who takes lethal damage turns out to have only been knocked unconsicous, and loses a level from the experience.  Or maybe an amount of xp based on how far into lethal territory they fell.


----------



## Valvorik (Aug 20, 2006)

*Unearhed Arcana death and dying variant*

The brake on advancement in current rules is that "death" absorbs a level of experience and/or a chunk of resources slowing progression. {edit} - brake as in something stepped on to slow down, not to stop - sorry if use was unclear.

The variant on page 121 of UA makes it less likely a character dies.  However it thus leads to "faster progression".  Essentially, when characters' hit points reach 0 they must make Fort saves (modified by how badly damaged they are) to see if they are disabled, dying or dead.  They can end up only disabled, dying (similar to being at -4) and recover (avoiding level loss for return) having taken damage that would kill them in standard D&D.

If you don't tweak some things other aspects of rules don't work as expected.  For example, creatures that are "disabled" (reach negative hit points) may remain conscious if they make a Fort save but still fall prone, dropping held items and trigger a "cleave" opportunity.  Otherwise, "cleave" feat is nerfed.

Similarly, the variant I use includes that a character whose damage had reached -10, acquires an XP deficit to pay off.  It's not that they lose a level, but their experience is diverted to paying off this deficit thus they slow down, just as if they had lost a level and had to earn it back, but without losing the level "in advance".

This keeps death "worse", but also less likely, but also makes sure players still work hard to avoid "being saved from death" by these rules.

Objectives:

- from simulationist perspective, create rules where characters are "hurt, need help, have to be carried to safety" more often;
- from narrativist perspective, create rules where characters don't undergo the "concept violence" of dying so often, out of view that even if they are raised too much of that can feel cheesy;
- from gamist perspective, give a last chance to succeed at some balanced cost, and do not violate the rules in place with respect to cost of taking hp+10 damage.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 20, 2006)

> How do you extend the "sweet spot?"



I don't have to. I'm perfectly fine with high level play: it's part of the sweet spot for me.



> Where would you "cap" the game?



Nowhere. Unless we're talking beer, here.


----------



## The_Warlock (Aug 20, 2006)

So, I've been reading through this, and I have to admit that this is something that I have been looking for in a way. As much as I actually do enjoy the occasional dropping of a meteor swarm, or the carefully worded Wish, from both a player and DM viewpoint, I'm on board with the concept of maintaining challenge + randomness that seems to come with the low-mid levels. 

When my current campaign completes (I keep saying that, and they keep taking longer to get to the BBEG...oy), my first step is switching to True20. I won't be a pusher, but having read and run it, it gives a baseline that's easier to tweak than the core rules, especially magic, which is in many ways an ad hoc system that was attached to the rest of D&D (which may be why it is such a focus for contention on manipulating the "sweet spot"). I also think it's simplicity and reorganization of skills would be assistive in the broadening concept people are talking about, and, Wulf, it has Conviction, which is an Action Point by any other name.

But I digress...

What I wanted to add to this is, what about changing the die rolling MECHANIC, to better simulate your bell curve?

Instead of...d20 + X to achieve DC, where X can with strong character build can equal or EXCEED 20, even within the "sweet spot", often relegating the d20 to near uselessness, what about setting the Target Number (TN for the rest of this) within the RANGE of the d20?

Here's the concept, and I admit it needs tweaking, but it's the one I've been thinking about a LOT lately, and this thread makes me want to share it, good, bad or indifferent:

There is a TN to succeed...the base TN is set based on the type of action - Untrained Skill Use, Trained Skill Use, Attack/Defend, Magic Use (if you changed from Vancian magic, or made unleashing your spells require a check)...

Let's assume the Hunter's Rule, ie, studies of predator animals and human hunter tribes suggests they succeed in a hunt 1 in 4 times (25%), as a start. I tweak that to 20% as my base for DIFFICULT tasks (like killing dinner on the run, or the orc next door), and I will somewhat arbitrarily set average tasks at 35%. What am I talking about? To succeed at a difficult task, the player needs to roll a 17 or higher on the d20, a 14 or higher for less onerous tasks. These are the Target Numbers. The character SUBTRACTS their appropriate attribute modifier (and possibly racial mods, haven’t decided yet) from the TN, making it easier to hit it. They ADD their skill, or BAB, or what have you to the roll, to get over it. (ie, a thief with a +4 mod from Dex, has TN’s of 13 and 10, respectively, to his Dex based skills).

Seems overly complex, yes?  Here's the thing I've been working toward, it doesn’t matter how high over 20 you are, just whether or not you got over your TN. Further more, you are still adding relevant numbers to the roll, so higher is still better and you don’t have to retrain players in that regard. Also, you can now make a sliding scale of quality of success – Hitting the TN is success, and 20 is still a critical success, but in the example of the thief, the RANGE from 13 to 20 is 8, and you can say that if the thief rolls his check and gets a 17 or higher (which is the higher half of the RANGE), he has had some form of Excellent success relevant to the skill or check (more damage, picks lock in less time, etc). Thus, skills get you success, but talent (ie, ability and racial mods, and possibly feats…not sure) get you the effect of an enhanced “mini-crit” range.

The caveat is that you need to slow down the skill progression somewhat, since the 4x at the beginning of a characters life provides a base that would tip the system more than necessary. On the up side, the DM doesn’t have to come up with DCs, but simply modifiers based on the “difficulty” of the check, and tell the player to “subtract 4 from this roll” since it’s moderately difficult, or what have you. In the end, excessive skills will still get you near-auto success, but the player isn't necessarily rewarded for finding a way to jack his total skill mod to +37 and a half, since it's meaningless, but rather rewards them for diversifying.

But that’s the concept in the nutshell. I’m not trying to threadjack, but I wanted to drop this in here simply because from what I’ve been reading, it couldn’t hurt to reconsider the “core mechanic” as an out of the box thought, since the purpose of the discussion is how to alter the –mechanics- to stay “sweet”.

The One Warlock


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2006)

The_One_Warlock said:
			
		

> Further more, you are still adding relevant numbers to the roll, ...



Except for subtracting ability attribute from the target number.  That would involve considerable retraining because ability modifiers are added to rolls through out the rest of the game system.

It would also make ability modifying much more attractive, whether by magic items or by spells, and magic item values would likely need re-valuing.

Also certain other skills would need wholesale rework, like Jump, under this system. The effect upon Epic-level play would certainly need consideration as well with a rework as thorough as this proposal.  It is interesting as a thought experiment, I'll say that!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 17, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I would love to see what Mearls or other D&D developers had to say about this topic.




RISE FROM YOUR GR4VE!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 17, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> RISE FROM YOUR GR4VE!



 Now that is a beautiful thread ressurection.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 17, 2007)

YES, M4STER.

W4IT, WTF IS UP WITH MY "4"?  I'M GOING B4CK TO MY GR4VE.  W4KE ME WHEN FIFTH EDITION ROLL5 4ROUND.

4H, CRAP.  THEY GOT TO THO5E 4LRE4DY.


----------



## xnosipjpqmhd (Aug 18, 2007)

*10 levels in twice the time*

This is a test of the idea of stretching out the sweet spot by slowing advancement and giving the equivalent of 1 level worth of carrots in the space of 2 levels. It still has a few dead levels, though.

In the sample table below, I've used ".5" levels in order to ease calculations of EL, APL, etc. XP calculations would remain the same, but at half the usual rate. If the ".5" levels sticks in your craw, feel free to renumber using integers and give out XP at the usual rate.

*Barbarian levels 1-10 stretched out to 20 half-levels:*


```
LVL  HP    BAB     FT RF WL  Skills   SPECIAL
0   d6+Con  +1     +1 +0 +0 (2+Int)x2 Illiteracy, rage 1/day, bonus feat (if human)
1   d6+Con  +1     +2 +0 +0 (2+Int)x2 Fast movement, bonus feat for gaining 1st level
1.5 d6+Con  +2     +2 +0 +0 (2+Int)x2 Uncanny dodge 
2   d6+Con  +2     +3 +0 +0  2+Int    
2.5 d6+Con  +3     +3 +0 +1  2+Int    Trap sense +1 
3   d6+Con  +3     +3 +1 +1  2+Int    Bonus feat for gaining 3rd level 
3.5 d6+Con  +4     +3 +1 +1  2+Int    Rage 2/day 
4   d6+Con  +4     +4 +1 +1  2+Int    +1 to any ability score (for gaining 4th level) 
4.5 d6+Con  +5     +4 +1 +1  2+Int     
5   d6+Con  +5     +5 +1 +1  2+Int    Improved uncanny dodge 
5.5 d6+Con  +6/+1  +5 +1 +2  2+Int    Trap sense +2 
6   d6+Con  +6/+1  +5 +2 +2  2+Int    Bonus feat for gaining 6th level 
6.5 d6+Con  +7/+2  +5 +2 +2  2+Int     
7   d6+Con  +7/+2  +5 +2 +2  2+Int    Damage reduction 1/— 
7.5 d6+Con  +8/+3  +5 +2 +2  2+Int    Rage 3/day 
8   d6+Con  +8/+3  +6 +2 +2  2+Int    +1 to any ability score (for gaining 8th level) 
8.5 d6+Con  +9/+4  +6 +2 +3  2+Int    Trap sense +3 
9   d6+Con  +9/+4  +6 +3 +3  2+Int    Bonus feat for gaining 9th level 
9.5 d6+Con +10/+5  +6 +3 +3  2+Int    
10  d6+Con +10/+5  +7 +3 +3  2+Int    Damage reduction 2/—
```
What do you think? Is it worth it?


----------



## xnosipjpqmhd (Aug 18, 2007)

Sorcerer levels 1-10 in 20 half-levels:


```
LVL  HP    BAB FT RF WL  Skills  Spl/day 0 1 2 3 4 5 Spl kwn 0 1 2 3 4 5 SPECIAL 
0   d2+Con  +0 +0 +0 +1 (1+Int)x2        4 2 — — — —         3 1 - - - - Summon familiar, bonus feat (if human)
1   d2+Con  +0 +0 +0 +2 (1+Int)x2        5 3 — — — —         4 2 - - - - Bonus feat for 1st level
1.5 d2+Con  +1 +0 +0 +2 (1+Int)x2        5 4 — — — —         4 2 - - - -
2   d2+Con  +1 +0 +0 +3  1+Int           6 4 — — — —         5 2 - - - -
2.5 d2+Con  +1 +0 +1 +3  1+Int           6 5 — — — —         5 2 - - - -
3   d2+Con  +1 +1 +1 +3  1+Int           6 5 - — — —         5 3 - - - - Bonus feat for 3rd level
3.5 d2+Con  +2 +1 +1 +3  1+Int           6 6 1 — — —         5 3 1 - - -
4   d2+Con  +2 +1 +1 +4  1+Int           6 6 3 — — —         6 3 1 - - - +1 to any ability score for 4th level
4.5 d2+Con  +2 +1 +1 +5  1+Int           6 6 4 — — —         6 4 1 - - -
5   d2+Con  +2 +1 +2 +5  1+Int           6 6 4 — — —         6 4 2 - - -
5.5 d2+Con  +3 +1 +2 +5  1+Int           6 6 5 1 — —         6 4 2 1 - -
6   d2+Con  +3 +1 +2 +5  1+Int           6 6 5 3 — —         7 4 2 1 - - Bonus feat for 6th level
6.5 d2+Con  +3 +2 +2 +5  1+Int           6 6 5 4 — —         7 5 3 1 - -
7   d2+Con  +3 +2 +2 +6  1+Int           6 6 6 4 — —         7 5 3 2 - -
7.5 d2+Con  +4 +2 +2 +6  1+Int           6 6 6 5 1 —         7 5 3 2 1 -
8   d2+Con  +4 +2 +3 +6  1+Int           6 6 6 5 3 —         8 5 3 2 1 - +1 to any ability score for 8th level
8.5 d2+Con  +4 +3 +3 +6  1+Int           6 6 6 6 3 —         8 5 4 3 1
9   d2+Con  +4 +3 +3 +7  1+Int           6 6 6 6 4 —         8 5 4 3 2 - Bonus feat for 9th level
9.5 d2+Con  +5 +3 +3 +7  1+Int           6 6 6 6 4 1         8 5 4 3 2 1
10  d2+Con  +5 +3 +3 +7  1+Int           6 6 6 6 5 3         9 5 4 3 2 1
```


----------



## xnosipjpqmhd (Aug 18, 2007)

*Note on figuring level-ups in ".5" level system*

To reach the next level, you need to acquire an additional 1,000 xp times that level. Thus under the proposed ".5" level system, the level breaks would be (1) 1000, (1.5) 2500, (2) 4500, (2.5) 7000, (3) 10000, etc.

You could, of course, use the std XP chart, but the above keeps things tied to the level numbers.


----------

