As far as mortal PC's go, I think having an individual PC able to engage a low level evil outsider one on one, or a group of PC's able to engage a higher level evil outsider one on one; is where my ability to entertain the fantastical drops off. That's pretty high level stuff right there, and the pinnacle of what I see mortals being able to handle in an encounter. Of course, opinions may vary on this....
Where would you draw the line, if at all?
I don't have a preference on the level itself, as long as it scales to what it says it does. I can always ignore the levels that sit in a range that I'm not interested in (or more often, not interested in for that campaign).
As a vague statement, I'm in that grey area where "D&D as fantasy superheroes" doesn't bother me, but I prefer to edge closer to the lower end of the fantasy superheroes scale, so that it can overlap from time to time with something more mundane to heroic.
A good power level is when the system is an interesting game but not yet bogged down in crunch.
A proper narrative could be made for any power level as far as I'm concerned, but I'm willing to admit that you cross genres at some point. I just like those other genres.
I cap my OD&D at 10th.
6th level spells (and beyond) exist, but are rare, wondrous, difficult and dangerous.
If we're talking D&D - the natural progression of the game will dictate that around 10th... and only grow more ridiculous post 10th.
If you're talking about nonD&D - my stipulation is I want "low-level" monsters/NPC's to always pose some kind of threat. D&D isn't really designed for that implicitly these days. Early editions 1e/2e do that just fine. Later editions render it a chore to make it mechanically meaningful.
It's one of the reasons I don't run 5e anymore.
I want my systems to handle from this: [ATTACH=CONFIG]3200[/ATTACH]
to players doing this
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3201[/ATTACH]
with the most minimal of mechanical fiddling possible. Somewhere between these poles 5e loses coherence mechanically to do this due to its adherence to sacred cows more than by intention on the part of actual good design.
Good question.
In D&D it used to be that your PCs tended to level out either right out the gate, or around level 10. But have played well past that.
Sometimes it is dependant on the campaign. Last play through we did of Tyrrany of Dragons the PCs all ended the tale around level 16. But alot of the action took place between levels 6-10. Whereas in another campaign its been going rather slow and the PCs are only recently hitting level 12. But we spent alot of time at level 5-8 puttering around getting alot of stuff done but not actually stuff that garnered alot of EXP. Totally worth it though. What the players do can impact level progress alot.
Also there is the matter of campaign longevity. Shorter campaigns tend to see the PCs rarely puch through into the teens of levels. Whereas sobestantially longer ones are more likely to see the PCs into the teens levels.
I like pretty high power stuff.
I didn't much like how in 1e the PCs could slaughter droves of gods and demon lords. I like 4e where taking down one demon lord is a tough prospect for a high level party, or 5e where a tough lucky Epic PC can take on a demigod or ancient dragon.
Quote from: S'mon;1076237I like pretty high power stuff.
I didn't much like how in 1e the PCs could slaughter droves of gods and demon lords. I like 4e where taking down one demon lord is a tough prospect for a high level party, or 5e where a tough lucky Epic PC can take on a demigod or ancient dragon.
The limitation in my question, was mortal PC's. I am not a big fan of PC's chasing immortality themselves, which was a big thing in early editions. I like the goal of living a long life, and accomplishing great things; leaving the rest to the next generation of heroes.
Quote from: Razor 007;1076240The limitation in my question, was mortal PC's. I am not a big fan of PC's chasing immortality themselves, which was a big thing in early editions. I like the goal of living a long life, and accomplishing great things; leaving the rest to the next generation of heroes.
Yeah, me too. I preferred the 4e 'Legendary Sovereign' Epic Destiny to the Demigod or various demigod-level EDs.
I guess my preference is that mortal heroes top out at a Moorcockian level where they can go mano-a-mano with the Lords of Chaos, but are unlikely to actually beat them in a straight fight. Or Jacob wrestling Jehovah on the road, and Jehovah having to pull a dirty move to win. But He still wins.
In my own 5e game, the PC Hakeem duelled and defeated the demigod Kainos Warbringer, but the odds were well against him. For a typical 4-PC level 20 group it would have been a tough but winnable fight. That's a power level I'm comfy with. I'm very happy with 5e D&D's power plateau at level 20.
Greetings!
In my World of Thandor, I do not have level limits. The PC's can rise as high as they want. The World of Thandor is huge, with vast continents, ancient cities, and a host of villains and monsters that embrace whatever power-level may be necessary. Legions marching across the land; epic fleets sailing into great sea battles; monstrous giants laying siege to citadels; terrifying dragons bring disaster to whole areas; plagues sweep through the lands, killing millions of people. In this world, epic champions are always needed to rise to the challenge of evil.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For D&D, I don't care for much past 9th level or so. Partly, I think this is from the rules getting increasingly fiddly and bloated for higher levels - tracking multiple feats, modifiers, and so forth. It's more an issue of rules bloat than power level, though power level can get tricky.
For example, I'm good with pulp campaigns with the likes of Flash Gordon or Tarzan who take on superhuman foes. But even then, there are limits to believability. One of the potential problems of D&D can be a fighter falling 200 feet onto hard rocks and get up fighting.
I like mid-level play because that's the top end of what most players can handle.
The problem with high level play is that it requires more of both the player and the DM than the "sweet spot". Kind of like how Algebra 1 is the "sweet spot" for math, for most people.
I don't mind high level play, but its intentionally swingy. It's not going to be some cathartic, drawn-out and drama-filled experience like people imagine. It's about using indirect means to get a leg up on other high level competition; such as divination, manoeuver, and infiltration. Winning is getting there firstest with the mostest, and most importantly drawing first blood. Yes, high level PCs die much more than mid-level PCs. So long as the DM doesn't have a philosophical issue with easy raising this isn't a gameplay problem, usually.
But high level play almost purposely thwarts what DMs try to do with it, because they don't understand that only someone without agency would allow themselves to end up in a movie-like situation.
EOTB your description of high level play matches my experuence of 1e and 3e, but not 4e or 5e dnd. 4e especially does not give pcs the tools to avoid drama. 5e can a bit but much much less than 1e-3e.
Quote from: jhkim;1076254For D&D, I don't care for much past 9th level or so. Partly, I think this is from the rules getting increasingly fiddly and bloated for higher levels - tracking multiple feats, modifiers, and so forth. It's more an issue of rules bloat than power level, though power level can get tricky.
For example, I'm good with pulp campaigns with the likes of Flash Gordon or Tarzan who take on superhuman foes. But even then, there are limits to believability. One of the potential problems of D&D can be a fighter falling 200 feet onto hard rocks and get up fighting.
Pulp heroes wouldn't die from a fall - they would survive somehow. So 70 damage in 1e seems fine to me. For 4e and 5e the damage is out of wack with the pc durability so I prefer 1 point damage per foot fallen, enough to kill low level and squishy pcs.
Quote from: S'mon;1076300EOTB your description of high level play matches my experuence of 1e and 3e, but not 4e or 5e dnd. 4e especially does not give pcs the tools to avoid drama. 5e can a bit but much much less than 1e-3e.
Yeah, I've never played a version of D&D other than 1E AD&D, really. Other than one-offs. I should probably make a sig that anything I say is based on 1E and nothing else.
I'd say it depends a bit on the campaign premise. Sometimes you want everything strictly within the limits of what a human in the real world could do (ex. a no-magic "real world" campaign). Other times you want mortal heroes to be Batman in a Justice League comic where dodging the inescapable Omega Beams of a physical god and turning a world-destroying McGuffin back on the "Ender of Worlds" is not only possible, but all but assured by sheer badassery.
Around 10th for me as well, which is around what used to be "name level" in AD&D.
One of the more momentous decisions they made with 3e (and I wonder if they were clear on how momentous it was) was to flatten out the progression curve so that high level play (18-20) became common instead of rare. D&D was always in many ways a different game at high level.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1076183A good power level is when the system is an interesting game but not yet bogged down in crunch.
Quote from: tenbones;1076224I want my systems to handle from this: [pic]
to players doing this [pic]
with the most minimal of mechanical fiddling possible. Somewhere between these poles 5e loses coherence mechanically to do this due to its adherence to sacred cows more than by intention on the part of actual good design.
Quote from: EOTB;1076256The problem with high level play is that it requires more of both the player and the DM than the "sweet spot". Kind of like how Algebra 1 is the "sweet spot" for math, for most people.
1. Well, you'll be happy to know a system exists where each sub-system is loosely coupled leading to minimal fiddly-ness but high-level characters casually tearing enemies apart. (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/265193/Sitrep)
2. You can "juggle" enemies in this system. It's
quite satisfying. That's really what good high-lvl play is all about. (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/265193/Sitrep)
3. You'll be happy to know you can quickly and easily calc your stats with basic BODMAS in the system. It's cool to see the power-level rise in "real-time", too. (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/265193/Sitrep)
SHAMELESS PLUG ASIDE...
...onto the question. (hahahahahah)
Quote from: Razor 007;1076179Where would you draw the line, if at all?
I've found higher level play is dependent on the players at the table and the system itself. A player's particular approach to RPGs primarily determines if they'll get anything out of the interpretation of high-level play that the system has.
NWOD can get pretty crazy at high-levels but the math doesn't necessarily break down as much as there's no way lower level enemies can take high-level PCs. Even though it was apparently toned way down from OWOD, Werewolves are still Dimension Door'ing at-will while Geists are RESURRECTION (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riaW-b6pWk0&t=8m12s)'ing just as a basic feature. Many players of this system IME though don't usually care for the mechanical power in a D&D or HERO sense, moreso the capacity for narrative power.
I am particularly fond of SOTDL's approach but that's because it's implementation of classes is far more fluid from the ground-up. You don't need to have calculated a particular leveling strategy to have a strong character (although certain combinations can definitely turn your character OP in certain situations). This coupled with the fact that the magic level in the game is slanted towards low-powered (equiv to 3.5e 4th-5th w/ a few 6th exceptions) means PCs never become unto gods.
Also, SOTDL caps out at lvl 10 (having started at lvl 0) in RAW. They become pretty badass but there are still plenty of things out there that can squash em' if they're not extremely careful. The PCs definitely feel more like actual "adventurers" as a result, akin to elite mercenaries at the top-end.
Quote from: EOTB;1076256But high level play almost purposely thwarts what DMs try to do with it, because they don't understand that only someone without agency would allow themselves to end up in a movie-like situation.
Kind of. At that level of play, your character's basic life is a movie in and of itself -- possibly an Oscar winning one! Now, if you're talking about some anime crap, that's different, I can entirely get on-board with that opinion. You tend to see this problem at far more with GMs who just "start" their group at high-level without ever having actually taken a group from first level to twentieth.
You should do a thread in Design & Development discussing SITREP. AKA, shameless promotion, but with discussion of what your system does and why people should play it. Links to actual play are good too.
Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1076390Kind of. At that level of play, your character's basic life is a movie in and of itself -- possibly an Oscar winning one! Now, if you're talking about some anime crap, that's different
He was talking about 1e AD&D :D - scry/buff/teleport et al.
I like high level DnD having the party being able to team up and take down Orcus or Gazzt or Demogorgon.
It gives you something to look forward to when your characters are knee deep in mud and Kobolds.
Quote from: jhkimFor D&D, I don't care for much past 9th level or so. Partly, I think this is from the rules getting increasingly fiddly and bloated for higher levels - tracking multiple feats, modifiers, and so forth. It's more an issue of rules bloat than power level, though power level can get tricky.
For example, I'm good with pulp campaigns with the likes of Flash Gordon or Tarzan who take on superhuman foes. But even then, there are limits to believability. One of the potential problems of D&D can be a fighter falling 200 feet onto hard rocks and get up fighting.
Quote from: S'mon;1076301Pulp heroes wouldn't die from a fall - they would survive somehow. So 70 damage in 1e seems fine to me. For 4e and 5e the damage is out of wack with the pc durability so I prefer 1 point damage per foot fallen, enough to kill low level and squishy pcs.
As far as heroes in real pulp stories - they would probably survive - but they wouldn't survive by just taking the damage. The story would arrange some coincidence which saves them - a passing plane, or a pool of water, or whatever. There needs to be some explanation other than just being tough and experienced heroes.
Quote from: jhkim;1076418As far as heroes in real pulp stories - they would probably survive - but they wouldn't survive by just taking the damage. The story would arrange some coincidence which saves them - a passing plane, or a pool of water, or whatever. There needs to be some explanation other than just being tough and experienced heroes.
Well yes - read Gygax's 1e DMG description of the chained Fighter making his save vs dragon breath - the DM is supposed to narrate some reason for survival, such as bouncing off cliff into the pool of water. Player could also narrate a reason though this isn't in the DMG.
This is why we redid the falling rules. Instead of plunging to the bottom, as long you have hit points left after the falling damage you instead end up clinging to the edge of whatever you would have fallen from (unless you wanted to fall because of what's below). It takes advantage of "hit points aren't meat" and instead you're burning your luck to be in a position where a successful climb check can get you back in the action.
For me, it really depends on the game and the setting. I have run supers games, and I'm currently running a Naruto-ish ninjas game (but I repeat myself), and in games like those I'm fine with, and indeed want, the characters to regularly be performing superhuman feats. I'm also currently running a Call of Cthulhu game - where the characters are decidedly very much human, and I would not be happy if they were performing at more than what we all determined was a proper level for people who were competent professionals in their respective fields. Somewhere between is the Shadowrun game I'll be starting soon - yes there's magic, yes there's people who have bodies enhanced by magic or cybernetics - but I wouldn't be expecting them to perform like the ninjas in the first game, even as they consistently outperform the "normal men and women" from my Call of Cthulhu game.
Which is all a preamble to my answer as it pertains to D&D - it depends on the campaign that I'm interested in running and my players are interested in. I've run games that we all agree will have a maximum level of 6, I've run a lot of games that just come to a natural conclusion somewhere between 8-10th level, and recently we ran a game to 12th level. It's been a long time since I've run a game that went higher than that - so empirically, I can say that in D&D we prefer our games to top out at 12th level. But in our games, we don't generally aim for a specific max level.
For mortal PC's, I like the scale used in B/X or ACKS. 14th level sounds like a good pinnacle of mortal character power. At that level characters are powerful and have no fear of any common threat, but still within the upper limits of mortal capability (they are not quite demigod level yet).
This is primarily due to the reduction of hit point accumulation, reduced acquisition of higher level spells and fundamental rules used in the game (I'd probably prefer a limit of 10th level in 5E, for example).
Around 10th for me. Which in older dnd and some later ones that PCs can acquire followers/castles etc and presumably retire as successful adventurers. They made it.
Where do I prefer the mortal PC power curve top out? Somewhere around Indiana Jones, maybe maxing out around Conan beating up a giant ape, serpent or weird elephant headed man. Whatever level that is.
Well, in my OSR campaigns, typically I like worlds where a 9th level character is extremely powerful, and the most powerful characters in the world are maybe 14-16th.
Quote from: tenbones;1076224If we're talking D&D - the natural progression of the game will dictate that around 10th... and only grow more ridiculous post 10th.
If you're talking about nonD&D - my stipulation is I want "low-level" monsters/NPC's to always pose some kind of threat. D&D isn't really designed for that implicitly these days.
You can get that in Lion & Dragon.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1078794Well, in my OSR campaigns, typically I like worlds where a 9th level character is extremely powerful, and the most powerful characters in the world are maybe 14-16th.
With the D&D 5E power scale in mind; at 5th Level, the Fighter gets his 2nd Attack per Round. I want the Fighter to be able to get multiple attacks. Arcane spellcasters will be doing all sorts of stuff well before then.
In White Box FMAG, the Fighter gets one attack per Level; against very low level foes. He doesn't have to wait until 5th Level to start having fun.
I am searching for my preferred mix.
Fighter gets 2nd at 5th and 3rd at 11th in 5e.
Quote from: S'mon;1078895Fighter gets 2nd at 5th and 3rd at 11th in 5e.
Correct. My bad. As a politician might say; I "misspoke". Haha!!!
Quote from: Razor 007;1078915Correct. My bad. As a politician might say; I "misspoke". Haha!!!
5e actually does a really good job of keeping PCs on the same power curve, as long as they are having the recommended 6-8 combat encounters per long rest. I almost never saw 6-8 fights in a single day, so I went over to 1 week long rest and now it all works perfectly. :) A Fighter-5 with ca 3 short rests per long rest is very comparable to a fireball-slinging Wizard-5. A Fighter-11 with 3 attacks (6 on Action Surge) compares nicely to a Wizard-11 getting his first level 6 spells.
Quote from: Razor 007;1078819With the D&D 5E power scale in mind; at 5th Level, the Fighter gets his 2nd Attack per Round. I want the Fighter to be able to get multiple attacks. Arcane spellcasters will be doing all sorts of stuff well before then.
In White Box FMAG, the Fighter gets one attack per Level; against very low level foes. He doesn't have to wait until 5th Level to start having fun.
I am searching for my preferred mix.
Have you seen Lion & Dragon, and how it does advancement?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1079600Have you seen Lion & Dragon, and how it does advancement?
I own a copy. It's been a little while since I read through it. I'll take another look at it after work.
Honestly I think I've most enjoyed the power level of PCs from between 5th to 10th level. After that the gap between *the average creature the PCs can realistically be expected to face* and *the kind of creatures the PCs need to face a challenge* is likely to become far too large.
Unless my campaign entirely revolves around combating extra-dimensional horrors (which, in fairness, they have done a few times), having the PCs be able to mow down battalions of soldiers is not conducive to a healthily wary attitude to combat, planning, bothering to make allies and negotiate with enemies, and so on - all of which are elements of the game I really enjoy.
Quote from: OmSwaOperations;1079965Unless my campaign entirely revolves around combating extra-dimensional horrors (which, in fairness, they have done a few times), having the PCs be able to mow down battalions of soldiers is not conducive to a healthily wary attitude to combat, planning, bothering to make allies and negotiate with enemies, and so on - all of which are elements of the game I really enjoy.
However 5e D&D gives us Bounded Accuracy and powerful mooks such as the CR 3 Veteran - I kerbstomped a teen-level PC group with a score of Veterans. I see more complaints on the Internet that 5e mooks are too powerful vs high level PCs and monsters.
Quote from: S'mon;1079971However 5e D&D gives us Bounded Accuracy and powerful mooks such as the CR 3 Veteran - I kerbstomped a teen-level PC group with a score of Veterans. I see more complaints on the Internet that 5e mooks are too powerful vs high level PCs and monsters.
Greetings!
S'mon, my friend, can you search through your notes and such, and provide a detailed account of that action? I think it is always a beautiful thing when otherwise *mundane* mortal enemies provide the smug player-characters with a good ass-kicking, to keep them humble. I would love to hear about how all of that went down, brother! I also think it can serve as a good example and inspiration for other DM's here on our site with the potentials involved, even for what a person would think are especially formidable player characters.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1080027Greetings!
S'mon, my friend, can you search through your notes and such, and provide a detailed account of that action? I think it is always a beautiful thing when otherwise *mundane* mortal enemies provide the smug player-characters with a good ass-kicking, to keep them humble. I would love to hear about how all of that went down, brother! I also think it can serve as a good example and inspiration for other DM's here on our site with the potentials involved, even for what a person would think are especially formidable player characters.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I imagine one key thing, is to avoid allowing all or many of those mundane foes to be within range of area of effect spells. 10 Orcs are no big deal, if a single casting of a 3rd level area of effect spell can center on the group and take them all out. Spread those foes out. Have them attack from multiple directions at once.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1079600Have you seen Lion & Dragon, and how it does advancement?
It appears to me, that the PCs would advance in level about every third gaming session; so about 30 gaming sessions to advance from level 0, to level 10. Of course, I should say "if" they survive that long.
I see that PC advancement is not tied directly to treasure accumulation.
Quote from: SHARK;1080027Greetings!
S'mon, my friend, can you search through your notes and such, and provide a detailed account of that action? I think it is always a beautiful thing when otherwise *mundane* mortal enemies provide the smug player-characters with a good ass-kicking, to keep them humble. I would love to hear about how all of that went down, brother! I also think it can serve as a good example and inspiration for other DM's here on our site with the potentials involved, even for what a person would think are especially formidable player characters.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
It was an online game, I have the session log - http://smons.blogspot.com/2016/01/session-59-554446-fall-of-morthor-cof.html
Quote from: Razor 007;1080034I imagine one key thing, is to avoid allowing all or many of those mundane foes to be within range of area of effect spells. 10 Orcs are no big deal, if a single casting of a 3rd level area of effect spell can center on the group and take them all out. Spread those foes out. Have them attack from multiple directions at once.
Well, 58 hp Veterans are actually quite resistant to 8d6 Fireballs! And even a level 5 slot is only doing 10d6. To really make an impact you need to be doing around twice that, which typically requires some powergaming, such as a Fighter-Wizard with Action Surge casting 2 fireballs before the enemy can get into melee. In the referenced game there was no multiclassing or feats, and the PCs were mostly warrior types.