Quote from: Black Vulmea;728245Really?


So, is this an example of, "I disagree and here's why," or, "you're fucking wrong and I don't need to explain myself?"

That wasn't "you're fucking wrong and I don't need to explain myself", but more of "you're missing the point and insisting on arguing over something very minor".

Seriously BV, you jumped in with snide hyperbole as your launch point, and doubled down with things like "your bible".

Quote from: Sacrosanct;728116think about it.  If you have low, mid, and high level descriptors, and the level band is up to 20 or higher, are you saying 50% of that level band means high?  The very definition of "mid" means middle, where that level 10 is located on that band.  This isn't me making some wild interpretation from my "bible".  It's me using the common definition of what words mean.  Sorry YOU don't agree, but tough.  No need to be a prick about it

Oh for pity's sake.  That's like saying that since the oldest verified human being made it into the 120s, being 65 is only "middle-aged."  

The plain fact, that anyone who isn't a dolt ought to be able to swallow, is that different D&D circles have widely varying notions as to what "high level" means.  Heck, I remember someone posting a couple years back that the mortality rate in his group's campaigns was cranked so high that the average life span was two sessions: leveling up at all wasn't a petty thing, and I think he reported that the record was something like 4th level.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;728116when a game has xp tables reaching into the 20s, and releases a book called "high level campaigns" that is very specific about PCs being at such a high level that monsters are no longer a challenge and "super spells" are needed, then no, level 10 isn't high level, and it's not something from my bible.

Ah. You're talking about High Level Campaigns sourcebook for AD&D.

Lemme just grab a quote from the third paragraph of Chapter 1 of that book: "For our purposes, any character of level 10 or more is high-level."

So, basically, you are completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong.

Can we drop this now?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;728285Ah. You're talking about High Level Campaigns sourcebook for AD&D.

Lemme just grab a quote from the third paragraph of Chapter 1 of that book: "For our purposes, any character of level 10 or more is high-level."

So, basically, you are completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong.

Can we drop this now?

I knew there was a reason why I had you on ignore.  Not sure why I took you off.  You're being incredibly disengenous here, especially since you conveniently are leaving off the sentence directly proceeding it:

QuoteThe book you hold in your hands contains rules and campaign suggestions for characters up to 30th level

Additionally, the paragraph right above it talks about the need for the book because the DMG assumes PC retire at level 20, and the whole point of the book High Level Campaigns is to give guidelines on adventuring beyond that.  Add the fact that 99.99% of the content of the book is around level 10 spells, magic item creation, and an entire section devoted towards classes are called "warriors beyond 20th level" etc, and it's pretty clear that when Skip is talking about high levels in AD&D, he's talking about levels higher than just 10.  I'm not "completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong" when I say that in general, high level  means mid teens and above because that's what 99.99% of the context of the text is focused on.  Also, that wasn't the only reference I pointed out that leads one to believe that high level characters are those that are above level 10.  The ways rules are presented and written give a clear message of intent to the reader.

But I shouldn't be surprised that you're basing your entire argument on a VERY minor pedantic point, because you are continuing to argue this even after I already explicity said this:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;728172The sad part is that his hang up has nothing to do with the point I was making.  Don't like my term of "high level"?  Fine, replace it with "super high level" if you want.  The point was that it appeared to me most people's campaigns got cut significantly short than what they intended, and because of that, it didn't seem as if the high teens range of levels were ever experienced.  And therefore, would it make more sense to make campaigns with a smaller scope, since it appears many of them are cut short anyway.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;728295Additionally, the paragraph right above it talks about the need for the book because the DMG assumes PC retire at level 20, and the whole point of the book High Level Campaigns is to give guidelines on adventuring beyond that.  

While that book apparently defines high level as 10+ (in line with the usual TSR approach - as I said, White Dwarf took the stingier British approach with high level meaning 7+) it's actually what we now call an "Epic Level Handbook", for play above the levels the game is designed to work at. By its very nature it's not about the high end of the normal level range.

I don't get the impression you are likely to be convinced that your POV is a minority one, though. (edit) I've reread your OP - you say your own games end around level 10-12, just like most everybody else. Most people regard this as 'high level'. 3e explictly calls 11-15 'high level'. It sounds like you play the same as most people, but for some reason you prefer to think of your games as ending at 'mid level'?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;728285Lemme just grab a quote from the third paragraph of Chapter 1 of that book: "For our purposes, any character of level 10 or more is high-level."

So, basically, you are completely, utterly, and irrevocably wrong.

Wait for it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;728295You're being incredibly disengenous here . . .

Priceless.