How High Level is TOO High?
Skyblind
most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
taste?
For me, I feel "High Level" starts somewhere between level 12 and
level 15 for 3rd ed D&D, and "Too High" is 20th+ I've tried the Epic
level rules, and they're not bad - but I don't think I'd ever run
another Epic campaign, unless I had a group of really really good
roleplayers with interesting characters - and they don't exactly grow
on trees where I live.
Then again, my opinion as to "Too High" might be skewed - in over 20
years of DMing I've only had two groups make it from 1st level to
level 15+, and only two players to exceed 20th level. I don't think
of myself as a killer DM - most of the campaigns died "natural deaths"
- PCs retired, some players moved away, and others PCs died during
games.
Just wondering what other DM's think - and players too, for that
matter.
Justisaur
news:gp58301fpduk5i8o0...@4ax.com:
I used to really like the high levels in 2e, I had one campain that ran up
to about 26th lv (using the high level handbook).
In 3e I've only had one game go up to 15th, and that was the first one,
where we converted from 2e at about 9th lv. The current one I'm in is at
9th, and I'm starting to get burned out on the preparation required
already. But I've set myself a goal of at least 15th lv, and have plans
all the way up to that point, if the PCs don't get themselves killed off.
I don't think I've had another 3e game above about 5th-7th. I think the
preparation required just starts getting to be much more difficult in 3e
than it was in earlier editions at an earlier level.
--
Richard L. Pilliard II
http://justisaur.tripod.com/well.htm for my encounter generator, xp
calculator & other files.
Insane Ranter
Ian R Malcomson
>This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
>most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at.
Easiest answer is: 1 level over that you feel comfortable
refereeing/playing. For me, I start to get edgy as a DM when the players
hit around 25th, then absolutely say "no more" at 36th (although that
latter number is just a piece of nostalgic glue that doesn't seem to
want to purge itself from my mind).
One reason I think people get the jitters about high level is that they
treat the game with a "same, but more" kind of methodology. I've always
treated different level ranges as new ball parks to play in, almost to
the extent that it becomes a different game - the emphasis of the game
should certainly change.
The old Basic/Expert/etc. progression illustrates this to a point. The
Basic rules were all about dungeons with convenient holes to rest up and
re-equip nearby. Expert introduced the wilderness, and diminished the
idea of the "convenient hole" - the gaps between adventure sites became
adventure sites in their own right. Companion had the characters
forming their own domains, and a part of that wasn't about simply
travelling through the wilderness, but clearing whole swathes of it free
of threat to make the area cushy for the castle. Master expanded it all
- "wilderness" could mean some pretty damn inhospitable extraplanar
dimension, for example. We won't mention the Immortals rules.
High level isn't a matter of higher-HD, higher-AC, higher-DC challenges
to throw at a party. It's also about complexity. Not only should the
threats the characters face get harder, the lives of the characters
themselves should become more complex. Where once they were the onion
skin, they are now the heart of the onion, and beginning to find out
just why NPC X, who sent them on those first missions that, if he'd done
them himself, he could've wiped the floor with the boss-guy without
blinking, *didn't* actually go out there and delve that dungeon.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Sea Wasp
> This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
> most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
> everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
> taste?
>
The only level that's "too high" is one where the PCs are more
powerful than the GM. Anything below that level, no problem.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Ian R Malcomson
>I think the
>preparation required just starts getting to be much more difficult in 3e
>than it was in earlier editions at an earlier level.
I've actually found the opposite here. Prep time is always going to be
longer for a high-level game anyway, but the greater modularity of 3E
means that working out stats etc. is a *lot* easier. Also, because the
rules do a fair bit of the stat work for you, I've found I can spend
more time on the plot, over figuring the numbers. Monsters, for
example: size this, type that, bang - that's at least 1/4 of the work
done for you. The rest is just working out skills, feats, specials, and
descriptions.
In other words, 3E is a spreadsheet dream :)
--
Ian R Malcomson
J.O. Aho
> Anything higer than 10-12ish is too high. I personally like 5-8/9
>
>
Gosh, your players must have quite a lot experience to make new characters.
//Aho
Insane Ranter
"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:40344561...@wizvax.net...
> Skyblind wrote:
> > This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
> > most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
> > everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
> > taste?
> >
>
> The only level that's "too high" is one where the PCs are more
> powerful than the GM. Anything below that level, no problem.
You watched a bunch of the TV show didn't you?
Insane Ranter
"J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:c11tsg$1cqtc9$1...@ID-130698.news.uni-berlin.de...
Eh? How so?
J.O. Aho
Won't take ages to reach level 5-9 and you start to feel 10-12 is too high...
can't imagen that those characters will have a long lifespan after level 9.
Once in the time I played with a DM who was quite good, except that he was
always killing off characters when reaching level 7-8.
//Aho
JB
Bah! If you have a campaign in which you wish to limit level advancement
you simply cap it or increase the experience requirements as
appropriate.
Malachias Invictus
"Skyblind" <k...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:gp58301fpduk5i8o0...@4ax.com...
> This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
> most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
> everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
> taste?
I have personally run 3.5E games up to 14th level, and have played up to
12th. In 1E and 2E, I ran for characters up to 32nd level, and played a
29th level character. One person in my group ran a campaign up to 22nd or
so (in Ravenloft, of all places). Although it will take some tweaking to
run Epic, I am pretty confident I could run any level they are able to
achieve. They might have trouble actually *surviving* one of my high/Epic
level adventures, however: I assume major amounts of tactical competence and
cooperation at that point.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Wayne Shaw
>This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
>most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
>everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
>taste?
>
>For me, I feel "High Level" starts somewhere between level 12 and
>level 15 for 3rd ed D&D, and "Too High" is 20th+ I've tried the Epic
>level rules, and they're not bad - but I don't think I'd ever run
Actually, I started having trouble around 15th level, but I don't
think it would actually have gotten all that worse at 20th. The worst
part was certain spells that were already there by that point.
Insane Ranter
Your assuming a good deal here. Mainly that the CR of encounters increases
at the rate of chacter advancement. It doesn't have to. You also assume that
the level limit in any campaign has to be level 40 or 20 or whatever.
Malachias Invictus
"Insane Ranter" <wh...@hooo.me> wrote in message
news:Er9Zb.35475$kR3....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> > >>Insane Ranter wrote:
> > >>>Anything higer than 10-12ish is too high. I personally like 5-8/9
> > >>Gosh, your players must have quite a lot experience to make new
> > >> characters.
> > > Eh? How so?
> > Won't take ages to reach level 5-9 and you start to feel
> > 10-12 is too high... can't imagen that those characters will
> > have a long lifespan after level 9.
> > Once in the time I played with a DM who was quite good, except that he
was
> > always killing off characters when reaching level 7-8.
> Your assuming a good deal here.
Well, sure. He is assuming default D&D, with a level cap.
> Mainly that the CR of encounters increases
> at the rate of chacter advancement. It doesn't have to.
If you want those encounters to be a challenge, it does. Unless of course
you are artificially lowering the CR of encounters, at which point you might
as well just lessen the experience on teh chart by an appropriate
percentage.
> You also assume that the level limit in any campaign has to be level
> 40 or 20 or whatever.
I do not know about him, but I assume there is *no* level limit, unless
someone states otherwise.
Sea Wasp
What TV show? There are a fair number of them, you know.
Insane Ranter
> Insane Ranter wrote:
> > "Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
> > news:40344561...@wizvax.net...
> >
> >>Skyblind wrote:
> >>
> >>>This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
> >>>most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
> >>>everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
> >>>taste?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The only level that's "too high" is one where the PCs are more
> >>powerful than the GM. Anything below that level, no problem.
> >
> >
> > You watched a bunch of the TV show didn't you?
> >
> >
>
> What TV show? There are a fair number of them, you know.
>
The D&D cartoon!
Marcq
news:f0bb2a1db6f36dd2...@news.nntpserver.com...
In 3.x, 15th is about the point I find difficult as well. As a ref, the
difficulty for me is that preparation for battles starts taking so much time
it leaves little energy for story and non-battle prep.
Marc
--
Some D&D stuff and some character pics at:
http://www.four-hands.com/marcs_stuff.htm
Sea Wasp
>>
>>What TV show? There are a fair number of them, you know.
>>
>
>
> The D&D cartoon!
>
Um, no. Never saw it, and from what little I heard, have no
interest in EVER seeing it.
Justisaur
> Insane Ranter wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
>> news:40356D5C...@wizvax.net...
>
>>>
>>>What TV show? There are a fair number of them, you know.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The D&D cartoon!
>>
>
> Um, no. Never saw it, and from what little I heard, have no
> interest in EVER seeing it.
>
>
Aw, c'mon, it's almost as good as the movie! And it's more quotable.
J.O. Aho
> "J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
>>Once in the time I played with a DM who was quite good, except that he was
>>always killing off characters when reaching level 7-8.
> Your assuming a good deal here. Mainly that the CR of encounters increases
> at the rate of chacter advancement. It doesn't have to. You also assume that
> the level limit in any campaign has to be level 40 or 20 or whatever.
Limit? Thats an ugly word... everything is a question about skill and luck how
far you will get, and of course time....
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in news:4035A38B...@wizvax.net:
>> Um, no. Never saw it, and from what little I heard, have no
>>interest in EVER seeing it.
>>
>>
>
>
> Aw, c'mon, it's almost as good as the movie!
Make that *ABSOLUTELY* no interest in EVER seeing it.
Malachias Invictus
"Justisaur" <just...@removespam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9494E31DB6...@204.127.204.17...> >> "Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> >>>What TV show? There are a fair number of them, you know.
> >> The D&D cartoon!
> > Um, no. Never saw it, and from what little I heard, have no
> > interest in EVER seeing it.
> Aw, c'mon, it's almost as good as the movie!
Now, don't start that. It is *way* better than the movie. At least, my
child-memories tell me so. I remember it as pretty dorky, and silly, but
pretty fun as well.
> And it's more quotable.
It could have really used some good old fashioned killing.
Working Varl
news:4035A38B...@wizvax.net:
: > Um, no. Never saw it, and from what little I heard, have no
: > interest in EVER seeing it.
: >
: >
:
: Aw, c'mon, it's almost as good as the movie! And it's more quotable.
At least the cartoon entertained me; can't say that about the movie.
Plus, the cartoon didn't have a thief dichotomously named Snails.
Tarrax Ironwolf
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:103ccbt...@corp.supernews.com...
|
| Now, don't start that. It is *way* better than the movie. At least, my
| child-memories tell me so. I remember it as pretty dorky, and silly, but
| pretty fun as well.
|
I agree. It was fantastic when I was younger, but when it resurfaced years
later I realized how corny it was. But my children have taken a shine to
it. I was lucky enough to record all the episode except two, thanks to
George Bush who thought it was important to interrupt a kids show on
Saturday morning at 8am *twice*. So I never got those episodes. But
othewise I got some future gamers growing up in the family.
--
Tarrax Ironwolf
psyber...@VEiwon.com
-------
"We played Dungeons & Dragons for three hours! Then I was slain by an
elf." -- Homer Simpson
Wayne Shaw
>> Actually, I started having trouble around 15th level, but I don't
>> think it would actually have gotten all that worse at 20th. The worst
>> part was certain spells that were already there by that point.
>>
>>
>
>In 3.x, 15th is about the point I find difficult as well. As a ref, the
>difficulty for me is that preparation for battles starts taking so much time
>it leaves little energy for story and non-battle prep.
I can't honestly say that the prep for a 15th level encounter was
noticeably worse than with a 10th, except for wizards (who get to be
progressively more painful if you individualize them because their
spell list just gets larger and larger). I didn't find a high level
fighter all that much harder to put together than a low-middle one,
for example.
Marcq
I don't recall the precise point that prep became quite a burden when we
played through to epic levels but somewhere between 15th and the low 20s I
found myself spending all my time working up notes on the creatures and NPCs
for battle (especially notes on spell effects) and little time on anything
else. I think that you are right that it is more the spellcasters than the
fighters that are troublesome but I do find it very hard to challenge the
high level parties that include wizards without counter wizards or
spellcasting creatures.
Quentin Stephens
news:gp58301fpduk5i8o0...@4ax.com:
> This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what
> level most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at.
> Sure, everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO
> high for your taste?
IMO as long as you're having fun, it doesn't matter. I haven't played
the high levels in 3E but in 2E the easy solution was to remove the
mass damage spells, so magic became subtle and indirect. Wizards were
typically specialist Diviners if good and specialist Necromancers,
Conjurors, or Enchanters if evil. Clerics were similarly nerfed. The
whole thing was very Conanesque.
Ralph Glatt
> most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
> everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
> taste?
Back when D&D first came out, I heard about guys at Caltech having
characters that were 100th level or more. ;-)
I've never played higher than 12th level. I think I might be
interested in adventures going as high as 15th level, but really, what
more can you do after that? At that point, the only thing worth doing
is going to the outer planes and taking on NPC's that the DM is most
likely going to have to make up.
Ralph Glatt
Member, Old Farts Club
Gene Poole
I have to disagree. when you get into the super high levels it can still
be fun and exciting, just the style has to change; and you need a DM who
can keep up and change as the campaign changes. an excellent example of
this is in Dragon Mountain's boxed set which pits the super high (16 or
higher) level PCs against a fortress full of reasonably intelligent
kobolds, with nowhere to rest or recuperate, no way to regain spells,
etc...it's long, it's drawn out, the players really start to fear for
their characters' survival, and it doesn't need to involve gods or
Tiamat's 500 dragons.
--
Gene Poole
Signature sold separately
Kevin Lowe
juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) wrote:
> I've never played higher than 12th level. I think I might be
> interested in adventures going as high as 15th level, but really, what
> more can you do after that? At that point, the only thing worth doing
> is going to the outer planes and taking on NPC's that the DM is most
> likely going to have to make up.
I don't know, there seem to be monsters with CRs in the 15+ range in the
published books. Are you saying that there is no point in running games
where such beings get smacked down by PCs?
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Marcq
news:ce9c44dd.04022...@posting.google.com...
As a player, I think >15th level games can be a lot of fun. As a ref, they
can be done right but they take a great deal of work to present both
credible plots and challenging encounters. For me personally, the work
effort of high level campaigns does not justify the reward. You can have
just as much fun at lower levels with a lot less effort. For that reason, as
a ref, I prefer under 15th level PCs. But for a good group of players and a
good group of PCs, I'll go beyond 15th for a while, if the campaing can
justify it.
Wayne Shaw
>I don't recall the precise point that prep became quite a burden when we
>played through to epic levels but somewhere between 15th and the low 20s I
>found myself spending all my time working up notes on the creatures and NPCs
>for battle (especially notes on spell effects) and little time on anything
>else. I think that you are right that it is more the spellcasters than the
>fighters that are troublesome but I do find it very hard to challenge the
>high level parties that include wizards without counter wizards or
>spellcasting creatures.
Well, you see, I didn't find the problem with sorcerers and it was at
least less of a problem with clerics or druids; wizards in particular
seem to be the pain because at high levels they have a very large
number of spells, but not _all_ of them.
Ralph Glatt
Ah, okay, you're talking 3.X. I didn't know that they had included
more higher level monsters. I prefer 1E, which didn't have very many
really high-level monsters, unless you decided to pit your players up
against the gods, demigods, etc., found in Dieties and Demigods.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Skyblind <k...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<gp58301fpduk5i8o0...@4ax.com>...
>> This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
>> most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
>> everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
>> taste?
>
>Back when D&D first came out, I heard about guys at Caltech having
>characters that were 100th level or more. ;-)
>
That was Warlock, though. Warlock was...different.
Sea Wasp
> Ah, okay, you're talking 3.X. I didn't know that they had included
> more higher level monsters. I prefer 1E, which didn't have very many
> really high-level monsters, unless you decided to pit your players up
> against the gods, demigods, etc., found in Dieties and Demigods.
>
Oh, certainly not. The MM2 and FF had no high level monsters. The
demons were low level opponents. Certainly.
There were tons of high level opponents even in official TSR stuff.
Then if you wanted more, you could always go get the Arduin Grimoires,
All The World's Monsters (I - III), etc...
Sea Wasp
The Arduin Grimoire had TABLES up to 100th level and above.
My old groups often played up to the point that "level" was a
meaningless word.
Kevin Lowe
> Kevin Lowe <sp...@spoof.gov> wrote in message
> news:<spoof-04CF92....@news01.comindico.com.au>...
> > In article <ce9c44dd.04022...@posting.google.com>,
> > juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) wrote:
> >
> > > I've never played higher than 12th level. I think I might be
> > > interested in adventures going as high as 15th level, but really, what
> > > more can you do after that? At that point, the only thing worth doing
> > > is going to the outer planes and taking on NPC's that the DM is most
> > > likely going to have to make up.
> >
> > I don't know, there seem to be monsters with CRs in the 15+ range in the
> > published books. Are you saying that there is no point in running games
> > where such beings get smacked down by PCs?
>
> Ah, okay, you're talking 3.X. I didn't know that they had included
> more higher level monsters. I prefer 1E, which didn't have very many
> really high-level monsters, unless you decided to pit your players up
> against the gods, demigods, etc., found in Dieties and Demigods.
I'd agree with you as far as earlier editions go. My experience was
that there were only a handful of monsters in the rules that could give
a 9th level 2E party a run for their money. Ravenloft in particular got
a bit silly at that level when I ran it. The heroes left a smoking
trail of annihilated high-level baddies across the countryside.
3.X has plenty of monsters of all CRs, though.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I don't recall the precise point that prep became quite a burden when
> we played through to epic levels but somewhere between 15th and the
> low 20s I found myself spending all my time working up notes on the
> creatures and NPCs for battle (especially notes on spell effects) and
> little time on anything else.
Yeah, that's mainly why I put my 23rd-level campaign on hiatus. I might
have restarted the campaign once I had some time to recharge and think
things out, but it doesn't seem worth it after the 3.5 update -- too
many changes happened to hit rules that we were actually using.
> I think that you are right that it is more the spellcasters than the
> fighters that are troublesome but I do find it very hard to challenge
> the high level parties that include wizards without counter wizards or
> spellcasting creatures.
The wizards gave me the most trouble, prep-wise, but they weren't the
only problem. Specialized offense causes trouble too; it tends to create
non-tactical "rock paper scissors" encounters that end more or less
randomly.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Ralph Glatt
> Ralph Glatt wrote:
>
> > Ah, okay, you're talking 3.X. I didn't know that they had included
> > more higher level monsters. I prefer 1E, which didn't have very many
> > really high-level monsters, unless you decided to pit your players up
> > against the gods, demigods, etc., found in Dieties and Demigods.
> >
>
> Oh, certainly not. The MM2 and FF had no high level monsters. The
> demons were low level opponents. Certainly.
>
> There were tons of high level opponents even in official TSR stuff.
> Then if you wanted more, you could always go get the Arduin Grimoires,
> All The World's Monsters (I - III), etc...
<sigh> What wine goes well with crow? ;-)
Ralph Glatt
> In article <ce9c44dd.04022...@posting.google.com>,
> juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) wrote:
>
> > Kevin Lowe <sp...@spoof.gov> wrote in message
> > news:<spoof-04CF92....@news01.comindico.com.au>...
> > > In article <ce9c44dd.04022...@posting.google.com>,
> > > juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've never played higher than 12th level. I think I might be
> > > > interested in adventures going as high as 15th level, but really, what
> > > > more can you do after that? At that point, the only thing worth doing
> > > > is going to the outer planes and taking on NPC's that the DM is most
> > > > likely going to have to make up.
> > >
> > > I don't know, there seem to be monsters with CRs in the 15+ range in the
> > > published books. Are you saying that there is no point in running games
> > > where such beings get smacked down by PCs?
> >
> > Ah, okay, you're talking 3.X. I didn't know that they had included
> > more higher level monsters. I prefer 1E, which didn't have very many
> > really high-level monsters, unless you decided to pit your players up
> > against the gods, demigods, etc., found in Dieties and Demigods.
>
> I'd agree with you as far as earlier editions go. My experience was
> that there were only a handful of monsters in the rules that could give
> a 9th level 2E party a run for their money. Ravenloft in particular got
> a bit silly at that level when I ran it. The heroes left a smoking
> trail of annihilated high-level baddies across the countryside.
>
> 3.X has plenty of monsters of all CRs, though.
As Sea Wasp has pointed out, there *were* plenty of high level
monsters, but you still have to go to the outer planes to fight them.
Mr. M.J. Lush
Skyblind <k...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
>most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
>everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
>taste?
The point where the players start to forget their abilities
There is one really big problem with high level D&D characters...
they are _complex_, its not that they have too many options, its
that those options are built up out of a bewildering array of sub
ability's that don't combine in a simple way.
So you end up with say +4 to hit +3 to damage at ranges of 0-30 feet
(point blank shot+weapon focus), otherwise +3 to hit +2 damage, unless
its dark then your '+2 Sun Bow' only a +1 weapon in the dark for +2 hit
+1 damage.... unless its a full moon then you must use the cursed
Wereblade.
Its also very annoying to realise halfway through a fight
with a black dragon that your immune to acid damage
--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
Wayne Shaw
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>> I think that you are right that it is more the spellcasters than the
>> fighters that are troublesome but I do find it very hard to challenge
>> the high level parties that include wizards without counter wizards or
>> spellcasting creatures.
>
>The wizards gave me the most trouble, prep-wise, but they weren't the
>only problem. Specialized offense causes trouble too; it tends to create
>non-tactical "rock paper scissors" encounters that end more or less
>randomly.
Could you give an example of what you mean by specialized offense
here? I suspect you aren't talking the infamous teleport first strike
but something more specific.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>> 3.X has plenty of monsters of all CRs, though.
>
>As Sea Wasp has pointed out, there *were* plenty of high level
>monsters, but you still have to go to the outer planes to fight them.
Actually, the Arduin Grimoire monsters he mentioned often weren't what
3e would call outsiders; some of them were just awfully big damn
dangerous animals, others what 3e would call "magical beasts".
Wayne Shaw
M.J. Lush) wrote:
>The point where the players start to forget their abilities
>
> There is one really big problem with high level D&D characters...
>they are _complex_, its not that they have too many options, its
>that those options are built up out of a bewildering array of sub
>ability's that don't combine in a simple way.
>
> So you end up with say +4 to hit +3 to damage at ranges of 0-30 feet
>(point blank shot+weapon focus), otherwise +3 to hit +2 damage, unless
>its dark then your '+2 Sun Bow' only a +1 weapon in the dark for +2 hit
>+1 damage.... unless its a full moon then you must use the cursed
>Wereblade.
>
> Its also very annoying to realise halfway through a fight
>with a black dragon that your immune to acid damage
There's a certain point here; it's even more true with NPCs where
you're trying to keep track of an NPC you've only played for this
fight, and likely a certain number of other NPCs and hangers-on.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> I think that you are right that it is more the spellcasters than the
>>> fighters that are troublesome but I do find it very hard to challenge
>>> the high level parties that include wizards without counter wizards or
>>> spellcasting creatures.
Bradd wrote:
>> The wizards gave me the most trouble, prep-wise, but they weren't the
>> only problem. Specialized offense causes trouble too; it tends to
>> create non-tactical "rock paper scissors" encounters that end more or
>> less randomly.
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> Could you give an example of what you mean by specialized offense
> here? I suspect you aren't talking the infamous teleport first strike
> but something more specific.
Well, the magical ambush is still a problem, but it's not the only kind
of sudden-death situation at epic levels. It seemed like most attacks
were all-or-nothing. Specifically, the difference between "damaging
attack" and "save or die effect" disappeared. More on this later; first,
some specific examples.
1. Rogue Death Blossom: Start with a rogue. Max out TWF. Use a brilliant
energy weapon, since your attacks are wimpy against non-living
creatures anyway. Sneak. Unload about 50d6 points of whoop-ass.
Defenses: blindsight, uncanny dodge, immune to crits, lots of hp.
Disadvantages: You're useless if it doesn't work.
2. Ranger Death Blossom: As above, except you use Favored Enemy,
Improved Critical (scimitar, natch), and Power Attack instead of
Sneak Attack. Optionally, sneak up on the foe to eliminate dodge
bonuses and get the most out of Power Attack. It's not too hard to
hit 200 points of damage in a round.
Defenses: lots of hp, blindsight (partial)
Disadvantages: Only works against a major favored enemy.
Notes: Better for NPCs, because you can use a "specialist" sent
specifically to deal with the PCs (eliminates the disadvantage).
3. Psychic Power Impact: At low levels, psychic warriors tend to invest
in low-cost, long-term powers, since they get so few power points. At
high levels, this can turn into a large surplus that you can burn on
Deep Impact. Against the right foes, that means a huge damage bonus
from Power Attack. It's great for killing dragons.
Defenses: high touch AC, lots of hp (maybe).
Disadvantages: Probably won't work with 3.5 psi.
4. If at First You Don't Crit: Fighter with a x4 crit weapon and
Improved Critical. At high levels, fighters get so many attacks that
even a measly 19-20 threat range comes up every other round, and each
crit does insane damage (easily 200 points with a two-handed weapon).
Defenses: very high AC, lots of hp, immune to crits.
5. Unbalanced Attack: A few monsters have very high attack bonuses for
their CRs. Usually it's because the monster lacks the usual array of
special abilities, so the designer pumps up HD, physical attacks, and
damage bonuses. They can stomp all over PCs, using Power Attack even
against fairly high AC heroes. This is especially common among
monsters from the ELH.
Defenses: insanely high AC, lots of hp.
Disadvantages: Often, these monsters have a "glass jaw," so the
outcome of a fight depends strongly on winning initiative.
6. Don't Bother Saving; You're Dead: This is basically the spellcasting
version of Unbalanced Attack. Again, the creature is a one-hit
wonder, and its one attack is boosted to crazy levels. Even
characters with good saves are likely to fail and die. I ran into
this problem with the ELH sirrush.
Defenses: immunity to the magical effect.
7. Thanks for the Henchman: For a few levels (roughly 15th-18th), the
big-damage PCs have lousy Will saves, but the PC casters don't have
enough magic to cover them all with Mind Blank. During this window,
Domination effects are very, very nasty; the saving throw gap is so
large that there's not much you can do besides dispelling the mind
control as quickly as you can.
Defenses: Mind Blank.
Notes: This one is a bit weird, because it's very nasty for a while,
and then it almost completely goes away.
8. You Can Leave Your Hat On: Having trouble with Death Wards and Mind
Blanks? Strip 'em! Get yourself a wizard or demon buddy to pound your
foes with Dispelling, and then finish them all off with a save-or-die
effect. Or pull out those Domination spells and let the enemies
finish themselves. If necessary, use Disjunction; it's a bit risky,
but you'll be sure to eliminate all of those pesky magic defenses.
Defenses: ring of greater counterspelling.
Now for some general observations on offense and defense in D&D.
At low levels, it's not too hard to defeat an enemy in a single round
*if* you get lucky. Damage is pretty high compared to hp, but success
rates are low. The dice are a big factor in combat. Your best tactic is
to get the odds in your favor so that you're more likely to win.
At medium levels, attacks are more reliable, but hit points seem to
outpace damage. Save-or-lose spells start to show up, but they're
generally single-target, so it's not too difficult to rescue an ally
from trouble.
At high levels, attacks are very reliable, and they come very quickly.
Save-or-lose spells are *very* good at eliminating single foes, and they
can often wipe out all but one PC. Luck is a big factor again, but it's
mostly luck in guessing your foes' tactics and weaknesses, not luck at
dice. If you leave a hole in your defenses, you can lose so quickly that
there's no time to recover or retreat.
Usually, the average pace of combat is much slower at low and medium
levels, but low-level combats can end suddenly with lucky rolls. The
pace of combat is much more consistent at medium and high levels, but
it's consistently *fast* at high levels. In my experience, mid-level
games give the players the most time to plan, react, and develop
tactics. At low levels, the results are too random. At high levels,
there's too much emphasis on the "get killed, develop an impenetrable
defense to what killed you, get killed by something new" cycle.
JamesMcP
> most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
> everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
> taste?
Ehhh, hard to tell. I've been in Epic games, but they were one shots
with under-prepared GMs and no story behind the characters.
My 3e game, now in year 3, has 15th level PCs and it seems to be
churning along quite nicely. Yes, the combats are more planned but
they also last much longer and require more tactics. Well, some.
Okay, if they'd used tactics the monk might not have died last
session.
> For me, I feel "High Level" starts somewhere between level 12 and
> level 15 for 3rd ed D&D, and "Too High" is 20th+
I agree that high tends to kick in at 12th or so since that's where
Raise Dead's lose the "new car smell." Too high, well, haven't
gotten there. My players are planning out to the mid-20's.
I used to be afraid of running out of worthy combats, but my game
world's evolved heavily. Sure, no more random tables of encounters,
but I can live with that. Heck, my players caused a demi-plane worth
of undead to be shipped back. I now have millions of undead angry at
them! months of decent gaming there.
On top of that is the whole "defeat the draconic overlords" super-plot
that's been lurking around mainly as a general target to advance
towards instead of an expectation. Now with them looking towards an
epic career, they might actually do it. Or at least try it.
> Then again, my opinion as to "Too High" might be skewed - in over 20
> years of DMing I've only had two groups make it from 1st level to
> level 15+, and only two players to exceed 20th level.
Me neither, but in both cases it required years of game play to
achieve and luck. It requires a significant amount of luck to have
decent players and another pot o' karmic gold to have a setting that
you never seem to run out of ideas for. When my players totally
trashed my original core plotline I figured I'd be good for another
few months of play but instead those shattered fragments grew and took
on a life of their own. Even better, when those new plots reappeared,
the players could see their fingerprints all over it and were aware
that they were truly a part of the world now.
Which means they'll never want to leave and I just hope to heck I
don't scrape the bottom of the idea barrel anytime soon.
-James McP
Beth Cole
> Sure,
> everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
> taste?
>
Some of it is setting dependent. In Gothic Earth, I'm iffy about
anything over 7th level, because the spell mechanics don't always work
"right". On the other hand, when we ran Tomb of Horrors, and I played a
12th level conjuress whose party nickname very quickly became The
Spoiled Bitch, we were just hitting a level where everyone's skills &
spells really took off. I would have liked to have seen what everyone
could do with those characters over the course of several adventures.
Beth
--
"Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold." -- Edmund Spenser
our home page: http://www.IsleOfSky.net
Sea Wasp
I do not know. I do not drink... wine.
Admitting you're wrong, without even trying to argue
self-righteously? Ralph, you KNOW you're violating basic rules of
Usenet here.
Sea Wasp
Silver Slyth being one of the prime offenders.
Wayne Shaw
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2004 06:30:29 -0800, juli...@hotmail.com (Ralph Glatt)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>3.X has plenty of monsters of all CRs, though.
>>>
>>>As Sea Wasp has pointed out, there *were* plenty of high level
>>>monsters, but you still have to go to the outer planes to fight them.
>>
>>
>> Actually, the Arduin Grimoire monsters he mentioned often weren't what
>> 3e would call outsiders; some of them were just awfully big damn
>> dangerous animals, others what 3e would call "magical beasts".
>
> Silver Slyth being one of the prime offenders.
Exactly the one that jumped to mind, in fact. :) Though the bigger
Black Scorpions were pretty much the same issue.
Marcq
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc3ij11.6...@szonye.com...
> Marcq <ma...@four-hands.com> wrote:
> > I don't recall the precise point that prep became quite a burden when
> > we played through to epic levels but somewhere between 15th and the
> > low 20s I found myself spending all my time working up notes on the
> > creatures and NPCs for battle (especially notes on spell effects) and
> > little time on anything else.
>
> Yeah, that's mainly why I put my 23rd-level campaign on hiatus. I might
> have restarted the campaign once I had some time to recharge and think
> things out, but it doesn't seem worth it after the 3.5 update -- too
> many changes happened to hit rules that we were actually using.
I can sympathize- the game I mentioend was the first one we ever took to
divine ranks. The players have interest in playing a few gods scenarios but
between either converting to 3.5 or just lpaying 3.0 after 3.5 (very
confusing) plus the challenge of pulling a very high level scenario
together, it hasn't been done and I don't think it will be done at this
point.
> > I think that you are right that it is more the spellcasters than the
> > fighters that are troublesome but I do find it very hard to challenge
> > the high level parties that include wizards without counter wizards or
> > spellcasting creatures.
>
> The wizards gave me the most trouble, prep-wise, but they weren't the
> only problem. Specialized offense causes trouble too; it tends to create
> non-tactical "rock paper scissors" encounters that end more or less
> randomly.
Yeah- hihg level encounters can be very varible. If the players happen on
the right tactic by luck or by being "on" they can go smoothly. A little bad
luck or bad play and things can go very poorly. Less margin for error.
Mike1
>This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what level
>most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at. Sure,
>everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high for your
>taste?
>
>For me, I feel "High Level" starts somewhere between level 12 and
>level 15 for 3rd ed D&D, and "Too High" is 20th+ I've tried the Epic
>level rules, and they're not bad - but I don't think I'd ever run
>another Epic campaign, unless I had a group of really really good
>roleplayers with interesting characters - and they don't exactly grow
>on trees where I live.
"Too high level" is about 10th. Beyond that, it's difficult to design
encounters the PCs don't either cake-walk through, or get TPKd by unless
you suddenly softball it.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Elfbard
Level 1 is too high, everyone should be a 0 level nobody but there are
so many munchkins in the hobby that WotC panders too them with 20
levels!! And *gasp!* Epic levels!!
Christopher Adams
Somebody wants a spanking.
--
Christopher Adams - SUTEKH Functions Officer 2004
She's a cock-tease. He's her obsessive stalker. Together . . . they fight crime.
- Sean O'Hara on "Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones"
Samy Merchi
> This is just a general question... I was just wondering at what
> level most other GMs feel comfortable having their players at.
> Sure, everyone has played low levels, but what level is TOO high
> for your taste?
I think epic levels are too high. I think the core rules ending point
is gauged just about right. Beyond level 20 things just get silly,
IMO.
But that's just me. Others enjoy epic levels.
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
Wayne Shaw
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>> Could you give an example of what you mean by specialized offense
>> here? I suspect you aren't talking the infamous teleport first strike
>> but something more specific.
>
>Well, the magical ambush is still a problem, but it's not the only kind
>of sudden-death situation at epic levels. It seemed like most attacks
>were all-or-nothing. Specifically, the difference between "damaging
>attack" and "save or die effect" disappeared. More on this later; first,
>some specific examples.
>
>1. Rogue Death Blossom: Start with a rogue. Max out TWF. Use a brilliant
> energy weapon, since your attacks are wimpy against non-living
> creatures anyway. Sneak. Unload about 50d6 points of whoop-ass.
> Defenses: blindsight, uncanny dodge, immune to crits, lots of hp.
> Disadvantages: You're useless if it doesn't work.
Okay. That explains why I haven't seen that one; no rogue I knew
about wanted to be that useless against undead and constructs in my
campaign (and Brilliant Energy ties up too much to carry doubled up
weapons).
>
>2. Ranger Death Blossom: As above, except you use Favored Enemy,
> Improved Critical (scimitar, natch), and Power Attack instead of
> Sneak Attack. Optionally, sneak up on the foe to eliminate dodge
> bonuses and get the most out of Power Attack. It's not too hard to
> hit 200 points of damage in a round.
I guess. I didn't have a solid, dedicated ranger (and of course 3.5
makes the Favored Enemy better) but it's hard to see this being that
much worse than a fighter optimized toward damage output.
> Defenses: lots of hp, blindsight (partial)
> Disadvantages: Only works against a major favored enemy.
> Notes: Better for NPCs, because you can use a "specialist" sent
> specifically to deal with the PCs (eliminates the disadvantage).
I can see that. But then, it'd be unlikely for them to get to close
up in most circumstances without taking damage, so it'd be a limited
process--and given how things were going, I'd have expected a lot of
the PCs to have more than 200 hp at epic levels.
>
>3. Psychic Power Impact: At low levels, psychic warriors tend to invest
> in low-cost, long-term powers, since they get so few power points. At
> high levels, this can turn into a large surplus that you can burn on
> Deep Impact. Against the right foes, that means a huge damage bonus
> from Power Attack. It's great for killing dragons.
> Defenses: high touch AC, lots of hp (maybe).
> Disadvantages: Probably won't work with 3.5 psi.
And we had only one PC PsiW in mine, and that was a multiclass who
didn't have Deep Impact.
>
>4. If at First You Don't Crit: Fighter with a x4 crit weapon and
> Improved Critical. At high levels, fighters get so many attacks that
> even a measly 19-20 threat range comes up every other round, and each
> crit does insane damage (easily 200 points with a two-handed weapon).
> Defenses: very high AC, lots of hp, immune to crits.
And nobody who was using a x4 crit weapon routinely (someone had a
magic pick, but it wasn't his primary weapon). We also had only one
two handed weapon user; no one wanted to sacrifice the shield AC.
>
>5. Unbalanced Attack: A few monsters have very high attack bonuses for
> their CRs. Usually it's because the monster lacks the usual array of
> special abilities, so the designer pumps up HD, physical attacks, and
> damage bonuses. They can stomp all over PCs, using Power Attack even
> against fairly high AC heroes. This is especially common among
> monsters from the ELH.
> Defenses: insanely high AC, lots of hp.
> Disadvantages: Often, these monsters have a "glass jaw," so the
> outcome of a fight depends strongly on winning initiative.
Yeah, I saw some of that one. Sighting distance also matters; if they
can't close up and get a full attack often it's less of a problem.
>
>6. Don't Bother Saving; You're Dead: This is basically the spellcasting
> version of Unbalanced Attack. Again, the creature is a one-hit
> wonder, and its one attack is boosted to crazy levels. Even
> characters with good saves are likely to fail and die. I ran into
> this problem with the ELH sirrush.
> Defenses: immunity to the magical effect.
I did wonder about that one in some cases. One of the reasons to go
over to the alternative damage maximums on otherwise save-or-die
spells.
>
>7. Thanks for the Henchman: For a few levels (roughly 15th-18th), the
> big-damage PCs have lousy Will saves, but the PC casters don't have
> enough magic to cover them all with Mind Blank. During this window,
> Domination effects are very, very nasty; the saving throw gap is so
> large that there's not much you can do besides dispelling the mind
> control as quickly as you can.
Oddly enough, that never seemed to work in practice; possibly because
the PC had endevored to reduce that gap over the course of the
campaign, and the NPCs didn't have quite the bonuses the PCs did on
spell DC.
>8. You Can Leave Your Hat On: Having trouble with Death Wards and Mind
> Blanks? Strip 'em! Get yourself a wizard or demon buddy to pound your
> foes with Dispelling, and then finish them all off with a save-or-die
> effect. Or pull out those Domination spells and let the enemies
> finish themselves. If necessary, use Disjunction; it's a bit risky,
> but you'll be sure to eliminate all of those pesky magic defenses.
> Defenses: ring of greater counterspelling.
Well, I had already had issues with Disjunction by the time we got to
it, so that wasn't an issue, and the Dispel just never seemed to
actually peel off the special defenses.
>At low levels, it's not too hard to defeat an enemy in a single round
>*if* you get lucky. Damage is pretty high compared to hp, but success
>rates are low. The dice are a big factor in combat. Your best tactic is
>to get the odds in your favor so that you're more likely to win.
>
>At medium levels, attacks are more reliable, but hit points seem to
>outpace damage. Save-or-lose spells start to show up, but they're
>generally single-target, so it's not too difficult to rescue an ally
>from trouble.
>
>At high levels, attacks are very reliable, and they come very quickly.
>Save-or-lose spells are *very* good at eliminating single foes, and they
>can often wipe out all but one PC. Luck is a big factor again, but it's
>mostly luck in guessing your foes' tactics and weaknesses, not luck at
>dice. If you leave a hole in your defenses, you can lose so quickly that
>there's no time to recover or retreat.
Interestingly enough at the end of the campaign (when we were getting
to the 15-17th level) I was finding I was having _less_ luck with
all-or-nothing spell; the difference in gear was becoming so
pronounced that it was actually preportionately harder to get these to
work than it'd been at midlevels. I was doing more effectively with
the higher end damage causers (which were varied enough that the issue
of _which_ energy resistances were up actually left some room for
suprises, especially since I was fond of sorcerers with Energy
Substitution) than I typically was with Dominate or Disintegrate.
>
>Usually, the average pace of combat is much slower at low and medium
>levels, but low-level combats can end suddenly with lucky rolls. The
>pace of combat is much more consistent at medium and high levels, but
>it's consistently *fast* at high levels. In my experience, mid-level
>games give the players the most time to plan, react, and develop
>tactics. At low levels, the results are too random. At high levels,
>there's too much emphasis on the "get killed, develop an impenetrable
>defense to what killed you, get killed by something new" cycle.
Though I did see some signs of this latter starting to come up.
Sir Bob
> Level 1 is too high, everyone should be a 0 level nobody but there are
> so many munchkins in the hobby that WotC panders too them with 20
> levels!! And *gasp!* Epic levels!!
Well, there's always Burrows & Bunnies.
- Sir Bob.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> Interestingly enough at the end of the campaign (when we were getting
> to the 15-17th level) I was finding I was having _less_ luck with
> all-or-nothing spell; the difference in gear was becoming so
> pronounced that it was actually preportionately harder to get these to
> work than it'd been at midlevels. I was doing more effectively with
> the higher end damage causers (which were varied enough that the issue
> of _which_ energy resistances were up actually left some room for
> suprises, especially since I was fond of sorcerers with Energy
> Substitution) than I typically was with Dominate or Disintegrate.
The the game I'm currently in we're having real trouble at 13th level
with this sort of thing. The enemy has quite a few wizards and tough
half-dragons of varying "colour", and we can't quite cover the whole
spread of energy types on everybody. So far I think we've been wrong
about what we'll be facing more often than not with the result that
we've been taking far more damage than we "should" have been from mere
10th level wizards.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
GI Hoe
> There's a certain point here; it's even more true with NPCs where
> you're trying to keep track of an NPC you've only played for this
> fight, and likely a certain number of other NPCs and hangers-on.
Totally agree. I need a DM's assistant. I'm always forgetting what the
foes can do and what they're special powers and stuff are. This just
gets worse at higher levels.
Other than becoming a human computer, the only solution I can think of
is a DM's assistant. Some evil person just to sit there and think of
ways to mess up the PC's. 'Don't forget, that demon has "true seeing"
on...'.
RB
GI Hoe
> For me, I feel "High Level" starts somewhere between level 12 and
> level 15 for 3rd ed D&D, and "Too High" is 20th+ I've tried the Epic
> level rules, and they're not bad - but I don't think I'd ever run
> another Epic campaign, unless I had a group of really really good
> roleplayers with interesting characters - and they don't exactly grow
> on trees where I live.
We've been playing for two years solid, 1 night per week. We've gone
from 1st to 22nd or so level. Right now the players are busy trying to
kill the Lich Queen of the Githyanki - she's shapechanged into a Black
Slaad. It's an awesome, knock down, drag'em out fight.
We're having a good time and we didn't expect to. The campaign has
enough hooks and threads to keep going to 30th level.
For instance - One character is a high level cleric of Wee-Jas whose
mission it is to destroy Undead whose creation was not sanctioned by
Wee-Jas herself. I imagine that gods like Wee-Jas are Nerull are
pretty competitive. Anyway, this is a great way to get them to chase
down Liches, Death Knights, and DemiLiches. And who knows, maybe...
Orcus! You can bet there'll be a Tomb of Epic Horrors in their
future.
It helps a lot that they're not super power gamers. They don't spend
all their time coming up with one kill punches. As a result, I don't
have to for the monsters either. Every couple of weeks someone
introduces some new tactic or combo, but the pace is slow enough so
that the fights don't change so radically.
Newest one: Mass Heal. Great against the Lich Queen and her 4 Undead
Minions. Suddenly they are all at 1 hp. Well, not the LQ, but the
others are. Then boom boom boom boom they are all destroyed with magic
missles.
It's cool too, 'cause as a DM I can sic some pretty big nasties on
them and just get to play around with cool powers.
But as in all things, it's a matter of taste.
Do what you enjoy.
RB.
Wayne Shaw
<rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>The the game I'm currently in we're having real trouble at 13th level
>with this sort of thing. The enemy has quite a few wizards and tough
>half-dragons of varying "colour", and we can't quite cover the whole
>spread of energy types on everybody. So far I think we've been wrong
>about what we'll be facing more often than not with the result that
>we've been taking far more damage than we "should" have been from mere
>10th level wizards.
I'm traditionalist enough that you'll get a _lot_ of them with the
traditional Fire and Lightning, but you'll run into just enough Acid
and Cold to not make it a given.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> I'm traditionalist enough that you'll get a _lot_ of them with the
> traditional Fire and Lightning, but you'll run into just enough Acid
> and Cold to not make it a given.
We were expecting cold and acid based attacks from hordes of
half-dragon fighters and barbarians. What we got was wizards with
fireballs and lightning bolts. It was... unpleasant.
Elfbard
>> Level 1 is too high, everyone should be a 0 level nobody but there are
>> so many munchkins in the hobby that WotC panders too them with 20
>> levels!! And *gasp!* Epic levels!!
>
>Somebody wants a spanking.
oooh spank me! I'm a baaaad girl!
Sir Bob
And half the rgfp population suddenly needs to change their underpants.
Good job. ;)
- Sir Bob.
Malachias Invictus
"Mike1" <mike_just_for_LJ's-ben...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:mike_just_for_LJ's-benefit_1-7D74...@phswest.com...
> "Too high level" is about 10th. Beyond that, it's difficult to
> design encounters the PCs don't either cake-walk through,
> or get TPKd by unless you suddenly softball it.
I think that is only the case with a GM that is totally incompetent at that
level of play.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Bradd W. Szonye
> I need a DM's assistant. I'm always forgetting what the foes can do
> and what they're special powers and stuff are. This just gets worse at
> higher levels.
>
> Other than becoming a human computer, the only solution I can think of
> is a DM's assistant. Some evil person just to sit there and think of
> ways to mess up the PC's. 'Don't forget, that demon has "true seeing"
> on...'.
Heh. I have this problem all the time. I'm especially bad about
abilities that require extra bookkeeping, like regeneration and fast
healing.
Wayne Shaw
At the lower levels I'm problematic with spell durations, too.
Bradd W. Szonye
I used to have trouble with those until I incorporated them into my
initiative cards system. Google for it if you don't remember the
details.
Malachias Invictus
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc47afq.6...@szonye.com...
> Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
> > At the lower levels I'm problematic with spell durations, too.
>
> I used to have trouble with those until I incorporated them into my
> initiative cards system. Google for it if you don't remember the
> details.
I would like to see you start a thread on this, actually; I have just
started using cards, and it seems like a pretty useful topic for the
newbies.
Wayne Shaw
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
>I used to have trouble with those until I incorporated them into my
>initiative cards system. Google for it if you don't remember the
>details.
I've found I don't do well with fumbling around with cards when GMing
for some reason.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I would like to see you start a thread on this, actually; I have just
> started using cards, and it seems like a pretty useful topic for the
> newbies.
OK, I'll summarize it for the newbies. First, the basic method:
1. Get a stack of index/recipe cards.
2. Before the game, make one card for each character. mooks. Write the
name of the character at the top of the card.
3. When a battle starts, get out all the cards for the characters
involved. Roll initiative, and write the initiative numbers on the
respective cards. Sort them into a deck, with the highest initiative
number on top.
4. Call off the name of the character on the top of the deck. When his
turn is over, put the card on the bottom of the deck.
5. If a character delays or readies, turn his card 90 degrees when you
put it on the bottom (to make it easier to find). When he finally
takes the readied/delayed action, bring the card back to the top and
finish his turn. (If the character's turn comes around again before
he acts, just un-rotate the card.)
6. If a character uses a short-duration spell or effect, make an "effect
card." Take a fresh index card, write the name of the effect and the
duration on it, and put it on the bottom of the deck. Every time the
card comes up, mark off one round. When the remaining duration
reaches zero, announce that the effect has ended, and remove the card
from the deck.
And some tips for using them:
Use colored index cards for characters and white index cards for
effects. You can use different colors for PCs, cohorts, villains,
allies, etc. Use white for the effect cards because it's cheaper than
colored cards. Color-coding makes it easier to keep track of the flow of
things, get ready for next your turn, etc.
Write character names on the short end of the cards, not the long end.
That way, the name sticks out when you rotate the card for readied &
delayed actions. Also, write initiative numbers in the middle of an
edge, not in a corner. You'll be erasing them a lot, and it's easier to
do that in the middle of an edge.
You can use one card (and one initiative roll) for a whole group of
identical "mook" NPCs. As long as they don't ready, delay, or otherwise
change initiative, you'll only need the one card.
Record per-turn bookkeeping notes on the cards. For example, I usually
write a monster's regeneration and fast healing scores on the card so
that I don't forget to update hp every turn. Likewise, you can use the
cards to remind you of special attacks, "reload" periods for breath
weapons, etc.
Don't put a creature's whole stat block on the card. In particular, do
not record hit points, AC, or other defensive stats on the card. If you
do, you'll be tempted to go digging through the deck to find the right
stats. That's slow, and you might accidentally shuffle the deck.
Instead, keep defensive notes somewhere else. Also, try to use the cards
only for major reminders, stuff that you tend to forget. That way, the
important notes don't get lost in noise.
Bradd W. Szonye
Neither do I, which is why I streamlined my card method until it was
foolproof and Bradd-proof!
Wayne Shaw
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>2. Before the game, make one card for each character. mooks. Write the
> name of the character at the top of the card.
This is one of the areas I'd run into trouble; I don't always have all
the encounters pre-done before the start of the game.
Also looks like you could go through a lot of index cards this way...
Sir Bob
news:a55a28870f606d3c...@news.nntpserver.com...
Nah - as long as you're making use of (primarily) humanoid mooks, all you
need is 3-4 generic extras of each character level at which you expect to
play, and some cue cards to remind you of the calculated racial modifiers
(f'rex, "Orc: +1 hit, +1 damage, etc.").
- Sir Bob.
Chris Camfield
>On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:01:11 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
><bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
>>2. Before the game, make one card for each character. mooks. Write the
>> name of the character at the top of the card.
>
>This is one of the areas I'd run into trouble; I don't always have all
>the encounters pre-done before the start of the game.
You can always just divide the opposition into several groups according to their
initiative bonus and whatever other criteria makes sense. i.e. have cards for
"Enemies A", "Enemies B", etc. It doesn't take long to label a few cards, with
the names, anyway. You don't _have_ to have more than that on each card; Bradd
obviously finds it handy, though.
>Also looks like you could go through a lot of index cards this way...
Use a pencil?
Chris
Phil Pettifer
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
> > I would like to see you start a thread on this, actually; I have just
> > started using cards, and it seems like a pretty useful topic for the
> > newbies.
In the games I play in at the moment we use a whiteboard. There are 2
main advantages over index cards:
- Everyone can see who is going next, when various effects will be
finished, etc. at all times.
- It means that one of the players can do it which frees up a bit of
the DMs time in a combat which tends to speed things up a bit.
> Record per-turn bookkeeping notes on the cards. For example, I usually
> write a monster's regeneration and fast healing scores on the card so
> that I don't forget to update hp every turn. Likewise, you can use the
> cards to remind you of special attacks, "reload" periods for breath
> weapons, etc.
We don't do this on the whiteboard for the monsters (for obvious
reasons) but that's up to the DM to remember - write it down somewhere
or highlight them in the monsters stat block (if you print these out)
if you need to I guess.
Lorenz Lang
When you level up as GM just increase your Dex next time.
LL
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
I've been GMing for almost thirty years now. I just don't get big
enough challenges to get much experience any more.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>news:a55a28870f606d3c...@news.nntpserver.com...
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:01:11 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
>> <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>>
>> >2. Before the game, make one card for each character. mooks. Write the
>> > name of the character at the top of the card.
>>
>> This is one of the areas I'd run into trouble; I don't always have all
>> the encounters pre-done before the start of the game.
>>
>> Also looks like you could go through a lot of index cards this way...
>
>Nah - as long as you're making use of (primarily) humanoid mooks, all you
Well, it doesn't help that I often am _not_ doing that.
Wayne Shaw
<ccam...@DELETEMEemail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:49:12 GMT, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:01:11 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
>><bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>>
>>>2. Before the game, make one card for each character. mooks. Write the
>>> name of the character at the top of the card.
>>
>>This is one of the areas I'd run into trouble; I don't always have all
>>the encounters pre-done before the start of the game.
>
>You can always just divide the opposition into several groups according to their
>initiative bonus and whatever other criteria makes sense. i.e. have cards for
>"Enemies A", "Enemies B", etc. It doesn't take long to label a few cards, with
>the names, anyway. You don't _have_ to have more than that on each card; Bradd
>obviously finds it handy, though.
True enough.
>
>>Also looks like you could go through a lot of index cards this way...
>
>Use a pencil?
That'd save a few, but let me loose with a pencil and the card isn't
going to be useful for long anyway. I go through character sheets at
an astonishing rate.
Keith Davies
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> I would like to see you start a thread on this, actually; I have just
>> started using cards, and it seems like a pretty useful topic for the
>> newbies.
>
> OK, I'll summarize it for the newbies. First, the basic method:
I do much the same thing, but with some changes. Where I say 'PC' below
I mean 'PC, cohort, familiar, companion, etc.'.
> 1. Get a stack of index/recipe cards.
I use 5"x8" cards. 3"x5" would probably be more convenient at the table
because they're 'more hand-sized', but 5"x8" fit through my printer
without skewing too badly.
> 2. Before the game, make one card for each character. mooks. Write the
> name of the character at the top of the card.
I cheat; I've got an XML -> PDF stream I use.
> 3. When a battle starts, get out all the cards for the characters
> involved. Roll initiative, and write the initiative numbers on the
> respective cards. Sort them into a deck, with the highest initiative
> number on top.
I roll (monster) initiative during prep and pre-order the cards. I
usually use white for monsters and blue for PCs. I print cards for PCs
but leave the initiative blank, to be filled during play.
> 4. Call off the name of the character on the top of the deck. When his
> turn is over, put the card on the bottom of the deck.
>
> 5. If a character delays or readies, turn his card 90 degrees when you
> put it on the bottom (to make it easier to find). When he finally
> takes the readied/delayed action, bring the card back to the top and
> finish his turn. (If the character's turn comes around again before
> he acts, just un-rotate the card.)
>
> 6. If a character uses a short-duration spell or effect, make an "effect
> card." Take a fresh index card, write the name of the effect and the
> duration on it, and put it on the bottom of the deck. Every time the
> card comes up, mark off one round. When the remaining duration
> reaches zero, announce that the effect has ended, and remove the card
> from the deck.
Blue card.
> And some tips for using them:
>
> Use colored index cards for characters and white index cards for
> effects. You can use different colors for PCs, cohorts, villains,
> allies, etc. Use white for the effect cards because it's cheaper than
> colored cards. Color-coding makes it easier to keep track of the flow of
> things, get ready for next your turn, etc.
I go through a *lot* of monster cards; white works better here for me.
It also helps the other cards stand out better.
> Write character names on the short end of the cards, not the long end.
> That way, the name sticks out when you rotate the card for readied &
> delayed actions. Also, write initiative numbers in the middle of an
> edge, not in a corner. You'll be erasing them a lot, and it's easier to
> do that in the middle of an edge.
Hmm... have to move the name, that's a good idea. Initiative I have in
a row of boxes; I just fill them in as I go. We rarely hit more than a
few fights per night, I don't think I've ever used them all.
> You can use one card (and one initiative roll) for a whole group of
> identical "mook" NPCs. As long as they don't ready, delay, or otherwise
> change initiative, you'll only need the one card.
>
> Record per-turn bookkeeping notes on the cards. For example, I usually
> write a monster's regeneration and fast healing scores on the card so
> that I don't forget to update hp every turn. Likewise, you can use the
> cards to remind you of special attacks, "reload" periods for breath
> weapons, etc.
>
> Don't put a creature's whole stat block on the card. In particular, do
> not record hit points, AC, or other defensive stats on the card. If you
> do, you'll be tempted to go digging through the deck to find the right
> stats. That's slow, and you might accidentally shuffle the deck.
> Instead, keep defensive notes somewhere else. Also, try to use the cards
> only for major reminders, stuff that you tend to forget. That way, the
> important notes don't get lost in noise.
Try to keep 'active' information only, stuff you'll need on the
monster's turn. You don't usually need AC, hp, Spot, or Listen, you
will need attacks, regeneration/fast healing, key spells.
I also try to note some basic tactics; I'm *terrible* at remembering
them during play. I usually note the first few rounds of 'planned'
activity, after that things are usually too hard to predict. I can vary
from it if I wish, but I find that if I don't have the plan handy I make
it up at the time... and usually make an encounter less than it could be
("dammit, I forgot that he's got a potion of /haste/").
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
keith....@kjdavies.org reality in the hope that reality will
crack first is impressive, but futile"
-- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
Nockermensch
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
> > I would like to see you start a thread on this, actually; I have just
> > started using cards, and it seems like a pretty useful topic for the
> > newbies.
>
> OK, I'll summarize it for the newbies. First, the basic method:
>
> 1. Get a stack of index/recipe cards.
>
> 2. Before the game, make one card for each character. mooks. Write the
> name of the character at the top of the card.
>
> 3. When a battle starts, get out all the cards for the characters
> involved. Roll initiative, and write the initiative numbers on the
> respective cards. Sort them into a deck, with the highest initiative
> number on top.
It seems that writing the initiative is redundant after the deck is
sorted. The only use of knowing the "initiative number" after the
battle starts is the event of new creatures joining (which doesn't
happen all the times).
--
@ @ Nockermensch, lacking initiative. (damn low dex!)
David Alex Lamb
Nockermensch <nocker...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It seems that writing the initiative is redundant after the deck is
>sorted. The only use of knowing the "initiative number" after the
>battle starts is the event of new creatures joining (which doesn't
>happen all the times).
Yes, but isn't that a good enough reason to keep the numbers around? You need
the numbers while sorting, anyway.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Jeff Heikkinen
You don't even need that for the actual *initiative* card - reread
Bradd's comments on what should and shouldn't be on them.
Jeff Heikkinen
I think it's for sorting them in the first place.
Bradd W. Szonye
Correct. It's a bit difficult to sort the cards unless you write down
the initiative numbers somewhere, and you may as well write them on the
cards.
Bradd W. Szonye
> "Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
> news:a55a28870f606d3c...@news.nntpserver.com...
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 01:01:11 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
>> <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>>
>> > name of the character at the top of the card.
>>
>> This is one of the areas I'd run into trouble; I don't always have all
>> the encounters pre-done before the start of the game.
>>
>> Also looks like you could go through a lot of index cards this way...
>
> Nah - as long as you're making use of (primarily) humanoid mooks, all you
> need is 3-4 generic extras of each character level at which you expect to
Correct. Usually, I group together all "mooks" with identical stats.
> and some cue cards to remind you of the calculated racial modifiers
> (f'rex, "Orc: +1 hit, +1 damage, etc.").
I record this kind of stuff elsewhere. Usually, I have a full stat block
on a separate sheet of paper. I use the cards for initiative and
important reminders only.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Don't put a creature's whole stat block on the card. In particular, do
>> not record hit points, AC, or other defensive stats on the card. If you
>> do, you'll be tempted to go digging through the deck to find the right
>> stats. That's slow, and you might accidentally shuffle the deck.
>> Instead, keep defensive notes somewhere else. Also, try to use the cards
>> only for major reminders, stuff that you tend to forget. That way, the
>> important notes don't get lost in noise.
Keith Davies wrote:
> Try to keep 'active' information only, stuff you'll need on the
> monster's turn. You don't usually need AC, hp, Spot, or Listen, you
> will need attacks, regeneration/fast healing, key spells.
Right, although I'd go even farther and recommend that you only record
information that you tend to forget. The more you put on the card, the
less useful it is as a reminder.
> I also try to note some basic tactics; I'm *terrible* at remembering
> them during play. I usually note the first few rounds of 'planned'
> activity, after that things are usually too hard to predict. I can
> vary from it if I wish, but I find that if I don't have the plan handy
> I make it up at the time... and usually make an encounter less than it
> could be ("dammit, I forgot that he's got a potion of /haste/").
Good idea. This falls under "stuff I tend to forget" for me too.
Bradd W. Szonye
> You can always just divide the opposition into several groups
> according to their initiative bonus and whatever other criteria makes
> sense. i.e. have cards for "Enemies A", "Enemies B", etc.
Yeah, I do that a lot. Often, I'll use "generic" names like trolls,
goblins, fiends, etc. Or I'll just erase/strike out an old name and
write a new one. The "monster cards" tend to get a little messy.
> It doesn't take long to label a few cards, with the names, anyway. You
> don't _have_ to have more than that on each card; Bradd obviously
> finds it handy, though.
For some creatures, anyway. For mooks, I usually just write down the
name, often using a "generic" name as described above.
Bradd W. Szonye
> In the games I play in at the moment we use a whiteboard. There are 2
> main advantages over index cards:
>
> - Everyone can see who is going next, when various effects will be
> finished, etc. at all times.
>
> - It means that one of the players can do it which frees up a bit of
> the DMs time in a combat which tends to speed things up a bit.
One more advantage:
- It's easy to erase.
And one major disadvantage:
- It's harder to squeeze in new entries (for effect durations) or
re-order entries (when characters ready or delay actions).
I invented the "deck of cards" method partly because reordering got to
be too obnoxious for my group's typical turn patterns. I tried a couple
of other methods before cards, and all of them had some disadvantages.
For example, I used 3M sticky-flags on a sheet of paper for a while, but
it was too hard to "erase" the board and too hard to deal with
bunched-up initiative numbers.
>> Record per-turn bookkeeping notes on the cards. For example, I
>> usually write a monster's regeneration and fast healing scores on the
>> card so that I don't forget to update hp every turn. Likewise, you
>> can use the cards to remind you of special attacks, "reload" periods
>> for breath weapons, etc.
> We don't do this on the whiteboard for the monsters (for obvious
> reasons) but that's up to the DM to remember - write it down somewhere
> or highlight them in the monsters stat block (if you print these out)
> if you need to I guess.
That works OK, although I personally like having the reminders in hand.
It's much harder to overlook them that way.
Malachias Invictus
I could always lend you my children for a session ;-)
Wayne Shaw
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>news:f51cb22113bc04f1...@news.nntpserver.com...
>> Lorenz Lang <la...@netlife.de> wrote:
>> >Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>> >>I've found I don't do well with fumbling around with cards when GMing
>> >>for some reason.
>
>> >When you level up as GM just increase your Dex next time.
>
>> I've been GMing for almost thirty years now. I just don't get big
>> enough challenges to get much experience any more.
>
>I could always lend you my children for a session ;-)
I have to admit I haven't run for children. That would be new.
Robert Singers
>>I could always lend you my children for a session ;-)
>
> I have to admit I haven't run for children. That would be new.
Don't worry they're easy to catch.
--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Sea Wasp
> Out from under a rock popped Wayne Shaw and said
>
>
>>>I could always lend you my children for a session ;-)
>>
>>I have to admit I haven't run for children. That would be new.
>
>
> Don't worry they're easy to catch.
>
You either do not have, or have forgotten about, the Evasion
ability of toddlers. (they also come naturally with Cleave and Bull Rush)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Keith Davies
> Robert Singers wrote:
>> Out from under a rock popped Wayne Shaw and said
>>
>>
>>>>I could always lend you my children for a session ;-)
>>>
>>>I have to admit I haven't run for children. That would be new.
>>
>>
>> Don't worry they're easy to catch.
>>
>
> You either do not have, or have forgotten about, the Evasion
> ability of toddlers. (they also come naturally with Cleave and
> Bull Rush)
And Wail of the Banshee(Ex). *Damn* is my daughter's voice piercing.
Marcq
something for the magnets to stick to. One of my players found one about the
12x9 or so. For the magnets, we use inkjet magnet paper. We make a table
with numbers (vertically) from 30 downto 1, also labels for each player,
critter, generic labels like "Ref 1", "Ref 2", "Summoned critter 1", etc.
Folks roll init and then we put the labels beside the appropriate number.
Some of the advantages are that it is easy to re-arrange as folks delay or
do readied actions. You can also see the entire order at a glance.
Disadvantages are that adding a new name requires printing a new sheet.
Magnet paper isn't too pricey but it isn't free and you have to cut it (I
think it is something like 5 or 10 sheets for $10 IIRC).
If you can't find a metal sheet, you could also use one uncut piece of
magnet paper printed with lines and numbers as the base and use the cut out
names on top of it. But it is better to have a rigid board for the labels;
the magnet paper isn't super strong. it is meant for making photos to stick
on your fridge.
Usually one of the players runs the board, rather than the ref. Most players
enjoy it. Keeps them active throughout the battle.
One of the advantages of the card system you describe is that it makes it
hard to forget someone in the initiative round. Something I always have a
problem with in large battles.
Marc
--
Some D&D stuff and some character pics at:
http://www.four-hands.com/marcs_stuff.htm
Rob Singers
wisdom
>>> Don't worry they're easy to catch.
>>
>> You either do not have, or have forgotten about, the Evasion
>> ability of toddlers. (they also come naturally with Cleave and
>> Bull Rush)
>
> And Wail of the Banshee(Ex). *Damn* is my daughter's voice piercing.
My own has just turned one but I remember my niece well.
If we're talking about feats IIRC there's a Cheap Shot in FR. As in the
saying "Never raise your hand to a child, it leaves your groin exposed".
Nockermensch
> >
> > There's a certain point here; it's even more true with NPCs where
> > you're trying to keep track of an NPC you've only played for this
> > fight, and likely a certain number of other NPCs and hangers-on.
>
> Totally agree. I need a DM's assistant. I'm always forgetting what the
> foes can do and what they're special powers and stuff are. This just
> gets worse at higher levels.
>
> Other than becoming a human computer, the only solution I can think of
> is a DM's assistant. Some evil person just to sit there and think of
> ways to mess up the PC's. 'Don't forget, that demon has "true seeing"
> on...'.
Our group has two persons like this, and I'm one of them. We just
can't keep our mouths shut about who does what, even when we're on the
bad side.
DM: The troll hits two claw attacks, but misses the bite... for 18
damage.
Player1: (whose character was hit) Ouch!
Player2: (me) Trolls rend.
DM: Sure! (rolls) Player 1, add 16 to the damage.
Player1: (turns to me) Next time, keep your mouth shut.
Player2: Sorry, it's bigger than me. DM, don't forget the
regeneration.
DM: Sure!
--
@ @ Nockermensch, doing the right thing, even if it gets us killed.
Wayne Shaw
<rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Out from under a rock popped Wayne Shaw and said
>
>>>I could always lend you my children for a session ;-)
>>
>> I have to admit I haven't run for children. That would be new.
>
>Don't worry they're easy to catch.
Given a couple of children I've known, I wouldn't say that in my case
at least. :)