Are high level casters even fun to play?

[Wolf Warhead]

I'm well aware of this forum's love for high-power characters and game-breaking thought experiments, but that makes it all the better a place to ask this: For all the power of any of the uber-wizards, are they even fun to play?

Allow me to tell a little story.

After a great run in a campaign where we played a small part of an army that landed on a hostile continent and was trying to figure out what the Hell was going on there (which ended less than glorious... But not everyone can claim they did at the hands of a Death Giant impersonator in an underwater arena run by an Aboleth and his mind-slave army of mermaids) our group decided to try a high-Epic level caster party. Starting at level 18, so all the fun stuff would be available, and all WotC material up for grabs. I took a three-week correspondence course in nerdery, read through a ton of source books, dug through the Spell Compendium, went nuts with self-created magic items. It was great fun.

We started playing and began with a level 1 dungeon for hilarity's sake, but also since two of our members were new to casters. Spells were cast just for laughs, high-level spells were wasted on things that didn't require it, but it was a blast to waltz around like this. Then we kicked it up a notch, went for equal level encounters and let loose. Now that our high-level spells were justified, all stops were removed and we unleashed out God-like abilities on the battlefield.

And then... That just sort of went on. Encounters came, we blasted everything and moved on. Then the battles started running dry. Entire sessions went by without encounters, even with the whole multi-verse almost literally being out to kill us. Even with all these threats, all these big monsters to fight, the most memorable moment for me was during a purely diplomatic mission where we split up the party to talk to four out-of-their-minds siblings who were trying to blow up half the country. We didn't even role anything like diplomacy checks, it was just logical reasoning, talking and roleplaying and it ended in total, utter failure. But it was still one of the best parts of the entire campaign.

For a long time I couldn't really figure out why; I had my suspicions, but they felt ungrounded. Then, during a recent session, the truth slapped me in the face. We were in some huge Necropolis, locked in a room and had to answer riddles to pass. Classic. We were informed that, with every wrong answer, the room would fill with five foot of sand, filling the whole room in five wrong answers. We decided to talk among the team on how to deal with this first.

The first question: "Okay, who here doesn't need to breathe?"

It was an absolutely ludicrous question, logically speaking. I was like asking who wasn't alive. Yet we quickly discovered that this pesky 'breathing' thing was so easy to circumvent. This was the problem.

There was no threat.

Any encounter that was our level was laughably easy to defeat. Even at level 18, Epic monsters were cake. In the end it took an encounter of about level 25 that was specialised against mages to kill us and that was only because we were sauntering about without even thinking of strategy AND a mistake on the DMs side that caused a spell to do too much damage to us. Of course, it didn't really matter. Death is temporary.

For me, my character stood out in this. I'd decided to be the team's Conjurer. I read no optimization guides, exploited no loopholes, nothing like that. Just me, my research and my lack of a life. I'd felt really restrained at first: I was essentially denied the Gate spell entirely, I couldn't summon anything from the Outer Planes due to the setting, dragons didn't exist in the setting, so those were out, too. I felt like my character would be superfluous, but I was so foolish. One spell, two feats and some monster research later and with one spell I could summon things that made a mockery of the average encounter. Add a dash of Incantatrix and my character basically said "I can summon things stronger than you as a Swift action and I could kill them with a Standard one. My move action would be dancing on their graves."

But the problem went beyond that. Designing an actual campaign with interesting challenges must have been a NIGHTMARE for the DM. All the walls had to be made of Applied Phlebotinum so we wouldn't Earthglide, Etherealness, Teleport, Disintegrate or have at you through the entire dungeon. Encounters were almost impossible to balance. The entire world could be turned upside-down with a single spell. I also pitied our newer players. They were still confused with regular fighters. I can't believe we did this to them.

And lastly, the bookkeeping. By God, the bookkeeping. As said, I was the Conjurer and I do mean summon-focused. Between spell lists, monster lists, equipment, feats and all that jazz, even with my highly condensed info, limitations in summons and careful selection in the remaining ones, my character sheets was 8 pages. I never wanted bookkeeping to start involving actual books.

We never went into epic levels. We never even levelled up. We're rounding it up now to set the scene for a new campaign in the same setting, but for the other side, meaning no Wizards or Sorcerers allowed and we're cutting into the material we're using. From the looks of it, we won't have any Divine casters, either. My character is a level 5 Monk/Rogue. He's Core only, meaning half the universe can't be Sneak Attacked. He doesn't have Arcane magic items to support him, so things like touch Sneak Attacks will be much harder. No teleporting or Expeditious Retreat to help positioning on the battlefield. He's completely experimental and it's very possible he will have a very hard time.

And I can't wait to play him.

[Harperfan7]

Welcome to the club.

The tiny, tiny club.

[Psyx]

D&D stops being a fun RPG around 13th level, IMHO. The maths drags it down, and things become excessive. It's a shame that high-level mechanics are so inelegant.

[Aroka]

So your DM didn't actually consider your abilities when creating challenges/encounters. Trying to challenge a bunch of even mid-level wizards with a purely physical trap is ridiculous. Between teleport, passwall, and polymorph, being covered in sand isn't a realistic threat even at mid levels. Your DM was stuck in a low-level dungeoncrawl paradigm (admittedly, WotC always was, too).

It's okay, it's often hard to anticipate the abilities of casters, especially when you just jump into high-level play rather than advancing into it gradually.

But yes, if you optimize to forum op challenge levels, you're going to find regular play pretty dull; those builds are theoretical, or for facing other similar builds in arenas. Being able to effortlessly handle all situations your DM can throw at you (which, obviously, depends greatly on your DM) is not, in fact, particularly fun, because being challenged is largely the point.

[Axolotl]

They're fun if the DM actually creates encounters meant for high-level casters in mind taking into account their abilities.

The thing is the game changes vastly when high level and lower level just can't be done and the DM has to run things very differently.

[ex cathedra]

The game just doesn't work very well at those levels, much less epic. There are almost always potentially appropriate encounters that could be prepared, but it's often not quite worth it to some. Personally, levels 6 to 13 are probably the most enjoyable.

[Wolf Warhead]

So your DM didn't actually consider your abilities when creating challenges/encounters. Trying to challenge a bunch of even mid-level wizards with a purely physical trap is ridiculous.

So we discovered. The fact was that we could only fight Ridiculous with Ridiculous, see formerly mention Applied Phlebotinum walls, which came after we bypassed an entire dungeon with divining spells and teleporting, even after the steel-lined walls blocked my Earthgliding.

He did spring a fun, complex Antimagic trap on us at the finish line to extend it. But after we escaped that one, the DM held up his hands and said 'I'm out of material, lets surf YouTube' (He'd specially prepared this dungeon, since half our players were missing.)

Also, as for taking into account abilities... Between four casters, what would be the chances we'd be even remotely bad at something? Plus, how easy is it to get insight into what is fitting at these levels? Like I said, even a level 25 encounter specialised at killing mages was only lost because we messed up. A different selection in spells and better positioning and we could have cleaned the field in two turns.

[Aotrs Commander]

Sound to me like your DM wasn't throwing enough challenges at a group of high-level casters. A "normal" series of encounters is not even going to be remotely enough to handle an all-caster party, and the CR system is nearly pointless at that stage.

Were I him, you'd have been frequently fighting a great deal of other casters; boss fights being something like equal numbers of equal level, or a couple of high-level casters supported by lots of other casters, in both cases. (And Anti-Magic Ray would nearly become a standard spell!)

I suspect it's like everything else; learning what you can throw at a all-caster group takes some practise. (And if your DM wasn't himself putting in the optimisaation hours - which to be fair is a lot of work for that sort of level - he's gonna be struggling!)



I will grant you that the bookkeeping would be horrendous, though. I'm currently running (entering it's fourth session) a combat between six 17th level PCs (with two casters) plus what amounts to a micro-dragon cohort verses a group which started out with 22 casters/manifesters/invokers of levels 13-20, plus 14 martial adepts (and 15 nearly superflous 8th fighters not optimised for the archery role they've been forced into). The work on that has been enormous! It took me about three hours to do the set up for the initiatives and the buffed-state stats for the enemies; not including the time it took me to generate the enemy characters when I wrote the encounter!. Not an experiment I'll likely try again, I think! It's a bit much, even for me!

[kamikasei]

Welcome to the club.

The tiny, tiny club.

Of...? People who think high-level casters in D&D 3.5 are too much hassle to bother with despite their power? Not a small club at all. Just because the consensus is that such characters, played to their full potential, are the strongest in the game doesn't mean the people who agree with that actually want to play them at those levels and to that degree of optimization.

[Eurus]

They're fun if the DM actually creates encounters meant for high-level casters in mind taking into account their abilities.

The thing is the game changes vastly when high level and lower level just can't be done and the DM has to run things very differently.

There are a lot less possibilities that can be used for encounters, though. Travel is nearly non-existent, no amount of non-magical foes (and I do mean no amount, for a competent group) is going to be much of a threat, dungeons don't work so well when walls are more like suggestions than obstacles (it's difficult to justify building giant cave complexes out of walls of force or whatnot, and even those aren't impenetrable by any means).

You can set adventures in increasingly exotic locales, like Limbo and the Elemental Plane of Fire, but when one or two spells is all it takes to ignore most or all of the plane's effects anyway, why bother? It ends up the same, except that all of the bystanders are giant frogs or on fire. You end up just running into an endless progression of other, stronger spellcasters, because it's difficult to find anything else that matters. At least, that's my experience.

[Aroka]

So we discovered. The fact was that we could only fight Ridiculous with Ridiculous, see formerly mention Applied Phlebotinum walls, which came after we bypassed an entire dungeon with divining spells and teleporting, even after the steel-lined walls blocked my Earthgliding.

But that's why I said he's stuck in the wrong paradigm. Why should a bunch of high-powered spellcasters be challenged by physical space? They should face challenges in a different paradigm - mental, magical, metaphysical, planar, informational, political, and so on. Not physical. That's the low-level / low-power paradigm that is incorrectly the default for all levels in WotC material.

[PId6]

As others have said, you get enjoyment out of it if the DM properly challenges you with appropriate encounters. If the DM isn't used to doing that, it's going to be extremely difficult. Expecting players to follow a stereotypical dungeon crawl going through each room slowing combating each monster solving each puzzle and wracking brains to get through each trap is... not the way to do it when they have access to Greater Teleport and Ethereal Jaunt. However, the walls of Applied Phlebotinum aren't necessary if you actually plan for casters to go through said walls rather than expect them to follow the planned path you laid out.

As a matter of fact, it's quite possible to challenge such powerful groups if the DM is aware of what they can do (though a few limits should still be in place; the most game-breaking spells, such as Shapechange, Gate, and Simulacrum, should probably still be banned if you want to keep things sane). There's a PbP around here called "Against the Dragon" where a high power level 20 party (with lots of casters) was to hunt down and fight a standard CR 23 dragon. Through superior tactics and planning, however, the dragon actually came out ahead in the initial matchup (the game never finished since the DM was banned from the forums, however, but it's still a good example).

And there's a wide, wide gulf between playing level 18 tier 1 casters and playing a core rogue/monk; you can have fun with something between those two extremes even if you don't enjoy playing the former.

[Zen Master]

A long time ago we played on particular campaign to it's conclusion around level 12. Then we retired the characters as so often before.

A year or so later, our DM decided to revive the characters, age them but boost them to level 16. We were then presented with the consequences of our second to last quest, which .... didn't end so well.

Long story short, we got a chance to set things right, ending with a fight against a time-distorting, optimized dracolich. Which we steamrolled. And everyone mostly agreed we should have let the characters be - it was fun, but only for sentimental reasons.

For me, the answer is no. Levels above 12 or so get boring - and even before that, our group sets a lot of limits to keep the game fun.

[Wolf Warhead]

But that's why I said he's stuck in the wrong paradigm. Why should a bunch of high-powered spellcasters be challenged by physical space? They should face challenges in a different paradigm - mental, magical, metaphysical, planar, informational, political, and so on. Not physical. That's the low-level / low-power paradigm that is incorrectly the default for all levels in WotC material.

My bad, I didn't know what paradigm means (English is a second language for me)

Anyway, he's mixing up our final sessions a lot more. Diplomatic aspects, exploration (physical, but still fun in a sprawling necropolis), puzzles... And I'm sure he has more stuff in store. He isn't very good with direct encounters, but much better at everything surrounding it.

Our plan was to go Planar, say hello to a few lower Gods and cram spells down their orifices, but as said, we got bored with our casters.


And there's a wide, wide gulf between playing level 18 tier 1 casters and playing a core rogue/monk; you can have fun with something between those two extremes even if you don't enjoy playing the former.

Note: We're limiting everything to Core, SRD. Mostly for the sake of our sanity. And I'm sure my Rogue will be fun to play. I didn't make him a bundle of stats, after all, so even if he's superfluous, he still has a personality to play.

[Aotrs Commander]

But that's why I said he's stuck in the wrong paradigm. Why should a bunch of high-powered spellcasters be challenged by physical space? They should face challenges in a different paradigm - mental, magical, metaphysical, planar, informational, political, and so on. Not physical. That's the low-level / low-power paradigm that is incorrectly the default for all levels in WotC material.

Yes, I think at that level you have two choices; either everything in a dungeon is teleport-warded (which is basically DM fiat for "no you can't") or you instead change the paradigm entirely and switch to Scry-and-Die as the default method of "dungeon crawling". I.e, as DM, you just expect them to do only that, and plan accordingly. (I.e. the rest of the dungoen is irrelevant if they do go in the normal way, and can by by-passed by the phrse "time passes..."

Though I think there might be something said for making them go through an Golem-style magic-immune/teleport warded dungeon full of resetting magical traps (as well as nasties) - on a time limit, where they have to get through and fight a pitched battle at the end and see how they would do (i.e. a dungeon designed to burn off as much of those spells as possible beofre the BBEG, who will himself be buffed up the eyeballs, plus whatever nasty it is they have to get to in time.) As a one-off, climatic set-piece, obviously.

[Axolotl]

There are a lot less possibilities that can be used for encounters, though. Travel is nearly non-existent, no amount of non-magical foes (and I do mean no amount, for a competent group) is going to be much of a threat, dungeons don't work so well when walls are more like suggestions than obstacles (it's difficult to justify building giant cave complexes out of walls of force or whatnot, and even those aren't impenetrable by any means).There's alot less published things that are suitable yes, bt there's still plenty of things that you can do to threaten them. You just need to be much crueler as a DM, don'tlet even a minor tactical error go unpunished. There's whole sections of effects and spell people don't use becaus they're harsh and unfun at lower levels. Energy Drains, permanent HP loss, disjunctions. Basicaly you just need to use unfair opponents and enviroments forcingthe players to use every crazy tactic they can just to survive.

[Aroka]

Or abandon dungeons, because they just don't make sense, being physical challenges almost by definiton. Instead of crawling through a dungeon packed full of improbably powerful enemies that should by themselves threaten countries, the PCs should be facing off against demi-gods in strange astral planes, battling dragons in the skies over cities, trying to evacuate sky-cities plummeting towards the ground, attempting to stop a continent from being ripped apart by mystical engines, fending off extraplanar invasion forces, bartering with demons for the souls of a nation's children... and so on and so on. Encounters as epic and legendary as their power is.

And in a similar vein to Axolotl's advice, don't make things easy. When the PCs have access to 9th-level spells, you can pretty much throw incredible threats at them without even bothering to think of ways they can defeat them beforehand - let them discover those ways.

[Kaiyanwang]

Or abandon dungeons, because they just don't make sense, being physical challenges almost by definiton. Instead of crawling through a dungeon packed full of improbably powerful enemies that should by themselves threaten countries, the PCs should be facing off against demi-gods in strange astral planes, battling dragons in the skies over cities, trying to evacuate sky-cities plummeting towards the ground, attempting to stop a continent from being ripped apart by mystical engines, fending off extraplanar invasion forces, bartering with demons for the souls of a nation's children... and so on and so on. Encounters as epic and legendary as their power is.

This. Don't complain about the changes of the game at high level, enjoy them and adjust the challenges accordingly.

[Wolf Warhead]

Or abandon dungeons, because they just don't make sense, being physical challenges almost by definiton. Instead of crawling through a dungeon packed full of improbably powerful enemies that should by themselves threaten countries, the PCs should be facing off against demi-gods in strange astral planes, battling dragons in the skies over cities, trying to evacuate sky-cities plummeting towards the ground, attempting to stop a continent from being ripped apart by mystical engines, fending off extraplanar invasion forces, bartering with demons for the souls of a nation's children... and so on and so on. Encounters as epic and legendary as their power is.

And in a similar vein to Axolotl's advice, don't make things easy. When the PCs have access to 9th-level spells, you can pretty much throw incredible threats at them without even bothering to think of ways they can defeat them beforehand - let them discover those ways.

My bad again, I wasn't clear on this: We're not just crawling dungeon after dungeon. Our adventures just take us in-doors at times and any time they do we need Phlebotinum. (Which we don't really mind any more.)

As for epic encounters, the one we died in was against the first assault party sent by the Gods to stop a group of Arcane Caster from blowing up half the country by erupting a magic ley-line (Yes, we were fighting on their side, but we'd put a stop to their plan already.) We had to hurry it, too, so we could prepare or escape before and entire army of high-level Paladins and Clerics arrived.

Perhaps not Epic epic, but still pretty good in my book.

Still, like others have said, the main problem is experience and knowledge. (And perhaps DM cruelty) We weren't ready for the Epic realms, yet. Back to the training dungeons with us.

[Aotrs Commander]

This. Don't complain about the changes of the game at high level, enjoy them and adjust the challenges accordingly.

Admittedly, this is dependant on whether your DM is prepared to put the work in to do it or to totally change the way they create advantures. As I have been finding myself - a 16th-Epic level adventure (even "just" a conversion from an AD&D module) is quite a bit of work over a party even a few levels lower. A less...insane...DM than me might not be quite so excited (initially) at the thought of all the fun NPC to build! I'll grant you, high-level play is not for every DM, since it certainly does get more number-crunchy (and "casters only" would merely make it worse.)

[Capt Spanner]

I've got to say, IRL I couldn't see a group of high level wizards liking spending too much time around each other. Surely each one would want to cement their place as the most powerful wizard around and regards the rest of the party as...threats.

That could be interesting (for anyone who likes PvP).

[Aotrs Commander]

I've got to say, IRL I couldn't see a group of high level wizards liking spending too much time around each other. Surely each one would want to cement their place as the most powerful wizard around and regards the rest of the party as...threats.

That could be interesting (for anyone who likes PvP).

So, no room for the Caster Friends and their Fortress of Thaumitude then...?



'Cos like, by anybody's take on power-level, Epic casters are like AT LEAST Super-Hero levels...

(Additionally caster =/= wizard; a party of just Epic Druids would be arguably worst...)

[Aroka]

I'm not saying your group was doing anything wrong (other than insofar as not enjoying the game to the max suggests something could have been different) - I'm talking about the paradigm in general, not just specifically in your case.


Still, like others have said, the main problem is experience and knowledge. (And perhaps DM cruelty) We weren't ready for the Epic realms, yet. Back to the training dungeons with us.

This is absolutely true. There's a reason jumping feet-first into high-level games doesn't work too well - my first 3.0 campaign got more and more out of my control and unbalanced as it went to higher levels (the party was a druid, a fighter, and a monk!), but by now, I know what to expect, and can adjust and deal with what the PCs can throw at the game (but still prefer low-level games because D&D is, for me, a "low-intensity" game to run; I am great with rules and capable of optimization, but mostly I don't want to bother with it).

Indeed, the best way to proceed is probably to play multiple campaigns at successively higher power levels; many at 1st-5th, a few 6-10th, a few 11th-15th, and then naturally progressing to even higher levels. This gives an organic sense of power growth to players and DMs both, and lets the DM adjust to new capabilities a few at a time, rather than all at once - and to get a practical feel for many different capabilities and combinations thereof.

[Fortuna]

I've got to say, IRL I couldn't see a group of high level wizards liking spending too much time around each other. Surely each one would want to cement their place as the most powerful wizard around and regards the rest of the party as...threats.

That could be interesting (for anyone who likes PvP).

The unit of wizardry is, truly, the lone wizard.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'm not saying your group was doing anything wrong (other than insofar as not enjoying the game to the max suggests something could have been different) - I'm talking about the paradigm in general, not just specifically in your case.

Ditto.


This is absolutely true. There's a reason jumping feet-first into high-level games doesn't work too well - my first 3.0 campaign got more and more out of my control and unbalanced as it went to higher levels (the party was a druid, a fighter, and a monk!), but by now, I know what to expect, and can adjust and deal with what the PCs can throw at the game (but still prefer low-level games because D&D is, for me, a "low-intensity" game to run; I am great with rules and capable of optimization, but mostly I don't want to bother with it).

Indeed, the best way to proceed is probably to play multiple campaigns at successively higher power levels; many at 1st-5th, a few 6-10th, a few 11th-15th, and then naturally progressing to even higher levels. This gives an organic sense of power growth to players and DMs both, and lets the DM adjust to new capabilities a few at a time, rather than all at once - and to get a practical feel for many different capabilities and combinations thereof.

Yes, I agree. I always try and start a new party at level 1; unless it's one we're likely to be playing as a day game, infrequently, I'll tend more to 3-6th the first time out. I think wading right into 18th level is dropping you in a bit deep. I'd not thought of that myself, but Aroka is dead-on. If you and your DM hadn't run a high-level game AT ALL before jumping right into it, I can see why you'd have problems balancing the pace and the challenges; it really is a different ball-game at that level. You are right, your group probably does need to ease into it more so you can learn what you can do, and the DM can learn counters for the abilities at a more sedate pace! High-level is a complex thing, indeed; and having run it myself now (17th is the highest we've ever gotten so far!) I can fully understand why people don't want to go that high. (Me, I'm sad. I like it!)

[Psyx]

The unit of wizardry is, truly, the lone wizard.

The collective noun for Wizards is 'Paranoid'.

[Aroka]

I do enjoy high-level games in many RPGs, even though I prefer lower-level D&D - but to me, the enjoyment is the change in campaign style. Instead of fighting monsters, the PCs fight armies (sometimes in person, sometimes not). Instead of rescuing princesses, the PCs rescue kingdoms. Instead of negotiating with bandits, the PCs negotiate peace between warring realms. Instead of finding a dungeon entrance, the PCs root out hidden cults and ancient secrets.

For me, the ideal progression is when PC power rises in pace with PC influence (and involvement) in the surrounding world. As their powers become global, so do their concerns. Mid-level PCs should be movers and shakers in their local community, at least, involved in guilds or other organizations at high levels. High-level PCs should be leaders in one way or another, beholden to very few forces in the world and working on plans that may reach forward in time for generations (or backward, if they want to be really interesting).

When this progression happens naturally in play, the paradigm shifts itself just as naturally. Kings and high priests and archmages don't go into dungeons (except, of course, when they do, and then it's a dungeon worthy of legend), and don't fight monsters for their petty cash (unless it's that kind of setting, of course).

[Aotrs Commander]

The unit of wizardry is, truly, the lone wizard.

Okay, and I'm now totally seeing the Caster Friends:

The Women of Iron(skin); Super-Druid, the valiant Clerical Crusader, that Laudibly Loquacious Lexicographer: LibrariMan1 (Archivist), Doctor Y (bald telepath with additional temporal specialties), the Fiendly Neighbourhood Drider-Man (shaper who one really offended Lloth), in the dark shadows, standing alone, a lone cowled figure (who "is not the joining type"), who when asked his name, only replies "I'm Batman (Wizard)."



1No, I am not sorry at all for that one. I am SO using that one somewhere.

[Wolf Warhead]

I do enjoy high-level games in many RPGs, even though I prefer lower-level D&D - but to me, the enjoyment is the change in campaign style.

You know what I want to try? Spycraft. It looked like a great change of pace. We were gonna go for this at some point...


Okay, and I'm now totally seeing the Caster Friends:

The Women of Iron(skin); Super-Druid, the valiant Clerical Crusader, that Laudibly Loquacious Lexicographer: LibrariMan1 (Archivist), Doctor Y (bald telepath with additional temporal specialties), the Fiendly Neighbourhood Drider-Man (shaper who one really offended Lloth), in the dark shadows, standing alone, a lone cowled figure (who "is not the joining type"), who when asked his name, only replies "I'm Batman (Wizard)."


I still want to do a D&D superhero campaign, too. Screw specialised Superhero RPGs, just a low level campaign with people with masks running around doing good.

[kamikasei]

...in the dark shadows, standing alone, a lone cowled figure (who "is not the joining type"), who when asked his name, only replies "I'm Batman (Wizard)."

He's Batman, and he can breathe in sand.

[AvatarZero]

Do you reckon you could translate a dungeon crawl for high level play? Like, instead of being a series of rooms cut into a mountain, it's a series of subjective gravity pseudo-planes floating in a chaotic energy vortex that you probably don't want to fly through for longer than absolutely necessary. Instead of a secret door, it's a concealed mural that depicts another portion of the vortex with enough accuracy that you can teleport there. Instead of a trap that delivers a poisoned needle touch attack that deals dexterity damage, it's a trap that delivers a very accurate poisoned needle touch attack that deals dexterity damage. (Some things scale quite nicely; ask your local great wyrm about dexterity damage.)

Basically, break your dungeon down into a flowchart, then figure out why it would make sense for an epic level PC (I include anyone with lots of 5th level spells in that bracket) to not be able to skip to the end.

[Tshern]

Yes they are.

[Aroka]

Sure, that works. From a story/game perspective (as opposed to the in-world perspective), a dungeon is just a series of encounters and challenges, and you can transplant those in any environment - a forest, a city, a highway, whatever.

That's if you want to stick with (or just occasionally employ) the encounter-based model of adventuring over the player-motivated one (which can be a drain on the players themselves - sometimes they may just want some action thrown their way, one encounter at a time).

Really, no legendary D&D campaign is really complete without at least one "dungeon" that's some kind of extraplanar reality-defying insanity.

Penny Arcade's Gabe had a post up just recently about a 4E encounter where the PCs battled elementals on two meteors hurtling through Elemental Chaos around a Titan, with other assorted junk whirling in between, trying to direct the death-throe explosions of the elementals at the titan's magical force field. Technically, that's no different from fighting an opponent in a dungeon room with gears and pendulums or something, but the feel of it is completely different.

Indeed, Heroes of Battle suggests doing almost exactly what you describe for strategic encounters - a flowchart (with multiple outcomes for stages leading to a different progress, possibly skipping various stages).

[Morty]

The problem with throwing appropriate obstacles at mid-to-high level wizards, is, of course, that the other classes, maybe except Clerics and Druids are going to bouce off such obstacles like rubber balls. Or splatter like eggs.

[Aotrs Commander]

The problem with throwing appropriate obstacles at mid-to-high level wizards, is, of course, that the other classes, maybe except Clerics and Druids are going to bouce off such obstacles like rubber balls. Or splatter like eggs.

Well, we're talking about casters, not just wizards. And yes, an adventure set up to handle a full set of casters will marmalise noncasters; but in that sort of game, everyone is a caster, so it doesn't matter. In a more normal party, it's easier (while often not actually easy) to deal with, as there are fewer casters and challenges can be set so that everyone has a chance to shine. (Even if it means kicking the casters in the shin on occasion...)

[Optimator]

High level casters are very fun to play. IMO.

[Tyndmyr]

They are awesome. The DM just needs to dial things up appropriately. Im currently DMing a campaign that happens to include a pair of liches, each with about 14 caster levels, along with an appropriately leveled druid, samurai, and rogue.

They're currently fighting inside a flying castle, which had autoturrets on the front, spires with AMFs sticking out from all angles, a portal to elesium in the top floor, and a portal to hell in the basement. Attractions inside include a long-inoperative AI they managed to partially restore and trick, a golem army, endless deathtraps, a fancy dinner party, and of course, the necessary supplies to refit their ironclad ship.

You can't simply continue to toss a bunch of mooks at them endlessly and expect them to be challenged. You need to come up with new and different challenges. Some will be bypassed quickly due to creative use of magic, accompanied by high fives all round. Others will not. If you use lots of creative challenges, at least some'll prove to be difficult, and it'll feel as though they have constant variety and difficulty to overcome.

[Thieves]

"I can summon things stronger than you as a Swift action and I could kill them with a Standard one. My move action would be dancing on their graves."

- Wolf Warhead, 18th level conjurer

I can has signiture?

[Caphi]

This is actually a reason I like playing sorcerors. Every wizard is, at a very high level, the same, because he has everything. Sorceror spell selection is big enough to let me customize, implement a concept, and have a lot of utility at the same time, and it's always utility that acts as a tool, not a win button, because sorcerors can't afford anything specific enough to win an encounter. And I definitely prefer general utility to things that only drive one screw. Having all the tools on tap all the time is fun too. "Fly? Yeah, I've got that. Pass it around."

[jiriku]

High-level games are a blast, but they are DEMANDING for the DM. If the DM tries to run a 6th-level adventure with bigger numbers against a level 13+ party, it's going to be a cakewalk no matter how big the numbers are. From a player's side, it's often necessary to optimize for ease of bookkeeping in addition to in-game considerations (for example, you learn to summon one creature frequently, rather than picking and choosing between 20).

Re: your sand example. Imagine that the Fantastic Four were trapped in a chamber that was slowly filling with sand. Now, imagine that your characters are the Fantastic Four. Now you understand why that challenge was inappropriate to the party level.

[dps]

I do enjoy high-level games in many RPGs, even though I prefer lower-level D&D - but to me, the enjoyment is the change in campaign style. Instead of fighting monsters, the PCs fight armies (sometimes in person, sometimes not). Instead of rescuing princesses, the PCs rescue kingdoms. Instead of negotiating with bandits, the PCs negotiate peace between warring realms. Instead of finding a dungeon entrance, the PCs root out hidden cults and ancient secrets.

For me, the ideal progression is when PC power rises in pace with PC influence (and involvement) in the surrounding world. As their powers become global, so do their concerns. Mid-level PCs should be movers and shakers in their local community, at least, involved in guilds or other organizations at high levels. High-level PCs should be leaders in one way or another, beholden to very few forces in the world and working on plans that may reach forward in time for generations (or backward, if they want to be really interesting).

When this progression happens naturally in play, the paradigm shifts itself just as naturally. Kings and high priests and archmages don't go into dungeons (except, of course, when they do, and then it's a dungeon worthy of legend), and don't fight monsters for their petty cash (unless it's that kind of setting, of course).

Yeah, really, mid-level and higher PCs aren't really supposed to go adventuring in the traditional sense. By about level 12 or so, you should commanding armies; above 16 or so, you should be commanding nations. The problems with that are:

1) A lot of players just want to hack and blast
2) A lot of DMs aren't able design or run that type of campaign very well,
3) It's hard to keep that type of setting party-focused, and
4) If that's the kind of game you want, maybe you should be playing a wargame or strategy game instead of an RPG.

[Chaelos]

The most fun parts of D&D, for me, have never been the combat-related stuff. I find the social situations way more interesting; give me a courtly intrigue/espionage/thief game over a straight dungeon crawl (almost) any day.

Also: +1 to Sorcerer love, for many of the reasons stated above.

(Bookkeeping? What bookkeeping?)

[Amphetryon]

The most fun parts of D&D, for me, have never been the combat-related stuff. I find the social situations way more interesting; give me a courtly intrigue/espionage/thief game over a straight dungeon crawl (almost) any day.

Also: +1 to Sorcerer love, for many of the reasons stated above.

(Bookkeeping? What bookkeeping?)
[doc roc impression]If you're big on courtly intrigue - and looking for a change of pace from D&D - take a look at Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard. They're pretty good at that sort of thing.[/doc roc impression] :smallsmile:

[DracoDei]

Instead of a trap that delivers a poisoned needle touch attack that deals dexterity damage, it's a trap that delivers a very accurate poisoned needle touch attack that deals dexterity damage. (Some things scale quite nicely; ask your local great wyrm about dexterity damage.)
Personally I would scale it from Damage to Drain, and finally to Burn... Epic would be Super-Burn that might require a Wish, Reality Revision (that is the 9th level psionic power) or 5,000 XP Miracle to convert 4 points worth of to ordinary Burn.

I would also consider appropriate wards on the needle to keep Detect Poison from finding it (hey, someone (not necessarily a PC) is going to have crafted a continuous item of that).

(Had an emergency, which is why something ended up here that was utterly off topic, I just needed a place to save some data... nothing to see here, move along...)

[Jarawara]

He's Batman, and he can breathe in sand.

I so busted out laughing at that!

[Aroka]

3) It's hard to keep that type of setting party-focused, and

There's no need to. If the PCs aren't crawling around dungeons, it doesn't matter that they're not physically together. And if they've worked their way up through the levels together, they're probably sufficiently tied to each to be easy to pull together at need.


4) If that's the kind of game you want, maybe you should be playing a wargame or strategy game instead of an RPG.

But that would be reverse evolution. I find wargaming dull, but the planning of wars and politics in general, and the personalities and conflicts involved therein, seen from the point of view of a single person, are absolutely thrilling.

Specifically, few things give me the enjoyment of watching my players act out and advance their characters' ambitions in a political, social, magical, and historical environment I've created (or at least brought to life).

[dps]

There's no need to. If the PCs aren't crawling around dungeons, it doesn't matter that they're not physically together. And if they've worked their way up through the levels together, they're probably sufficiently tied to each to be easy to pull together at need.

Some DMs aren't up to that. Granted, IMO, if you have a group of players who appreciate that style of play, it should be easier than running a dungeon crawl, but some DMs really can't handle much beyond a dungeon crawl.




But that would be reverse evolution. I find wargaming dull, but the planning of wars and politics in general, and the personalities and conflicts involved therein, seen from the point of view of a single person, are absolutely thrilling.

Specifically, few things give me the enjoyment of watching my players act out and advance their characters' ambitions in a political, social, magical, and historical environment I've created (or at least brought to life).

That's why I said "maybe". It depends on exactly what you want out of a game. You sound like someone who actually roleplays your game, so you should be able to enjoy it at any level. But the hack-n-slash types may be much better off sticking to the dungeon crawls.

[Eldariel]

I'll just go about here and point out that Bastion of the Broken Souls is a wonderfully written adventure for high levels that actually accounts for all the abilities a high-level party has, gives them a purpose, a need; and manages to make it all challenging.

Though of course, if certain spells are allowed, monsters need to be buffed up appropriately but still, it's one of the best level 17+ (that is, 9th level spell) adventures I've ever seen.

[Aroka]

Some DMs aren't up to that. Granted, IMO, if you have a group of players who appreciate that style of play, it should be easier than running a dungeon crawl, but some DMs really can't handle much beyond a dungeon crawl.

That's why I said "maybe". It depends on exactly what you want out of a game. You sound like someone who actually roleplays your game, so you should be able to enjoy it at any level. But the hack-n-slash types may be much better off sticking to the dungeon crawls.

You're absolutely correct. If the group doesn't enjoy, or the DM can't run, a game in a specific style (like globe-trotting powermongers pursuing their own agendas), there's nothing wrong with not playing it. Every mode of play has its own challenges, especially in D&D, where most of them eventually chafe up against some aspect of the system, but they can all be made to work. Dungeon-crawling at high levels can work, and there's nothing wrong with it, but it's always worthwhile to really think about it and consider the differences in the possible paradigms of the game. Everything won't work for everyone, but some of it sticks and improves the game.

Maybe oddly, I'm not that big on the actual "role"-playing - I don't expect acting performances from my players, and am perfectly content with giving or receiving third-person descriptions ("My dude tells them to..."), but I am big on the thinking that goes on: figuring out what to do, where to be, who to talk to... and on decisions, their context, and their consequences. I also like the exploration of the setting's non-physical environment conducted in this way (i.e. how the PCs relate to people and ideas).

I'm also pretty happy running or playing in dungeon-crawling hackfests - they have their place and have a certain "feel" that can be enjoyed, even if I generally prefer "deeper" stories about characters.

[Kantolin]

Heh, the first time this happened in a campaign I was in, it was in the game which the DM kept saying 'Even more orcs', in which the fighter finally solved the orcs through being entirely incapable of being killed by them. Primarily through his own abilities, aided slightly by a couple spells from the party's spellcasters, there simply being 'even more orcs' were flat incapable of taking him down.

I really like running high level D&D games because, frankly enough, you get to do more. You run into problems when you ignore the character's popular tactics - I mean, the concept of a castle in its entirety fails when the fighter takes out his adamantine axe/hammer and goes in a straight line through the centre. But now, instead of 'go through this dungeon, beat up goblins, and find the chalice of Ydrimel', you can instead say, 'Somewhere, there's the chalice of Ydrimel. If you don't find it in three days time, these two planes are going to collide with each other', or the evil lich's ploy will come through, or whatever.

When something like that happened in my game, it took them about a day to discover that the chalice was not on this plane (And hence they were having trouble finding it). They used the full breadth of their connections - the rogue had most of them, due to the events throughout the campaign, and powerful divination spells offered clues but didn't actually solve the problem.

Work /with/ people, not against them.

Now, I'm sure when you hit a certain level of crazy optimization things in fact stop being fun, but hey - I've run a highly successful game that went from 5-20, and I believe the group's favorite overall game occured at level 16. I'm then sad, though, since I very rarely get to play at high levels.

~~
Edit: But as I think about it, it is indeed person-dependant. I think a lot of people could enjoy a high level game - a dungeon crawl need not be in a literal dungeon, for example - but I can see someone not enjoying it. People who like gritty games, for example, can't do those very well at high levels (Unless, I suppose, you optimize to true rocket launcher tag levels).

Although IMHO, it doesn't take as much more thought on the DM's part as people are suggesting - it does take more thought, mind you, but I've been in more than one game where a party who lacked an arcanist at all (Or one where we had an illusionist) were thrown up against a swarm and were incapable of doing anything about it, and have been in a game where a team of mostly blasters with a precision-damager as the only frontliner were thrown up against a golem, and the DM seemed perplexed as to why the party was doing so poorly.

Let the players do stuff, consider their abilities and resources, and challenge from there.

[Runestar]

Yes and no.

I am reminded of a sample scenario involving high lv wizard PCs.:smallamused:


Another really funny party was Fighter, Wizard, Wizard, Nymph. Both of the wizards focused on control spells, with one favoring summons and the other favoring defensive stuff. Basically, this party was the exact opposite (even though the fighter in this party was one of the fighers in the other party) of the other. They simply did not so any damage, instead completely looking up the fight with stunning gaze, acid fog, wall of ________, trips, summoned elementals, etc. while slowly chipping the opponent away. Every combat took a long time to resolve, but usually it was a forgone conclusion early on. The opponents would get seperated and stalled while the fighter individually pounded them. For a powerful single opponent would be subjected to repeated save-or-abilities from behind barriers of spell created obstacles and the fighter. Probably the most "professional" party I'd ever been in, from the perspective that they always were able to solve every encounter they faced with a clear, efficient strategy that was often ad-libbed and always effective.

It also helped convinve me that the game is less fun with two wizards, because you really, really always have a solution to every problem as a standard action, even when both wizards are intentionally limiting their spell lists for thematic and balance concerns.

[Aroka]

I find there's a certain joy in running a game when the PCs are so powerful you can best challenge them by considering and negating their existing abilities, throwing the most fiendish challenge you can come up with at them, and forcing them to find a new way to deal with it - and they will, indeed, pull through somehow (though not unscathed - heroes should lose something to win, after all).

It does require forethought, though, because nobody likes it when the GM keeps going "uh, uh, that doesn't work because, um... [feeble ad-hoc excuse]!"

[Wolf Warhead]

Well, reading all of it over, there were three important elements missing:

1. Properly scaling the dangers
Scaling the encounters alone isn't enough any more. As soon as a danger can be reliably countered, it should be kept in mind this is now an EXPECTED danger. When Raise Dead and Revivify come into play, death is no longer a true danger. When there's Deathward, the things it protects against are barely considered dangers. Any true danger involves a permanent loss, which could be a TPK, but you want to risk that as little as possible. With Wish and Miracle available, things like permanent stat, HP or level loss and the dreaded Disjunction spells need to start coming up. At the very least. If the party doesn't prepare for planar travel, try a plane shift. Do something they can't fix easily.

With this also comes and upscaling of environment as part of the challenges. Walls don't mean anything anymore, nor does distance witn spells like Teleport. Even if the Gods are against you it means nothing if you can escape from, bypass or blow up anything that's tossed at you; you can do most of that with ease. Loosen up the definition of 'encounter' and 'challenge'. What used to be a dungeon is barely an encounter now. Standard traps are nothing now; spring something bigger, like a diplomatic one. (Have fun with that one, Rogue) Make the multiverse your dungeon.

2. Preparation for the DM

To be honest, while I like our DM and he's often good at creating entertaining settings, his preparation can be... lacking. Even though I'd sent him my full spell list with descriptions - condensed to a single page - I regularly got a blank look when I said 'I cast x'. Said Phlebotinum walls came from the realisation that I had Earth Glide and Dimension Door (Um, Conjurer? Also, Teleporting is fun. My favourite spell was the level 1 Benign Transposition, which I renamed to 'Haha, No.'. You want a full attack on me next round? Haha, no. There's an Earth Elemental here now. What? Grappling. Haha, no. Surrounding our physical mage for flanking bonuses? Haha, no. Walking away from them to deny them a full attack? Haha, no. I should play lower level casters more.)

This is both on a micro and macro level. Prepare the right setting, but build every encounter with the list of powers in mind. Of course, that's easier to do with thematics casters or sorcerers. All of this simply requires experience, too. Our DM had PLAYED in high level campaigns, but I don't think he DMed one. Perhaps he had much fun planned in the future, but the run-up to it was too long.

3. Player preference.

Two of our party members were perpetually confused by all this. I spent weeks with my nose in books trying to figure out spells and rules until I went cross-eyed. The DM tore his hair out trying to make things work. We killed entire trees with the printing of character sheets as changes were made. Perhaps it simply isn't for us. Our best runs were with lower level campaigns and our best session often do not involve fighting. We should try low-powered campaigns, less fighting challenges, etc. It's where we belong.


All in all, the forum has given me much to think about. I thank you for sharing your experiences, thoughts, theories and what-not with me.

Also,


"I can summon things stronger than you as a Swift action and I could kill them with a Standard one. My move action would be dancing on their graves."

- Wolf Warhead, 18th level conjurer

I can has signiture?

Yes, you can has.

[jseah]

It doesn't actually take all that much to change the setting in my experience.

I've toyed around with letting players do whatever they want. Both in a lvl15 gestalt game (indirect PvP one) and a level 7-9 sandbox/town management one.
In both cases, I started out with a "normal" setting with nothing worldchanging in terms of magic, then let the players run amok and simply let the NPCs copy them when player tricks got out. (not so much for the level 15 one though)

In both games, the world changed completely in a short time. (1 week for level 15, 1 month for level 7) Level 15 had an undead spawn plague, dragon chain gating and the world would have suffered an apocalyptic battle very very soon. (which was kind of the point) Level 7 had one guy planar bind a lantern archon and change society by giving the archons an irresistable offer in return for teleportation services.


Generally, I think campaigns have to change so greatly between 7-13 that if your players know what they can do as casters, the entire setting would need to go through a revamp.

[Zaq]

I find there's a certain joy in running a game when the PCs are so powerful you can best challenge them by considering and negating their existing abilities, throwing the most fiendish challenge you can come up with at them, and forcing them to find a new way to deal with it - and they will, indeed, pull through somehow (though not unscathed - heroes should lose something to win, after all).

It does require forethought, though, because nobody likes it when the GM keeps going "uh, uh, that doesn't work because, um... [feeble ad-hoc excuse]!"

I'm pretty much with you except for the part I bolded. Negating player abilities, on the whole, isn't much fun to be on the receiving end of. Now, I'm firmly in favor of turning "I Win" buttons into "I Contribute" buttons, but I'm definitely against disconnecting them entirely.

For example, let's say that I'm a magey guy who likes using Slow on my enemies. When you hit a stock-standard big bruiser with it (you know, what they'd call a Brute or Soldier in 4e... 4e's got a few issues, but damn do I love poaching its terminology), they can't full attack anymore, so they're significantly less threatening. If you use this a lot, your GM can and should try to find a way around it. So let's say that I'm up against some melee smasher, and I hit him with Slow. Well, I would say that the wrong answer in this case would to say "no, he's immune. They've all got Freedom of Movement as an Extraordinary ability that you can't steal, because I don't like Slow." A better answer would be to say "OK, he can't full attack now? He uses the Elder Mountain Hammer he had readied." Slow is still contributing, since it makes the monster less mobile, imposes some small but real penalties, and interferes with its AoOs... but I didn't just render the monster a waste of stats. That's just an example, of course, but I think it illustrates the difference between compensating for the players' abilities and negating them outright.

[Superglucose]

I like playing high level casters. I once got to be part of a party of 20 wizard/20 sorcerer/20 druid/20 cleric/20 ranger, with highly skilled players who knew what they were doing and a GM who hand-crafted an extremely difficult encounter.

It was so much fun.

In fact, I can't imagine anything less fun than a Monk/Rogue. You have no viable options in combat and you'll be doing the same thing, round after round: moving into flank and attacking. Once. Snoresville. Maybe you can tumble to avoid attacks of opportunity! Weeee!

I even got bored of tactical fighter... and the one high-level paladin I played? The novelty of "I charge, ride-by attack and fly way off into the distance" wore off after the very first combat.

[Aroka]

I'm pretty much with you except for the part I bolded. Negating player abilities, on the whole, isn't much fun to be on the receiving end of. Now, I'm firmly in favor of turning "I Win" buttons into "I Contribute" buttons, but I'm definitely against disconnecting them entirely.

This is very specific, though - at high levels of power, you pretty much must challenge players by negating their abilities. If the object of the scenario is a McGuffin, you have to negate divinations and traveling magic aimed at it; if the object is an enemy, you might make it nigh-invulnerable to existing weapons and spells (or, indeed, to all weapons or spells except a single specific one destined to defeat it, which then becomes the McGuffin, which can't be found by divinations and teleported to...); and so on. This is a pretty basic thing in superhero comics, for instance, which are one of the best touchstones for high-level D&D, especially. The whole idea is that the PCs can't rely on their incredibly powerful and familiar abilities (which they've already been using for many levels), and have to find new ways to deal with situations - ways you haven't even bothered to specify, because their ability to adapt is so great at these levels.


Well, reading all of it over, there were three important elements missing:

Your summary is pretty excellent.


1. Properly scaling the dangers
... Any true danger involves a permanent loss, which could be a TPK, but you want to risk that as little as possible. With Wish and Miracle available, things like permanent stat, HP or level loss and the dreaded Disjunction spells need to start coming up. At the very least. If the party doesn't prepare for planar travel, try a plane shift. Do something they can't fix easily.

I wouldn't say this is a bad idea - high-level PCs are indeed capable of overcoming just about anything - but I think there may be more interesting things to do than crippling PCs mechanically. If the players are really into their characters and the setting (and by high levels, they should be), you can get at them with different kinds of losses.

One of my favorites is setting-specific: in RuneQuest's Glorantha, one of the standard heroic paradigms is the HeroQuest, a mythical magical adventure wherein heroes cross the veil of time and enter the legends of their religions and cultures. These adventures put them up against incredible dangers and offer awesome rewards, but I never like killing PCs unless they make a really bad choice that demands it; instead, I very much like using permanent (reversible, but very difficultly) magical damage. A mighty spirit of darkness that defeats you eats your hand, and thereafter whenever you enter the mythical realm, you're missing a hand; you lose all your hand-based magics (yes, there's hand-based magics; one hero summons dragons with the power of his left hand...); and so on. When you are beaten by the Storm God, he steals your shining armor, and you use access to several protective spells - but maybe you discover a new myth as you struggle to survive after the defeat, and find a new kind of magic that you can slowly learn to replace what you lost.

Another good one is, of course, social losses. Sure, you won, but it cost you your standing with the Tower of Archmages. Great, you won, but the armies you called upon were decimated and it will take the kingdoms years to recover. Okay, you won, but will your allies ever forgive you for using them the way you did? Losses that feel important but aren't irreplaceable or literally character-crippling are good.

Losses that turn into opportunity are great; this is a pretty general principle, too. Failure is more interesting when it leads to new opportunities or changes things, rather than blocks progress. Heroes struggle, but don't fall flat on their faces. There are so many variations of this: when a check fails, it's more interesting to progress the story but make the failure cost the PCs something; when the PCs are defeated, it's more interesting to make this cost them something than say "you're all dead, roll up new characters"; when the PCs fail at an endeavour, it's more interesting to open new avenues for them to explore, to try to recoup their losses or make a new, desperate attempt at reversing whatever calamity they failed to prevent.

[Rixx]

E6! Seriously, it handily solves like 99% of these problems.

[Eldariel]

E6! Seriously, it handily solves like 99% of these problems.

And loses what many of the players enjoy in the game. E6 works for gritty fantasy but not for the people who want to play in a world with high magic in the first place. It's not a patch, it's a different game.

[Aroka]

E6! Seriously, it handily solves like 99% of these problems.

It doesn't solve anything it all - it avoids or sidesteps by being a completely different style of game. Running high-power games is perfectly fine, but comes with its own set of challenges - just like every other type of game. In fact, running a good high-level D&D game is far, far easier than running a genuinely thrilling or scary horror game with any system, because the challenges of running good horror are even greater (and of a very different nature).

Edit: And for gritty fantasy, there's many better games, including d20 games that don't need to cut out 14 levels; Conan d20 is deadly fantasy no matter your level (in fact, you'll be hit with potentially lethal blows a lot more at higher levels), and even though AGOTd20 fails miserably at AGOT, it's still a gritty d20 system.

But really, if you want gritty fantasy (rather than Conan specifically, for instance), I can't see any good reason to stick with d20 to begin with. Between games like TROS, Artesia, GURPS, and RuneQuest, there's so many better options (that don't rely on levels, for one thing, and often actually have gritty and realistic mechanics).

[AvatarZero]

I've been thinking, probably a lot of the fun of playing a high level caster is imagining yourself with the abilities that your character has. A high level fighter or warblade doesn't have abilities that you would find useful in everyday life (I hope. Run into many Gnolls at the post office?), but casters have abilities that work outside of combat, many extremely fun to imagine having in reality.

Hands up anyone who has never been stuck in traffic or missed a train and thought "Man, if I had that teleport ability that my character has...".

I wonder if the way DnD is played these days, with more of an emphasis on non-combat and storytelling, has made playing non-casters even less appealing than it was before. If you were fighting monsters all day, you'd probably start to think about playing someone who didn't run out of "ammunition" before lunch.

[FatR]

If there is even a problem with dungeons being too easy to bypass in your high-level game, then You're Doing It Wrong (tm). Not by missing some secret to challenging high-level dungeoncrawl, by dungeoncrawling at all. At level 13+, characters, particularly spellcasting characters with good PrCs, are demigods, who ignore (and should ignore) petty inconveniences like distance, obstacles and all but harshest conditions (I suppose fighting on the surface of the Sun still will be quite challenging) by virtue of being demigods. It is only right, that they generally can only be challenged by other epic badasses like themselves.

That said, high-level spellcasters do tend to rape CR system, making supposedly hard opponents trivial to overcome. There is no real solution to it, unfortunately, you can only accept it and tailor threats to your party.

[Rixx]

E6 may remove aspects from the game that are liked by people who enjoy high-magic, high-level play, but the OP is obviously not one of these people.

[Aroka]

E6 may remove aspects from the game that are liked by people who enjoy high-magic, high-level play, but the OP is obviously not one of these people.

I drew a pretty different conclusion from this thread. The OP doesn't seem to want to abandon high-level play just because it's hard.

[lord_khaine]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikasei View Post
He's Batman, and he can breathe in sand.

I so busted out laughing at that!

So did i :smallbiggrin:

[Wolf Warhead]

I wonder if the way DnD is played these days, with more of an emphasis on non-combat and storytelling, has made playing non-casters even less appealing than it was before. If you were fighting monsters all day, you'd probably start to think about playing someone who didn't run out of "ammunition" before lunch.

I'm seeing the opposite in my group, since players are more inclined to play something they think is fun to play or model it after a background story. If it's mid-op or low-op, people are happy to know that they don't need ultimate power and can go with something they'd like to play - or roleplay.


I drew a pretty different conclusion from this thread. The OP doesn't seem to want to abandon high-level play just because it's hard.

Correct, mostly because I've not been hit with something truly 'hard', yet, but I also simply wanted to 'understand' high-level play, I suppose. The thread helped me gain some insights and, even though I currently still feel more at ease in lower level campaigns, I'd like to try a truly epic game in the future. I read about so many interesting planes, so I damn-well want to visit them. And maybe blow up or save a few of them.

Still, though, out of curiosity; what is E6?

[PId6]

Still, though, out of curiosity; what is E6?
It's a variant where you stop leveling at level 6. The rules are explained here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html). There are also variants on that, like E8 or E10, with the same principles but a different end-point.

[Ormur]

In my first ever D&D campaign we're reaching those game breaking levels. I'm a wizard (albeit an evoker because fire was cool when I didn't know the rules) and my partner is a druid. We're fighting impossible odds to save the plane from an epic level dragon. It's pretty fun and although it's sad to say a lot more convenient after the Barbarian player dropped out. We don't have to bother to use our standard actions on buffs and the DM doesn't have to tailor every encounter to have something to do for melee.

We've been hopping between plot relevant places and people every day since I got 5th level spells and we don't crawl through dungeons we, pop by, kill a few monsters, if that doesn't work out we pop out again and come back tomorrow better prepared.

It's a while since the DM adapted to scry and die being our default way of fighting encounters. He can pretty much let us decide who needs killing next after throwing us a few clues.

[Psyx]

E6! Seriously, it handily solves like 99% of these problems.

It sidesteps them, or sticks it's head in the sand.

D&D is at heart a flawed, primitive system that is over-simplistic in the places it shouldn't be and overly complex in the places it should be elegant.

You've heard the phase 'You can't polish a t*rd; but you can roll it in glitter'? That's what E6 does. It rolls the D&D t*rd in glitter and makes D&D more playable to a section of the audience.

A better solution is to find a better system, with more elegant high-end game mechanics. Or play a game with a lower-fantasy bias.

[Aroka]

It sidesteps them, or sticks it's head in the sand.

D&D is at heart a flawed, primitive system that is over-simplistic in the places it shouldn't be and overly complex in the places it should be elegant.

You've heard the phase 'You can't polish a t*rd; but you can roll it in glitter'? That's what E6 does. It rolls the D&D t*rd in glitter and makes D&D more playable to a section of the audience.

A better solution is to find a better system, with more elegant high-end game mechanics. Or play a game with a lower-fantasy bias.

And how.

If I want to run low fantasy, I wouldn't ever think of going for E6. I'd go for RuneQuest, Artesia, Pendragon, The Riddle of Steel, GURPS, or at least Conan d20. What possible advantage would E6 have over these games? D&D's only advantage is "It's D&D!" to begin with, and E6 cuts out 70% of the usual gameplay. Other games give me actual gritty mechanics (attacks vs. parries, injuries that matter and/or last, combat with real options, etc.), rather than taking one of the most abstracted and inaccurate sets of mechanics and chopping off the top 7/10ths.

But when I want to run D&D, I get out my D&D books. It's a genre of its own, and has a certain charm for all its flaws.

[Mike_G]

And how.

If I want to run low fantasy, I wouldn't ever think of going for E6. I'd go for RuneQuest, Artesia, Pendragon, The Riddle of Steel, GURPS, or at least Conan d20. What possible advantage would E6 have over these games? D&D's only advantage is "It's D&D!" to begin with, and E6 cuts out 70% of the usual gameplay. Other games give me actual gritty mechanics (attacks vs. parries, injuries that matter and/or last, combat with real options, etc.), rather than taking one of the most abstracted and inaccurate sets of mechanics and chopping off the top 7/10ths.

But when I want to run D&D, I get out my D&D books. It's a genre of its own, and has a certain charm for all its flaws.


The advantage of D&D, beyond "it's D&D" is that everybody plays it, the books are easy to come by, there's a ton of support material, and so on. Getting a group together to play TRoS is a bit more challenging.

That said, 1-6 th level D&D is a really different game than 18th level D&D. If you like the way D&D plays at low level, E6 is perfect. You stay at the level you like, but there's still some advancement to make you feel like you're being rewarded.

Beyond 13t level or so, I just don't enjoy D&D. The class power gap is so big that even totally unoptimized casters can't help being so far beyond the poor Fighter and Rogue that it's laughable. The bookkeeping is a nightmare, the DM, in order to challenge the casters, need to make encounters that challenge every spell in the book, since the party can always retreat to a secure place and swap out their spells. If you do pull out the craziness and challenge the 17th level Wizard, you aren't playing anything that looks or feels like traditional fantasy. It's like playing "the Superfriends Follow Alice Through the Looking Glass and Bend Wonderland Over a Table."

I just don't enjoy that at all. I put Watching Paint Dry just ahead of epic level play on my list of Fun Stuff to Do. Every encounter takes the DM hours to design, takes the casters an hour to prepare for, takes everyone two hours to do the math to recalculate everything after buffs and polymorphs, and then lasts about three seconds.

E6 stops the game at the point where it's still manageable. It's fun, it's simple, beer and pretzel gaming.

We just started playing RuneQuest, which I prefer in any case. But I like a low level D&D game for simple fun. Once it's more work than going to my job is, I don't want to do anything that I'm not getting paid for.

[Aroka]

The advantage of D&D, beyond "it's D&D" is that everybody plays it, the books are easy to come by, there's a ton of support material, and so on. Getting a group together to play TRoS is a bit more challenging.

I don't really buy this. Almost every RPG I've played (dozens!), I've had the (sole) book, I've introduced the other players to the game, and I've taught them how to play while learning to play myself. It might be some kind of odd cultural difference where people are only willing to play games they own and already know, I guess, in which case you kinda have to wonder how they ever learned any RPG to begin with. If I want to play a game, I go "Hey guys, let's play X!" (And then they either go "sure, let's try that" or "naw let's play Y.") It's a marginal advantage at best.


We just started playing RuneQuest, which I prefer in any case. But I like a low level D&D game for simple fun. Once it's more work than going to my job is, I don't want to do anything that I'm not getting paid for.

I can agree with this, totally. I've run high-power D&D games, and they're perfectly fine and doable, but I don't do it often. In fact, I have other preferences for high-powered high fantasy, too - and they happen to be some of the games I use low fantasy. RuneQuest in Glorantha is supposed to get incredible - in the single best setting source material, King of Sartar, the heroes perform amazing feats that D&D doesn't even begin to support. I love that style of game - and in RQ, the rules both allow it better and require less bookkeeping and number-juggling for it.

[Mike_G]

I don't really buy this. Almost every RPG I've played (dozens!), I've had the (sole) book, I've introduced the other players to the game, and I've taught them how to play while learning to play myself. It might be some kind of odd cultural difference where people are only willing to play games they own and already know, I guess, in which case you kinda have to wonder how they ever learned any RPG to begin with. If I want to play a game, I go "Hey guys, let's play X!" (And then they either go "sure, let's try that" or "naw let's play Y.") It's a marginal advantage at best.


Go off to college, or transfer to a different duty station, or move to a new city, you can get a D&D group together no problem. Try to find five guys in Anchorage who've heard of TRoS, and it's a different story.



I can agree with this, totally. I've run high-power D&D games, and they're perfectly fine and doable, but I don't do it often. In fact, I have other preferences for high-powered high fantasy, too - and they happen to be some of the games I use low fantasy. RuneQuest in Glorantha is supposed to get incredible - in the single best setting source material, King of Sartar, the heroes perform amazing feats that D&D doesn't even begin to support. I love that style of game - and in RQ, the rules both allow it better and require less bookkeeping and number-juggling for it.

We played the old orignal edition bask in the early 80's and the Avalon Hill version for a while before my old group broke up. I recently got the latest edition from Mongoose, and it's recognizable as the old system, but with some nice additions to combat that don't slow the fight to a crawl. I'm a fan.

[Aroka]

We played the old orignal edition bask in the early 80's and the Avalon Hill version for a while before my old group broke up. I recently got the latest edition from Mongoose, and it's recognizable as the old system, but with some nice additions to combat that don't slow the fight to a crawl. I'm a fan.

I got MRQ2 right after it came out, and love it. They clearly recognized and fixed mistakes from MRQ1 (like the sluggish combat where each round took forever and it's hard to even cripple, much less kill, anybody at all). Now I'm just waiting for the new Cults book to come out so I can see what's new there, and really get to work on a new Dragon Pass campaign.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't really buy this. Almost every RPG I've played (dozens!), I've had the (sole) book, I've introduced the other players to the game, and I've taught them how to play while learning to play myself. It might be some kind of odd cultural difference where people are only willing to play games they own and already know, I guess, in which case you kinda have to wonder how they ever learned any RPG to begin with. If I want to play a game, I go "Hey guys, let's play X!" (And then they either go "sure, let's try that" or "naw let's play Y.") It's a marginal advantage at best.

This is true for pretty much any game but D&D. I just sorta stumble onto D&D groups. Ive played with tons of different people, now, and most of them had played before.

With every other campaign, either I was learning it from a fan of the system, or they were learning it from me.