PDA

View Full Version : Whats your prefered starting level for campaigns?



Necomancer
2006-12-23, 11:01 PM
I noticed alot of people complain about how horribly broken DnD gets at later levels...This makes me curious as to what starting level most people use here. I usualy start off low, 7 being the highest I usualy have (Just enough to get most PrCs started)

Ryuuk
2006-12-23, 11:08 PM
Early levels for me. it makes things easier to handle for a DM and your still at the point where getting outnumbered by grunts is a pretty big threat. Though I've mostly DMed, so I may be a bit biased.

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-23, 11:09 PM
I pretty much refuse to play at level 1 ever again.

The mid levels are a good starting point, 7-10. There's still some semblance of balance, but there's room to work with build-wise and you're not afraid of kobolds.

Emperor Tippy
2006-12-23, 11:10 PM
10-15 for me. I like a lot more RP based stuff and frankly don't care about power level that much but before level 10 you just die to easy and can't really do anything heroic.

Necomancer
2006-12-23, 11:54 PM
You can do plenty of heroic things before level 10. It all depends on what you challenge PCs with. It helps to not think "well...reputation wise this guy should be level 15 to 20". Its better to think "My PCs are level 6 so the all powerful dark warlord should be about CR 10 at most". Does a CR 10 creature sound like a all powerful dark warlord? No...but is it a heroic challenge lower level PCs can do? Yes...wich to me is more important.

Magnus_Samma
2006-12-24, 12:07 AM
I like levels 10+ just because a lot of builds that are really fun and interesting at higher levels just plain suck before that point. If you're playing a standard character and the focus is on roleplaying then it doesn't really matter, but if you're trying to run a gish or something with a prestige class the low levels are going to be really tedius.

Emperor Tippy
2006-12-24, 12:08 AM
Yeah its heroic to save a village but its not that heroic and if you are saving a city at less than level 10, well for me, it just stretches believability to far. I mean, the city should have an NPC or 5 who can do the same thing.

In your exampel it doesn't really make sense, I mean why does the level 17 wizard who is good even allow that all powerful dark warlord to stay around. It's a simple telpeort, power word kill, teleport out mission and the problem is delt with. The BBEG isn't that big or bad at low levels.

krossbow
2006-12-24, 12:09 AM
Level 1, with quick and easy level ups (DM exp bonus's). Then at level 5 the levels slow down, and you get to the juicy stuff after earning a rep.
________
Buy Volcano Vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/volcano-vaporizer)

Aimbot
2006-12-24, 12:11 AM
5-8
You have the most options around that time.

RandomNPC
2006-12-24, 12:25 AM
1-3, i love the buildup, i can't get into a powerful character unless i know what he did to get there. backstorys are for pre-level things.

Necomancer
2006-12-24, 12:36 AM
Yeah its heroic to save a village but its not that heroic and if you are saving a city at less than level 10, well for me, it just stretches believability to far. I mean, the city should have an NPC or 5 who can do the same thing.

In your exampel it doesn't really make sense, I mean why does the level 17 wizard who is good even allow that all powerful dark warlord to stay around. It's a simple telpeort, power word kill, teleport out mission and the problem is delt with. The BBEG isn't that big or bad at low levels.

The games I make is themed around the *players*. Why doesn't a level 17 wizard do that? Because he can't or doesn't want too or doesn't exist. I'm making a world for the players play in, to do heroic and adventurious things in...and beleive it or not not all settings have level 20 NPCs walking around in every city. I know many DMs who have the PCs be very powerful when compared to most other people even when they're low level. I know one person who said level 15 was godly in his world.

Not every world is faurun and has a gandu-er...Elmister running around. You can also easily say the level 17 wizard doesn't know about the dark lord or, just as easily, say there isn't a level 17 wizard capable of doing that anywhere nearby. Personaly I have the world reflect the current level of the party, if they attempt to take on a king who legends say should be very very strong, and the players are low level, I make all their challenges equal to their level.

Emperor Tippy
2006-12-24, 01:01 AM
The games I make is themed around the *players*.
Same. As are most peoples games. But that doesn't mean that I have to make the game utterly unrealistic. And a level 10 fighter being a "All Powerful Dark Warlord" is utterly unrealistic. It simply stretches suspension of disbelief to far. Why is he all powerful when a level 15 wizard is a lot more powerful, and at level 10 he won't be much of a warlord.


Why doesn't a level 17 wizard do that? Because he can't or doesn't want too or doesn't exist.
Why would a good wizard not want to? I mean a level 17 wizard could go out and get rid of 1 "All Powerful Dark Warlord" a day without any problem or risk. And he would be doing the world a good service.


I'm making a world for the players play in, to do heroic and adventurious things in
Same. That doesn't mean that the players can all the sudden be uberpowerful. Savign a village is heroic and adventurous at a low level. Killing the huge dire bear that has been tormenting the villagers is much more realistic than an "All Powerful Dark Warlord" and is the same about the same CR. It is also believable. The level 17 wizard can't save every village from a bear but he woudl be saving a city from a warband or killing the "All Powerful Dark Warlord" that could actually become all powerful and actually is a threat to the world at large. My players would go on an adventure to slay the bear. And be counted as heros in the village and by the time the bear slayign was dead they would have gained 2 or 3 levels. Now they go on to saving a town from a minor wizard or an evil noble. Or perhaps they find a dungeon to explore.


....and beleive it or not not all settings have level 20 NPCs walking around in every city.
That wizard has teleport and can scry or be reached from every one of those cities. He woudl come and kill the "All Powerful Dark Warlord" one day real quickly. And if no wizard like that would do it for free the city would higher one to do it for a couple of thousand GP.


I know many DMs who have the PCs be very powerful when compared to most other people even when they're low level.
I do it to. I just also have more powerful NPC's in the world. And they take a roll.


I know one person who said level 15 was godly in his world.
Depending on the world it may well be. But that shouldn't really be the case. Most monsters are a big threat.


Not every world is faurun and has a gandu-er...Elmister running around.
Actually most should have at least 1 or 2 unless there is an in world reason for them to not be around. Your players will not be the only adventurers ever. What about last generations adventurers?


You can also easily say the level 17 wizard doesn't know about the dark lord
Not really. Scrying, being notified by the city. Any effective dark lord would be noticed by the wizard. And if not noticed he isn't much of a threat at all and the PC's killing him isn't very heroic.


or, just as easily, say there isn't a level 17 wizard capable of doing that anywhere nearby.
Greater teleport makes the whole world nearby.


Personaly I have the world reflect the current level of the party, if they attempt to take on a king who legends say should be very very strong, and the players are low level, I make all their challenges equal to their level.

That is the problem. My worlds power level doesn't change. If you are stupid enough to take on the very, very strong king at level 6-10 then you deserve to have your asses handed to you for being stupid. If you do it at level 20 then you would have a chance but it would still be hard. Even if the king personally is level 10 he has a kingdoms worth of resources protecting him.

Bosh
2006-12-24, 01:14 AM
In your exampel it doesn't really make sense, I mean why does the level 17 wizard who is good even allow that all powerful dark warlord to stay around. It's a simple telpeort, power word kill, teleport out mission and the problem is delt with. The BBEG isn't that big or bad at low levels.

Well there's two things to do:

1. The Dark Lord is really big and powerful and the Good Wizard is already fighting him in own way. Because he Dark Lord has his hands full with the Good Wizard the PCs can fly under his radar and start knocking off his underlings and then after gaining a stack of levels hit him when he's vulnerable (basically think LoTRs what level are Sam and Frodo when compared to Sauron? I think if they were powerful killing machines a lot of what makes the books great would be destroyed and I know I'd rather play as Frodo than as Gandalf).

2. Not play campaigns based on Epic Fantasy. I know that I am sick of Evil Dark Lords that Want to Conquer/Destroy the World and Kill all the Cute Puppies Because they are EVIL.

Personally I like starting at level 2-4 so that players can start off multiclassed and not have to suddenly learn a completely new skill set in the second adventure if they want to be multiclassed.

Necomancer
2006-12-24, 01:21 AM
Same. As are most peoples games. But that doesn't mean that I have to make the game utterly unrealistic. And a level 10 fighter being a "All Powerful Dark Warlord" is utterly unrealistic. It simply stretches suspension of disbelief to far. Why is he all powerful when a level 15 wizard is a lot more powerful, and at level 10 he won't be much of a warlord.

...Who said he'd be a level 10 fighter? I said CR 10. And he'd be CR 10 because thats the current level of challenge the PCs can take...and it doesn't make the game utter unrealistic to admit its a game. You can easily say hes all powerful and have him be CR 10 to the PCs simply because thats the challenges they're able to take. CR is there only for battle mechanics. You can easily seperate it from in game fluff.



Why would a good wizard not want to? I mean a level 17 wizard could go out and get rid of 1 "All Powerful Dark Warlord" a day without any problem or risk. And he would be doing the world a good service.

He may not be good? He may not care? It doesn't really matter since the level 17 wizard only exists if you say he does anyways.



Same. That doesn't mean that the players can all the sudden be uberpowerful. Savign a village is heroic and adventurous at a low level. Killing the huge dire bear that has been tormenting the villagers is much more realistic than an "All Powerful Dark Warlord" and is the same about the same CR. It is also believable. The level 17 wizard can't save every village from a bear but he woudl be saving a city from a warband or killing the "All Powerful Dark Warlord" that could actually become all powerful and actually is a threat to the world at large. My players would go on an adventure to slay the bear. And be counted as heros in the village and by the time the bear slayign was dead they would have gained 2 or 3 levels. Now they go on to saving a town from a minor wizard or an evil noble. Or perhaps they find a dungeon to explore.

Why doesn't it mean the players can't be ubberpowerful? Why can't you play a all powerful PC at low level? You can argue that its unrealistic all you want but I'll just counter with it's a ****in' game. You can do it if you want and theres no problem with it. If you can't deal with the idea that mages can summon horrible demons from beyond and make them tap dance for the mage's pleasure why can't you deal with this? You can easily RP power at low levels, especialy if you're in a realm where people like you are rare and not just another set of adventuring goofs.



That wizard has teleport and can scry or be reached from every one of those cities. He woudl come and kill the "All Powerful Dark Warlord" one day real quickly. And if no wizard like that would do it for free the city would higher one to do it for a couple of thousand GP.

Why? He'd have to know where to scry and why, if he was a good all powerful dark lord he could easily keep himself secret from the world.



I do it to. I just also have more powerful NPC's in the world. And they take a roll.

Then your world is for the players and your NPCs. I have my NPCs take a role too, but never let them overshadow the players. They're the focus. The NPCs are there to assist and help the players, but arn't there to do the job for them. If you can't come up with a reason for them not to join in and do it themselves then I have to question your creativity as a DM.



Depending on the world it may well be. But that shouldn't really be the case. Most monsters are a big threat.

Why shouldn't it be the case? Just say most more powerful monsters don't exist or are so rare they hardly come up...or you can just not bring them up. You don't have to say something exists when it can very well not.



Actually most should have at least 1 or 2 unless there is an in world reason for them to not be around. Your players will not be the only adventurers ever. What about last generations adventurers?

Because its lame and uncreative? I have a gandulf myself named Scorch but hes not the going around saving the world type. Hell he mostly hangs out in his magic shop and only lends a guiding hand to the players when hes okay with it...and I only said one DM I know says the PCs are the only adventurers in his world. I prefer the idea that they exist, but are so rare that you'll likely to only see one or two in a entire lifetime (in human years, that is)



Not really. Scrying, being notified by the city. Any effective dark lord would be noticed by the wizard. And if not noticed he isn't much of a threat at all and the PC's killing him isn't very heroic.

Any effecitve dark lord would have a defense against scrying.


That is the problem. My worlds power level doesn't change. If you are stupid enough to take on the very, very strong king at level 6-10 then you deserve to have your asses handed to you for being stupid. If you do it at level 20 then you would have a chance but it would still be hard. Even if the king personally is level 10 he has a kingdoms worth of resources protecting him.

See, I work with my players to make it so they're chars *can* achieve their goals if they're a mixture of smart, lucky and careful. If you want to call a player stupid for playing a char who might have a goal you dislike in your campaign, then honestly I think that player needs a new DM. If the player is a problem for other reasons I understand, as in he does it against the entire nature of the campaign or party or against his aligment...but if the party decides its a good idea and is within their aligment and ideals, then I'm willing to change the focus of the campaign for them. Especialy if I like the idea.

Emperor Tippy
2006-12-24, 01:21 AM
@^^
Read my last post. I said that if you were going to play at lower levels the threats would not be a BBEG but something like a dire bear or perhaps a couple of low level bandits or maybe a ghoul on the loose. A reasonably large problem for a village or a town but not so large that the BGG (Big Bad Good Guy) comes in and ends it before tea one day.

As for situation 1 I was referring to necromancer calling a level 10 fighter an "All Powerful Dark Warlord".

d12
2006-12-24, 01:25 AM
I chose 5-10, though more accurately I chose 8-10. I've done level 1 mooks more than I care to think about, in many games that sometimes fall apart almost before they can begin. Last year I was in a game where I started at level 9 and it was great. I got to fight things other than goblins, kobolds, or wolves for once. I could take a couple of solid hits without worrying about dying. Good times. Unfortunately, that game fell apart after a couple months, but at least I got to actually be something other than a tap-you're-down mook for a while. After that I decided I'm pretty much done with low-level.

Tallis
2006-12-24, 01:29 AM
I like to start at the beginning. The story of how the PCs got to be powerful is more interesting to me than what they do at the highest levels. I also think it's more heroic for the vulnerable low powered person to be out fighting the good fight than it is for the super-powerful, nigh-unkillable wizard who will be ressurected even if he dies. I also think it encourages more role-playing to start at lower levels.

Necomancer
2006-12-24, 01:32 AM
@^^
Read my last post. I said that if you were going to play at lower levels the threats would not be a BBEG but something like a dire bear or perhaps a couple of low level bandits or maybe a ghoul on the loose. A reasonably large problem for a village or a town but not so large that the BGG (Big Bad Good Guy) comes in and ends it before tea one day.

As for situation 1 I was referring to necromancer calling a level 10 fighter an "All Powerful Dark Warlord".

I'm simply saying it doesn't have to be that way. You can be huge and heroic at low levels simply by making the flavor of the challenge reflect that. You could be going to kill a orc raiding party with a CR 10 leader, or a all powerful darklord, could be the exact same challenge but they just have a diffrent flavor is all. One just seems more epic and heroic

Emperor Tippy
2006-12-24, 02:03 AM
...Who said he'd be a level 10 fighter?
CR 10. Warlord. One implies a player race and a fighter type. The other implies level 10. See if you can figure it out.


I said CR 10. And he'd be CR 10 because thats the current level of challenge the PCs can take
And I used a CR 10 bear. The difference is that one is believable and the other isn't. See if you can tell which is which.


...and it doesn't make the game utter unrealistic to admit its a game.
It is a game. Its called suspension of belief and your "All Powerful Dark Warlord" are stretching it while a dire bear isn't. They are mechanically equal.


You can easily say hes all powerful and have him be CR 10 to the PCs simply because thats the challenges they're able to take.
No you can't. He is not all powerful at CR 10. He may be a minor bandit leader who is bothering a single village or 2 but that is about it. He would never be a threat to a city or even a large town.


CR is there only for battle mechanics. You can easily seperate it from in game fluff.
Yep. But you should try to make the immersion in the game world as realistic as you can and a level 10 character beign considered all powerful is frankly not realistic.



He may not be good? He may not care?
Good would and there would be more than 1 level 17 wizard in a world.


It doesn't really matter since the level 17 wizard only exists if you say he does anyways.
Why exactly wouldn't the wizard exist? Start naming reasons. There isn't any reason short of DM fiat that he wouldn't exist in a regular D&D world.




Why doesn't it mean the players can't be ubberpowerful? Why can't you play a all powerful PC at low level?

Because until level 3 a house cat is a threat to a wizard. At level 5 most things in the MM can slaughter your party easily. At level 10 a city is expected to have at least 1 level 13 wizard who could prollyl destroy your party on his own. Uberpower isn't reached until near epic. It simply isn't.


You can argue that its unrealistic all you want but I'll just counter with it's a ****in' game.
Its a game where you create a world and then the world follows those rules.


You can do it if you want and theres no problem with it.
I'm not sure what you are reffering to here.


If you can't deal with the idea that mages can summon horrible demons from beyond and make them tap dance for the mage's pleasure why can't you deal with this?
Because that mage does not break suspension of belief. A level 10 fighter being considered an all powerful threat does.


You can easily RP power at low levels,
Not really. Even if onyl 1 in 100,000 becomes a level 17+ wizard would would still have about 1 per nation or more. That is power. A leve l10 warlord is not power.


especialy if you're in a realm where people like you are rare and not just another set of adventuring goofs.
1 in 100,000 is incredibly rare. For reference, someone that rare would be one of only 70,000 in the whole world of seven billion. In a D&D world of 100 million you would have 100 people of that power level.



Why? He'd have to know where to scry and why, if he was a good all powerful dark lord he could easily keep himself secret from the world.
And how exactly does he do that at CR 10? And if he was all powerful and a warlord he would not be secret.



Then your world is for the players and your NPCs.
No my world is like nature. Utterly indifferent to the players. Just because the players are level 20 does not mean that all of the sudden their will be 500 level 17+ wizard in the world when their was only 2 in the world at level 10. The PC's can change the world but the world is not a being that changes for the PC's.


I have my NPCs take a role too, but never let them overshadow the players.
It is simple. The PC's have a role. The NPC's have a role. Those roles are quite clear. You don't attack the dragon at level 5 or go and try to kill a king at level 7. At level 20? Sure.


They're the focus.
My PC's are the focus but if they think that just because they are PC's I will let them kill a king thats level 15 and has a kingdoms resources, they are idiotic and will end up in the dungeon. I may allow them to escape later but only once. If they go and try to kill the king a second time they will be killed by that king.


The NPCs are there to assist and help the players,
No. The NPC's exist. Some may help the PC's, some may hinder the PC's, but the vast majority are utterly indifferent to the PC's existence until the PC's reach a high level.


but arn't there to do the job for them.
True. The NPC's have roles and jobs. They will not come out of their role to help the PC's or to hinder the PC's but that does not mean that they will stop their role if a PC decides to try and take it over. Just because the PC says that he wants to kill the king at level 5 does not mean that the king or his bodyguards will allow it.


If you can't come up with a reason for them not to join in and do it themselves then I have to question your creativity as a DM.
*Sigh*. I question yours. You can't come up with a challenge besides a generic "All Powerful Dark Warlord"? I came up with an equal challenge that is utterly believable. A bear on the loose? Easily a threat to a village. A warlord on the loose? Will be dealt with by the wizard because he could be a threat to the city.





Why shouldn't it be the case? Just say most more powerful monsters don't exist or are so rare they hardly come up...or you can just not bring them up. You don't have to say something exists when it can very well not.
And you are not playing D&D. You are playing a d20 game using entirely homebrewed stuff. Thats fine, just don't say its D&D when you ignore 80% of the core rules.




Because its lame and uncreative?
Whats lame and uncreative is that you can't make a world that is actually believable.


I have a gandulf myself named Scorch but hes not the going around saving the world type.
And D&D is high-magic as teh default and shoudl have a couple of dozen "gandulf"s, a good number of whom regularly save the world.


Hell he mostly hangs out in his magic shop and only lends a guiding hand to the players when hes okay with it
Yeah and if a warlord every threatened his city or if an old friend asked him to coem and deal with this bandit bothering his city? He would pop over in a heartbeat and lay down the smack then be home for dinner.


...and I only said one DM I know says the PCs are the only adventurers in his world. I prefer the idea that they exist, but are so rare that you'll likely to only see one or two in a entire lifetime (in human years, that is)
But they gravitate towards each other. They may make up only 1% of the worlds population but they only really deal with other adventurers.





Any effecitve dark lord would have a defense against scrying.
At CR 10? That could stop a scrying attempt from a 17th level wizard?




See, I work with my players to make it so they're chars *can* achieve their goals if they're a mixture of smart, lucky and careful.

My players can achieve theirs as well. I have had 7 different campaigns end with the PC's ruling the prime material plane. They had that goal in mind from level 1 and it took them 19 more levels to accomplish it and most of the work was done in the last 5 levels. They had to be smart, lucky, creative, and careful to do it but it was doable. Hell I have even had some manage to become gods, and one even managed to become overdeity. It doesn't mean it has to happen within 1 adventure or within 2 levels.


If you want to call a player stupid for playing a char who might have a goal you dislike in your campaign, then honestly I think that player needs a new DM.
I never once called the player stupid. I called the DM stupid if he would let the players dethrone a powerful king at level 5. Its a perfectly valid goal, the player just shouldn't expect to accomplish it before level 18 or so.


If the player is a problem for other reasons I understand, as in he does it against the entire nature of the campaign or party or against his aligment...but if the party decides its a good idea and is within their aligment and ideals, then I'm willing to change the focus of the campaign for them. Especialy if I like the idea.

I change campaign foci all the time to match what the players want. I don't change the world though. You want to rule the world? Sure its fine with me but don't expect it to happen before level 20 at the earliest and I will not make it any easier than normal for you to do it.

Emperor Tippy
2006-12-24, 02:09 AM
You can be huge and heroic at low levels
I never said you couldn't. Just that you couldn't be heroic on a world wide or even country wide scale.


You could be going to kill a orc raiding party with a CR 10 leader,
If he was threatening some out of the way hamlet? Sure. If those orcs were threatening a city? It would be dealt with by someone else before you ever got in sight of that leader.


or a all powerful darklord, could be the exact same challenge but they just have a diffrent flavor is all.
No they don't. All powerful dark lord implies a very big difference in power level when compared to an Orc raiding party. An all powerful dark lord sends out orc raiding parties to do his bidding. Zykon is an all powerful dark lord. He commands a hoard. And has killed a epic or almost epic wizard already. That is "All Powerful Dark Warlord" material. Some piddling CR 10 fighter? Thats maybe a lieutenant in the "All Powerful Dark Warlord"'s forces.

Kantolin
2006-12-24, 02:16 AM
I'm actually fond of the 3-10 range myself, and most of my games tend to end up at around this level.

You can do a whole lot at level ten, and that's usually as high as my games tend to go.

And a level 10 fighter is the BBEG if plot decrees it. Maybe he fought Elminster, and won. Everyone else is just as shocked as your characters are. Or just as maybe, he's been playing off the extremely few stronger-than-him forces in the world against each other, and pleasantly placed himself in the commanding role when everything worked perfectly.

I'm also a fan of 'There simply isn't anyone stronger'. After all, a level 10 unit can beat up a hoard of level 1 units single-handedly. You don't need to arbitrarily decide that 20 is the highest leveled NPC in the game anymore than you need to decide on 13, 34, or 90.

Necomancer
2006-12-24, 02:55 AM
My god you really like to pick apart every post you dislike. I barely had any text there and you still managed all that.


CR 10. Warlord. One implies a player race and a fighter type. The other implies level 10. See if you can figure it out.

A warlord can be many things. Yes it implied ability to battle, but who said hes limited to that? Clerics can battle too.



And I used a CR 10 bear. The difference is that one is believable and the other isn't. See if you can tell which is which.

No see its *easily* beleivable. Honestly if your so narrow minded that you can't look beyond CRs then thats really something you should try getting over. I can easilly beleive it, my players can, I'm sure many people can. If you can't then thats you.



It is a game. Its called suspension of belief and your "All Powerful Dark Warlord" are stretching it while a dire bear isn't. They are mechanically equal.

No it isn't. The CR has nothing to do with a challenge flavor wise in my games. If it does in yours great, you worry more about mechanics then roleplay. Thats your choice.



No you can't. He is not all powerful at CR 10. He may be a minor bandit leader who is bothering a single village or 2 but that is about it. He would never be a threat to a city or even a large town.

Again I ask why not? You're not giving me any proof as to why not you're just repeating yourself and saying "no...No it can't cause it doesn't make sense" but the thing is it does. In a village of CR 1/2 commoners a CR 2 orc is a major threat. In a city with CR 1 guards a CR 10 warlord is a large threat. It all depends on how you build the world


Yep. But you should try to make the immersion in the game world as realistic as you can and a level 10 character beign considered all powerful is frankly not realistic.

No, I don't try and make it as realistic as I can because its a *fantasy* game. If I want realistic I'll play d20 modern or arcana where a well placed sword or bullet can actualy kill you in one hit. DnD is bad if you want realism.




Good would and there would be more than 1 level 17 wizard in a world.

Only if you allow there to be. Why would there be? What if this is a low adventure world were only the most legendary wizards reach that amount of power?



Why exactly wouldn't the wizard exist? Start naming reasons. There isn't any reason short of DM fiat that he wouldn't exist in a regular D&D world.

I just said. Its a low adventure world were magic is rare. Were it actualy takes a long long time to study and those who know it guard it from the masses for it could be dangerious in the wrong hands. Magic isn't readily available. Its hard to master and very few people can measure up to it. In a world of int 10 commoners I imagine there would be very few who could know any arcane magic and those who could would not always find they're possible calling.




Because until level 3 a house cat is a threat to a wizard. At level 5 most things in the MM can slaughter your party easily. At level 10 a city is expected to have at least 1 level 13 wizard who could prollyl destroy your party on his own. Uberpower isn't reached until near epic. It simply isn't.

Again, only if the DM lets these things happen. As a DM you're making a story for your players and if you want them to get beaten up by a house cat and say most things from the MM exist then go ahead and have them be weak. Alternavely you can have monsters be rare, realize that a house cat can do at most 1 damage and will miss on most attacks so no, it can't kill most players before level 3 (I've had this conversation before).



Its a game where you create a world and then the world follows those rules.

Rules wich you yourself make. Being a DM is convient like that.



I'm not sure what you are reffering to here.

I'm saying as a DM you can do it with little problem. For some reason you seem to think there are standards every DM must include in his world, but there isn't. A DM can make the world however he wants it.



Because that mage does not break suspension of belief. A level 10 fighter being considered an all powerful threat does.

Only if you only pay attention to mechanics and CR.



Not really. Even if onyl 1 in 100,000 becomes a level 17+ wizard would would still have about 1 per nation or more. That is power. A leve l10 warlord is not power.

If you even have nations that big. Even so even in most games world I'd say 1 in several million is more likely. As you said, most level ones die very easily so getting to level 17 should be nearly impossible. Especialy since most arcanists don't have the guidance of metagaming that PCs have so they know a spell might be more powerful then another and know the basics of what it does, but they wouldn't know the advanced mechanics a player does that allows them to make ubber chars. So yeah, I'd say a level 17 would be rare enough that they could easily not even exist.



1 in 100,000 is incredibly rare. For reference, someone that rare would be one of only 70,000 in the whole world of seven billion. In a D&D world of 100 million you would have 100 people of that power level.




And how exactly does he do that at CR 10? And if he was all powerful and a warlord he would not be secret.

By using magic that has no mechanic effect but exists flavor wise. Call it DM fiat if you want. I call it being creative and going beyond the rules to achieve a goal. Honestly if you want to stick to the rules so much go ahead, but I prefer to ignore them once in awhile and just do things my way.




No my world is like nature. Utterly indifferent to the players. Just because the players are level 20 does not mean that all of the sudden their will be 500 level 17+ wizard in the world when their was only 2 in the world at level 10. The PC's can change the world but the world is not a being that changes for the PC's.

So your world isn't for the players then? See, mine is.



It is simple. The PC's have a role. The NPC's have a role. Those roles are quite clear. You don't attack the dragon at level 5 or go and try to kill a king at level 7. At level 20? Sure.

No see, in my worlds...I ignore what level the PCs and enemies are in favor of making adventures that the PCs can do and still look heroic. The characters shouldn't be aware of their level anyways. If I went from level 1 to 10 I'd certain think I could take on a dragon with all the experience I've had. Why should I think otherwise?



My PC's are the focus but if they think that just because they are PC's I will let them kill a king thats level 15 and has a kingdoms resources, they are idiotic and will end up in the dungeon. I may allow them to escape later but only once. If they go and try to kill the king a second time they will be killed by that king.

You know if we left levels out of this and talked about this like it was a story rather then a game this conversation would be alot diffrent. I'm going to do that. If the PCs want to kill the king even though they're inexperienced that makes them more unlikely villains/heros to me then weak idiots trying to kill someone.



No. The NPC's exist. Some may help the PC's, some may hinder the PC's, but the vast majority are utterly indifferent to the PC's existence until the PC's reach a high level.

I wonder how the NPCs know the PCs reached high levels exactly. Do they have a homing beacon that goes off when someone reaches level 10? Anyways, my NPCs play roles related to the PCs. They may go off and do their own thing, but they in no way are ment to overshadow the PCs. If a all powerful wizard goes and kills a dark lord for whatever reason hes overshadowing the PCs. Weither it makes sense for him to do so or not this is still true.



True. The NPC's have roles and jobs. They will not come out of their role to help the PC's or to hinder the PC's but that does not mean that they will stop their role if a PC decides to try and take it over. Just because the PC says that he wants to kill the king at level 5 does not mean that the king or his bodyguards will allow it.

Of course not, but why do the king and his bodyguards have to be more powerful then the PCs? Why shouldn't they be able to take on the king? Again, I'd like it if you could awnser this without resorting to getting into mechanics. No mention of levels and such.



*Sigh*. I question yours. You can't come up with a challenge besides a generic "All Powerful Dark Warlord"? I came up with an equal challenge that is utterly believable. A bear on the loose? Easily a threat to a village. A warlord on the loose? Will be dealt with by the wizard because he could be a threat to the city.

...It was a crappy example challenge. The challenge of my first campaign's challenge was two nations ruled over by humans who subject other races to their will, one owned by a evil dark lich who commanded massive undead armies and one ruled by a insane alienist king and his brother who's army specializes in their use of fiends. If you really thought the evil dark lord was ment as a entire campaign concept then I should inform you I'm much more creative then that. I might start with a simple concept but its what you build upon that concept that makes it great.





And you are not playing D&D. You are playing a d20 game using entirely homebrewed stuff. Thats fine, just don't say its D&D when you ignore 80% of the core rules.

...Since when am I ignoring 80% of the core rules? I'm using the DnD system just fine. I might ignore one or two rules at most and thats during a whole campaign. Hell I'm hardly using any homebrewed stuff at all, you're just assuming I am because I DM diffrently from you.





Whats lame and uncreative is that you can't make a world that is actually believable.

And this is why I'm going to make this my last post. This is going to get much too personal if I continue. My worlds have been perfectly beleivable and acceptable by everyone I've ever DMed. If you can't beleive them then maby you should stop being so narrow minded and try thinking in terms of story instead of levels?



And D&D is high-magic as teh default and shoudl have a couple of dozen "gandulf"s, a good number of whom regularly save the world.

Thats the standard, yup. Good old boring standard. Kill the dire rat, meet at the tavern. Save the lady from the bugbears. Yup...good old boring standard.



Yeah and if a warlord every threatened his city or if an old friend asked him to coem and deal with this bandit bothering his city? He would pop over in a heartbeat and lay down the smack then be home for dinner.

And why would he do that? Why can't the PCs learn of him in another way? Stop what apears to be a minor problem only to find a greater one that no one else is aware of? Plenty of games start off this way, hell every DnD to video game I've played has had this plot...





But they gravitate towards each other. They may make up only 1% of the worlds population but they only really deal with other adventurers.

Sure. Thats what fantasy is. A place where unlikely things happen. DnD isn't just high magic. Its high fantasy. Unlikely things happen quite a bit.






At CR 10? That could stop a scrying attempt from a 17th level wizard?

Yup. Accuse me of DM fiat if you want. I see it as simply giving the PCs a chance to actualy do something heroic without having to give them alot of power. If thats DM fiat then I gladly admit to it.






My players can achieve theirs as well. I have had 7 different campaigns end with the PC's ruling the prime material plane. They had that goal in mind from level 1 and it took them 19 more levels to accomplish it and most of the work was done in the last 5 levels. They had to be smart, lucky, creative, and careful to do it but it was doable. Hell I have even had some manage to become gods, and one even managed to become overdeity. It doesn't mean it has to happen within 1 adventure or within 2 levels.

So you play with power gamers. Noted. I think I get a good idea of where you're coming from, but I strongly prefer another place.



I never once called the player stupid. I called the DM stupid if he would let the players dethrone a powerful king at level 5. Its a perfectly valid goal, the player just shouldn't expect to accomplish it before level 18 or so.

I'd let them only because I don't see levels as a problem. Honestly I think you as a DM and your players metagame much too often.




I change campaign foci all the time to match what the players want. I don't change the world though. You want to rule the world? Sure its fine with me but don't expect it to happen before level 20 at the earliest and I will not make it any easier than normal for you to do it.

Again, too much forcus on mechanics and metagaming and power gaming. Anyways I'm done. I'm going to do some actual RPing that doesn't involve any mechanics or worries about who has the most power. Sorry I let this get so personal.

Shadow of the Sun
2006-12-24, 03:17 AM
I prefer to run sword and sorcery over high fantasy in DnD- one of Gygax's primary influences to DnD was a Sword and Sorcery book that I enjoy a lot. However, I still include a BBEG, just one that you cannot fight until you are at a level where it is believable. The BBEG could be working under the radar, causing problems in the world. I prime example of that is Morrowind- you start off doing basic kill things that are annoying our village quests, fed ex quests, etc, and over time move into bigger, more important quests that all relate to the BBEG, but he hasn't been revealed yet, all you get are hints. And when the BBEG is revealed, you have to fight him in different ways that lead to an all out encounter. Mystery in games is a good thing.

Bosh
2006-12-24, 06:41 AM
Well I think that Tippy's point of view makes a certain amount of sense if you play in a world with black and white morality. If there's somone who's obviously evil, someone who's obviously good SHOULD be helping take them out. That's why I like throwing black and white mentality out, then things make a lot more sense and there are plenty of challenges for the PCs without them (justifiably) whining "why aren't all the good high level characters taking care of it."

For example you could go George R. R. Martin-style and have the player's home village threatened by bandits/foraging soldiers/rogue mercenaries. Are there powerful lord types who could easily take out the threat and who are supposedly "good?" Sure, but they were the one who hired the foraging soldiers who are stealing all the local NPCs stuff and raped the PC's cousin. They care about putting the "true king" on the throne and don't give a **** if a couple thousand peasants die to make that happen.

Or think the real world. Have the players be something analagous to Darfuri peasants and the bad guys like the Janjiweed. Why aren't the 20th level wizards smoking the bad guys? For the same reason that all of the most powerful militaries in the world aren't doing **** about what's going on in Darfur. Maybe the 20th level "good" wizard is a mendacious idiot who is spending all of his time tracking down the dragon who tried to kill his father and doesn't give a **** if the PC's village gets massacred.

Pegasos989
2006-12-24, 09:57 AM
Well I think that Tippy's point of view makes a certain amount of sense if you play in a world with black and white morality. If there's somone who's obviously evil, someone who's obviously good SHOULD be helping take them out. That's why I like throwing black and white mentality out, then things make a lot more sense and there are plenty of challenges for the PCs without them (justifiably) whining "why aren't all the good high level characters taking care of it."

For example you could go George R. R. Martin-style and have the player's home village threatened by bandits/foraging soldiers/rogue mercenaries. Are there powerful lord types who could easily take out the threat and who are supposedly "good?" Sure, but they were the one who hired the foraging soldiers who are stealing all the local NPCs stuff and raped the PC's cousin. They care about putting the "true king" on the throne and don't give a **** if a couple thousand peasants die to make that happen.

Or think the real world. Have the players be something analagous to Darfuri peasants and the bad guys like the Janjiweed. Why aren't the 20th level wizards smoking the bad guys? For the same reason that all of the most powerful militaries in the world aren't doing **** about what's going on in Darfur. Maybe the 20th level "good" wizard is a mendacious idiot who is spending all of his time tracking down the dragon who tried to kill his father and doesn't give a **** if the PC's village gets massacred.

Doesn't require black and white morality. The feudal system had nobles who were given a lot of good stuff but the catch was that for it, they were supposed to protect the area and help the king keep order there (and help in wars too but irrelevant...).

If someone tries to conquer a city there, noble should hire a highest level npc he can find to take care of it because
a) If someone conquers the city, the previous owner no longer controls it
b) The king could take away their position if they can't keep up the order

BnF95
2006-12-24, 10:05 AM
Out of curiousity, why do the PCs have to encounter the Dark Lord / Evil Leader immediately? My campaigns tend to last at least 35 sessions (normally 50+ sessions) there is time to encounter a minor minion, and another, etc. etc., working their way up the ladder (gaining experience and loot) before eventually meeting the bad guy (if ever).

Pegasos989
2006-12-24, 10:09 AM
Out of curiousity, why do the PCs have to encounter the Dark Lord / Evil Leader immediately? My campaigns tend to last at least 35 sessions (normally 50+ sessions) there is time to encounter a minor minion, and another, etc. etc., working their way up the ladder (gaining experience and loot) before eventually meeting the bad guy (if ever).

Exactly, which is what Tippy has been saying, I think.

At low levels, they save the hamlet from the minion and at high levels, the city or country from BBEG.

Emperor Tippy
2006-12-24, 10:28 AM
Exactly, which is what Tippy has been saying, I think.

At low levels, they save the hamlet from the minion and at high levels, the city or country from BBEG.

Exactly.

The world exists. The PC's can have what ever goal that they dream up. I as the DM will get them in to situations where this goal becomes possible. I will not change the world so that they get their goal accomplished within a coupel of levels.

My point in this whole thing was "Sure, you can kill the "All Powerful Dark Warlord, but he isn't CR 10 just because you are level 6. He is CR 17 and will stay CR 17 until you kill him or someone else kills him"

Telok
2006-12-24, 10:33 AM
I always start at level 3.

It prevents accidentally killing characters with a CR 1/4 encounter. It allows for both planned and unplanned character growth. It generally prevents those "All of those stack?!?!" sort of moments and allows you to adjust to anything like them that occurs as the characters level.

Start small and local, build from there. That's my preference.

AaronH
2006-12-24, 10:36 AM
You know, I have started campaigns at LVL 1 and LVL 10, and I have never seen a campaign go above 17. Personally, I prefer level 1 for long running games, and lvl 10 for short little mini-adventures. If your DM can't keep you engaged and produce enjoyable adventures at LvL 1, he is a hack. There are plenty of "heroic" things to do at early Levels that aren't earth shattering. Keep in mind, your world effects how the game is played to, while in Faerun a 10th lvl warlord isn't ****, in other gameworlds a 10th LvL warlord is hot ****. Likewise, if the world is crawling with higher level foes, no doubt, the higher level foes maybe be dealing with higher level encounters, and see the lower level situations as beneath them.

I am reminded of a story about a group of low level PCs who were working for a high level wizard, and when the wizard gave them a hard task that was going to take a long time, they asked the wizard why he doesn't do it. The wizard responded: "Ok, I will handle the orc encampement, and you can go to the portal to the Abyss and hold off the hordes of demons that are currently pouring through." You see my point?

There are just tons of options for low level PCs, and while I agree, PCs are a bit too squishy at lvls 1 and 2, most of the campaigns I have played in had as past those levels pretty quickly with only mildly dangerous adventures.

Saph
2006-12-24, 10:50 AM
Start at level 1, almost always. It means you get to 'grow up' with a character, and it's much more forgiving than the higher levels - it's almost impossible to get insta-killed by a CR 1 monster. I'd always start at level 1 if it's going to be a long-running campaign.

D&D gets more and more broken at higher levels. Casters are far too powerful, and save-or-die spells are just no fun. (I'm not even going to mention no-save spells.) One look at some of the builds listed on these boards should make the problems with high-level play really obvious.

I'd be dubious about joining any game at levels 10-15, and I've never once seen a good game of levels 15-20.

- Saph

Matthew
2006-12-24, 10:59 AM
Low levels are my preferred starting point as a DM and as a Player, overwhelmingly first.

amanodel
2006-12-24, 11:16 AM
Level 1-3 is my preference, altough it's annoying to get killed by a lucky gobling sling. For random sessions I always like to go 1-3 level. For those levels I don't even ask a bakground longer than two sentences.

If I have a more "epic" storyline, then I usually give my players 5-8 level to work with. That's enough to get a decent caster (who can do other things than accidentally colorspraying his group), an able meelee build (with more than one feat), or a rogue who can actually use her skills. They can even consider multiclassing or taking a PrC. Much more colorful the game gets with those things. Altough in those cases I require a decent background as well.

So either 1-3 for mostly tabletop games, or 5-8 for mostly PbP games where you don't level up very fast.

(For higher levels? If one could write a dozen books with his backstory, then I'd allow 15+ level campaigns, but that's not the case. I kinda get into d&d by Salvatore, and I like to use his characters levels as a guideline for power. For example Bruenor Bhammer is like 12-13th level. So unless you have a lost dwarven kingdom which you re-fought several times, haven't changed the country you're living in drastically, than you're not allowed to build a character that strong. Or Artemis Entreri. Level 18, he's the coolest, most badass assassin all over Faerun. You can't have a character from the thin air anywhere to his strenght. Even the +2LA "D" superhero from Salvatore is CR 18. He gained at least 6 levels in that dozen books about him. And as my general guildeline, one cannot be a better swordsman than D, so you're not allowed to build something with that much level, only if you wrote that much backstory (Read: never). )

Pegasos989
2006-12-24, 11:31 AM
Oh yeah, to topic... I chose 1-5. I generally start at level 2 because then we have the 900gp (not the fooling around with dice to get 70-130gp) wealth, chance of instakill by a lucky crit is a bit smaller but still existant, etc.

I now have started a campaign at level 4, because the pcs are fugitives and will be tried to hunt down, so they need to be a bit stronger to survive bounty hunters, trackers, military...

Emperor Tippy
2006-12-24, 11:47 AM
My god you really like to pick apart every post you dislike. I barely had any text there and you still managed all that.
Not every post I dislike. Just the ones that have multiple points.



A warlord can be many things. Yes it implied ability to battle, but who said hes limited to that? Clerics can battle too.
Fine its a cleric. The good wizard would come and lay down the smack still. It doesn't change anything at all.



No see its *easily* beleivable.
Yes but yours is quite unbelievable. Nothing would be considered all powerful at CR 10. I have never taken issue with making it a warlord, he just won't be an "All Powerful Dark Warlord".


Honestly if your so narrow minded that you can't look beyond CRs then thats really something you should try getting over.
Play one of my games some time. I go way beyond CR's for flavor. That doesn't mean that at CR 10 a baddie is referred to as the "All Powerful Dark Warlord", he would be "that minor warlord with a penchant for torture".


I can easilly beleive it, my players can, I'm sure many people can. If you can't then thats you.
I can easily believe a warlord threatening a town but it is very hard to believe that a CR 10 guy is an "All Powerful Dark Warlord" who is a threat to a city or a nation. I have never taken issue with him being a warlord, just with calling him all powerful and later with you saying that you would change the CR of the most powerful king around so that a level 5 party could kill him.



No it isn't. The CR has nothing to do with a challenge flavor wise in my games.
It should though. At least in scale.

I use these bands:
Levels 1-5: Town bully, some animals on the loose, Little Billy has just started making stuff blow up with some newly found magical power and he needs to be stopped before he blows up the town.

Levels 6-10: A dire bear is threatening a village, a minor warlord is on the loose in the area and has captured a couple of hostages from the village so that they give him food, an orc raiding party has been sighted.

Levels 11-15: Some magical beast is on the loose and needs to be stopped, the local wizard has started doing something evil, a noble has come in and is being a pain, the city needs a couple of people to do something that they can't be seen doing and higher's you.

Level 16-20: Save a city, save a nation, lead an army in a huge war, slay a dragon.

Or something of equal difficultly for all of the above bands. All powerful warlord fits in the most powerful band.



If it does in yours great, you worry more about mechanics then roleplay. Thats your choice.
That made me laugh. Play one of my games and tell me that I honestly care about mechanics at all. My games are almost entirely RP.




Again I ask why not? You're not giving me any proof as to why not you're just repeating yourself and saying "no...No it can't cause it doesn't make sense" but the thing is it does.
All Powerful is not CR 10. That is what I take issue with. The warlord part is fine. Just don't have him threatening a city or be called all powerful.


In a village of CR 1/2 commoners a CR 2 orc is a major threat.
Yeah and if the commoners pull out the heavy crossbows or their hunting bows they can fill him with arrows easily. A bunch of them would be a threat but a single 1 would be an annoyance.


In a city with CR 1 guards a CR 10 warlord is a large threat.
Not really. Send 20 CR 1 guards and it will be a pretty decent threat to the warlord. Not to mention that based on the DMG population tables that city would have a level 12 or so wizard and a couple of clerics of that level. and some fighters.



No, I don't try and make it as realistic as I can because its a *fantasy* game.
Yes its fantasy. That is how the world is. The players are its heros. That doesn't mean that they go and kill the "All powerful Dark Warlord" at level 6. Or that City X is going to allow that warlord to threaten them.


If I want realistic I'll play d20 modern or arcana where a well placed sword or bullet can actualy kill you in one hit.
I don't mean that kind of realistic. Suspension of Beleif covers that kind of stuff, it doesn't cover a puny warlord being called all powerful and the players being a threat to him.

Lets take you example again. The "All Powerful Dark Warlord" is CR 10 and was a huge threat to City X. The PC's kill Mr. "All Powerful Dark Warlord". The PC's now have the power to be a threat to the city. The PC's decide that they want to rule the city. Do you let them? And if not how do you justify them being stopped?


DnD is bad if you want realism.
Yes and no.



Only if you allow there to be.
Who made that magical armor or sword or scribed those scrolls of 9th level spells? The point it that at the default magic level for D&D, you can't easily justify no high levels casters being around. I have done it before but it requires a lot of work and has very far reaching consequences.


Why would there be? What if this is a low adventure world were only the most legendary wizards reach that amount of power?
Even at 1% of 1%, 1 in a ten thousand reaches those power levels. Even if 1% of those are wizards then 1 in a million people in the world are at that power level. You have about 1 per nation.




I just said. Its a low adventure world were magic is rare.
It is not standard D&D then.


Were it actualy takes a long long time to study and those who know it guard it from the masses for it could be dangerious in the wrong hands. Magic isn't readily available.
Every one of those statements is a huserule and you are not playing standard D&D as it is written in the core rule books.


Its hard to master and very few people can measure up to it. In a world of int 10 commoners I imagine there would be very few who could know any arcane magic and those who could would not always find they're possible calling.
1% of the population becomes adventurers. 1% of those live to high level. 1% of those are casters. It is still 1 in a million. Middle Age Earth had about 100 million people on it. That is 100 casters of the required power level. They have teleport so the whole world is basically their back yard.




Again, only if the DM lets these things happen. As a DM you're making a story for your players and if you want them to get beaten up by a house cat and say most things from the MM exist then go ahead and have them be weak.
Below level 10 the players are weak compared to most things in the MM.


Alternavely you can have monsters be rare, realize that a house cat can do at most 1 damage and will miss on most attacks so no, it can't kill most players before level 3 (I've had this conversation before).
Ignoring the MM means that you ignore at least 33% of the core rules. What is the point at which it stops being D&D?



Rules wich you yourself make. Being a DM is convient like that.
Yes you make them. But your world should be made independent of the PC's. You make the world be as "realistic" as possible and then the PC's are added to it.




I'm saying as a DM you can do it with little problem. For some reason you seem to think there are standards every DM must include in his world, but there isn't. A DM can make the world however he wants it.




Only if you only pay attention to mechanics and CR.
If you don't pay attention to those things then you have ceased playing D&D.


If you even have nations that big. Even so even in most games world I'd say 1 in several million is more likely.
1 in 1 million means that an earth with 10 billion people would only have 10,000 people of that power level. That is incredibly rare.


As you said, most level ones die very easily so getting to level 17 should be nearly impossible.
1% of 1% of 1% is nearly impossible. It does happen though.


Especialy since most arcanists don't have the guidance of metagaming that PCs have so they know a spell might be more powerful then another and know the basics of what it does, but they wouldn't know the advanced mechanics a player does that allows them to make ubber chars.
Yes they would. I challenge you to play a Int 30 wizard correctly. You can't do it. You are simply not that intelligent and neither am I. Also that wizard is trained in magic, he most assuredly knows more about it than you or I ever could. And he has Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft in the high 30's at least.


So yeah, I'd say a level 17 would be rare enough that they could easily not even exist.
Not really.




By using magic that has no mechanic effect but exists flavor wise. Call it DM fiat if you want.
What exactly would you call it if not DM fiat?


I call it being creative and going beyond the rules to achieve a goal.
There is a difference between going beyond the rules and ignoring the rules. You are ignoring the rules.


Honestly if you want to stick to the rules so much go ahead, but I prefer to ignore them once in awhile and just do things my way.
And you have ceased playing D&D. I'm fine with that, jsut don't claim that it is D&D.



So your world isn't for the players then? See, mine is.
The world exists. The players are people on that world. The Players are incredibly lucky but they are still on that world. Just because the player decides that down is now up does not make it so. "My goal is to reverse gravity permanently and on a world wide scale". That doesn't mean that I would let you do it at level 10.



No see, in my worlds...I ignore what level the PCs and enemies are in favor of making adventures that the PCs can do and still look heroic.
Killing the dire bear still looks heroic to the village and the surrounding area.


The characters shouldn't be aware of their level anyways.
Yeah but they do know their relative power levels. Which are what levels represent so.


If I went from level 1 to 10 I'd certain think I could take on a dragon with all the experience I've had.
The kings army was slaughtered by that dragon 5 years ago. Am I more powerful than the kings army? No. So can I take on the dragon? No.


Why should I think otherwise?
See above.



You know if we left levels out of this and talked about this like it was a story rather then a game this conversation would be alot diffrent.
Not really. Look at any series of books in a high fantasy setting. Wheel of Time. Sword of Truth. Robert Jordan's books. The main character starts off with something small and ends up later on being incredible powerful and heroic. How many stories of High Fantasy have the main character start off with a "save the world" mission? Very Few.


I'm going to do that. If the PCs want to kill the king even though they're inexperienced that makes them more unlikely villains/heros to me then weak idiots trying to kill someone.
No it makes them idiots. If you have read the Sword of Truth books, look at Richard Rahl in the first books. By the time he gets to the "King" to slay him he is one of the worlds best fighters, one of the worlds best archers, has one of the only magic swords in existence, and has knowledge that will stop the "King" from killing him. And he deceives that king. His goal from the beginning of the book was to kill that king. It took him 900 or so pages to do it and when he did it he was incredibly powerful.



I wonder how the NPCs know the PCs reached high levels exactly. Do they have a homing beacon that goes off when someone reaches level 10?
No. But the players deeds are proportionally harder and have more far reaching consequences. The adventurers who killed the king are spoken of a lot more than the adventurers who killed the bear.


Anyways, my NPCs play roles related to the PCs. They may go off and do their own thing, but they in no way are ment to overshadow the PCs. If a all powerful wizard goes and kills a dark lord for whatever reason hes overshadowing the PCs. Weither it makes sense for him to do so or not this is still true.
The point is that your world stretches belief to far. You can give reasons why the wizard would not kill the dark lord but not easily and not why the city wouldn't kill that dark lord.



Of course not, but why do the king and his bodyguards have to be more powerful then the PCs? Why shouldn't they be able to take on the king? Again, I'd like it if you could awnser this without resorting to getting into mechanics. No mention of levels and such.
Um the king has the resources of a whole kingdom protecting him. He has a whole millitary protecting him. He has highered high level spell casters to protect him. His bodyguards are the best fighters he could find and he devoted a good part of his resources to find them. He has alliances with various other kingdoms. Your telling me that 4 little old PC's can dethrone him and get through all of that? It stretches belief to far.



...It was a crappy example challenge. The challenge of my first campaign's challenge was two nations ruled over by humans who subject other races to their will, one owned by a evil dark lich who commanded massive undead armies and one ruled by a insane alienist king and his brother who's army specializes in their use of fiends. If you really thought the evil dark lord was ment as a entire campaign concept then I should inform you I'm much more creative then that. I might start with a simple concept but its what you build upon that concept that makes it great.
Hmm. Lich is automatically CR +2. It requires a CL of 11. We are already at CR 13 and haven't even accounted for a kingdoms worth of resources.




...Since when am I ignoring 80% of the core rules? I'm using the DnD system just fine. I might ignore one or two rules at most and thats during a whole campaign.
Ignoring most monsters in the MM is ignoring at least 20% of the rules. Since you have no high level casters to make magic items you have to throw out a good portion of the DMG. And all of that stuff about highering spellcasters. And all of those higher level spells.


Hell I'm hardly using any homebrewed stuff at all, you're just assuming I am because I DM diffrently from you.
Ignoring rules it the same as homebrew.




And this is why I'm going to make this my last post. This is going to get much too personal if I continue. My worlds have been perfectly believable and acceptable by everyone I've ever DMed.
The nit is nothing like what you have been describing in this thread. You could be an excellent DM and make an entirely believable world, that is just highly unlikely based on what you have posted in this thread.


If you can't beleive them then maby you should stop being so narrow minded and try thinking in terms of story instead of levels?
Play one of my games sometime (one is recruiting right now). I ignore a lot of the rules and play mostly for story.



Thats the standard, yup. Good old boring standard. Kill the dire rat, meet at the tavern. Save the lady from the bugbears. Yup...good old boring standard.
Yes that is boring. Anyone who plays liek that is a bad DM as well (after more than a single campaign or 2 with new players).



And why would he do that?
Because "Gandaulf's" old buddy asked him to come over and deal with this annoying warlord. Or the city offered to pay him.


Why can't the PCs learn of him in another way?
Learn of who. This sentence doesn't make much sense.


Stop what apears to be a minor problem only to find a greater one that no one else is aware of?
That is fine. The thing is that a warlord bothering a city would not be counted as a minor problem. He can mess with the cities trade and that isn't good so they higher BBWD (Big bad Wizard Dude) to come and deal with the warlord 1 afternoon.


Plenty of games start off this way, hell every DnD to video game I've played has had this plot...
I never said that the game couldn't start like this.




Sure. Thats what fantasy is. A place where unlikely things happen. DnD isn't just high magic. Its high fantasy. Unlikely things happen quite a bit.
Unlikely and impossible are very different.



Yup. Accuse me of DM fiat if you want. I see it as simply giving the PCs a chance to actualy do something heroic without having to give them alot of power. If thats DM fiat then I gladly admit to it.
It is DM fiat. Saving a village is heroic to that village and after a while to maybe a couple of local villages. Saving a city is also heroic and most of the nation finds out about this one. Saving a nation is also heroic and most of the world finds out about your heroics. Saving the world is heroic and most of the multiverse finds out about your heroics.

It's all a matter of scale.



So you play with power gamers. Noted. I think I get a good idea of where you're coming from, but I strongly prefer another place.
Who ever said that I played with powergamers? The main character ending up in control of the world is a common theme in high fantasy. WoT, SoT, Robert Jordan's books. The list goes on and on.



I'd let them only because I don't see levels as a problem. Honestly I think you as a DM and your players metagame much too often.
Not really. How is it metagaming to think that the king is a little to big of a challenge for us little old adventurers at the moment?




Again, too much forcus on mechanics and metagaming and power gaming. Anyways I'm done. I'm going to do some actual RPing that doesn't involve any mechanics or worries about who has the most power. Sorry I let this get so personal.

I don't metagame. My players don't metagame. I don't powergame. My players don't powergame. My games are very heavy on the story, we have gone 5 levels before without a fight. And this isn't personal.

amanodel
2006-12-24, 12:28 PM
"Levels 1-5: Town bully, some animals on the loose, Little Billy has just started making stuff blow up with some newly found magical power and he needs to be stopped before he blows up the town.

Levels 6-10: A dire bear is threatening a village, a minor warlord is on the loose in the area and has captured a couple of hostages from the village so that they give him food, an orc raiding party has been sighted.

Levels 11-15: Some magical beast is on the loose and needs to be stopped, the local wizard has started doing something evil, a noble has come in and is being a pain, the city needs a couple of people to do something that they can't be seen doing and higher's you.

Level 16-20: Save a city, save a nation, lead an army in a huge war, slay a dragon."

I wholehearedly disagree with that. By level 11-15 you are amongst the best of your class in the world, and probably the best in your town/country. For refenrence, see the FRCS. Forgotten Realms is pretty high-powered, yet there are important NPC's even below tenth level. By that level you shouldn't be some errand boy. 16-20th level characters are not only saving some cities or the like, but they are forging the world. Or think of Baldur's Gate: you intervine with the fate of two countries in a fight with your destiny when you're 1-7 levels. Was Sarevok not an "all powerful evil warlord"? He was, and pretty damn good at it.

By my point of view a character with 10 PC class levels shouldn't be called "minor", nor should they have encounters with an orc raiding party.

When thinking on things like that you should see references. Of course if you want to play in a world where even the commoners are gestalt wiz/ftr level 12, than the level 6 fighter is not a warlord. But in a world where the vast majority of the people have 4 hp, a 6th level fighter is a master swordsman with unmatched skills, and can easily be an "all powerful evil warlord". Sure Elminster could kick his ass in half of a move action, but he's not around. This fact leaves your 4th level party to fight with the warlord and his goblin and orc minions.


edit:

In my opinion characters should do something really important by the time they hit 8th -9th level. It's only a matter of the DM to handle out such quests. A 6th level party can save the world from an evil artifact by destroying it in a secret underground kabal's headquarters, or handle the owlbear menace that befell on the local countryside. I strongly prefer the first one, but as I said it's up to the DM.

danielf
2006-12-24, 12:29 PM
i like when it start with 4+ level

Myatar_Panwar
2006-12-24, 12:43 PM
Ok, so a 10th level whatever can be a warlord. And 10 level 1's would have a hell of a time getting past his many many guards. Plus, who said he had to be a warlord because of his own strength? He could have manipulated others to the point where he eventually became a warlord. He could have level 15 followers who are completly devoted to him and his cause. Or he could even have an all powerfull artifact that was forged before the begining of time. Have you read the Drizzt books? Remember Akar Kessel, the Tyrant of Icewind Dale?


Now back on topic, I like to start campains at around levels 1-8. It alows the players to grow into their characters and be proud of their acomplishments when they finally can slay that dragon.

pestilenceawaits
2006-12-24, 12:47 PM
I love the low levels as a DM and player. Every monster in the book is a threat I love earning those levels and the gradual power build.

Wizzardman
2006-12-24, 01:18 PM
Levels 3-5.

Lower levels are more fun for me--they're more challenging, as you have less hp, so you're more likely to get into trouble. At the same time, 1st level is too little, and indicates that you haven't really had any training or experience before setting off. I, personally, wouldn't set off on adventures [with their naturally high death rates] before I have at least a little bit of experience. And I would think that anyone over the age of 12 would have at least a bit roleplaying experience under their belts, so they should be at least level 2.

Then again, I also prefer low-level settings--in my opinion, they're much more realistic. I like games where the level 10 warlord is amazingly powerful--not because level 10 is amazing, but because only one person in a million is above level 8. Heck, according to the standard rules in the DMG, almost everyone inside a city is less than level 5. If you manage to make it up to the higher levels in one of my games, you find that you really are bad ***. Monsters bigger than you are friggin rare, most kings will pay to keep you on their side--or use you as powerful weapons against their enemies, and the Planes themselves are within you're grasp.

Aasimar
2006-12-24, 01:54 PM
Unless it's for a very specific short term campaign, or if the whole point is to play with races with LA, I'd never start higher than level 3. Preferably 1 or 2.

Also, I don't believe you'd group levels between 1-5 in the same answer. To me it makes a huge difference whether we're starting at level 3 or 5.

Third level is in my view the last chance to really look at your character as 'still starting out'. And I just don't get the same experience from playing a character that was 'handed to me' well into his adventuring career, as I do from playing him from the start and into the higher levels.

The characters develop a lot more personality if you go with them from the start.

Kaerou
2006-12-24, 01:55 PM
1-3 is the best bet for most games that you want to start a campaign around. A real game that is.

If you're just having a quick adventure and dont plan on sticking to the game for long.. usually around 7-10

Pegasos989
2006-12-24, 02:45 PM
Tippy, BTW, while I generally agree with you, I must note that it is a bit more campaign setting specific than you seem to say. I wholeheartedly agree that at level 6 you would not be saving cities, not to mention countries.
However, I have several times ran settings where NPCs over level 10 start getting less common. I currently run a game in which there is a large city with only three NPCs over level 10. In this setting, the level 10 warlord would be worth noting (actually, BBEG is level 12 fighter).
Naturally you do not need to argue from the point of view "Some DMs might choose not to use standard guidelines of DMG and several settings" but just keep in mind that the option exists.

Matthew
2006-12-24, 07:39 PM
There is no Level X may only accomplish Y deeds rule. Mind you power creep in 3.x does gravitate towards this sort of stuff. All the same, I don't see why a party couldn't save a city before Level 6.

amanodel
2006-12-24, 08:03 PM
Whoa... I share an opinion with Matthew. We must celebrate this ;D

Matthew
2006-12-24, 08:10 PM
Heh. I am sure we share many other opinions, but let us celebrate nonetheless!

Golthur
2006-12-24, 09:04 PM
First level fun, without question; both as a player and as a DM. :smile:

Necomancer
2006-12-24, 10:57 PM
I like how alot of people understood my point as soon as I gave up trying to make it. :D

My apology was mostly for getting too personal myself, Tippy. I did get insulting a few times and shouldn't have. Sorry about that.

Saithis Bladewing
2006-12-24, 11:55 PM
I like to start at lower levels overwhelmingly before the higher ones. It gives the characters a real feeling of accomplishment and development as they progress - I know I treasure a high level wizard I took from level one more than one who just started at 15+.

Gralamin
2006-12-25, 01:15 AM
1-5 for me. And if oyu want a tough BBEG thats less then CR 17, try Count Strahd *shudder*

Darkwolf
2006-12-25, 02:50 AM
I prefer to start at low levels and work up. A matter of the journey being half the fun.

Besides I can stat out a powerful hi-level character, but he's just a bunch of stats with no personality, I mean how did he get there, what adventures have made him what he is? Influenced his leveling decisions?

I've lost 'squishy' lo-level characters and it sucks. But the ones who make it are that much more memorable, in my mind at least.

erewhon
2006-12-25, 03:44 AM
I like starting in the 15-16 range.

I've done the low levels to DEATH. Then I went and played most every other genre there is. If I don't wanna re-crawl every freakin' dungeon again, time to get up and play with the good toys. :)

That said, the huge majority of the canned content out there is aimed at low level games. It is not especially DIFFICULT to re-tool for higher level material, but it would be a lot easier if the game worlds were designed from the get-go for it.

I mean, the terrasque is supposed to be badass? How stupid is it to place such a "marker" in your game world?

Well, let's be honest, the terrasque was a relic left over from the early days of the game development that should have been removed or completely re-written. Sadly, the current folks running the DnD show aren't exactly strong on foresight or creativity. :(

They are awesome at cleaning up and clarifying rules. Not so good at creating rational content.

Renegade Paladin
2006-12-25, 04:01 AM
I pretty much refuse to play at level 1 ever again.

The mid levels are a good starting point, 7-10. There's still some semblance of balance, but there's room to work with build-wise and you're not afraid of kobolds.
Not afraid of kobolds? HAH! Try playing in one of the games our group's other primary DM runs; he will make you quake in your boots at the sight of kobolds. Or lack thereof when you know they should be there. :smallamused:

Necomancer
2006-12-25, 04:28 AM
I like starting in the 15-16 range.

I've done the low levels to DEATH. Then I went and played most every other genre there is. If I don't wanna re-crawl every freakin' dungeon again, time to get up and play with the good toys. :)

That said, the huge majority of the canned content out there is aimed at low level games. It is not especially DIFFICULT to re-tool for higher level material, but it would be a lot easier if the game worlds were designed from the get-go for it.

I mean, the terrasque is supposed to be badass? How stupid is it to place such a "marker" in your game world?

Well, let's be honest, the terrasque was a relic left over from the early days of the game development that should have been removed or completely re-written. Sadly, the current folks running the DnD show aren't exactly strong on foresight or creativity. :(

They are awesome at cleaning up and clarifying rules. Not so good at creating rational content.

Congrats for being the first and only one to vote on the 15-20 option! You get a cookie that looks like a ginger bread tarresque.

Dervag
2006-12-25, 06:47 AM
I think that low-level starts are best for long-term campaigns, and I like long-term campaigns. I think PCs should start off with a sense of being less powerful than a lot of the entities around them. They should feel outgunned by the city watch. They should run away from the ferocious band of ogres. And so on.

This teaches the characters valuable lessons and gives a lot of insight into their personality- you never learn more about someone than you do when you watch them cope with serious danger or pressure.

It also gives the players a 'reference' that connects their characters with realistic experiences. It's easier to get into the mind of your character when he has a big problem getting up a twenty-foot wall (just like you probably would). That experience of having a character who faces problems on a scale similar to your own helps you develop that character in ways that are very difficult when the character starts out too powerful for you to really feel.

That said...


Yeah its heroic to save a village but its not that heroic and if you are saving a city at less than level 10, well for me, it just stretches believability to far. I mean, the city should have an NPC or 5 who can do the same thing.If the quest is "Oh no! Somebody has to kill the giant monster before it eats Townsville!" then yes, you're absolutely right.

However, it is quite possible for the heroes to save the city by being in the right place at the right time and performing subtle action that nobody else knew was necessary. I once ran a science fiction RPG campaign in which the party saved a large space station on their very first joint adventure by pursuing a group of saboteurs to one of the reactor rooms and preventing them from rigging the power plant to blow.


and beleive it or not not all settings have level 20 NPCs walking around in every city. I know many DMs who have the PCs be very powerful when compared to most other people even when they're low level. I know one person who said level 15 was godly in his world.On the other hand, level 5 NPCs should almost certainly exist, and level 10 NPCs should probably exist too, if not in great numbers. So at very low levels, the PCs will still not be the equals of the most powerful people around them.

In my opinion, it is very important that the PCs spend most of the game in a situation where they can potentially get their butts kicked if they pick a fight with the wrong guy. If they decide to attack the king in his throne room with his guards present at level three or four, they deserve to get their heads handed to them. So I, for one, would keep the challenge-scaling to a limit. If you decide to go get into a fight with the general commanding the army that you are a low-level scout for... you should lose, even though you're the PC and the campaign is PC-oriented.

Some challenges should be overwhelming.


Personaly I have the world reflect the current level of the party, if they attempt to take on a king who legends say should be very very strong, and the players are low level, I make all their challenges equal to their level.That leads to two problems. One is that you keep having to level up all your NPCs to match the party; the other is that the PCs never learn restraint. As far as I can tell, your PCs never encounter anything stronger than they are.


Same. As are most peoples games. But that doesn't mean that I have to make the game utterly unrealistic. And a level 10 fighter being a "All Powerful Dark Warlord" is utterly unrealistic. It simply stretches suspension of disbelief to far. Why is he all powerful when a level 15 wizard is a lot more powerful, and at level 10 he won't be much of a warlord.And a deity is even more powerful. Therefore, by your argument, wouldn't an "All Powerful Dark Warlord" have to be a deity instead of a level 15 wizard? After all, "why is [a level 15 wizard] all powerful when a deity is a lot more powerful?"

The idea that the villain doesn't have to be the most powerful imaginable being has nothing to do with suspension of disbelief. All the villain has to be is strong enough to beat his enemies. Let's say that there aren't any wizards above 11th or 12th level. Maybe the kind of high wizardry that lets you cast greater teleport and wish is a thing of the past.

A 10th level fighter can survive attacks that no ordinary person would stand a chance against. He can kill dozens of ordinary soldiers in combat, one-on-one or in groups. He can kill huge monsters- maybe not the most gigantic of dragons, but things that would leave us mere mortals wetting our pants and running away. With Leadership, there's nothing to stop him from having a massive army of powerful henchmen and minions.

Why can't a 10th level fighter terrorize a city? Sure, he probable couldn't flatten the place single-handedly. Neither could Ghengis Khan. But Ghengis Khan was still scary as all get-out, and he conquered a larger empire than almost anybody else in history ever managed.


I do it to. I just also have more powerful NPC's in the world. And they take a roll.OK, but that doesn't make the alternative ridiculous. There don't have to be 15th or 20th level characters in a setting. And the PCs don't have to start at 10th level to enjoy the game. First level characters can be just as roleplaying-oriented as tenth level characters.


Actually most should have at least 1 or 2 unless there is an in world reason for them to not be around. Your players will not be the only adventurers ever. What about last generations adventurers?Is adventuring necessarily normal?

D&D make rules for adventurers. But D&D is often set in a world where most people are not adventuring. As the Giant points out on this very website in his Play Theory articles, most people don't adventure for very good reasons. It's dangerous. Getting attacked by monsters hurts, and you might get killed or crippled. It's hard work, it's not necessarily rewarding, and there's a high death rate for NPCs who aren't going out with a DM watching over them to make sure they don't accidentally stumble upon an ogre warband at second level.

There are a lot of ways to design very good game worlds in which the basic assumption is that most levelled NPCs are just good enough to do whatever it is that they need to do in their normal careers. The village spellcaster only needs to be third to fifth level; it's hard to explain where he would get the XP to go higher. The captain of the city watch needs to be at most tough enough to take on a gang singlehandedly. He doesn't need to be higher than sixth level or so. The royal court wizard can be very impressive and effective at ninth or tenth level. Maybe he did a lot of dangerous adventuring to get to that point, and then very sensibly decided to accept a cushy job in a castle instead of wandering around looking for liches and demons to fight.

In a world like that, there wouldn't be many extremely high level characters. Most people get 'promoted to their level of incompetence' sooner or later; eventually they find themselves at a level of power and responsibility that represents their limit. There is no compelling reason to expect the world of D&D to be any different. Just because there's a mechanism for describing 20th level characters doesn't mean that there are any.



And I used a CR 10 bear. The difference is that one is believable and the other isn't. See if you can tell which is which.And I choose 'both'. A bear that is CR 10 (capable of taking out a platoon of armed soldiers all by itself) is no more or less believable than a 10th-level fighter (also capable of taking out a platoon all by himself) who happens to be in command of a massive army of minions with large numbers of supporting casters and powerful monsters.


No you can't. He is not all powerful at CR 10. He may be a minor bandit leader who is bothering a single village or 2 but that is about it. He would never be a threat to a city or even a large town.Wait... why can't he be a threat. Can't he have an army? His army may very well be a threat of CR 12 to 15 taken all together, because it contains lots and lots of low-level troops combined with a number of higher-level monsters. And a CR of, say, 13 could quite plausibly menace a city. It might not menace your cities, because your cities have guys at Elminster power levels wandering around protecting them. But it would certainly menace a real medieval city, or cities in any number of campaigns that other people set up without being stupid or crazy.


Why exactly wouldn't the wizard exist? Start naming reasons. There isn't any reason short of DM fiat that he wouldn't exist in a regular D&D world.The whole world exists by DM fiat in the first place. If I want to create a world in which there are no NPCs over tenth level, I can. Just like I can create a world where plate armor hasn't been invented yet, or where there aren't any elves, or where saying certain words causes a demon to appear and tear you to pieces.

Creating a world with no NPCs over level 10 isn't stupid or crazy; I gave reasons why I might do that above. Of course, if the PCs end up going above 10th level themselves, that might change. Maybe some of the more powerful NPCs will start duplicating their techniques.


Because until level 3 a house cat is a threat to a wizard. At level 5 most things in the MM can slaughter your party easily. At level 10 a city is expected to have at least 1 level 13 wizard who could prollyl destroy your party on his own. Uberpower isn't reached until near epic. It simply isn't.That's because most of the things in the Monster Manual are actually designed to challenge 10th and 15th level parties. There's a good reason for that. If the Monster Manual didn't have lots of CR 10 and 15 monsters, playing past about 10th level would get really boring. But just because those monsters exist in the Monster Manual doesn't mean that they exist in a hypothetical game world, or that they should exist in that game world.

By what standards is a city 'expected' to have a level 13 wizard? You seem to expect everyone to follow your idea of how to construct a campaign, or to follow the guidelines posed in the DM Guide. What if I don't want to fulfill your expectations about how many powerful wizards there ought to be? What if my campaign has cities that aren't exactly like the stereotype found in the DM Guide?


1 in 100,000 is incredibly rare. For reference, someone that rare would be one of only 70,000 in the whole world of seven billion. In a D&D world of 100 million you would have 100 people of that power level.You might want to recount your zeroes there.

That 1 in 100,000 figure is made up, anyway. Why one in 100,000 and not one in 100,000,000? Maybe the PC wizard is that one in 100,000,000. Maybe only one person in 100,000 has the 'inner spark' it takes to be a wizard at all. Maybe there are only a few hundred wizards in the world to begin with, and they only take on just enough apprentices to replace themselves. It would break D&D entirely if everyone intelligent enough to cast spells was a wizard, so there are clearly some factors that restrict wizardry among the population.

And who says that a 10th level warlord and his forces can't be a threat to a city guarded by a 13th level wizard? Maybe the city's wizard gets poisoned by the warlord's assassins as a prelude to his invasion.
[Yes, I know, wizards have defenses against that. But intelligent villains will look for ways to get around their enemies' defenses, and they may succeed even against an opponent who would beat them in a straight fight.]


No my world is like nature. Utterly indifferent to the players. Just because the players are level 20 does not mean that all of the sudden their will be 500 level 17+ wizard in the world when their was only 2 in the world at level 10. The PC's can change the world but the world is not a being that changes for the PC's. That's a good way to do it, I think. But setting things up like that doesn't have to mean making the most powerful wizard in the world 17th level, or making the king a 15th level fighter.


*Sigh*. I question yours. You can't come up with a challenge besides a generic "All Powerful Dark Warlord"? I came up with an equal challenge that is utterly believable. A bear on the loose? Easily a threat to a village. A warlord on the loose? Will be dealt with by the wizard because he could be a threat to the city.Unless, again, the warlord deals with the wizard first, which he might very well be able to do.


Whats lame and uncreative is that you can't make a world that is actually believable.No, he can't make a world you can imagine. There seems to be a big difference.


And D&D is high-magic as teh default and shoudl have a couple of dozen "gandulf"s, a good number of whom regularly save the world.So I'm somehow playing D&D wrong if I don't do it that way? I'm afraid that I don't see your reasoning.


Zykon is an all powerful dark lord. He commands a hoard. And has killed a epic or almost epic wizard already. That is "All Powerful Dark Warlord" material. Some piddling CR 10 fighter? Thats maybe a lieutenant in the "All Powerful Dark Warlord"'s forces.And yet, a party of characters that seem to be around 10th level or so, who actually run from ogres and bands of goblins, managed to defeat Zykon. What does that say about Zykon's CR?


My point in this whole thing was "Sure, you can kill the "All Powerful Dark Warlord, but he isn't CR 10 just because you are level 6. He is CR 17 and will stay CR 17 until you kill him or someone else kills him"That's very reasonable. But it makes just as much sense for him to be a CR 13 villain that the Order of the Stick can defeat as for him to be a CR 17 villain that it takes a level 15 party to defeat, as long as I make the average power level in this world to fit. That isn't necessarily changing the world to fit the PCs, that's just defining the amount of power that exists in the world.


Yeah and if the commoners pull out the heavy crossbows or their hunting bows they can fill him with arrows easily. A bunch of them would be a threat but a single 1 would be an annoyance.Do the commoners have a lot of heavy crossbows and bows? What if they have the same kind of weapons that an ordinary historical medieval village had? In that case, they're taking on a CR 2 orcish berserker, somebody who could pose a serious threat to four second level characters, with only clubs and hatchets. That's a good way for several villagers to die. So yes, the CR orc can be a threat in a very reasonable campaign setting that any openminded person can imagine very easily.


Who made that magical armor or sword or scribed those scrolls of 9th level spells?People who died a thousand years ago when Atlantis sank beneath the waves, perhaps?

It isn't perfectly standard D&D, but nobody has to use the default if they don't want to.


Even at 1% of 1%, 1 in a ten thousand reaches those power levels. Even if 1% of those are wizards then 1 in a million people in the world are at that power level. You have about 1 per nation.Again, what if becoming a wizard requires you to study for a few years under an existing wizard who must devote a lot of time and energy to training you? In that case, you wouldn't have one wizard in 100. You might have one wizard in 10,000. Allowing for the numbers of them that get killed off or simply stop advancing because they settle down and start doing things other than adventuring for XP, it's quite possible that there are no wizards of 17th level in a realistic world. Maybe that world doesn't use a D&D population table. But that doesn't make it unrealistic, and it doesn't mean that that world is no longer part of D&D.


It is not standard D&D then.No, it isn't stereotyped D&D. There's a huge difference.

Every one of those statements is a huserule and you are not playing standard D&D as it is written in the core rule books.So if I houserule a population table, I'm suddenly playing a completely different game?


1% of the population becomes adventurers. 1% of those live to high level. 1% of those are casters. It is still 1 in a million."1% of the population becomes adventurers?"

In that case, how come there are any enemies left? It's hard to imagine any kind of realistic world in which 1% of the population spends all their time righting wrongs and collecting huge piles of treasure. If there were enough monsters and bad guys to keep 1% of the population busy as adventurers, then the other 99% of the world wouldn't stand a chance of surviving to support those adventurers.


Ignoring the MM means that you ignore at least 33% of the core rules. What is the point at which it stops being D&D?I don't ignore the Monster Manual. I just use the monsters that aren't capable of stopping a 12th-level wizard in his tracks. There are a lot of them. Many of them are the kinds of things real people would have nightmares about- giant insects, huge ferocious humanoids, et cetera.


If you don't pay attention to those things then you have ceased playing D&D.So as soon as I houserule or interpret one thing, I'm not playing D&D?

Well then, I think I can confidently say that you aren't playing D&D either, in which case you have no better ground to stand on than I do.


Um the king has the resources of a whole kingdom protecting him. He has a whole millitary protecting him. He has highered high level spell casters to protect him. His bodyguards are the best fighters he could find and he devoted a good part of his resources to find them. He has alliances with various other kingdoms. Your telling me that 4 little old PC's can dethrone him and get through all of that? It stretches belief to far.You're absolutely right here.

The world should have CRs independent of the players; it's just that those CRs don't have to be 15 or higher for the world to be 'realistic'.


Ignoring most monsters in the MM is ignoring at least 20% of the rules.So if my world doesn't contain every monster from aboleths to zombies, I'm ignoring a part of the rules? Is it ignoring part of the rules to have a world with no dragons? The rules describe dragons, just like they describe 20th level characters and rings of three wishes and deities. That doesn't mean I have to use all those things that the world describes.


Since you have no high level casters to make magic items you have to throw out a good portion of the DMG. And all of that stuff about highering spellcasters. And all of those higher level spells.Unless, of course, the items are relics of a past civlization (a common theme in fantasy), in which case the PCs' job is to rediscover the secrets by which those things are made.


Ignoring rules it the same as homebrew.I'm not going to believe that you've never 'ignored' a rule describing something, or that you've never designed a world that simply does not contain some kind of monster. But even so, you're still playing D&D. D&D contains two sets of things.

D&D has a set of rules that describe things like the XP system, rolling to hit, and so forth.

It also has a set of guidelines and suggestions about how to play the game. These include things like the wealth-by-level system, the population tables, and the monsters in the Monster Manual. You can play D&D without using those things, because they are not the rules of the system. They are the add-on modules that make it easy to use the system even for people who lack the time or ability to make stuff up on their own.


Play one of my games sometime (one is recruiting right now). I ignore a lot of the rules and play mostly for story.I, for one, would never want to. You sound like you have very firm ideas about how other people ought to behave, and your language gets snippy when people don't obey those ideas. I wouldn't want to play with a DM like that.


Learn of who. This sentence doesn't make much sense.Pot? Meet kettle.

Saph
2006-12-25, 09:29 AM
I think that low-level starts are best for long-term campaigns, and I like long-term campaigns. I think PCs should start off with a sense of being less powerful than a lot of the entities around them. They should feel outgunned by the city watch. They should run away from the ferocious band of ogres. And so on.

This teaches the characters valuable lessons and gives a lot of insight into their personality- you never learn more about someone than you do when you watch them cope with serious danger or pressure.

Exactly. It's much more fun watching a party grow from being less powerful than everything around it, to able to handle the things around it, to the higher levels. It gives the players something to aim for and it's the best grounding for developing long-running characters. If you create a character at high levels, then unless you put a LOT of work into their backstory, they just come into existence stronger than nearly everyone else in the world. Which feels a bit unsatisfying to me.

There's also the fact that high-level characters have ridiculous amounts of abilities. A 15th-level specialist wizard gets almost 50 spells a day, plus many more in his spellbook. That's without taking into account his feats, skills, familiar, scrolls, rods, wands, wondrous items, permanent magical effects, etc. If you just jump in and start playing him at level 15, it's almost certainly going to take you a good few sessions before you can keep everything straight in your head, which gives the odd result of the supposedly competent, intelligent and experienced adventurer constantly forgetting what powers he has. If you've taken that character all the way from level 1, you'll be an expert at using him by the time he's level 15, and he'll have a proper history, too.

- Saph

Conjurer
2006-12-25, 05:13 PM
Levels 1 to 3 are fine starting points for campaigns. The process of building a character into the mid and high levels is just as fun as playing said character at higher levels. I honestly think that people who start playing at higher levels are missing a lot (of course, there are situations in long term campaigns that make this inevitable... but I guess you get my point)

Catharsis
2006-12-25, 08:20 PM
I've never played high-end levels, and somehow I can't imagine it being all that fun. With magic becoming way overpowered and unpredictable, and monsters becoming impossibly deadly to hold up with the casters, the administrative effort for all those magic effects beginning to pile up... hmpf. I can see how people would want to play through a PrC (say, up to lvl 15), though those who advocate such high starting levels then often build frankensteins with several cherry-picked PrC fragments that only bloom at round 20... :rolleyes:

Would a fantasy story ever make sense if its magic system were as abusable as high-level D&D? Would Lord of the Rings have worked if Sauron and Saruman could have monitored the future of their precious plans with divination?

Scorpina
2006-12-25, 08:27 PM
1-5. As a player, I like starting at first level and letting a character evolve over (up to) twenty levels. If you start any higher than fifth (which can be just as fun, and allows for things like being multiclassed at the start of the game and playing races with up to +4 LA) you don't really get that.

As a DM, I like to start low-level as well. Mostly because it means I can get to know what the PCs can go gradually as they gain each power, rather than having to go through four or five fifteenth level sheets and pick out exactly what they've got going on. That and it's easier, and I'm a lazy bint.

Necomancer
2006-12-26, 03:49 AM
Dervag, I think I overstatet my point really. I don't constantly change the world, since I hardly ever plan a session that far in advanced. I judge whats needed by the last session. I do keep a element of danger, and do *not* let the PCs get away with amazing stupidity. If they attack the king in his throne room I'm likely to have them all knocked out and jailed. If they want to fight the king I'm likely to give them sources of way to assasinate, or ambush the king as well as ruin his reputation politicly. Most likely by libral use of theive's guilds and rebels. I'd probably make both a option.

erewhon
2006-12-26, 04:25 AM
Congrats for being the first and only one to vote on the 15-20 option! You get a cookie that looks like a ginger bread tarresque.

LOL! Well, lookit that, so it is. :) <sigh> Well, folks don't know what they're missing. The game is really very different at the top end, and the ELH is the barest launching point for the fun stuff. :D

(Crunches happily on that big dopey tarrasque cookie.)

erewhon
2006-12-26, 05:02 AM
I've never played high-end levels, and somehow I can't imagine it being all that fun.

It is definately different. It takes a strong and experienced DM, due to the lack of published material, and it takes mature players who aren't endlessly tempted by the stupid munchkinry you see splattered all over the message boards.



With magic becoming way overpowered and unpredictable,

Absolutely incorrect. It is a referrees job to prevent such silliness and abuse. But, in 3.5, the game mechanics have finally been retooled right down into the mathematics of the underlying structure to work smoothly well into the 30+ range.

The reason why so many people think the magic system is overpowered at the top end is because the guys who run the game are publishing supplements to make money, not balance the top end game. In the core mechanics, it is subtly but definately presented that there is a defense for every offense, and the defense is less expensive.

Yes, magic is very potent at the top end, but once the cash starts flowing nicely, everyone quickly develops defenses against practically EVERYTHING, as being endlessly mouse-trapped is a dull game indeed, and you'd be astonished the creativity that gets applied to defenses, quickly. :)


and monsters becoming impossibly deadly to hold up with the casters,

Heh. The published mobs in the ELH are NASTY, but generally rely way too much on special attacks. And honestly, there really aren't any high-level to Epic mobs with any serious development work behind them, aside from Dragons, and the big scaly lizards are just not enough content.

quote] the administrative effort for all those magic effects beginning to pile up... hmpf. [/quote]

It's not that big a deal, honestly. :) It is an arena where you need to know your way around the game pretty well, and you should park all of your pre-conceptions gained from reading boards at the door. It also helps if your DM forbids silliness right from the get-go. If you want to play a silly game, go play Paranoia.


I can see how people would want to play through a PrC (say, up to lvl 15), though those who advocate such high starting levels then often build frankensteins with several cherry-picked PrC fragments that only bloom at round 20... :rolleyes:

It depends on the player, and the campaign. For example, I disallowed dozens of PrC's because, frankly, they are not well written. In general, a good PrC gives no really good benefit in the first three levels. I see these builds posted snapping up one level of this, one level of that, etc, and cannot imagine any rational campaign world that would produce such a person.

Because that is the final arbiter in my opinion. If any PC is presented for play that I and the other players cannot believe as a person, it gets rejected summarily.


Would a fantasy story ever make sense if its magic system were as abusable as high-level D&D?

Sure! :) The problem is that there are very, very few works out there which embrace workable, usable magic as a foundation of the world. (I blame Tolkien, Howard, and Lieber for this.)

Heck, even in the marvelous OoTS we all love here, the point was raised that reliable magic will fill many of the niches that technology does for us, but there is practically NO source material out there which explores this, so we keep getting stuck with game worlds that are primitive societies with sophisticated magics.

It doesn't work, and leads to basic errors like people thinking that magic is way overpowered in the game mechanics. (It is not, although some of the stuff in the Spell Compendium comes uncomfortably close.) In a sophisticated world that is adapted to magic, why would any wizard be allowed to gain ridiculous levels of magical power unfettered? "No man is an island" and if needed, society would fix the problem of overpowered wizards in a very direct fashion. After the first such incident in a primitive society, wizards would all have their spell books chained in communal houses of learning, and sorcerors would be exterminated as quickly as they are recognized. (In real life, look at the rise and fall of the robber barons of the early industrial age as an exact example of this process.)

In a more sophisticated world, wizards and sorcerors would be treated the way we treat lawyers and doctors, with stringent tests and self-policing. Wands would require permits, like a pistol in our world requires a permit. Powerful magical weaponry would be treated like machine guns and grenades are treated in todays world. Etc, etc.

This isn't particularly hard to figure out, it's just that nobody has ever bothered to do so, that I am aware of. :)


Would Lord of the Rings have worked if Sauron and Saruman could have monitored the future of their precious plans with divination?

Lord of the Rings is set in a low-magic world with a VERY primitive social and political structure. While a towering piece of literature, it represents barely a caricature of a real, functioning world. Try checking out the Chinese or Egyptian models in real history for low technology cultures that are much more socially and politicaly sophisticated. :)

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-26, 06:07 AM
Heck, even in the marvelous OoTS we all love here, the point was raised that reliable magic will fill many of the niches that technology does for us, but there is practically NO source material out there which explores this, so we keep getting stuck with game worlds that are primitive societies with sophisticated magics.



Eberron. Eberron, Eberron, Eberron.

amanodel
2006-12-26, 06:29 AM
(Crunches happily on that big dopey tarrasque cookie.)You've been gifted with cookie for all of your life! Just have to wait 1d6 minutes until you can eat it's limbs again :)



As a players it's certainly fun to develop your charcter in-game.

As a DM it's good when the party wizards doesn't disintegrate the BBEG you've been working for weeks to flash out really well, in the surprise round.

Low-level campaigns need caring from the DM to select the right encounter in order to keep it interesting and dangerous, but not killing half of the party. At higher level it's much more easy. You just give them something you think they won't beat, and they will have a mildly entertaining encounter, lasting for at least 4 rounds. Give them a realiable encounter and they will finish it in the surprise round. Players are a tricky and resourceful folk.

Tola
2006-12-26, 12:15 PM
Would Lord of the Rings have worked if Sauron and Saruman could have monitored the future of their precious plans with divination?

Palantirs, anyone? They allow you to see many things, not just the other Palantirs. It just takes Will...

And they STILL lost. I guess they never thought of it. The Plot required that they didn't.

Anyway...3-5, perhaps? Enough that you've actually got some skills and training behind you, and a single wound is not fatal. But you've still got all that progression to go for. Remember, 20th level is basically someone who can shake the world 3 times before breakfast. Even a Level 10 is very, VERY powerful.

Jayabalard
2006-12-26, 12:37 PM
I prefer to start at lvl 1, and have never started anyone higher than level 3 or 4. The most fun imo is once you have solidified the group around level 3 or 4 until level 10-12.

But then again, in my game world, a lvl 10 is pretty badass, and is problably known outside of his country. There are no lvl 17 wizards to teleport in, kill the BBEG and teleport out (it's a magic-light game world).

axraelshelm
2006-12-26, 12:43 PM
Level 1 because I'm playing someone that's new to the game and has a fresh look at adventuring plus I prefer to work for my magical goodies instead of them being handed to me straight off, it's more fun that way.

erewhon
2006-12-26, 02:13 PM
Eberron. Eberron, Eberron, Eberron.

Really??

Would you believe I have a copy of that worthy tome, and have never bothered to read it? :D

Excuse me, I'll be back in a bit. :) Perhaps my opinion of the worthies writing this thing may need revision.

geez3r
2006-12-26, 02:29 PM
I like starting around 3 or 4, because you're not weak enough to get utterly destroyed by a lucky roll, but you're not overly powerful.

Psychotic
2006-12-26, 05:35 PM
I like the low starting levels. It makes you realize how...mortal...one really is when their hitpoints can be chopped away in one swing of a longsword.

Velvet Elvis
2006-12-26, 06:16 PM
Wow, 75% like the 1-5'ers like me.

Yeah, I agree with the recent posters with regard to the inherent need to be a careful, deliberate player at lower levels due to the ease of being chopped into little pieces by all manner of things if you're not.

Plus, it doesn't take as long to do the crunchies for a weenie character. :smallbiggrin:

Natania
2006-12-26, 06:31 PM
I voted 1-5 but I don't like starting at 1.... it takes so long befor interesting things happen!!! I like starting at 3.... untill you get into the epic range..... Then it is fun once again because you get new monsters, new items and new classes... I started at lvl 30 once. It was so cool!!! and then you feel strong because you've probably never reached that level when starting at 1 (at least I haven't because my DM gets tired of the campaign at about lvl 17 and kills us..... the highest I have ever been when starting at 1 is 19 :( ) but you aren't that strong at all..... we were almost killed and the fights take so much longer because both the monsters and your group can heal or have dmg reduction so it takes so much longer but you can do really cool stuff!!! So either start at 3 so you can develope your character or start above 20 so you feel strong but aren't that strong in comparison.

Marak_Knight
2006-12-26, 06:57 PM
Chalk up another one for the 1-5 club. Having both played in and run high and low level campaigns the low levels get my vote simply because theres a lot less number crunching and book keeping, particularly for spellcasters.

BlueWizard
2006-12-26, 07:47 PM
1st level!
That's where all the PC character building happens!

Once you're all powerful you are just a super-man with no background quirks... unless you have an experienced player.... only then will I allow high to epic starts.

erewhon
2006-12-26, 07:51 PM
Really??

Would you believe I have a copy of that worthy tome, and have never bothered to read it? :D

Excuse me, I'll be back in a bit. :) Perhaps my opinion of the worthies writing this thing may need revision.


Nope, sadly, about what I expected.

There's considerable lip service to how common magic is, some moderately interesting stuff, but the game world is yet another cookie-cutter primitive society overlaid with sophisticated magics, with feudalism the principal system of governance. The addition of the dragonmarked "guilds" had some potential, but it breaks down into yet another LOTR/Wheel of Time/Game of Thrones ripoff, where there was once a shining age of magic, bad stuff happened, and now we're all feebly sratching about in the horribly shattered ruins! Go play!

Feh. After the first ten times, it gets old. :)

Eberron isn't a sophisticated world easy with its magical prowess, its a primitive feudalism scratching along in the wreckage of such a land, the legendary lost Galifar. Sounds just like the Dark Ages after the fall of the Roman Empire, doesn't it? :)

<sigh> Oh, well! :)

Lilivati
2006-12-27, 12:07 AM
Personally, I despise level 1. Especially if you're playing any kind of caster. It's tedious, boring, and everyone is just desperate for it to be over. If there had been a category 3-7 that would be my choice- enough abilities to be interesting to play, without having to rest every two seconds or spending most of the game not actually using class features in combat, but still low enough to have that "ordinary doing the extraordinary" feel.

BlueWizard
2006-12-27, 12:18 AM
But, you have cantrips! Cantrips at good level one adventures can be fun!

grinner666
2006-12-27, 12:58 AM
I usually start my players at level 1, unless it's going to be a particularly touch campaign (or there are PC races with level adjustments), in which case I'll start at level 3.

Here's the thing: starting players and their characters at lower levels allows those characters to actually develop, rather than just having a set starting story that defines them from then on.

Here's a fairly simple (and simplistic) example. Let's say a player decides to build a Barbarian. Let's say, also, that he decides to Rage on his first combat from the start (at level 1 to 3).

Now, how will tactics help define the character? If raging immediately is successful for him, he (she) might create a character that is fairly carefree and willing to use special abilities, even those with limited usage, whenever the opportunity arises. If doing so ISN'T successful, if (for example) the character gets seriously hurt, we might see a more cautious, careful adventurer who only uses his Rage ability in extremis.

Again, this is a simple (and simplistic) example, but low-level encounters can definitely affect higher-level character choices. So I generally choose to start my players at lower levels, so they can make those choices earlier and develop their characters that way.

Leon
2006-12-27, 01:08 AM
Lvl 4

gives you the room to play a Lvl adjusted PC and have your 1st stat addition as well as a couple of feats and more than 1st lvl spells (caster dependant of course)

grinner666
2006-12-27, 01:17 AM
Personally, I despise level 1. Especially if you're playing any kind of caster. It's tedious, boring, and everyone is just desperate for it to be over. If there had been a category 3-7 that would be my choice- enough abilities to be interesting to play, without having to rest every two seconds or spending most of the game not actually using class features in combat, but still low enough to have that "ordinary doing the extraordinary" feel.

Pfffffffttttt. If your DM is using encounters equal to your level, and you're being smart about moving to safe areas between encounters (and not being screwed over by the DM), you should be able to finish level 1 in a couple of sessions without being bunged over by the Dungeon Master. If he's looking to screw you THAT EARLY in the campaign, you need to look for a new DM.

Jerthanis
2006-12-27, 04:26 AM
My absolute favorite level to start as a PC and to start my players at as a DM is level 2. You're starting a new and everything is big around you. You look into the forest and you think, "What horrors lurk in yon dark wood?" You learn hard lessons and you begin to learn what it means to be a hero. Yet you don't have that chance of "oops, the goblin criticaled, you died." Or, "alright, I cast sleep on him... he made his save? Okay, wake me up when the battle's over..." to QUITE the same extent. You adventure and you live and after what seems like only the blink of an eye, it's years later and you're in the king's waiting room, ready to convince him of the treachery of his baron, and advise him on how to avoid war and maintain his kingdom when you see a map of his lands prominently displayed, where you trace the old river Avren with your fingertip to the valley where the hamlet you were born in lies. It seems like only yesterday, but your travels have taken you far and wide, into the maw of a dragon and into the crypts of a mad vampire lord. You see every step leading from where you were as a young adventurer to where you are now, learned, experienced, and able.

Tormsskull
2006-12-27, 07:12 AM
I nearly always start my PCs out at level 1, very rarely we do level 3. Anything higher than 3 gets into the realm of craziness IMO. I think the way the game is balanced, starting at higher levels is a huge advantage and allows way too much min/maxing. When you can start at level 5 or higher you can have effectively made your character make level 1 & 3 feat/class choices that would have sucked at the time, but are good now, because you didn't actually have to play them. This is even possible at level 3 (Weapon Finesse anyone?), but only gets more abusable the higher you get.

Leon
2006-12-27, 07:22 AM
Another reason for starting at lvl 4 is i like a large number of Monsters that are around that CR and thus my players get to face off against them

Telonius
2006-12-27, 10:20 AM
I prefer starting around level 5 or so, just to head off the "rescue cat from tree" kinds of initial adventures. But building a character from level 1 up can be a rewarding experience, if the DM is good.

piffin
2006-12-27, 10:28 AM
Well, personally I like the level 7. It is just enough to take races with a Level Adjustment but nothing too big. At level 7 you should also be able to get the prerequisites for a prestige class. I love the monsters for the levels as well.:smallsmile:

amanodel
2006-12-27, 10:41 AM
Level 1 is not necessarely saving a cat from the tree. I prefer giving level 1 characters more epic quests. Long quests, long enough to make them at least level 5 when facing the BBEG. First they have to sneak upon a kobold warcamp (war1) when they sleep, then a goblin (rog1) party in the forest, then be ambushed by hobgoblins (ftr1-2), gather information about the BBEG, then finally sneak into the evil orc warchief's (ftr2/bbn3) camp through a hidden undead-infested dungeon (with zombies and skeletons), and kill him when he's only protected by three of his hobgoblin bodyguards (ftr2), and a orc shaman (clr4). I give them several forest encounters, with wolves, dire house cats, or owlbears later, on the process, give them puzzle-solving quests, and the like. It'd be an interesing, and not overpowering quest for level 1-5 characters, saving the countryside from a possible invasion.

Scorpina
2006-12-27, 11:19 AM
I prefer starting around level 5 or so, just to head off the "rescue cat from tree" kinds of initial adventures.

Oh, come on! Whacky first-level adventures are brilliant! Clear the vermin out of the inn's basement, find the lost child and reunite her with her mother, slay the savage..um...badger...

Lousifer
2006-12-27, 12:39 PM
As a player I prefer 6-10 because you can be started into a prestige class and have a solid "heroic" character. As a GM I generally start players between levels 2 and 4... that prevents the one-hit-kills that are so common for first level characters. People who are saying "Good GMs don't let that happen," I believe a good GM lets the dice fall as they may, because if you start off a campaign by fudging, you're cheating the players of some of the RPG experience, and it sets you up to fudge a lot of rolls later in the campaign. I'd rather give the players some options that will let them deal with the bad luck that will eventually happen than never have a PC die.

I prefer to create a Sandbox world that has dangers that don't adjust to the player characters.. If they wander into the equivalent of Smaug's lair at level 6, they're going to get eaten unless they have a really good plan (such as an invisible burglar whose ring prevents tremorsense and foils divinations...). I do build my world for the PCs, but I don't build it around the PCs. The only leveling up of NPCs/villains I do is based on what they've accomplished during the campaign. A reoccuring villain may gain levels as the PCs fail to oppose his plots (or his other plots the PCs aren't opposing succeed), but I generally like to have the PCs incrementally "catch up" to any bad guys who do gain levels/power. There's nothing that a gaming group likes more than to finally kill the bad guy who's gotten away from them several times.

I don't think it's necessarily "wrong" to have the PCs be the most powerful adventurers in the world, but that would be a different world than the core books represent. There's still room in D&D for both the campaign where the 5th-8th level characters are seriously powerful in their own right and the campaign where you're opposing a Thay-esque council of high to epic level wizards, and at 15th level you're just starting to be able to kill their important lieutenants. I honestly think the lower level campaign is harder to balance than high-level, because I like my players to have the tools to defy my expectations.

Jayabalard
2006-12-27, 01:18 PM
People who are saying "Good GMs don't let that happen," I believe a good GM lets the dice fall as they may, because if you start off a campaign by fudging, you're cheating the players of some of the RPG experience, and it sets you up to fudge a lot of rolls later in the campaign. I'd rather give the players some options that will let them deal with the bad luck that will eventually happen than never have a PC die./shrug

If a character is going to die because of the player's stupidity, fine.

If a dire hamster gets a lucky crit and rolls for max damage to one hit kill a PC in some random encounter, not so much.

roleplaying and story >> Random dice.

Leon
2006-12-27, 08:07 PM
If a character is going to die because of the player's stupidity, fine.


I get to see a lot of that - "look something large in the bushes, RARGH.... oh heck its dire boar and its now rather annoyed with us, aieee wer'e only lvl 4"

Reply "just cos its there doesnt mean you have to attack it"

Sulecrist
2006-12-27, 09:11 PM
I tend to start at level four a lot (I'm the GM, generally). I started a party at level eight once, though, and it was great (though in retrospect it began to peter out a bit after 12).

I think the game can get a little stale past L10, though. That's just my opinion.

Dire Penguin
2006-12-28, 03:19 PM
Starting above lvl 5 is hard, becasue there's background of previous non-existant adventures, and gear collected.

erewhon
2006-12-28, 04:48 PM
I tend to start at level four a lot (I'm the GM, generally). I started a party at level eight once, though, and it was great (though in retrospect it began to peter out a bit after 12).

I think the game can get a little stale past L10, though. That's just my opinion.


This is quite common. A large part of the reason is, there simply isn't all that much developed content for the high end. :(

illirica
2006-12-28, 11:06 PM
3-4 is most certainly my preferred starting level. Anything over 5 is just overly complicated - you don't have a chance to get attached to your characters. They're less individual and more just a conglomerate of stats and feats. Early levels are great - starting your roleplay when you can't do anything more than "magic missile" really gives you a chance to get in to character and start to think about what sort of person you want that character to be, and build the feats and skills around your character idea, rather than try and come up with a backstory that fits your lists.

Also, higher level characters take a while to design. If I enter a campaign at level 10+, I'm often quite likely to pull out the level 10 sheet for another character that I've built up from level 2 or so and use that than to design an entirely new character. This sort of thing leads to static gaming experiences (oh, you're the dual-wielding NE fighter-rogue again?), which make things, in general, less fun.

Fhaolan
2006-12-29, 01:30 AM
Low level for me. I find that high-level adventuring boils down to "The wizard casts the 'win' spell. Everyone else rolls over and goes back to sleep." It gets boring right fast. Of course, I don't play wizards very often. I've got one high-level wizard in a current game. I've been very careful in his spell selection in order to keep the game interesting. It's annoying that I have to deliberately cripple a character so as to not ruin the game for the other players and the DM.

fangthane
2006-12-29, 06:36 PM
I've only really read the first page and the most recent posts in this, so please forgive me for being probably at least a little redundant. I picked 5-10 because I don't like starting my parties off at level 1, and generally put them at either 4 or 5 to begin. That allows for a bit of flexibility with non-core races, makes the players really think about prestige and multiclass options, and reduces the one-shot-kill potential.

I do take issue with the idea that a level 10 wizard is less apt to be one-shotted by a strong opponent though; I've seen it happen. It's just that at higher level, you have more options. You can raise or resurrect him, you can reincarnate him, you can put any number of spells on him prior to combat in order to increase his odds of survival, and at first level you can't do any of those things. That's the real difference.

I also take issue with the idea that a level 10 opponent can't be billed as "powerful." Heck, a level 10 character is powerful. And so long as the DM takes care to keep a sense of perspective, that's no problem. The villagers see a level 10 warlord as a big deal, so to them he inspires awe and fear. City-dwellers might not see him as such a big deal if he were attacking their city, but he's not. Which is also part of why, locked in his tower studying situations of interest to him, the level 17 wizard doesn't go gallivanting off to deal with the threat. Even if he were aware, he'd probably prefer to have an underling or 4 deal with it anyway. I know I would.

On a related note, my current campaign features an NPC who's a virtually immortal (several thousand years old) massively-epic spellcaster, but he's busy enough just trying to prevent the "world" from collapsing on itself. (it's a fragment of the Prime Material, stabilised by him inside an artifact he doesn't remember creating) Unless it's absolutely necessary, he avoids wasting his power on 'minor' issues.

As to the 10+ game getting stale, that's a matter of needing to prepare. At levels under 10 a DM can often pull something straight out of the MM on an encounter roll, whereas at upper levels it's often necessary to prepare either a short-list of appropriate encounters or a custom-made throwaway baddie. Remember also that as the party becomes more puissant, extra-planar entities and other powerful organisations may begin to take an interest, both positively and negatively. I've found that diverting characters with real estate/politics concerns can be quite entertaining at mid-high levels too; buy the cheap haunted mansion and destroy the undead, or pay triple for being lazy, that kind of thing, or build a keep and defend it against the invading goblin/kobold/orc/giant forces in order to win a peerage (which of course brings its own publicity and notoriety). Lots of options.

Chunklets
2006-12-29, 06:41 PM
Definitely first-level for me. I really like both DM-ing and playing at low levels; combat goes much more quickly, for one thing, and there's a certain amount of enjoyable tension in knowing that a goblin with a fondue fork is a lethal threat.

Narmoth
2006-12-29, 06:55 PM
I like to run a campaign from level 1 to hiogh level (round L20, depending on the campaign) so characters are able to develop in low-power skirmishes with the evil powers before they rise in level to challenge the great evil sof my world. Of course, I make the worlds so that there are a logic reason why both lesser and greater evils exsist at the same time as there are high level good powers.

Devils_Advocate
2006-12-30, 10:03 PM
/shrug

If a character is going to die because of the player's stupidity, fine.

If a dire hamster gets a lucky crit and rolls for max damage to one hit kill a PC in some random encounter, not so much.

roleplaying and story >> Random dice.
Luck Is A Part Of The Game. As someone once wrote on the Wizards board, "The easiest way to keep your plots from being derailed is to not put them on rails in the first place." To many players and DMs, a large part of the game's appeal is having to deal with the unexpected. Dedication to "story" by a DM is often a bad thing -- if the players wanted a *predetermined* sequence of fictional events, they'd read a book or watch a movie. They're probably playing an RPG in no small part because it gives them input into what happens.

Of course, a GM and players who are leery of giving sometimes-cruel plastic polyhedrons input into the course of events can still hope to surprise each other... But I would expect them to play a diceless game, 'cuz, uh, well... why roll dice in the first place if you're just going to go and ignore what they say? :smallconfused:

Bears With Lasers
2006-12-30, 10:28 PM
Luck doesn't HAVE to be a part of the game. It's often better when it isn't.

In fact, the luck mechanism in D&D is there more to make the GAME part exciting than the ROLEPLAYING part. The more crunch-light your game is, the less likely it is to have a randomizing mecanism (take the Amber DRPG and Nobilis, for example).

erewhon
2006-12-30, 10:41 PM
I like to run a campaign from level 1 to hiogh level (round L20, depending on the campaign) so characters are able to develop in low-power skirmishes with the evil powers before they rise in level to challenge the great evil sof my world. Of course, I make the worlds so that there are a logic reason why both lesser and greater evils exsist at the same time as there are high level good powers.

Heh. :)

Well, as it so happens, my current game quite similar, except that I'm planning on tapering off somewhere north of 40th. So, I started at 16 and have been going like gangbusters ever since. :)

And, yes, integrating high CR and low CR content from the very get-go is a critical part of the game world.

Athenodorus
2006-12-31, 09:49 AM
where there was once a shining age of magic, bad stuff happened, and now we're all feebly sratching about in the horribly shattered ruins! Go play!

Feh. After the first ten times, it gets old. :)

I have issues figuring out how to justify the existance of unlooted tombs, wastelands, etc. without following the cataclysm model. I suppose you could build a lovely world with proper magical and political infrastructure if you were willing to sacrifice that stuff.

Godhand
2006-12-31, 02:46 PM
4-5th level for me. We start there at the beginning of summer and usually hit 12th by the end of summer then rinse and repeat. The group around home has 7-8 players so the combined party talent covers almost every spectrum. The group melds quickly since the group has been playing together for half a dozen years and it's just a blast.

Not to say we won't play higher level adventures, but the mid levels is where all the fun is at.

erewhon
2006-12-31, 03:37 PM
I have issues figuring out how to justify the existance of unlooted tombs, wastelands, etc. without following the cataclysm model. I suppose you could build a lovely world with proper magical and political infrastructure if you were willing to sacrifice that stuff.


It's not too difficult, you simply have a "frontier" area. It is also quite possible to follow the "cataclysm" model. The issue is, the society and culture AFTER the cataclysm is already past the primitive feudalism stage where the degree of personal power a single person can accumulate is THE single most important factor.

Instead of feudal overlords, you have Town Councils who appoint Mayors, and can un-appoint them if they screw up. Instead of the Kings Guards, you get the Town Watch, who are loyal to the TOWN, not the guy in the Mayors office.

Instead of Kings, you have Provincial Governors. Instead of private armies, you have the Provincial Guard, and a good lot of fellows they are, too. Instead of corrupt viziers, you have the entire Imperial Beaurocracy.

Wizards Guilds have (gasp) ENTRY STANDARDS. The senior wizzy's don't want rabble-rousers, so they weed them out, and likely keep the wackiest spells under wraps, too. The stronger Divine Temples keep a sharp eye on the wizards guilds, too. The Psionic League watches the Temples, and the Guilds watch the Leagues.

Thief, Assassin, and Fighter Guilds always, ALWAYS, ally themselves with one or more of the power-using Guilds. Logically, it's thieves with wizards, assassins with evil temples, and fighters with the psionics. The meleers are glad for the magical cover, the finger-wigglers are glad for the supply of pointy objects.

Prosperity is the rule, not the exception. Horrible dirty streets? Why? Magic is an energy source at least as good as electricity. Why would people with ready access to such things live in squalor?

You have to make a few changes/additions to the items rules, mainly to introduce item wear and breakage.

Etc. etc. etc.

MaN
2006-12-31, 04:21 PM
My All Powerful Dark Lord can beat up your All Powerful Dark Lord!

I like starting campaigns at 1st level. One-shot adventures I'll start at the level it was designed for. Simple as that.

Catharsis
2007-01-01, 06:56 AM
Prosperity is the rule, not the exception. Horrible dirty streets? Why? Magic is an energy source at least as good as electricity. Why would people with ready access to such things live in squalor?
Well, we do have electricity today, and the greater part of Earth's streets are still dirty and horrible. Even if you have prosperity, it will not be fairly distributed unless it's an Elven utopia or something.

Ali
2007-01-01, 09:58 AM
In the game I'm currently running, all the players started at level 10 (and if you were a race with a level adjustment, you were lower level. If you had a level adjustment of +1, then you started at level 9).

They are a group of adventurers known in the area. We don't record experiance points really, because being higher level then level 10 can get boring.

Catharsis
2007-01-01, 12:28 PM
They are a group of adventurers known in the area. We don't record experiance points really, because being higher level then level 10 can get boring.
Exqueeze me? How can you remove the signle most motivating factor from D&D, which is the tangible increase in power and capabilities with each level?

Matthew
2007-01-01, 12:56 PM
Easily. It might even be beneficial for some groups.

Pegasos989
2007-01-01, 02:17 PM
Exqueeze me? How can you remove the signle most motivating factor from D&D, which is the tangible increase in power and capabilities with each level?


Easily. It might even be beneficial for some groups.

Exactly. I know a lot of groups have just DM saying "You level up" after some situations, like boss fights, enough sessions and the like.

My DM doesn't do that but he is like
"Take 1500 exp each"
"I am 300 exp from level..."
"Okay, take 1800 exp each"

Ali
2007-01-01, 04:50 PM
"Exqueeze me? How can you remove the signle most motivating factor from D&D, which is the tangible increase in power and capabilities with each level?"

Basically, me and the group decided there was too many other things to worry about in my group to be constantly jotting down the experiance points (Like role play and stuff).

Besides... surely the role play and adventuring is more important then experiance points? *Grins.*

Yep, like Matthew said, it might be beneficial for some groups... I think it has been for mine, at least.