What is a good level to end a campaign?

[Masakan]

Personally I think it's around level 15, it's IMO right before the point where everything non magical becomes completely irrelevant and everyone in the party can contribute to some degree.
Casters are at the precipice where they are incredibly powerful but nothing earth shattering(Unless of course they did some massive optimizing) in which case....why haven't you reigned them in yet?
And If melees are going pure mundane they still fell off by level 15, but are still right before the point where they are completely useless.

In fact I think Ryan Dancey Described it best when he compared the various levels of play.

Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: Superheroes
Wuxia is basically high flying kungfu action(And yes I know I'm being bias because this is basically optimal gish territory) but my point still stands.

[Brova]

The right time to end a campaign is when the story ends.

The appropriate solution to mundanes sucking isn't to stop the game from going to high levels. It's one (or more) of the following:

1. Ban mundanes. A guy without magic is not and cannot be a level appropriate character in an environment where you are expected to have magic. So don't let people play characters without magic.

Pros: Simple and effective.
Cons: Cuts out a bunch of classes. A bit rough to do melee, particularly at low levels with minimal splats. Some mundane-ish builds are fine (TWF + touch attack Rogues, some ToB builds, Swift Hunters). Looks very heavy handed.
Variants: You could require people to play Gestalt and have at least one side be a caster, as competently build mundanes can basically keep up numerically.

2. Give mundanes (or other under-preforming characters) items to let them keep up. While giving the Barbarian an Axe of Lava that lets him lay down area denial, slows, and DoTs doesn't fix the problems of the Barbarian class, it does fix the problems of a Barbarian character.

Pros: Can look pretty organic if you're careful about it. Avoids changing anything on the player side. Fixes a variety of balance problems. Lets people play the characters they want to.
Cons: Can make the weakness of the Fighter more apparent if people realize that all his ability to function come from his sword. Stops working if people realize they can just give the catch-up artifacts to competent characters and stay ahead of the power curve. Potentially spirals out of control if you give people gear that is too good.
Variants: You can let people who pick weaker classes optimize more. If the guy who picks up a Fighter is allowed to dumpster dive for feats, items, PrCs and other stuff, while the Wizard has to cast good core spells and can't do anything with minions, loops, or wish, you can maintain a semblance of balance. A more direct example is giving mundanes upgrades like "is a Vampire" or "bathed in the blood of dragons" or "blessed by angels".

3. Replace mundanes wholesale.

Pros: Lets people play the classes they want while still being level appropriate.
Cons: Rather a lot of work, particularly if you do things yourself. Players may be averse to homebrew. DMs may not predict the capabilities of homebrew classes accurately.
Variants: I guess forcing mundanes to gestalt with a weak caster (No PrC Bard, Shadowcaster) also counts. This is pretty open though.

A combination of 1 and 2 produces the easiest results, but 3 gives the best balance. For ease of use, I'd work with players pre-game to get everyone on roughly the same level, the correct in game problems with loot. Ideally, I'd rewrite 3.5 to have everyone get at least Bard casting, but that's a lot of work and I have things to do.

[Crux Argentum]

In my own humble opinion, I think it's a bit closer to level 12.

I ended a campaign that lasted over a year and a half at level 15 (started at level 1) and the final fight was a big magic shinnanegans joke. The fighter was dead before he could land a hit and, if I recall correctly, neither the cleric nor the wizard were touched.

But it depends on who you are playing with, I guess. I had a bad apple in that group who was an undercover optimizer.

[Masakan]

And people ask me why I like to multi-class?


In my own humble opinion, I think it's a bit closer to level 12.

I ended a campaign that lasted over a year and a half at level 15 (started at level 1) and the final fight was a big magic shinnanegans joke. The fighter was dead before he could land a hit and, if I recall correctly, neither the cleric nor the wizard were touched.

But it depends on who you are playing with, I guess. I had a bad apple in that group who was an undercover optimizer.

It is in fact VERY easy, to make an optimized overpowered character, it is NOT however easy to make a character that is interesting in both mechanics and roleplay. And as anyone on this site will tell you, Metagaming a god wizard is usually not the best idea.

[Crux Argentum]

Rather than ban mundanes or force them to take magic-user levels, I think I'd rather ban magic. :smallwink:

[Masakan]

Rather than ban mundanes or force them to take magic-user levels, I think I'd rather ban magic. :smallwink:
See the problem with that is if you make people play purely mundanes, unless you just hand walk them or play pattacake all the dam time, They aren't gonna make it past level 10 usually and that really shoehorns people into only playing certain things or forces them to play ToB characters if they actually wanna survive higher levels.

See it seems that with these kinds of issues, the best solution is for anyone who wants to play a primary melee, not only recommend Playing a ToB character, but Encourage it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Rather than ban mundanes or force them to take magic-user levels, I think I'd rather ban magic. :smallwink:
Banning vancean magic is a pretty decent idea, since it leaves you with psionics, binding, incarnum, and invocations-- all much more balanced, especially if you trim away the cheesiest parts of psionics.

[Brova]

See the problem with that is if you make people play purely mundanes, unless you just hand walk them or play pattacake all the dam time, They aren't gonna make it past level 10 usually and that really shoehorns people into only playing certain things or forces them to play ToB characters if they actually wanna survive higher levels.

Also, a bunch of the high level powers that are good and interesting are magic. Basically all the minionmancy is magic, and even though it breaks the game pretty easily, it is both interesting and fun. Accessing other planes, teleportation, flight, and raising the dead are all magic. You can certainly play a high level game without any of that, but I don't really see it being all that different from a low level game.

One solution that might work is to give everyone pseudo Bard casting (1sts at 1st, new spell level at 3/6/9/12/15) and write up a bunch of 1 - 6 lists for archetypes/utility you care about.


See it seems that with these kinds of issues, the best solution is for anyone who wants to play a primary melee, not only recommend Playing a ToB character, but Encourage it.

There are a couple of melee builds that work without ToB. Pounce Rogues with wraithstrike items hit hard enough to matter, Swift Hunters can go melee, and a Frenzied Berserker is pretty effective without any maneuvers. Also, there are Gish builds for casters.

[Crux Argentum]

Adding a bunch of splatbooks is only asking for cherry picking trouble. And why do you think it's okay to force mundanes to be magic users, but do nothing to put a cap on magic? Plus you're making it sound like you couldn't possibly run a no magic campaign and tailor encounters to the party's power level. You'd have to "play paddy cake" with them the whole time. Which is of course, ridiculous...

The problem is, people use magic as the "I can't lose" crutch. If you were a player of mine and you were that terrified of losing the ability to use magic, I would do it just to watch you squirm. "A challenge? Oh heavens no, give me my optimized spellcaster please."

[Windrammer]

The right time to end a campaign is when the story ends.

The appropriate solution to mundanes sucking isn't to stop the game from going to high levels. It's one (or more) of the following:

1. Ban mundanes. A guy without magic is not and cannot be a level appropriate character in an environment where you are expected to have magic. So don't let people play characters without magic.

Pros: Simple and effective.
Cons: Cuts out a bunch of classes. A bit rough to do melee, particularly at low levels with minimal splats. Some mundane-ish builds are fine (TWF + touch attack Rogues, some ToB builds, Swift Hunters). Looks very heavy handed.
Variants: You could require people to play Gestalt and have at least one side be a caster, as competently build mundanes can basically keep up numerically.

2. Give mundanes (or other under-preforming characters) items to let them keep up. While giving the Barbarian an Axe of Lava that lets him lay down area denial, slows, and DoTs doesn't fix the problems of the Barbarian class, it does fix the problems of a Barbarian character.

Pros: Can look pretty organic if you're careful about it. Avoids changing anything on the player side. Fixes a variety of balance problems. Lets people play the characters they want to.
Cons: Can make the weakness of the Fighter more apparent if people realize that all his ability to function come from his sword. Stops working if people realize they can just give the catch-up artifacts to competent characters and stay ahead of the power curve. Potentially spirals out of control if you give people gear that is too good.
Variants: You can let people who pick weaker classes optimize more. If the guy who picks up a Fighter is allowed to dumpster dive for feats, items, PrCs and other stuff, while the Wizard has to cast good core spells and can't do anything with minions, loops, or wish, you can maintain a semblance of balance. A more direct example is giving mundanes upgrades like "is a Vampire" or "bathed in the blood of dragons" or "blessed by angels".

3. Replace mundanes wholesale.

Pros: Lets people play the classes they want while still being level appropriate.
Cons: Rather a lot of work, particularly if you do things yourself. Players may be averse to homebrew. DMs may not predict the capabilities of homebrew classes accurately.
Variants: I guess forcing mundanes to gestalt with a weak caster (No PrC Bard, Shadowcaster) also counts. This is pretty open though.

A combination of 1 and 2 produces the easiest results, but 3 gives the best balance. For ease of use, I'd work with players pre-game to get everyone on roughly the same level, the correct in game problems with loot. Ideally, I'd rewrite 3.5 to have everyone get at least Bard casting, but that's a lot of work and I have things to do.

You're thrusting your opinions on someone who didn't ask for them. None of these are appropriate answers to his question. He's wondering what levels are good for endgame. Saying the game should end when the story does is like having someone ask you what a good time to travel to New Zealand and answering with "when you get there". No, hes inquiring about what levels work best for that phase of a story and you're not addressing that in the slightest.

The rest of your reply is basically "I dislike mundane and you should too".

[Brova]

Banning vancean magic is a pretty decent idea, since it leaves you with psionics, binding, incarnum, and invocations-- all much more balanced, especially if you trim away the cheesiest parts of psionics.

Honestly, you don't need to ban vancian magic. A Wizard who just casts effective spells and doesn't do anything abusive is totally able to play with and not unbalance a party with a fairly wide variety of characters. You just need to deal with the loops, police certain tactics (minions, polymorph), and not let people play characters that are truly ineffectual.


And why do you think it's okay to force mundanes to be magic users, but do nothing to put a cap on magic?

It's totally okay to put a cap on magic. But that cap should be level based. If you think that the stories you want to tell can't happen with 7th level spells, play E12. If you think they can't happen with 9th level spells, play E16. If you think they can't happen with 4th level spells, play E6.


You're thrusting your opinions on someone who didn't ask for them.

His post starts with an opinion - that the game should end when mundanes stop being level appropriate. Responding to that is totally reasonable.


No, hes inquiring about what levels work best for that phase of a story and you're not addressing that in the slightest.

But that's not a meaningful question. The story of LotR ends around 5th level (there's an article on it somewhere). The story of Lord of Light ends around a high op 9th level (characters have armies of demons or undead, come back to life, and have personal flight). The story of Game of Thrones (likely) ends around 3rd level for the Humans. The story of the Powder Mage Trilogy ends around 7th level (most of the magic is of the "win against mid sized squads of troops" variety, but there are gods running around so YMMV). The story of Creatures of Light and Darkness ends around 20th level (combat time travel, teleportation, The Hammer That Shatters Suns). Most MTG stories are around 15th level. And so on and so forth. There's no right answer to "what level should the story end". It's like asking "how do you make food" and expecting an answer that is any more useful than "follow the recipe".


The rest of your reply is basically "I dislike mundane and you should too".

The rest of the reply is proposed solutions to the problem of mundanes not being effective at high levels.

[DrMartin]

Banning vancean magic is a pretty decent idea, since it leaves you with psionics, binding, incarnum, and invocations-- all much more balanced, especially if you trim away the cheesiest parts of psionics.

This is pretty similar to how I run my campaigns and it works pretty well.

or restrict magic to spheres of power, or some weird mix like spheres of power + warlock and binder or something similar

[EugeneVoid]

The problem is, people use magic as the "I can't lose" crutch. If you were a player of mine and you were that terrified of losing the ability to use magic, I would do it just to watch you squirm. "A challenge? Oh heavens no, give me my optimized spellcaster please."

I mean then you play ToB stuff.

Or bard, if thats still on the table.

Factotum?

Wildshape Variant Ranger?

You just keep moving down the tier list

[Masakan]

His post starts with an opinion - that the game should end when mundanes stop being level appropriate. Responding to that is totally reasonable.

The question is when is that?



The problem is, people use magic as the "I can't lose" crutch. If you were a player of mine and you were that terrified of losing the ability to use magic, I would do it just to watch you squirm. "A challenge? Oh heavens no, give me my optimized spellcaster please."
You know you could just make it so that if people wanna play casters, they just have to play a sorcerer, or the spontaneous versions of Cleric and Druid. You don't have to just take it all away.

Prepared casters are OP, so just get rid of them, that way they don't have a constant I win button or if they do it comes at the cost of a VERY limited spells known list.

[Draconium]

Honestly, I think it depends on the campaign. Some campaigns could go on into epic levels before even getting close to the end. Others may not have a need to get past really low levels. Most, however, are destined to end at mid-to-high levels. 15 sounds like a decent stopping place for a lot of campaigns. Others would end more around 12, while some could go up to 19 or 20. It all depends on what is happening in the campaign itself.

[StreamOfTheSky]

21.
After the final battle of the campaign, tell the party they've achieved enough xp to reach 21st level and finally become epic characters.

And then say, "well, that's it for the campaign, hope you enjoyed it." :smallbiggrin:

[Brova]

The question is when is that?

That depends on a lot of things.

I don't think I would ever want a Monk in my party even over "getting a larger share of the XP and loot". A Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian falls off (barring PrCs and dipping) around 5th level. A single classed core Ranger does around that point too, but there are a bunch of Ranger ACFs (and Swift Hunter) that all seem reasonably viable into mid/high levels. Many of them (Mystic Ranger, Wild Shape Ranger) aren't mundane though. The Rogue is a pretty variable case. At low levels of optimization, they fall off as soon as a single sneak attack per round stops being level appropriate damage (around the same time as Fighters). At higher levels, TWF + touch attacks + consistent sneak attack is enough damage to kill any level appropriate opponent and they have UMD for utility.

Non-core non-ToB classes mostly fall around the Fighter or Monk levels of usefulness. A Samurai sucks at high levels, but his ability to wield swords and wear armor makes him a reasonable choice for a low level party. PrCs and feats open stuff up more. A Frenzied Berserker and/or Ubercharger is able to put out level appropriate damage numbers for the whole game, but isn't better than a Wizard or possessed of enough strategic utility to matter. Opening it up to enough splats allows mundanes to hyper-specialize into Tripstars or whatever and contribute for a while.

ToB classes are mostly good up til the point where maneuvers start falling off relative to spells, probably around 9th level or so. Some of the utility maneuvers are also useful for patching holes in other mundane builds (for example, making a skill check over a Will save is good). You can get pretty good mileage out of an Idiot Crusader build though. Also, aptitude weapons have some tricks that are fairly useful.

You can make a mundane who is reasonably competent til roughly 12th. It'll be complicated, and without ToB it'll be a one trick pony, but it will (sort of) work. The issue is that mundanes don't really bring anything to the table outside of combat, and in combat they aren't much better than a caster in any case.

[Masakan]

That depends on a lot of things.

I don't think I would ever want a Monk in my party even over "getting a larger share of the XP and loot". A Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian falls off (barring PrCs and dipping) around 5th level. A single classed core Ranger does around that point too, but there are a bunch of Ranger ACFs (and Swift Hunter) that all seem reasonably viable into mid/high levels. Many of them (Mystic Ranger, Wild Shape Ranger) aren't mundane though. The Rogue is a pretty variable case. At low levels of optimization, they fall off as soon as a single sneak attack per round stops being level appropriate damage (around the same time as Fighters). At higher levels, TWF + touch attacks + consistent sneak attack is enough damage to kill any level appropriate opponent and they have UMD for utility.

Non-core non-ToB classes mostly fall around the Fighter or Monk levels of usefulness. A Samurai sucks at high levels, but his ability to wield swords and wear armor makes him a reasonable choice for a low level party. PrCs and feats open stuff up more. A Frenzied Berserker and/or Ubercharger is able to put out level appropriate damage numbers for the whole game, but isn't better than a Wizard or possessed of enough strategic utility to matter. Opening it up to enough splats allows mundanes to hyper-specialize into Tripstars or whatever and contribute for a while.

ToB classes are mostly good up til the point where maneuvers start falling off relative to spells, probably around 9th level or so. Some of the utility maneuvers are also useful for patching holes in other mundane builds (for example, making a skill check over a Will save is good). You can get pretty good mileage out of an Idiot Crusader build though. Also, aptitude weapons have some tricks that are fairly useful.

You can make a mundane who is reasonably competent til roughly 12th. It'll be complicated, and without ToB it'll be a one trick pony, but it will (sort of) work. The issue is that mundanes don't really bring anything to the table outside of combat, and in combat they aren't much better than a caster in any case.

Which is why single class rouges tend to still be useful if they build to be skill monkeys.

[Yogibear41]

When a TPK happens and the entire parties dies in such a way that it is infeesable for them to return via the help of NPCS. The story gets to begin anew at level 1.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Adding a bunch of splatbooks is only asking for cherry picking trouble. And why do you think it's okay to force mundanes to be magic users, but do nothing to put a cap on magic? Plus you're making it sound like you couldn't possibly run a no magic campaign and tailor encounters to the party's power level. You'd have to "play paddy cake" with them the whole time. Which is of course, ridiculous...

The problem is, people use magic as the "I can't lose" crutch. If you were a player of mine and you were that terrified of losing the ability to use magic, I would do it just to watch you squirm. "A challenge? Oh heavens no, give me my optimized spellcaster please."
No, I wouldn't want to play a D&D game without magic. I wouldn't want to play a character without some sort of extra-normal power, either. Not because I'm a munchkin, but because-- in my opinion, at least-- mundane characters in 3.5 are boring. For better or worse, WotC did very little to make (non-ToB) mundanes interesting. Every turn, you move and full attack, or maybe use the one trick you could fit into your build. Out of combat, you use the same three skills to do the same three things. Your level 20 mechanics are identical to your level 1. Personally, I find that dreadfully boring. There are systems out there much better suited for a low-magic campaign. And adding sourcebooks is "cherry picking trouble?" 3.5's main virtue is its size, and the game got better as the developers got more practice. If you get rid of that wealth of character options, all you're left with is a clunky, old-fashioned mess-- and that's doubly true if you're playing a strict no-magic game.

Now, I would love to put a cap on magic's power. I would also love to give a boost to mundane power. (And I've done so, over on the Homebrew board). But doing so gracefully tends to require either banning classes that don't fit, or excessive amounts of rules changes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I, personally, like to wrap things up just after the players hit 17. Ninth level spells can be dealt with but it's more headache than its worth IMO.

A couple of things upthread stand out at me though.

Mundane flight is available both at character creation (raptoran, dragonborn, avariel elf) and a few places later on (mounts, hang-glider). Interplanar travel is also possible without recourse to spells or items, at the DM's discretion, through natural portals, rifts, and other anomolies (these are described in MotP, Planar handbook, and a few eberron sources).

Gear is a given within the core system. A DM can take it away but should do so carefully and absolutely should -not- leave primary casters untouched in the same campaign.

A skilled DM can construct scenarios appropriate for a party comprised of characters of wildly disparate tiers but it is difficult. Cooperation from the higher tier characters' players can help.

Optimization doesn't have to be a bad thing. Like any source of power in a social dynamic, responsible use determines if it's a problem or not.

Edit: forgot one.

The worst of 3.5's balance problems are from the core rulebooks. Blanket banning splats and adding things case by case is counter productive to fixing the game's balance issues. Rather, ban the core classes, while allowing everything else, and the game's balance improves dramatically. Allowing casters a much broader selection to cherry pick from (spells and magic booster items vs non-casters' feats, skills, and option granting items) is a terrible plan if cherry picking is what you take issue with.

[Windrammer]

His post starts with an opinion - that the game should end when mundanes stop being level appropriate. Responding to that is totally reasonable. The issue isn't that you dared to respond with an opinion, it's that you responded with opinions that were neither relevant not constructive.




But that's not a meaningful question. The story of LotR ends around 5th level (there's an article on it somewhere). The story of Lord of Light ends around a high op 9th level (characters have armies of demons or undead, come back to life, and have personal flight). The story of Game of Thrones (likely) ends around 3rd level for the Humans. The story of the Powder Mage Trilogy ends around 7th level (most of the magic is of the "win against mid sized squads of troops" variety, but there are gods running around so YMMV). The story of Creatures of Light and Darkness ends around 20th level (combat time travel, teleportation, The Hammer That Shatters Suns). Most MTG stories are around 15th level. And so on and so forth. There's no right answer to "what level should the story end". It's like asking "how do you make food" and expecting an answer that is any more useful than "follow the recipe".
And those are the levels that suited those stories. Stories like LotR don't work at wuxia levels, that's the whole point. If you want to run gritty fantasy, you want to plan an endgame that doesn't have the characters at level 16, because your army of orcs them becomes as threatening as an army of ducks. It may be a shock to you but the levels of characters drastically affect how the campaign plays out, so OP is wondering which levels seem to work best for a fulfilling endgame.

"Follow the recipe" doesn't make sense here. A recipe would account for character level in it. A more appropriate comparison with food would have you saying "you cook it until it's finished". OP is asking what that point of "finished" should be. Burgers need to be cooked through, while steaks can be left rare. Now perhaps you run campaigns purely improvised, but the rest of us like to have an actual endgame in mind, and you must figure out what levels you are planning that endgame to suit.



The rest of the reply is proposed solutions to the problem of mundanes not being effective at high levels.
They were weird and unhelpful solutions based in that classic anti-mundane bias you find only on the internet.

You never suggested to ban casters, you said to ban mundanes. I find that utterly bizarre, especially considering how many tales of fantasy are centered on purely mundane characters. Campaigns work much better with mundane parties anyways.

You suggested to just give mundanes items. This is so excruciatingly obvious that it almost strikes me as patronizing towards OP. Your other suggestion was just an extension of the "ban mundanes" thought process.

[Melcar]

Personally I think it's around level 15, it's IMO right before the point where everything non magical becomes completely irrelevant and everyone in the party can contribute to some degree.
Casters are at the precipice where they are incredibly powerful but nothing earth shattering(Unless of course they did some massive optimizing) in which case....why haven't you reigned them in yet?
And If melees are going pure mundane they still fell off by level 15, but are still right before the point where they are completely useless.

In fact I think Ryan Dancey Described it best when he compared the various levels of play.

Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: Superheroes
Wuxia is basically high flying kungfu action(And yes I know I'm being bias because this is basically optimal gish territory) but my point still stands.


It depends on the campaign. You cant answer this question in general.

So all your players are having a blast, and have finally gotten access to the weapon or spell or class ability they have been building their whole character around wich comes online at level 15, and then you the DM says. "well guys... you have reached the magical number, where I no longer can be bothered with coming up with new stuff for you. Game Over. I hope you have enjoyed playing...
"

I think that a campaing should end, when people are no longer having fun. That can be at level 1 or level 100 it does not matter. There is, and cannot be, no set rule or general thing to say about this.

I personally think the question is stupid in and of itself!

[Selion]

What kind of items make the mundane builds able to keep up with the spellcasting characters at high levels?
(it's not a rhetorical question, i want actually know what are the main troubles for a high level fighter according to your experiences)

[Amphetryon]

For me, personally, 3.5 gets a little unwieldy on both sides of the screen at around 13th level. Can it continue after that without imploding? Absolutely, even without copious houserules about Vancian magic. It's simply often not worth the trouble, for the DM or the Players.

[supersonic29]

Really REALLY depends on the group, but on average 12-15 is a fair range. The post-15 range can be fine if your party is very vanilla/unoptimized. Considering a good ending time is similar in nature to how you lean with encounter difficulty.

[Brova]

Mundane flight is available both at character creation (raptoran, dragonborn, avariel elf) and a few places later on (mounts, hang-glider).

Somewhat. Those do exist, but they aren't really "mundane" in the sense of "realistic" or anything like that. You aren't getting a human sized critter flying under its own power with anything like normal physics. If mundane just means it has the [Ex] tag rather than the [Su] tag, the problem goes away, but I don't think you'd get something most people believe to be "mundane".


Interplanar travel is also possible without recourse to spells or items, at the DM's discretion, through natural portals, rifts, and other anomolies (these are described in MotP, Planar handbook, and a few eberron sources).

That's completely different. The important thing about plane shift isn't that it lets you go to the City of Brass or Asgard, it's that it lets you do those things under your own power. Having to find rifts doesn't create the player agency that those powers do.


And those are the levels that suited those stories.

Yes. That's the point. All of those stories are stories you might want to emulate. All of them end at different levels. Your world salad is completely non-responsive. The question "what level should the campaign end at" does not mean anything absent a campaign. The campaign "protect your village from the local orcs" could easily end at 1st level, whereas the campaign "conquer hell" isn't likely to end until epic. Each of those stories ends at the appropriate point for that story.


You never suggested to ban casters, you said to ban mundanes.

Yes. Because you cannot have mundanes in stories where you have casters of sufficient power. At least not as equal characters.

I mean, we've tried bringing everyone down to the level of mundanes. That gets you 4e. While some people may enjoy that, I very much do not.


I find that utterly bizarre, especially considering how many tales of fantasy are centered on purely mundane characters.

All the major characters in Mistborn are (by book three) magical. Hell, the villain of the first book is someone who abused a power loop until he could conquer the world.

The viewpoint characters in the Powder Mage trilogy are all magical, although a couple are only very slightly so.

The main character of Lord of Light is a god.

MTG has produced fantasy stories about high level Wizards for the past twenty years.

The Night Angel Trilogy's main character is considered a failure by his mentor until he becomes magic.

The Wheel of Time eventually upgrades the main characters to be magical.*

So do the Dresden Files.*

In the Codex Alera, there is literally one human without magic in the entire world.

Here's (http://time.com/3138453/5-best-fantasy-novels/) Time's list of the five most famous fantasy novels ever. Every single one of those has prominent magical characters. Now, they are mostly fairly low level, but they all have a Wizard that drives the plot.

Hell, there are popular YA series about a country full of Wizards (Harry Potter), a creepy love triangle full of unfeeling monsters and also vampires (Twilight), and a camp full of half-gods (Percy Jackson).

You can't shake a stick in fantasy without it turning out to have been some Wizard's wand or staff.

And even if you were right, it wouldn't matter. Because the point of D&D is to model fantasy stories in general not any particular fantasy novel or even the most popular kind of fantasy. There is absolutely a place for fantasy where magic is weak and unimpressive. That place is at low levels. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play Conan rather than Hercules. But insisting that it is better to play Conan, Gandalf, and the Mountain That Rides rather than Kylar Stern, Vin, and Percy Jackson is wrongheaded and leads to bad design. The game can include both. It just can't include both at the same level.

*: I haven't read these in their entirety, but I'm told the upgrades happen and the main characters are a fairly impressive wizard and magic jesus. They hardly count as "mundane" in any case.


Campaigns work much better with mundane parties anyways.

Low level campaigns work better with mundanes. The backstory of Lord of Light has people trapping every demon in the world, crafting a city on top of a mountain with tigers enchanted to ignore the citizens, and building rooms that alter the emotions of people inside of them. The main character can fly and manipulate energy. His allies include a goddess who can make day into night, a god who is basically a mid-level Artificer with a gaze attack that kills people instantly, and a necromancer. His enemies are mostly gods. That's not a story you can tell with mundanes, and it is a story I very much enjoyed.


You suggested to just give mundanes items.

Not give mundanes items. That's not enough. You need to give them artifacts that are wildly out of proportion with WBL so that they can compete with people who have animate dead and evard's black tentacles. When a Wizard picks up 6th level spells and can cast planar binding or acid fog, it's not appropriate for the Fighter to get a +3 sword. He needs to get Frostmourne, which hits people with enervation on contact, creates wall of ice effects, and lets him control some undead goons.


What kind of items make the mundane builds able to keep up with the spellcasting characters at high levels?

That's a good question. I've touched on it in my response to Windrammer, but it's a complicated question. The answer very much depends on what the mundane is doing and what the party's casters are doing. On a very basic level, getting some spells that let you do things outside of combat is vital. So maybe the Fighter gets the Mantle of the Emperor, which lets him use charm monster and gives social bonuses. Perhaps he gets the Spectacles of the Oracle, which give him some divination spells and perception skills or abilities. Ultimately though, it's going to be very campaign dependent. That's not a good answer, but it's the only one that can really be given.

As a general rule of thumb, Fighters probably get weapons that have spell effects a level or two behind what casters are doing. This varies depending on how effective both Fighters and casters are. If the mundane is a Warblade or Frenzied Berserker, he doesn't need much help in combat. Just a few nudges to cover weakness. If he's a straight Fighter or Paladin, he needs something rather more impressive. The big thing is out of combat powers.

[Crux Argentum]

That's just where we differ in opinion, Grod. I think people researching how to be uber powerful spellcasters, essentially standing on the shoulders of others, using builds they didn't themselves discover and putting it to use with a group of people who just want to casually play the game... now that is boring.

I think everyone on these forums assumes that the whole world knows all these stupid tricks everyone talks about. "Use this class, this prestige class, these spells, game over." That's stupid.

Most games of D&D I play over the tabletop, the people have only played once or twice maybe and don't even own the PHB until they decide they like it and buy one on ebay or amazon. And get this guys... here's the crazy part you probably won't believe... all they want to do is have fun, not destroy the game with cheap tricks and silly optimization (omg!!! crazy right?!? who'd have thunk it!?!)

In those situations, you don't even have to worry about the magic/mundane stuff really. And you don't need two dozen splatbooks either. All it takes is one person in that group though to ruin it though, and you can pretty much tell who it is when they're like "I'll play, but only if I get to be the wizard." It's a shame that everyone enjoys abusing magic so much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What kind of items make the mundane builds able to keep up with the spellcasting characters at high levels?
(it's not a rhetorical question, i want actually know what are the main troubles for a high level fighter according to your experiences)

While it's outright impossible for a non-caster to compete directly with a caster at high-op many high level challenges are surmountable by supplementing a non-caster's abilities with items that grant useful abilities such as flight, teleportation, etc. Useful tools, mundane or magical, can also help in non-combat challenges; rod of ropes, portable crane, eversmoking flask, decanter of endless water, skill boosters, etc. And, of course, the typical offensively enchanted weapons and defensive items.

Proper gear selection is often the difference between being a one-trick pony and being a successful adventurer.

[Masakan]

It depends on the campaign. You cant answer this question in general.

So all your players are having a blast, and have finally gotten access to the weapon or spell or class ability they have been building their whole character around wich comes online at level 15, and then you the DM says. "well guys... you have reached the magical number, where I no longer can be bothered with coming up with new stuff for you. Game Over. I hope you have enjoyed playing...
"

I think that a campaing should end, when people are no longer having fun. That can be at level 1 or level 100 it does not matter. There is, and cannot be, no set rule or general thing to say about this.

I personally think the question is stupid in and of itself!

You have clearly never run or played a story driven campaign.


That's just where we differ in opinion, Grod. I think people researching how to be uber powerful spellcasters, essentially standing on the shoulders of others, using builds they didn't themselves discover and putting it to use with a group of people who just want to casually play the game... now that is boring.

I think everyone on these forums assumes that the whole world knows all these stupid tricks everyone talks about. "Use this class, this prestige class, these spells, game over." That's stupid.

Most games of D&D I play over the tabletop, the people have only played once or twice maybe and don't even own the PHB until they decide they like it and buy one on ebay or amazon. And get this guys... here's the crazy part you probably won't believe... all they want to do is have fun, not destroy the game with cheap tricks and silly optimization (omg!!! crazy right?!? who'd have thunk it!?!)

In those situations, you don't even have to worry about the magic/mundane stuff really. And you don't need two dozen splatbooks either. All it takes is one person in that group though to ruin it though, and you can pretty much tell who it is when they're like "I'll play, but only if I get to be the wizard." It's a shame that everyone enjoys abusing magic so much.

Not everyone wants to be ****ing conan dude.

[Melcar]

You have clearly never run or played a story driven campaign.

Yes I have... that is excactly my point. If the story drives the campaign, then surely level is not the indicator for when to stop. In the games I run, we play until people are not having fun anymore. When one story ends, another or fragments of earlier continues play. We do not let os dictate by something like the end of a story. Why would we? Not reason to stop if everyone is having fun!!!

My level 31 wizard excist because of the campaing being story driven... a story which the players continuesly creates and develop.

One of the absomlute main parts of D&D I love, is that there is not an end. No final boss or last level or chapter of the book. No programming to tel you that you have completed the game. So how can you talk about when it would be a good level to stop? Well in my view there is only and I repeat ONLY reason to stop play, if people are not having fun. Thats why I disliked the question, because it makes no sense!

[Masakan]

Yes I have... that is excactly my point. If the story drives the campaign, then surely level is not the indicator for when to stop. In the games I run, we play until people are not having fun anymore. When one story ends, another or fragments of earlier continues play. We do not let os dictate by something like the end of a story. Why would we? Not reason to stop if everyone is having fun!!!

My level 31 wizard excist because of the campaing being story driven... a story which the players continuesly creates and develop.

One of the absomlute main parts of D&D I love, is that there is not an end. No final boss or last level or chapter of the book. No programming to tel you that you have completed the game. So how can you talk about when it would be a good level to stop? Well in my view there is only and I repeat ONLY reason to stop play, if people are not having fun. Thats why I disliked the question, because it makes no sense!

Then the question i should have asked is what level do people stop having fun? Because honestly....the game isn't much fun when you begin to become useless right? I mean unless you know you ENJOY being dead weight.

See I'm thinking in terms of an RPG, your probably thinking more like an MMO.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Then the question i should have asked is what level do people stop having fun? Because honestly....the game isn't much fun when you begin to become useless right? I mean unless you know you ENJOY being dead weight.

The problem you're running into here is that the answer to your question is an inherently subjective one. There is no official one true and absolutely correct answer.

If you're not good at optimizing melee and/or wealth by level then you probably want to stop by level 10-ish. If you don't like the magic christmas tree, probably more like 5 or 6. If you like playing a complex and brutal game of chess with cities as the board and who-knows-how-many pieces on either side then you can swing into the mid teens. If you want worlds to quake in your presence and gods to show you respect, you go epic.

It's a question of taste and skill that every player must answer for his/her self.

[Masakan]

The problem you're running into here is that the answer to your question is an inherently subjective one. There is no official one true and absolutely correct answer.

If you're not good at optimizing melee and/or wealth by level then you probably want to stop by level 10-ish. If you don't like the magic christmas tree, probably more like 5 or 6. If you like playing a complex and brutal game of chess with cities as the board and who-knows-how-many pieces on either side then you can swing into the mid teens. If you want worlds to quake in your presence and gods to show you respect, you go epic.

It's a question of taste and skill that every player must answer for his/her self.

I tend to think of dnd campaigns similarly to playing Super Robot Wars SO yeah... mid teens for me.

[Kantolin]

For my group, it's when the story ends, really. We usually will start up a new game afterwards.

For our most recent games, this was: 25, 20, 14, 4, 20, 20, 21. So I guess it generally is 'barely epic' or 'not quite epic' for my group.

Magic does tend to rule the roost in the end areas, but usually our group is majority physical, ridiculously low-optimization, and tends to have some serious gentleman's agreement going on, so.... so meh. First ninth level spell we utilized was meteor swarm, and said wizard is quite pleased with having done so.

We don't do epic spellcasting, though (outside of plot macguffins, which usually end up in the PC's hands)

[Melcar]

Then the question i should have asked is what level do people stop having fun? Because honestly....the game isn't much fun when you begin to become useless right? I mean unless you know you ENJOY being dead weight.

See I'm thinking in terms of an RPG, your probably thinking more like an MMO.

The reason we are still having fun is because we roleplay... we dont do alot of fighting at level 31, and when we do thats usually fun too. So no, I dont think I'm thinking in terms of MMO.

You ask when one begings to feel like dead weight... well nobody does that at our table. I would say, that there are two reasons for feeling that way.

1. The usual "dead Weight" now has their own lands or kingdom, with standing armies of followers.

2. The DM has been able to provide the right quests and has rightfully so fragmented play, so that there are quite some time, where we do our own thing and then meet up, when we need.


So I still dont think, that there is a certain level, where play shoud be halted. It should be when people stop having fun. Our level span between level 29 and 31 and we are very much having fun.

Now if there is a douche, who optimized the hell out of his wizard, and the fighter does the opposite, then the wizard beats the fighter at everything at around level 5, but that was not the question at hand.

[Elkad]

It depends on the campaign. You cant answer this question in general.

So all your players are having a blast, and have finally gotten access to the weapon or spell or class ability they have been building their whole character around wich comes online at level 15, and then you the DM says. [I]"well guys... you have reached the magical number, where I no longer can be bothered with coming up with new stuff for you. Game Over. I hope you have enjoyed playing...

I played with that DM. He used stuff that was quite often LESS optimized than what is in the PHB, and rarely used more than 3-4 monsters per fight. He told great stories though. As soon as we got past L5, he got noticeably frustrated with combat, and he'd kill the campaign right after. Highest we ever made it was 10th, and that was because my wizard was a level behind everyone, and carefully UNoptimized to stay on a relevant combat level with the duskblade and swordsage. I hit 9th, and we were in some dire rush to cross the continent back to our home base. So of course I took Teleport as one of my 2 new spells. Game ended 2 sessions later.

He'd be a great E6 DM, or one in some other system. 3.5, not so much.

[Brova]

That's just where we differ in opinion, Grod. I think people researching how to be uber powerful spellcasters, essentially standing on the shoulders of others, using builds they didn't themselves discover and putting it to use with a group of people who just want to casually play the game... now that is boring.

There is nothing new under the sun.

More seriously, it's sort of ridiculous to consider that people are "doing it wrong" because they play characters that are optimized in a particular way. Frankly, it's largely going to be necessary for mundanes to run some kind of "net decked" build to compete with even core casters at mid to high levels.


I think everyone on these forums assumes that the whole world knows all these stupid tricks everyone talks about. "Use this class, this prestige class, these spells, game over." That's stupid.

That's not stupid, it's just different. You want to play a game where people are mid level and don't get world altering power. I don't. Those are both things the game can do, and insisting that wanting one over the other is "stupid" is small minded.


In those situations, you don't even have to worry about the magic/mundane stuff really. And you don't need two dozen splatbooks either. All it takes is one person in that group though to ruin it though, and you can pretty much tell who it is when they're like "I'll play, but only if I get to be the wizard." It's a shame that everyone enjoys abusing magic so much.

That person doesn't want to ruin the game. He's not rolling up his Wizard/Incantatrix/War Weaver buffbot or Wizard/Beguiler/Ultimate Magus battlefield controller or Wizard/Binder/Anima Mage infiltrator because he wants to ruin your game. He's doing it because he wants to tell a story with that character. He wants to play a character which is both tactically deep and strategically important. You don't want to do that, but that doesn't mean he's "ruining your game". It means you are playing fundamentally different games.


Then the question i should have asked is what level do people stop having fun?

That also depends. It's closely related to the story issue. As long as the story is interesting, people are generally going to have fun. People are also going to want the story to be coherent. If people want to play at 15th level, it can often be better to start a new story than continue one that doesn't scale well to 15th.


Because honestly....the game isn't much fun when you begin to become useless right? I mean unless you know you ENJOY being dead weight.

I think this is a problematic way of thinking. The game shouldn't end because one player is useless.* That's unfair to other players. If I came to the game expecting to play a high level/high power caster, it's unfair to end the game before that happens because someone else showed up with a character who doesn't work in that environment. Instead, you should figure out what story you want to tell before the campaign starts and ask people to play characters who will be level appropriate for the whole of that story.

*: Just in case I'm not clear, I don't think you should force someone to be useless. I think you should set things up so that none of the characters are unless during the story you want to tell.

[Trasilor]

It is more about you, as a DM than the campaign itself. At what point do you become frustrated or uncomfortable playing? It is that level at which point you should seek to end the game.

As the DM you have complete authority over the speed in which your characters gain levels. CR and experience points are guidelines that are completely up to you.

Regardless, you should let your players know that after a certain point you are no longer comfortable running the game so they can plan their players accordingly (if they do that sort of thing).

As a DM it is important to understand the game becomes different at various levels - mostly due to high level spell casting. However, even high level mundanes classes are going to have a hard time respecting the local authority when they are five levels higher. The key is to know when you no longer feel comfortable.

Of course, should you find yourself frustrated, boards like these are often very helpful and offer great advice. :smallamused:

OP Question: I wouldn't take any campaign past epic spell casting (level 20) - as I am not comfortable with such high level magic.

[ComaVision]

Campaigns should end when the story is over.

For my group, that's usually around level 11. None of the people in my group that have DMed so far are familiar with higher level play. When I endeavor to run a level 1 - 20 game, I will probably ban Tier 1 and 2 classes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Somewhat. Those do exist, but they aren't really "mundane" in the sense of "realistic" or anything like that. You aren't getting a human sized critter flying under its own power with anything like normal physics. If mundane just means it has the [Ex] tag rather than the [Su] tag, the problem goes away, but I don't think you'd get something most people believe to be "mundane".

By that incredibly strict definition of "mundane" nothing in this game is mundane by level 10. Most of the game's flying creatures couldn't fly if you drag physics into it and anyone with 8 ranks in jump and a decent str score can meet or exceed world records for long and high jump while carrying 50-ish pounds of adventuring gear.

Very few people that refer to "mundanes" actually mean "mundane and completely believable as realistic with nothing special about them at all" in this context. They mean, at most and most of the time, having no spellcasting, spell-like, or supernatural abilities. They often mean simply lacking spellcasting ability or one of it's rough equivalents (psionics, shadowcasting, etc) and occasionally they just mean characters that don't reach ninth level spells or powers not including the bard or duskblade.

Excessive adherence to real-world physics just leads to the "melee can't have nice things" mentality that turns "only casters can play at higher levels" into a self-fulfilling prophecy.


That's completely different. The important thing about plane shift isn't that it lets you go to the City of Brass or Asgard, it's that it lets you do those things under your own power. Having to find rifts doesn't create the player agency that those powers do.

If the DM doesn't want players moving off of the material; except for the limited effects of teleport, blink, and the like; he'll just say "no" in one or another way. If he doesn't mind, or even wants to run plane-hopping adventures, then there is a cannonic and mechanically extant way to allow it without having to force the players to burn resources on getting there. That was the entire point of the statement.

A note: Greater planeshift can get you directly to the city of brass. Planeshift dumps you in a random spot on the plane of fire that may or may not be in teleport's range from the city of brass. It's not until 13th level when both the greater versions of both planeshift and teleport come online that the apparent agency you're talking about is available. Natural phenomena can get you there at level 1 if you're willing to risk the journey. The DM is equally able to shut both options down and absolutely -should- if he's not prepared to run a planar adventure.


That's just where we differ in opinion, Grod. I think people researching how to be uber powerful spellcasters, essentially standing on the shoulders of others, using builds they didn't themselves discover and putting it to use with a group of people who just want to casually play the game... now that is boring.

In some, limited cases that is true. Most of the time, however, this is a function of how able the DM is to handle high-op characters. If the DM knows what he's doing, these things bring to the forefront an incredible degree of complexity that is unlike anything else I have ever seen or even heard of for the most part. That complexity is hella fun to some people, myself included.


I think everyone on these forums assumes that the whole world knows all these stupid tricks everyone talks about. "Use this class, this prestige class, these spells, game over." That's stupid.

This game is 15 years old and two new versions have been launched in the last 7. Anyone who's been playing long enough to care about getting on a message board will have at least heard of the more common build tricks or, if they haven't, whichever of their friends introduced them to the game certainly will. That said, there are almost no methods to win every time, guaranteed. Almost without exception, everything has a counter move and for those few exceptions there's good ole rule zero.


Most games of D&D I play over the tabletop, the people have only played once or twice maybe and don't even own the PHB until they decide they like it and buy one on ebay or amazon. And get this guys... here's the crazy part you probably won't believe... all they want to do is have fun, not destroy the game with cheap tricks and silly optimization (omg!!! crazy right?!? who'd have thunk it!?!)

Crazy optimization doesn't destroy the game. It makes things play out differently than they might if the players deliberately make low powered choices or select character options at random but that's "different" and "different" is not "bad." People that enjoy the game aspect of D&D, as opposed to the narrative and social aspects, will naturally want to get better at them and that leads to optimization. Whem several people who are like-minded in that regard get together to play it's only natural that the nature of how they play would be different from how more narrativist or socially minded players play. They're not having badwrongfun, just different-from-yours fun.


In those situations, you don't even have to worry about the magic/mundane stuff really. And you don't need two dozen splatbooks either.

The situations you describe are almost invariably low level play, where the caster/mundane problem (if you want to call it a problem) is much less pronounced. It starts to get pretty noticeable around lvl 7 and spirals to the point that only willful blindness can keep it from being seen by level 17.

More splats helps mundanes a lot, lot, lot more than it helps casters. The caster/non-caster issue is never more pronounced than a "core only" game. For many people, not counting you apparently, more options is more fun. Just because a DM allows many or even all splatbooks doesn't mean you or anyone else in your group is obligated to use them. You -can- have fun with just the core rules but why limit yourself unnecessarily?


All it takes is one person in that group though to ruin it though, and you can pretty much tell who it is when they're like "I'll play, but only if I get to be the wizard." It's a shame that everyone enjoys abusing magic so much.

Shame on you for stereotyping all optimizers and all players that favor wizards as inherently problematic munchkins. What causes problems at a table is not optimization, but different expectations.

If a group wants to play mostly light-hearted adventures and one of them demands to play an over-moralizing, stick in his butt, group nanny of a paladin that's just as much of a problem as a power gamer who refuses to shoot low on the power scale in a group that would rather keep things simple.

In all things social, compromise is often necessary. A responsible optimizer in a group of casuals will pick an inherently weaker or group oriented concept to optimize instead of running a batman wizard or CoDzilla and stealing the spotlight every time combat begins just like a responsible role-player will design his character with a personality that is compatible with the rest of the group instead of playing the thief archetype of rogue that steals from his allies packs when it's his turn at watch.