Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zumarai 11-24-06, 07:50 AM	A lot of people seem to feel that the game breaks down around 15th level or so. Everybody has freedom of movement, disjunction, time stop, save or die spells etc constantly flying around. My current campaign is ECL 11, and I'm looking forward to, and the challenge, of taking the campaign to at least 20th level. One cool thing about the campaign I'm running is that my players and myself have agreed not to use save or die spells. We don't like absolutes. It's pretty lame to play a character for two years only to have him gone because of rolling a "1" on a saving throw one night. The same goes for immunities, sorry, if you're at the core of a sun, I don't care if you have Immunity Fire, you're taking some damage. So I like to give creatures with Energy Immunities: Fire Resistance 120 or something. What do you think?
SilvercatMoonpaw 11-24-06, 08:13 AM	So did you take out the save-or-dies, or do you allow them in some limited quantity? I once tried to design a setting where I took out all damaging and save-or-die effects. Never got to DM it. I like your idea, since a more realistic save-or-die is really just a spell that deals a lot of damage, something that a person should have at least some chance of surviving. Same thing on you super-fire-resistence: it's a bit more realistic, but in normal play should function the same a immunity.
dokesa 11-24-06, 08:28 AM	That could work. However, there are various resurrection spells that bring creatures back from the dead, so that eliminates some of the absolutism.
Zumarai 11-24-06, 08:39 AM	That could work. However, there are various resurrection spells that bring creatures back from the dead, so that eliminates some of the absolutism. Yeah, I know, but sometimes players, such as myself, almost feel like we're cheating. Sort of like a video game "Oh great, Hal went down again, hand me a scroll of what have you." I somehow feel like my character is tainted from then on. …I'm probably just being silly.
Seeker95 11-24-06, 08:46 AM	Let us know how it goes. I have a fwe questions and comments around this, though. 1. Did you limit or remove return-to-life magic? Save-or-die is much less permanent in D&D if these spells are allowed. The threat of death is still legitimate with these spells, but the inconvenience and burden offset the fluid nature of dying. 2. Do you allow save-or-be-as-good-as-dead spells? Harm, flesh to stone and baleful polymorph all create such conditions. Removing save-or-die spells does not prevent one-shot, battle-ending spells from working. And the end result when failing the save on one of these spells is death. I think save-or-die is much less of a problem than you are suggesting. The breakdown of play at higher levels is not because a single spell can kill you. It is because any number of spells can completely thwart, circumvent or negate plot developments the DM spent a lot of time on. Murder mysteries are easily solved with divination. Travel is nearly instant. Protections abound. Death is an inconvenience. Strong-arm opponents are cake walks. Save-or-die is the least of the problems at higher level play. D&D past 14th level becomes something akin to a viedo game with the cheat codes turned on, unless the DM is more creative and flexible than his or her players combined. What one DM can craft in four hours, four players can nullify in four minutes.
stonehill_troll 11-24-06, 09:00 AM	I think save-or-die is much less of a problem than you are suggesting. The breakdown of play at higher levels is not because a single spell can kill you. It is because any number of spells can completely thwart, circumvent or negate plot developments the DM spent a lot of time on. Murder mysteries are easily solved with divination. Travel is nearly instant. Protections abound. Death is an inconvenience. Strong-arm opponents are cake walks. Save-or-die is the least of the problems at higher level play. D&D past 14th level becomes something akin to a viedo game with the cheat codes turned on, unless the DM is more creative and flexible than his or her players combined. What one DM can craft in four hours, four players can nullify in four minutes. QFT, you can't create polls here, but over on ENWorld the polls that I have seen on this topic have shown that's is around levels 10-12 that the game breaks down for the DM and the game sputters to an early death. For me as a DM since ~1978 much of fun of the game dies out when they get teleport and can use almost continuously. It's not just that one spell, but the milestone around where I lose interest in the DMing for that group of PCs. Save or die spells are not a problem IMO, death is minor inconvenience even with 1 level loss. The XP experience is designed to allow for the low man easily catch up with the rest of the party.
Zumarai 11-24-06, 09:05 AM	Let us know how it goes. I have a fwe questions and comments around this, though. 1. Did you limit or remove return-to-life magic? Save-or-die is much less permanent in D&D if these spells are allowed. The threat of death is still legitimate with these spells, but the inconvenience and burden offset the fluid nature of dying. 2. Do you allow save-or-be-as-good-as-dead spells? Harm, flesh to stone and baleful polymorph all create such conditions. Removing save-or-die spells does not prevent one-shot, battle-ending spells from working. And the end result when failing the save on one of these spells is death. I think save-or-die is much less of a problem than you are suggesting. The breakdown of play at higher levels is not because a single spell can kill you. It is because any number of spells can completely thwart, circumvent or negate plot developments the DM spent a lot of time on. Murder mysteries are easily solved with divination. Travel is nearly instant. Protections abound. Death is an inconvenience. Strong-arm opponents are cake walks. Save-or-die is the least of the problems at higher level play. D&D past 14th level becomes something akin to a viedo game with the cheat codes turned on, unless the DM is more creative and flexible than his or her players combined. What one DM can craft in four hours, four players can nullify in four minutes. 1.) I'm thinking about it. 2.) No. I totally agree with you on the divination/teleportation etc nightmares, and the cheat mode action. ...What to do...
aotrscommander 11-24-06, 09:32 AM	I'm only just starting to encounter save-or-dies myself as a player and DM; prior to 3E, most of our games were AD&D or Rolemaster, and we never got very high due to the slow level of advancement (at about 2.5 hours/week sessions). I have noticed them start to make a dint; as players we have managed to use Baleful Polymorph and Drown several times to surprising effect. I think as a DM, the best counter to save-or-dies is to have just more bad guys. I don't tend to use them on players much; I have a Fate Point system that stop players being 'killed' until they run out of them. I try to at least limit the amount of Res floating around (but the PCs, if required shouldn't find it very hard to get hold if them anyway), so it doesn't disrupt too much of the world/story consistency. (I.e Guard: The King has been assassinated! NPC court Cleric: I cast True Reserrection. Guard: Well, that solves that!) On the immunity front, I have a saying: "At high enough energy output, nothing is immune." If you shoot a fire elemental with a starship-scale energy beam, it will die, even if immune to fire! (Heck, most deities would suffer damage at that level!) Personally, I consider 'immunity' to be closer to 200-300 resistance, but there you go. However, such levels are generally way outside the magnitude of what fantasy PCs are capable of dealing out (except, as you say, perhaps environmentally.)
Zumarai 11-24-06, 09:45 AM	On the immunity front, I have a saying: "At high enough energy output, nothing is immune." If you shoot a fire elemental with a starship-scale energy beam, it will die, even if immune to fire! (Heck, most deities would suffer damage at that level!) Ha ha – totally! I'm interested in your Fate Point system - care to elaborate?
Rafe_113 11-24-06, 10:13 AM	I agree with pretty much everyone has said already. After 12th or 13th lvl, it is prety much like turing the cheat codes on. But there are a few ways around it. The first and easiest, and the one my DM uses, is that when characters hit that dreaded 12th lvl mark, they must take a prestige class if they haven't already, and continue with the PRC for at least three lvls. It doesn't stop us, as the PC's, from growing more and more powerful, but it does seem to prolong the use of save-or-die spells. *Sometimes* The second, and more time consuming for the DM, is to hand craft monsters in a cookie-cutter fashion that works on the strengths and weaknessess of the party. Mabey the monster has super high saves, but has a low AC. Or vice-versa. The third, which aotrscommander pointed out, is to simply throw in more bad guys. You force the party to keep the big-boom spells in reserve. Or they go willy nilly and run out of ammo before they reach the BBEG.
Tempest Stormwind 11-24-06, 11:04 AM	http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes2.html You may find those interesting.
Zumarai 11-24-06, 11:09 AM	http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes2.html You may find those interesting. I knew I saw those somewhere ages ago – ta very much! ...Did more ever come?
Joe Khol 11-24-06, 11:29 AM	I would argue that D&D at low level (around 1st to 8th) is an entirely different game to D&D at high level (mid teens to 20th). Not that many people will completely enjoy both games which is why many games fizzle out around 10th level and also why many other games start well above 1st level. Horses for course. The problems occur when you try to play a higher level game in the same way as you played at low levels. I don't think eliminating the obvious complications (like save-or-die effects) can fix the problem. You have to recognise the difference and alter the style of game or alternatively, close the campaign and start again at 1st.
Zumarai 11-24-06, 11:37 AM	The problems occur when you try to play a higher level game in the same way as you played at low levels. I don't think eliminating the obvious complications (like save-or-die effects) can fix the problem. You have to recognise the difference and alter the style of game or alternatively, close the campaign and start again at 1st. Regardless of level of play, I'm just saying I think the game should have less absolute effects. I also don't like the assumption of 4 encounters a day, but that's a discussion for another thread.
aotrscommander 11-24-06, 01:07 PM	I'm interested in your Fate Point system - care to elaborate? Certainly. Fate Points. These are given out as story awards (though you could, say, give them out one per level or something). Basically, you can spend a Fate Point so that something (spell, attack etc) that kills you, doesn't kill you. It instead leaves you at -9 and stable (and/or at 1 ability point if it's a Con poison or a Shadow Str drain and so on), and as far as anyone is aware, dead until someone checks you over (so the PCs then basically drops below the bad guy's radar). It also means tht any other damage inflicted on the PC that round also does not kill them (next round, though, any accidental fireballs hat hit them need another Fate Point, as would, say drowning). At the DM's discretion, Fate Points may be used in other ways (perhaps to avoid save-or-be-incapacitated effects, for example), but only at moments when the DM feels that the midden has hit the windmill for the PCs (i.e. their in desparate, dire straights, not just to dodge a single Baleful Polymorph while the rest of the party is unhurt!) Once a Fate Point is used, it's gone (it's a one-shot deal). Special Note: At all times the DM retains the right to say: "No, fortune is fickle and Fate is not with you today. You are, in fact, dead." if the DM feels the PC should not get away with this, or does something amazingly stupid (like try to eat a black hole or something; i.e. "he has it coming!") I find that this retains the level of credible threat when a PC goes down, and allows you the DM, to take off your gloves, a least for a little while, without causing undue level-loss or just plain character extermination. It also means the 'fudging' is rather than moved to player control, in a quantifiable fashion. They know how many times they get to avoid death, and thus the illusion you are not going to kill them is maintained more consistently, since it puts the power of life-and-death more into their hands. (Note, I always say I don't generally kill PCs off without a good reason, as I treat them more like the protagonists in a TV series; you are fairly sure that watching Stargate, Teal'c will survive the episode; but that little shread of uncertainty is what keeps things interesting. And again, I don't deal in absolutes either (anything is considered possible, if practically unlikely), so there's always the chance you might not make it this time...) Edit: We also rarely have 4 encounters per day; it tends to be one-to-few chaff encounters and then one really hard (or at least resource draining) BBEG fight, after whcih the PCs tend to have to rest up anyway! (This is assuming activity in a hostile area (i.e. dungeon etc); random encounters, of course, are random!)
Seeker95 11-24-06, 01:21 PM	Regardless of level of play, I'm just saying I think the game should have less absolute effects.The entire game is absolute effects. When you hit zero hit points, you are unconscious. When you reach -10 hit points, you die. When you fail a Will Save, you're dominated. When you fail a Reflex save, you take full damage. Save-or-die is just one type of absolute effect. Not liking save-or-die is one thing. Remove those spells. But not liking absolute effects is a bit more difficult to get around.
Greg K 11-24-06, 01:23 PM	I knew I saw those somewhere ages ago – ta very much! ...Did more ever come? Unfortunately, Sean has not posted any new updates to that article.
Tyler Do'Urden 11-24-06, 02:54 PM	A lot of people seem to feel that the game breaks down around 15th level or so. ... What do you think?I think we should compare our definitions of "a lot." Gameplay doesn't break down, it just changes. But it's changing the whole time if you really pay attention.
Sim_antix 11-24-06, 03:00 PM	*snip* The same goes for immunities, sorry, if you're at the core of a sun, I don't care if you have Immunity Fire, you're taking some damage. So I like to give creatures with Energy Immunities: Fire Resistance 120 or something. What do you think? I think that Sandstorm is your friend. Scorching Spell is a feat that allows fire spells to ignore fire resistance and deal half damage to fire immunity. The sun has this feat, maybe even an improved version of it. It would not be hard to come up with other ones, Sub Zero Spell for cold makes sense...
Solaris 11-24-06, 04:23 PM	The same goes for immunities, sorry, if you're at the core of a sun, I don't care if you have Immunity Fire, you're taking some damage. I should hope so. The sun isn't made of fire.
Leress 11-25-06, 12:18 AM	I should hope so. The sun isn't made of fire. I don't think there is plasma damage in Dnd.
Solaris 11-25-06, 12:20 AM	:)
Hakar_Kerarmor 11-25-06, 02:55 AM	The same goes for immunities, sorry, if you're at the core of a sun, I don't care if you have Immunity Fire, you're taking some damage. So I like to give creatures with Energy Immunities: Fire Resistance 120 or something. What do you think? I think too many things have immunities. I can see fire elementals having fire immunity, but not fire giants and red dragons for example. As for the fire elemental being swallowed by the fire god, would't half the damage done by the god's stomach be Divine damage, thus ignoring the immunity? ;)
Seeker95 11-25-06, 08:19 AM	I don't think there is plasma damage in Dnd.Expedition to the Barrier Peaks :P
CharlieRock 11-25-06, 09:46 AM	Usually by level 15, even fumbling your save, it is not the end. Unless it is a TPK. In which case ... that must have been a lot of 1s :P
Grandpa Gamer 11-25-06, 10:20 AM	Well, I've been playing and DMing since 1980, and in all three (and a half:D ) versions we've gone over level 20. Once a group can case Raise Dead, then most DM's start complaining about balance. Then Resurrection makes it an in-game option, rather than the party surviving the encounter and going back "to town". Once a group can cast True Resurrection (or any of the 'true' spells, for that matter), that's when most DM's want to start a new campaign. There are a LOT of things wrong with the Epic-Level Handbook, but it has one thing right - at high levels, the true challenge is no longer just about combat. After all, there are ONLY so many Tarrasques in the uni/multi/combo-with-fries/verse. I see no problem with taking a campaign to higher levels, or even epic, as long as the DM can present an appropriate challenge to the party. To me, this comes down to story and role-play. By this time, your characters have a reputation, and a history. It's not enough to stumble from dungeon-crawl to castle-slaughter, grinding your way to the BBEG - epic and near-epic is where the nemesis appears, whether it's a person or organization. Now's the time for YOU, the DM, to come up with an over-arching story that ties most of the crawls together, presenting the party with a REASON to their crawling. If you've already done that, then now's the change for your party to find the TRUE power behind the madman/cabal/conspiracy - a larger organization, like an opposing church or enemy nation. For the campaigns that don't go epic, this is usually the finale that ties off the campaign. If a campaign IS going epic, I use this as the "season-ender", the reason the party leaves that town/region/continent/plane. The old "my job's done here, ma'am, time to be ridin' on . . ."
kelvinaw273 11-25-06, 11:19 AM	1. Did you limit or remove return-to-life magic? Save-or-die is much less permanent in D&D if these spells are allowed. The threat of death is still legitimate with these spells, but the inconvenience and burden offset the fluid nature of dying. I'll add my own take on this, because I think it is important: In my campaigns I limit these by means of religion ... what I mean by that is, being brought back from the dead is firmly in the perview of the Gods, not men. If you have anoyed the Gods ... well, you don't come back. In my upcoming campaign I intend to use the Egyptian mythos a great deal, and do the deity that is primarily in control of who returns to the dead and who does not is Anubis. As he is also the god of tombs and embalmers, people who rob temples, plunder crypts etc are not his favourites by any means. Raise Dead, which operates while the soul is still journeying toward the afterlife (in the Egyptian mythos, making their pilgrimage to the Temple of On to be judged byt Isis, Ma'at and the forty-two assessors of the soul), has to deal with Anubis, the guardian of the dead upon that journey. If either the caster or the subject has performed any crime against Anubis, they must make restitution - fast! In fact, the only guarenteed success is if they are a priest of Anubis or one of his immediate superiors (he would look favourably on any priest of Horus, Osiris, Nepthys or Isis, and probably Thoth, Ma'at and Ra). Hence Raise Dead will cost, and it certainly will NOT be a case of just reeling off the spell on the fly. In the case of Resurrection, there is a further complication. In the Temple of On the soul of the deceased is assessed ... if it fails the test, part of the essence of the soul is destroyed (at high level oportunities exist for role-playing this divine trial with the other players petitioning the court for a reprieve). In this case on Reincarnation can accelerate the karmic wheel and return the dead to life. If this is not the case, the dead character's patron deity must be petitioned by the caster's deity, and both must petition Osiris, who is the Lord of the Underworld to release the soul of the dead person. hence the cleric must be in good standing with their own god, the recipient must be in good standing with their patron deity, and neither should be in a position of not being in favour with Osiris. Hence, good role-playing is the key to getting returned to life. Some characters will take a hit just for following the wrong deities. Set may be a 'cool' god, but he murdered Osiris - twice - and was the implacable foe of Horus and Anubis (he especially hated Anubis, who was the child of Set's wife Nepthys by Osiris). Hence followers of Set don't tend to get resurected. Now this is very campaign specific, but you can apply it to other settings too. Death is NOT to be taken lightly, and staying in good terms with one's gods is essential if you wish to return to the land of the living.
Otto the Bugbear 11-25-06, 08:36 PM	I've heard that Iron Heroes has something about save-or-die problems. Basically, if you fail, you go to -10 (or something), which isn't necessarily death. I'm not sure of the specifics, but it's something you could check out for yourself if can lay your hands on a copy. Cheers Otto :)
Chaos Theory 11-25-06, 10:04 PM	Grandpa Gamer is correct. In a nut shell the higher your level the less hack and slash you can do and the more story based you have to be. One thing he did not mention that can be used to challenge even high level parties is that a player can only be in once place at one time.
green_yawgmoth 11-25-06, 10:16 PM	A lot of people seem to feel that the game breaks down around 15th level or so. A lot of people think that characters should retire at 8. A lot of people think that an "epic spellcaster" is one who can cast a 5th level spell. A lot of other people are bored until the game gets to 15th level. A lot of people start games at 21st level instead of 1st because they like epic games. Do what feels right for you, your players, and your game. if it works for your party, that's all that matters. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gifu