Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord_Inan_Highcrest 03-12-07, 12:46 AM	I will not post my reply just want to see where people stand in this.
Korhal IV 03-12-07, 01:04 AM	At the level where he or she has accomplished all that needed to be done.
Kresalak 03-12-07, 01:09 AM	Level 20 is the hard cap where D&D literally doesn't work anymore, but the game falls apart around level 13 or so. But essentially, a character stops being a PC when either the campaign ends or the player gets bored of that character.
Lord_Inan_Highcrest 03-12-07, 01:27 AM	At the level where he or she has accomplished all that needed to be done. a little vaugh but ok
Daydreamer 03-12-07, 01:29 AM	This really varies from group to group and dm to dm. IN my group ppl retire around level 14ish, after accomplishing usually one big last task. Some ppl like to play level 60's with 5000 hp. However, i remember the 2nd edition epic handbook capped d&d at level 30. The reason was simple-d&d is a game for heros not gods. So whenver your pcs are out of the league of what ur world can do, and what ur dm does, time to retire.
fatal error 03-12-07, 01:47 AM	Whenever the campaign is finished. This could be level 8 if the campaign was going to be a "hard capped" campaign, such as a Lord of the Ring's type plot where after it's done there's really no other plot that can stand against it (saving the world). In fact, if you run such a campaign and continue after the original objective, you'll probably hit the super-weapon-a-month problem of needing each new story be higher stakes, yet having had the stakes already near the maximum. And no one likes that. Other campaigns can of course stretch to epic. All depends on how the campaign was designed and what the PC goals are.
Weiser_Cain 03-12-07, 08:16 AM	I don't think any character that has free will is unplayable, so anything short of overgod.
Edymnion 03-12-07, 08:21 AM	a little vaugh but okWell, you ask a vague question, you get a vague answer. The answer is "whenever you no longer enjoy playing the character." That could be lvl 1, it could be lvl 20, it could be level 50. There is no set time when a character has to be retired. Its like asking "How old should someone be before they die?" There is no right or wrong answer.
pres_man 03-12-07, 12:27 PM	When they no longer can pay the resurrection costs. :devil:
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-12-07, 12:32 PM	a little vaugh but ok Sorry, what does "vaugh" mean? :confused: The time to retire a PC is when playing said PC stops being fun.
Kain Darkwind 03-12-07, 12:39 PM	I agree that once the PC is no longer fun to play, or cannot be meaningfully challenged, it is time to put retire her/him and roll up a new one. There isn't a set level where that happens though...it could be 8th level, it could be 80th. If there are still adventures to be had, the PC shouldn't retire.
Seeker95 03-12-07, 02:27 PM	A character is no longer a PC when: 1. The character is dead and not being raised. 2. The character becomes evil in a no-evil PCs game. 3. The player quits. 4. The campaign is over.
johnkretzer 03-12-07, 03:13 PM	My answear is never...then again I play in games where the world doesn't start over when the campaigns is over. That being said is that they become inactive...mostly RPing no combat. Though sometimes the world needs it's old heros to step up again. Though in general I agree with others it is time to retire when you are no longer having fun.
FntsyWlkr 03-12-07, 03:31 PM	At what level? Less than or equal to 20.
DarkNick 03-12-07, 03:51 PM	I will not post my reply just want to see where people stand in this. Well, since you don't want to share I'm not going to post my reply either :P
paladin2019 03-12-07, 03:57 PM	At "happily ever after."
Edymnion 03-12-07, 06:44 PM	A character is no longer a PC when: 1. The character is dead and not being raised. 2. The character becomes evil in a no-evil PCs game. 3. The player quits. 4. The campaign is over.See, I don't retire characters when a campaign ends. I put them in my (N)PC bag, retool them later, and play them all over again with a differant twist. Of course, thats mainly for online games.
ArcTan 03-12-07, 07:02 PM	I don't think any character that has free will is unplayable, so anything short of overgod. Unplayable and un-DMable are two different things. Even D&DG recommends that you just retire the character after she ascends to godhood. The whole idea of statting out deities and making them theoretically playable as PCs is, in my mind, a failure. Notice that they're not doing that anymore with any of the new gods they're making up.
CharlieRock 03-12-07, 07:07 PM	Notice that they're not doing that anymore with any of the new gods they're making up. Merely a marketing ploy. ;)
Seeker95 03-12-07, 08:39 PM	See, I don't retire characters when a campaign ends. I put them in my (N)PC bagAn NPC is not a PC :P Does this mean Geordan is gonna become immortal?
Kain Darkwind 03-12-07, 10:54 PM	At what level? Less than or equal to 20. I've never bought the idea that there is a magical number where you can't play anymore. With rules for epic and godhood, the only thing that could really limit you is the lack of a good/willing DM.
Weiser_Cain 03-13-07, 03:08 AM	Unplayable and un-DMable are two different things. Even D&DG recommends that you just retire the character after she ascends to godhood. The whole idea of statting out deities and making them theoretically playable as PCs is, in my mind, a failure. Notice that they're not doing that anymore with any of the new gods they're making up. This isn't the first time I've disagreed with the rule guys and I doubt it'll be the last.
navar100 03-13-07, 03:45 AM	I will not post my reply just want to see where people stand in this. When the group doesn't want to play the campaign anymore, hopefully when the overall main plot has been successfully concluded. Even then players may just want to continue on to the next thing, so it comes down to everyone would rather just start a new game. What actual game mechanics character level this happens is purely subject to each individual campaign. (i.e. one person not liking games above 15th level in no way means another campaign must go beyond 10th level or even another game can't go on to 37th level.)
Sudnji_cas 03-13-07, 06:38 AM	When he...RULES THE REALITY:evillaugh j/k
marcel_deathbringer 03-13-07, 02:04 PM	Sorry, what does "vaugh" mean? :confused: The time to retire a PC is when playing said PC stops being fun. He just spelled VAGUE incorrectly.
Witch 03-13-07, 02:09 PM	I've never bought the idea that there is a magical number where you can't play anymore. With rules for epic and godhood, the only thing that could really limit you is the lack of a good/willing DM. I'm with Kain on this one.
ArcTan 03-13-07, 02:10 PM	I've never bought the idea that there is a magical number where you can't play anymore. With rules for epic and godhood, the only thing that could really limit you is the lack of a good/willing DM. Willing DMs are few and far between precisely because the rules aren't good. I'd be far more willing to DM level 21+ campaigns if 21+ *didn't* have a special set of "Epic" rules but just meant proportionate increases in power a la first edition.
Kain Darkwind 03-13-07, 02:26 PM	Willing DMs are few and far between precisely because the rules aren't good. I'd be far more willing to DM level 21+ campaigns if 21+ *didn't* have a special set of "Epic" rules but just meant proportionate increases in power a la first edition. Hmm. I agree that epic needs a 3.5 overhaul, but I am not certain that we agree what that overhaul would consist of. Since I never played 1e, I don't know how they handled it, but I don't have a problem with HD advancing, or the saves being modified so that they don't fall completely out of wack. I don't think BaB should have been modified. I think more care should have been taken with some of the feats and their impact on the game. However, the idea of epic and even the idea of godhood (something I don't think I would find very interesting to play nor capable of DMing) is not an intrisicly flawed one. I get just as irked about people complaining about starting at level 1 as I do about them complaining about advancing past level 20. No magic number. Epic has a potential, and largely ignored. Because the rules are flawed, not many people want to play it, so it doesn't appeal to a large portion of the market, so they never fix the rules which remain flawed, thus not many people want to play it......it is a vicious cycle. If Epic was given support and integrated into Core as an expectation rather than an option, it would be much better off.
Enderlaand 03-13-07, 02:33 PM	Whenever the campaign is finished. This could be level 8 if the campaign was going to be a "hard capped" campaign, such as a Lord of the Ring's type plot where after it's done there's really no other plot that can stand against it (saving the world). In fact, if you run such a campaign and continue after the original objective, you'll probably hit the super-weapon-a-month problem of needing each new story be higher stakes, yet having had the stakes already near the maximum. And no one likes that. Other campaigns can of course stretch to epic. All depends on how the campaign was designed and what the PC goals are. See, I have to disagree here. After the Ring is destroyed and the story 'ends' there are a lot of things that happen in LOTR. The hobbits return to the Shire and learn that Saruman has set himself up as 'the Chief.' Also, Eomer, Faramir and Aragorn have many adventures fighting the Easterlings and Haradrim after the events of LOTR. It's all in the appendices. There's always somewhere for epic heroes to go.
Witch 03-13-07, 02:33 PM	I don't think BaB should have been modified. Now, full BAB's wouldn't have a problem. Low BAB's wouldn't either, as they're not particularly concerned with it. But wouldn't this be problematic for characters with medium BAB if you continue standard advancement?
Kain Darkwind 03-13-07, 02:36 PM	Now, full BAB's wouldn't have a problem. Low BAB's wouldn't either, as they're not particularly concerned with it. But wouldn't this be problematic for characters with medium BAB if you continue standard advancement? I'm not quite sure how it could be. 3/4 HD = BaB. That formula works for 50th level characters the same way it works for 15th. Afterall, racial HD, such as elemental or animal, keeps its 3/4 BaB. The only modification they needed to make to BaB is to cap attacks at 4-5 interitive attacks and allow one to take epic feats if they wanted more attacks a round.
ArcTan 03-13-07, 02:38 PM	See, I have to disagree here. After the Ring is destroyed and the story 'ends' there are a lot of things that happen in LOTR. The hobbits return to the Shire and learn that Saruman has set himself up as 'the Chief.' Also, Eomer, Faramir and Aragorn have many adventures fighting the Easterlings and Haradrim after the events of LOTR. It's all in the appendices. There's always somewhere for epic heroes to go. Notice that these are relatively mundane tasks -- in fact, the noticeable thing about the Scouring of the Shire is how mundane it is compared to the rest of the story. (It's our 15th-level heroes coming back home and making short work of the 3rd-level threats that used to scare them way back at the beginning of the story.) The story has a climax -- the final battle at Mordor's gates, when Frodo finally reaches Mt. Doom, and the army of Sauron is finally destroyed. It does *not* constantly ascend exponentially in power and grandeur after that point. The Fellowship of the Ring does not transport themselves to the Outer Darkness to battle Morgoth, source of all evil. They don't fight their way to Valinor and become gods. They don't journey to the edge of the universe and confront Eru Iluvatar the Creator himself. No. The story has a build-up, a climax, a resolution, and a denouement. Just like a good campaign does. Good stories *end*.
Witch 03-13-07, 02:39 PM	I'm not quite sure how it could be. 3/4 HD = BaB. That formula works for 50th level characters the same way it works for 15th. At level 20: Medium BAB: 15 High BAB: 20 Difference: 5 The AC difference is hence pretty doable. At level 100: Medium BAB: 75 High BAB: 100 Difference: 25 The difference comes to mean that if you want to challenge the hit rate of the full BAB, the medium BAB will never hit, while if you want to allow the medium BAB to stand a chance, the full BAB will always hit. Afterall, racial HD, such as elemental or animal, keeps its 3/4 BaB. Those creatures are given more HD to make up for their lower BAB.
ArcTan 03-13-07, 02:40 PM	Hmm. I agree that epic needs a 3.5 overhaul, but I am not certain that we agree what that overhaul would consist of. Since I never played 1e, I don't know how they handled it, but I don't have a problem with HD advancing, or the saves being modified so that they don't fall completely out of wack. I don't think BaB should have been modified. I think more care should have been taken with some of the feats and their impact on the game. However, the idea of epic and even the idea of godhood (something I don't think I would find very interesting to play nor capable of DMing) is not an intrisicly flawed one. That kind of story is an intrinsically different kind of story and an intrinsically different kind of game than ordinary D&D, and I think they didn't quite get that concept when they were designing it. If I wanted to run a game about being gods, I wouldn't use D&D rules at all.
Kain Darkwind 03-13-07, 02:56 PM	At level 20: Medium BAB: 15 High BAB: 20 Difference: 5 The AC difference is hence pretty doable. At level 100: Medium BAB: 75 High BAB: 100 Difference: 25 The difference comes to mean that if you want to challenge the hit rate of the full BAB, the medium BAB will never hit, while if you want to allow the medium BAB to stand a chance, the full BAB will always hit. Those creatures are given more HD to make up for their lower BAB. Witch, I don't want to derail this thread further talking about the mechanics of epic, but if you do want to discuss it, start a thread and we can do it there. That kind of story is an intrinsically different kind of story and an intrinsically different kind of game than ordinary D&D, and I think they didn't quite get that concept when they were designing it. No more than Eberron is a different way of looking at D&D. There is no 'right' way to play the game, although some may be more rewarding in the long term, some may be more viable to shorter campaigns, etc etc. But playing epic is not the same as playing a god, and the concerns for the god rule set are not the same as the concerns for the epic set. While different than 'ordinary DnD' (really, what defines ordinary DnD?), it isn't beyond the capability of the rule set to handle, had a little more care been placed in its creation. If I wanted to run a game about being gods, I wouldn't use D&D rules at all. Certainly a viable personal choice, but I'm not sure how even the actual superiority of a different hypothetical ruleset somehow negates the ability of this one to work in such a fashion.
Lord_Inan_Highcrest 03-18-07, 08:22 PM	Thank You all so far for your insight on this matter and others. I actually have a good time reading your replys to my question and to your own answers. As long as you do not get rude I do not mind reading what you write. In truth it is a trick question ther is no right or wrong answer, although I agree with the general concesses of when they are no longer fun to play. However I feel that for most DM's I've played with it takes a certain amount of enginuity to run a campain beyond 20th level, and most of the campains I try to run nobody can understand the implications of help to discover uncharted territory in even the same world. Remember D&D presumably takes place during midevil times and our world was small then so why not the known Oearth. This said the LOTR books could still progress beyond the battle at Mordor.
ArcTan 03-20-07, 12:25 AM	No more than Eberron is a different way of looking at D&D. There is no 'right' way to play the game, although some may be more rewarding in the long term, some may be more viable to shorter campaigns, etc etc. But playing epic is not the same as playing a god, and the concerns for the god rule set are not the same as the concerns for the epic set. While different than 'ordinary DnD' (really, what defines ordinary DnD?), it isn't beyond the capability of the rule set to handle, had a little more care been placed in its creation. Er, what exactly do you mean by this? There's no reason why you couldn't have some way to add more levels to a character than 20, I agree. I just think the way the Epic rules did it was dumb. Certainly a viable personal choice, but I'm not sure how even the actual superiority of a different hypothetical ruleset somehow negates the ability of this one to work in such a fashion. It doesn't. I wouldn't do it just because some other system might be better. I'd pick a different system because D&D *is* very bad at handling the idea of gods. It's not meant for it at all. Actually writing rules for a god would be really hard, never mind that the rules that have been written -- Deities & Demigods -- are quite bad.
ArcTan 03-20-07, 12:29 AM	Thank You all so far for your insight on this matter and others. I actually have a good time reading your replys to my question and to your own answers. As long as you do not get rude I do not mind reading what you write. In truth it is a trick question ther is no right or wrong answer, although I agree with the general concesses of when they are no longer fun to play. However I feel that for most DM's I've played with it takes a certain amount of enginuity to run a campain beyond 20th level, and most of the campains I try to run nobody can understand the implications of help to discover uncharted territory in even the same world. Remember D&D presumably takes place during midevil times and our world was small then so why not the known Oearth. I don't quite get what you mean by this, but you don't have to be an uncontrolledly powerful 30th level character to explore the rest of the world. It's this correlation between "high-level character" and "large-scope campaign" I don't get. If you did it right, you could stop the game at level 15 and still save the entire world, and it'd feel entirely appropriate and satisfying (do you *realize* how powerful a level 15 Wizard is?). (You couldn't if you used the stupid setting described by the Epic Level Handbook. But that setting is stupid.) This said the LOTR books could still progress beyond the battle at Mordor. They could, but if they had they'd be much poorer books. Hell, even the Scouring of the Shire -- which I agree serves an important purpose in the story -- makes the ending feel bloated and dragging. Tolkien thought about trying to write a sequel to LotR -- ever heard of The Dark Tower? -- but realized it was impossible without fundamentally changing the nature of what had happened in LotR and thereby undermining and cheapening it ("Oh, no, Sauron's COME BACK! All that crap was for nothing!") or else the story inevitably being much less interesting and much more irrelevant ("So after we broke the power of evil incarnate at Mordor, we went and mopped up some orcs who were living in this dark tower").
Shayde 03-20-07, 12:59 AM	I have never gotten a campaign past 10th level, but if I could I would get it to epic (21+). The main thing for me is that there are some extremely serious threats in my homebrew that I would like my Pc's to deal with(most of them are epic NPC's) However in assembling these threats I have learned that it is a lot more work building an epic level campaign since you have to make threats to the world that aren't neccesarily(I doubt I spelled that one right) going to be overcome by traditional hack and slash or negotiation( i.e. giant meteor heading towards the planet). I mean I have to assume that even if the BBEG 25th level npc has a freaking army to command that's not much of a challenge to 21st level pc's, and it's something they have all seen before. But you have to keep in mind that killing monsters isn't the only way to get xp, I mean at epic level the players could build a Spelljammer and go colonize another planet or something,(an adventure in and of itself) I mean my current players aren't going to get probably past level 1 at this rate but I can dream cant' I? As for the rules on making epic classes I think these are sick at best, aside from fighter or rogue most of the classes don't get enough aside from a higher caster level (in my mind at least) to even make taking 21 levels in it worth the time( the only thing that a level 21 wizard has going for it is the ability to create and cast maybe one epic spell a day per every 20 ranks or so in spellcraft as I recall that rule). So my general rule is that all classes cap at level 20. Then for level 21 they have to take a level in a different class(their choice of course although depending on build some are better than others). Crap I wound up ranting again, sorry.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-20-07, 11:37 AM	He just spelled VAGUE incorrectly. Ah, that makes more sense. I thought perhaps it was a reference to some thing or person of which I was unaware. Carry on. Nothing to see, here.
Zumarai 03-20-07, 12:07 PM	but the game falls apart around level 13 or so. Some would say 11th.
bluemage55 03-25-07, 04:27 AM	Whenever the game falls apart. Exactly when this occur depends on the experience of the DM and the players involved. For beginning players, even 5th level might be too much. For very well-versed players, epic-level games can be very rewarding. Essentially, the more experienced your play group, the higher the level you can take your game to.
Witch 03-25-07, 02:13 PM	As for the rules on making epic classes I think these are sick at best, aside from fighter or rogue most of the classes don't get enough aside from a higher caster level (in my mind at least) to even make taking 21 levels in it worth the time( the only thing that a level 21 wizard has going for it is the ability to create and cast maybe one epic spell a day per every 20 ranks or so in spellcraft as I recall that rule). So my general rule is that all classes cap at level 20. Then for level 21 they have to take a level in a different class(their choice of course although depending on build some are better than others). Crap I wound up ranting again, sorry. Let me adress this quite notable amount of errors. most of the classes don't get enough aside from a higher caster level (in my mind at least) to even make taking 21 levels in it worth the time Experienced epic players will tell you that taking 21 levels in a base class is worth it at Epic, far more so than before epic. Before Epic, "dipping" in classes grants you more power. At epic, it delays your epic bonus feats, and hence significantly weakens you. The special things the class gets is exactly that: bonus feats. Classes become more variable, in that they get to choose what they can do. the only thing that a level 21 wizard has going for it is the ability to create and cast maybe one epic spell a day per every 20 ranks or so in spellcraft as I recall that rule There is no limit on creating spells, and creating spells has nothing to do with spellcraft. As such, it doesn't allow you to freely create spells. What is true is that an epic level caster gets an epic spell slot per day for every 10 ranks it has in respectively Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Religion) or Knowledge (Nature). So my general rule is that all classes cap at level 20. Which is a bad idea, and a sign that you don't understand epic. I suggest learning more about it before trying to DM an epic campaign. On another note: It doesn't. I wouldn't do it just because some other system might be better. I'd pick a different system because D&D *is* very bad at handling the idea of gods. It's not meant for it at all. Actually writing rules for a god would be really hard, never mind that the rules that have been written -- Deities & Demigods -- are quite bad. Actually, it's not hard to write rules for a god, at least not unovercomably so. And let us not forget that, while Deities and Demigods had issues in not mingling with the Epic rules, Dicefreaks has rebuilt the system, and several deities, as to make the epic and divine rules mesh.
Weiser_Cain 03-26-07, 02:49 PM	Since when are epic spells negligible?