Post/Author/DateTime	Post
the.eberron.traveler 04-06-05, 04:07 PM	There's a similar thread to this here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=271049), but most of it is very old and unwieldy, so I thought I'd start a new one. Anyway. Before Eberron, I played Birthright for the longest time. I've also played in Mystara, the FR, briefly in Dragonlance, and a good amount in Dark Sun. I have to say that I had the greatest of times in BR (thought Eberron is quickly catching up, and DS was IMHO the coolest of them all). I thought I might share a few thoughts about low powered campaigns. As was previously mentioned in this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=271049) thread (last year), BR is a setting of really low level characters. There are few mages, and few leaders of nations, or adventurers for that matter, are supposed to be above level 5. That poses some problems, but not the ones most people in that thread were worried about. First of all, rules shouldn't overrule common sense. The originator of the older thread had argued several times that both should be respected, and I'm for that. But note that the beauty of the d20 system, that no one seems to have mentioned there, is that it is so intuitive and flexible. Nearly everything happens with a d20 roll, more is better, and so on. That's intuitive. Flexible? As stated in a lot of places in the rules, the DM always has the opportunity (and responsibility, if common sense calls for it) to add ad hoc modifiers to each roll. Are you trying to convince a 2nd-level monarch that he should allow your guilds a monopoly in his lands? Are you a 13th-level character with a diplomacy modifier of +23? It doesn't really matter. It's not in his best interests, not by a long shot, so your roll might as well take a -40 modifier. I've always considered the epic handbook's epic skill results rather ridiculous. Unless magic is involved (and you might want to argue it is, kind of, when talking about epic characters, but it definetely ain't for anything below 20th level) then it doesn't matter if *insert incredibly sexy actress/actor of your choice* tries to talk you into jumping off a cliff, you're just not going to do it. Rulers shouldn't act like heroes. Is it valuable to have a high level ruler? Well, yes. He can withstand assassination attempts with more ease than weaker characters, or he can singlehandedly challenge and defeat the champion of Droaam. But that's not what they'll be doing most of the time. Sure, Boranel won, but what would have happened if he hadn't? That was mightily brave on his part and, if he didn't have an ace up his sleave, mightily irresponsible. If he had died in that encounter, Breland would probably be overrun by now. Consider that he doesn't have a worthy successor even at this point, and that the parliament is hungry to take over from the monarchy. And then you have the powerful and somewhat independent Sharn in the mix. The power vacuum, subsequent struggle (even if somewhat mitigated during wartime), and inept leadership (that would have to prove itself to the people before the grumbling ended) that would result from Boranel's death would likely sunder Breland and make it easy prey for its opponents. A ruler has a responsibility to his people. When we're not talking about tiny places like Shadowdale, but large nations, the loss of the ruler can be more devastating than any single medium-scale threat. Think of any strategy game where there is an all powerful piece, but which losing means losing the game. You're not going to be throwing it around an awful lot, not unless you're sure it won't come to harm. It's much easier for rulers to have spies, good organized security, and deploy teams of faithful, well-funded, well-organized troops. Think how much difference magical items make. A king can provide plenty of them to his champions. Take a look at the Redcloacks in S:CoT, an excellent example of a low-level group with good equipment working in an organized fashion to pose a challenge far in excess of what their levels indicate. It doesn't really usually make sense for future rulers to adventure while young. First of all, there's all the common sense warning bells that others have mentioned, that if you stop metagaming and think of the fantasy world as a world where people live in, you'd realize they're not going to be thinking "let me adventure a bit while I'm waiting for my dad to pass away, so that I'll be at least powerful enough to fend away dragons if the need arises." And even if they're young and foolish and think that way, their dads aren't going to let them, because they probably know that adventuring is downright dangerous and they don't want their scions getting maimed or killed, especially in a low level magic world like eberron (or BR). Not to mention Keith's excellent Dragonshard about experience: the scion knows that not everybody can be a hero. Think of a seventh ability score, experience accumulation, which determines both whether you can take PC classes, what your maximum level cap is, and at what rate you get experience. PCs are supposed to have 18s. Most people don't. The scion and prospective adventurer, seeing all those veterans of the Last War that are still only marginally better than him at swordplay (3rd-level warriors), probably realizes that he may not be able to fend off dragons if he goes adventuring for a couple of years, in fact he may not improve his technique that much at all to make it worth risking his life. Where does that leave us? If kingship is hereditary, new kings probably won't be high level, and they're unlikely to level up much more during their years (even if they don't hit their hidden stat level cap). So the only way to have high level leaders is if some adventurer decides to challenge existing ones and take up the crown. That isn't as easy as it sounds. There are two aspects. Getting rid of a monarch is the easy part, but even that is not as easy as it sounds. They're likely to be equipped with far better magical items than an adventurer of similar or even higher level. But that's a minor point; they'll be protected. They'll be protected by magic, by powerful bodyguards, with coward's pearls, by intelligence services that keep an eye out for any type of threat and are quite often very efficient. (If the information available on the trust hasn't convinced you that intelligence services can be deadly, well...) Even if you do kill them, and manage to proclaim yourself king, where do you go from there? Keith suggested in that other thread that a well-equipped, well-organized strike force of low or medium level characters can actually give the characters quite a run for their money. But you don't even need to go that far. The adventuring group is what, four, maybe at most six characters. They need to sleep. They need to eat. Are they always going to be casting detect poison before they eat or merely drink a glass of water? Or will they be camping in the royal suite, all together, taking turns standing watch? Unless you win the trust and support of a nation, you can't rule over it. At the very least, you need the trust and support of a large and powerful army. There is just no way you could waltz in, declare yourself sovereign, and expect any sort of support. And if you don't have support, life is going to be a living hell, from insubordinancy to insurrections to assassination attempts. Not just from your people, but also from other states that might be worried they're next. In some places, like Darguun, to an extent right is might. The goblinoids do value their lord and champion being a mighty one. It is in their culture, and they do not have a long-standing and celebrated hereditary line of rulers. It stands to reason that a powerful goblinoid might rise to claim power in such an environment. But as Keith mentioned I think in the other thread, you still need to give the clans some reason to follow you. Inspire them with a grand vision for the goblinoid races, promise them things they know they can't get otherwise, something. But being powerful isn't enough; they don't care. They can get rid of you, sooner or later, and there are plenty of people who think they should be in charge. But in most nations, it doesn't even come down to that. Sure, Brelish girls a few years back may have been swooning at the thought of King Boranel, knight in shining armor, champion of Breland, coming and sweeping them off their feet. But does that mean they'll accept any upstart adventurer who shows up over the ir'Wynarn line? Will the parliament accept the adventurer? It's quite telling that a lot of Brelish citizens are seriously contemplating what life would be in a post-Boranel era under the leadership of the parliament, which is composed of mere politicians. But anyway, all of this has been about why the power level of NPCs in Eberron is just fine, and very BR-light. Let's turn to that for a second. As mentioned, BR had even less powerful leaders than Eberron. Once the PCs had been in a few adventures, and were at level 8 or 9, they could probably storm most of any ruler's castle and, if afforded a straight, fair fight against any of them, kick his ass. But they wouldn't. They reasons include a lot of the aforementioned ones. There is really no point to it, and it wouldn't really succeed anyway. To gain anything and hold it, you need to work the hard way, helping your nation expand piece by piece. Was the setting any less fun for the low levels of its leaders? No. The setting was literally crawling with Awnsheghlien, powerful individuals long ago corrupted by their evil Bloodlines (like dragonmarks but, if you'll allow my saying so, far cooler and less balanced) and thus turned into powerful ruler-monsters (occasionally controlling monster-nations). The point is that there were plenty of high-level out of the ordinary challengers, much like in Eberron there are all these secret societies, Dreaming Dark, Lords of Dust, etc. There's plenty of stuff to do there, even if you don't like sending your PCs to the Underdark of the Undermountain-continent. But there is a problem with consistency and realism. If the Emerald Claw is sending mainly 1st-level warriors or 2nd-level fighters to do its important dirty work when the PCs are low level, how come it's suddenly sending grunts who are 6th-level when the PCs are 10th or 11th? Sure, it might be argued that the PCs are considered a higher threat, or that the mission is more important. But I like to think of my bad guys as clever people, who don't send a 1st-level warrior when they could have sent a 6th-level fighter, and I also like to think of the things my PCs are involved in as noteworthy and important; I don't like to think that the Emerald Claw is currently involved in 23 other schemes as well, and that this one is rather low on their list. This is particularly a problem if you like campaigns revolving around intrigue and human organizations. Sure, the Daelkyr and the Lords of Dust are challenging foes, but the Emerald Claw, the Aurum and the Boromars are IMHO more interesting ones. There is something that can help; the variant rule that AC is 1d20+modifiers instead of 10+modifiers, rolled for each attack. Besides being more realistic, this variant makes low-level groups of enemies much more challenging (while helping PCs hit more powerful foes). After all, there are only so many times the Claw should be able to produce a crack team specifically trained and equipped and at a sufficient power level to deal with your group. They can start hiring Daask after a while, or using scrolls to summon strange fiends to plague you, but you start running out of plausible options quickly. As I mentioned above, it's easy to get the PCs in realistic ways if they're getting on your nerves or you think they'd be in trouble realistically speaking, but if your PCs aren't asking for it, it's not very fair or fun-conducive to have them poisoned or stabbed while asleep. One final note. Rulers don't have time for adventuring, and vice versa. A ruler needs to be there, taking care of countless menial tasks and decisions. It's boring being a ruler, and no DM should have to go through the trouble of having to make his players understand that. BR did a good job at least, through sort of nation-random-encounters, to let you get a feel for the fact that things go wrong quite often, and you need to be able to deal with them before they spin off into a big deal. Once you're bogged down in all of that, it's hard to take time off to save the world. Conversely, if you're an adventurer, it's just much more fun to continue being an adventurer. A high level adventurer isn't short on cash. They live a good life, an interesting life. Our experience in BR was that, though we were kings, guildmasters, etc, things would get so hectic once the real world-saving part came along that we'd never have time for our nations. (BR was really good in giving you the you're pretty much the only ones that can save the world feeling.) After a few campaigns, we found out it was more fun to be the famous and well-rewarded champions of nations rather than their rulers. You can throw your weight around much easier that way too. You are a powerful adventurer, not the ruler of that weak nation on the corner of Cerilia, even though you're quite powerful yourself, hmph. Anyway... that took a while. Bottom line, use DM discretionary modifiers to protect common sense, think about the everyday reality of your world, which includes everyone and not just the few NPCs you've bothered statting, and be prepared for more effort if you want to run intrigue/pc-race based campaigns well into higher level and still maintain internal consistency.
Alextroy 04-06-05, 07:52 PM	Lots of good stuff here, but I do have to point out one thing. First of all, there's all the common sense warning bells that others have mentioned, that if you stop metagaming and think of the fantasy world as a world where people live in, you'd realize they're not going to be thinking "let me adventure a bit while I'm waiting for my dad to pass away, so that I'll be at least powerful enough to fend away dragons if the need arises." And even if they're young and foolish and think that way, their dads aren't going to let them, because they probably know that adventuring is downright dangerous and they don't want their scions getting maimed or killed, especially in a low level magic world like eberron (or BR). This is the one weakness in your essay. Eberron has a feudal element to it that encourages the rulers of a nation to be skilled generals. The only way to get that experience is to go out there and get your hands dirty. Now, I am not saying that the scions of Galifar are off on adventures with their 3 best buddies, but they will train for long years in the arts of weapons and warfare. They will go to war. They will have to prove their mastery at arms in battle. They will be surrounded by some of the realm's finest soliders to ensure they do not die, but they will put their lives at risk. A quick look through the leaders of the nations of Khorvaire shows the lowest level leader of a nation is a 4th level Aristocrat and that many of the leaders have many levels of fighter. They do not pick up that sort of skill by hanging around court and practicing with their weaponsmasters. They went out and lead their nations troops during the Last War. Alextroy
scwolf 04-06-05, 08:37 PM	But there is a problem with consistency and realism. If the Emerald Claw is sending mainly 1st-level warriors or 2nd-level fighters to do its important dirty work when the PCs are low level, how come it's suddenly sending grunts who are 6th-level when the PCs are 10th or 11th? Sure, it might be argued that the PCs are considered a higher threat, or that the mission is more important. But I like to think of my bad guys as clever people, who don't send a 1st-level warrior when they could have sent a 6th-level fighter, and I also like to think of the things my PCs are involved in as noteworthy and important; I don't like to think that the Emerald Claw is currently involved in 23 other schemes as well, and that this one is rather low on their list. My suggestion for this would be to use relatively low-to-mid-level mooks but back them up with a decent commander character. One good class for the commander would be Marshal from Minatures Handbook (Yes, I know, MinisHB has a reputation on these boards, but Marshal's rather balanced). Throw in some of the options from the various splatbooks that support teamwork tactics. Then, throw in the general tendancy that people have of trying to acomplish a task with the least amount of effort. Sure, they could have hauled their heavy shields along on this job and used it to make an effective shield wall, but their Boss back at the Emerald Claw home office said that these adventurers that they were supposed to ambush were supposed to be a cakewalk. Heck, the squad commander stayed down at the tavern for one last drink and won't be along for another minute or two. Just because the adversaries the DM sends to take care of the PCs may have the resources to take care of higher level threats, those resources may require preperation, or extra effort, and thus, won't always be available.
(Psi)SeveredHead 04-06-05, 10:16 PM	Lots of good stuff here, but I do have to point out one thing. This is the one weakness in your essay. Eberron has a feudal element to it that encourages the rulers of a nation to be skilled generals. In real-life history, this was only necessary if you were at war. Even then, you only needed a few good generals. The leader could be a charming diplomat and bureaucrat, rather than a general. The only way to get that experience is to go out there and get your hands dirty. Now, I am not saying that the scions of Galifar are off on adventures with their 3 best buddies, but they will train for long years in the arts of weapons and warfare. They will go to war. They will have to prove their mastery at arms in battle. They will be surrounded by some of the realm's finest soliders to ensure they do not die, but they will put their lives at risk. And, assuming this is so, there are going to be more talented generals around. But I do agree that, having just come off of that great war, that the kings and queens would be pretty good tacticians for people of their level. A quick look through the leaders of the nations of Khorvaire shows the lowest level leader of a nation is a 4th level Aristocrat and that many of the leaders have many levels of fighter. They do did pick up that sort of skill by hanging around court and practicing with their weaponsmasters. They went out and lead their nations troops during the Last War. Alextroy I think the part in red is suppose to say "they did not" or "they didn't just". As for PCs taking over, they'll quickly learn that kings frequently don't run the country, but some powerful nobles do. And if they take over, pretty soon they'll have ministers coming to bother them about tax revolts, uprisings and invasions... what do you do? The adventurers will probably call the job "boring" and give up.
Beleriphon 04-07-05, 12:41 AM	But there is a problem with consistency and realism. If the Emerald Claw is sending mainly 1st-level warriors or 2nd-level fighters to do its important dirty work when the PCs are low level, how come it's suddenly sending grunts who are 6th-level when the PCs are 10th or 11th? Sure, it might be argued that the PCs are considered a higher threat, or that the mission is more important. But I like to think of my bad guys as clever people, who don't send a 1st-level warrior when they could have sent a 6th-level fighter, and I also like to think of the things my PCs are involved in as noteworthy and important; I don't like to think that the Emerald Claw is currently involved in 23 other schemes as well, and that this one is rather low on their list. The big reason the humanistic secret societies don't use their more powerful assests against a weak foe is simple. Its a waste of time and power. Why send a vampire when three zombies will work just as well?
brotha_fas 04-07-05, 01:14 AM	I thought everyone was recovering from the Last War. As the PCs rise through adventure, the NPCs have similar opportunities. Keith says the major adversaries are intended to scale with the PCs.
zambuka 04-07-05, 02:34 AM	The big reason the humanistic secret societies don't use their more powerful assests against a weak foe is simple. Its a waste of time and power. Why send a vampire when three zombies will work just as well? Also there is the fact that those 6th level grunts are a valuable asset and have probably been pulled out of something very important to deal with these meddling PCs. A tenth level NPC going after the PCs has probably been pulled off of a very very important project and is causing some serious delays. Its not like the Vampires of the BoV are just sitting around waiting to be sent after any little blip on the radar. And that is all a first level party is, a blip. Low level grunt NPCs are a dime a dozen and aren't that important in the grand scheme so they can be pulled off of whatever they are working on a lot easier. Even more dangerous secret societies won't send the heavy guns at first. Sending a beholder into the middle of Sharn to deal with a few PCs is going to raise a helluva lot of questions. Sending a couple of mindless minions will hardly be noticed and might succeed.
Titanic Ego 04-07-05, 10:52 AM	The big reason the humanistic secret societies don't use their more powerful assests against a weak foe is simple. Its a waste of time and power. Why send a vampire when three zombies will work just as well? Because the three zombies won't work as well. There are any number of ways those zombies might be incapacitated or defeated. Using your best forces against tough opponents actually saves resources, because you will take fewer casualties, e.g. rather than sending one vampire, send several, giving one another time to fast heal, with their animal minions and some locals controlled with their dominate gaze. The latter group is more likely to be successful, it is harder to kill any of the members, and the rest of the force is expendable cannon fodder.
DarkWarriorKarg 04-07-05, 11:13 AM	But there is a problem with consistency and realism. If the Emerald Claw is sending mainly 1st-level warriors or 2nd-level fighters to do its important dirty work when the PCs are low level, how come it's suddenly sending grunts who are 6th-level when the PCs are 10th or 11th? Sure, it might be argued that the PCs are considered a higher threat, or that the mission is more important. But I like to think of my bad guys as clever people, who don't send a 1st-level warrior when they could have sent a 6th-level fighter, and I also like to think of the things my PCs are involved in as noteworthy and important; I don't like to think that the Emerald Claw is currently involved in 23 other schemes as well, and that this one is rather low on their list. But the Emerald Claw IS involved in 23 other schemes. In fact, more than that. You imagine that organizations such as that one should only focus on 1 thing at a time? That they don't have diverse interests? They span a 5000 mile wide continent. Organizations such as the OEC are mainly built like a business. While one unit is out stealing artifacts recovered from Xendrik, another is trying to undermine Kaius III, while yet another is trying to recover pieces of a schema. The 6th level guys are probably out troubleshooting. Get the goons. A 6th level character is NOT a grunt. It signifies that the PCs are more than a blip on the radar. They're becoming annoying. Contact our ace troubleshooter. If he's too busy, get him to send one of his teams. You don't send a wave of 6th level goons (OK, maybe in FR, but this is Eberron). You send a TEAM. Or low-level goons led by such a person.
Altaris 04-07-05, 04:05 PM	But the Emerald Claw IS involved in 23 other schemes. In fact, more than that. You imagine that organizations such as that one should only focus on 1 thing at a time? That they don't have diverse interests? They span a 5000 mile wide continent. Organizations such as the OEC are mainly built like a business. While one unit is out stealing artifacts recovered from Xendrik, another is trying to undermine Kaius III, while yet another is trying to recover pieces of a schema. The 6th level guys are probably out troubleshooting. Get the goons. A 6th level character is NOT a grunt. It signifies that the PCs are more than a blip on the radar. They're becoming annoying. Contact our ace troubleshooter. If he's too busy, get him to send one of his teams. You don't send a wave of 6th level goons (OK, maybe in FR, but this is Eberron). You send a TEAM. Or low-level goons led by such a person. Nicely put Karg. One of the things my players love the most about my Eberron game is just what Karg suggested. I'm one of those DMs who tend to average one or two 'encounters' in a 'day.' But those encounters are with teams of qualified, customized, well-trained NPCs who will work together, using teamwork & and whatever they can to their advantage. The average party level in my group just went up to 7 last session. I feel that less combat encounters that are more challenging is more in theme with Eberron than the 'standard 4 encounters per day.' On average, I bring half of my players to 1/4 hit points per encounter, and the other half are usually somewhat damaged as well. The players have a lot more respect for their enemies this way, and they get more enjoyment out of these combats. So, my point is that I agree with Karg. Don't use grunts challenge mid to high level PCs. Instead, use elite teams against the party. It gives the game a much more heroic feel to it, IMO and IMX. Grunts have their place, but not as the primary encounters that are not with the BBEG. As a side point Traveller, I really like your post. It is well thought out and well written. A nice essay, and it does a very good job of stating opinions that I generally agree with. I have not gotten involved 'in that other thread' because I simply cannot fathom why people seem to have the NEED to bring their 1st ed AD&D or Realms mentalities to this new and refreshing CS.
Titanic Ego 04-07-05, 07:58 PM	Consider the Evil Overlord list: http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html #40. I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable superweapon, I will use it as early and as often as possible instead of keeping it in reserve. #80. If my weakest troops fail to eliminate a hero, I will send out my best troops instead of wasting time with progressively stronger ones as he gets closer and closer to my fortress.
zambuka 04-07-05, 08:01 PM	Because the three zombies won't work as well. There are any number of ways those zombies might be incapacitated or defeated. Using your best forces against tough opponents actually saves resources, because you will take fewer casualties Certainly true, but how do you know these opponents are going to be tough until they have defeated three zombies, half a dozen trained soldiers and a captain? It is a waste of resources to just send out that vampire, or vampires, to deal with any and every nuisance that comes around. The reason for sending out the three zombies is that, the way DnD is rigged up and particularly in Eberron, those three zombies can deal with 99% of problematic people without casualties. Most of the rest will be easily dealt with by sending out a half dozen soldiers led by a captain. Edit: it also takes most of the fun out of the game when those first level PCs who happily defeated the low level minions are suddenly confronted by a 10th level vampire wizard.
Titanic Ego 04-07-05, 08:29 PM	Certainly true, but how do you know these opponents are going to be tough until they have defeated three zombies, half a dozen trained soldiers and a captain? It is a waste of resources to just send out that vampire, or vampires, to deal with any and every nuisance that comes around. The reason for sending out the three zombies is that, the way DnD is rigged up and particularly in Eberron, those three zombies can deal with 99% of problematic people without casualties. Most of the rest will be easily dealt with by sending out a half dozen soldiers led by a captain. Edit: it also takes most of the fun out of the game when those first level PCs who happily defeated the low level minions are suddenly confronted by a 10th level vampire wizard. I'm a big advocate of creating a world and letting the PCs decide what risks they are willing to take. If you have some reputation for skill (for instance, a group including a warforged fighter, a paladin of the Flame, and several spellcasters will be well known as some tough hombres) then attacks will be calibrated for that. The PCs still have the advantage of 'luck' (action points) and clever thinking, but if they make themselves a serious nuisance to an organization like the Order of the Emerald Claw there should be consequences. Now, if the PCs foil one plot because their interests were threatened by it, the Claw is not necessarily going to go after them full force. If they act quickly they may have exposed the scheme before heavy hitters can be called in to deal with them, at which point it's not worth drawing further attention to the Claw by killing them. But if the party makes clear that it is waging a crusade against the Claw, or aims to foil a key plot, that vampire wizard is going to attack. He won't necessarily put himself at risk, dominating some local soldiery and backing them up with spells or summons, but overkill force will be used. That's one of the reasons why you have vampire agents: they can take out tough foes with very little risk to themselves. And foes like the PCs are not dime-a-dozen, a vampire assassin may only need to involve himself with a few such battles every year or so. So what should the PCs do then? Find allies who will place them under their protection, e.g. the Chamber or the Twelve. Go to ground, somewhere very far from Karrnath. If they have blackmail information, arrange for it to be released in the event of their deaths. Go on a pilgrimage to the Silver Flame in Thrane and have a little chat with some exorcists. But one thing that they cannot expect to do is be seen as a serious continuing problem to a deadly conspiracy without taking drastic action.
DarkWarriorKarg 04-07-05, 09:13 PM	I'm a big advocate of creating a world and letting the PCs decide what risks they are willing to take. If you have some reputation for skill (for instance, a group including a warforged fighter, a paladin of the Flame, and several spellcasters will be well known as some tough hombres) then attacks will be calibrated for that. The PCs still have the advantage of 'luck' (action points) and clever thinking, but if they make themselves a serious nuisance to an organization like the Order of the Emerald Claw there should be consequences. Now, if the PCs foil one plot because their interests were threatened by it, the Claw is not necessarily going to go after them full force. If they act quickly they may have exposed the scheme before heavy hitters can be called in to deal with them, at which point it's not worth drawing further attention to the Claw by killing them. But if the party makes clear that it is waging a crusade against the Claw, or aims to foil a key plot, that vampire wizard is going to attack. He won't necessarily put himself at risk, dominating some local soldiery and backing them up with spells or summons, but overkill force will be used. That's one of the reasons why you have vampire agents: they can take out tough foes with very little risk to themselves. And foes like the PCs are not dime-a-dozen, a vampire assassin may only need to involve himself with a few such battles every year or so. So what should the PCs do then? Find allies who will place them under their protection, e.g. the Chamber or the Twelve. Go to ground, somewhere very far from Karrnath. If they have blackmail information, arrange for it to be released in the event of their deaths. Go on a pilgrimage to the Silver Flame in Thrane and have a little chat with some exorcists. But one thing that they cannot expect to do is be seen as a serious continuing problem to a deadly conspiracy without taking drastic action. Emphasis mine. Low-level PCs a serious threat? As DM, you are in control. Your job is to moderate the game. Low-Level PCs should NOT be a serious threat to OEC, barely meriting a glance from the 10th-level vampire. If 1st level characters insist on taking a tromp through a place called "Trollmoors", then yes, they deserve it. But on the other hand, your example calls for them to take on a huge secret organization, whom they might not even know they crossed paths with. Further, although from time to time allies are acceptable, you are basically setting up a situation wher the PCs must be saved by NPCs all the time. Now, I am hardly a Puritan, but I don't believe that is in the spirit of the game. Actually, I walk out of games where this happens. I despise situations where the DM requires the usage of NPCs to save the day. You are, of course, free to run your game the way you want. But if you set up situations like this, all that will happen is PCs always running to NPCs for help. In Eberron, the NPcs are supposed to go to YOU for help.
Titanic Ego 04-07-05, 10:11 PM	Emphasis mine. Low-level PCs a serious threat? As DM, you are in control. Your job is to moderate the game. Low-Level PCs should NOT be a serious threat to OEC, barely meriting a glance from the 10th-level vampire. If 1st level characters insist on taking a tromp through a place called "Trollmoors", then yes, they deserve it. But on the other hand, your example calls for them to take on a huge secret organization, whom they might not even know they crossed paths with. Further, although from time to time allies are acceptable, you are basically setting up a situation wher the PCs must be saved by NPCs all the time. Now, I am hardly a Puritan, but I don't believe that is in the spirit of the game. Actually, I walk out of games where this happens. I despise situations where the DM requires the usage of NPCs to save the day. You are, of course, free to run your game the way you want. But if you set up situations like this, all that will happen is PCs always running to NPCs for help. In Eberron, the NPcs are supposed to go to YOU for help. The sections you italicized were there for a reason: I would NOT railroad my PCs into a situation where they are forced into a direct conflict with a major power player like that until they were at least 7th level. Organizations like the LoD or OotEC run a lot of schemes, and PCs are most likely to encounter a single one, often without knowing the root cause. Thus they can be victorious over the organization's agents without posing any obvious threat for the future (sure, they stumbled across this plot, but any number of other people might have done the same, and there is no reason to expect them to do the same later on.) I want level 4-6 PCs to be players, but not yet capable of overturning the whole board (that's for mid-high levels.) So there should be foes who they cannot yet defeat head-on, and those foes should respond rationally. If you make a blood enemy of the Lord of Blades you will be in a lot of trouble if you stay near the Mournlands, but you can simply hoof it out of there after succeeding in your mission, returning later with greater power. If you provoke the Claw in Karnnath you can get out of the area or you can head to the king and present your case, asking to lead a force against the Claw vampire. Indiana Jones fights the Nazis, but even he has to go incognito in Germany, and rely on allies to get to the Canyon of the Crescent moon. The PCs should drive the action, and they should be powerful, but when they are still low level they need to either limit their ambitions or use their heads.
DarkWarriorKarg 04-07-05, 10:50 PM	The sections you italicized were there for a reason: I would NOT railroad my PCs into a situation where they are forced into a direct conflict with a major power player like that until they were at least 7th level. Organizations like the LoD or OotEC run a lot of schemes, and PCs are most likely to encounter a single one, often without knowing the root cause. Thus they can be victorious over the organization's agents without posing any obvious threat for the future (sure, they stumbled across this plot, but any number of other people might have done the same, and there is no reason to expect them to do the same later on.) I want level 4-6 PCs to be players, but not yet capable of overturning the whole board (that's for mid-high levels.) So there should be foes who they cannot yet defeat head-on, and those foes should respond rationally. If you make a blood enemy of the Lord of Blades you will be in a lot of trouble if you stay near the Mournlands, but you can simply hoof it out of there after succeeding in your mission, returning later with greater power. If you provoke the Claw in Karnnath you can get out of the area or you can head to the king and present your case, asking to lead a force against the Claw vampire. Indiana Jones fights the Nazis, but even he has to go incognito in Germany, and rely on allies to get to the Canyon of the Crescent moon. The PCs should drive the action, and they should be powerful, but when they are still low level they need to either limit their ambitions or use their heads. Fair enough :) Misunderstanding happens. Once had a GM or 2 with the tendency to insert godlike NPCs as villains, then require godlike NPCs to solve the problem. They couldn't quite get the concept...