| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| JWSIII05-12-05, 05:33 AM | I have posted some version of this elsewhere at least a couple of times, and others have mentioned similar things, but after seeing the BBEG's of champions of Ruin, I would like to post an opinion and a request. Given the history of Faerun and some of the incredible magical accomplishments of its various people, cultures, and civilizations (Flying cities, banning gods, and drawing the entire island of evermeet into existence from the mists of time, to name a few) I have always felt that Faerun was a natural epic setting. Epic serves an important purpose (along with others), imo, in allowing a game to continue; the way the D&D system is established now, assuming an encounter can be dealt with in average of just under 30 minutes, one will essentially knock out the required 13.33 encounters to level in a single 6 hour session. This means that at one game session a week (which seems to be fairly common to many games from what I understand), a group will hit level 20 in about five months time. A party of four level 20 adventurers can almost always take, with decent preperation and knowledge, a CR 22-25 creature, the official material says a group should theoretically have some chance to win up to CR 8 higher than itself (so a CR 28 monster). Therefor, my take on the current state of the realms is that most of the archfiends, Demon Princes, and Elder evils that are alot of the BBEG's of the realms can be taken out by a party that has been in play for only 5-7 months. Thereafter, the only way to really advance is to attack either avatars or one of the many CR 35-65 mages in the realms, neither of which is very fun except as a single "this is the end of the entire campaign and your characters are going to be retired" climax. I actually reduce all xp gain by 50% for all my campaigns simply to keep them going longer, allowing for more connection between a character and a setting imo. Therefor my requst - please include "epic" stats as an alternative with major realms BBEG's. While I understand the point that has been made about monsters being made "reachable" by many players, I personally feel that the great epic bad guys are far TOO reachable, and I would like to have some ability for epic play in my Forgotton Realms campaigns to have "setting" BBEG's with fluff tie in availible, and as it is they simply are not. Given that Epic has been introduced, and numerous tie-in rules presented for it within FR, and that the Forgotten Realms seems naturally designed for epic play (and serpent kingdoms and lost kingdoms released, those both BEG for epic play), I feel that a series of epic-level BBEG's is very appropriate and desirable. I wish to thank whomever from WotC reads this, and I apologize if any of it comes off as negative, as I think D&D and especially FR is one of the greatest products ever made; I simply think epic BBEG options would make it even better |
| Silverpanther05-12-05, 05:55 AM | dude, your party is doing one level per session :OMG! isn`t that only hack`n`slay? c`mon, while real rpgaming i think you need a year and a half for becoming epic. and in my campaign they don`t beat anything with a higher challenge rating then the partylevel +4 (as it is supposed in the DMG ;) an encopunter with challenge rating +5 means RUN FOR YOUR LIFE... should happen once in 20 encounters :evillaugh ) |
| Krash05-12-05, 08:30 PM | Or of course, they could leave them as is and let you actually do some work yourself on them. Welcome to 3E - the spoonfed generation. :) -- George Krashos |
| Myssa Rei05-12-05, 10:29 PM | I'll have to agree with Silver pather here... The way you describe your games, you seem to be leaning towards the rollplaying aspect of D&D rather than the roleplaying aspect. Just think of it. In a game that doesn't exactly focus on killing the next big thing a party might find, it'll take months if not years just to get to level 20, much more epic level. This is especially true in the Realms. As an example, the Knights of Myth Drannor, the adventuring company Ed Greenwood DM's, has been adventuring nearly 20 years, and none of its members (aside from NPCs like Dove Falconhand) have ever even broken beyond the level 16 mark (aside from Lady Hooded on the Candlekeep boards). Why? Because they roleplay, rather than rollplay. In my experience, it took the campaign I was in over 2 years just to push Epic, and 2 years after that for my character to get to where he is at this moment in time (check the links on my sig). It's not an experience I'd like to experience again, and since then I've actually shied away from epic-level gaming, and focused on lower-level PCs. Made me realize just how hard the lives of the FR iconics were just to be able to get to their current standings. Are your players obssessing on going after iconics, as some of the newer players have, by virtue of reading their stats on the Epic-level handbook? Or challenging the deities because they've seen their stats in Faiths and Pantheons? Those beings won't go down easily, especially if you've been ROLEPLAYING them right, instead of merely taking their stats and creating a random encounter with them in it. Want to try taking out, oh Szass Tamm? Or even Larloch? Try fighting through the assembled armies of his province just to even GET to his fortress (in the case of the former), or going through 60 lindebtured liches (all of whom are above level 28 casters) if you're going after the latter. And let's not go into the resources they can call upon, as well as allies, and the heavily-trapped and guarded lairs they call their homes. Dragons aren't supposed to be pushovers either, by virtue of their intellect, age, natural might, and arcane prowess. Your run-of-the-mill great wyrm (or even the mature adult) can trouble even the epics, if played right. (I for one, avoid dragons in general, even my epic, for the simple fact that it's very hard to out-guess a dragon that's lived more centuries than you have) |
| Razz05-13-05, 10:37 AM | I don't think it matters whether its rollplay or roleplay. The point he is trying to make is Forgotten Realms has a theme for being epic in scope and power and there should be more epic-level adventuring in the Realms when it comes to the player characters. Elminster is 35th-level, The Chosen are all 21+, King Gareth is 25th-level and look at the things they do! If the player characters are the spotlight of the game, they need to be able to aspire to this range of power too. And when they do reach this goal what then? I have players that do not want to move on after hitting 20. They want level 21+ characters in the Realms and I am sorry to say, WotC is being foolish and idiotic for not presenting us with more epic material to work with in the Realms. They need to support more epic-level play in Forgotten Realms, and giving us new epic spells in each Forgotten Realms product isn't enough. |
| Razz05-13-05, 10:44 AM | As an example, the Knights of Myth Drannor, the adventuring company Ed Greenwood DM's, has been adventuring nearly 20 years, and none of its members (aside from NPCs like Dove Falconhand) have ever even broken beyond the level 16 mark (aside from Lady Hooded on the Candlekeep boards). Why? Because they roleplay, rather than rollplay. This doesn't explain characters like Cadderly (who went from 1 to level 20 in a matter of a couple of months) or Wulfgar (who's adventured ten times more than Cadderly ever has, and in a much longer time period, but he's only 9th-level) :rolleyes: Let's face it, WotC does not and never will learn how to adjust novel characters into D&D stats properly. Their stories need to be game-converted-to-story and not story-converted-to-game. More consistency and less confusion is what that'll give. While the Knights of Myth Drannor may have been only level 16, there are adventuring parties that just seem to have more ambition and challenges and are beyond the range of level 16. Case in point, the characters of the War of the Spider Queen series are all 18th-level and higher, couple even pushing epic. It's a fact of Forgotten Realms life. Characters, if they survive, will become epic and when they do WotC needs to support these people. |
| Xavier_of_Cormyr05-13-05, 11:26 AM | Or of course, they could leave them as is and let you actually do some work yourself on them. Welcome to 3E - the spoonfed generation. :) -- George Krashos I remember the days when you had to write up stats for every major NPC. 3E realms is fleshed out nicely, but doing things on your own is half the fun! |
| Kuje3105-13-05, 12:19 PM | I remember the days when you had to write up stats for every major NPC. 3E realms is fleshed out nicely, but doing things on your own is half the fun! You did? I never did. I've always, and still do for my 3/3.5e games, use the easy stat block which is name, level, deity if needed, hps, alignment, class, and some other misc info. Also to the other posters: The Knights of Myth Drannor have never been 16th level. :) They are around 8th to 10th level in 2e. |
| GothicDan05-13-05, 07:26 PM | Heh. I played in a 2E game for a year and a half and got to 6th level. Cough. My highest level character ever! Raaah! |
| Myssa Rei05-13-05, 09:19 PM | Ah, 2nd Ed... I had one character that spent the whole edition at level 7. x_x |
| warlockco05-13-05, 09:22 PM | I just depends on how long and how often a group plays also. I used to play constantly when in high school, every night/weekend that I didn't work, I played for at least 4 hours or more. Course the GM at the time was just running a long continous adventure, but there was plenty of role-play in there, not just roll-play. After just a few months of play we were all pushing in to the teens, and after a few more, we were in to the really high levels. Sure this was with 1E and 2E but still. I have characters (been playing for more than 20 years) that I wouldn't bring into any games, unless a GM is foolish enough to say pick out any character of yours that you want, that you have with you. Only to see them choke and cough, then put the character away and get a more "reasonable" character out. These particular characters have moved off to being gods in my own campaigns. And if I didn't make them gods, they usually are quasi-gods or the agent/chosen of a god. |
| Krash05-13-05, 11:18 PM | And when they do reach this goal what then? I have players that do not want to move on after hitting 20. They want level 21+ characters in the Realms and I am sorry to say, WotC is being foolish and idiotic for not presenting us with more epic material to work with in the Realms. They need to support more epic-level play in Forgotten Realms, and giving us new epic spells in each Forgotten Realms product isn't enough. I would think that WotC and the FR design team are well aware that material on high-level play is due in the Realms. Of course, calling them 'foolish and idiotic' isn't going to hasten the process, nor is whining and bleating about how they aren't catering to your particular, individual needs. And even prefacing your comment with a totally false "I am sorry to say ..." (you are not sorry at all) doesn't take the sting and negativity out of your comments. You could have politely stated how there is a deficiency in high-level material for the Realms which needs addressing and left it at that. But rudeness seems to be the order of the day when people demand things from WotC re the Realms on these Boards. Pathetic. -- George Krashos |
| Razz05-14-05, 01:02 AM | I would think that WotC and the FR design team are well aware that material on high-level play is due in the Realms. Of course, calling them 'foolish and idiotic' isn't going to hasten the process, nor is whining and bleating about how they aren't catering to your particular, individual needs. And even prefacing your comment with a totally false "I am sorry to say ..." (you are not sorry at all) doesn't take the sting and negativity out of your comments. You could have politely stated how there is a deficiency in high-level material for the Realms which needs addressing and left it at that. But rudeness seems to be the order of the day when people demand things from WotC re the Realms on these Boards. Pathetic. -- George Krashos Like I care. :rolleyes: WotC isn't reading this thread since they're to busy thinking up what new material to release rather than realizing "Hey, maybe we need to stop releasing new material and expand on the ones we recently placed into the D&D game". Cater to my needs? Hah! The problem with them is they are trying to cater to EVERY need when what they really need to do is expand on existing material. Catering to everyone's taste is impossible, leave something like that to Dragon magazine (who is doing a fine job of catering to many needs). What's pathetic is you wasting your time bashing my honest opinion. I think WotC is being idiotic and foolish, I have a right to say how I feel about them at the moment until they do some changes that'll change my mind. Cause as of right now, I'm starting to miss the way TSR wrote their products. Books like 3E's Faiths&Pantheons pales horribly in comparison to Faiths&Avatars (and its companions Powers&Pantheons and Demihuman Deities), for example. :P |
| Myssa Rei05-14-05, 05:59 AM | It all boils down to a particular player and DM's preferences in the end. Some prefer low-level story driven games that focus on roleplaying, while others like epic-level games that focus on rollplaying. That's the truth of the matter. Epic level gaming, as shown by the high levels of the iconics in the Realms, *is* possible; no one has actually gone out and stated that it isn't. The thing is, you can't expect the same sort of challenges you might find in the ELH, for even while the iconics do face Realms-shaking occurences every once in a while, they're not on the same scale. Elminster, for example, doesn't routinely battle, oh, shapes of fire (if they even exist in the Realms). No, most of the time he focuses on the so-called little things.... So do the rest of the iconics. Now, can we have this topic locked now and move on to better discussions before tempers flare any more than they should? |
| Myssa Rei05-14-05, 06:01 AM | Books like Faiths&Avatars (and its companions Powers&Pantheons and Demihuman Deities) pales horribly in comparison to 3E's Faiths&Pantheons, for example. :P Isn't it the other way around? |
| Krash05-14-05, 09:00 AM | What's pathetic is you wasting your time bashing my honest opinion. That's the one correct statement you've managed in this thread. In hindsight, you certainly weren't worth the time and effort I used in responding to you. Live and learn. ;) -- George Krashos |
| WizO_BigSister05-14-05, 09:32 AM | Just a reminder the WotC development team DO read threads like this. Also a reminder about the golden rule - “It is ok to disagree with what someone has written; it is not ok to attack the person who wrote it. If you can't tell the difference then maybe you shouldn't make the post!" |
| warlockco05-14-05, 12:54 PM | That's the one correct statement you've managed in this thread. In hindsight, you certainly weren't worth the time and effort I used in responding to you. Live and learn. ;) -- George Krashos :cheer: :clap: :bow: |
| JWSIII05-14-05, 05:26 PM | Okay, I am extremely disappointed to see that a thread I have started is being used in a manner that causes a WizO to need to remind people to be polite; As you can see from my signature, I love D&D 3.5, I think the WotC is an epicly awesome company, and for the record, I think Forgotten Realms is the absolute creme de la creme of campaign settings. Razz, I appreciate the support for my position, but please, I do not wish to be associated with such vitriolic negativity thrown at WotC, as I like them very much. Mr Warlocko, thanks for the support period; I do indeed play long game sessions about once a week, roleplaying is my number one (and number two isn't even close) method of relaxing; unfortunantly, I only get about one session a week, as I only get one night a week off when I don't have school the next day :weep: To Mr. Krash - the last campaign I ran i put 1-2 hrs of work as a dungeon master ahead of time for every 1 hr we played, and my last homebrew campaign is over 500 pages typed in 10 font when printed (not D&D, self-made world and entire rules system). I work 40+ hrs per week and then I attend Law school on top of that and am doing quite well - The whole reason I pay WotC to do the excellent job they do is because they have the time and resources and I most emphatically do not have any more of either in my life. Perhaps I wish to be spoonfed - but by god I have put in the time and effort to buy that spoon :D My understanding is that the original point of these boards was to make suggestions to WotC and to request things that you would like to see in a respectful manner as the consuming public, and I think that my post fit that description; I statement of a fairly minor change that i would like (ALTERNATIVE epic stats, not really the end of the world is it?), the reason that I think they would be useful (although apparently some challenge my assertions, that is fine), and a re-statement of my apprecaition for the excellent work that WotC does. Yet after all that, I find my dungeonmastering (I have been regularly picked by well over 25 different people now to DM over 18 years, I think it has passed the test) and my work ethic (see above post) called into question, I admit the manner was not nearly as bad as some I have seen on the boards, but I feel the need to come here and defend myself. Furthermore, I only see about 3 posts that addressed the actual merits of my argument, most of those added meanness. sorry to be so defensive folks, but I tried real hard to make sure my post was a good one (and think I succeeded), and it has been a rather disappointing and aggravating experience for me quite frankly. :confused: |
| Myssa Rei05-14-05, 06:22 PM | It happens to everyone, sir. The prevailing attitute seems to be confrontation. While we can agree sometimes on some aspects of campaigning in the Realms, we can't agree most of the time. It's human nature, I guess. While your request for the expansion on the Epic-level material in the Realms does have its merit, from our viewpoint as posters we have no idea if the powers-that-be in the Realms actually listen to our suggestions, much more act upon them. That goes double, if not more so, considering that we express our requests and suggestions through the boards. I think the only way any DM is going to elaborate on the Epic content is for them to do so on their own, as most DMs have been doing since D&D began. Such is the purview of a dungeon master, in whatever campaign setting you're running in. It's going to be hard, but it's going to be doubly rewarding, right? There are a lot of nasties in the Realms above 20th level, and these are just the wizards. I'm sure that with some work, it's not too hard to incorporate some of the other nuisances in the ELH to the Realms. Mind you, it won't be canon, such as the Elder Elemental Evils or the Wizard Cabal of Ironfang Keep, but it will give your players something to think about. Sorry if some of the posts (like mine -_- ) came off negatively. People... can't help but argue. |
| warlockco05-14-05, 06:49 PM | The thing about epic play is it is outside of the norm for play. Thus there will be little material for supporting it. Just look at Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds, they introduce more material, yet they have little support. Pretty much anything that goes past 20th level is going to have to be done by the GM. Be it converting a module for higher level, or making one from scratch. I usually tend to customize most of my encounters that I throw at my PCs, the only time I just take something out of the book is for a random encounter, or the PCs are being stupid and wasting time, at which I start pulling random encounters that in the range of +1 to +3 of the party level. Another source of foes for the PCs is my own characters, just make a slight change to them, i.e. name and alignment usually, and presto a nice challenging foe for the party. |
| JWSIII05-14-05, 07:04 PM | Really appreciate the last two comments, Thanks Myssa/Warlocko for the intelligent and kindly replys, sorry to get so defensive :D I have indeed sensed that epic does not enjoy the level of support that I would hope it would, which is why I was hoping for alternative stats, maybe the different color sidebars that they sometimes use for psionic creatures as an example; i would not want to reduce the fun of others but figured that the epic crowd was sufficiently large to warrant sidebar alternative stats. Perhaps, however, I am wrong, in which case I will still buy and enjoy D&D, of course :D , but one can hope. |
| Myssa Rei05-14-05, 08:32 PM | Oh, there is more than enough Epic references in the Realms to go around. However, it's always up to the individual DMs in the world to flesh out. For example, there are a lot ofa Realms supplements that introduce, oh, this particular Red Wizard over here, who has a total caster level of 25, or that baelnorn over there that has total levels of 22, but doesn't give us more than that. I guess WotC has made a practice of the 'hands-off' approach to give DMs (and by extension, their players) more flexibility in their games. Not all will be happy with this, of course, and would like to be 'spoon-fed', so to speak, but alas that's the risk in a business such as this. |
| Xavier_of_Cormyr05-14-05, 09:52 PM | You did? I never did. I've always, and still do for my 3/3.5e games, use the easy stat block which is name, level, deity if needed, hps, alignment, class, and some other misc info. Also to the other posters: The Knights of Myth Drannor have never been 16th level. :) They are around 8th to 10th level in 2e. i was talking about the reeeeeeeeally old D&D NPCs who either were a 20th level wizard with a 11 intelligence score and his most powerful item was a wand of fireballs; and the flip side- a 8th level monk with a 17 in every ability & about 20 class powers and psionics. Now, like Krash put it, 3.5 is the "spoon fed" edition. I use official write ups & rules when it suits my campaign, but I for one don't like waiting for 2 years for a stat list of a major NPC- i'll do it myself (and not go overboard as most people do) And on a side note, you have to put your own imagination into the realms to get the most of it. Major changes happened from the original start of the realms to 3.5, so many people had to re-vamp their PCs to fit into the new rules setting. One fun thing that I had in my group was one player creating something VERY similar to what is now the Shadow Weave way back during the early days of 2e realms. Create and use the canon material as a roadmap. If you want to play a structured, rigid game, D&D ain't it. |
| Zandilar05-14-05, 10:48 PM | Heya, It all boils down to a particular player and DM's preferences in the end. Some prefer low-level story driven games that focus on roleplaying, while others like epic-level games that focus on rollplaying. That's the truth of the matter. Quick question... Can't an epic level game emphasize ROLEplaying? What is it with people equating Epic play with ROLL playing? Why is fast advancement a such bad thing? And since when does it preclude ROLEplaying? Sorry, I'm just curious and sick of people who make assumptions about this. |
| Muddman05-14-05, 11:39 PM | I have no problem with quick advancement, in fact I enjoy it. I started out a couple of years before the end of 2nd edition and my first campaign was the original "Temple of Elemental Evil" (and it was old when I played in it). It was the most frustrating thing in th world. In three months of weekly play I lost 25 characters (22 more than anyone else in the group) and we were only 4th level to show for it. So let me tell you how much I APPRECIATE a quicker response. And yes, the characters in my campaign get a level every other week usually. Part of this is because they get xp awards for roleplaying. A trip to a foreign land to find a resolution to a conflict will net them just as much as the battle that would have happened, that sort of stuff. Epic levels are fun and I would like to see more epic adventures that emphasize roleplaying. On the other hand, if I had to choose between EPIC material and GENERAL material, I'll take general material any day of the week. Epic material is useless unless you're characters are epic, but general material is useful to everybody, epic and non-epic alike. Anything can be epic if you advance its hit dice enough (my favorite trick). Also, there are ALOT of people who flat out refuse to play epic characters. They think everything stops at 20, and thats the way of things. By putting out stuff made for everyone, they don't risk offending or excluding that major part of their fan base. Smart buisness if you ask me. So to summurize, I like the direction things are going. Keep up the good work! |
| Demetrios05-15-05, 12:52 AM | The thing about epic play is it is outside of the norm for play. Thus there will be little material for supporting it. Just look at Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds, they introduce more material, yet they have little support. Hmm, this post and this thead just got me thinking a bit. Yes, the BoVD and the BoED both have had little support - yet it's obvious that Champions of Ruin and the upcoming parallel book on good organizations and individuals are both indeed intended to be FR "support" material for the BoVD and BoED. So maybe it isn't too far-fetched of an idea to request a similar "Epic" book for the setting. (Of course, a book supporting Oriental Adventures would be even more welcome, IMHO, as it would almost definitely have to detail Kara-Tur a bit at the very least...) |
| Myssa Rei05-15-05, 12:57 AM | I usually draw the line when it comes to epic campaigns (campaigns that take more than five or so months to finish in real time, or many years in campaign time) and Epic-level campaigns (adventures geared to characters beyond level 21). I've played both, and I've certainly enjoyed the former than the latter, though Epic-level gaming has its bright spots. I'm in the opinion that one can very well roleplay regardless of level. However, it takes a good DM to set up the situations that make it possible. :) I guess my experience is merely tainting my opinion on the matter, because there are very few DMs in my area that can handle campaigning beyond the 20th level. And while I'm very sure that you can still roleplay quite a bit at those levels, more than a few of my compatriots opt for the easier tact, so most adventures centering on overcoming Epic-level baddies here soon degenerate into hack-and-slash fests (mostly because my metagaming co-players suddenly feel the urge that they can take the main bad guy head-on by virtue of the stats in the ELH). |
| GothicDan05-15-05, 11:16 AM | Gooooooooo Roleplaying! :d |
| Krash05-15-05, 12:57 PM | JWSIII, I certainly didn't intend to imugn your DM-ing ability or work ethic re the Realms - the internet obviously wasn't the best medium for the 'spoon fed' generation remark although the ;) should have been some clue that it wasn't all typed with gnashing teeth and pointing fingers. To address the points you raised, from the perspective of a huge FR fan who doesn't actually game at all (yes, which makes many of my comments re "the game" likely invalid from some people's point of view - but I'll make them anyway), I think that no campaign setting should ever be considered to be a "natural epic setting" unless it is specifically created for this purpose. Yes, the Realms always has had high-level (power) elements in it (which escalated dramatically in 2E - mainly thanks to the Netheril boxed set [and Slade's ill-thought out ideas re this nation] and the TSR-directed emphasis on the Chosen of Mystra), but it always has been a setting intended to cater for all. Yes, I agree that epic content for the Realms is deficient at the moment and what epic content is being added product by product likely isn't satisfying to those DMs and gamers with an epic focus, but it's important to keep a couple of things in mind. Epic play and all the baggage that comes with it is a new phenomenon to D&D gaming and the Realms. I would rather that WotC took it slowly, really thought about how epic elements can be introduced or retro-fitted into the Realms, rather than doing full bore epic material without such thought and planning. I look at the Netheril boxed set as an example of how game balance and power issues can get out of hand due to bad design decisions and that was for 2E. 3E by it's very nature could do even worse things to the Realms if a Netheril-type approach was taken. Also, I would think that (unfortunately for them) epic level gaming is in the minority across the gaming community. That doesn't mean it shouldn't get its due, but it does mean that it may have to stay in the background for a while before the Realms can truly be ready for wholesale epic changes. The setting is still having teething problems regarding integrating all that has gone before with the new 3E game mechanics. Funnily enough, it is the 'high-level' stuff (such as elven High Magic) that has been the most difficult to sort out (and has disappointed the most fans or caused the most fan backlash). As such, I would think that it's understandable that epic material may take a while to get some momentum up in the FR firmament. In addition, the Realms has always suffered from the perception that it is a munchkin or power-gamer paradise, especially by lower-magic setting fans. Whilst I don't think that this bothers WotC much at all, it probably makes them mindful of power creep and the fans who always want more. If the Elder Elemental Evils had been statted out for a CR range of say 50-60, there would still have been fans who would have said that this wasn't powerful enough. Similarly, there would have been many fans who would have complained that statting them out at such (ridiculously?) high CRs effectively put them out of the reach of the majority of campaigns - rendering them useless for lots of gamers. The negative response to the EEEs thus far has been pretty much solely from the "not powerful enough" camp - I haven't seen anyone complain that they are "too high" to ever use in their game. As such, it would appear that logically more people have been served by having them with lower CRs than higher. Of course, YMMV. My personal view is that 3E's focus on "you can do anything" gameplay has led WotC to make some bad decisions - chief of which was continuing to stat out deities as they did in Faiths & Pantheons. If it has stats, you can kill it - and IMHO a campaign revolving around deity-slaying was never the type of game I'd want to be playing in. Of course, to some that sounds like fun - and more power to them - but again, I don't think god-statting creates a healthy gaming environment because when something has stats, it is easily comparable to anything else in the game setting. What then flows on from that is BBEGs are compared to gods, devil princes, archfiends et. al. If you've created stats on something like the gods which acts as a kind of benchmark, then everything is higher or lower, which leads to the type of problems that create many a cyclic thread on these forums. Nothing should be more powerful than the gods - but giving them stats has left us in a situation where that may well be the case in times to come - which will cause even more problems and cyclic discussions. As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC was considering a high-level sourcebook on the Realms to complement the Epic Level Handbook. It happened with 2E on a generic level and in 1E we got Unearthed Arcana which was pretty much the same thing. It'll happen, it's just that they've got to go to a few other places first. :) -- George Krashos |
| Razz05-15-05, 07:32 PM | Razz, I appreciate the support for my position, but please, I do not wish to be associated with such vitriolic negativity thrown at WotC, as I like them very much. Just because other people like WotC doesn't mean I'm going to hold back what I know for a fact are their biggest mistakes and flaws. I'm the type that'll ignite myself in flames if that's what it takes to make a statement hit its mark. :cool: |
| Meta_FR_DM05-15-05, 08:10 PM | I think there needs to be a firm recognition from everyone for the following: No single style of play is better than anyone else’s. Whatever gaming style Ed Greenwood uses is not the optimal style for the Realms as a product. It’s quite possible for campaigns to include healthy and equal doses of Rollplaying and Roleplaying. The presence of one in no way diminishes the presence of the other. The inclusion of high level stats simply does not encourage only powergaming, nor can it be said to automatically deplete Roleplaying. It’s up to each Dungeon Master to decide whether Deities and the like are killable, just as it’s up to each DM to set the tone for his campaign (deep immersion roleplaying, hack n’ slash, a little of each, etc…) The inclusion of game stats presents Dungeon Masters with the option of using such, based on the tone of his or her game. These stats are not ‘requirements’ of any kind. It is a core tenant of 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons that all Dungeon Masters can adjust up or down the game statistics of any NPC or creature in order to create exactly the level of challenge the DM needs, as well as to reflect (in game terms) what level of power the DM believes said NPC/Monster actually possesses. The statistics for Deities, Elder Evils and creatures (from Kobolds to Titans) are none of them set in stone. It is hypocritical to ascribe a gamer’s desire to slay high-powered creatures as powergaming. Elder Evils and the like represent pure evil, depravity and chaos. What heroic minded, character driven gamer wouldn’t want a shot at defeating such oft-recurring foes? Some may disagree, of course. Differing viewpoints, right? With that out of the way…. My highest level character was around 36…used ‘em in the 2nd Edition Bloodstone adventures that were designed for that level of play. (@Krash These adventures predated the Netheril boxed set, did they not?) Now, for my campaign I could really use more stuff along the lines of what was in Champions of Ruin. More Epic, CR>20 stats for Creatures and NPCs, followed by solid descriptions of history, motivations, areas of operations, maps, stats for underlings, unique magic items, new spells, etc… These are all useful for me as Dungeon Master as play progresses upward. Now I also know that –based on Wizard’s own customer research– play beyond 20th isn’t all that common. This is further reflected in Dungeon Magazine’s recent publication of an adventure for 30th level characters, which represents their most recent foray into Epic over the last 2-3 years. This one looks like it’ll be easy to borrow material from, though. And lastly I disagree with Krash that the Realms “aren’t ready” for the inclusion of more Epic Material, nor do I think it’s correct or appropriate to assume what’s been done in terms of Epic for the Realms thus far is similar to what Slade did. Krash is deeper in on the publishing side than I am, but can he really say for certain that no careful thought or planning has taken place…particularly on the books he himself helped to author?! Dave M. |
| Kuje3105-15-05, 09:16 PM | My highest level character was around 36…used ‘em in the 2nd Edition Bloodstone adventures that were designed for that level of play. (@Krash These adventures predated the Netheril boxed set, did they not?) Dave M. Most of the Bloodstone modules were 1e actually. :) Except for the one RAS expanded on in 2e. |
| crystaldragon05-15-05, 10:04 PM | the way the D&D system is established now, assuming an encounter can be dealt with in average of just under 30 minutes, one will essentially knock out the required 13.33 encounters to level in a single 6 hour session. This means that at one game session a week (which seems to be fairly common to many games from what I understand), a group will hit level 20 in about five months time. A party of four level 20 adventurers can almost always take, with decent preperation and knowledge, a CR 22-25 creature, the official material says a group should theoretically have some chance to win up to CR 8 higher than itself (so a CR 28 monster). I :shocked: Say what??? I wish. I've been playing the same character since lvl 2 (he started out FTR 1/ SOR 1) and he recently leveled up to 17. That took three years. If you're getting through 13 encounters in a session, your encounters are way too easy. No way the party should be leveling up every session. I'll admit my GM is pretty chintzy on the XP -- even really major events that take a whole session seldom produce more than 1000 XP. But even so it should take a lot longer than 5 months to get to epic level. IMO a party should expect to level up about every 4-6 game sessions (assuming weekly games). Maybe a little more frequently if you can only meet 1-2 times a month. You want to level them often enough to keep players from getting bored because they're not seeing any advancement, but not so often that leveling up doesn't represent any significant effort or time. I do agree with your point about epic options being included for BBEGs, though. I would especially like to see things intended for parties of 20-35 level, since much of the nasties included in the Epic Players Handbook seem to be intended for parties lvl 40 and up. (Save DCs of 60???) The lower epic levels are kind of a transitional period where groups are above the standard encounters, but haven't really developed or acquired many really epic abilities yet, so it's hard to know what to do with this level. Crystaldragon |
| crystaldragon05-15-05, 10:27 PM | It all boils down to a particular player and DM's preferences in the end. Some prefer low-level story driven games that focus on roleplaying, while others like epic-level games that focus on rollplaying. That's the truth of the matter. Actually I think high or epic level games can and should involve more role playing than roll playing, because: 1. Characters have more options available to them at high levels. They have more wealth, so they can use bribes. They have higher skill levels, so they can use diplomacy and social skills more successfully. They have more contacts, etc. 2. Characters are likely to have more obligations, such as strongholds, followers, alliances, etc. While doing nothing but sit around and run your castle is not much fun for most groups, property and friends do require some attention or you will not have either for long. 3. Characters will have more people competing for their attention and/or help. They will have to choose who to help first (or not help at all). 4. BBEG's and BBEG wannabees will seek to make their own names by taking out this powerful group, and the PCs will have to decide how to handle that. Planning defenses can be a very challenging task, and an interesting change of pace for players used to planning attacks. 5. Politics in general can and should play a larger role in an epic campaign, where players can approach iconic characters like Elminster, Fzoul Chembryl etc. and expect to be taken seriously. 6. Since more people will pay attention to a powerful group, some types of adventures will be much more complicated. If the party doesn't plan on letting their enemies know they're coming, they're going to have to plan carefully in order to avoid having their plans become known. A single spy in the town can really screw over a high-level party... 7. Greater power levels mean greater chance for some really massive collateral damage, which might get NPCs really upset. I'm sure you all can add more to this list. My point is that IMHO, if a high-level party is still playing hack-and-slash all the time, somebody's doing something wrong. Crystaldragon |
| crystaldragon05-15-05, 10:52 PM | Just one more little point... I think the inclusion of PrCs in the 3rd Edition has probably made play beyond 20th level more likely. Characters who take PrCs and want to see those PrCs through to their conclusion may well need to progress beyond 20th lvl to do it, depending on what other class or classes they also have levels in. And since nothing says you can't add a second or third PrC, it's easier to continue beyond 20th without getting bored. So I think there will be more people playing epic level games than in past editions. Crystaldragon |
| Krash05-16-05, 01:12 AM | And lastly I disagree with Krash that the Realms “aren’t ready” for the inclusion of more Epic Material, nor do I think it’s correct or appropriate to assume what’s been done in terms of Epic for the Realms thus far is similar to what Slade did. Krash is deeper in on the publishing side than I am, but can he really say for certain that no careful thought or planning has taken place…particularly on the books he himself helped to author?! Umm, I didn't say the above at all - what I said was that epic material should be added in a well-thought out, coherent manner. I personally think that what epic material has been added so far has been of this type - what I was commenting on was the demands by fans for more and more epic material, highlighting that such additions done without care could lead to greater problems down the track than a few disgruntled DMs and players who need a boost to their game because they've just killed Odin and the rest of the Norse pantheon and are looking for more sport. Similarly, my post did not say that the epic material introduced to date is similar to what Slade did, nor did I say that the Realms 'wasn't ready' for epic material. What I said in the latter case was that I didn't think the Realms was ready for 'wholesale epic changes'. Lastly, I can say for certain that the epic material done to date has received the requisite care and attention - the spectre I raised was regarding adding future epic material to satisfy demands for CR60-90 encounters without giving care and attention to the material in existence and how that will all compare and stack up in the long term. As I prefer not to be quoted out of context or have words put in my mouth, you epic gamers can have this thread. More power to you. Adios. -- George Krashos |
| JWSIII05-16-05, 03:47 AM | My players don't level up every game session, although they do level up every 2-3 game sessions. However, I reduce xp to 50% of what the DMG says specifically so I DON'T have them level faster than that; perhaps my encounters are too easy, but i go tothe trouble ofgiving them defensive advantages and use most of the "treasure value" of an encounter as armor/weapons/potions for a craeture, and my players normally (at 1/2 xp) require 2-3 game sessiosn to level - we play about 8 hr sessions, so maybe thatis throwing people who play shorter, I don't know, but they hit an average of about 12-14 encounters a night (8 hrs), meaning roughly a single encounter every 30 minutes (which, imo, seems like a reasonable pace). But, that being said, we go for 1.5-2 yr campaigns, at that point their is nothing really left; my players would have to kill named mages or avatars (Which they don't want to do and, with the exception of fzoul once (and temporarily), they have never ever killed a realms personality; we all agree whacking named is in poor taste. Nor have they ever slain (or even attacked) an avatar - and they've only even MET an avatar once - the whole named/avatar slaying thing is tacky - hence ym desire for other powerful beings to mess with. But, even if I am going too fast, I think sidebars for higher level play would help those of us who like to run really long campaigns; I start all my campaigns at lvl-1, the last D&D one ended between lvls (loosely) 22-33 for all players, with a party level around 25-26. I don't like munchkin games, I just hate retiring characters that have been in play for almost 2 yrs |
| ClobberinTime05-16-05, 02:08 PM | A lively and informed debate, I think that CrystalDragon hit the nail on the head about epic levels and role playing, when the PCs leave their home base, they might come back to find it well different, plus the rock scissors paper nature of epic combat makes it real crap shoot as far as who is going to win in combat, true elminster is stronger than manshoon but he is probably only going to win 70% of the combats, which means that 30% of the time, manshoon wins and wreaks havoc on the realms, elminster clones, his tower, etc.... The realms as it is set up now supports up to level 25 without stretching too much after that well its a problem. |
| GothicDan05-16-05, 02:45 PM | I've always found one thing interesting: How quick people are to emphasize their ability to do/say whatever they want, and how everything is subjective from person to person, and how mileage might vary, etc. Now, in general, this doesn't bug me, but it does when it used as the sole reason for one's argument. A post of "Do whatever you want!" (or what amounts to that) in response to a question/opinion is basically pointless. That being said: I think that my opinions are the most valid. If I didn't I wouldn't have those opinions. I respect the ability for others to have differing opinions (and would have it no other way, because, as I believe, conflict leads to growth), but I also retain the ability disrespect others' opinions that I feel are not very well thought out or condusive to game play as I want it to proceed. Because, after all, every statement we make, every emotion we have, is utterly biased towards our own frame of mental reference. We must all recognize that. You are biased towards wanting less bias if you are in the liberal camp, just as much as you are biased towards wanting more bias if you are in the conservative camp (not speaking about political parties here). So, that's what it boils down to. We all have our own opinions. We all believe our opinions are more "right" than the others on one level or another, whether consciously or subconsciously. We all hold the ability to think others' opinions are stupid, and we have every right to express this. NOTE: I am also in the same camp as Krash, in the fact that I love FR and I have never truly RPed in it in a RL campaign. I have played in Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Planescape, and Ravenloft. |
| ClobberinTime05-16-05, 03:46 PM | Ah it always comes back to Locke- 'no man has such limited intelligence as to not think his the equal to all others' or is it just beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :) |
| GothicDan05-16-05, 04:28 PM | Dear Bob, I hate Locke. :) "Natural State" my arse. Give me some Darwn or Nietzsche any day! |
| ClobberinTime05-16-05, 04:43 PM | yeah but Darwin would just say- 'It has evolved such that no man thinks his intelligence to not be the equal of all others' and Nietzche would just say that 'Any man who thinks his intelligence is the equal to all others is a fool, because only an idiot doesn't think they are smarter than everyone else' |
| George L. Cortinez Jr.05-16-05, 11:09 PM | I was just wondering, exactly how long has your group been playin D&D in FR and how much of, or how well does your DM use any information you do have. I have been playin in FR for almost as long as I have been playin. Some of the lower CR personalities do not hvae much in the way of abilities or powers, but know how to manipulate the resoures they have. On the other hand, if all you want are high level challenges, just whip out the old epic level hand book and give some of your favorite BBEGs some epic levels in what ever they excel at. I just thought I'd ask, I hope I don't ofend. Thanks ya'll |
| warlockco05-16-05, 11:35 PM | Umm, I didn't say the above at all - what I said was that epic material should be added in a well-thought out, coherent manner. I personally think that what epic material has been added so far has been of this type - what I was commenting on was the demands by fans for more and more epic material, highlighting that such additions done without care could lead to greater problems down the track than a few disgruntled DMs and players who need a boost to their game because they've just killed Odin and the rest of the Norse pantheon and are looking for more sport. Similarly, my post did not say that the epic material introduced to date is similar to what Slade did, nor did I say that the Realms 'wasn't ready' for epic material. What I said in the latter case was that I didn't think the Realms was ready for 'wholesale epic changes'. Lastly, I can say for certain that the epic material done to date has received the requisite care and attention - the spectre I raised was regarding adding future epic material to satisfy demands for CR60-90 encounters without giving care and attention to the material in existence and how that will all compare and stack up in the long term. As I prefer not to be quoted out of context or have words put in my mouth, you epic gamers can have this thread. More power to you. Adios. -- George Krashos Sorry to see you leave the thread George, but after seeing how you been treated, I understand why alot of the Writers prefer to go to Candlekeep. |
| Meta_FR_DM05-17-05, 03:13 AM | Sorry to see you leave the thread George, but after seeing how you been treated, I understand why alot of the Writers prefer to go to Candlekeep. Oh please. :rolleyes: If George believes he's being deliberatly misquoted...well I'm sorry but there's not much I can do about that. To me his comparisons were rather direct; I didn't see much of anything that distinguished between pre-Epic and current-Epic Realms material as opposed to "wholesale Epic changes." It's too bad he took the time to reiterate his positions and even emphasize he felt he'd made all of it clear the first time, only to leave after doing so. I'm sorry he felt he was being attacked, because he wasn't. At all. |
| Meta_FR_DM05-17-05, 03:25 AM | We all hold the ability to think others' opinions are stupid, and we have every right to express this. That last would be true for 5 year olds who don’t know any better and for immature adults who have yet to figure out the presence of a thought or opinion in their head, as well as the desire to express said thought, in no way releases them from their responsibility to be a mature individual who practices the obscure and strange (to them) art form called "manners". Christ, one might as well wear a shirt proclaiming the right to announce one’s innate stupidity and immaturity any time their mouth opens up to speak. Dave –well, at least I can wear my “I’m with Stupid” T-shirt – M. |
| GothicDan05-17-05, 06:29 PM | That last would be true for 5 year olds who don’t know any better and for immature adults who have yet to figure out the presence of a thought or opinion in their head, as well as the desire to express said thought, in no way releases them from their responsibility to be a mature individual who practices the obscure and strange (to them) art form called "manners". Manners are completely subjective, first of all, not only from culture to culture, but also from one aspect of a culture to another aspect of the same culture. What is utterly proper according to formal debate forums can be often critisized as being childish and displaying improper manners, for example. For instance: One could consider it bad manners for you to indirectly imply that I am either A) a five year old or, B) An immature adult. You did not say that right out, but following the line of argument.. - I expressed an opinion - You said that the opinion would only be true for the two above (A and B) classes of individuals. (Note also that this sort of inductive reasoning has been outmoded for centuries in modern Western Civilization.) That would count as a personal attack, but since any thread in which you have posted in response to anyone with a differing opinion (which you seem to laud so much as a sort of shield) numbers more than one personal attack within it, I'm not even going to bother making a big deal about it. I'd much rather continue in this analysis of diction and critical thinking; it's more fun. That being said... Christ, one might as well wear a shirt proclaiming the right to announce one’s innate stupidity and immaturity any time their mouth opens up to speak. Which they have. I'm sure you've seen the numerous shirts from wonderfully precocious establishments like "Hot Topic" which say as much. Furthermore, you present a hypocritical paradox by your own actions in the following line of thought: 1. Only immature adults/5 year olds believe that they have the right to call whatever they want stupid. (This I agree with - but it doesn't mean that I engage in such activity, mind you.) 2. One could say that immaturity or the intellect of a five year old was "stupid" compared to the characteristics of a fully-grown and educated adult. 3. So, you are effectively exercising the right to call an opinion stupid. 4. See point number 1. Also: I recall a comment being made along the lines of, "And this is why your arguments are stupid" without any direct evidence supporting your conclusion of such a statement (referring to exact word choice - why you chose to use that word and the definition you were implying when using it in that context). When is it right, then, to call another's opinion stupid? Or dumb? Considering there are no simple requirements for labeling things with such words (IE: Stupidity is in great part utterly subjective), that means there's no way to definitely prove what is stupid and what is not. It is all a matter of personal opinion. If words such as "nonsensical," "circular," "invalid," and the like were used, these terms are defined such that we could theoretically decide whether they are applicable to a given situation, thanks to deductive reasoning. When it comes to purely emotional reactions ("that's stupid!"), we cannot do this. In conclusion: you have proclaimed yourself an immature adult/or a five year old. Or at least a mighty hypocrite. Congradulations! Beware of Hubris. It's a sodding sneak. |
| warlockco05-18-05, 01:26 AM | :cheer: :clap: |
| Enslaved DM05-18-05, 02:52 AM | This doesn't explain characters like Cadderly (who went from 1 to level 20 in a matter of a couple of months) or Wulfgar (who's adventured ten times more than Cadderly ever has, and in a much longer time period, but he's only 9th-level) :rolleyes: Let's face it, WotC does not and never will learn how to adjust novel characters into D&D stats properly. Their stories need to be game-converted-to-story and not story-converted-to-game. More consistency and less confusion is what that'll give.. That's about the worst idea I've ever heard. Writers need to know the game, but game mechanics should NEVER EVER trump story. They are a tool the users (the players and the DM), not the master of the story. I don't want to read a novel and see game mechanics. I don't even want to be thinking too much about them at the gaming table. I want to see the imaginary world I am conjuring up, not dice and numbers. Having run an epic level campaign with characters that actually earned their way up and now just starting to play in one, role playing becomes even more important at epic levels. Your characters aren't some faceless band of guys, they are powers to be reckoned with. They have histories, connections, and baggage. They don't go around looking to loot dungeons (much). Diplomacy, intrigue, politics, and state craft take on a much higher level of importance at the game. If war is brewing, wouldn't you want to convince the man who can kill armies to defend your kingdom? |
| ClobberinTime05-18-05, 11:14 AM | Honestly I think an Epic Realms book would be fantastic- What would I include in it??? 1, A couple of Realms adventures for character levels 22 to 26 or so, possibly involving the new cosmology with some cameo's from the old like a trip to sigil. 2, Detailed Stats and back story on some of the realms most notorious villains, using the full on epic rules and them min-maxxed to make them useful. Plus lots of fluff on their habits, defences etc... plots, unique magic items, artifacts they possess.....The top of my list would be larloch including a detail of the epic magic used to make his mind link with his minions and ready to use stats for his standard follower i.e. a level 22 lich. Maybe Warlocks Crypt exists on multiple planes at the same time???? For most of these NPCs I would give them at least PC level magic items, and probably higher. Thats the only way to make epic NPCs be able to hang with the PCs power wise. |
| GothicDan05-18-05, 11:53 AM | I think it would be very difficult for Warlock's Crypt to exist on multiple planes on the same time with the new cosmology, considered how fairly strict the new planes are in being overseen specifically, constantly, and doggedly by the handful of Powers that rule each. Unless, of course, Larloch managed to strike deals with multiple deities, which would be possible, if also improbable. That being said: PLEASE no more NPC stat blocks! The sheer amount of pages that are taken up by NPC stat blocks, sample NPCs for PrCs, sample monster stat blocks for new monsters... SO much new Realms lore could be put into those pages, and nothing would effectively be "lost" by those who prefer crunch to fluff, because they still have the capability to utilize the crunch. Heck, I'd even rather see more new PrCs (not rehashes of existing PrCs), monsters, etc. - other crunch - than tons of stats that we can do ourselves. |
| Zevox05-18-05, 04:11 PM | That's about the worst idea I've ever heard. Writers need to know the game, but game mechanics should NEVER EVER trump story. They are a tool the users (the players and the DM), not the master of the story. I don't want to read a novel and see game mechanics. I don't even want to be thinking too much about them at the gaming table. I want to see the imaginary world I am conjuring up, not dice and numbers. Agree. Novels should never be game-converted-to-story. Zevox |
| ClobberinTime05-18-05, 04:30 PM | I was thinking of the plane of shadow, and astral planes mainly, but you are right the new cosmology does kind of limit our options on that. Maybe other worlds within the same prime material plane. |
| Enslaved DM05-18-05, 04:43 PM | Ignore the new cosmology. Almost everybody does. Standard Planescape cosmology is far superior. The Diety's can call their little chunks of the Hades and Heaven whatever they want without causing us substantial difficulties. Should you fail to take my advice, remember the Imaskari. They built building with planar portals and pocket dimensions and that is canon. So it must be possible under the Realms cosmology. |
| Demetrios05-18-05, 05:14 PM | I think it would be very difficult for Warlock's Crypt to exist on multiple planes on the same time with the new cosmology, considered how fairly strict the new planes are in being overseen specifically, constantly, and doggedly by the handful of Powers that rule each. Huh? Three of the lower planes have no deities (the Abyss, the Barrens, and the Nine Hells), nor do the Astral or Ethereal. The Elemental planes have deities, but they can hardly be said to completely control them. And there is plenty of room for pocket planes or demiplanes in the cosmology... |
| crystaldragon05-18-05, 09:14 PM | Honestly I think an Epic Realms book would be fantastic- What would I include in it??? 1, A couple of Realms adventures for character levels 22 to 26 or so, possibly involving the new cosmology with some cameo's from the old like a trip to sigil. 2, Detailed Stats and back story on some of the realms most notorious villains, using the full on epic rules and them min-maxxed to make them useful. Plus lots of fluff on their habits, defences etc... plots, unique magic items, artifacts they possess.....The top of my list would be larloch including a detail of the epic magic used to make his mind link with his minions and ready to use stats for his standard follower i.e. a level 22 lich. Maybe Warlocks Crypt exists on multiple planes at the same time???? For most of these NPCs I would give them at least PC level magic items, and probably higher. Thats the only way to make epic NPCs be able to hang with the PCs power wise. :clap: I agree wholeheartedly. To that end, I applaud the current contest to design rooms in Undermountain -- one of the many BB (maybe not evil but definitely insane)G lairs that needs detailed info. (Before you --and you know who you are-- jump on me with "But there was this 2E boxed set and that supplement etc", please let me note that I did not play FR before 3E, so this stuff is all new to me). I think Undermountain would make a perfect epic setting, since it belongs to an epic mage who's had lots of time to stuff it with epic monsters (guests?), traps, etc. Unlike GothicDan, I do appreciate stat blocks for NPCs and monsters, because while anybody could generate them, not everybody wants to (or is able to) spend the time necessary to do so. If only I could win the lottery so I didn't have to actually work...(sigh) Until then, details on stats, magic items etc. save a lot of time. I also agree that novels should not follow game mechanics too closely. Remember the Dragonlance Twins trilogy? Following game mechanics made those books really tedious in spots. Novelists are writing not only for dedicated FR gamers but also for readers who have never played DnD or who haven't played it in a long time. If you worry too much about game mechanics you will bore your readers. We've all played magic-using types who picked the wrong spells to study (or pray for) that day and ended up being pretty useless in an adventure. Who wants to read that? So of course the magic-users will have whatever spell is necessary to move the plot along. And so forth. Fitting the novels into the "canon" history afterwards can be a problem, but only for those who play strictly canon. If other groups don't like the new Mystra, they can choose to keep the old LN Mystra. Those who don't like the Chosen don't have to use them, etc. Just because a novel said it doesn't mean it necessarily has to happen in your world if it will mess up your campaign or timeline. If you want Lolth to become CN, you can do that in your game, whether it happened in a novel or not. So let the writers do what they want. I for one will enjoy the novels as novels, and the game as the game, with the former as well intentioned suggestions for the latter which I can incorporate or not as I wish. -Crystaldragon |
| crystaldragon05-18-05, 09:47 PM | My players don't level up every game session, although they do level up every 2-3 game sessions. However, I reduce xp to 50% of what the DMG says specifically so I DON'T have them level faster than that; perhaps my encounters are too easy, but i go tothe trouble ofgiving them defensive advantages and use most of the "treasure value" of an encounter as armor/weapons/potions for a craeture, and my players normally (at 1/2 xp) require 2-3 game sessiosn to level - we play about 8 hr sessions, so maybe thatis throwing people who play shorter, I don't know, but they hit an average of about 12-14 encounters a night (8 hrs), meaning roughly a single encounter every 30 minutes (which, imo, seems like a reasonable pace). But, that being said, we go for 1.5-2 yr campaigns, at that point their is nothing really left; my players would have to kill named mages or avatars (Which they don't want to do and, with the exception of fzoul once (and temporarily), they have never ever killed a realms personality; we all agree whacking named is in poor taste. Nor have they ever slain (or even attacked) an avatar - and they've only even MET an avatar once - the whole named/avatar slaying thing is tacky - hence ym desire for other powerful beings to mess with. But, even if I am going too fast, I think sidebars for higher level play would help those of us who like to run really long campaigns; I start all my campaigns at lvl-1, the last D&D one ended between lvls (loosely) 22-33 for all players, with a party level around 25-26. I don't like munchkin games, I just hate retiring characters that have been in play for almost 2 yrs Thanks for taking the time to reply. You may be right about the session length being a big factor -- my group usually only plays for 5-6 hours (it's impossible to get everyone together for longer than that these days), and even that generally includes an hour or two of extraneous B.S.ing when we go off on a tangent. If your group is a lot more focused you could get a lot more done. I dont see what's so tacky about PCs going up against named characters, though. NPCs are there to be used, IMHO. It's not like what happens in my home game is going to affect future FR supplements or anything, so if we, say, kakk the Simbul (a pet fantasy of mine), it doesn't affect her existence for anyone else. And it would create interesting RP possibilities, because of how it would change the reactions of other NPCs to the party. Some would applaud, some would become hostile, but everybody would react in some way to a party that had the reputation of taking out one of the most famous wizards in FR. I wouldn't do it if I were gaming with the person who created that character, but since the game designers aren't going to show up in my living room I don't see who would be offended. As for avatars, well, when and IF we ever get up to a power level that high, I'll worry about it then. Personally, :twocents: I'd like to see a supplement on Shade, which is another place I think would make a great epic setting. There could easily be a few Shadovar High Arcanists running around who are epic level, plus minions, demons, and whatnot which could present a sufficiently powerful challenge for an epic party. Sneaking in could be a challenge for an epic rogue, finding a way to stop the spread of Anauroch is definitely a challenge for epic wizards and clerics. :cool: And so forth. As an added bonus, Shade is sufficiently remote from the rest of Faerun that you could conceivably have epic level things happening there without tremendously affecting (directly) other areas which are designed for lower level adventures. That's important, because I think it's a big consideration from a game design perspective. |
| GothicDan05-19-05, 04:28 PM | Huh? Three of the lower planes have no deities (the Abyss, the Barrens, and the Nine Hells), nor do the Astral or Ethereal. The Elemental planes have deities, but they can hardly be said to completely control them. And there is plenty of room for pocket planes or demiplanes in the cosmology... Exactly what would Larloch gain from making his stronghold co-exist on any of the above Planes? In the Abyss, he'd had to stave off countless Abyssal Lords and other Tanar'ri. While he might have the might to do this, it would gain him nothing. The same goes for the Barrens (Yugoloths) and the Nine Hells/Baator (Baatezu). The Elemental Planes (Inner Planes)? As you said, there are gods that rule each of the prime 4, and I'm not sure why you think they can "hardly be said to completely control them." They control them just as much as the other various Outer Planar deities control their realms. And remember that -all- of the Elemental Gods are Greater Deities, too. Though, why would Larloch want to make his Crypt co-exist on any one of those, either? The only really good choice that is open (without any direct Divine entities) would be the Negative Energy Plane. The reason why powerful planar presences would be so much more tentative on the Planes of the current 3E cosmology is because there are so many fewer deities on the Planes than there were in 2E. No longer do gods have to worry about splitting their attention and resources in a hundred different directions; they are free to completely focus all of their power on their own plane. Which means setting up kip there is astronomically more difficult unless you have the deities' (or at least one's) direct aid. |
| Mesraic05-19-05, 11:45 PM | JWSIII, I think you specialize in un-intentionally starting post that spawn debates. Must be your winning personality. I for one agree with you, I would like to see more epic play material produced. |
| JWSIII05-20-05, 03:56 AM | Okay, before I say this, I apologize in advance to the "simbul" poster, because I basically agree with 95% of what s/he says and don't mean to offend... But, yeah, I'd like the simbul to get Kakked as well, just because she is the CHAOTIC NEUTRAL ruler of a realm that has been able to stick with running the exact same kingdom in essentially the exact same manner for centuries - a consistent ruler for hundreds of years should be LN, sigh - plus shes a chosan without being within an alignment step of EITHER of Mystra's alingments (NG or LN) - shes so inconsistent she needs kakking just to build consistencey. Well, actually, your totally right - whatever a player group does that makes them happy is cool, 'cuz it doesn't effect everyone else, so yeah, absolutely, if people love kakking (I think you've hooked me on a new word lol) iconics, more power to 'em. I'd personally rather Kakk epic demon lords, but hey, to each his own :D That being said, for my campaign I still think making a character to "kill named and avatars and pown and be leet" seems weak - if it generally fits into a campiagn, then yeah, go for it - like I said, my group did briefly kill fzoul once (were fighting mintar, he lent monetary support and pet assassin, group returned the favor just to get him to butt out). But, as above, its your game, so rock on. Love your idea on Shade, I totally think that that woul work very well; I have always said that while I don't personally think that shade is a great threat to other kingdoms, that they make awesome BBEG's for players to mess with, and a fleshed out (Epic) Shade sourcebook would be awesome; it would make both the pro-epic and the pro-shade crowd happy. I sign that one :D |
| Crust05-21-05, 11:09 PM | Interesting thread. I'm surprised it hasn't been closed yet with all the bickering. There's no doubt that 3E allows for faster advancement. Our current campaign started in the spring of 2002, when I started the characters at 3rd level. Now, in the spring of 2005, the party level is around 21. After three years playing in 2E, the highest level in the group was 16th, and I started those characters at 5th level. We play for about 5-6 hours roughly twice a month. I don't normally allow time for training until the group has completed a quest, and that might mean we play 4 or 5 times before I hand out experience. I often find myself shaving a bit off the top if I think the XP number is too high. I also dumb down CR when an encounter is particularly easy for the group (something I can't always anticipate). I've also recently allowed cohorts, so 2 out of five gamers play 2 characters. That waters down the PL a bit. These are just a few techniques I use to make progression a little more drawn out. I want my players to savor their advancement and really feel a sense of accomplishment when they level. |