It's Not About Level 20 (3E) or 30 (4E) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

It's Not About Level 20 (3E) or 30 (4E)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
navar100
Apr 13, 2010 22:29:38 Last session the DM mentioned the campaign will be winding down. We just reached 18th level. We are reaching the Conclusion story-wise. We still have several sessions to go, and there might be some accelerated leveling.

While I will miss my character when the game ends, I'm not really bothered. I've enjoyed him immensely and look forward to my new character for the next game. However, another player is bothered. He still has particular game mechanics plans he wanted to try out that won't get play or very short play time to appreciate it. His character is no slouch; there's just other stuff he wanted to play out but now he won't get the chance.

The point?

Often when people discuss builds they're always talking about the final result, such as level 20 for 3E. They want four attacks per round while having 8th level spells. They want 9th level spells in arcane and divine.   They want 12 attacks per round. There's nothing wrong with the ultimate goal, whatever it is, but what is often overlooked is the levels before then.

"By level 20 I want to cast 9th level arcane spells in full plate armor with at least 3 attacks per round." Great, you can get such a character, but what is the character like at 15th level? 12th? 9th? 5th?   Are you going to have fun playing your character before you reach your nirvana? If for whatever reason the campaign ends before level 20, would you still enjoy what you played even though you never got the chance to play what you always wanted?

This is what my fellow player is suffering.   He's not getting to play what he's always wanted or will have a very limited time with it, and it's bothering him. (He is enjoying his character; there's just other game mechanics stuff he was really looking forward to.) As for me, I always got to play whatever I wanted because I made sure each level would be something I want to enjoy in its own right. I always had goals for future levels and longed for them, but what I had at the level I was I really wanted.

I must caveat that I am a better character builder than he is. He hadn't "screwed up" in his build, but a lot of stuff was always to come "later" and now "later" isn't going to arrive or be around long enough to enjoy. Therefore, whatever your game mechanics goal for level 20 (3E)/30 (4E) is, make sure what you have at the earlier levels are what you really want to have for that level's sake as if level 20/30 would never arrive.
#2
Novacat
Apr 13, 2010 22:53:22 Most "max" level builds are just thought experiments, anyways, and aren't really intended for play. I far more often see low-level builds on the CharOp board, because a player is making a character at that level, and wants immediate optimization, with options for the future.

Also, how much you should value your end build depends on the campaign in which you intend to run the character. As a DM, I always try to take my campaign to max level. My last campaign ended at 17th, so I ran a quick epilogue at level 20, which was a few years later in-game, just so the party could run their characters at that level.

My current campaign will hit level 30 (hopefully sometime before the universe suffers heat-death), and may be there for some time, so it would be alright for my players to plan for it. It all depends on the campaign.
#3
kenlar
Apr 14, 2010 5:18:28 Dungeons and Dragons isn't about reaching Level 30. It's not about optimizing your character for the best possible stats, either. In fact, it seems that most players are wrong when it comes to RPG-games in general. They don't aim to have a fun-to-play character. All that matters to them is high stats and generally overpowered characters (trust me. I know two players who think that way. They're in the same DnD group as me, so...), and they always seek out chances to go solo against the weaker enemies, that the weaker characters can kill with no problems, taking away the non-overpowered character's role on the team. And it only gets worse, when the DM supports the 'overkill-plan' in battles and just creates more small enemies and no actual challenges for the PCs. Next thing you know, the rulebooks begin saying 'Overpowering the enemy is the only true way of playing the game' or something stupid like that, which is not true in any way, as the game was meant to be fun, not trivial.

Furthermore, Level 30 and Optimized Characters counteracts the entire difinition of the word 'Game', which can be defined as 'an amusement or pastime', usually 'amusement', which indicates that you're having fun (that you find it amusing), which you rarely do, when your allies are taking all the glory, GP, rewards, and generally ruin the game by being overpowered.

Next thing you know, you'll be on your knees, begging your DM to either kill any overpowered characters in the game, or make a PC to go against them, who will be several levels above the PCs, or add a template to Orcus, Tiamat or Demogorgon or something else powerful, so it won't die in 6 seconds (which we once experienced through an unfair combination of Whirling Blades, some fire-damage zone and Harrowstorm.) Otherwise, tell the overpowered characters to adjust their stats, so they're less overpowered (rather than helping you making yours overpowered too).
#4
drag0nul
Apr 14, 2010 6:57:40 @ the OP: It all depends on the player's perspective. If a player has fun building and playing a char that only starts to shine past a certain level, and he can endure the wait, then why not? I for one can't. I try to design my chars to be good from start to finish. Even if that means I'm losing a bit of optimization toward the finish. I once designed a bard/swordsage/sublime chord/jade phoenix mage, that was only really getting into the build past lvl 10 or so. The campaign started at lvl 6, and the first 4 levels were boring as hell to say the least (the char was basicly an unoptimized bard trying to melee). It did get a lot more interesting once I hit lvl 10 though.

@Kenlar: that's your opinion mate. Maybe you don't like optimizing chars, but some of us do. I like designing chars that are (very) good at what they do(be it combat, sneaking, diplomacy etc.). And I expect my fellow gamers either to do the same, or just accept that their char is just not good at doing x acitivity because it wasn't designed to be good at it (I don't see why, if I designed a killing machine, I should play it badly jsut because the dude next to me that designed a char that's weak in combat wants to pretend it isn't weak). But then that's my take on the game.
In the end, there's no right or wrong in (not) optimzing. As long as you find a group of players with same views and are all having fun I don't see any problem
#5
dionnecurat
Apr 14, 2010 11:46:37
I used an optimized Storm Sorcerer build in what was supposed to be a campaign a while back. I still had fun playing the character (sometimes its just satisfying using one of your weaker powers to knock an enemy over a cliff...ah, the memories).

Some players like having their characters develop in a specific way. Others follow a template that they have found and liked. I say as long as everyone is enjoying themselves, don't worry about it.

If you're complaining that your character isn't doing what it should be, however, then review what you used for the character. Sometimes its a matter of retraining a feat so your character gets an extra defense buff in Reflex, or expanding on a keyword ability, or whatever it is that is frustrating you.

I periodically build characters I don't even intend to use. This gives me two things:

A) Ideas on how to build in different ways
B) Character templates for other players (if they can't come up with their own)

D&D isn't about having a completely broken character; its about building a character to your liking, and watching that character struggle...or not, depending on your playstyle.
#6
chaosturtle
Apr 14, 2010 13:45:05 I like working towards a goal, but then when I reach that goal I tend to get bored with it and lose interest. The fun part about working towards it is you get to see your results as you start getting more and more of what you need, but then once you get it there's really nothing left...you're at your peak and just going to be doing the same things over and over. That's one reason I lean towards spellcasters as you can mix things up a bit more.
#7
rian_king
Apr 14, 2010 20:04:39 My players get tired of playing level 1 to say level 6 before the game ends. They would like expernice the game from 1 to 30(or 20 in previous editions)

This player is not playing "wrong" this is how enjoys the game. If his goal is to get to 30 then that is what the game means to him.
#8
Phlanex
Apr 14, 2010 21:52:56 Having agreed upon how high level the campaign will go is one of the first discussions a group should make. Generally we end the discussion with...lets see what happens here. Sometimes you say to yourselves that level 15-20 sounds good for this batch and we can move on to the next thing. Sometimes most of the group generally decides around those levels that they would like to try a new character as well; this just happens and on some level every player and GM should expect this. Just as some novels, you want to wrap up the series and put the final icing on the cake. In other cases, you may want to see how truly far you want to go...but that tends to fall on the majority rules decision. So for you friend, you'll have to let him know that the next best thing may be around the corner.

Personally, I have to GM more than be a player, but I love to go through character creation, and while I do tend to plot out how the character will progress based on their background and such, I also let the game decide how the character will continue to play.

In one case, my sorcerer/fighter ended up blinded in a long battle and I was able to fight my way through to the end of it until he could see again. Well, when it came to getting a feat, I chose "blind-fight"...makes sense huh? Anyway, its easy to get attached, but as one poster has already said "Its all about fun". So for the sake of the group to move on to continue having fun, that may be necessary.

Besides, nothing is more fun from a GM's perspective (In my opinion) than having previous characters run into current ones (assuming you are playing in the same world). The end is never really the end, at least when I GM games.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 navar100 Apr 13, 2010 22:29:38	Last session the DM mentioned the campaign will be winding down. We just reached 18th level. We are reaching the Conclusion story-wise. We still have several sessions to go, and there might be some accelerated leveling. While I will miss my character when the game ends, I'm not really bothered. I've enjoyed him immensely and look forward to my new character for the next game. However, another player is bothered. He still has particular game mechanics plans he wanted to try out that won't get play or very short play time to appreciate it. His character is no slouch; there's just other stuff he wanted to play out but now he won't get the chance. The point? Often when people discuss builds they're always talking about the final result, such as level 20 for 3E. They want four attacks per round while having 8th level spells. They want 9th level spells in arcane and divine. They want 12 attacks per round. There's nothing wrong with the ultimate goal, whatever it is, but what is often overlooked is the levels before then. "By level 20 I want to cast 9th level arcane spells in full plate armor with at least 3 attacks per round." Great, you can get such a character, but what is the character like at 15th level? 12th? 9th? 5th? Are you going to have fun playing your character before you reach your nirvana? If for whatever reason the campaign ends before level 20, would you still enjoy what you played even though you never got the chance to play what you always wanted? This is what my fellow player is suffering. He's not getting to play what he's always wanted or will have a very limited time with it, and it's bothering him. (He is enjoying his character; there's just other game mechanics stuff he was really looking forward to.) As for me, I always got to play whatever I wanted because I made sure each level would be something I want to enjoy in its own right. I always had goals for future levels and longed for them, but what I had at the level I was I really wanted. I must caveat that I am a better character builder than he is. He hadn't "screwed up" in his build, but a lot of stuff was always to come "later" and now "later" isn't going to arrive or be around long enough to enjoy. Therefore, whatever your game mechanics goal for level 20 (3E)/30 (4E) is, make sure what you have at the earlier levels are what you really want to have for that level's sake as if level 20/30 would never arrive.
#2 Novacat Apr 13, 2010 22:53:22	Most "max" level builds are just thought experiments, anyways, and aren't really intended for play. I far more often see low-level builds on the CharOp board, because a player is making a character at that level, and wants immediate optimization, with options for the future. Also, how much you should value your end build depends on the campaign in which you intend to run the character. As a DM, I always try to take my campaign to max level. My last campaign ended at 17th, so I ran a quick epilogue at level 20, which was a few years later in-game, just so the party could run their characters at that level. My current campaign will hit level 30 (hopefully sometime before the universe suffers heat-death), and may be there for some time, so it would be alright for my players to plan for it. It all depends on the campaign.
#3 kenlar Apr 14, 2010 5:18:28	Dungeons and Dragons isn't about reaching Level 30. It's not about optimizing your character for the best possible stats, either. In fact, it seems that most players are wrong when it comes to RPG-games in general. They don't aim to have a fun-to-play character. All that matters to them is high stats and generally overpowered characters (trust me. I know two players who think that way. They're in the same DnD group as me, so...), and they always seek out chances to go solo against the weaker enemies, that the weaker characters can kill with no problems, taking away the non-overpowered character's role on the team. And it only gets worse, when the DM supports the 'overkill-plan' in battles and just creates more small enemies and no actual challenges for the PCs. Next thing you know, the rulebooks begin saying 'Overpowering the enemy is the only true way of playing the game' or something stupid like that, which is not true in any way, as the game was meant to be fun, not trivial. Furthermore, Level 30 and Optimized Characters counteracts the entire difinition of the word 'Game', which can be defined as 'an amusement or pastime', usually 'amusement', which indicates that you're having fun (that you find it amusing), which you rarely do, when your allies are taking all the glory, GP, rewards, and generally ruin the game by being overpowered. Next thing you know, you'll be on your knees, begging your DM to either kill any overpowered characters in the game, or make a PC to go against them, who will be several levels above the PCs, or add a template to Orcus, Tiamat or Demogorgon or something else powerful, so it won't die in 6 seconds (which we once experienced through an unfair combination of Whirling Blades, some fire-damage zone and Harrowstorm.) Otherwise, tell the overpowered characters to adjust their stats, so they're less overpowered (rather than helping you making yours overpowered too).
#4 drag0nul Apr 14, 2010 6:57:40	@ the OP: It all depends on the player's perspective. If a player has fun building and playing a char that only starts to shine past a certain level, and he can endure the wait, then why not? I for one can't. I try to design my chars to be good from start to finish. Even if that means I'm losing a bit of optimization toward the finish. I once designed a bard/swordsage/sublime chord/jade phoenix mage, that was only really getting into the build past lvl 10 or so. The campaign started at lvl 6, and the first 4 levels were boring as hell to say the least (the char was basicly an unoptimized bard trying to melee). It did get a lot more interesting once I hit lvl 10 though. @Kenlar: that's your opinion mate. Maybe you don't like optimizing chars, but some of us do. I like designing chars that are (very) good at what they do(be it combat, sneaking, diplomacy etc.). And I expect my fellow gamers either to do the same, or just accept that their char is just not good at doing x acitivity because it wasn't designed to be good at it (I don't see why, if I designed a killing machine, I should play it badly jsut because the dude next to me that designed a char that's weak in combat wants to pretend it isn't weak). But then that's my take on the game. In the end, there's no right or wrong in (not) optimzing. As long as you find a group of players with same views and are all having fun I don't see any problem
#5 dionnecurat Apr 14, 2010 11:46:37	I used an optimized Storm Sorcerer build in what was supposed to be a campaign a while back. I still had fun playing the character (sometimes its just satisfying using one of your weaker powers to knock an enemy over a cliff...ah, the memories). Some players like having their characters develop in a specific way. Others follow a template that they have found and liked. I say as long as everyone is enjoying themselves, don't worry about it. If you're complaining that your character isn't doing what it should be, however, then review what you used for the character. Sometimes its a matter of retraining a feat so your character gets an extra defense buff in Reflex, or expanding on a keyword ability, or whatever it is that is frustrating you. I periodically build characters I don't even intend to use. This gives me two things: A) Ideas on how to build in different ways B) Character templates for other players (if they can't come up with their own) D&D isn't about having a completely broken character; its about building a character to your liking, and watching that character struggle...or not, depending on your playstyle.
#6 chaosturtle Apr 14, 2010 13:45:05	I like working towards a goal, but then when I reach that goal I tend to get bored with it and lose interest. The fun part about working towards it is you get to see your results as you start getting more and more of what you need, but then once you get it there's really nothing left...you're at your peak and just going to be doing the same things over and over. That's one reason I lean towards spellcasters as you can mix things up a bit more.
#7 rian_king Apr 14, 2010 20:04:39	My players get tired of playing level 1 to say level 6 before the game ends. They would like expernice the game from 1 to 30(or 20 in previous editions) This player is not playing "wrong" this is how enjoys the game. If his goal is to get to 30 then that is what the game means to him.
#8 Phlanex Apr 14, 2010 21:52:56	Having agreed upon how high level the campaign will go is one of the first discussions a group should make. Generally we end the discussion with...lets see what happens here. Sometimes you say to yourselves that level 15-20 sounds good for this batch and we can move on to the next thing. Sometimes most of the group generally decides around those levels that they would like to try a new character as well; this just happens and on some level every player and GM should expect this. Just as some novels, you want to wrap up the series and put the final icing on the cake. In other cases, you may want to see how truly far you want to go...but that tends to fall on the majority rules decision. So for you friend, you'll have to let him know that the next best thing may be around the corner. Personally, I have to GM more than be a player, but I love to go through character creation, and while I do tend to plot out how the character will progress based on their background and such, I also let the game decide how the character will continue to play. In one case, my sorcerer/fighter ended up blinded in a long battle and I was able to fight my way through to the end of it until he could see again. Well, when it came to getting a feat, I chose "blind-fight"...makes sense huh? Anyway, its easy to get attached, but as one poster has already said "Its all about fun". So for the sake of the group to move on to continue having fun, that may be necessary. Besides, nothing is more fun from a GM's perspective (In my opinion) than having previous characters run into current ones (assuming you are playing in the same world). The end is never really the end, at least when I GM games.