Low levels can still RAWK!

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Well, they did say many monsters are rebalanced to fit differently on the scale (I think they said fire giants are like level 18 now, and we know a pit fiend is now level 26). It just means the scale is different, but I like it and can see why it might help them balance things. Plus, without the possibility (normally) of a seemingly endless and poorly balanced epic play, they can more tightly manage material. In theory (baring bloat, sadly), they never need make level 37 monsters or anything like that, since characters are meant to retire after level 30.

[snakefing]

But that would imply that you'd have to get less at each level - fewer hit points, BAB, save bonus, skill points, feats, spells, etc. I'm not sure how that would work though - given the option a lot of players will still want to max out whatever they can. If they can do it, so much the better, but I have my doubts.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Well, all classes get the same save/BAB bonuses, and those are lower.

And we know many spells are moved to higher levels based on their effects (for example anything planar will be at least paragon, if not epic).

I don't think they have skill points, per se, anymore, either.

I think in SWSA you get one feat every other level, so that's likely to be the case here, too.

But they also said you will get something exciting each level (either a feat or choosing a class ability of some kind), so there are no dead levels.

[Higgs Boson]

I think instead of rebalancing the leveling system, they need to rebalance the spell system and the melee system, and rescale the monsters appropriately. The main problem with higher level spellcasting are the epic-level system, and spells like wish, gate, and miracle.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

I think instead of rebalancing the leveling system, they need to rebalance the spell system and the melee system, and rescale the monsters appropriately. The main problem with higher level spellcasting are the epic-level system, and spells like wish, gate, and miracle.

Yeah. Though, I think they're doing all those things. We know wish (and presumably miracle) is out, and expect Gate to be available in late epic levels.

The spell system and melee system are being rebalanced. As for monsters, yes, but appropriately is another story--we can only judge that after seeing the books.

[the_taken]

http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?43446.last

[snakefing]

Here's an interview where they discuss the 30-level thing. According to this guy, a 4e character will be more powerful than the corresponding 3e character at the same level. Levels 21-30 are still considered "epic tier" but they are more integrated to the core rules.

http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/819/819068p3.html

[LordVreeg]

I guess we all have different urges when we game.

I go back to what Ish said in the initial posting, that he's becoming more and more a fan of the lower end games because of the realism involved.  

If D20 ever wanted me to buy anything from them again, the first thing they'd have to do is recalibrate the power levels and the advancement and dump anything over level 20.  I (and my players) enjoy the fact after over a decade of play their character's have made constant advanceemnt, but none of them are the toughest things in their town or tougher than the leaders of their guilds, or able to take down even a young dragon singlehandedly (after about 130 sessions, for that group).
But that is me.  

[Higgs Boson]

I'd like to at least spend a large amount of time with low power levels, but after playing with a character for a long time, I would like to be powerful. I don't want to be stuck as a low-power character. The thing is, I think the reason most people play games like D&D is because they want to be able to do "cool" things that they can't do in real life, such as hunt dragons or have amazing magical abilities. If the game was rebalanced so that there would be low power levels throughout the game and they could not do those things, then the majority of players would not buy the D&D products. Its just WOTC playing to the largest market.

[LordVreeg]

Well, Higgs, based on the way they are going, I think you are in the majority with the power levels you want to reach and the way you want the game to play.  
Advancement is cool, and I am not against advancement, as my rules allow for lots of small level breaks instead of big ones.  Players LOVE every little power advancement, and that really motivates them. (scale is the key here...)

And I also play Fantasy role playing games for the 'Fantasy' part of the equation, so I partially agree with you there, as well.  But even low level characters in a good FRP do things and have abilities that are not present in our mundane world.  If we create a continuum with gritty realistic fantasy on one side and fairy tales on the other, we have to dial in where we want the game to go (and we also have to email SilvercatMoonpaw, as we're infringing on that thread).  As Ish intimated in the first post, and as I will also contend, low-level games lend themselves more to realism, and games with 30 levels of play are on the other end of the spectrum.


And yes, I think you are right that WotC is merely playing to the largest market avaialble.  It is still the best supported system out there and by far the best introduction to FRP's out there.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Certainly low-level games are more realistic (in the sense that they are more like the mundane real world); that's part of the definition of the tiers of play.

Heroic tier is obviously the most plausible. Based on their descriptions, I tend to think Robin Hood is heroic tier, Lancelot is paragon tier, and Achilles is epic tier. The beauty of having all three tiers, is that players/GM can choose the one they want. The beauty of making them part of cohesive system rather than three separate games, is that those that want to play through all three can do that, too.

All that said, if what's desired is realism and gritty play, I think D&D and d20 in general may not be the ideal system. Almost any system that allows skill-based advancement would be better.

I think to tolerate slow leveling, for me, it would have to be like LVs description of his system--not really slow leveling at all, just leveling a little at a time. I have no problem only being able to improve one skill a little bit each game. But if I can't make any improvement for six game sessions, I'm more likely to get bored.

Yeah it may realistically take a long time to learn a new language; but if I want to learn one in game, it sucks that we have to say, sorry wait 4 adventures, you haven't killed enough monsters to learn what that word means. "You won't be able to talk to the flospacklemuts until you get more skill points."

[Hibou]

Anyone seen this?

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3750525&postcount=1

[snakefing]

I don't necessarily think of "realistic" in terms of being like the mundane world (although that is one aspect). I think of it being more in terms of "psychologically" realistic. At lower levels, the characters haven't become so powerful that their relationship to the rest of the world has radically changed. Although they may have non-mundane abilities, and significantly enhanced power, they still retain similar relationships to ordinary matters of mortality, social place and institutions, and so forth.

At some point in the normal D&D progression, characters hardly have to worry about things like law, reputation, social graces, and so forth, because they have far exceeded the ability of normal things to threaten or constrain them. Even "death" is more of hindrance than anything else. At this point they've moved out of the realm of things that we players have any real-world experience of, and our ability to relate to them as "realistic" characters is reduced.

So, if you are interested in things like this, lower level characters are more "realistic" even if their abilities and powers don't correspond very closely to our reality.

I think that's why I find lower level games more enjoyable - the drama and heroism seems enhanced, the more closely I can relate to the world view of the characters. I find it difficult to be interested in running an Elric-type character, because that type of character will just be so alien to me - I'm not sure where to start. (Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part, but it is nevertheless true for me.)

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=TROLL]Anyone seen this?[/blockquote]
Neat article.  Deals with the exact same issues, but basically says got to level 6 as per usual, THEN change the rules.  Why not just change the rules?

[Slapzilla]

Mo' money, mo' problems.

I think the key lies with the DM.  What is the difference, in the end, between a pack of kobolds and a pack of fire giants to an appropriately scaled character?  At 2nd level, running through a gauntlet of kobold traps to destroy a nest that has been raiding a rancher's herd is exciting and heroic.  At 16th level, running through a gauntlet of fire giants to stop their invasion of a dwarven stronghold instrumental in supplying armor to their kingdom's war efforts is exciting and heroic.  Scale change, nothing more, right?

Wrong.  While the rancher's herd is important to the rancher and the hamlet that will rely on the meat, the war effort is where people who the PCs will never meet will live or die depending on the success of their counter surge.  The PCs, if they fail against the kobolds, may be able to wrangle more cattle for the hamlet and guard it against them, but there is no way they will bring all the dead soldiers back.  Ramifications mean something and that is what changes as PCs progress.  Creatures getting harder as the PCs get meaner is a wash for me.  The ripple effect of what they do (or don't do) is what begins to effect and motivate the world around them.

I may catch hell for this but... a skilled DM can begin this rippling effect at very low levels (even first, but I've never quite been able to pull it off effectively) and not just in a small way, either.  Say the PCs help a Manor village fend off some gnolls.  As the PCs chase them back over the river and through the woods they make contact with a fey tribe (enemy of an enemy) who are angry that the village has cut down a band of trees, but need help fending off the gnolls.  The PCs can act as intermediaries between the parties as soon as they root out the gnoll warren and it's chief.  The lord of the manor invites the warrior/diplomats to stay on for a bit and in gratitude sends a letter to the Baron requesting suitable rewards.  I figure that's worth three levels right there.  Plenty of room for action and roleplaying and the PCs become known and appreciated by both townsfolk and important people.  With the reward response, perhaps the Baron asks the manor lord to ask the PCs to find and root out whatever has made the elves on the other side of the ridge bloodthirsty all of a sudden.  As the PCs advance, their influence grows.  It ain't just a matter of the monsters getting harder.  THAT, I say, is the mark of a crappy DM.

I don't know how changing the rules would change crappy DMing.  I don't think good storytelling needs any changes because the mechanics already support the story.  I believe that level doesn't matter nearly as much as story does, so if I can't Maximize a fireball, well, big deal.