Quote from: Bren;781675This was posted, in response to you. You didn't specifically agree with level 20, but you also didn't call it out as too high a level to be considered or to be part of the discussion.

I didn't call them out because I didn't think they were made seriously -- they were mainly snarky suggestions about what the poster thought OTHER people would want. IE: the first two posters weren't proposing it as something they wanted or thought was sensible.

As for the third poster... that there was one leader who was a nigh demigod wasn't the point, the point was that D&D products _routinely_ set class levels for NPC leaders and characters, and have done so for most editions (I'm not sure about the earliest editions, and from what I understand about 4e it generally doesn't do NPC levels)

And most of the examples were NPCs level 8-12.

Quote from: Bren;781675I don't know what level being Superman is equivalent to, but it sounds really high level to me. His power is as great as many mythological pagan gods, so I'd guess at least level 20.

It depends, but in 3e (and I think 4e), you are probably thereabouts by level 10 or so -- you can routinely fly and shoot heat rays, if you want, and even a wizard can probably ignore the bullets of countless schlub Commoners.

This is one of the observations of, say, E6, is that spells and magic items shift genre from gritty low fantasy to TV spy movie to superheroes to demigods over levels.

The point of my statement was about power scale, not specifically Superman. That is, a level 10 guy is _weirdly personally more powerful_ than all first level people. This is different than the real world on several profound ways, so it's going to limit how easily one can assume things will translate, unless you specifically embrace 'this game is symbolic of the real world' and detach from the kind of simulation worries that a lot of traditional games partially incorporate.

Also... you're weirdly fixating on specific details rather than their context. What's up with that?

Quote from: Bren;781675With the exception of Naburimannu, most people (including you and me) haven't been at all clear what they mean by "high level." I haven't reviewed the entire thread. It is too fricking long for that, but based on just what is posted the answer is some people have - and some people maybe even includes you.

Then ask, and now you have.

Level 10 is enough in several editions to drastically change personal power. A level 10 character in 3e and 4e is essentially a superhero.

Quote from: Will;781696I didn't call them out because I didn't think they were made seriously -- they were mainly snarky suggestions about what the poster thought OTHER people would want. IE: the first two posters weren't proposing it as something they wanted or thought was sensible.

My internet telepathy is less accurate than yours. It is very unclear what people were proposing and when they are being hyperbolic.

QuoteAnd most of the examples were NPCs level 8-12.

I don't think you are correct that most of the examples are 8-12, but as I said I haven't calculated an average. Have you?

re: Superman
I'm confused by what you mean by 10th level characters = Superman. In addition to flying and having raygun eyes, Superman can lift hugely heavy things like moons and shit, can 10th level 3E characters do that? I ask because I don't know.

Also demigods > Superman seems like an incorrect scaling of power to me. In a comic book sense, Superman seems easily the equivalent in power of demigods, if not more powerful. Aren't Wonderwoman and Aquaman demigods, for example? And Thor is a comic book god. But he doesn't seem lots more powerful than Superman. Kind of equivalent it seems to me.

QuoteAlso... you're weirdly fixating on specific details rather than their context. What's up with that?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weirdly fixating." You seem to veer between using words very loosely and using them very precisely. I didn't intend level 20 as an extremely accurate representation of what people have been saying, but it doesn't seem wildly inaccurate for what some people have been saying. But you now seem fixated on the number 20 rather than the context.

To me, you and several others also seem to be oddly fixated on 3E or 4E, especially in a thread labeled 5E. As if somehow those two editions are more predictive of 5E even though the games seem very different. As just one example, is not level in 5E currently capped at 20, in contrast to 3E and 4E. I have no context for 3E and 4E, since I never played them, but from people's post on various forums those two editions seem to feature people playing at levels well beyond the high teens. So when you say high level 3E that does not connote to me that you mean levels 8-12 as being high level.

Now in contrast to 3E and 4E, in OD&D the experience tables actually stopped providing much mechanical benefit after level 10-12 so high level would mean level 10-12 or so. AD&D seemed to stop providing much benefit in the teens somewhere or when wizards got access to 9th level spells so that would be high level. High level OD&D and AD&D is exactly the levels (demigod excepted) that we see in the quote that Jadrax posted for Grayhawk rulers.

QuoteLevel 10 is enough in several editions to drastically change personal power. A level 10 character in 3e and 4e is essentially a superhero.

More powerful than an ordinary commoner and equal to a powerful comic book superhero are very different levels of power.

Now in OD&D a Superhero was level 8, but by Superhero the D&D rules did not mean someone like Superman, the Hulk, or Thor. I'd be surprised if 10th level 3E characters are as powerful as those three superheroes, but as I said, I have no context for 3E. Are 10th level 3E characters really that powerful or are was that analogy also not meant seriously?

Quote from: Bren;781718My internet telepathy is less accurate than yours. It is very unclear what people were proposing and when they are being hyperbolic.

It's not internet telepathy so much as, well, reading, but ok.

Quote from: Bren;781718I don't think you are correct that most of the examples are 8-12, but as I said I haven't calculated an average. Have you?

No, admittedly, it could be higher. The point was, I believe, a counter to the idea that NPCs with credible levels are not standard to D&D or somehow weird for D&D.

(If the OP meant something else, feel free to pipe up if you can follow this)

Quote from: Bren;781718re: Superman
I'm confused by what you mean by 10th level characters = Superman. In addition to flying and having raygun eyes, Superman can lift hugely heavy things like moons and shit, can 10th level 3E characters do that? I ask because I don't know.

Also demigods > Superman seems like an incorrect scaling of power to me. In a comic book sense, Superman seems easily the equivalent in power of demigods, if not more powerful. Aren't Wonderwoman and Aquaman demigods, for example? And Thor is a comic book god. But he doesn't seem lots more powerful than Superman. Kind of equivalent it seems to me.

This is weirdly fixating.

Ok, I'll be more literal:
10th level characters in 3rd and 4th edition (and possibly earlier, but it's been way long since I've played pre-3e) can routinely do and survive things that are flat-out impossible for, say, a first level fighter.

In 3e, a wizard could fly reliably and fire blasts of weirdness, summon giant tentacles to WTFsmack stuff, turn invulnerable to most regular low level attacks (Stoneskin), and so on.

Druids... man. They can do a lot.

Quote from: Bren;781718I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weirdly fixating." You seem to veer between using words very loosely and using them very precisely. I didn't intend level 20 as an extremely accurate representation of what people have been saying, but it doesn't seem wildly inaccurate for what some people have been saying. But you now seem fixated on the number 20 rather than the context.

What is the context?

Quote from: Bren;781718To me, you and several others also seem to be oddly fixated on 3E or 4E, especially in a thread labeled 5E. As if somehow those two editions are more predictive of 5E even though the games seem very different.

I addressed this earlier. I use 3e and 4e as examples because 5e, rules-wise, looks like it is drawing very heavily on rules ideas and design from both, much more-so than any other edition.

Now, it's definitely trying to loosen things up and change power scale somewhat, but (as I mentioned in another post in this thread) we have yet to see how that plays out. The ability of a bunch of low level guys to threaten a high level guy does help mitigate some of the problems I've mentioned. Because, again, there's a certain balance of politics possible when someone can't just wade through a horde of folks who disagree with him.

(I posted examples and thoughts about, say, a 10th level Noble who is very persuasive, but doesn't have the various combat abilities of a Fighter or caster that would drastically change combat ability)

Quote from: Bren;781718As just one example, is not level in 5E currently capped at 20, in contrast to 3E and 4E. I have no context for 3E and 4E, since I never played them, but from people's post on various forums those two editions seem to feature people playing at levels well beyond the high teens. So when you say high level 3E that does not connote to me that you mean levels 8-12 as being high level.

I've used level 10 as a benchmark for discussion about leaders because level 10 is reasonably achievable AND noticeably overwhelming compared to level 1. In my estimation (and this is a broad and admittedly not super rigorous) it is more reasonable to assume a leader of some decent kingdom to be level 10, given how 3e plays out, than level 18+.

Also, 3e DMG has laid out rules for the level composition of random NPCs in various populations. I can't recall if they explicitly say any of these NPCs are leaders, though.

Quote from: Bren;781718Now in contrast to 3E and 4E, in OD&D the experience tables actually stopped providing much mechanical benefit after level 10-12 so high level would mean level 10-12 or so. AD&D seemed to stop providing much benefit in the teens somewhere or when wizards got access to 9th level spells so that would be high level. High level OD&D and AD&D is exactly the levels (demigod excepted) that we see in the quote that Jadrax posted for Grayhawk rulers.

More powerful than an ordinary commoner and equal to a powerful comic book superhero are very different levels of power.

Now in OD&D a Superhero was level 8, but by Superhero the D&D rules did not mean someone like Superman, the Hulk, or Thor. I'd be surprised if 10th level 3E characters are as powerful as those three superheroes, but as I said, I have no context for 3E. Are 10th level 3E characters really that powerful or are was that analogy also not meant seriously?

From what I understand, the powercurve of 3e is _incredibly_ more gonzo than it is in prior editions.

Some example 5th level spells a 10th level wizard can easily cast:
Cloudkill - 20' radius cloud, flat-out kills anything 3 HD or less; 4-6 HD has to make a Fort save -- fail, you die, succeed, take 1d4 Con damage each round.

It also rolls slowly, great for mowing down schlub armies.

Baleful polymorph. Turn enemies into frogs.

Various mind control stuff lower level characters are very unlikely to resist, overland flight, enabling you to fly for hours at a time, mind fog/feeblemind to fuck with people (reducing mental stats a lot)

And that's not even getting to magic items, which add all sorts of other abilities (particularly since wizards don't generally worry about magic weapons).


Now, 5e's scaling should help, but I remain skeptical, given the scaling of magic may end up to have many of the same problems.

Quote from: Will;781741No, admittedly, it could be higher. The point was, I believe, a counter to the idea that NPCs with credible levels are not standard to D&D or somehow weird for D&D.

If the bolded bit was the point you were trying to make, then your inclusion of your inaccurate guess at the most common levels listed detracts from the clarity of your stated point. The exact levels don't matter in an example of a TSR product having NPC rulers at double digit levels. The list matters as an example. The only thing your 9-12 comment does support is an unrelated point: that is, your belief, based on your experience of 3E, that 10 is a reasonable default level for rulers.

QuoteThis is weirdly fixating.

I'm trying to understand what you think the default power level is supposed to be. So far you seem all over the map as to what you think Level 10 is equivalent to in power. Ranging from what seems (absent the silly stone skin spell) to be the equivalent of a 10th level OD&D MU to comic books superheroes like Superman and Thor. And since the army defeating abilities of a single character don't seem to be a feature of 5E, I don't really see how your 3E analogies are all that apt.

QuoteWhat is the context?

The context is, as it has always been, do the rules of D&D (and specifically 5E) require that all rulers be high level, or to use your now stated definition of 10th level, do all or most rulers need to be around 10th level or higher to be feasible given the game rules?

QuoteI addressed this earlier. I use 3e and 4e as examples because 5e, rules-wise, looks like it is drawing very heavily on rules ideas and design from both, much more-so than any other edition.

Yet the impression I am getting from you and others is that in 3E/4E 20 normal humans with halberds weren't a threat to 10th level characters while they are a threat in 5E. So 3E and 4E seem like particularly poor examples to use compared to say 0E or 1E where 20 men-at-arms were still somewhat of a threat to a high level PC. Which makes your insistence on applying 3E kind of suprising.

QuoteSome example 5th level spells a 10th level wizard can easily cast...

Cloudkill was in 1E maybe even Grayhawk. So not so different. Actually the problem is the infinite/long duration flying invisible and stoneskin. Some twit in robes casts cloudkill, but if he isn't invisible and he isn't in skin of stone, then before the cloud gets to the 20 archers they target the wizard and he gets hit with a couple of rounds of archery for 8 arrow hits averaging 28 points of damage (OD&D terms), which may just kill him (with OD&D or 1E hit points).

Quote from: Bren;781747If the bolded bit was the point you were trying to make, then your inclusion of your inaccurate guess at the most common levels listed detracts from the clarity of your stated point. The exact levels don't matter in an example of a TSR product having NPC rulers at double digit levels. The list matters as an example. The only thing your 9-12 comment does support is an unrelated point: that is, your belief, based on your experience of 3E, that 10 is a reasonable default level for rulers.

There are people claiming that NPC rulers don't need to have any levels, class, or that they need only be first level Nobles or something. Or suggesting that giving NPCs levels was weird.

Jadrax (I thinK?)'s list is evidence that's not really standard.

My 8-12 comment was more meant to suggest that leaders having a decent number of levels was expected from most versions of D&D, but doesn't need to be super high level/max/20/whatever.

Admittedly, the levels look higher than my initial impression.

Quote from: Bren;781747I'm trying to understand what you think the default power level is supposed to be. So far you seem all over the map as to what you think Level 10 is equivalent to in power. Ranging from what seems (absent the silly stone skin spell) to be the equivalent of a 10th level OD&D MU to comic books superheroes like Superman and Thor. And since the army defeating abilities of a single character don't seem to be a feature of 5E, I don't really see how your 3E analogies are all that apt.

The problem with 3e and (I think) 4e have mainly stemmed from the vastly expanding power of magic. And some of the consequences were unexpected when they first surfaced.

The reason I bring up 3e and 4e is to illustrate principles that affect how power translates into the implied setting of the game.

Maybe these principles will apply less, or not at all, in 5e. Maybe they will apply in an unexpected way. Maybe they will apply only if folks use Option Rule Block C in the DMG.

I'm not indicting 5e based on 3e, or stating that 3e is absolutely how all D&D will operate forever. I'm pointing out how personal power can warp the implied setting. With examples and diagrams.

Quote from: Bren;781747The context is, as it has always been, do the rules of D&D (and specifically 5E) require that all rulers be high level, or to use your now stated definition of 10th level, do all or most rulers need to be around 10th level or higher to be feasible given the game rules?

Or 'does the natural consequence of the rules suggest that rulers will be 10th level'

Quote from: Bren;781747Yet the impression I am getting from you and others is that in 3E/4E 20 normal humans with halberds weren't a threat to 10th level characters while they are a threat in 5E. So 3E and 4E seem like particularly poor examples to use compared to say 0E or 1E where 20 men-at-arms were still somewhat of a threat to a high level PC. Which makes your insistence on applying 3E kind of suprising.

It remains to be seen how much of a threat the example turns out to be in 5e. It _seems_ that it'll be better, but I'm worried about the potential of magic or common options in the DMG to change the equation significantly.

I 'insist' on applying 3e because... it's one of the more recent, similar games that's comparable, it shows how things can get warped, and until we know more about 5e this is all theorizing anyway.

My biggest concern is whether the scaling fails to limit magic nearly as much as other stuff. The lack of class level affecting spells, saves being flatter, and other things suggests there's at least some scaling. But we'll see.

Quote from: Bren;781747Cloudkill was in 1E maybe even Grayhawk. So not so different. Actually the problem is the infinite/long duration flying invisible and stoneskin. Some twit in robes casts cloudkill, but if he isn't invisible and he isn't in skin of stone, then before the cloud gets to the 20 archers they target the wizard and he gets hit with a couple of rounds of archery for 8 arrow hits averaging 28 points of damage (OD&D terms), which may just kill him (with OD&D or 1E hit points).

If I were doing it in 5e I'd probably rather summon something powerful to go eat a bunch of guys while I stay behind something, but I'm sure charop guys have even more horrible tricks to pull.

Speaking of all that spew of mine, I'm VERY interested in hearing what people's experiences are like over an arc to mid to high levels.

I eventually moved to E6 mod of 3e specifically because I grew to hate the power ballooning that occurs in 3e.

After seeing the party druid bend the campaign like a pretzel by level 14 or so, I vowed never again...

Quote from: Will;781758There are people claiming that NPC rulers don't need to have any levels, class, or that they need only be first level Nobles or something. Or suggesting that giving NPCs levels was weird.

Jadrax (I thinK?)'s list is evidence that's not really standard.

Actually the list Jadrax provided is evidence that Grayhawk after some point in time (I'd guess around 1980 so maybe six years after the game came out) had that list as a standard. Other D&D settings probably had different standards. Certainly the standards of every one of the dozens of DMs I knew before 1980 varied significantly. OD&D didn't have a clear standard except that when adventuring in wilderness areas (as opposed to civilized areas) strongholds would tend to have name level rulers which were around levels 8-12 depending on class. But D&D from the very first published rules left it up to the DM what sort of campaign they would run. Which is why each of the dozens of DMs I encountered had a different setting. That's also why some of us, e.g. Black Vulmea and myself, have been arguing that an expected level based on the rules without regard to the setting at the table is a useless thing to talk about.

Jadrax specifically listed what sort of setting he ran which resulted in a lower level of rulers than was shown in the Grayhawk list. Similarly, it would not be difficult to envisage a setting where the rulers were some other level (lower or higher) or, in some cases e.g. a stable government with a smooth method of succession, a civilized capital, strong government, etc. might have very different, i.e. much lower power requirements to be the ruler.

I already pointed out that in OD&D and AD&D stats remained pretty close to the rolled stats and were not higher for higher level characters. In addition there was no Diplomacy type skill so the persuasiveness of a ruler with a good Charisma was at least equal if not better than that of many a high level PC. In addition, I would assume that the ruler would have a bonus to their command by virtue of the fact that they are the ruler – he or she is controls the treasure, the guard, the palace appointments, has the consent of the governed or the divine right of kings to back up their claim to rulership. None of that is stuff that a PC would have.

Now if you use 3E or 4E, where AFAIK, stats seem to go up as level goes up and persuasion ability definitely increases as level increases.  If that is your assumption for stats and the use of talky skills, then the situation would be different. And it would make it more difficult to play rulers who had the same persuasive ability as a 1st level PC. I said all that quite a few posts ago so you may have missed it.

QuoteMy 8-12 comment was more meant to suggest that leaders having a decent number of levels was expected from most versions of D&D, but doesn't need to be super high level/max/20/whatever.

If you didn't mean super high, it might have been helpful not to use Superman as an example of what you meant by the required level.

QuoteThe problem with 3e and (I think) 4e have mainly stemmed from the vastly expanding power of magic. And some of the consequences were unexpected when they first surfaced.

I can't comment. As I said, I've no real basis of experience. I've only played 3E and other D20 games a handful or so times. The rules seemed like a cluster to me, but I'm not fond of the sort of feats and complex feat trees that were in the rules I read. Too much complexity required to create a new character. The fact that such complexity resulted in things being in some sense broken shouldn't be much of a surprise. It's something I expected from even a cursory reading of other people's rule books.

It also seems like there were a lot of groups playing 3E and 4E who had no one at the table willing or able to say "I know the rules say this, but the result is overpowered and kind of silly or boring. Why don't we change that rule so it isn't such a cluster?"

My experience in gaming for a lot of years in a lot of systems is that any game is broken or unfun for any given group at some point in the power or experience curve. For some people that is OD&D at first level where their mechanical character class options are too limited for their fun. For other people the system is broken or unfun somewhere on the higher end of the power curve. Being able and willing to just not play stuff that isn't fun fixes those problems – whether you don't play it by house ruling to fix the problem, changing the setting to fix the problem, picking up a different set of rules, starting characters at higher power levels, retiring characters once they reach a certain power level, or whatever. Expecting to treat the rules as if they were carved in stone and then complaining about the result when you play using those rules seems pretty silly to me.

I will not defend 3e at all against comments about it's weedy Byzantine rules. My idea of a proper rules system is Risus, so.

That said, while the complexity of the rules are open season for abuse and exploits, the problem is the _basic game itself_ is designed to inflate rapidly in power, particularly with casters. Without any tricks or charops shenanigans.

The problem is that Superman _is_ moderate level in 3e D&D. (Although, mind you, it depends on which version of Superman... which is amusing, since his various power levels and scope sort of mirror the various power levels and scope of D&D...)

At level 18, the party druid could turn into whatever celestial servitors she'd met, small dragons, anything, while casting spells with wild abandon. She was effectively a limited god. Wizards, much the same.


Anyhow, while 5e is very promising, my problem comes from some lack of faith that the designers didn't move far enough apart from the issues of 3e and 4e.

I'm _very_ curious to find out how, say, 10th level wizards work out in actual play.

Quote from: Will;781762Speaking of all that spew of mine, I'm VERY interested in hearing what people's experiences are like over an arc to mid to high levels.

I eventually moved to E6 mod of 3e specifically because I grew to hate the power ballooning that occurs in 3e.

After seeing the party druid bend the campaign like a pretzel by level 14 or so, I vowed never again...

I hope to hell 5e works well past level 10, because I never want to run or play in 3.5 at that level ever again.

Quote from: jadrax;781683Iuz is a Multiclass Cleric 16/Assassin 16

That said, the vast majority of the list was rulers in their low to mid teens.

Iuz is special; an actual demigod.

Quote from: Bren;781718My internet telepathy is less accurate than yours. It is very unclear what people were proposing and when they are being hyperbolic.

I don't think you are correct that most of the examples are 8-12, but as I said I haven't calculated an average. Have you?

re: Superman
I'm confused by what you mean by 10th level characters = Superman. In addition to flying and having raygun eyes, Superman can lift hugely heavy things like moons and shit, can 10th level 3E characters do that? I ask because I don't know.

Also demigods > Superman seems like an incorrect scaling of power to me. In a comic book sense, Superman seems easily the equivalent in power of demigods, if not more powerful. Aren't Wonderwoman and Aquaman demigods, for example? And Thor is a comic book god. But he doesn't seem lots more powerful than Superman. Kind of equivalent it seems to me.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weirdly fixating." You seem to veer between using words very loosely and using them very precisely. I didn't intend level 20 as an extremely accurate representation of what people have been saying, but it doesn't seem wildly inaccurate for what some people have been saying. But you now seem fixated on the number 20 rather than the context.

To me, you and several others also seem to be oddly fixated on 3E or 4E, especially in a thread labeled 5E. As if somehow those two editions are more predictive of 5E even though the games seem very different. As just one example, is not level in 5E currently capped at 20, in contrast to 3E and 4E. I have no context for 3E and 4E, since I never played them, but from people's post on various forums those two editions seem to feature people playing at levels well beyond the high teens. So when you say high level 3E that does not connote to me that you mean levels 8-12 as being high level.

Now in contrast to 3E and 4E, in OD&D the experience tables actually stopped providing much mechanical benefit after level 10-12 so high level would mean level 10-12 or so. AD&D seemed to stop providing much benefit in the teens somewhere or when wizards got access to 9th level spells so that would be high level. High level OD&D and AD&D is exactly the levels (demigod excepted) that we see in the quote that Jadrax posted for Grayhawk rulers.

More powerful than an ordinary commoner and equal to a powerful comic book superhero are very different levels of power.

Now in OD&D a Superhero was level 8, but by Superhero the D&D rules did not mean someone like Superman, the Hulk, or Thor. I'd be surprised if 10th level 3E characters are as powerful as those three superheroes, but as I said, I have no context for 3E. Are 10th level 3E characters really that powerful or are was that analogy also not meant seriously?

Superman is in a class that a dnd character can't touch.

He moves and thinks at lightspeed; both reaction time and travel time.

He can lift weights on a planetary scale; like Atlas holding up the heavens in mythology.

He is nearly invulnerable if you ignore stupid kryptonite, and magic works on him somewhat.

Then he has senses that are a million times or so greater than normal, heat vision, flies, etc...

So I would say superman is more like a Greater God Pantheon Leader, or whatever, in dnd.

Swap out Superman for the 'Paladin in Hell' and Hell might lose.

However, I do agree that a level 10 character compared to a level zero or level 1 character is pretty darn superior, if not 'superman'

You guys realize that all the widely distributed classic settings had leveled NPCs.

City-State of the Invincible Overlord/Wilderlands
Greyhawk
Mystara
Dragonlance
Forgotten Realms

Now that I think about it, I believe the meme I heard of the PCs being special and the only leveled characters in a setting are heroes or villains only gained traction when internet discussion became big in the late 90 and early 00s.

I am sure it was done before the internet but it just was considered a minor variant on how to setup a D&D campaign.

As for the whole 10th level = Superman thing.

The original premise of Chaimail was that a hero was worth 4 veteran fighters and a super hero 8 veteran fighters. And the rules reflected that premise.

Dungeons & Dragons sort of had premise but it quickly fell by the wayside due to Alternative Combat System. 10th level isn't 10 times as effective as 1st level. It a lot higher but not an order of magnitude higher. (4 to 5 times as effective)

There are only two mechanics that retained the original design. Hit points and the number of attacks a fighter had against 1st level or lower character/creatures.

Just for humor; isn't one of the fighters 'level titles'  "Superhero" ?

Quote from: Bill;781846Just for humor; isn't one of the fighters 'level titles'  "Superhero" ?

Yup 8th level.