My toughest characters from the old days were a 36th level pit fiend magic user with a triple strength rod of rulership (who did I kill to get it?) and a human fighter 7/thief 6/bard 23 who then invoked the 'character with two classes' rule (it doesn't explicitly say you can't do this AFAICT) and got up to level 25 in magic-user.

Nonetheless I agree with Pierce that there were probably fewer high level characters overall back then. Partly because more people were playing shorter games, too. But there were plenty, and modules like Inferno and Lich Lords to cater to them.

Pseudophedrine, those are good methods, but every one of my monsters is a unique and precious snowflake. There is no solution to this problem for me.

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, with a wide enough range of feats, the PCs do become more diverse, can do new things, etc.  There is 'progress' but not a huge power escalation.

Anyhow, I don't even run D&D 3e anymore, but nonetheless thought that this was a rather clever tweak to realize a certain style of campaign.  Apparently it's been playtested successfully by Rycanada.  It seems to be a 'viable concept, mechanically' for some people.

But whatever.  I'm just kind of surprised at the hostile reactions ...
:raise:

I'm not really hostile towards it, just perplexed.  I don't think it sounds fun.  Especially if the players are limited to feats from the PHB - and if the DM's worried about complexity, I can't imagine they wouldn't be.

Fighter: "Oh, crap...  Well, I already have Weapon Focus in Longsword and Longbow...  I guess maybe I'll get a weapon focus in Axe this time?  I don't really use them..."  
Wizard: "You're lucky - I'm down to Spell Focus: Divination!  I mean, why bother with Metamagic feats when I can only use it on my 1st-level spells."
Thief: "Yeah, this sucks.  I got Skill Focus in all of my trained skills already.  And I still can't Use Magic Device reliably.  Tell me why I'm not improving at picking pockets or opening locks again?"
DM: "You guys could take Iron Will or Great Fortitude."
Fighter: "Those were like 15,000 XP ago.  Can't I just get better with my sword yet?  I mean, I can't count how many orcs I've killed."
DM: "Nope!  See, you need to broaden your horizons!  Why not get something fun like Expertise?"
Fighter: "Um yeah, with my 10 intelligence?"
DM: "Improved Critical?"
Fighter: "Need BAB +8"
DM: "Uhm... Dodge?"
Fighter: "No, my Dex is only 12."
DM: "Well, crap...."

-O

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySoooo... what's the level cap in OD&D, again? 10?

Either E.Gary was the first Swine, or Sett suffers from 3Eism.

While there was no 'level cap' in OD&D or 1e AD&D (for humans), levels meant a lot less after a certain point, viz. new abilities were no longer gained (for non-spellcasters) after level 10 or so, and nobody gained new hit dice (just +x hit points per level).  Saving throws also stopped improving at a certain point.

So, in terms of effective abilities OD&D/1e AD&D did 'cap out' around level 10 or so for most PCs, with only smaller improvements afterwards.  Something rather similar to this option ...

Quote from: SettembriniYeah. They call it Champions or Runequest, and developed them further. Play one of their descendants instead of fucking with your players in D&D.

Cause this ain´t no D&D anymore.

It´s Peter Pan romantic swine stuff.

This is idiotic.  People have been fiddling with the D&D rules since 1974.

Life is too short to argue about what constitutes 'true D&D' (TM) with some foolish kid over the internet.  I'm off to Amsterdam ...

Keep in mind that Robilar, Tenser, Mordenkainen etc. ad nauseam are Gary´s characters or ones from his campaign.

If you revel in swimming in the little puddle´s that these shakers and maker left behind when nature called, than please limit yourself to six levels. And if you found a way to conserve the original stench of this liquid via shrewd rules sewing, have fun.

I cannot condone the sentiment behind it.

Aspire to be your own Mordenkainen for fuck´s sake!

That´s what RPGs is about, not being guests in someone elses campaign.

You can have BauerGaming and Weaklings in so many games, there is no need to burden your players with that masochistic bent in D&D.

Again, I think it is totally a whiney DM´s idea.

I first read a variant of this in a 3rd party supplement (could have been Green Ronins Advanced Something Guide), and I'm not totally against the general idea. As a matter of fact, I'll probably be using it pretty soon. In one of my current campaigns, the players shouldn't overshadow the movers & shakers _yet_. But I don't particularly like fucking with them by decreasing XPs so that they just don't gain any levels. So, for a while, we'll be hovering at level 12, with additional skills and feats given out, but no full level. This will allow them to branch out a little, so they at least have something to look forward to. But once the campaign progresses a bit further, they will live up to their new-found importance by leveling up to unknown heights.

Stopping at level 6 seems mechanically unsound to me. Those just aren't enough discrete units for D&D 3E game play. It doesn't matter as much in earlier games, where levels aren't _that_ important, but in most D20 games, gaining new feats, powers and abilities is a definite cool thing. Nothing's worse than a class with empty levels.
So taking too much time to gain the first levels will be unsatisfying to most gamers, and once you reach that plateau it gets even worse.
Not to speak of the fact that Fighters suck even more under that ruleset, Prestige Classes are discarded totally and several feat chains are unreachable.

I can understand the DM's attitude. Prep work gets a bit bothersome at the higher levels, and I personally have never been a big fan of player-created magic items -- at least the way done in D&D 3E.

But "E6" just doesn't mesh with some facts of the game. It's a very lazy approach to reach the DM's goal.

I'd probably want to cap the game out at 10, or something, because you can get a few levels of PrC's going on; you could tone them down to about 4 levels or something so you could get that extra prestige of clearly belonging to an elite organization.

Of course, capping it at level 6 isn't really a lot different then stopping your campaign at level 6. And some people want to stay at a lower level. They feel D&D works for them better that way. Personally, a lot of people I play with still start the game at levels 1-3 and only play for a little, so I rarely see a level past 8 anyhow.

Now, there's a difference between playing time lengths. If you play the same game for a long time, level 6 might start to wear. You run into the 'Feat' problem, where you don't really get any 'better' Feats, just different ones you don't use.

I know there's some Class skill Feats, and Open Minded, but your skill caps are pretty much limited to 5 above 9. (14) Which isn't really too shabby. You can't stack Ability saves, so you're limited to 2 over whatever they are. You can only get Weapon Focus once, so 1 over your BaB. Your ability scores never go up again, either. You pretty much get Toughness and Improved Toughness, so 9 over your rolled HP. There are some pretty hard caps on your abilities where no matter how many extra levels you get, or how hard you work, you'll never really improve.

And that's ok, I suppose. But I would recommend a slightly different hack. Maybe double the exp to level, or just multiply it by 1.5. That'll drag out how long you're hanging around low level. Past 6 or 10, just add levels like they did in older D&D's. Maybe add Feats every 3 levels, and a few HP (one, two, or allow a Con bonus), an ability bump every 4 levels, and curb the BaB and magic. But I don't know if I like not improving at all in the long term, because it feels too artifical.

I don't think it's a horrible idea, but it still looks raw, is all.

Perhaps using the NPC classes would be a solution. There really wouldn't need to be a cap, then. Sure, you wouldn't have the variety of the whole panoply of the regular D&D classes, but the NPC classes do harken back to earlier D&D with their relatively uncomplicated nature. Their advancement is slow, the power they do gain is much more gradual, and they aren't all that world-shaking in power even at 20th level. Using them would make for a grim & gritty campaign world, indeed, especially if you use the Commoner.

Quote from: SettembriniKeep in mind that Robilar, Tenser, Mordenkainen etc. ad nauseam are Gary´s characters or ones from his campaign.

Eh. By the time characters in traditional D&D reach level ten or thereabouts, a party of them can mop the floor with just about any opponent up to and including lesser gods from the Deities & Demigods. The rest of that advancement stuff? It is frosting on an already freaking immense cake. A 10th level Fighter often has more hp than ancient hige red dragons, some demon lords (like Juiblex) as well as other unique monsters.

Wow, and I thought the GiantITP forums gave me a rough ride!  Peter Pan complex, eh?  LOL.  Well, since my players like it, they must have the same complex.  

I came up with E6 about 2 years ago, and before I pop back over to EN World I thought I'd post my 2 cents.

First off, if your initial reaction to E6 is strong objection - rock on, no worries, and cheers! Sounds like you've got a pretty clear idea of what games you're looking for, and if E6 has zero appeal, you know where your time is best spent. Obviously, if D&D can't cater to everybody's tastes, E6 sure won't either.

To those with some interest, but some concerns, one thing I'd emphasize is that E6 didn't come out of a vacuum, nor is it a "hey, here's a great system that I've never playtested."  We've had a lot of fun with it, and mechanically it's been a very smooth ride.

When I first had the concept my very first step was pitching it to my players. Some thought it was a great idea, and the rest were willing to give it a try, so I gave it a shot. Turned out that it worked really well for our tastes, and we've done lots of playing inside E6 now. Of course, back then it was a lot more convoluted than it is now: there were intricate quasi-gestalt rules and several other little things that weren't so much about the cap as they were about my group's thoughts on D&D class balance. Over time, we found that the only rules we were really using (on both sides of the screen) were the feat rules, and that was producing a great play experience. So when I returned to E6 just recently, that's how I wrote it up: As it was actually played.

Sometime in the next couple of weeks I'm going to be starting a regular game, and at least in my local (Toronto) gaming scene there's lots of interest in it. If you're still interested in seeing how this all fits together, come by on EN World and post to the current "home base" thread:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200045

And again, even if E6 is one of your "Turn Offs" – then cheers, and good gaming!

Well, different players like different things. And judging from the interest these threads at enworld, TBP and here got, it seems your group isn't the only one -- although I think lots of posters will discover that while they as DM like it, players are a different kind of breed.

I think from a mechanical point of view, this system has two flaws: First, it creates a rift in the rule system, from the start where you advance by levels with all that's included, to a point where all you add is feats. This wouldn't be such a problem with games like True20, where most of what you can do is determined by feats, but it plays against the basic mechanisms of D&D.
Second, not enough discrete amounts of advancement are presented by merely six levels, which is especially bad considering the rapid rise of power you get by those early levels. So you've got a few really big steps, no gentle slope. Sure, some players are content with that, some systems _never_ really advance the player after creation. But in such a crunch-laden game as D20, it seems a rather odd.

I think moster gamers would rather play Commoners from 1-20 than heroic classes from 1-6. Milestones are rather important for people. Ask those on a diet...

As a DM I prefer the power level of 1-10 D&D more than the next half, but I think there are better solutions.

I've addressed a lot of that in the other boards, but briefly:  

The quick up to 6th, slow after that was part of the design on purpose, and done in consultation with my players.  That's the trial-by-fire period where a character comes into his own.  After that is the specialization, mastery, and so on, which differentiates characters that stand shoulder-to-shoulder in many respects.  One poster on another board compared it to the Malazan novels and that's pretty close to what I see in play.

I also allow feats from many different sources, including ones that the players request.  For example, one player LOVES the 3:1 / 1:2 thing of Arcana Unearthed spells, so after looking at it I let him take it as a feat.

Sorry, what is TBP?  I'm trying to follow the cross-posting if possible, there seem to be a few arguments that would be cleared up by just referencing my FAQ.

Quote from: rycanadaSorry, what is TBP?  I'm trying to follow the cross-posting if possible, there seem to be a few arguments that would be cleared up by just referencing my FAQ.

I think it's supposed to be "The Big Purple," a nickname for RPG.net. This place is essentially RPG.net in exile, and a lot of the posters forget that for a lot of us, that site isn't even on the radar.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI think it's supposed to be "The Big Purple," a nickname for RPG.net. This place is essentially RPG.net in exile, and a lot of the posters forget that for a lot of us, that site isn't even on the radar.

Well, it's not as if that's terribly common.  RPGnet is the biggest TRPG forum on the internet, bigger than both Wizards' and ENWorld combined.  The odds of someone having found this place without having heard of RPGnet are pretty damn small.