S&W level range

[Zulgyan]

I have checked that the document is built up from level 1 to 20, but maybe this is not necessary. I think that 1 to 12 or 14 would be OK and hint better the de facto intended levels of play in OD&D, with no spells highter than 6th level.

Maybe you could include a subtitle called: "Beyond level 12:" saying that level 12 or 14 is the normal level range, but providing some formulas and suggestions for higher level play.

Just thought.

[Finarvyn]

Actually, I agree with you. One of my comments to Mythmere was that it would be worth finding out what level range was desired for an OD&D-style rules set, and that I suspected the answer would be to top out in the 12th-14th level range. (Heck, I usually quit around 8th-10th, but I guess it's nice to have those extra few levels for those nasty NPC wizards....)

Think about it this way:
Level 1 = "Flunky" or "Red Shirt" or whatever; normal soldier.
Level 4 = "Hero"
Level 8 = "Super Hero" (Chainmail says "few and far between")

This would seem to imply that fighters essentially top out at 8th level. By 10th level they become a "Lord" and are expected to hang up the spurs and build a castle. Essentially, they retire by level 10 (at least this makes sense in my game).

If you put together level charts up to 20, players assume that they are "supposed" to adventure that far. If you made charts up to level 50 they'd assumd they were "supposed" to adventure even higher. I think that part of the OD&D flavor was that a level really meant something and I'd rather keep levels low to emphasize that point.

Also, with lower leveled campaigns, the demihuman "level limit" question isn't so severe. If a dwarf tops-out at 6th level in a game where characters retire at 8th-10th it's not as big of a deal, but if a dwarf tops-out at 6th level where everyone else can rise to 20th suddenly it is a big deal.

Just my two coppers.

[tank]

Fin tells it like it is. I agree 100%.

If it were up to me, I'd include tables up to level 12 and leave any suggestions for advancement to higher levels vague to encourage house ruling.

[dwayanu]

Even in AD&D, many people find diminishing returns beyond 12th level or so. The game tends to acquire a flavor evocative more of comicbooks than of classic sword-and-sorcery literature.

There's not much in the way of monsters to challenge level 16+ characters, apart from other characters, unless you bring on hordes of them.

[philotomy]

I agree with this, as well. I think the rules can top out around 12th-14th, while still remaining open-ended.

[coffee]

Levels seem to follow a bell curve.

At the lowest levels, 1 - 3 say, you step into the dungeon and Wham! you're dead.

At the mid-levels, 4-8 or so, you go out and have some staying power.

Then at the higher levels, 9+, the things that you're facing are so tough that Wham! you're dead.

I find it amusing that this is subject to level creep just like everything else in the game has been.

In AD&D, I'd put those level at 1-4/5-10/11+. In 3.5, the bell flattens out a bit but extends: 1-3/4-12/13+.

At least, that's been my experience.

High level adventures are good for an occasional no-holds-barred romp, but I'd really rather work patiently and steadily on getting the immense amount of XP needed to bump me up to seventh level (for instance).


In other words, I agree with Fin.

[Finarvyn]

Here is my current thinking for by S&W Original Edition edit:

Clerics:
Levels 1-8 = adventuring levels
Levels 9-10 = retired or NPC levels

Fighters:
Levels 1-9 = adventuring levels
Level 10 = retired or NPC level

Magic-users:
Levels 1-11 = adventuring levels
Levels 12-16 = retired or NPC levels

Thieves (may or may not be in OE rules set)
Levels 1-10 = adventuring levels
Levels 11-14 = retired or NPC levels

My inspiration for this was suggested on these very boards (I think) and I would have to hunt to find who gave me the insight. I looked at M&M on page 16 to see how high "name" levels are listed and assume those are "adventuring" levels. Then page 17 showed me how high NPCs can go beyond that.

In other words, I would incourage retirement at the end of "name" levels (or moving onto the world of building castles and waging campaigns rather than dungeon delving) but want to leave some room for those pesky NPC wizards that I want to throw against my players.

At least, that's what I'm thinking at the moment. ;D

[Arminath]

I would stat out to level 14 or 15 and then peovide a Levels Beyond 14th section with formulas for required XP gain, HD/Combat ability gains (To Hit and Saves) and spell tables (or lack thereof).

I've often found the sweet spot for my campaigns is the 8 to 12 level range with retirement usually occurring around 14th level for most PCs.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 15, 2008 14:22:06 GMT -6 Arminath said:

I would stat out to level 14 or 15 and then peovide a Levels Beyond 14th section with formulas for required XP gain, HD/Combat ability gains (To Hit and Saves) and spell tables (or lack thereof).

I've often found the sweet spot for my campaigns is the 8 to 12 level range with retirement usually occurring around 14th level for most PCs.

But do you do this with "white box" only or are your advanced level campaigns Greyhawk-inclusive as well? Mythmere's other rules set is statted out though level 20 and is more of a WB+supplements edition. I'm talking about a set which is mostly WB in scope....

[Bard]

I don't really understand this level range thing you are proposing, that around 10th level the characters retire. For example: Why are the high level spells are in the books? Even in Man & Magic? They are included for NPC-s? Or it's only that at certain levels the characters stop adventuring? It is something like the demi-human level limits, that is only in the game to propose a certain style and feel of campaign? No logic behind it, but if someone tries it he will understand?

[Finarvyn]

Great comment, Bard. I hadn't really thought of it quite that way.

Well, for Magic users they give spells though level 6 and at my suggested retirement point they can use spells through level 5, so I guess I'm proposing that level 6 spells are NPC spells.

For cleric spells they give spells though level 5 and at my suggested retirement point they've been using level 5 spells for a while, so it looks like there aren't any "NPC only" spells in the cleric list.

Again, note that my "suggested retirement level" isn't the top level on the charts and isn't a hard-and-fast rule, only a guideline. (1) NPCs can be higher than that, and (2) any DM can allow players to advance to those levels as well if desired.

[coffee]

Traditionally (i.e.; in Gary's campaign), players retired their characters at around 10-12th level. There just aren't that many challenges for characters of that level.


As far as spells go, higher level spells can always be found on scrolls.

[Arminath]

Jun 15, 2008 18:20:56 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jun 15, 2008 14:22:06 GMT -6 Arminath said:

I would stat out to level 14 or 15 and then peovide a Levels Beyond 14th section with formulas for required XP gain, HD/Combat ability gains (To Hit and Saves) and spell tables (or lack thereof).

I've often found the sweet spot for my campaigns is the 8 to 12 level range with retirement usually occurring around 14th level for most PCs.

But do you do this with "white box" only or are your advanced level campaigns Greyhawk-inclusive as well? Mythmere's other rules set is statted out though level 20 and is more of a WB+supplements edition. I'm talking about a set which is mostly WB in scope....

While I like Mythmere's proposal and ideas for a GH-style set, I find that the prolific bonuses from GH/AD&D tip game balance too far in the player's direction. I like the simplicity of only needing a d20 and a few d6's that the WB rules have. I'm not sold on the '20 level phenominon' of the recent games that feel the need to stat out 20 levels...I don't actually know anyone that has played through 20 levels of a class of the older games, even after all these years.

The White Box has the rules, combat charts and save charts that take characters to the 16th level already and a Levels Beyond Those Listed section with examples of over that. We used GH to round out the Cleric's spell table up to 14th level (since the Magic-user's goes to 16 in the M&M book already) but kept the spell levels at a maximum of 5th for Clerics and 6th for Magic-users. We used some of the GH spells too, simply because alot of the spells players kept coming up with to research as 'new' were pretty much there already.

We have a couple of house rules that didn't really tip the balance or power creep. I know alot of people rail against 'house ruling' for a proposed project, but here's what has helped enhance my campaigns and has become 'our' standard D&D:

- Fighting-men with a naturally rolled Strength of 16 or greater gain a +1 bonus to melee damage rolls. All characters with a Strength of 8 or less suffer a –1 to damage rolls.

- Rolling a natural 18 in your class Prime Requisite grants a +15% XP Bonus.

- Dwarves, Elves and Halflings rolling a natural 16 or higher for their class Prime Requisite may advance 2 additional levels beyond their racial maximum.

- Magic Scroll Creation: Magic-users may create magic scrolls of spells the already know at a cost of 200gp and 1 week per spell level (1st level spell 200gp/1 week, 2nd level spell 400gp/2 weeks, etc). Their chance of success is 50% plus 5% for every Magic-user level the character has (maximum of 99%). Clerics may do this as well, substituting Cleric levels for Magic-user levels.

- Magic Potion Creation: Magic-users can create potions of spells they already know that affect the drinker such as Detect Magic, Invisibility, Cure Light Wounds and the like. Potion creation costs 100gp per spell level and takes 1 day per 2 spell levels. Their chance of success is 20% plus 5% for every Magic-user level the character has (maximum of 99%). Clerics may do this as well, substituting Cleric levels for Magic-user levels.

[Deleted]

Well if mythmere is doing a higher-level game then it makes sense that finarvin would make his lower level so that they arent the same.

And the white box doesnt have all of the extras of the supplements, and certainly you dont want to see a bunch of "house rules" put inside either.

To quote one of the polls "fin is wise, he makes the call" :-)

[Arminath]

Jun 18, 2008 6:19:37 GMT -6 @keltset said:

And the white box doesnt have all of the extras of the supplements, and certainly you dont want to see a bunch of "house rules" put inside either.

To quote one of the polls "fin is wise, he makes the call" :-)

Well everything started out as a set of evolving 'house rules', so I figured ponying up some ideas that give more options in the spirit of the original style of the game (as opposed to what current era game designers feel are 'options') would be acceptable to at least look at so Fin could make a few enhancements if moved to do so without making the goal unrecognizable.

[mythmere]

Jun 18, 2008 9:05:48 GMT -6 Arminath said:

Jun 18, 2008 6:19:37 GMT -6 @keltset said:

And the white box doesnt have all of the extras of the supplements, and certainly you dont want to see a bunch of "house rules" put inside either.

To quote one of the polls "fin is wise, he makes the call" :-)

Well everything started out as a set of evolving 'house rules', so I figured ponying up some ideas that give more options in the spirit of the original style of the game (as opposed to what current era game designers feel are 'options') would be acceptable to at least look at so Fin could make a few enhancements if moved to do so without making the goal unrecognizable.

The difficulty with optional rules - and it cuts both ways: as a game, you want those optional rules to reinforce the idea that optional rules are good and acceptable. The downside is that optional rules make it more difficult for publishers to know what they're supposed to be using as the "core language." Fostering publication is one goal, making a game that new players can use is another goal. A balance will have to be struck - and that's Fin's department. The balance I've struck is to keep with a "canon" set of rules for publishers to use - and then the magazine will separately hammer in the idea that house rules are not only acceptable but desirable. Fin's LBB version will also get coverage in the magazine, so there's some leeway there, but ultimately the buck stops with Fin.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 18, 2008 9:42:15 GMT -6 mythmere said:

A balance will have to be struck - and that's Fin's department. The balance I've struck is to keep with a "canon" set of rules for publishers to use - and then the magazine will separately hammer in the idea that house rules are not only acceptable but desirable. Fin's LBB version will also get coverage in the magazine, so there's some leeway there, but ultimately the buck stops with Fin.

My thinking on the whole project has been one big circle. The first thing I started to do was make my own "ultimate rules" where I wanted to insert my own house rules to make the text the way I play it, but based on the results of the combat and spell threads I have pulled back on that and am aiming back at a WB rules set the way Mythmere originally charged me to put together.

I think I had to go through that process for my own sake to make certain what my own goals were for the project. I still have some really neat rules twists to put into a rules set, but probably not this rules set.

That doesn't mean that some "house options" won't be in there, but clearly the goal is to strip away the extras and get to the heart of the WB rules. Extras can be added later on as magazine articles or supplementary books or something like that.

So ... your ideas and suggestions are not wasted and they are not unwelcome. Just keep in mind that the scope of this particular project is such that most of them won't appear anywhere in the core rulebook.

[mythmere]

Don't feel bad, Fin - we cycled through that more than once with OSRIC, plus some heated K&KA-style arguments between and among the editors. It is mind-bending to put one of these together. Plus, the idea of an "options" magazine for a retro-clone is entirely new - we're charting new territory with this method.

[coffee]

If you find that you really want to include optional rules, but don't want to compromise the integrity of the white box rules, you can always take a page from the AD&D 2nd edition rules and put optional rules in sidebars, clearly labeled as such.

Just a thought.

[foster1941]

Jun 15, 2008 8:33:18 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Magic-users:
Levels 1-11 = adventuring levels
Levels 12-16 = retired or NPC levels

This is good if you're giving out 6th level spells at 11th level (like the 1981 Expert Set does), but if you're following the OD&D/AD&D pattern of granting 6th level spells at level 12 then you need to include it in the "adventuring levels" -- I don't like the idea of 6th levels spells being consigned (even implicitly) to NPC-only status.

[jrmapes]

Jun 13, 2008 11:02:14 GMT -6 philotomy said:

I agree with this, as well. I think the rules can top out around 12th-14th, while still remaining open-ended.

I can't find anything wrong with this.

Considering this is exactly the way I approach it as well.

Jerry