"Name" level as a human level cap

[Finarvyn]

Looking through M&M again, as I do often when I want gaming inspiration, and I had a thought about level caps.

We know that OD&D has a racial cap (fighter 4 for elves and hobbits, fighter 6 for dwarves, magic-user 8 for elves) and folks have debated whether this is a good thing or not for a long time. Personally, I'm okay with demihuman level caps, as long as humans aren't allowed to progress to infinity.

In my campaigns I typically have used a rule of thumb like this:

Level 1 = flunky (lowest adventurer)
Level 4 = hero
Level 8 = super hero
Level 12 = mythic

Now, in practice I have characters retire sometime shortly after reaching superheroic status; typically no later than level 10. After all, if Conan is a "super hero" then how much better than Conan do you need to be, right? Levels above 10, and certainly the "mythic" levels, have always been reserved in my campaigns for that Sauron-like evil wizard where it takes a whole party to take the guy out.

Today I had a different thought on the issue. Rather than cap all classes the same, what if I decided to cap each class at "name" level?

Huh. So what does the campaign look like?

Level 1 = flunky (lowest adventurer)
Level 4 = hero; highest level for elven fighting men; highest level for hobbit fighting men
Level 6 = highest fighting man level for dwarves
Level 8 = super hero; highest level for human clerics; highest level for elven magic-users
Level 9 = highest level for human fighting men
Level 11 = highest level for human magic-users
Level 12 = mythic

And I suppose that there would be no upper limit on mythic bad guys, except that if I pick a level for Sauron that might give me a reasonable cap. To take this a step farther, since the "Dice for accumulative Hits" chart on p.17 goes higher than the character chart on p.16, maybe that would give me an NPC cap.

Level 1 = flunky (lowest adventurer)
Level 4 = hero; highest level for elven fighting men; highest level for hobbit fighting men
Level 6 = highest fighting man level for dwarves
Level 8 = super hero; highest level for human clerics; highest level for elven magic-users
Level 9 = highest level for human fighting men
Level 10 = highest level for "bad guy" fighting men; highest level for "bad guy" clerics; highest level for thieves
Level 11 = highest level for human magic-users
Level 12 = mythic
Level 16 = highest level for "bad guy" magic-users (Sauron)

What do you think?

[bravewolf]

I have a minor quibble with capping human clerics at level 8, though it fits your suggested scheme well. Clerics may remain neutral till level 7 (in later printings), at which point they must throw in with Law or Chaos. I should think that some players of neutral clerics might find it anticlimatic to only proceed one additional level upon taking a stance.

I can think of loads of rebuttals to this concern, though. Like I said, minor quibble. Players can take a stand sooner (might have to, if one plays by earlier printings), can keep playing irrespective of advancement, or the ref can concoct an epic 7/8-level transition quest to make that last level gain something to remember.

[bravewolf]

I do like the way your scheme emulates Tolkienean and other fantasy literature.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 12, 2018 9:29:00 GMT -6 bravewolf said:

I have a minor quibble with capping human clerics at level 8, though it fits your suggested scheme well. Clerics may remain neutral till level 7 (in later printings), at which point they must throw in with Law or Chaos. I should think that some players of neutral clerics might find it anticlimatic to only proceed one additional level upon taking a stance.

Well, in my defense I might note that I never played that way because the books that I owned were 4th printing. I only found out about the "till level 7" thing a few years ago, so it has no impact on the way I imagine the cleric.

You do bring up a good point, however, in that there are some "later" things that happen when a person hits name level. I'm thinking about stuff like building a Barony (fighting man) or a cleric's temple or a wizard building a tower. I suppose one might argue that reaching that level effectively causes retirement as an adventurer and movement onto a Barony-style campaign where the actual level of the character isn't important.

Must ponder further. I like the discussion on the issue.

[foster1941]

If you went with this system would you change the spell progression to allow magic-users to gain a 6th level spell at 11th level (the same way that the 1981 Expert Set does it, FWIW) or would you make 6th level spells NPC-only (except, possibly, for scrolls)?

[Finarvyn]

Jun 12, 2018 10:12:14 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

If you went with this system would you change the spell progression to allow magic-users to gain a 6th level spell at 11th level (the same way that the 1981 Expert Set does it, FWIW) or would you make 6th level spells NPC-only (except, possibly, for scrolls)?

A great question, and one I started to ponder when I was looking at the M&M charts again earlier today. My gut feeling would be to make level 6 spells NPC only (with the possible exception of scrolls, as you noted) but I haven't taken the time to consider ramifications either way.

I have so few characters reach 11th level that I'm not sure I have a good feel for whether such a change would "break" the game or not in any way.

[tetramorph]

This is right on, Finarvyn, and reflects what I have found in play: lvls 8-10 are about as high as a PC ought to go. At that point the characters are so high powered they start to “break the game.”

I would say:
Normals 1-3
Heroes 3-7
Super-heroes 7-11
Legends 11-16
Myths 16+

(I have overlap because a lot of times the level of the PC is affected by the rest of the party. A lvl 3 with a bunch of 1s and 2s is also normal. But a lvl 3 with a bunch of 4s and 5s is heroic.)

With mythical PCs reserved for NPC bad guys like you suggest.

I like this.

Fight on!

[clownboss]

I don't bother with capping humans. I know my players will never reach levels such as 10-20. The experience-gaining system is simply against them.

[Fearghus]

There is no need to cap your players. High level play is a lot of fun for players and refs.

[scottenkainen]

I would not be opposed to this. Even without such a ruling, my characters and campaigns tend to cap out around levels 7-10, so this feels like it would just make the rules fit the game play.