Results 31 to 40 of 50
Thread: What level do you prefer?
-
11-20-2006, 08:58 AM #31
I prefer mid-low lvl (3-6), from both a ad&d and d&d point of view. Regents are still better than average and can manage quite well on the battlefield, but still have to consider possible threats by means of assasins, getting overrun etc...
One good way of explaining is for example my own experience as Hermedhie in a rather shortlived game (3.5).
One of the parts of character creation, was to choose a number of magical items, me thinking in the lines of fluff took a manual of golem-thingy and used my first months creating this monstrosity which i apptly named "Steadfast".
The OIT then launched a campaign into Medoere, and honouring an agreement i took to the battle (by this time i had forgotten the Golem could do more than just act as a personal shield), but i was quickly amazed at how it could bring destruction about it.
The damage reduction meant that anything short than a massed number of kníghts attacking, couldn't hurt this thing, so while the Medoereans where gettings smashed, Steadfast rather took the smashing to heart and massacred 800 infantry soldiers... as they have no way in hell of getting magical weapons, one single golem could wipe them all out. Rather unbalancing to say the least... lower levels would at least leave out this part and assure that where a mage to conjure monsters/elementals/whatever, it would cost him something every time and every turn, instead of this golem being a one time cost with enough punch for me to take on an army all alone...
- Thorsten
-
11-27-2006, 08:40 AM #32
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Posts
- 4
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
we're currently playin a coeranys campaign at 4th lvl, and we started out at 2nd
we're progressing more slowly than in normal dnd(experience vise) and i can say that i like it
you really get to enjoy your character and learn to use his strenghts to the maximum
i voted for mid lvl because i played a campaign before and mid lvl are optimal
youre good enough in skills and hit points that not all is luck, but luck is still important and there are almost no unbalancing overpowered spells(like save or die spells etc.)
-
12-28-2006, 08:06 AM #33
i'm a fan of higher level play, honestly
-
01-17-2007, 05:03 PM #34
Well, my Favourite wasn't there, to be correct. I prefer level 15 to 25, so very high to low epic level...
May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!
-
04-14-2007, 07:58 AM #35
I would have a hard time justfiying running Birthright past level 10.
I mean, the main contenders for the throne are level 9 and 12.
-
04-15-2007, 03:54 AM #36
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Redding, California
- Posts
- 220
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
2nd Edition using whatever from each system that is an improvement.
High level 21-30, where the meat and potatoes are.
The other thing that the thread fails to mention is whether you are assigning a PC of that level or working them up form 1st level.
I like the work up to the higher levels, then kicking back to enjoy those High levels before you have to at least semi retire the PC.
Later
-
04-17-2007, 04:04 AM #37
I`d like to get some opinions on a tweak to this particular
topic. Specifically, the skill system. I`ve been fiddling around
with a way to change the D20 skill system into something a bit more
"manageable" by modifying how skill points change into ranks. Higher
ranks in a skill will cost more points to buy than the lower ranks,
so the system will scale rather than be a straight 1:1 relationship
(or 1:2 for cross class skills.) In addition to helping my sense of
verisimilitude, I`m thinking this change will have certain benefits
regarding translating character level skills to domain level use,
conflicts between high and low level characters and general issues
having to do with character design/development.
So my question is this: What is the range of total modifiers on skill
checks that you guys think is the most preferable? That is, given
the standard d20 roll, what amount of modifiers do you see as being
preferable? At what point do modifiers get so high that you start
the game starts to lose it`s fun factor?
Gary
-
04-17-2007, 04:13 AM #38
Wouldn't it be easier to adjust what the skill bonus means?
Page 30 in the DMG has the conventional spread of what amazing abilities translate into what DC. I think the math would be much easier to just change what a DC 25 task is supposed to represent, rather than change how skill ranks are assigned. I am, as always, open to sound reasoning that this is not sufficient.
BTW, its nice to see you step fom the ether, you haven't posted in a while.
-
04-17-2007, 09:40 AM #39
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Gary,
Hmm good question.
I don't think the problem lies with "ranks" as much as bonuses.
We seem to have come to the point where there are bonuses popping up from everywhere.
Ranks in and of themselves are pretty well handled, IMO, being set based on character and class level. Character level +3 for class skills and 1/2 of that for cross class skills.
Now I personnally was on the opposite side of the majority when we "voted" on how to handle bonuses to skill checks for domain level actions for the BRCS. I preferred them based on ranks while the "clear majority" wanted them based on total bonuses.
IMO basing them on +1 for every 5 ranks (instead of +1 for every +5 in total bonuses) kept things from getting "over the top", which is what I think you are alluding to.
There are a couple of other ways to handle things too, IMO.
Having most skill checks fall more into the opposed skill checks - that way even if the PC has +50 to a check his opponent probably has in the same ball park to the check. That way things fall back into line.
Alternity had skill ranks cost 1 more than the previous rank did. This kept ranks low, but was hugely problematic since PCs ended up with so few ranks (and skills got descrete benefits based on the number of ranks a character had) - so they introduced an optional rule (which prety much became the standard one) that skills cost the the same price per rank. While using the "expensive" rank costing system keeps ranks low it really doesn't help the "bonus" issue though - far too many sources for those presently.Duane Eggert
-
04-17-2007, 01:36 PM #40
At 09:13 PM 4/16/2007, kgauck wrote:
>Wouldn`t it be easier to adjust what the skill bonus means?
You mean change something like +18 in mods to being defined as a
moderately skilled person or something like that?
>Page 30 in the DMG has the conventional spread of what amazing
>abilities translate into what DC. I think the math would be much
>easier to just change what a DC 25 task is supposed to represent,
>rather than change how skill ranks are assigned. I am, as always,
>open to sound reasoning that this is not sufficient.
Honestly, it`s part of a whole rewrite of D20 rules that is meant to
portray characters of just about any character level
"realistically." A 20th level character will still be dramatically
more powerful than a 1st level one, but not quite so far out of any scope.
>BTW, its nice to see you step fom the ether, you haven`t posted in a while.
The real world is all over me lately.... Curse the real
world. Curse it I say!
Gary
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks