Upcoming time of troubles

[Korchas]

So, my simple question to the proponents of said cap: What is stopping you?

The fact that there would still be a server around it predominantly focused on minmaxed level 30 builds getting a decent challenge, and that most classes have been reworked to fit into that mindset as well, for one.

The equal fact that you would be level 20(s, assuming there'd be more than one person) involved in events that are scaled to Level 30s if you end up with DM involvement, which also includes -completely souped up mobs- that are made with that semi-canon 2/3 or 1/2 'rule' in mind to represent threat, meaning you'd be a 10 to 13-and-change level way out of your league instead of legit level 20.

The simple issue is that we have no clear reasoning behind why we have 20-60 Demigods running around BG that can reduce the City to bloody rubble in a heartbeat and the various horrible inconsistencies that causes mechanically and logically, together with the ludicrous level the guards have to be considered a legitimate threat.
So ultimately, the Level 20-cap is meant to make the world make sense again, and as examples above have noted, it'd not even necessarily downgrade the total power level by much while making mobs way easier to handle because you don't have to adjust everything with them that hard anymore.

I do get the concern with having to rework areas and all, given the light population of the dev team however. So I am aware that is a tall desire to fulfill. Can't help but dream, away from the server as I am now... =)

[Snarfy]

The fact that there would still be a server around it predominantly focused on minmaxed level 30 builds getting a decent challenge, and that most classes have been reworked to fit into that mindset as well, for one.

The equal fact that you would be level 20(s, assuming there'd be more than one person) involved in events that are scaled to Level 30s if you end up with DM involvement, which also includes -completely souped up mobs- that are made with that semi-canon 2/3 or 1/2 'rule' in mind to represent threat, meaning you'd be a 10 to 13-and-change level way out of your league instead of legit level 20.

While I might understand what you're saying, and I totally agree that mobs are(for the most part) inflated, the other proponents of this change have expressed this:

The idea of this is to help rebalance the massive top-heavy stuff that has to take place to give any group any sort of "challenge" and in theory, nothing map-wise would have to be done, nothing gear or store wise, just some of the top-end creatures remade

One could easily argue that a capable group of level 20's could manage a vast portion of the current top-end content. I can think of maybe 5 or 6 areas where a group of six will likely get steam-rolled, and if those areas are dumbed down to the point of being manageable by 20's, what exactly does a level 20 cap achieve again?

If players want a challenge, and if they believe that a challenge involves playing at a level 20 cap, then I believe they should exercise their right to turn off their XP once hitting level 20.

So ultimately, the Level 20-cap is meant to make the world make sense again...

One could easily argue that every adventurer on the Coast suddenly losing 1/3 of their abilities is a tough "making sense" pill to swallow.

...it'd not even necessarily downgrade the total power level by much while making mobs way easier to handle because you don't have to adjust everything with them that hard anymore.

If the purported goal of a cap is to make things more challenging, then making mobs way easier kind of defeats the purpose.

There are sooooooo many other things that would be affected by a cap aside from difficulty, such as limitations on build variety, PRC's becoming obsolete, and spell durations, as well as the aforementioned potential crippling effect it would have on existing characters, we might as well kick around the idea of starting over from scratch and go from the bottom up. A top down attempt at a level cap would be a nightmare.

The point I was trying to make is fairly straightforward, and while my question of "what is stopping you?" was a bit of a rhetorical one, I honestly fail to see the point in promoting level cap implementations that are already available for players to participate in.

Anyone brave enough to put up a poll in a separate thread?

[zhazz]

How about we just not consider levels at all as a measure of power?

The only real difference, in terms of mechanical power, between a level 20 and a level 30 wizard is a few more spell slots, a slightly higher DC, and maybe one or two big spells.

For a fighter the difference is being slightly better at hitting with their weapon of choice, hitting a bit harder each time, and being a little better at avoiding getting hit themselves.

The only reason why level 30 is considered OMG MY CHARACTER CAN KILL THE G IN OMG!!!! is because of some pre-conceived notion that anything beyond level 20 is approaching godhood.

Except that it isn't!
The most powerful creature in existence, as of 3.5, is the Hecatoncheires Abomination (from the Epic Level Handbook). This particular monster is a level 52 Outsider at CR 57, which is a much higher CR than most gods; yet it itself isn't a god. Not even remotely so.

So how about we stop treating levels as a measure of character power, and instead just treat them for what they truly are?
Namely an OOC mechanical way to quantify and track life experience and honing of skills.

Yes, on BGTSCC reaching level 30 can be done in roughly 3 months, while in PnP it would usually take several years. Years both in the PnP game, and ouside it. But this is just a byproduct of a persistent world D&D game.

[Snarfy]

So how about we stop treating levels as a measure of character power, and instead just treat them for what they truly are?
Namely an OOC mechanical way to quantify and track life experience and honing of skills.

Thank you. I'm in. From now on anything past 20 shall now be level 20 with benefits. *changes signature*

[Rhifox]

The problem with the 30 cap, IMO, is that we constantly have DM events that involve players swatting legions of balors and liches like flies. Said players also talking constantly about daytrips to kill the ice dragon, and the pit fiend, and the balor, and whatever else. Meanwhile, reasonable, down to earth mobs, or even lesser variations of fiends and undead, go ignored. It's dull.

Now, this is certainly something that can be fixed from the other direction, by downgrading the appearance (but not the stats) of various boss monsters, and increasing the diversity of mobs DMs can use in events to encourage using "weaker" varieties to fill out numbers rather than a million supposedly stronger ones. We especially need a range of HUMANOID mobs that are a challenge to 30th level characters, so we aren't constantly saddled with new monsters of the week and can actually have opponents that aren't superdeduper evil and can actually be talked to and reasoned with.

There's also the issue of the insane 1-30 level range. DnD is not designed for that kind of level range, and on BG it leads to so many dungeons going obsolete, stretching area builders' and DMs' ability to provide content for everyone. IMO we should have a 5 level range, or 10 at most. But that'd require too much to change at this point, so, shrug.

[artemitavik]

You're skipping the part of the level 20 cap bit with the "for server rebalance" but that's ok.

As far as ToT stuff goes, as I've said before, many good ideas on many levels, and at that point, it's now up to the Admin if/when they implement anything.

My issue, I suppose with the level 30 thing, even just considering it "level 20 with extra benefits" is, those benefits mechanically include being able to lay waste to entire landscapes that a "normal" level 20 would not be able to do.

I tied this to the ToT use because that WOULD be a reason to "suddenly have powers and abilities be less or different" because literally, all reality changed that year. magic worked different, deity interaction worked different. Everything suddenly worked different. It would be a good time to do that, if it were to happen. This is why both suggestions were made in the same thread starter.

As for "builds no longer being viable", with the effort that the community tends to put into optimizing builds, I honestly don't think it would take long for builds to be adjusted to be proportionately as effective, if not more so.

[Snarfy]

I notice you're also skipping my suggestion of toggling off your xp at level 20 hmf.

I get what you're saying, and sure... i'll concede that it's an interesting idea to have coincide with the ToT, but I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I don't have any interest in rebuilding any/all of my level 30's and squandering years worth fleshing out concepts and play time. Some of us don't create characters with optimization in mind, and if the ability to build for flavor becomes compromised to the point of optimization taking precedence then, personally speaking, that is less incentive to play, much less rebuild numeous characters from scratch.

There has to be more creative ways to do ToT that don't involve what amounts to a tidal wave nerf.

[Hoihe]

A simple argument for level cap of 30 over any less:

At a level cap of 20, you have 20 chances to choose from however many classes we have (limited by rules and engine limitations locking you to only 4 classes).
At a level cap of 30, that goes to 30 different chances to choose:

30 different opportunities to explicitly flesh out your PC with feats, skills, class level ratios.

[zhazz]

The problem with the 30 cap, IMO, is that we constantly have DM events that involve players swatting legions of balors and liches like flies. Said players also talking constantly about daytrips to kill the ice dragon, and the pit fiend, and the balor, and whatever else. Meanwhile, reasonable, down to earth mobs, or even lesser variations of fiends and undead, go ignored. It's dull.

Not really a problem, when you consider how a regular PnP game is run.

For a party of 4 to 5 level 1 characters, a group of 3 to 4 Kobolds is considered a challenge.

The same party at level 5 will be challenged by a group of 3 to 4 orcs.

At level 12 the challenge is 3 to 4 wyverns for the same group.

Upon reaching level 20 the group of 4 to 5 characters will face an appropriate challenge against 2 liches, and a few lesser undeads.


Note! — The above are just examples to demonstrate the point, and not perfect representations.


The challenge stays presented to the group stays the same. Even if the characters themselves grow in power, they are merely presented with something appropriate to provide a challenge.

Which ties back to a point I've made in another thread on this forum (can't remember where right now). Anyway that point is:
The Fire Giants, with the Balor provide a similar challenge at max levels that the Gibberlings and Gibberling Chieftain do at level 3 to 5.

[Steve]

Personally, and as I've argued in the past, if we really wanted BGTSCC to be a medium-to-more...especially more...RP Server, it would be best to cap Levels at 13, and reduce XP gain by 1/5th. Longer to Level, less disparity between new and old Characters (and players!), and less grandiose mobs and Bosses in which DMs can kick our arses around with.

That said, I'm about 99% sure there is no going back, so we need to go forward.

For the ToT in general, if possible, simple apply a 50% magic failure to every Area on the Server. Done. No more reliance on magic—Art or Power—for whatever it shall be 4—10 months. Whatever storylines players and DMs want to pursue in this time, great. Individualists and grind-loot-(germbag) will just have a much, much more challenging time of it, during the phase.

As for the Server in general, in order to keep with the current mechanical paradigm and options we've learned to love or hate, let Level 30 PCs actually BE Level 30, and simply double, literally double, the mobs and Bosses throughout the Server (and up the NPCs too...although they are mostly already so). That means, 2 Balors, 2 White Dragons, 2 Orc Chieftains, etc. Or, maybe just the Epic CR Areas, say CR 25 and up. Simply doubling the Bosses would stop soloing in its footsteps, and actually make Boss killing a group effort...even better in Players come together to make it an adventure.

Even better still, is not just double the Epic Bosses, but add in a second equally powerful but divergent Boss, so it is like a Duo. Balor gets and Epic Grandfather primordial Fire Elemental as No. 2. White Dragon gets...offspring? Or how about a mate? That would be hilarious and great. Frost Giant KIng gets a Frost Giant Queen who is a Frost Mage. LOL.

Let's just make it easy: leave the mechanics as is, just make the CR 25+ Areas super (do-me) hard to conquer. I'm sure some Devs would LOVE that challenge, to make Epic Areas that make Epic PCs pay, Pay, PAY!!!

[Blame The Rogue]

pardon, but some epic bosses should require a party, while others should not. this isnt a PnP session, and as such, adventures will not always be a large/balanced party

[Snarfy]

At a level cap of 20, you have 20 chances to choose from however many classes we have (limited by rules and engine limitations locking you to only 4 classes).

Unless you want to play a ranger and take that bread and butter bane of enemies. In which case you have zero chance!

Mighty rage barbarian? 1 chance: barb 20.
Bards with songs of heroism? Nope.
Archmage 10? Zero chance... you can have 8 levels of a 10 level PRC though.
And the list goes on... diversity what?

But, I digress!

For the ToT in general, if possible, simply apply a 50% magic failure to every Area on the Server. Done. No more reliance on magic—Art or Power—for whatever it shall be 4—10 months. Whatever storylines players and DMs want to pursue in this time, great. Individualists and (germbag) will just have a much, much more challenging time of it, during the phase.

^ This works.

[artemitavik]

I notice you're also skipping my suggestion of toggling off your xp at level 20 hmf.

actually, yes I did consider it. But that wouldn't address the mechanical imbalances issues on the server that is set for level 30 and the general lore-based issues of medium sized armies of world-destroying level people just mucking about.

Believe it or not, I made the suggestions because I honestly believe it would make the server a better, smoother place, and open a dialogue, rather than some weird, off the wall suggestion from left field because I want to find a way to flex suggestive power or something. It would be just as "detrimental" to my own characters and builds as anyone else's. Mechanically, DND is set up for max levels to be at 20, epic levels, while fun, are supposed to be an exception and not the norm, thus we have the massive on and off again (usually on in my perceptions) balancing issues that pop up around the server. Would you lose cool things like Bane of Enemies and whatnot? Expose weakness? Sure. So would I.

Would it kill the diversity of characters? Probably not. There's not that much diversity really that I've seen with level 30 builds. Almost all bards I've seen are nearly identical in abilities (attack preference, maybe not, but abilities), same for druids, and FS, and the like, and fighters and rogues. Diversity would be equally available at level 20 cap, just wouldn't have all the numbers flashing above the avatars on the screens.

If the admin take one, both, partial, or none of any of the suggestions here, that is their decision overall.

Is the suggestion perhaps a bit extreme? Sure. But it is, in my honest opinion, a way to keep BG fresher and more interesting/entertaining in the time to come as the game slowly/not so slowly becomes dated and people move from it.

I think the ToT should be taken and dealt with. I think that it is the perfect time to implement a larger change into the server rather than ignored outright or used as a mild distraction before things go back to status quo. I think there has been a great deal of discourse over the years of balance issues and build issues and monster issues of the last couple years, and this would be a solution to it and the just "well, throw MOAR POWER AT IT" approach that tends to be show up on both sides of events, intentional or not.

If it is done, great. If it is not done, so be it. Either way I'm sure the server will continue, at either a stride or a limp, or both.

[Hoihe]

I notice you're also skipping my suggestion of toggling off your xp at level 20 hmf.

actually, yes I did consider it. But that wouldn't address the mechanical imbalances issues on the server that is set for level 30 and the general lore-based issues of medium sized armies of world-destroying level people just mucking about.

Believe it or not, I made the suggestions because I honestly believe it would make the server a better, smoother place, and open a dialogue, rather than some weird, off the wall suggestion from left field because I want to find a way to flex suggestive power or something. It would be just as "detrimental" to my own characters and builds as anyone else's. Mechanically, DND is set up for max levels to be at 20, epic levels, while fun, are supposed to be an exception and not the norm, thus we have the massive on and off again (usually on in my perceptions) balancing issues that pop up around the server. Would you lose cool things like Bane of Enemies and whatnot? Expose weakness? Sure. So would I.

Would it kill the diversity of characters? Probably not. There's not that much diversity really that I've seen with level 30 builds. Almost all bards I've seen are nearly identical in abilities (attack preference, maybe not, but abilities), same for druids, and FS, and the like, and fighters and rogues. Diversity would be equally available at level 20 cap, just wouldn't have all the numbers flashing above the avatars on the screens.

If the admin take one, both, partial, or none of any of the suggestions here, that is their decision overall.

Is the suggestion perhaps a bit extreme? Sure. But it is, in my honest opinion, a way to keep BG fresher and more interesting/entertaining in the time to come as the game slowly/not so slowly becomes dated and people move from it.

I think the ToT should be taken and dealt with. I think that it is the perfect time to implement a larger change into the server rather than ignored outright or used as a mild distraction before things go back to status quo. I think there has been a great deal of discourse over the years of balance issues and build issues and monster issues of the last couple years, and this would be a solution to it and the just "well, throw MOAR POWER AT IT" approach that tends to be show up on both sides of events, intentional or not.

If it is done, great. If it is not done, so be it. Either way I'm sure the server will continue, at either a stride or a limp, or both.

There exist skill points, feats that you cannot see mechanically, but they are there.

With just the feats 1-20, I couldn't have picked any of the flavour feats my character could afford. Nor the class ratio I presently have that allows RP flavour without murdering viability.

And we havn't even mentioned the skill points I could have not afforded.


I find just 30 levels of variation awfully constraining. Especially with the engine limitation of only 4 classes. 20 would be choking,

[Louvaine]

I've seen enough Lv. 30 PCs fall to know that they're not anywhere close to godhood.