level Cap

Racerblue · Post by **Racerblue** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:00 pm

GF,

I'm not that stupid..I know that each class has it's strengths and weaknesses..I know(and I'm sure the dm who ran the enounter does as well) how to take advantage of the weakness inherant in each class. My point is this, the pc in question was not a "melee" oriented PC..he had a few levels in a melee class, but most where not. He only took one wound that I could determine. Some encounters are designed to push you to the limits..this one in my opinion was not...but I don't think it achieved anywhere near the effect most would assume, I.E no resources where really used to combat the monsters..a character designed for limited melee took on a large group of fairly high CR monsters(and one high CR) and defeated them without a scratch..

Now, if we had really wanted to test him to his limits, I could have placed 5 giants on the nearby cliffs, back up with a high level drow mage..and pounded the poor suckers with rocks while they A: ran..B: ran..or C: tried to climb the cliff..and then run.

MShady · Post by **MShady** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:51 pm

Well.. that would be how you handle an encounter with a high level, or just plain use mobs properly. Alot of folks just don't do that. That classes have there weaknesses is actually something I don't think everyone quite understands either. The assumption in alot of games is that particular classes are balanced, even against each other. That's not really the case in D&D.

Mike

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:42 pm

Racerblue wrote:GF,

I'm not that stupid..I know that each class has it's strengths and weaknesses..I know(and I'm sure the dm who ran the enounter does as well) how to take advantage of the weakness inherant in each class. My point is this, the pc in question was not a "melee" oriented PC..he had a few levels in a melee class, but most where not. He only took one wound that I could determine. Some encounters are designed to push you to the limits..this one in my opinion was not...but I don't think it achieved anywhere near the effect most would assume, I.E no resources where really used to combat the monsters..a character designed for limited melee took on a large group of fairly high CR monsters(and one high CR) and defeated them without a scratch..

Now, if we had really wanted to test him to his limits, I could have placed 5 giants on the nearby cliffs, back up with a high level drow mage..and pounded the poor suckers with rocks while they A: ran..B: ran..or C: tried to climb the cliff..and then run.

Again, this isn't relevant. Points:
A) If he defeated them all without any trouble, then they were not high CR monsters, no matter what number NWN has assigned to them. CRs are not carved in stone. If the encounter is done properly, then it should match the assigned CR, but if it is not done properly then the CR will be wildly different than what it's supposed to be. If your level 14 character beats a CR 16 creature handily, that creature was not CR 16. This is something a lot of DMs don't grasp.
B) If he defeated them so easily, then the encounter was not designed to take advantage of his weaknesses. As Mike said, D&D classes are not balanced against one another. D&D makes absolutely no attempt to balance classes in relation to the others. There is generally a rock-paper-scissors style relationship between them, class A beats class B but gets its ass whipped by class C. There is no way to multiclass out your weaknesses or anything--a DM who knows what he's doing can look at your character sheet, eyeball your equipment and use that to figure an appropriate challenge. It's not that hard if you've been taught or read enough, but many DMs just hop onto the client without learning anything first.
C) That example you give in the last paragraph isn't a good encounter, or a challenge. It's just the DM playing against the player, which is also bad DMing. An encounter should be challenging, but in nearly all circumstances it should also be fair and the PCs should have a reasonable chance of success.

By the way, I'm not trying to rag on DMs who do this... I'm not saying you're an idiot, just that you really need to learn what you're doing. We all did when we started, I was lucky to have the best teachers (Duck and Ayergo).

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:27 pm

In PNP, I'm not a fan of high level gaming, I have to say. But I certainly don't see the need to enforce my preference on other people.

I see absolutely no need for a level cap. As long as the DMs are alert to spawn-farming, and endeavour to reward XP for RP rather than combat, it should be irrelevant.

****

To my mind, the biggest problem for DMs isn't running a high level combat, its running a combat for a widely mixed level party.

Either the whole thing is so easy for the high level PC that it becomes a farce, or the low level PCs get toasted.

Ironically the reason the Low level guy ends up on such a quest in the first place is due to roleplaying, not PGing. His friend is going into danger, and it isn't in character for him to say "actually, that sounds too dangerous for me, I'll stay home".

I'd rather see some firm guidelines for avoiding that sort of situation than level caps.

Hurlshot · Post by **Hurlshot** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 am

The problem is you have vastly different standards on each server, as well as within each DM team. Some teams try and keep players at a 1 level per month pace, and some teams don't pay much attention to that at all. Then, when a PC travels to another server, they are either way overpowered or underpowered compared to the resident PC's.

I spent most of my ALFA life on TVS. I was involved in plots, I was a major player on the server, but when I travelled I saw players way more powerful who had half the game experience and character development. I would tell my intricate stories and they would say "I'm level 5, I just started 2 weeks ago."

Is this going to happen in ALFA again? Or will steps be made to standardize the levelling?

Edit: I'm sure people will tell me to just not play with those folks, but that's bad RP. If I'm a battle hardened bad ass, I shouldn't be worried about pushing around some youngblood. But it's bad RP if that youngblood has three levels on me.

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:01 am

There are already XP standards in place which give anywhere from 50 to 100 tops xp/rlhr for DMd time, less with RP XP scripts. lvl5 in 2 weeks is not just unlikely, but since we're talking 50 hrs a week there of DMd time its practically illegal. Get in an xp speed limit, its even more so.

Hurlshot · Post by **Hurlshot** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:21 pm

fluffmonster wrote:There are already XP standards in place which give anywhere from 50 to 100 tops xp/rlhr for DMd time, less with RP XP scripts. lvl5 in 2 weeks is not just unlikely, but since we're talking 50 hrs a week there of DMd time its practically illegal. Get in an xp speed limit, its even more so.

So does this mean all xp will now be DM given?

Keith Mac · Post by **Keith Mac** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:29 pm

No But one of the "Pillars" of ALFA 2 is going to be a max EXP award per char of 6-8000(the exact amount TBD) per month....how one achieves/or does not achieve this "limit" will be up to them (ie; RP-XP script, DM award, XP by random encounter).

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:12 pm

Hurlshot wrote:
fluffmonster wrote:There are already XP standards in place which give anywhere from 50 to 100 tops xp/rlhr for DMd time, less with RP XP scripts. lvl5 in 2 weeks is not just unlikely, but since we're talking 50 hrs a week there of DMd time its practically illegal. Get in an xp speed limit, its even more so.
So does this mean all xp will now be DM given?

nope, but all sources of xp should be following similar standards. We should keep static quests for sure. XP from monsters has always been an open question...but we know that farming is bannable, and somebody that makes it to lvl5 in 2 weeks has most certainly been farming.

Myself, I could live with token xp from monster kills...like xp=CR token xp. Keep the IC reward of drops, but cut down the xp. A lot of the BW monster xp awards make no sense anyway, I guess due to the funky way BW calculates CR. The other day my level 7 killed an ettercap with less difficulty than what it takes to kill a large rat, got 38 xp out of it which left me scratching my head.

Twiggy · Post by **Twiggy** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:12 pm

I think for every new rule put in place for ALFA, three more should be deleted to make room. We do NOT need more rules here...or OOC restrictions or guidelines or committees. This place already generates more paperwork and red tape than any goverment office...heck any two offices combined.

MShady · Post by **MShady** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:31 pm

Fluff - that XP distribution is made even more wonky by the way our own XP system is modified as it does not take average party level into consideration, simply the highest. Not that the CRs in the case you outlined were not out of whack, but the system doesn't help matters in its own way.

As for what Twiggy said, the cumulative effect of all these rules in an attempt to scratch every itch has a cumulative effect far worse than most anything they're preventing.

Mike