dkeester wrote:What I am suggesting is not an exact mapping, and certainly not an XP one. In 1e AD&D around level 15-16 PCs were expected or encouraged to setup some sort of holding and become a lord. According to some posts on this forum in DCC this will happen around 5-6 level. Also based on one of Joseph's comments on the speed of XP accumulation it seems like the XP values won't change, but there will be more adventuring required to get each point.
I understand. And I'm a strong proponent of E6. But I fear DCC is capping out for the wrong reasons. I'm talking out of thin air, of course. But even in E6 character advancement didn't
stop at 6th level. Advancement just continued at a slower pace for feats, while other elements -- such as hit points, spells per day and saving throws -- did stop. I'd be fine for that with DCC too. But I think 5 is just too low. I don't think I could sell that to any group, no matter how different the leveling was.
dkeester wrote:I guess much of the decision on which spell to cast comes down to what you describe above, but some of it may also depend on the effect tables for the two spells. Also there could be an in game reason why Scorching Ray makes more sense to cast.
I suppose. But when the difference between two spells (basically ranged damage spells) is SO minimal, why would a player ever choose Scorching Ray over Magic Missile? There's a 10% greater chance of failing Scorching Ray for a fairly minor, randomized damage boost. Caster's level plays a BIG part in that spell damage.
dkeester wrote:They aren't more powerful necessarily. They just level more slowly. I guess it just seems like levels are more meaningful in DCC than they are in D&D. Levels come at lower power levels. There are fewer levels to acquire. The more I think about comparing leveling in D&D to leveling in DCC the less I think the comparison makes sense.
I think the levels (and again I'm in the land of conjecture) are on one hand comparable to D&D -- hit points and saving throws -- and on the other hand more powerful -- MDoAs and possibly hacking the Spellcasting system.
And by "comparable to D&D", I mean in line with AD&D. In almost every case (except MDAs), I think DCC characters would be LESS powerful than their 3e counterparts. And, again, I think that's a hard sell to prospective players: "You're going to be LESS powerful AND there's only FIVE levels!"
dkeester wrote:I think that Joseph should continue with the 10 levels planed in the base book. I guess I fit into the "five levels feels like half a game" camp.
I disagree that Magic Missile should never do more damage than Scorching Ray. I do think it should only happen when some sort of major success is rolled on the effect table for the spell, which shouldn't be a common occurrence.
A roll of a 24 on Scorching Ray does 3 x (1d10 + caster level). A roll of 24 on Magic Missile does one missile at 4d12 + caster level at a range of 1000'. Just taking averages, that Scorching Ray will do 16 + 3 x caster level damage. That Magic Missile will do 26 + caster level. This illustrates how crucially caster level can swing things too and is probably another consideration in not allowing those bonuses to extend past +5.
While a roll of 12 on Magic Missile does 1 point of damage to 1 target. And a roll of 12 on Scorching Ray means the spell is lost.
I think one of the problems (at least that I'm seeing with a very limited view) is that the upper end of the higher level spells isn't that much better than the upper end of the lower level spells. Seriously, why ever cast Scorching Ray? Its damage output is roughly comparable to Magic Missile at all but the lowest rolls.
Don't forget Scorching Ray gets a save too. I don't know if Magic Missile does or not. If it doesn't, that just made Magic Missile the Ferrari of 1st level spells.
dkeester wrote:I guess we really need to do some playtesting up around eighth level or so. It seems like everything you have mentioned fits into the "long-term play" problem which has been mentioned before. What happens in a campaign when the characters get to high levels?
I agree. Based on my experience, stopping at Level 5 is a hard sell. Level 8 or even Level 7 is less of a big deal. I think the whole issue would be fine if DCC went old school on us and said "okay, at Level 8, you're NAME LEVEL and from there on you get an extra +1/2/3 hit points per so many thousand experience points".
But I think there's some tweaking that would need to happen with the spells in either case. I think the DC to get more powerful effects on low level spells should be HIGHER. Such that, it's always
behind the higher level spell. For example, that Mega-Missile? It should probably be closer to DC 30.
Low level spells should have wider ranges in their DCs. I think acquiring the next boost to a spell should totally depend on how high the DC to cast it is. Such that Finger of Death might see a chart that goes...
1-23 Whoops!
24-25
26-27
28-29
While Magic Missile should be more like...
1-11 Whoops!
12-17
18-22
23-27
28-32
Maybe even a cap on the low level spells such that 20 + DC to cast is the highest result they can give you. So no result on Magic Missile would ever be better than 32. While Finger of Death might go up to 44.
dkeester wrote:I also am starting to think that we should stop talking about 3e in relation to DCC. Systematically it is based on 3e, but at this point it is just the basic die system and the system of saving throws. There really is not much of 3e left. Are we bringing too much baggage from previous editions to the discussion?
First, I'm relieved that Joseph said DCC would be using the more bell-curved stat bonuses of earlier editions of D&D. Big happiness on that one. I have no problem with DCC diverging wildly from 3e. Heck, let's adopt S&W's saving throw system while we're at it!
And I'm not intending to compare it to 3e. None of the modules I went over earlier are 3e adventures. But I wanted to point out the differences between high level play in DCC (just going by numbers and gut) versus high level in 3e.
First in regards to MDAs and how, at high levels, I could see them being BETTER than feats. So maybe those die increases could be spread out a bit.
Then in regards to spells and how lower level spells are MUCH more attractive to higher level casters than they perhaps SHOULD be.
I mean, if I'm looking at what a 24 in Magic Missile gives me and comparing that to what a 24 in Finger of Death would give me, I should never see Magic Missile as the better option from a mechanical standpoint.
I have no problem with spells scaling higher. I just think that the scaling doesn't take into account the spell's level in the same way that the DC to cast the spell does. Magic Missile at 24 should be less effective than a Scorching Ray at 24. Not equal or better. The caster is taking 10% LESS risk in casting Magic Missile, shouldn't he expect a 10% better return?
For me, it's about presenting a proper bang for the buck. If we're going to scale DC by spell level, I think we should do the same with results. Otherwise, we're setting ourselves up for a game where it's mechanically obtuse to cast anything but the lowest level spell possible. And, at that point, why differentiate spell DCs by level at all?