|
3 years ago ::
Oct 11, 2010 - 2:50PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Or 'Arcane' could just be tapping into the Krell Thought Machine...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 11, 2010 - 3:15PM
#12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 11, 2010 - 4:36PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2008
|
I know that they've already said stuff regarding Cryptic Alliances, but here's how I would like to see them introduced.... At level 11 the character should be established enough (in mood/methodology) that they're now a full representative of a Cryptic Alliance. They'll still gain Alpha Mutations through "drawing" but their powers will come from the Cryptic Alliance. Each Cryptic Alliance would have three subsets with the player picking from their powers as they advance. The reason for three subsets would be to remove some of the cookie-cutter from character creation.
Level 20 would cap with the character becoming one of the movers-and-shakers of his/her Cryptic Alliance. Only thing I can think of for level 21 and above would be the same thing that usually happens in other level based games, the character retires from adventuring. Around level 20 the characters usually have some kind of established holding (i.e. a fort or town) and that takes up a majority of their time. Instead of going out and adventuring, the character now hires others to go adventuring for them. Heck, one of my D&D games has a city run by an old character of mine and the guilds are run by friends old characters.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 12, 2010 - 4:21PM
#14
|
|
|
Maybe 10 levels is high enough?
GAMMA WORLD Wuv
D&D: Beyond the RPG - Transcript
This is a complete transcript.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22329697?sdb=1&pg=last#390668593
The audio file is in this News Archive
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/DNDXP
2010 D&D Product Overview (47 minutes into the Audio)
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22329697?sdb=1&pg=last#390928045
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 25, 2011 - 5:09PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2009
|
rule to expand on the 10th level cap were posted on a blog known as Dazed (save ends)these rules build off of giving your charcter a proffesion-eque trait set which evolves similarly to origens. I personally do not plan to use these rules in my GW game, as I am a bit oif a purist. because of this I have not read the rules throughly, but they appear reletevly stable. my only concern about the "uber tier" (the name of past 10 levels) is that there is litle suppport for monsters past 14th level, so you may have to stat out new monsters or steal them from normal D&D.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2011 - 8:58PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2009
|
im currently disigning an alternet uber tier ruleset that builds on the mutant types as opposed to gaining new unrelated traits.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2011 - 4:47AM
#17
|
|
|
Hi all,
I've had a look at Oraibi's uber-tier rules and think I'll use them once my PCs reach 10th level. However, my main concern right now is that advancement before then is too *quick*. It's not so much that there aren't enough levels, but rather that you steam through them too quickly.
I'm playing Steading right now, and the idea that my PCs will be 3rd level after only one adventure, and then 6th after Far-Go, and 9th or 10th after Legion of Gold, makes me feel like there's no room for my PCs to do anything else in the campaign before they're too high level.
Right now, I'm thinking of using the standard D&D XP requirements - it'll slow down advancement a bit, and give everyone room to breathe and have a few interim adventures before reaching high level.
Anyone else experimented with anything similar?
Cheers, :-)
Sarah
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2011 - 8:50PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Apr 30, 2006
|
Hi all, I've had a look at Oraibi's uber-tier rules and think I'll use them once my PCs reach 10th level. However, my main concern right now is that advancement before then is too *quick*. It's not so much that there aren't enough levels, but rather that you steam through them too quickly. I'm playing Steading right now, and the idea that my PCs will be 3rd level after only one adventure, and then 6th after Far-Go, and 9th or 10th after Legion of Gold, makes me feel like there's no room for my PCs to do anything else in the campaign before they're too high level. Right now, I'm thinking of using the standard D&D XP requirements - it'll slow down advancement a bit, and give everyone room to breathe and have a few interim adventures before reaching high level. Anyone else experimented with anything similar? Cheers, :-) Sarah
Well, someone on this forum (I forget who) came up with the idea of abandoning XP altogether, and leveling according to game sessions. You level after a number of sessions equal to your current level, so you spend 1 session at level 1, 2 at level 2, and so on.
Obviously, you can alter that on a case by case basis if you have a shorter or longer session, so you can say, "This counts as 2 sessions" or "half a session" experience-wise.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 30, 2011 - 6:48AM
#19
|
|
|
Compared to D&D and the older Gamma World iterations the new GW is fast and furious even in character creation. Rather than playing long, epic journeys Gamma World keeps it fresh with foreseeable endgames. This means to me less character and game fatigue.
If what now exists for Gamma World is all there is, fine. However, if Gamma World is successful and more importantly to the company, profitable then I wouldn't mind a later expansion book that add character levels as well as challenges.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 30, 2011 - 12:02PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
Well, someone on this forum (I forget who) came up with the idea of abandoning XP altogether, and leveling according to game sessions. You level after a number of sessions equal to your current level
That person had mistakenly confused "sessions" with "encounters" (discussed here)... big difference, and the method would still be problematic even with the correction
However, doing away with XP in general is still perfectly fine (even recommended); the expectation in Gamma World is that the PCs will level approximately after every two sessions or 5 encounters (compared with every three sessions for regular D&D).
fwiw: even the RPGA (normally big on playing by the book and crunching numbers) is doing this now for Epic levels: 3 sessions= 1 one level (three sessions per level was exactly how RPGA sessions worked out before that anyhow).
Also, DMG p.121 gives XP-less D&D as an option: "If you want to...""Tell the players that they gain a level after they complete eight to ten encounters."
|
|
|
