Monday, May 16, 2016
So I grabbed BLUEHOLME Prentice, and I was wondering what folks thinking about the idea of 3rd level BEING the level...
So I grabbed BLUEHOLME Prentice, and I was wondering what folks thinking about the idea of 3rd level BEING the level cap for player characters to reflect the limits of mortals in a fantastic world. I know it's a bit brutal, but still - it reflects the genuine limits of a normal human in the face of things like giants, dragons, and demonic creatures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The first time I saw this idea proposed was by Geoffrey on DF, back in 2008, and it generated a lot of discussion at the time (7 pages): http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27128
ReplyDeleteYep...what Zeno said.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it's a great idea for a short term campaign (or one that's run in a way that ignores the standard D&D paradigm...something a bit more "intrigue" based, for example).
That idea's been discussed in the Holmes Basic community for a while. Conceptually, it's not far from the "Epic 6" concept advanced a few years ago for D&D 3.x play (capping levels at 6) in order to keep complexity down and for a more gritty swords & sorcery type of play.
ReplyDeleteObviously complexity is less of an issue with Blueholme or Holmes Basic, but the concept is the same - having more mortal (fragile) characters who survive more by wits than their sword arm or book of spells, low level monsters always being something of a threat, higher HD monsters always being lethal, etc. It also places more emphasis on setting than character stats; to kill that dragon, it's not about getting to X level to go toe to toe with it, it's about questing for a legendary item that will slay it, or coming up with a desperate but possible plan to deal with it (or even, perhaps, really taking a chance and trying to parley with it instead of charging into battle).
You need to have the right sort of group to do it - players who thrive on levelling up will not go for it - but for the right group it could be a real blast to play.
Big fan of the E6 concept in 3E. Level 3 is a pretty sweet spot; parties of that level can handle, with some difficulty, single mid-level monsters like wyverns and manticores, while leaving things like dragons and purple worms in the "RUN!" category.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about extending it but only using the explicit bits in the rule book. I think this would give fighters +1 to hit at level 4 (and make level 4 their max? or am I remembering this instead from B2?), MUs (I think, from the sample dungeon) +1 to save at level 5 and spells as per the thaumaturge (so level 5 max for MUs?). Let clerics stop at level 3. Thieves have no limit (if that's mentioned in Holmes, I forget) but the only benefit is that their abilities progress by 5% chance.
ReplyDeleteI've tried the Peasants & Pigherders style game and much prefer something more unrealistically powered. For me a natural campaign level cap has always been around 9th. I love the early game when finding an enchanted bunny is a big deal and instant death lurks around every encounter with a pointy stick but eventually you want to at least return to the Shire as Merry or Pippen and not be stuck at playing Fatty Bolger for the entire campaign.
ReplyDelete"I love the early game when finding an enchanted bunny is a big deal and instant death lurks around every encounter with a pointy stick but eventually you want to at least return to the Shire as Merry or Pippen and not be stuck at playing Fatty Bolger for the entire campaign." Funny!
ReplyDeleteI think Kabuki Kaiser got that worked out here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/168001/Seven-at-One-Blow
And we address it here:
ReplyDeletehttp://pitsperilous.blogspot.com/2016/02/holmes-as-complete-game-eight-points.html
I'm working on something that abandons levels in favour of skills. Going that route makes Holmes alone a long-term prospect. Holmes is more sustainable than Moldvay as a base because it contains a sprinkling of higher-level monsters and magic.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a way to play, certainly not the way to play (the latter of course, not actually existing except in some folks' minds..).
ReplyDeleteIt's more a matter of scaling than anything else..
Fatty Bolger (that analogy was hilarious!) would be a 1/2 HD, 0-level mook in a level 3 cap (or 3+1 level, if you consider "4th level" as the max above 3rd / name level / legendary character type maximum). In a level 9 to level 12 capped game, lvl 1-3 characters are all mooks and 4-6 level are merely competent; in a higher / no level cap campaign, then PCs up to maybe 7-9th level start to fall into the mook category.
In an uncapped game, the Castellan of the Keep on the Borderlands is basically another chump when the PCs get a few levels under their belt, in charge of a rinky dink fort full of mooks; in a 9th level capped game he's a seasoned warrior, one to be reckoned with and commanding a well-defended outpost of Law; and in a lvl 3 (or "3rd+1" as I mention below) game he's an epic warrior, a King Conan type, who after many seasons of war and fighting legendary opponents has retired to command an important outpost. What makes level capped games interesting to me in the main is the way level caps change the implied setting - both of the published modules and campaign settings, and in your own homebrew stuff.
Some other reasons I personally like lower level caps (whether 9th / name level, 6th lvl a la Epic 6, or 3rd level "full Holmes" is that it drastically reduces rules complexity, simplifies scaling of adversaries and adventure design, and it places more emphasis on clever, engaged play than rules knowledge when defeating adversaries on in-game situations. But again though, not for everybody.
For me, "Meepo's Holmes Companion" does Holmes as a complete game pretty darned well! But I like some of the suggestions linked above too...
ReplyDelete