YOU are in charge of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 3e...

[Grek]

How do you handle large combats, then? I see a trilemma:

• We want five PCs to have a tactically interesting fight with a single ogre at level 1.
• We want five PCs to have a tactically interesting battle with 1000 ogres at level 10.
• Resolving the 10th level fight cannot take 1000x or even 5x as long as the 1st level fight.

What's your solution to this problem? Mine is to simplify enemy mechanics as you go up in level. An ogre army doesn't have the same stat block as a single ogre. It can be based on the single ogre, it can use the same template, it can reference the single ogre's stats, but it has to be simpler in some way and resolve on a higher level of abstraction than rolling initiative and attack rolls for a thousand ogres. I'd be fucking thrilled if there's a better answer, but if there is I don't know about it.

[Username17]

For starters, I don't accept that framing at all. I think that:

• The Party should fight 8 Zombies or 1 Ogre at level 2.
• The Party should fight 8 Ogres or 1 Frost Giant at level 8.
• These battles should take similar amounts of time.

Yes, I think there should be a time when the players face a thousand enemies and bring an army of hundreds to fight along side them. I think that's so important that the mass battles minigame should be in the core rules. But I also think it's a separate minigame. I don't think you should try to map rounds and attacks of opportunity and shit into the mass battle game.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Mass combat does not need special monsters. It needs special rules. And also generally speaking D&D-like games benefit heavily from having lethality scale faster than accuracy - i.e. lower level monsters can still land annoying hits on you long after you're OHKing them. Attacks and defenses probably should be the slowest growing part of the RNG in a level-based game. Not as slow as 5E does it, because holy shit, but still - the idea itself is sound, because it really does mean you have a wider range of monsters to choose from for your "chaff."

Anyway, as for monster roles, there are a lot of similarities between your two designations, which is really not surprising. There are only so many unique viable monster design patterns, and at the end of the day the only real questions are "how granular do you want to be?" and "what do you want to call these things?"

Fighter <-> Basic Opponent

Brute <-> Avoidable Threat

Ravager <-> Fragile Threat

Harrier <-> Evasive Menace

Lurker <-> Hidden Menace

Blaster <-> Kiting Menace

Controller <-> Controller

Leader <-> ???

A runner is just a harrier doing something harriers are good at. It really does not need to be its own role. The absence of a buffer is noteworthy, but leader can actually be folded neatly into controller. Which can in turn be folded into blaster. Is it weird to call an orc warlord who makes orc warriors hit harder a blaster? Yes. Do the two roles put the same basic tactical demand on the PC's (be able to kill or disable a ranged combatant or else experience large amounts of hurt)? Pretty much. I would certainly keep them separate, just for the sake of not making people go "huh", but they're basically two problems with the same solution - which suggests maybe they're not really two different tactical problems at all.

[Grek]

Frank: I can accept that, as long as the mass combat system (or any part of the system, really) covers the PCs vs the army of ninjas sent to kidnap them in an adequate fashion. Each individual ninja isn't supposed to be a threat, but there's a real question as to whether the PCs will escape or not.

DSM: Blasters are just ranged Ravagers. High offense, low defense, best practice is to focus fire on them round one. That makes them a Fragile Threat, not a Kiting Menace. The idea behind a Menace is that it has weak offense, but is difficult to get rid of.

I don't believe in buffing as a separate monster role. All buffing is just a specialized form of either offense or control and needs to be counted accordingly. If the Orc Warlord is making the orcs stronger or tougher, it's a Fragile Threat. If it's making them use non-stupid tactics, it's a Protector Controller. If it calls in reinforcements, it's an Alarm Runner.

Runners are distinct from Harriers in that Runners are defined by something bad happening if they can disengage from combat, while Harriers are defined by being difficult to disengage from. Consider the Ethereal Filcher vs the Ethereal Marauder. Both are Medium Sized, CR 3 monsters with Ethereal Jaunt. When the Marauder fucks off to Ethereal and never comes back, you win. That's exactly what you wanted it to do. If the Filcher fucks off to Ethereal and never comes back, you lose. It has what it stole and now you're never getting any of it back. That's the difference.

[DSMatticus]

In Frank's paradigm, harriers are monsters that disengage of their own volition all the time. A monster which is difficult to disengage from would probably be a lurker, though honestly "you're stuck fighting me" abilities wouldn't be out of place on some of the other roles he described, and not all lurkers would need abilities which made them difficult to disengage from. Frank even mentioned encouraging harriers to disengage with abilities which recharge if they can catch a moment to regroup/reprepare/whatever, which is literally "something bad happening if they can disengage from combat."

But as for runners, you're trying to write encounter triggers and plot contrivances into a monster role, which is kind of absurd. What, are you going to give an orc runner the ability to summon 1d4 orcs out of thin air if players lose line of sight to them for one whole round? If there are orcs nearby, are you going to prevent non-runners from alerting them because they don't have the proper abilities to do so? Of course not. In reality, the DM (or the module) are going to slap a bunch of orcs down in various places and if something alerts those orcs they'll join the combat - and if the DM (or the module) wants alerting additional orcs to be a specific threat the PC's have to deal with they'll add something fast and/or evasive to the encounter whose job is to do exactly that. I cannot see any way to distinguish a harrier from a runner that isn't also just a bad ability which shouldn't be written.

[spongeknight]

What, are you going to give an orc runner the ability to summon 1d4 orcs out of thin air if players lose line of sight to them for one whole round?

You present this as an absurd position, but it's not. Summoning spells in D&D currently take a full round action. If an orc in question has the magical ability to summon 1d4 "spirit orcs" or "ancestral guardian orcs" or even just "literally transport other orcs to the area," having him not commit to the full round cannot-move summoning spell while in sight of the threats makes sense. So the orc runs, and if the PCs let him run he gets his summoning spell off in safety and comes back with reinforcements.

Having an orc summoner is no more absurd than an orc fire mage or whatever.

[DSMatticus]

What, are you going to give an orc runner the ability to summon 1d4 orcs out of thin air if players lose line of sight to them for one whole round?

You present this as an absurd position, but it's not. Summoning spells in D&D currently take a full round action. If an orc in question has the magical ability to summon 1d4 "spirit orcs" or "ancestral guardian orcs" or even just "literally transport other orcs to the area," having him not commit to the full round cannot-move summoning spell while in sight of the threats makes sense. So the orc runs, and if the PCs let him run he gets his summoning spell off in safety and comes back with reinforcements.

Having an orc summoner is no more absurd than an orc fire mage or whatever.

You should note that the monster role is runner, specifically "alarm runner" in this case, and not summoner.

Really not helpful.

[codeGlaze]

It seems to me that Grek's roles are a good fit as encounter-design roles. Slots that you would fill it with monsters designed from Frank's monster classes / rolls.

[hyzmarca]

In Frank's paradigm, harriers are monsters that disengage of their own volition all the time. A monster which is difficult to disengage from would probably be a lurker, though honestly "you're stuck fighting me" abilities wouldn't be out of place on some of the other roles he described, and not all lurkers would need abilities which made them difficult to disengage from. Frank even mentioned encouraging harriers to disengage with abilities which recharge if they can catch a moment to regroup/reprepare/whatever, which is literally "something bad happening if they can disengage from combat."

But as for runners, you're trying to write encounter triggers and plot contrivances into a monster role, which is kind of absurd. What, are you going to give an orc runner the ability to summon 1d4 orcs out of thin air if players lose line of sight to them for one whole round? If there are orcs nearby, are you going to prevent non-runners from alerting them because they don't have the proper abilities to do so? Of course not. In reality, the DM (or the module) are going to slap a bunch of orcs down in various places and if something alerts those orcs they'll join the combat - and if the DM (or the module) wants alerting additional orcs to be a specific threat the PC's have to deal with they'll add something fast and/or evasive to the encounter whose job is to do exactly that. I cannot see any way to distinguish a harrier from a runner that isn't also just a bad ability which shouldn't be written.

Runners are distinguished from Harriers not by what they have, but by what they don't have. A runner performs a single specialized function. As such, he sacrifices offense and defense in exchange for overland speed. He is, essentially, a non-com whose job is to deliver messages, which requires fast movement, but doesn't require the ability to kill things or take hits. As such, if you catch the runner, the runner is screwed.

Harriers, on the other hand, are going to be well armed. Their MO is to surprise attack, hit hard, and retreat before you can counterattack.

[nockermensch]

Anyway, for Lizardfolk you could obviously write them up as a PC with levels of Assassin or Paladin or something. And that would be fine. But also probably more work than you want to do for Lizardman Archer #3. They could also take Monster classes, which are intended to make them as powerful as one of the level appropriate monsters in an encounter rather than fully the equal of a Player Character.

And what happens when a player convinces a lizardfolk (or a mind flayer, or a succubus) to join Team PC? Does the monster balanced to be a threat gets immediately substituted by the monster balanced to be a henchman?

How would you deal with this?

[Schleiermacher]

Runners are distinguished from Harriers not by what they have, but by what they don't have. A runner performs a single specialized function. As such, he sacrifices offense and defense in exchange for overland speed. He is, essentially, a non-com whose job is to deliver messages, which requires fast movement, but doesn't require the ability to kill things or take hits. As such, if you catch the runner, the runner is screwed.

Harriers, on the other hand, are going to be well armed. Their MO is to surprise attack, hit hard, and retreat before you can counterattack.

So how many monsters like that are there in D&D, for it to be a class or "role"? Because I can't think of any. Closest I can think of is an imp, but even that is a monster in its own right, just a low-level one, and not just a glorified messenger pigeon.

[Schleiermacher]

And what happens when a player convinces a lizardfolk (or a mind flayer, or a succubus) to join Team PC? Does the monster balanced to be a threat gets immediately substituted by the monster balanced to be a henchman?

How would you deal with this?

That's easy as long as monsters use the same rules as PCs (as opposed to something like 4e). The monster balanced to be a threat at level X is also balanced to be a henchman of level X for whenever it's appropriate to have a henchman of that level. The difference isn't in threat level but in complexity and versatility. (As in, monsters are easier to run and usually less well rounded.)

This might cause issues when you get a monster like a Golem or a Giant Scorpion on your team which poses a very extreme tactical problem (either you fight it on your terms and it's easy, or on its terms and it wrecks face) but broadly it will work fine, if you design monster abilities with an eye toward their setting implications (e.g no Wraiths that turn the civilized world into a lifeless wraithpocalypse with unlimited spawn creation).

[PhoneLobster]

And what happens when a player convinces a lizardfolk (or a mind flayer, or a succubus) to join Team PC? Does the monster balanced to be a threat gets immediately substituted by the monster balanced to be a henchman?

How would you deal with this?

Either the game breaks or it turns out the "difference" between monster and pc classes isn't all that different.

Or you do an actual switch out of the monster's character profile, that would be kinda ok but a) kinda not and b) not something that would fit in with the sorts of absolutist arguments the people who like the whole npc only monster classes have made here in the past.

I'd add that in addition to becoming a henchman on team PC it is also possible, and desirable, for any given monster henchman to become a full on PC for team PC.

Because, never fucking forget if your "newer better D&D" can't do a pretty fucking extensive range of monsters as PCs it fails one of the primary tests/goals that "newer better D&D" needs to pass. There are people who want to "nuh uh" that goal, because it hurts their pet design preferences, like monster only NPC classes, but without goals like that what the fuck HAVE you got?.

[OgreBattle]

Questions on Monster Class:
* Where do you draw the line between what is a Monster vs Player Class?
* PC's are built with race+Class, so the idea of monster class levels also sound like there will also be a LA0 Monster Race you stack the classes on top of. ex: An ogre and troll both have Brute levels, but one is of the giant race while the other is of the troll race or something
* Will PC's be able to take monster classes? 3rd edition showed that lots of people want to be able to level up into a dragon-man

----

Things that rustles my jimmies in 3.PF, 4e be...
*a house cat and angry chef can deal hitpoint damage with their claws/knives, but it takes a special class feature/trick/power/maneuver to inflict a "bleed" condition.

*a man kicking a housecat and a giant punting a human won't send the target flying unless they use a damage-lowering combat maneuver, or have a class feature/trick/power/maneuver

*I can swing a hammer at someone for hitpoint damage so they're another step closer to being dead, but they're also 100% capacity for actions next turn, OR I can declare a special maneuver that does less/no damage and actually hinder their actions but not make them closer to dead.

The root of these problems seems to come from D&D going with abstracted hitpoints and damage system, then tacking a bunch of the above on haphazardly. Either you stick with your hitpoint abstraction for the sake of things flowing quickly, or you should better integrate such effects into your game.

Some ways to do this are...

* Have a "big damage" threshold, like 1/4th of your max HP or your con score, if you take that much or more damage from target's attack you also suffer a debilitation like being pushed away/down, shaken, flat footed etc. so a giant can club you across the room and a rogue can halt your movement with a big stab without any special class/monster abilities.

*Have a threshold of success system. Ex: the warrior rolls +5 above what he needed to hit against the kobold he can trip/disarm/bullrush/blind/entangle/diddle/intimidate it as a free rider effect for the disparity in skill between the two combatants.

[Username17]

Anyway, for Lizardfolk you could obviously write them up as a PC with levels of Assassin or Paladin or something. And that would be fine. But also probably more work than you want to do for Lizardman Archer #3. They could also take Monster classes, which are intended to make them as powerful as one of the level appropriate monsters in an encounter rather than fully the equal of a Player Character.

And what happens when a player convinces a lizardfolk (or a mind flayer, or a succubus) to join Team PC? Does the monster balanced to be a threat gets immediately substituted by the monster balanced to be a henchman?

How would you deal with this?

Well, a Lizardfolk Assassin or Lizardfolk Paladin would be using PC rules already. If you wanted to play a Lizardfolk, you'd take the Lizardfolk package and take a PC class and move on with your life.

A Lizardfolk Blaster would be simplified and less powerful when compared with a player character, and that would presumably where you'd want Henchmen to live in the first place. So if you bribed some Lizardfolk archer or curse caster to help you fight the Octofiend, that should be pretty similar to when you hire some of the Elvish Guards to do the same. Except having plugged in the Lizardfolk package instead of the Elvish package.

Obviously, there's going to be some problems if the players convince a more powerful enemy to become an ally. Like, if the player characters give a friendship speech and convert a genuine boss monster like a dragon, demon lord, or vampire count to team player, that's a problem. But the problem is that you now have someone on team player who is clearly overshadowing the protagonists, not that the rules suddenly stop working when a dragon stops being on team monster and starts being a big penis helpful NPC.

So how many monsters like that are there in D&D, for it to be a class or "role"? Because I can't think of any. Closest I can think of is an imp, but even that is a monster in its own right, just a low-level one, and not just a glorified messenger pigeon.

Monsters whose purpose is to try to escape with treasure or alert other enemies before they are killed is actually a venerable part of fantasy RPGs. From the Metal Slime to the Shrieker.

However, in general that's not a good monster role. That's an encounter provision. Shriekers don't work without random encounters, and random encounters in any kind of sane adventuring environment don't make a lot of sense. Having guards who will run off and alert other guards rather than stand and fight is reasonable, but that is a question of encounter design and adventure design - not of monster character sheets.

The concept of the Runner monster class is way too video gamey. I don't like it.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

Some ways to do this are...

* Have a "big damage" threshold, like 1/4th of your max HP or your con score, if you take that much or more damage from target's attack you also suffer a debilitation like being pushed away/down, shaken, flat footed etc. so a giant can club you across the room and a rogue can halt your movement with a big stab without any special class/monster abilities.

*Have a threshold of success system. Ex: the warrior rolls +5 above what he needed to hit against the kobold he can trip/disarm/bullrush/blind/entangle/diddle/intimidate it as a free rider effect for the disparity in skill between the two combatants.

These seem attractive.

Also, anyone rolling 10 or higher than a save DC requires should be able to avoid any extra effects entirely.

[Schleiermacher]

Monsters whose purpose is to try to escape with treasure or alert other enemies before they are killed is actually a venerable part of fantasy RPGs. From the Metal Slime to the Shrieker.

However, in general that's not a good monster role. That's an encounter provision. Shriekers don't work without random encounters, and random encounters in any kind of sane adventuring environment don't make a lot of sense. Having guards who will run off and alert other guards rather than stand and fight is reasonable, but that is a question of encounter design and adventure design - not of monster character sheets.

The concept of the Runner monster class is way too video gamey. I don't like it.

-Username17

This is very true, but also, even if Runner were a monster class, Shriekers and Ethereal Filchers really shouldn't be the same class. The tactical problem is broadly similar but implemented in basically opposite ways -the monsters have nothing in common mechanically.

[Korwin]

Moving on to 3rd edition, that same usage pattern continued. So completely in fact that they created an Eldritch Knight PrC to mix and match Fighter and Wizard more effectively, but they never bothered to make a Priestly Knight that did that for Fighter/Clerics.

What? They did not? Could have fooled me.

But they had to do PRC for Fighter/Clerics because Base Class Paladin is shit.

[PhoneLobster]

If things are slowing down a bit I'd like to ask people a question that diverges from the OP somewhat taking the title in a slightly different direction.

I've asked this before and simply never got an answer, but it's actually a fairly major question.

The sorts of things discussed in the OP, and generally what the den discusses in general in the endless "Your/Our next edition D&D this time for sure" threads are often admirable, but also deeply unexciting goals that pretty much all boil down to "just suck less than the last (good) one by some incremental margin".

But in the end, is that really a good enough goal? Yeah yeah, incremental progress, but we've had a decade of going backwards calling itself incremental progress and fuck it claims to incremental progress ring hollow and bitter indeed. Do you really imagine a significant player base getting very excited by "the numbers are less bad in certain circumstances" and "the class line up is slightly different"?

People time and again give me shit for working with methodologies like "points based classless with no base attributes" and goals like "make social mechanics an actual thing", or "actually support monstrous player characters" and even "make base building a major part of the actual game". However for all that we get these endless pie in the sky threads I never seem to see anyone declaring any remotely comparable ambition.

Where the hell are your big new ideas? Where is all the significant new content? You are discussing a fantasy coup where you take control and alter D&D in any way you like... and the best you can do is "Hey maybe we should tweak feat bloat a bit? Which way and how much do you think?". Where are the ambitious ideas? What is the big unique new selling point for your fantasy editions that goes top of the list in your promotional blurbs?

Because at this point having skipped two and two halves of official D&D editions I expect fucking SOMETHING in the promotional blurb that isn't "Yeah, just D&D again, only maybe with a debug pass or two" if a new edition plans to draw me back to playing with official rules, and I sure as hell expect "some guy's home brew heartbreaker" to have SOMETHING unique and interesting in the promotional blurb to get me to play that sort of thing.

What the hell is your edition going to DO that prior editions haven't pretty much done close enough to the same a dozen times already?

[Schleiermacher]

Supporting monster player characters is actually not something you do with big, bold ambitious ideas - it's actually an emergent benefit of solving a bunch of boring mathy design problems including but not limited to multiclassing, monster roles and magic item paradigms.

If you want bold ideas though, there's long been a consensus that high-level D&D needs mass combat and kingdom management rules (and similarly, many people agree with you that a better social minigame would be a good thing). But the trouble with those is that they are really hard and most people have no idea where to even start because the obvious approaches have all proved to be dead ends in the past 30 years of game design.

[PhoneLobster]

Let me just shorten that for you to be more accurate for pretty much anything the majority of the den has ever had to say on the topic for fantasy next edition threads...

Supporting monster player characters is actually not something you do

Look "Stuff Is Hard" isn't an excuse, for a start it's worth the extra effort and second, threads like these only ask people about their fantasy edition.

And it's not like you seem to be accepting "it might take a few new ideas and some ACTUAL work" as an excuse considering you seem to think monster player characters is a trivially solved with what I can only guess is a jumbled description of Monster Classes (which are going to take, wow lots of work, what with them being a giant failure in every incarnation historical and hypothetical).

But I don't want to make a judgement about how hard it is to do what goal with what methodology. I just want to see these fantasies contain ANY bold new goals and revolutionary new methodologies.

You want to tell me your edition will totally support every remotely humanoid monster from the MM by means of (shitty) Monster Classes, well, sure it sounds unbelievable but I'm not actually hearing you or anyone else actually making that claim or anything remotely on that scale. Instead we get things like "fuck it even elves with wings are too hard people only get to maybe be re-textured cat humans instead".

So again, no judgments on your poor choices in goal or methodology, no consideration for how hard it is to do, what's the big cool thing your FANTASY edition does?

I want to see blurbs like "Create your own Custom Classes!" and I don't care, for now, if you add "Using our unique ouija board mechanic" on the end of it. I just want to see anyone demonstrate ANY ambition beyond "hey, lets just tweak the same 3.x edition skill ranks mechanics a bit and iron some kinks out... AGAIN... because it's not like anyone's tried THAT before...".

[Username17]

Supporting monster player characters is actually not something you do with big, bold ambitious ideas - it's actually an emergent benefit of solving a bunch of boring mathy design problems including but not limited to multiclassing, monster roles and magic item paradigms.

Pretty much this. Every version of D&D in the last sixteen years has allowed you to play some kind of monsters right out of the box. If a new edition won't let you play as an Orc or Goblin, it's not even worth my time to critique - but even 5th edition met that low hurdle.

There's going to be stuff the game will let you play, and stuff the game won't let you play. And the stuff you can't play will always be an infinite set, but as 4rries were always so quick to point out: there's always reskinning. The only question is how much reskinning you're going to have to do to do things people actually want. At the limit of maximum reskinning, there's always the 4e/FATE approach: you can play anything you want, as long as it's game mechanically indistinguishable from a Dwarven Adventurer named Carlos. The only question is how far down that road you're going to have to go.

There are monster races that are basically just Dwarves or Elves with slightly different setups. There's no reason at all that players shouldn't be able to just plug and play with Drow, Orcs, and Kobolds. Those "monsters" can and should just be available as regular first level player options so long as you remember to check the big list at the end of the book. But again: that's not a big idea, that's something that even the chucklefucks in charge of 4th and 5th edition managed to figure out.

There are monster races that basically humans but noticeably more powerful. The obvious examples are Vampries and Werewolves, which are literally Humans+. Making those playable takes a bit of work. Specifically you have to figure out some kind of currency for the player to buy their powers with. That could be XP, GP, Stat Points, FATE refresh, Levels, skill points, Feats, Enumerated Disadvantages, or my personal favorite for D&D-like games: Magic Item Slots. But it's important to note that none of those are a "big idea." It's just grueling accounting. You figure out what these powers are "worth" and then you find something that is "worth" the same and you make people do the trade if they want their character to be upgraded from "basically a human" to "basically a human with a supernatural powerset."

There are monster races that have powers that are not on the scale of characters at the low end of your playability scale. A Medusa's death gaze is better than other players' whole character at level 1. A Iron Golem's toughness is beyond anything a 1st or even 4th level character can do. Such characters are in principle no different from the humans with additional powers from the previous paragraph - with the additional caveat that they aren't playable until characters get powerful enough that they have enough available currency to pay for the monster's signature powers. In D&D that means level minimums, which isn't a particularly big idea and never has been.

There are monster races that are considerably less powerful than a human or a dwarf. In previous editions that might include Kobolds and Goblins. But Petals and Skeletons also fit the bill. These monsters are often presented as being simply lower level than a starting player character or built on less points or whatever. These creatures can be started at the same level as a normal player character and if their racial power package isn't up to what a human or orc is getting, they can jolly well get some bonus currency like feats or skill points or whatever to make up the difference. This is not difficult, and it's not a big idea.

And finally there are monsters that just don't make good adventurers at all. Monsters with roots, for example. Or monsters that lack opposable thumbs. There isn't exactly a power issue with you not being able to play a Green Slime puddle, but you still can't do it. That's not really the realm of big ideas or whatever, it actively makes the game worse for one of the players to insist on playing a fish or a sarcastic teapot or whatever. Such monsters as can't actually be mapped to a Dwarf Adventurer named Carlos in any way don't need rules for them because they shouldn't be player characters at all. Yes, it would be a "big idea" for us to all play ponies or inanimate objects or insubstantial gestalts of negative emotion or whatever, but it would also be a fucking stupid idea and we're better off with that door closed.

If you want bold ideas though, there's long been a consensus that high-level D&D needs mass combat and kingdom management rules (and similarly, many people agree with you that a better social minigame would be a good thing). But the trouble with those is that they are really hard and most people have no idea where to even start because the obvious approaches have all proved to be dead ends in the past 30 years of game design.

Yes. The addition of minigames that provide real value is something that requires big ideas. Because kingdom management and mass combat and shit are not things that basically work in D&D as-is. There isn't a number you can tweak or a tradeoff you can offer. Those parts of the game just don't work, and you need to make a new engine to handle them.

Now, I think that should be done. I don't think that a new edition should show its face without a kingdom management minigame at least as good as ACKS. But that's where your "big ideas" are going to have to go.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

Dwarven Adventurer named Carlos

"Carlos the Dwarf"

I see what you did there

[Mechalich]

Yes. The addition of minigames that provide real value is something that requires big ideas. Because kingdom management and mass combat and shit are not things that basically work in D&D as-is. There isn't a number you can tweak or a tradeoff you can offer. Those parts of the game just don't work, and you need to make a new engine to handle them.

You also need to make sure the primary adventuring engine doesn't render your kingdom management and mass combat engines and any other similar minigames irrelevant. Right now the game-breaking power of level 15+ characters means things like kingdoms and mass combat don't even really happen in D&D worlds, or if they do rapidly degenerate into a farce (as they do in some D&D novels, like Return of the Archwizards), and that's a problem.

D&D kingdom management and mass combat seem to be a thing that should matter mostly to characters in the level 10-15 range with the idea being that hitting level 10 means 'you are now a player in the great game' and surviving to level 15 means 'here's your crown.' That means that if level 15+ characters and monsters exist, and this being D&D means they need to, then they need to be somewhere else. The obvious answer is that they go play in all those other planes that D&D has access to and leave the peons on the prime material alone 99% of the time. 2e explicitly wrote the Druid progression in this fashion and I think the general idea makes sense. The trick is finding some inducement to move high-level characters out of the medieval fantasy sandbox and into the epic multiverse sandbox rather than simply having a fiat solution like Pathfinder Society does with its level cap.

[MisterDee]

I'm not sure you can have compatible rules for Kingdom Management High-level D&D, Multiverse Intrigue High-level D&D and Superpowered Murderhobos High-level D&D. The powers and rules that are needed for one render the others unplayable.

You could go back to a Basic Rules/Expert Rules model, except that you'd have a selection of "High-Level Rulesets" books, specifically stating they are mutually incompatible, to cover the various styles of high-level play (as a bonus, that's extra content to sell.)