Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Abbacabba 09-14-06, 04:23 PM	Is it just me or *can* levels come way to quick to PC's in terms of in game time? Its not that I really want to go back to 2nd edition where high levels took -years- of player time to acquire, but something just seems off about it. It seems that if "levels" were so easy to acquire then it should really shift the average NPC level's up quite abit. Am I missing something?
Androlphas 09-14-06, 05:07 PM	I haven't thought of it as much of a problem. However, my group can only get together about 1-2 times a month. If your group is playing weekend marathons (ah! the good ol' days) then I can see how advancement would be a little too quick. Personally, I have not been able to run a campaign past 6th level yet. Does advancement slow down past this level, or does it pretty much stay the same? In terms of game time, PCs see much more action than your average NPC so I don't think average NPC levels should match PCs, except when needed by a particular adventure. For a cliche example, take Lord of The Rings. Frodo's adventures couldn't have been more than a year in game time (or were they?). In any case, by the time he returned to the Shire, he was a very different person (gained a few levels) while the "NPCs" in the Shire pretty much stayed the same.
Stormbrand 09-14-06, 05:13 PM	So many fantasy stories are based around a character growing into the hero, and they do it very quickly. I like to have a character advance a little every couple of sessions, but will agree gaining a level every other session is a bit much. I would like to see a smaller gain where the character is still constantly improving.
Sulaco 09-14-06, 05:17 PM	Am I missing something? Yes. Not all games run at the same pace or the same timeline. Lets say two groups play for 21 sessions, each of them reaching an average party level of, say, 7 in that time. Group A is playing a massive epic dungeon crawl, group B is playing an RP-heavy game charting the course of a huge world-spanning war. Group A might only have gone through a few months of in-game time while group B may have gone through several years, or even decades, of in-game time. There is no right in-game rate of level acquisition cos levels are an entirely meta concept.
Lokiyn 09-14-06, 06:31 PM	although from a purely mechanical standpoint, assuming that the part yhas a method to heal themselves fully at the end of each day, they can (if they choose) gain 1 level every 4 days In game time promoting them to level 20 in a little under 3 months game time. (13.3 encounters per level of equal cr, 4 per day)
OravennasBrother 09-14-06, 06:42 PM	Am I missing something? NO, the game is DESIGNED around rapid advancement. In fact a party with properly managed resources can 'defeat' enough 'challenges' in a single GAME DAY to level, particularly if they choose their battles well and are in a 'challenge rich' environment. Note though that they do need a day or two of 'down time' to reflect on their experiences. Yes it does get really bizarre when a 16 year old tyro can turn into a hardened veteran within a single game month and be epic the next game month, but that was a design decision which WotC made. It is POSSIBLE to slow the advancement by invoking rule zero, but MANY players have become spoiled by the lightning rate and will balk - even going so far as to quote such hoary adages as "You can't DM without players."
DarkNick 09-14-06, 06:51 PM	although from a purely mechanical standpoint, assuming that the part yhas a method to heal themselves fully at the end of each day, they can (if they choose) gain 1 level every 4 days In game time promoting them to level 20 in a little under 3 months game time. (13.3 encounters per level of equal cr, 4 per day) ...either that or they get killed at some point... I don't really have an issue with the speed of level gains. It is like thinking that going up levels is unrealistically quick when you should be aware that going up levels is not realistic at all. One way of looking at is that if people are not challeneged then they don't grow. Heroes become heroes becasue they are faced with dificulties and have to step it up. Constant life and death challenges breed powerful people. Another way of looking at is the PCs are special in that they have the ability to become heoroic with relative ease, like they are born to it. From a pure player and DM perspective I like players being able to gain levels quickly. It feels like you are progressing or getting somewhere. If your not into building powerful characters then it should not matter one way or another as to how fast your character advances. Their motivations are probably the same, and their issues probably have not changed.
Schmendrick 09-14-06, 07:07 PM	I'm not usually one to bring up the whole "You can always Rule 0" argument, since everybody already knows this and presumably wouldn't be bringing it up on an Internet forum if it were that simple. That said, experience rewards and level gain are one of the relatively few places that the DMG goes out of its way to explicitly remind you of Rule 0; if you feel the characters are leveling too quickly, it says, reduce experience. If you want their advancement to be more rapid, increase it. It even includes the friendly reminder to be sure to adjust treasure accordingly so balancing doesn't get too weird. The RAW system levels characters every 13.3 "level appropriate" encounters, but it also effectively says, "feel absolutely free to change this if you want a faster or slower game."
Label 09-14-06, 08:20 PM	Whe I DM, I don't care for gaining XP. Instead of giving XP points, I give a "level up" at the end of the session or the small quest. With my group, we usually emphasis the role-play (we're all actors/actress and impro players) so I "give xp" for good role-play (which is always the case) but when we have some fights, we all love to kick some asses! so there's xp for fights too. So instead of calculating xp for each monster killed accorting to this and for that and blah blah blah I just assume that if the session/small quest was good enough (which is almost always the case) I just give a "level up". This make my campaings span from level 1 until some epic levels, according to my stories that leads very often to real epic tales.
DemonDavyJones 09-14-06, 08:43 PM	I am running my first real campaign next week, all my other DMing experiences were one-shot dungeon crawls and short published mini-campaigns. During those, rapid advancement was a good thing, but my story is long for this one and I don't want the characters to get too uber untill the end. So I asked the players beforehand "how do you feel about slow level-ups?" They were all fine with it, so I'm ignoring the XP table and simply giving out levels at important events, such as the end of a long, hard, trap-filled dungeon where the party pwned the boss at the end, or when they make it through a trial by fire in the army or some such. I personally believe levels should be given out arbitrarily, but I suppose that's a way for me to control powergamers :P . Please excuse any spelling errors I may have made. I've had a long day today.
Titan W 09-14-06, 09:30 PM	I'm about the same, some games it's nice to have higher levels faster and other people wand to play games through things like the Iliad and Odyssey or Beowulf where the levels are distributed across a long period (and may over several years in-game reach levels of 15-20 and maybe epic in even longer periods). I fit somewhere in between "getting to the next level" is only really important if I really want X bonus and then it's more important that I have a reason to gain X bonus before I want to hit the level where I gain it. So as a player I don't mind delayed levels (more time to role play out important advancements) and as a DM it depends on the campaign I'm running how long the in-game time is, if it's a Beowulf game than I might have them start at level 1 as very Young characters and they might not hit 17-20 until about 50 years of in-game time have expired, if it's a campaign of a shorter nature they might achieve that in 1 month or two. It really depends. (And any 11 year old who has a 1st PC class level is very strong for their age IMHO)
Abbacabba 09-14-06, 09:43 PM	although from a purely mechanical standpoint, assuming that the part yhas a method to heal themselves fully at the end of each day, they can (if they choose) gain 1 level every 4 days In game time promoting them to level 20 in a little under 3 months game time. (13.3 encounters per level of equal cr, 4 per day) Exactally my point.. Sorry I was light in details in the first post.. it was from work.. It seems odd that if PC's can blast from 1.2..3..4..20...EPIC in just a few short months then why is that CLR3/Adept5 healer in a big city not a CLR 15?? I mean just afew more weeks out in the wild and he would be *Much* more powerful. My main concern is NOT with PC advancement.. I love having my players advance and would expect them to raise concerns if I stunted them. I just want to know if anyone tries to adjust their worlds NPC's based on this information. I'm thinking of changing my campaing world to fit this in... that some people have some special quality that lets them accend to these level.s
toddfrazie 09-14-06, 09:46 PM	The way I've come to see it, an adventurer gains more "experience" in a month of his life, than he's earned the hundreds of months he spends in between. I understand this, though. think of a soldier (real world talk:D , sorry) He is recruited and trained and spends years working out, preparing. Then the day comes when he accually faces his enemy. Then he really starts to learn. Everything else is fodder compaired to the lessons you learn with some crazy bastard swinging an axe at your face. So the speed of learning, to me, is justified. As for the others. Those NPCs who stand around doing guard duty stuff all day. There lucky to be level 3. Thats just cause they dont see the action that the guys who pursue a warlock to his tower, face the horrors within, and take down a man who could initially take their lives with a simple utterance. Theres my 2 cents ;) Hope it helps.
devinmdp 09-14-06, 10:06 PM	I agree that levels are gained way too quickly. It simply makes no sense if you are trying to design a logical campaign world, why the PCs can go from 1st to 20th level in, say, 6 months of campaign time, but all of the other buggers out there advance at rates exponentially slower. The problem, IMO, stems from two sources: 1. 3.X edition XP is simply too fast. I cut it by 1/2 in my world. 2. PCs adventure way too much to make any sesne whatsoever. #2 is really a pet peeve of mine. The idea of a professional adventurer is bordering on ludicrous to begin with, but even mercenaries in the real world spend most of their time sitting around doing nothing. Most campaigns I know of have PCs adventuring constantly. Not only does this result in too fast advancement, but it is unrealistic that a person or persons could immerse themselves into tense life or death situations full of exertion and, lest we forget, immense pain from wounds, and not have to take a lot of time off to mentally rest and recouperate from such traumatic events. Even soldiers in a war need constant R&R and eventually suffer burnout or mental fatigue. In my campaigns, I encourage the PCs to not be professional adventurers, but to have an actual life that gets punctuated or interrupted by adventures. Not the other way around. This type of set up can be easily implemented if the DM takes the time to work out with the players ahead of time a common thread for the PCs. One reason so many campaigns are comprised of professional adventurers is because the PCs really have no reason to hang together except for adventuring. Ergo, to keep the party together requires adventuring. Also in my campaigns, I enforce "vacations". Sometimes a year or two in length, one time as much as 5 years. These vacations are usually a single gaming session or two, and I have the PCs email me ahead of time what their PCs will do during this vacation. They cannot engage in any "adventuring". They can do things however. They can try to find a mate, open a business, train for a PrC, travel the world, get a job, guard caravans, etc. It's a time for roleplaying and a time for the world to essentially catch up to the PCs. In my current campaign, the PCs were all hired as employees of a Merchant House (i.e. guild). They all have jobs there and are assumed to be doing these jobs until an adventure rears its ugly head. From the players' point of view, these adventures happen every gaming session. But from the PCs' point of view, these adventures happen only occasionally. Enough time passes that PCs can marry, have children, raise them, and even take them as cohorts. The Merchant House PCs are in their 12th year of the campaign, and they are between 10th and 8th level. That's still, in my world, a fairly intense rise in level, but at least it sustains believability and credibility. http://home.earthlink.net/~devinc/therra3timeline.htm Devin
Lord_Varos 09-14-06, 10:30 PM	Yeah, I have down-time for the PCs as well. They spend most of their time not on any sort of quest. However, this is boring to describe and to partake in, so it's glossed over for fun's sake. But the everyday life of an adventurer is a fun roleplaying opportunity in itself. I had a Hexblade run to the market from the group's stronghold (a house in the poor district, actually) for bread, and it took nearly an hour. Commoners and merchants kept stopping and praising his adventuring skills and thanking him for doing whatever quest he'd done previously.
Label 09-14-06, 11:03 PM	I just want to know if anyone tries to adjust their worlds NPC's based on this information. In my case : yes of course! When PC meet an NPC I always does this according to their level.
GreyLord 09-15-06, 02:10 AM	To the original question...that depends. Our group just played Fane of the Drow, and perhaps it's just the way we played it, or how we did things, but it took us a month to get through everything, and in the end, only gained one level (some might consider that fast, others slow...but that equals around 12 levels a year at that point). That was using the default experience levels. However, if that seems to fast to you there are other options...which can be extropolated from UA. In UA near the end is an alternate XP system, and if you keep CR XP the same (instead of using their solo XP they suggest) but at the same time use the alternate XP table they provide...you'll find Levelling up past level 10 will take ALOT longer (100,000 to 1,000,000 XP for levels at higher levels on up...sooooo just imagine how long that will take). UA is a great resource, and you can take or leave what you want from it and add it too your campaign, without stretching the rule 0 toooo much for homerules...though still just a wee bit to whatever accomodates you.
Yalius 09-15-06, 04:20 AM	Be warned, the following will easily identify me as a stick-in-the-mud fogey. I know my views are not mainstream and will be viewed as warped by many. I think it should take perhaps 25 years in game to reach 20th level, maybe upwards of, say, 300 sessions. A player who started around a character around the year 2000 or so at first level should be just around level 20 or so, if the game sessions were run roughly once a week, 4-8 hours a week. I genuinely believe in slow advancement, maybe hitting 6-8th level in a year's time, drastically slowing after that. Honestly, how many youthful, precocious 20th level wizards or clerics can you take seriously? Experienced, successful characters should be that way because they've actually seen and done something with their lives, not just the equivalent of taking a year off between high school and college.
Yaeri 09-15-06, 08:14 AM	Yes. Not all games run at the same pace or the same timeline. What Sulaco said. Plus, the pace at which XP is gained is completely up to the DM. Right now our characters are levelling up about once every session. The next time I DM a new set of characters, XP might be cut in half (for example) and characters will level only half as fast. And that's not even a houserule. It's all in the dungeon master's guide.
razorboy 09-15-06, 10:31 AM	Is the typical rate of levelling realistic? No. But is it fun? Yes! If players know that every two or three sessions (or even each sessions at low levels) they can level and enjoy their new talents, it gives them something to look forward to. Levelling can be as much of a metagame incentive to get into trouble and adventures as loot, or in-game story. Sure, the rate of levelling is higher than in other editions and it might pander to the "instant gratification" mindset, but consider that there are a lot more character options available to players in the Third Edition than in previous editions, so they have a lot more to gain and look forward to by levelling. P.S. Not to bash the previous editions (I've had many a fun time), but the most boring campaign I've ever played in was a First Edition D&D game which laster over a year and we levelled once. It was the worst most boring, unfulfilling waste of time game ever, but at the time it was the only game in the area.
babysamurai 09-15-06, 10:38 AM	P.S. Not to bash the previous editions (I've had many a fun time), but the most boring campaign I've ever played in was a First Edition D&D game which laster over a year and we levelled once. It was the worst most boring, unfulfilling waste of time game ever, but at the time it was the only game in the area. I know it’s within the rules, but I can’t stand DM’s that only give out XP at the end of an “adventure”. Well, who’s to say when one adventure ends and another begins? They often bleed into each other. I always give my players XP at the end of every session.
Sulaco 09-15-06, 01:19 PM	It seems odd that if PC's can blast from 1.2..3..4..20...EPIC in just a few short months then why is that CLR3/Adept5 healer in a big city not a CLR 15?? I mean just afew more weeks out in the wild and he would be *Much* more powerful. Cos most NPCs aren't adventurers. That CLR3/Adept5 healer in a big city has probably never gone adventuring in his whole life and is not focused on rapid advancement, monster slying, or treasure acquisition. PCs/adventurers are a special case.
Abbacabba 09-15-06, 01:22 PM	Cos most NPCs aren't adventurers. That CLR3/Adept5 healer in a big city has probably never gone adventuring in his whole life and is not focused on rapid advancement, monster slying, or treasure acquisition. PCs/adventurers are a special case. My issue with this: A man dedicates 30+ years in service of his diety.. .in return he is a 3rd level cleric... He sees a young man.. ~18 show devotion to the same god, but has little talent(1st level)... he heads off for half a year and comes back (now 18 1/2 years old) having holy abilities so far beyond him its almost unthinkable. If the old(er) man was you... wouldn't you decide that afew weeks destroying evil might be worth it? The only reason I see this as being higly plausable is because we see this every day in real live with our jobs.. Say you worked at McDonalds for 20 years, your a really great burger maker and know the store business in and out... but your just not manager material for some reason.. Now some fresh young lad walks in and after a week gets to go to some -special training school- in afew months he comes back and tells you he owns the store and has unreal wealth in the millions of dollars. I'm willing to bet you would greatly consider heading off for this "training" yourself.
Sulaco 09-15-06, 01:24 PM	What Sulaco said. Plus, the pace at which XP is gained is completely up to the DM. Right now our characters are levelling up about once every session. The next time I DM a new set of characters, XP might be cut in half (for example) and characters will level only half as fast. And that's not even a houserule. It's all in the dungeon master's guide. Another factor to cinsider is how foten your group is able to meet. Between work, family and other responsibilities we're lucky if we can get together once a month. Level up every 13.3 encounters might mean we only level up twice a year! That is just not enough. I really don't want to wait 40 years to reach Epic level. I am actually going to be accelerating the pace of level acquisition quite substantially in my game to offset this, with the PCs levelling up probably once every two sessions.
Sulaco 09-15-06, 01:33 PM	A man dedicates 30+ years in service of his diety.. .in return he is a 3rd level cleric... He sees a young man.. ~18 show devotion to the same god, but has little talent(1st level)... he heads off for half a year and comes back (now 18 1/2 years old) having holy abilities so far beyond him its almost unthinkable. If the old(er) man was you... wouldn't you decide that afew weeks destroying evil might be worth it? Yup, but I'm not an NPC. The game exists for the PCs, not the NPCs. In real-life killing people and stealing treasure doesn't make me a better priest, architect, dancer or fry cook, but in D&D they do. The whole XP system is not designed around people living normla lives slowly getting better at what they do, it is designed around heavily-armed halfwits storming around the countryside killing monsters and take their stuff. Like I said, adventurers are a special case. They essentially bend the laws of narrative casuality around themselves. It is one of the perks of being a protagonist.
Zersch 09-15-06, 02:25 PM	In real-life killing people and stealing treasure doesn't make me a better priest, architect, dancer or fry cook, but in D&D they do. The whole XP system is not designed around people living normla lives slowly getting better at what they do, it is designed around heavily-armed halfwits storming around the countryside killing monsters and take their stuff. As much as I would love to disagree with this statement, he does have the right of it, as the rules are written. In almost every setting there is some type of justification as to why there is an 'adventuring profession'. Now granted, these professionals are not all made the same, that's where the different classes come into it. So, to continue Sulaco's example, and expand upon it, that's why there are lightly armored halfwits sneaking around the countryside, and robed halfwits casting spells around the countryside. They are out there taking the chances that others do not, or choose not to (NPC's). And while they may advance quickly, their life-expectancy is relatively low in comparison to those that do not adventure. Now, with your scenario of the aging, long-lived 3rd level cleric, as opposed to the brash 18 year-old cleric who gains tremendous powers... Yes I agree it seems unbalanced, and it may well be, but the 18 year-old is still going to be be held to the chain of command. Simply for the fact that his deity has granted him significant powers, doesn't mean that he can ignore anything told to him by an elder of the religion. Such affrontery would get his powers stripped from him quickly. The PC's may be the protaganists, but that doesn't mean that they are the only living, sentient creatures in the world. They too have to answer to people.
Jhaelen 09-15-06, 02:41 PM	Is it just me or *can* levels come way to quick to PC's in terms of in game time? Its not that I really want to go back to 2nd edition where high levels took -years- of player time to acquire, but something just seems off about it.Yes, characters can level very quickly in D&D 3.5. But I definitely prefer it that way. In older editions it was practically impossible to advance much higher than about level 10 without awarding ridiculous amounts of story xp. However, it depends on the frequency the characters go adventuring. In my campaign that's 1-4 adventures per year, the rest is downtime. Since typically one level is gained per adventure it would take a character at least 5 years to get to level 20, assuming she's never killed in this time (extremely unlikely, in my experience). Incidentally, since our gaming group can typically only meet about once a month and playing one adventure takes us an average of three sessions, real time and game time are almost identical :) IMHO, there's one thing that's completely off with the D&D rules, though: The recommended values for determining random wilderness encounters. E.g. with a 1 in 8 chance of an encounter per hour you get an average of 3 encounters per day. Even if many of those are with friendly or neutral creatures after about a week of traveling (i.e. 21 encounters) the whole party would advance a level! That's strikes me as somewhat silly.
molten_dragon 09-15-06, 02:58 PM	As far as in-game time goes, it kind of depends on the DM. I've played in some games where we would only go on 2-3 adventures per year of game time, and others where the entire campaign (8 months out of game) took place in 2 months of game time. As far as out of game time, I've noticed that leveling tends to slow down as the PC's get higher level. I think it's because higher level characters have more options to them, and this slows down combat some, so not as much gets done each adventure.
Schmendrick 09-15-06, 03:01 PM	I think the main issue here is in ingame time vs. real time. Wizards designed the current system to level players every several sessions, because that's what's appealing to most players; most players want to keep advancing their characters -- especially with the mechanical focus the d20 rules seem to encourage. The problem is that in-game time often passes much, much slower, primarily because a 1-minute long combat (which is rather long itself) might take the better part of a single session. If you game once a week and average 1.5 encounters a session, then leveling might occur only every few months -- which gamers may not have the patience for. But even if the PCs do only level every few months, those 10 sessions might only represent 10 days in game-time, which most will agree is rather ridiculous. The divorce between in-game time and real time can be pretty intense, especially if the campaign doesn't include, or allow for, months of downtime. Personally, I'm a proponent of the "assign XP at the end of an adventure" -- or, at least, whenever the next time the PCs have time for R&R (& training). XP comes from encounters; levels come from the downtime used to digest those experiences.
elondir 09-15-06, 03:26 PM	Be warned, the following will easily identify me as a stick-in-the-mud fogey. I know my views are not mainstream and will be viewed as warped by many. I think it should take perhaps 25 years in game to reach 20th level, maybe upwards of, say, 300 sessions. A player who started around a character around the year 2000 or so at first level should be just around level 20 or so, if the game sessions were run roughly once a week, 4-8 hours a week. I genuinely believe in slow advancement, maybe hitting 6-8th level in a year's time, drastically slowing after that. Honestly, how many youthful, precocious 20th level wizards or clerics can you take seriously? Experienced, successful characters should be that way because they've actually seen and done something with their lives, not just the equivalent of taking a year off between high school and college. Jeez! It's going to be 2014 and 108 monthly game sessions for my Living Greyhawk character to reach level 16! I don't want to wait around another 15 years! By then I'll be 45 years old and who knows what edition of D&D will be out. I actually think that advancement is too slow, at least considering the four hours a month that I get to play. Personally, I think one level per 16 hours of playing (RW time not In-Game time) would be preferrable to the current LG average of one level per 24 hours of playing (or about six to eight months per level). Oh, also, in game time, each session is a single week of game time, so time is flowing four times faster in Veluna than it is here on Earth. That means my character will only age about two years of adventuring for 16th level, although I think that the LG rules might make him age every RW year too.
HamHam 09-15-06, 03:41 PM	I certainly understand the feeling of characters leveling too fast in respect to their in-game time (esepcially Elves. Since Elf and Human PCs level at the same rate, shouldn't all the 200+ year old Elves be Epic and stuff?). The best solution, I think, is having down time. For each adventure they have (and gain 2-3 levels from) they might spend a couple months or years without really finding anything as interesting. This also scales with level: a lv 15 party is going to have to look far and wide to find things worth fighting in your typical game world. Out of game, the year your character spent farming between saving his village from Goblins and getting kidnapped by Mind-Flayers should be a matter of a few minutes description. However, it can add a lot of realism to the world.
Mikal 09-15-06, 04:31 PM	. Honestly, how many youthful, precocious 20th level wizards or clerics can you take seriously? Experienced, successful characters should be that way because they've actually seen and done something with their lives, not just the equivalent of taking a year off between high school and college. Except that after cramming so much experience fighting evil (or good), how "youthful" and "precocious" will these people actually be? After all, to do as you've suggested (power leveling as best as possible) would be akin to a person taking a year off between high school and college to go fight in a war somewhere as a mercenary unit, where said group faces constant attacks (at least four per day, remember) with only one or two days off per day to "heal and rest up", without ANY outside support except what they can manage themselves. Now, to me, thats a little more extreme, and apt, then your slanted example. My issue with this: A man dedicates 30+ years in service of his diety.. .in return he is a 3rd level cleric... He sees a young man.. ~18 show devotion to the same god, but has little talent(1st level)... he heads off for half a year and comes back (now 18 1/2 years old) having holy abilities so far beyond him its almost unthinkable. If the old(er) man was you... wouldn't you decide that afew weeks destroying evil might be worth it? The only reason I see this as being higly plausable is because we see this every day in real live with our jobs.. Say you worked at McDonalds for 20 years, your a really great burger maker and know the store business in and out... but your just not manager material for some reason.. Now some fresh young lad walks in and after a week gets to go to some -special training school- in afew months he comes back and tells you he owns the store and has unreal wealth in the millions of dollars. I'm willing to bet you would greatly consider heading off for this "training" yourself. This also fits for the npc vs. pc argument. Yes, the adept/cleric COULD go adventure out in the wilderness. Yes, a priest COULD go out as a mercenary. But... why? There's a HIGH chance of death and you gain temporal power only if you survive. Risk vs. Reward. Most people don't want to take the Risk. For those who do (and SURVIVE), the rewards are quick in coming. Adventurers aren't people sitting at home learning through a school. Adventurers are people who go out and risk their lives in a daily basis. I certainly understand the feeling of characters leveling too fast in respect to their in-game time (esepcially Elves. Since Elf and Human PCs level at the same rate, shouldn't all the 200+ year old Elves be Epic and stuff?). No, because they havent spent that 200+years adventuring/risking their lives on a daily basis. The majority of those years is actually spent idiling the days away, or spending a year perfecting a painting, or some such elven nonesense, depending on the setting. The best solution, I think, is having down time. For each adventure they have (and gain 2-3 levels from) they might spend a couple months or years without really finding anything as interesting. This also scales with level: a lv 15 party is going to have to look far and wide to find things worth fighting in your typical game world. And interesting idea, but not a universal one. It's a false assumption to assume that there won't be threats always out there for an adventurer that would be 'worth their time' (mostly due to the fact you assume that the only reason adventures would adventure would BE to gain experience). As such, perhaps between long campaign arcs, MAYBE, but not through every few adventures.
HamHam 09-15-06, 04:49 PM	No, because they havent spent that 200+years adventuring/risking their lives on a daily basis. The majority of those years is actually spent idiling the days away, or spending a year perfecting a painting, or some such elven nonesense, depending on the setting. But won't that get them mundo Roleplaying experience rewards? And interesting idea, but not a universal one. It's a false assumption to assume that there won't be threats always out there for an adventurer that would be 'worth their time' (mostly due to the fact you assume that the only reason adventures would adventure would BE to gain experience). As such, perhaps between long campaign arcs, MAYBE, but not through every few adventures. How many CR 15+ things actually exist in the world? If you were to actually to run into these sorts of things on a regular basis they would have to be so common that the entire rest of the world would have been wiped out by them by now. You spend your time methodically wipping out clan after clan of kobolds and eventually there just aren't any more kobolds. If, wandering around the wilderness at lv 1, you ran into lv 1 stuff than if you kept wandering around at lv 10 you would still just run into lv 1 stuff.
Mikal 09-15-06, 04:57 PM	But won't that get them mundo Roleplaying experience rewards? Personally speaking... no. Mundane roleplay about how one spent 50 years perfecting their brush stroke does not equal roleplay awards. Any DM who actually did so in a game I was in would recieve The Look, and, suitably abashed, wouldn't be so cheesy again. How many CR 15+ things actually exist in the world? If you were to actually to run into these sorts of things on a regular basis they would have to be so common that the entire rest of the world would have been wiped out by them by now. Looking at the MM, and calculating at least 1000 or so per race (to sustain themselves as a race, barring undead), and also calculating the sheer number of say... outsiders/elementals/even high classed "base races", quite a few. You spend your time methodically wipping out clan after clan of kobolds and eventually there just aren't any more kobolds. Except that there could be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of kobolds. Yes, you COULD spend your life genociding them, but odds are they'll outproduce you, especially when they go to ground. That is... if you can FIND them all. Then there's the orcs, undead, golems, outsiders. Plus the mention of traps (which also count as obstacles for XP advancement. surviving a sprung trap counts for overcoming it) in crpyts. All these added together means you WON'T be cleaning the world out any time soon. If, wandering around the wilderness at lv 1, you ran into lv 1 stuff than if you kept wandering around at lv 10 you would still just run into lv 1 stuff. False assumption: The wilderness outside only has level 1 stuff. Second False Assumption: The wilderness outside has ANY level 1 stuff. You COULD be unfortunate enough to live outside the forest of Undead Wyrms, for an extreme example :p Even if it IS a forest of level 1 stuff, eventually you stop gaining XP from it. Around level say.. 4 or 5, IIRC (dont have my DMG handy to see when CR 1 stops giving XP to PCs)
OravennasBrother 09-15-06, 06:04 PM	Even if it IS a forest of level 1 stuff, eventually you stop gaining XP from it. Around level say.. 4 or 5, IIRC (dont have my DMG handy to see when CR 1 stops giving XP to PCs) An 8th level party still gets XP (although very little) for CR 1 opponents. 9th (or higher) gets no XP for CR 1. So yes it IS possible to get to 9th facing ONLY CR1 opposition. It might however be VERY Boring (unless the DM was exceptionally gifted)
Mikal 09-15-06, 06:06 PM	An 8th level party still gets XP (although very little) for CR 1 opponents. 9th (or higher) gets no XP for CR 1. So yes it IS possible to get to 9th facing ONLY CR1 opposition. It might however be VERY Boring (unless the DM was exceptionally gifted) Which still makes the point valid about the whole wandering the forest bit. Plus again, the high risk factor of DEATH by doing so. In other words the npc wont be able to just trapise through the forest, earn a few levels willy nilly, and come back for a pina colada.
GreyLord 09-15-06, 06:54 PM	My issue with this: A man dedicates 30+ years in service of his diety.. .in return he is a 3rd level cleric... He sees a young man.. ~18 show devotion to the same god, but has little talent(1st level)... he heads off for half a year and comes back (now 18 1/2 years old) having holy abilities so far beyond him its almost unthinkable. If the old(er) man was you... wouldn't you decide that afew weeks destroying evil might be worth it? The only reason I see this as being higly plausable is because we see this every day in real live with our jobs.. Say you worked at McDonalds for 20 years, your a really great burger maker and know the store business in and out... but your just not manager material for some reason.. Now some fresh young lad walks in and after a week gets to go to some -special training school- in afew months he comes back and tells you he owns the store and has unreal wealth in the millions of dollars. I'm willing to bet you would greatly consider heading off for this "training" yourself. Or just consider any company that invests in a young 18 year old over a 36-38 year old (someone who worked there for 20 years) and then sells their business to same kid...is a stupid business and will probably shortly go bankrupt and leave before it does... In reality, if a company is owned by an 18 year old theres a pretty good assurance that it will go bankrupt rather quickly, and if it doesn't, go under in the next five years...or if it is part of that .001% that doesn't do those, become a multibillion dollar company. Looking at the odds, if any company treated their experienced employees like that...either the employees decided already that they didn't care about advancement and the company knows that's the types they hire...or the all the folks have left it in favor of other jobs. No offense to 18 year olds intended of course. PS: Also of course, one must repeat the mantra D&D is fantasy, will never be reality, on this I hope we all agree.
Mikal 09-15-06, 07:05 PM	Or just consider any company that invests in a young 18 year old over a 36-38 year old (someone who worked there for 20 years) and then sells their business to same kid...is a stupid business and will probably shortly go bankrupt and leave before it does... Actually, no, thats a bit of a Strawman. A business wouldn't be sold to someone who didn't have the cash to buy it. A young person with such cash either has LOTS of ability or LOTS of backup to be able to help against any such backlash. And in general, that IS how businesses practice: Hire young kids over more experienced because they can then 'mold' them into what they like as a corporate ideal, as well as get more years out of them. They also save money on pensions. But this entire part of the debate is a digression. So... In reality, if a company is owned by an 18 year old theres a pretty good assurance that it will go bankrupt rather quickly, and if it doesn't, go under in the next five years...or if it is part of that .001% that doesn't do those, become a multibillion dollar company. Again, this has nothing to do with our discussion. We're not saying 'Put an 18 year old in charge of a business/temple/whatever.' We're saying that an 18 year old who's seen constant combat for a year or two that routienly puts their life in danger WONT be very childlike OR precoscious. Which you haven't been able to refute at all, yet. And again, if a business WAS to do this, they'd make sure the person was either qualified OR VERY rich. So yeah... let's see if theres anything of worth on the next point. Looking at the odds, if any company treated their experienced employees like that...either the employees decided already that they didn't care about advancement and the company knows that's the types they hire...or the all the folks have left it in favor of other jobs. No offense to 18 year olds intended of course. Except that offense is implied. And your entire argument itself is so full of holes a truck could drive through them. Lot's of strawmanning and goal post moving, if one even wanted to consider that your points had any validity whatsoever, which they might, teneously, if one stretched logic to its breaking point.
dizfactor 09-15-06, 08:55 PM	although from a purely mechanical standpoint, assuming that the part yhas a method to heal themselves fully at the end of each day, they can (if they choose) gain 1 level every 4 days In game time promoting them to level 20 in a little under 3 months game time. (13.3 encounters per level of equal cr, 4 per day) "If they choose?" No, they cannot. They only can if the DM chooses to put them in a situation where they have four, and exactly four, encounters of the appropriate CR level every day like clockwork for 3 months straight. I can't even possibly imagine someone being that terrible a DM. If, wandering around the wilderness at lv 1, you ran into lv 1 stuff than if you kept wandering around at lv 10 you would still just run into lv 1 stuff. Exactly. And if there does happen to be a CR 15 monster running around, you're no more likely to run into it at the appropriate level than you are to run into it at way too low a level. If a big nasty dragon wants to go shred a village, it doesn't wait politely until there's a PC of appropriate level waiting there to kill it, and when PCs increase in level, level-appropriate monsters don't just start popping up out of the woodwork on a regular basis.
Mikal 09-15-06, 08:56 PM	"If they choose?" No, they cannot. They only can if the DM chooses to put them in a situation where they have four, and exactly four, encounters of the appropriate CR level every day like clockwork for 3 months straight. I can't even possibly imagine someone being that terrible a DM. Hence why I chose the analogy of the insane mercenary group constantly being hounded day in and out.
Lokiyn 09-15-06, 09:13 PM	"If they choose?" No, they cannot. They only can if the DM chooses to put them in a situation where they have four, and exactly four, encounters of the appropriate CR level every day like clockwork for 3 months straight. Did i mention its a crazed rogue guild that uses traps (http://d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#sampleTraps) and forces the party of new recruits to run the gauntlet (http://d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#sampleTraps), accepting only the survivors (level 10)
Mikal 09-15-06, 09:17 PM	Did i mention its a crazed rogue guild that uses traps (http://d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#sampleTraps) and forces the party of new recruits to run the gauntlet (http://d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#sampleTraps), accepting only the survivors (level 10) So... its like the movie Saw. in which case the survivors are likely to be a little unhinged. Makes sense.
Lokiyn 09-15-06, 09:33 PM	So... its like the movie Saw. in which case the survivors are likely to be a little unhinged. Makes sense. Little Bit, You can tweak the Cr's a bit by increasing lethality while decreaseing search Dc and Disable Device DC to keep the survival rate up while keeping the Same Cr. Assuming a 50 % even after tweaking it for survival you are looking ar 512 applicants and 1 level 10 survivor. On the other hand he just survived the school of hard core, and you have litterally pulled out a level 10 character in 35 days, less if you assume that each rogue ,even taking 20, could clear a 10 x 10 room of traps in 80 min. Thus meaning in a 12 hour day could clear out 9 rooms (one trap apiece). Meaning 16 days to pull out one frazzeled one deadly mugger.
Mikal 09-15-06, 09:41 PM	Little Bit, You can tweak the Cr's a bit by increasing lethality while decreaseing search Dc and Disable Device DC to keep the survival rate up while keeping the Same Cr. Assuming a 50 % even after tweaking it for survival you are looking ar 512 applicants and 1 level 10 survivor. On the other hand he just survived the school of hard core, and you have litterally pulled out a level 10 character in 35 days, less if you assume that each rogue ,even taking 20, could clear a 10 x 10 room of traps in 80 min. Thus meaning in a 12 hour day could clear out 9 rooms (one trap apiece). Meaning 16 days to pull out one frazzeled one deadly mugger. Ok... so... it's like Saw. In any event, it makes sense. 1 person out of 512 (already somewhat exceptional people, as they have PC classes) surviving the most lethal brand of traps ever devised? Makes sense to me. If a person CAN survive that then they should have those abilities.
GreyLord 09-15-06, 09:51 PM	Actually, no, thats a bit of a Strawman. A business wouldn't be sold to someone who didn't have the cash to buy it. A young person with such cash either has LOTS of ability or LOTS of backup to be able to help against any such backlash. And in general, that IS how businesses practice: Hire young kids over more experienced because they can then 'mold' them into what they like as a corporate ideal, as well as get more years out of them. They also save money on pensions. But this entire part of the debate is a digression. So... Again, this has nothing to do with our discussion. We're not saying 'Put an 18 year old in charge of a business/temple/whatever.' We're saying that an 18 year old who's seen constant combat for a year or two that routienly puts their life in danger WONT be very childlike OR precoscious. Which you haven't been able to refute at all, yet. And again, if a business WAS to do this, they'd make sure the person was either qualified OR VERY rich. So yeah... let's see if theres anything of worth on the next point. Except that offense is implied. And your entire argument itself is so full of holes a truck could drive through them. Lot's of strawmanning and goal post moving, if one even wanted to consider that your points had any validity whatsoever, which they might, teneously, if one stretched logic to its breaking point. Well, I guess our multi-million dollar (closer to a billion but I digress) that I work for obviously must be off the beaten track as most of those I know and work with...as that just doesn't happen. We prefer those with college degrees anytime over those with highschool degrees (and normally anyone WITHOUT A COLLEGE degree is limited to lower tier jobs and will NEVER get a higher tier job being hired off the street...that's life). We also prefer those with experience in the field (and taking the example of an old man who has twenty years working in the office as opposed to a 20 year old kid that writes...well we might have the kid sign a contract, but we'll hire the old man...the kid is on his own to sink or swim with the contract, if we make money, well, depends on how much, but normally we like the 20 year old kid to go through an agent first...). AS far as the business model, you have 18 year olds start businesses and get businesses all the time, as you do with 19 and 20 year olds and over. Most businesses fail...and interestingly enough it seems higher amongst those started by the really young people (normally not high enough experience in the business market to realize what they are getting into I suppose). Hence, it's pretty simple. You have a few breakouts like Bill Gates, but normally the 18 year olds businesses flop. It's normal to have them have a couple flop whilst they gain experience, and then if they get lucky have a future one (normally they are in their twenties at least by that point, sometimes thirties, and sometimes even forties) suceed. Experience is always the better item along with a college degree. There is some hesitation to hire a 55 year old in an entry level job sometimes (though technically that's age discrimination, whilst basing it off of experience and degrees are not), due to items such as they might keel over, health insurance might be higher dependant on what their health condition is like, or they might have higher qualifications and just using the job as a holdover until they find a better one. But for higher tier jobs, if you think most companies are going to hire a young 18 year old, or even 20 year old that's gone off killing rabbits (or goblins or whatever you want to call it), they might get veteran status if they served in the armed forces, but even with that, though it puts them over others with similar experience, we're looking for that guy that stayed in the office and got in office experience with that degree and training. Years of experience actually go a LOOOONG way. That's why you normally see older people in the higher management instead of the 18 year olds, in case you were wondering. But I suppose you can dream. In some volatile markets it seems younger generations sometimes have a hand up on the older ones such as for some reason RPGs occasionally. But RPGs aren't really what I would call a booming business (no matter what Wizards would want some people to think). This is why D&D is a game and not reality. The two really shouldn't mix and be thought of on the same terms.
Mikal 09-15-06, 10:23 PM	Well, I guess our multi-million dollar (closer to a billion but I digress) that I work for obviously must be off the beaten track as most of those I know and work with...as that just doesn't happen.... long winded stuff that has no bearing on the actual debate nor corallates via analogy AGAIN: this is a tangent with no corallary to the actual discussion
Schmendrick 09-16-06, 02:00 AM	We prefer those with college degrees anytime over those with highschool degrees (and normally anyone WITHOUT A COLLEGE degree is limited to lower tier jobs and will NEVER get a higher tier job being hired off the street...that's life). That has more to do with HR CYA than reality. Especially in a large, multimillion dollar company.
someonelse812 09-16-06, 11:12 AM	Exactally my point.. Sorry I was light in details in the first post.. it was from work.. It seems odd that if PC's can blast from 1.2..3..4..20...EPIC in just a few short months then why is that CLR3/Adept5 healer in a big city not a CLR 15?? I mean just afew more weeks out in the wild and he would be *Much* more powerful. My main concern is NOT with PC advancement.. I love having my players advance and would expect them to raise concerns if I stunted them. I just want to know if anyone tries to adjust their worlds NPC's based on this information. I'm thinking of changing my campaing world to fit this in... that some people have some special quality that lets them accend to these level.s When I make NPCs I decide if its ok for the PCs to kill them or not. if not I give the NPC a good 10 levels above the party average. if they go into a tavern and try to pick a fight with some random drunken dwarf I use an NPC generator to come up with someone between lv1 and lv20. some lv4 PCs got beat up pretty bad one time when they messed with an elf they met in the tavern, he was a lv14 wizard. thats when they learned to choose their battles carefully.
Aaron L 09-17-06, 01:43 PM	I know that, as a player, I get rather displeased with the default rapidity of advancement. When youre gaining levels left and right, and go from a neophyte apprentice to a mighty Archmage in less than a game year, its just ridiculous, and all I can think is "why arent there Archmages all over the damn place if its so frikkin easy?" It messes with my suspension of disbelief, bigtime. Ive even gone out of my way to tell the DM "hey, lets slow down here. Maybe give us half or 3/4 XP from now on, so we spend more than 1 session at each level." Needless to say, the rest of the players in the group didnt approve of my suggestion. All they wanted were thier gimme gimmes right now and didnt consier tht good things come to those who wait. Instant gratification wins out over character development and good story yet again. The DM agreed with me, but we didnt want to make waves. While I understand that WotC did research and found that the normal campaign lasts a year, and they wanted to set the game up so that characters could make 20th level in that time, I really think it cheapens high levels. A lot. And destroys verisimilitude. When a PC Fighter can take up a sword one day and become a master in less than half a year, it shatters any kind of believability I had in that world. Seriously, why doesnt every damn guy out there on the street take a year off, pick up a sword, and go get rich and a few dozen levels if I can do it this flippin easy? Im not blaming WotC for giving people what they want. I am saying its kind of sad that its gotten to be that this is in fact what people want. While I do agree that the advancement in 1E/2E was too slow, I think it got taken in the wrong irection (standard tactic for fixing problems, Ive found - identify it, hit it with hammer, then hit it again until it has become just as much a problem in the opposite direction. Then forget about it until someone complains again. This is what happened with the spell save DC situation in the change from 3E to 3.5) So whenever I run a game, I silently and without telling anyone, snip 30% of the experience earned for every encounter right off the top, and no one knows the difference but me. No one complains, because they dont know they arent levelling "as fast as theyre suposed to" In fact, MY games seem to run longer than the other DMs games, because the players are enjoying thier characters more, (stopping to smell the roses, as they say) and they dont get bored with them so quickly when they arent getting everything they want right, and end up having time to actually appreciate what theyve got before they get stacked with a whole new set of abilities and goodies. A little self restraint really DOES make that reward a little sweeter when you deny it to yourself for a little bit. Anticipation shouldnt be overlooked, its the best seasoning. Not to mention that the characters end up much more well developed and fleshed out when they actully spend more than a session and a half at each level, and arent having to spend the end of every session picking new feats and spells and skills. If I notice that things seem a bit slow and people look like they are getting antsy, Ill bump up the XP rate a bit, not drastically enough to make anyone say "Hey!" but enough to get them a level quicker than usual. Some people might say why I use Xp at all then and dont just hand out levels. Well, I LIKE XP. Its something to write down on your sheet at the end of fights. Its a visual reminder that your character has grown more powerful, even if he hasnt levelled yet. Its something to get other than gold and jewels, its your characters self satisfaction and learning and, well... experience growing! And it isnt like Im arbitrarily handing out XP, Im still using all the formulas and CRs and ELs and everything, Im just slowing it down because I think the default levelling speed is waaaaay to fast for my taste. And even if the other people in my group think they like it that way, I know that they dont. So, my advice to you is to just take off a fraction of the Xp the book says the PCs get, and give them 2/3 to 3/4 XP, or even 1/2 of you really want to slow things down. The game will still be fun, I garauntee you. There are other things to get out of D&D than just increasing the numbers on your character sheet constantly. Maybe require a certain amount of time to elapse between levels gained. Now heck, dont get me wrong and think that Im against levelling or dont like high levels or something like that! Im a card carrying member of the Epic Level Fanboi club, with my 24th level gold elven fighter/wizard/bladesinger/eldritch knight firmly in one hand, and my 27th level elan psychic warrior/war mind in the other! But those levels are sooo much sweeter when it took you more than 8 months to get to 30th level, wouldnt you agree? Wow, what the hell happened? I just wrote a damn novel.
GreyLord 09-17-06, 04:19 PM	And Now I'm here to disgust you all. We've been playing a weekend campaign since Friday (I'm playing, but I wasn't the one who decided the rules, I'm one of those that actually like slower progression when I play or DM)....thrown out the rule that we have to train, and that it's typical of only one level per session (afterall, I get the impression half the people on the boards don't use those rules anyways...and we did want to do a massive campaign like this in 3.5 just for the kicks), and gone from first to twelth so far. Hoping to get past 20th by tomorrow morning. I suppose it's things like that which give 3.5 a bad name...but however people want to play, and I do admit it is sort of fun (but I think fun depends more on the DM many times than JUST the rules system). I currently have a Sorceror/Spellthief, but really haven't had the opportunity to use any of the spelltheif abilities, as we've fought more monsters than spellcasters, and I just got to the Spellthief level where I can actually absorb/steal spelllike abilities (If I understand the books right, first time playing a spellthief). I suppose next week I'll return to my normally scheduled campaign, but we decided to give this person a shot since they really wanted a chance to DM, not doing to bad of it, but I though it is kind of funny that I'm playing by thier rules on this type of thing and thought it somewhat ironic in light of this thread.
Aaron L 09-17-06, 04:27 PM	Actually, having to train to level up is just an optional rule anyway, Ive never seen a group that uses it, myself. And yurr absolutely right, its however people want to play. If all of you are having fun, then that is the ONLY thing that matters. Youre doing it right, the only wrong way to play the game is to not have fun doing it.
OravennasBrother 09-18-06, 09:57 AM	Actually, having to train to level up is just an optional rule anyway, Ive never seen a group that uses it, myself. The Ninja campaign I'm currently running requires LOTS of training - but it is paid for by the clan. Generally there is at least three months down time between missions, some of which is mundane spying (keep in place and keep your eyes and ears open) and some is training with a senior ninja. Even though it is kept "off screen" by giving a brief (50 words or less) synopsis of the intervening time, it adds immensely to the "believability" of the game as it then takes longer, in game, for the characters to advance.
Miratos 09-18-06, 03:10 PM	I find its tough to keep players together for more then a year, anymore, as we get older. It wasn't hard when we were younger, but things change, life happens. Some of us get tired of playing levels 1-12 eternally and just don't feel right about starting higher then 1st level. So, we usually use rapid levelling from 1 to 5 and 7-12 these days (yes, 6 happens at half pace to give everyone time to catch up with their abilities). I think the levelling advancement offered by 3.x is just fine and paced well. The older versions were definitely far too slow for people who have work, families, school, etc. mixed in. I am sure if people want heavy RP or don't like taking campaigns higher then 10th level, cutting the xp and slowing the advancement is definitely the thing to do (though, I wouldn't want to be in a campaign like that personally, since its super rare I get to play, I want to do stuff I don't get to do often). I've never been in a game or run one when anyone had to suspend their disbelief so much it hurt the game because the PC's were levelling to quickly. PC's are special, the game is for them and so some level of that is required. But, whatever the case, as long as everyone is having fun with the game, no matter the pace, thats what counts.
GreyLord 09-18-06, 04:36 PM	Well, here's something to make everyone really sick, though it still was fun. We ended the weekend exhausted, tired, and weary after the marathon gaming session. Our ending level... 22. Epic...yeppers! One weekend and we did it (with very little sleep, and a few breaks in which I browsed forums)... Wondering if we'll continue the characters on another weekend, but preferably not next one as this one STLL has left me exhausted after sleeping most of today!!! It got a little bit wierd at the end of the gaming as well I might add. However, seeing how WE DID do it in one weekend, I see how it really does reflect how much quicker leveling CAN be I suppose. Not normally my style, but it was fun for a weekend I guess. I also admit I powergamed a little... Succumbing to all the evils I normally stand against.
OravennasBrother 09-18-06, 05:53 PM	Our ending level... 22. Epic...yeppers! One weekend and we did it Yeah but now what do you do? I mean these are Epic Characters - they now are going to be on Earthshaking quests - no more simple rescue the villagers from Orc Raiders. Now you have to face Demons, Elder Dragons and Level enhanced GIants to get any tactical challenge. Or you have to go to new characters. I'm not sure which would be worse for anyone else, but I prefer low level play - past 5th too many things get odd.
geekling 09-18-06, 06:38 PM	It seems that if "levels" were so easy to acquire then it should really shift the average NPC level's up quite abit. Am I missing something? Now the way I see it is kind of the other way around. PCs simply are people that have the potential to become epic characters. Not everyone in the world does. - That'll be the majority of NPCs. It might be an unpopular thing to say in these days of PCness, but it's a bit like real life. Not everyone is born with the same potential. Not everyone could become an top athlete, nobel prize winner, world class operasinger, best selling novel writer etc. and so forth, no matter how hard they work at it. In the kind of situations that PCs tends to come up against, PCs are the ones that 'got the stuff' and are able to step up to the plate - so to speak. As for the time frame. Yeah well... it might not be completely realistic that characters goes from level one to eight in less than two months in game time (over a years worth of weekly sessions in real life.) But then again it's just a game, we are doing this to have fun, not to reflect reality. - If we did there would be a lot less of adventure and a lot more of bodily functions.
Ograbme 09-18-06, 07:40 PM	It is very easy to rapidly advance in skill if your training is accompanied by an upbeat '80s soundtrack. edit: Why did I post a copyright-violating website just a half hour after seeing another poster chewed out for doing the same?
GreyLord 09-19-06, 01:05 AM	Yeah but now what do you do? I mean these are Epic Characters - they now are going to be on Earthshaking quests - no more simple rescue the villagers from Orc Raiders. Now you have to face Demons, Elder Dragons and Level enhanced GIants to get any tactical challenge. Or you have to go to new characters. I'm not sure which would be worse for anyone else, but I prefer low level play - past 5th too many things get odd. True, true. NOw the game TRULY gets fun...eh? Of course in the last battle of the night, interestingly enough...3/4 of our party got swallowed whole in it... I suppose some of them might also be psychotic at this point because of that and other various things done near the end of the night. Could be a very interesting Epic! If we ever get around to it. :P
Voran 09-19-06, 07:31 AM	Being an adventurer means you've chosen a greater than normal activity cycle. You place yourself in risky situations actively, usually seeking things out rather than waiting for things to come to you. In a sense, I think it makes sense that if you manage to survive the lifestyle, you'll reap the benefits: levels, wealth, whatever much quicker than someone who doesn't intentionally seek out such things. The disconnect we see is that the mechanics of DnD or gamesystems in general, don't gel with what we see in movies and the like. On the SWRPG boards you have the equivalent of "I can beatup Drizzt" with "My char can whup Mace/Luke/Han/Fett/Vader cause their book stats suck". In the movies, it took Luke quite a bit of time to get from Fringer to Jedi, much less Jedi Knight/Master. In games, you can start off with you 18 year old (or younger) char, who ends up being archwizard ubersmasher in under a year or two. Compared to the NPCs that took what decades? Elf dudes taking centuries? But its something of a minor sideeffect that we all just sorta accept.
katarl 09-19-06, 12:12 PM	You lot are lucky, i'm in games where the (other) players insist on levelling up every session. Sometimes more. DMs like bribing players, and when the players are powergamers, then that reward trumps all else. It's the tool of the unskilled though.
Jhaelen 09-19-06, 05:29 PM	Well, here's something to make everyone really sick, though it still was fun. We ended the weekend exhausted, tired, and weary after the marathon gaming session. Our ending level... 22. Congratulations! Ages ago, we tried to do something like this using the original D&D system (the boxed sets). Unfortunately, the party got wiped pretty early on and we couldn't get ourselves to try it again from the beginning. This is something I always wonder about when I hear stories like this: How do you guys manage to keep your characters alive for that long? Did you really have any challenging or difficult encounters along the way? Did your DM actually try to play your opponents intelligently? Somehow, almost all the games I've played so far suffered from high mortality rates (my own campaign included). The exceptions were games with DMs that were easy to manipulate or didn't dare to use the full set of options available to our enemies (one of my personal 'favorites' was an encounter with a beholder that had a tendency to shut almost all of his eyes, carefully avoiding to accidentally use one of the more potent rays...:rolleyes: ) - but those campaigns always died pretty early because it's simply no fun if you don't have to accomplish anything to get your rewards.
GreyLord 09-20-06, 02:50 AM	Congratulations! Ages ago, we tried to do something like this using the original D&D system (the boxed sets). Unfortunately, the party got wiped pretty early on and we couldn't get ourselves to try it again from the beginning. This is something I always wonder about when I hear stories like this: How do you guys manage to keep your characters alive for that long? Did you really have any challenging or difficult encounters along the way? Did your DM actually try to play your opponents intelligently? Somehow, almost all the games I've played so far suffered from high mortality rates (my own campaign included). The exceptions were games with DMs that were easy to manipulate or didn't dare to use the full set of options available to our enemies (one of my personal 'favorites' was an encounter with a beholder that had a tendency to shut almost all of his eyes, carefully avoiding to accidentally use one of the more potent rays...:rolleyes: ) - but those campaigns always died pretty early because it's simply no fun if you don't have to accomplish anything to get your rewards. AS I stated, I succumbed to the evil of powergaming, and powergamed. The rules of 3.5/3e when utilized as they should be, except tossing out the rules of only levelling up once a session and needing to train, makes it a very videogame experience in many ways. We came from a background of older editions where facing 20 orcs in one sitting is to be expected, so playing against those same numbers in 3e, IS slightly tougher (they beefed up the Orcs), BUT still doable, and something that we expect. With tactic it can STILL be a blowout. (sleep can typically toss out a few, than another sleep spell, and a lot of archery for the first and second rounds, by the third rounds it's more melee, and those in that can avoid it all concentrating on killing the sleepers, etc.). Hence with a six person party, against 20 Orcs, we would almost have the XP for the next level in one encounter. All our encounters are like that, and with min/max as 3.5 is designed to do in order to keep up with CR, we were always able to face the typical CR creatures in the MM of equal ability (keeping the XP rewards high in that regard) or higher. Normally with deadly efficiency. By 11th level we were getting close to doing 100 points of damage apiece (at that point my sorc was actually the weak guy, guess I don't have as much min/max experience as the others). For a party of six that's 200-500 points of damage(varied widely) ...a...round. Most of the CRs for our level never stood a prayer. I on the otherhand, was far behind the power curve with lightning and fireball spells. Not that they are wimpy, but can't compare to a guy who has greater weapon specialization on a Keen rapier of Shock with the feat improved critical and 3 attacks a round and a 16 stregnth. And he was my buddy on the low end of the damage spectrum!!! Overall, at that point most of the monsters if they weren't smart enough to flee, could be pushovers. So they started putting us against higher CR monsters, which we went against. Teamwork and a LOT of powergaming basically wiped just about everything except near the end where we started having some definate troubles (I think monsters such as the Tarrassque should NOT be noted as a 20CR creature in relation to the other 20CR creatures we fought, even the Titan was a LOT easier. It was against the Tarrasque that our campaign came to an end that night and 3/4 of the party ended up eaten whole... But that's another story for another time. Due to the way 3.5 is written, as long as one keeps to the rules as written overall, powergame excessively, and you get the treasure as described in the amounts attributed to you at your levels, you should be able to do it if you game for 72 straight hours...and have a DM like the one we do. It would have been impossible for us in earlier editions...but with the rate of advancment as it can be in relation to their CR method (and something else many don't realize, you don't have to clobber that creature into submission, you merely have to get past or defeat it, such as for us, people cut their ways out of the tarrasque, but we ended up having to send it off the world still alive, but in another locale, hence saving the kingdom...in order to get the XP). It would have been impossible for us in another edition overall from my viewpoint.
Jhaelen 09-20-06, 04:14 PM	But that's another story for another time.Well, thanks for the account so far. It DOES sound as if it was fun - maybe we should try something like this again, some time :) And I guess, my players and me have still a lot to learn about power gaming!