1e's and 2e's levelling design? [Archive] - Wizards Community

1e's and 2e's levelling design? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gryllmyre
10-05-04, 10:56 PM This isn't a rant at all about 3e levelling.

I'm just wondering why the previous system involved getting to level 10 or so and then requiring the same amount of XP to level after that. Since you are raising levels, that means you're fighting tougher creatures, which means you are raising faster because they are worth more XP. So as you get into the 15-16 area, levelling is such a regular thing anymore that it almost feels like comfortable retirement. I actually liked it - it made it feel like you earned some status after getting past that horribly slow 10-13 area.

Did any of the original designers explain exactly why the 1e and 2e levelling tables were set up that way, and why they chose that system over whatever else they considered?
Naeron
10-06-04, 05:31 AM I think the main reason is that they wanted PC's to level after every 13 encounters so that it stayed at 2-4 sessions per level all the way through rather that what could happen before which was a level in one encounter. Also in 3E your abilities continue to increase far more than they did in AD&D so that justifies increasing amounts per level.

In AD&D after 9th (10th for thieves?) your HP went up by between 1 and 3 per level (no CON bonus), in a scaling damage based system this is a severe limitation on the power of a PC. Even a 25th level Wizard feared an Ancient Red Dragons breath weapon if they weren't protected from fire because 88/44 damage was a lot when average HP (even if you had 16 CON) was 56.5 (even a Cone of Cold was dangerous).

In 3E you gain your HD + CON mod for every level so high level characters are massively more resistant to physical damage and to spells that deal physical damage which were much more dangerous in AD&D as everything had lower HP (in 3E that wizard would probably have about 164HP as he would almost certainly have enhanced his CON to 18, if not higher). In 3E all the classes continue to gain better abilities across the board for evey level they gain (even if some of them aren't that great).
anders
10-06-04, 05:47 AM what I find amusing, is after reaching epic levels you become so more powerful.

It should be the opposite really, that you progress more slowly cause you "max" out. That way, 2nd ed made more sense.
Sucineri
10-06-04, 07:57 AM Well, if you truly stop to think about it..you DO gain power more slowly after you hit epic (20) status because there aren't really a lot of variable stuff around to kill that has a CR of 20 or higher (unless you go for more books I guess), so killing CR 20 creatures at level 19 is a big thing because you gain quite decent experience..but then he get to like level 21 and you start hoping that this super-destructo-goblin-of-flying-doom gets true resurrect every time it is taken to -10 HP so you have more exps and such.

There is only so many times you can get exps for killing the Tarrasque..mostly because there is only 1. And then if you are staying on the same plane constantly and then start finding tons of huge groups of CR20 creatures then something is wrong. So basically when you hit 20, unless your DM is a madman, there is no real reason to constantly see tons of CR20 encounters..therefor you SHOULD be leveling more slowly and gaining power just as slowly.
Lina_Inverse
10-06-04, 08:29 AM no clue,when you did 20d6 you could kill yourself no save most of the time.of course like 3E you were ment to take down monsters 99.99% of the time,hell 2E didnt even give you the xp value of players!
Sildatorak
10-06-04, 10:51 AM Naeron is right on about the gain per level being significantly less in the 10+ region in 2e compared to 3e. Wizards gained 1 hp/lev and their THAC0 (roughly equivalent to BAB) went down 1 point every 3 levels, so the only thing they really gained were new levels of spells. Since the difficulties of saving throws were not based on the level of spell you were casting, this didn't matter nearly as much. A delayed blast fireball was only slightly more deadly than a regular fireball (+1 damage/die, still capped at 10 dice), so new levels of spells didn't open up much more in the way of killing things off through brute force. Summoning spells got nicer, you started to get access to more save or die spells, and you opened up a bunch of defensive options (contingency and such). Also, there was no metamagic. Unlike the region of 10+ now you couldn't quicken low-level spells to increase your utility.

And wizards were considered to be one of the most powerful high-level classes (though they sucked hard at low levels). Other classes got hit even harder, and without PrC's you didn't really have the options to keep escalating your combat prowess.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gryllmyre 10-05-04, 10:56 PM	This isn't a rant at all about 3e levelling. I'm just wondering why the previous system involved getting to level 10 or so and then requiring the same amount of XP to level after that. Since you are raising levels, that means you're fighting tougher creatures, which means you are raising faster because they are worth more XP. So as you get into the 15-16 area, levelling is such a regular thing anymore that it almost feels like comfortable retirement. I actually liked it - it made it feel like you earned some status after getting past that horribly slow 10-13 area. Did any of the original designers explain exactly why the 1e and 2e levelling tables were set up that way, and why they chose that system over whatever else they considered?
Naeron 10-06-04, 05:31 AM	I think the main reason is that they wanted PC's to level after every 13 encounters so that it stayed at 2-4 sessions per level all the way through rather that what could happen before which was a level in one encounter. Also in 3E your abilities continue to increase far more than they did in AD&D so that justifies increasing amounts per level. In AD&D after 9th (10th for thieves?) your HP went up by between 1 and 3 per level (no CON bonus), in a scaling damage based system this is a severe limitation on the power of a PC. Even a 25th level Wizard feared an Ancient Red Dragons breath weapon if they weren't protected from fire because 88/44 damage was a lot when average HP (even if you had 16 CON) was 56.5 (even a Cone of Cold was dangerous). In 3E you gain your HD + CON mod for every level so high level characters are massively more resistant to physical damage and to spells that deal physical damage which were much more dangerous in AD&D as everything had lower HP (in 3E that wizard would probably have about 164HP as he would almost certainly have enhanced his CON to 18, if not higher). In 3E all the classes continue to gain better abilities across the board for evey level they gain (even if some of them aren't that great).
anders 10-06-04, 05:47 AM	what I find amusing, is after reaching epic levels you become so more powerful. It should be the opposite really, that you progress more slowly cause you "max" out. That way, 2nd ed made more sense.
Sucineri 10-06-04, 07:57 AM	Well, if you truly stop to think about it..you DO gain power more slowly after you hit epic (20) status because there aren't really a lot of variable stuff around to kill that has a CR of 20 or higher (unless you go for more books I guess), so killing CR 20 creatures at level 19 is a big thing because you gain quite decent experience..but then he get to like level 21 and you start hoping that this super-destructo-goblin-of-flying-doom gets true resurrect every time it is taken to -10 HP so you have more exps and such. There is only so many times you can get exps for killing the Tarrasque..mostly because there is only 1. And then if you are staying on the same plane constantly and then start finding tons of huge groups of CR20 creatures then something is wrong. So basically when you hit 20, unless your DM is a madman, there is no real reason to constantly see tons of CR20 encounters..therefor you SHOULD be leveling more slowly and gaining power just as slowly.
Lina_Inverse 10-06-04, 08:29 AM	no clue,when you did 20d6 you could kill yourself no save most of the time.of course like 3E you were ment to take down monsters 99.99% of the time,hell 2E didnt even give you the xp value of players!
Sildatorak 10-06-04, 10:51 AM	Naeron is right on about the gain per level being significantly less in the 10+ region in 2e compared to 3e. Wizards gained 1 hp/lev and their THAC0 (roughly equivalent to BAB) went down 1 point every 3 levels, so the only thing they really gained were new levels of spells. Since the difficulties of saving throws were not based on the level of spell you were casting, this didn't matter nearly as much. A delayed blast fireball was only slightly more deadly than a regular fireball (+1 damage/die, still capped at 10 dice), so new levels of spells didn't open up much more in the way of killing things off through brute force. Summoning spells got nicer, you started to get access to more save or die spells, and you opened up a bunch of defensive options (contingency and such). Also, there was no metamagic. Unlike the region of 10+ now you couldn't quicken low-level spells to increase your utility. And wizards were considered to be one of the most powerful high-level classes (though they sucked hard at low levels). Other classes got hit even harder, and without PrC's you didn't really have the options to keep escalating your combat prowess.