20th level before his 20th birthday

Is the concept of PCs gaining high level in a short amount of game time a problem for you? Have you (or your DM) done anything to prolong the game time required to gain levels?

[Note: I am *not* talking about level advancement in Real World time (game sessions).]

What is the youngest age you've seen a PC reach high level? (Define "high level" as you see it.)

Quasqueton

Yes, it is very much a problem. I see a 20th level character to be about 60 (in human years)... and while I don't really expect that, I do expect a significant number of years to go by during a 20-level gain.

How I handle it:
- 50% XP
- training times (for feats, skills, and multiclassing)

This seems to work out reasonably well for us. A 9th level character has aged about 10 years on average in our campaigns, so it's about 25 years from 1st - 20th level. We can live with that.

I hear ya!

It kinda of bothers me too. Not only from that perspective, but that means Mordenkainen must be at least level 100 by now. . . .

I used to impose a 1 week rest time before I would give out XP. The issue is that the players want their characters out doing things, and it gets in the way of a lot of continuity. Now I have a 24 hour weight.

I did notice that more and more there were other places for stretching time. For example, as the party grew in means, they spent money on sages to do some research, sages that take a while to get answers.

Even with this though, the characters were hitting the mid teens in levels as they hit their early 20s in the game. . . .

I still don't have a good idea on how to handle it.

How about a character reaching level 40 before thier 19th birthday in game?

RD

I think rapid level advancement is pretty unrealistic, but I also think that being too restrictive of level advancement could make things less fun too and not fit in the typical fantasy motif. Really,how often is the greatest fighter in the land some 60 year old, isn't it usually some younger guy that just happens to be much more naturally gifted and able to pick things up quicker?

I'm all about rapid advancement, myself. I hand out roughly 1 level per game session, or maybe every other. I reward them as the story dictates: complete a major arc of the plot, gain a level. I do it because the players like their powers, and they like to use them, and to see a growth, and to give a sense of increasing danger as the PC's get closer and closer to the final showdown.

There really is no need in my mind to rationalize the speed other than the fact that the PC's are the main characters, the heroes, a special cut above 95% of the other population (the remaining 5% includes other adventurers and their enemies. ). Sure, your average 12th level commoner is going to be an aged old codger, but your 12th level world-saving PC is seeking out challenges on a daily basis that the commoner doesn't face. If that Com12 became a PC, you bet he'd be gaining levels more quickly than staying at home on the farm.

At the same time, you bet that necromancer they faced off against at 5th level has gained his own experience in surviving an encounter with the PC's, and isn't going to be the same when you face him again, even if it's just a week later.

I've had fourteen year old princesses wielding wish. True, she was mastering a spell the local sage has spent his life attempting to concieve, but in the D&D world, if you sit in a tower and read tomes, you don't get any better. Think of it as excersize, only instead of a six-pack, you gain more magic missiles. And yeah, the fourteen year old sorcerer-princess went down in history, as every PC should have the potential for, IMHO. She wasn't normal. She was a normal PC, yeah, but PC's aren't normal in the game world. Even if they start off as the son of a blacksmith, they end up dragon-slaying masters of epic horseshoe-forging. Or they die horribly trying.

It lacks realism, but unless you want to stretch your campaign over the course of fourty or fifty in-game years, it's just more playable to leave it unrealistic.

I dunno, I find that IRL most people's development have nothing to do with age. Some develop incredible talents very quickly while for others it takes years.

Now, if every campaign you are getting the 19 and 20 year old epic party, you might have a problem. But for the most part people vary greatly at how fast they develop and when.

A good example is, if I am rolling up a wizard - I have some weird rules that you take what you get in order after choosing the race and class - and I roll a lower Int than I would like, I might make the character Old to get some Int and Wis points in exchange for some of the strength. But this guy is only level 1. What gives? Well, I could have had him studying for years the theory of magic and now he is just putting it into practice. Maybe old age and experience have finally given him the insight to become a wizard (raising his int above 10).

No I find it best if age and experience are separate. One can gain a lot of experience in a short time while another could while away the days without anything happening.

I think a goo rule of thumb for NPCs is to say each age category gives you 1 level of an already occupied class. General life acheivement gives you levels.

Aaron.

jester47 said:

I dunno, I find that IRL most people's development have nothing to do with age. Some develop incredible talents very quickly while for others it takes years.

Click to expand...

Precisely. When Mozart was 12, he wrote a full-scale opera. What level was he?

When Mozart was 30, and was easily the greatest composer in history by that time, he would certainly have been epic-level in D&D terms.

I have no problem with my PCs being Mozarts.

Sebastian Francis said:

Precisely. When Mozart was 12, he wrote a full-scale opera. What level was he?

When Mozart was 30, and was easily the greatest composer in history by that time, he would certainly have been epic-level in D&D terms.

I have no problem with my PCs being Mozarts.

Click to expand...

"It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two
years." - Tom Lehrer