20th level before his 20th birthday

[xazil]

My current character is an extreme 3 year old 12th level....




Warforged

 

[Deadguy]

I think Crothian has posted the most apposite comment: the speed at which characters advance is largely determined by the DM, not the players. If I write my campaign such that 18-yr old Human PCs can adventure every day of every year and earn XP, then lo and behold, I shouldn't be surprised (nor complain) if they reach 20th level by their 20th birthdays! If I want to slow advancement, I need to pace the campaign differently. You can hardly blame the players in this: they play D&D to adventure, not (usually) to work through long periods of downtime in detail.

 

[ivocaliban]

This is the great downfall of D&D, in my opinion. Epic levels only made the problem more obvious. I've managed to fix it in my game, but I did so in a brutal way that would make most players despise me as a DM. I did away with XP altogether and simply grant levels based on the groups accomplishments at various story points. This means that no one is going to gain a level killing orcs all day long, but if I feel they're close to gaining a level and they kill the orc chieftain and rescue the princess, then yes...they'll gain a level.

It's a slower process, but feels far more natural to me and my players. The lead PC has gone from level 1 to 10 in only six years of game time, but it should be noted that we've been playing the game for about four years real time. This would probably upset most players who would expect to be epic-level demigods after four years in a campaign, but it's how I've dealt with the problem of teenagers being able to take on grizzled veterans. As for epic levels, those are used only for NPCs and less than a dozen epic level characters knowingly exist in my campaign. So far, only one of those has ever made an appearance and it was very brief.

 

[FireLance]

One more thing. The archetype of the naturally talented youngster who trains intensively and manages to surpass even those who are much older than him (the BBEG in particular, may have been the most powerful person around for decades or centuries) is a fantasy staple. I'm quite glad that the XP mechanic allows me to simulate such a character if I want.

 

[NewJeffCTHome]

How old was Alexander the Great when he had conquered most of the known world? Pretty young, if I recall.

I don't have a big problem with adventurers going up in level too fast... I think it is the player's choice a little bit, but mainly is on the DM. If you want true realism, you might think of having your campaign slow down, or even stop, during winter. In medieval times, a sieging army would actually lose men when some of the men had to return home to tend crops or similar. Imagine that - PC leaves farm as a youth and adventures for 6 months. Gets a message from Mom - 'son, your dad needs you in the field...'

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is the great downfall of D&D, in my opinion. Epic levels only made the problem more obvious. I've managed to fix it in my game, but I did so in a brutal way that would make most players despise me as a DM. I did away with XP altogether and simply grant levels based on the groups accomplishments at various story points. This means that no one is going to gain a level killing orcs all day long, but if I feel they're close to gaining a level and they kill the orc chieftain and rescue the princess, then yes...they'll gain a level.

In a matter of comparison, I do the same method of leveling up...only, my PC's are killing orc chieftains and rescuing princesses on a daily basis (every time we play, usually, they make significant story advancements). So I reward them nearly every time we play.

Teenagers should be able to take out grizzled old vetrans if the teens have looked at a Beholder in the eye and lived to tell the tale and the grizzled old vetran spent his life beating up conscripts in the Commoner Warz.

 

[Trickstergod]

While I don't mind characters shooting up in levels fairly quickly, I do have a problem with them going from, say, level 1 to 20 in the span of a year. Generally speaking. If they hit it within the span of 5-10 years, though - no problem. That span of time will probably entail more trouble for them then 50 years for most people.

I really don't see any problem in slowing down their advancement, either; from levels 1-8, travel alone tends to add a lot of downtime. I think my Scarred Lands game has had a span of about 4-5 game years, during which the PC's, who started out at level 2, have only just hit level 11 or 12.

If travel time isn't a problem, then there's still downtime between adventures - I find it highly unlikely that, the day after the ogre band that was terrorizing the village is taken care of, a necromancer comes to plague the valley. So after whatever adventure I've had planned goes down, the next one won't likely come about for weeks, months or possibly even years.

Even little things like scheduling meetings with NPC's in two days hence helps to slow down level advancement to a degree.

As for the human/elf thing, the typical human in my games tends to be around level 1-4, whereas most elves would be around 4-10. Beyond that, PC's are the exception, anyway. NPC's don't accumulate XP like the PC's do; if I have a recurring NPC, it will level up at about 1 level for every 3 the PC's gain (the antagonists, anyway, usually start out at a high enough level that this is more then enough for whenever I intend them to finally face off for the last time). Everyone else is pretty much going to stay where they are and even some of the recurring ones. The hypothetical town priest where the PC's live and make their base would likely never, ever advance in my games.

In regards to exceptional individuals like Joan of Arc or Alexander the Great...I really think they just show some of the difficulties with the level based system, where individuals uniformly advance, rather then having it broken up. Personal power in no way reflects influence over others. It seems more likely those individual's possessed a number of feats such as Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Leadership and particularly high mental/social ability scores (Charisma most importantly). Heck, I've always found the idea of the leader in a group being the highest level to be a bit silly at times...only in the most undeveloped of societies is the strongest likely to wind up leading. The brightest professor isn't likely the dean and the most deadly warrior probably isn't the general. I'd also peg most of the worlds exceptional people as being somewhere around 8-15, anyway, if I were to give them levels and just focus their abilities to near ridiculous degrees in what they should have (like with Skill Focus and the double bonus skill feats).

So their youthful talent isn't a matter of level, it's a matter of not being glutted with things like Power Attack...

But, I digress. There's my general thoughts on the matter.

 

[Vigilance]

Alexander the Great (20th level by age 20)

Joan of Arc (20th level by age 20)

King Arthur (20th level by age 20)

Galahad (20th level by age 20)

Conan (20th level by age 20- this one is debatable... but not by much imo)

Pug (20th level by age 20)

Are we detecting a trend here?

PCs gain levels when they adventure- if they lead action packed lives- they can and should be high level at a young age.

Chuck "May you live in interesting times" Rice

 

[Crothian]

I think is highly arguible what level the historic and literary figures where. But its still a DM problem and not a RPG problem. As the DM I could have Vampire, GURPS, or characters in any system get really powerful really fast.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

In the current Planescape game I'm in, we've shot up an average of 7 levels in the last 6 months or so. Things just keep coming at us, and we've had one three-week downtime that I can remember. It makes weapons and armor upgrading a pain, let me tell you...

Me: "But, we have to go fight the soul-sucking Monstrosities from Beyond! What do you mean my sword isn't ready yet!"
Armorer: "Sorry, this takes time. Here, have a loaner. (hands Iskander a pointy stick) It's a +1 halfspear!"

Brad