20th level before his 20th birthday

[Timeboxer]

I have to admit that, just for stylistic reasons, I really like the idea of a campaign set up like, say, just to be geeky about it, the Star Trek movies. Where you go off on one big huge adventure, or maybe a bunch of little adventures, and then part ways to take care of personal things. And then you meet again, say, three to six to twelve months in the future, with your old friends and possibly some new people, because someone has gathered you together or there's some huge threat or other that you need to take care of -- and the gang's all here, and off you go.

It's got a nice Band of Heroes feel, I think. Especially with the whole, "Hey, old friend! What have you been up to?" thing.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

What fantasy is that again? Sounds more like anime.

 

[FireLance]

What fantasy is that again? Sounds more like anime.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Garion/Belgarion from the Belgariad, Luke Skywalker from Star Wars, and Raistlin Majere from Dragonlance.

Perhaps it is a more common theme in Chinese wuxia novels and movies where some young man suffers a tragedy (usually involving the murder of his father or martial arts teacher) and is driven to seek revenge.

Any story which pits the protagonist against some great and ancient evil, or features students surpassing their teachers also drawns on this theme.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

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?

The trend I detect is that you like really high level heroes.

It's all a matter of opinion and taste, really, but I don't think any of those heroes would have been 20th level by age 20. (With the exception of Pug, but that's a function of the way D&D's magic system works.)

King Arthur was a mighty warrior, and so was Conan, but mighty warrior =/= 20th level. 8th level Conan is a mighty warrior too - especially when you consider that Conan would have high stats almost across the board.

And you don't need to be 20th level to lead mighty armies of conquest, or inspire a nation to great deeds, as Alexander and Joan of Arc did. You just need Charisma, and access to troops.


Personally, I dislike the homogenized nature of age and level advancement. There's room for both young and old heroes, but the nature of ability score penalties for aging means that it doesn't make much sense to start play as an older hero, and there's no encourament to allow characters to mature, and get a little grey.

And that's a shame - I dislike it when mechanics discourage very viable thematic concepts.

It's particularly annoying with regards to the monk class. A 20th level monk achieves perfection of self, and while there are instances in fiction and legend of very young people accomplishing that, it's far more common to see old but inexplicably spry codgers as the enlightened one.

The young heroes, fast advancement mode is great for campaigns that are about the chosen, foretold few, but it's not so great for campaigns where the characters aren't the legendary heroes of destiny, but are instead just a band adventuring in a world chock full of wizard's guilds, knights, and dungeons.

 

[dvvega]

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)

Firstly, there is no evidence that these people would have been 20th level. Take the army-leaders for example (Alexander and Joan). The average army would be warriors, some fighters, roguish scouts etc. Not many of them would be higher than 5th or 6th level. They could easily have been in the 6th to 10th level range to do what they did. In addition, Joan of Arc had a force of personality and could have been 1st level with the right knowledges in warfare and tactics. Alexander was a well-educated person so his knowledges could account for his tactical abilities. And with the marshall class, it can easily seem that they were higher level than they are.

Arthur and Galahad fall into similar categories. If the average warrior type was 6th level (easily able to slaughter innocent villagers) then they would only need to be 6th level non-warriors to look impressive. Galahad the 6th level Paladin would outshine the warriors, and Arthur the 6th level Fighter with uber-magical sword would go a long way to make him look 20th level.

Secondly: the way I handle the progression is down-time. Plain and simple. The party doesn't have to roleplay it. If someone isn't advancing they normally take care of the research, shopping tasks, creation of items, etc while others train. Training costs money (slows down the hoarding of gold) as well, with a base amount, varying based on number of NEW skills and feats being learnt. I've found that this stretches the time factor out pretty well.

 

[Banshee16]

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

I use training times....these can often cost a character 1-2 months/level gain. In my game, the highest level character is 13th. She started at 1st at 17 years old, and is now 26.

That doesn't seem too bad...

Banshee

 

[Yalius]

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?

I don't think any of those would be even close to 20th level. Alexander the Great, maybe 7-8th. Joan of Arc, 4-5th. Arthur, maybe 10th. Galahad, 9-10. Conan, maybe 12th. Pug, 6-7. 20th level characters of any persuasion seem as if they should be as rare as teeth on a six-foot-tall bright blue chicken. "Epic" characters in history or myth would only be epic if the average person around them was mid-to-high leveled. If you assume that the vast majority of people are 1st level at best, and only one in a thousand reaches 4th level, then the guesstimates come back down to earth.

I guess this opinion comes from my formative years playing 1E. Back when a 4th level fighter had a reputation that had folk from towns far and wide deferring to him; when a 7th level thief was whispered of in hushed tones throughout a kingdom, and was used as a warning to misbehaving children. Ever since then, I've looked at gaining a level as something really special, rare, and extraordinary.

Then again, I could be just a nitwit.

 

[Naathez]

my 2 cents...

Starting from my recent 3.0 experience... we had to wrap up the campaign a couple sessions from closing it (don't ask... it hurt me and some players more than I like to admit, but well).
We'd played for 2 years , about 40 sessions a year. In game time amounted to a few months, about 4.
The players were about to hit 7th level.

Is that fast or slow?

To me, it was right in real time (YES, I DO think of campaigns as long things. So yes, it's ok to gain 7 levels in 2 years)... but it was rather fast in game time. 4 months - and they'd walked a third of the way to perfection?

I am not sure about how to fix it, or whether to. What I think, though, is this (and again, this has to do with how I see an RPG campaign):

Characters (and players) should experience the world, and feel they have a past. Feel they have old friends that they made while playing...

"You know who just came to my mind? That old fool of an innkeeper in that shackle just out of Biehr... remember him? was the time Aghor had been half skewered by those bandits on the road... the old man went out of his way to find a healer... -laughing- sure maybe it depended on Ajira's choice of robe to wear, but still .... sheesh he baked the best bread I've had in a LONG time... we ought to find the time to go visit next time we're in that area..."

I like THAT in a campaign. I like to think that by the time they become the greates heroes in the land, PCs have made friends, and enemies,and a name for themselves. And that takes TIME. That's why I usually like to play downtime, almost as in detail as adventure time. Because there is NO DOWNtime. It's all life... parallel, imaginary life, but still life... and imagining the life of a fictional character is what I think gives DEPTH to RPG experience. (Of course, I was the one who played Daggerfall way back and always carried a set of matching elegant clothes for going to palace and speaking to royalty... even though it had no effect whatsoever.)

Now that half the boards think I'm a geeky maniac hiding from truth by living in fiction (laughs), I think I can close the message... and hope my point was clear.

 

[ivocaliban]

Secondly: the way I handle the progression is down-time. Plain and simple. The party doesn't have to roleplay it. If someone isn't advancing they normally take care of the research, shopping tasks, creation of items, etc while others train. Training costs money (slows down the hoarding of gold) as well, with a base amount, varying based on number of NEW skills and feats being learnt. I've found that this stretches the time factor out pretty well.

I would like to say briefly that I agree with those who have stated that these historical/fictional characters were not necessarily 20th level. To be a memorable, legendary indvidual does not require a certain level, it only requires action, accomplishments, and...well, bards (or historians, if you prefer). While it would certainly be easier for a 20th level Joan of Arc to do all that she did, we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking any of these characters had an easy time of it.

As for progression via down-time, my own campaign suffers from an utter lack of down-time. The world is in utter chaos and there's something of a mysterious "time-bomb" effect in play. In essence, various portals are opening across the continent and once all have opened will provide Tharizdun an escape from his eternal prison. So, having any sort of down-time is next to impossible without hurrying the apocalypse. Of course, in a campaign where time is of the essence the PCs are almost always in a position to gain experience as they're often in the thick of battle or on some quest to save the world while there's still time. So, I suppose it evens out in the end.

 

[Vigilance]

I don't think any of those would be even close to 20th level.

Ok- since many people brought this up- I'll address it once.

In my opinion, someone legendary enough to spark tales that last for centuries should be regarded as extremely high level.

Even if you don't accept that, let's look at some other facts:

First I really didn't just pull those names out of my *** as everyone seems to assume.

You can glibly state they were medium level, but I got those names from legendary figures who I have personally read dozens and dozens of stories about- and for the purpose of argument assumed each tale was an adventure.

Let's break it down.

Alexander the Great fought in dozens of enormous battles. He was not some behind the scenes general like we see today, he was in the front throwing himself into danger time and again. He also met with oracles and was told he was fated to rule the world.

So he conquers Greece (series of battles), India (series of battles), Rome (series of battles), Egypt (a whole freakin lot of serious battles), consults with oracles, gets a serious augury thrown his way (sounds like a quest from on high to me), etc.

This did not happen to him at the beginning of his career but near the end- sounds like a high level benefit to me.

Joan of Arc *talked to God*. Literally. On a regular basis. You have to be pretty high level to commune as often as she did. Factor in her combat abilities, and you have what seems to me a reasonable assumption that she was very high level.

She also pushed the British out of France (mini campaign) winning battle after battle basically reversing the victories of Henry V.

In her Legendary exploits she was the heroine of three Shakespeare plays (Henry VI Parts 1,2 and 3- each of these plays represent numerous battles representing Joan's mystical ability to call down God to turn the tide of battles).

King Arthur fought in how many battles? 1,000? Just to make it fair I will ONLY address the version of his life presented in morte d'arthur and forget the Taliesen, the Mabinogion etc etc etc (including the one where he's killed by an intelligent black panther who then becomes the king of England- and no I am not making that up either).

Let's look at Malory for a guide here shall we- he drew the sword from the stone, was IMMEDIATELY beset by all the nobles in the land and fought a series of wars. (This is a mini campaign at least).

Then he went after the petty dukedoms, saved Duke Leodegrance of Cameliard, won the hand of Quinevere doing that (sounds like another mini-campaign to me).

Was he done then? Oh no. Then he had a war with Rome that started in France (this is described as a massive battle in which the Roman Emperor had a legion of giant/demon crossbreeds at his disposal- hmmm what would the CR of that be? sounds high level to me).

Winning the battle in France he pushed the Romans all the way back to Rome, conquered Rome and was crowned Emperor of all Europe.


Conan has had how many novels written about him? Even if we gave him one level per story and only counted the stories that take place when he was a young pup, we have about 50 adventures here.

So basically, I really did give a little thought to those names, and you can not just hand wave it and say "they were exceptional and did a lot when they were low level".

If these guys (particularly Alexander, Arthur and Conan) aren't 20th level, then who is?

No one?

Chuck