20th level before his 20th birthday

[wingsandsword]

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.

A 4th or 5th level Joan of Arc couldn't even have followers, and she's a pretty clear case for the Leadership feat (i.e. 6th+ level).

Back in 1e, levels might have been rarer, but later editions presume higher level PC's are more common. Even in 2e, back in the "High Level Campaigns" book they presumed that 1 out of 10 people reached 1st level (beyond the old "0 Level" concept), and there were half as many at each higher level, which would mean 1 out of 80 were 4th level, and 1 out of 640 were 7th level.

Look at the demographics tables in the 3.5e DMG (p. 137 - 139). As examples, a 7th level Rogue could theoretically be found in any town, and even a small city could easily have two of them, well accomplished yes, but not automatically an infamous terror. A 4th level fighter is much more likely to be the local tough-guy, like a Sheriff or Captain of the Guard, and to get a reputation far and wide would be more like 17th level. The sample hamlet on Page 139 of 200 people has a 3rd level fighter and a 3rd level rogue in it.

Just from randomly generated NPC's, a metropolis (any city of 25,000+) is going to have at least 4 7th to 14th level members of every base class (not counting NPC classes, which they may well have 20th level commoners), this also doesn't count specifically created NPC's, just random townsfolk. So to be a thief or fighter of renown equal to any other in the kingdom, you'd better at least be in the teen levels, if not approaching 20th.

 

[Lurker 2.0]

Character advancement in my campaign? 4th Level to 9th. In a week.
Of course, my campaign is set in a post-apoc world where the vastly superior forces of the enemy are continually hounding the PCs, usually while they try to sleep. So screw down time, they're a little busy fighting for their lives. That's the First Half of the campaign, of course; in the second half they're going to be directing armies, so that allows for a little more time between fights.
Nevertheless, I can honestly say I've never once run a campaign where I required training time, even "off-screen", and I've never heard a PC complain. Time is really just dependent on your campaign design, I guess.

 

[UniversalMonster]

If you think about real world athletes, rock stars, or historical figures- (Napoleon, Joan of Arc) they were often young and at the prime of their career.

The same goes for fantasy literature and comic books. So no, I don't have a problem with characters getting to high levels while they remain young. It's up to me as the DM to space adventures out and all of that (and I actually started the last adventure out in my 12th-level campaign by saying "It's been a year since the last adventure..")

I'd rather not worry too much about dealing with the PCs ages except when it legitmately comes up- say someone has a character concept of an aged veteran or wizard or something.

Docking people experience points or withholding them partially to account for time is an awful, awful solution. I know it would upset at least two of the players in my group.

I remember 1st Edition AD&D very well , and we never had a group get very close to even 9th or 10th level, playing strictly by the rules. In general we'd end up stuck at 7th or possibly 8th for the thief, and pretty much never go much further. The experience point chart doubled at every level so there was a very long stretch right there. That really was one of the things I disliked about 1st Edition.

There's too much good stuff at the higher levels for players and DMs to experience. Don't cheat yourself!

 

[fujaiwei]

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.

While I'm a complete noob to the game, I have to agree with this. This has been my experience in the campaign I'm in, too; perhaps even the same game. Anyway, suffice it to say that Tharizdun's cult isn't patient, and not waiting around for us to craft the admantine mauls and mithril armors that we all want. In fact, there's close to zero time and we haven't spent many feats on crafting, as a group. Of course, it's our choice in what we do as players, despite the hints at what would happen if we were to just dally about for a while. But, I think I don't necessarily think it's always bad. All things come in waves or cycles, as others have talked about. There's a rush of intense activity, followed by calm.

 

[shilsen]

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).

Just a minor pedantic hijack - the section in bold above is almost completely wrong. I'm not sure what plays you looked at, but they aren't Shakespeare's.

Joan of Arc appears only in Henry VI Part I (she is executed in Act 5), where she is a villainess and generally presented as using trickery to win and lacking military valor. She uses sorcery to summon fiends and attempts to avoid execution by disavowing her virginity and claiming to be pregnant (she actually runs through a list of potential fathers).

And now, back to our originally scheduled thread...

 

[diaglo]

Yes, it is very much a problem.

ditto.

How I handle it:

- very little available for healing. so down time is needed to rest and recoup.
- long times travelling to and fro
- annoying sidetrek adventures with little xp but high informational value
- leaving it in the hands of the player. the player knows what (s)he wants to do with the character. and whether it will be believeable.
- training times (for feats, skills, and multiclassing)
- level limits. and other duties as assigned. when so and so PC becomes legendary. (s)he has many people asking for attention. whether the player wants to fall back on the mundane rules of ruling or helping the needy is up to them.

 

[Psion]

Is the concept of PCs gaining high level in a short amount of game time a problem for you?

Yes.

Have you (or your DM) done anything to prolong the game time required to gain levels?

I have a "sinking in" time rule. Characters must spend 10 x level days at a given level before they are eligible to progress to next level. Still allows you to progress multiple times a year at low levels, but no more "10 times a year" or so as was once possible.

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

In AD&D 2e, a player told me his 12th level high priest was 16. That was when I resolved to not let that happen again and started interspersing journeys and assorted "downtime."

 

[Psion]

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

I agree. I'd go half again your levels, maybe, but definitely, the sorts of things that are attributed to most of those characters are the sorts of things that I routinely see mid-level (6th-12th) parties do.

 

[Psion]

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.

Sounds like the exploits of a mid (10th-12th)-level fighter to me.

He also met with oracles and was told he was fated to rule the world.

And that makes him 20th level? I've seen many campaigns that had great legends surrounding characters that were less than 10th.

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.

How many mass heals and ressurections did she do. It seems apparent to me that she's not a 20th level cleric. And AFIAC, divinations as simple as detect evil could be characterized in game as "talking to God."

 

[Pseudonym]

Who is this Pug person that keeps being mentioned?