[POLL] What's the D&D gaming level "Sweet Spot?"
mzsylver
Explorer
Valavien said:
i dont like the 3e system mentality of "We must give out xp by the Core Rules or we shall die! Bwahaha! Fear us!"
if you do that, it goes FAR too fast in my opinion.
...getting back to the topic...
i like the low-mid levels best. at high levels, things often get overly ridiculous & combats can come down to who wins initiative (which is silly).
plus, as someone mentioned - right around the low-mid levels fighters get 2 attacks and spellcasters get the first AoE spells.
ninthcouncil
First Post
I voted 4-6 but that really meant 4-6 and 7-9. I'm uncomfortable with high levels not for practical reasons (though they exist), but for the same reasons as I don't like superhero games; the characters are too powerful in relation to "mundane" people, and that's inherently corrupting. It can be handled well, but that requires effort, skill and co-operative players.
Desdichado
Hero
No, I know you didn't mean that against me personally. However, unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, you're basically saying that the only reason I wouldn't like high level is because I haven't played it and don't know what I'm missing.
That's simply not true.
That's simply not true.
KDLadage
Explorer
Re: Re: I voted for 10-12
I have played very low level games: we played a "make a 3rd level character, you earn no experience" game so we could do a "small fish in a big sea" style game.
I have played high level games: In a GURPS game, we played a game based on the song "Veteran of a Thousand Psychic Wars" -- it topped out at over 50,000 points (consider an average person is 25 points).
In a 1/e AD&D game, I once played a character names Orin "Silnt" James -- 50th level Thief, 26th level Ranger, 19th level Illusionist.
I have played (and ran) everything in the middle too...
But to me, the sweet spot is that 5th-8th level, (in GURPS, it is that 150-200 point range) when you are in no danger of death when you fall from your horse, yet a group of city-guardsman might give you a run for your money... you are tough, but vulnerable, without having to call on Zues or the Kraken/Tiamat/Terasque to make your knees shake a bit.
That to me, is the sweet spot.
This is where things got heated above... I'll leave it alone.
I speak as a DM and as a player -- I really love that period from 5th to 8th level. It is the most fun period in Role Playing (in my opinion).
As far as experience goes...
If you think characters advance too quickly... try this:
Figure the experience as normal. When divinding it out between the players, however, rather than dividing by the number of characters involved, divide by the number of characters + average level.
Thus, for example, suppose your party is made up of a party of 4. They are levels 4, 5, 5, and 6 -- average party level 5. The total experience, according to the charts, for this encounter, is 3000 points. Normally, you would divide this up as
[ 3000 / 4 ] = 750
750 XP each. However, using this varient XP system, you give out :
[ 3000 / (4 + 5) ] = 333
333 XP each. As you advance in levels, the division gets harsher, so advancement slows down. For example, suppose a group of 4 adventurers at an average level of 10 were to have an encounter that called for 3000 XP. Normally, they would get:
[ 3000 / 4 ] = 750
750 XP each (just as before; granted the challenge was tougher, as the 3000 XP would require at an averagfe of 10th level). But in this variation, the XP divied out to each character is only:
[ 3000 / (4 + 10) ] = 214
214 XP each. This will not cause the costs in XP for high level spells and such to become out of balance, nor will it halt the advancement... but advancement at all levels becomes more tempered.
I have played very low level games: we played a "make a 3rd level character, you earn no experience" game so we could do a "small fish in a big sea" style game.
I have played high level games: In a GURPS game, we played a game based on the song "Veteran of a Thousand Psychic Wars" -- it topped out at over 50,000 points (consider an average person is 25 points).
In a 1/e AD&D game, I once played a character names Orin "Silnt" James -- 50th level Thief, 26th level Ranger, 19th level Illusionist.
I have played (and ran) everything in the middle too...
But to me, the sweet spot is that 5th-8th level, (in GURPS, it is that 150-200 point range) when you are in no danger of death when you fall from your horse, yet a group of city-guardsman might give you a run for your money... you are tough, but vulnerable, without having to call on Zues or the Kraken/Tiamat/Terasque to make your knees shake a bit.
That to me, is the sweet spot.
This is where things got heated above... I'll leave it alone.
I speak as a DM and as a player -- I really love that period from 5th to 8th level. It is the most fun period in Role Playing (in my opinion).
As far as experience goes...
If you think characters advance too quickly... try this:
Figure the experience as normal. When divinding it out between the players, however, rather than dividing by the number of characters involved, divide by the number of characters + average level.
Thus, for example, suppose your party is made up of a party of 4. They are levels 4, 5, 5, and 6 -- average party level 5. The total experience, according to the charts, for this encounter, is 3000 points. Normally, you would divide this up as
[ 3000 / 4 ] = 750
750 XP each. However, using this varient XP system, you give out :
[ 3000 / (4 + 5) ] = 333
333 XP each. As you advance in levels, the division gets harsher, so advancement slows down. For example, suppose a group of 4 adventurers at an average level of 10 were to have an encounter that called for 3000 XP. Normally, they would get:
[ 3000 / 4 ] = 750
750 XP each (just as before; granted the challenge was tougher, as the 3000 XP would require at an averagfe of 10th level). But in this variation, the XP divied out to each character is only:
[ 3000 / (4 + 10) ] = 214
214 XP each. This will not cause the costs in XP for high level spells and such to become out of balance, nor will it halt the advancement... but advancement at all levels becomes more tempered.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
You're not saying that? What does the quote above mean, then?
Wolfen Priest
First Post
WARNING! This is Off-Topic
I really don't get the "recent" level of offense people have been taking to the idea that 'munchkins' exist.
When I play D&D, I go way out of my way to try and make my character as powerful as I can. Sometimes, I even alter my character concept slightly to give him an edge. But I never abandon the main thing I'm trying to accomplish with a character concept, and I generally stick to it pretty closely.
Despite this, I don't worry in the slightest that I am a munchkin, nor do I take any offense to conversations about them. I have played with true munchkins, and generally I agree that they overdo the rules part and don't really seem to care about actually roleplaying.
Playing high-levels is not munchkin. Playing powerful characters is not munchkin. "Munchkin" is a relative term!
I really don't get the "recent" level of offense people have been taking to the idea that 'munchkins' exist.
When I play D&D, I go way out of my way to try and make my character as powerful as I can. Sometimes, I even alter my character concept slightly to give him an edge. But I never abandon the main thing I'm trying to accomplish with a character concept, and I generally stick to it pretty closely.
Despite this, I don't worry in the slightest that I am a munchkin, nor do I take any offense to conversations about them. I have played with true munchkins, and generally I agree that they overdo the rules part and don't really seem to care about actually roleplaying.
Playing high-levels is not munchkin. Playing powerful characters is not munchkin. "Munchkin" is a relative term!
Desdichado
Hero
Wolfen, that's part of what I was pointing out earlier: nobody admits to being a munchkin, probably not even to themselves, so nobody really takes offense at it, at least I would think.
What offends people is when the way they play and consider "legitimate" is attacked and called munchkin. So, generic attacks against munchkins shouldn't really be offensive, but attacks against the way you play, by calling it munchkin, could be.
What offends people is when the way they play and consider "legitimate" is attacked and called munchkin. So, generic attacks against munchkins shouldn't really be offensive, but attacks against the way you play, by calling it munchkin, could be.
Similar Threads
