Stated Level Ranges in 1e and 2e Modules

[joshinminn]

This might be a dumb question, but when the old modules said "For four characters levels 5-10," did that mean they should start at level 5 and will progress to 10 during the adventure? I'm guessing not, given how short they were. But there's a big difference between level 5 and level 10 characters, to not have it too easy or too hard.

 

[ccs]

Since classes leveled up at different rates, I always figured the top of the range was set at how much XP a single classed thief should have going in.
I used the minimum (ex: 10th lv thief in 1e = 160,001)

Some people I played with figured it as either mid-lv xp (190,000 for a 10th lv thief), or max XP (220,000 for a 10th lv thief)

Using a 10th lv module cap in 1e as an example:
That's enough XP for most other classes to be about 8th or 9th lv if single classed. About 6-8th lv if multi-classed x2, & about 6th if they had 3 classes.
Remember, if you were a multi-classed elf/dwarf/gnome/Halfling/half-breed, you generally split the xp you earned evenly between all of your classes. And usually ended up being 1 lv higher in one of them due to the varying xp charts for classes. So yes, in TOTAL your character might have 160,001 - 220,000 XP. But if you're not Human it's likely spread across 2 or 3 classes.
I'd say that's pretty close to your 5-10 lv range....

 

[Celebrim]

This might be a dumb question, but when the old modules said "For four characters levels 5-10," did that mean they should start at level 5 and will progress to 10 during the adventure?

1e D&D assumed that a party might be anywhere from 3 to 12 characters. Also since different classes progressed at different rates, it was not assumed that characters of comparable ability would be of the same level. Lastly, since it was generally assumed most characters would start from 1st level, it was not assumed that all members of the party would be the same level.

A module with a level range of 5-10 therefore means something quite complicated.

At a high end, it suggests that perhaps 3 10th level characters (presumably a fighter type, a M-U (or Illusionist), and a cleric (or Druid)) with reasonable equipment could face the challenges in the module.

Or that the module might be suitable for a 10th level thief, an 8th level paladin, a 9th level cleric, a 5/7 elven Fighter/M-U, and 5th level drawf fighter that was being played by a player new to the group.

Or that the module might be suitably for a 5th level Paladin, a 5th level ranger, two 6th level clerics, a 7th level thief, two 5th level M-U's, two 5th level fighters, a 5th level drawf fighter/thief, and a 5th level gnome illusionist.

Usually 1e modules summarized this by stating the total expected levels the party should have. So a module for levels 5-10 might suggest that the total party levels should be at least 40, often with a caution that parties composed of mostly lower level characters should be given some small extra resources - a few potions, some hired retainers, etc.

Since I was just looking at it, if you read the inside notes, G2: Glacier Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl assumed a party of 9 characters with about 80 total levels.

 

[joshinminn]

Wow. That's complicated! I lost track of D&D between 2e and 5e. Now they do adventure paths. Did that older style die long ago, or only in recent years?

 

[Celebrim]

Wow. That's complicated! I lost track of D&D between 2e and 5e. Now they do adventure paths. Did that older style die long ago, or only in recent years?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.

Adventure Paths have been part of D&D since the beginning.

GDQ can be considered a sort of proto-adventure path lacking some of the explicit story elements we associate with AP's now.

The first true AP in D&D is probably I3 through I5, collectively called 'Desert of Desolation' by Tracy Hickman. Hickman would of course later team with Margaret Weiss to create the most famous adventure path of all time, Chronicles of the Dragonlance.

Although it's not the standard style described by the rules, it's possible to play 3e in something like 1e style. I've been it for more than a decade now. Granted, my style is and always has been heavily influenced by Hickman, but I've also done more Gygaxian style mega-dungeon delving with the rules set. However, the way 3e plays by default, characters more than 3-4 levels behind the main party have little to contribute and are in practice overly squishy. More importantly, since XP is linear per level rather than exponential, PC's that start behind in levels never really catch up. So care and sometimes rules revisions are required if you want to take your game in that direction.

We will not speak of the edition which shall not be named.

But 5e is particularly suitable for playing in the 1e style straight out of the box with a large party of mixed level characters if you wanted to do that.

Lots of people play D&D of every edition in a Sandbox style. But you rarely see Sandboxes published, because a Sandbox could be described as a style where you prepare content you don't necessarily expect to use. This is highly inefficient from a publishing perspective.

 

[CapnZapp]

To provide a general answer, though: at the start.

That is, the level indicators talk about "going in", at the start of the module.

You can certainly expect to level up while playing the adventure (in a longer scenario, many times) - but that's something different.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.

Adventure Paths have been part of D&D since the beginning.

GDQ can be considered a sort of proto-adventure path lacking some of the explicit story elements we associate with AP's now.

The first true AP in D&D is probably I3 through I5, collectively called 'Desert of Desolation' by Tracy Hickman. Hickman would of course later team with Margaret Weiss to create the most famous adventure path of all time, Chronicles of the Dragonlance.

Although it's not the standard style described by the rules, it's possible to play 3e in something like 1e style. I've been it for more than a decade now. Granted, my style is and always has been heavily influenced by Hickman, but I've also done more Gygaxian style mega-dungeon delving with the rules set. However, the way 3e plays by default, characters more than 3-4 levels behind the main party have little to contribute and are in practice overly squishy. More importantly, since XP is linear per level rather than exponential, PC's that start behind in levels never really catch up. So care and sometimes rules revisions are required if you want to take your game in that direction.

We will not speak of the edition which shall not be named.

But 5e is particularly suitable for playing in the 1e style straight out of the box with a large party of mixed level characters if you wanted to do that.

Lots of people play D&D of every edition in a Sandbox style. But you rarely see Sandboxes published, because a Sandbox could be described as a style where you prepare content you don't necessarily expect to use. This is highly inefficient from a publishing perspective.

There are several sandboxes published!

Vault of Larinn Karr (sp?) is one I can recommend. A d20 module from Necromancer Games.

 

[Saul Goode]

Didn't PCs gain followers with class levels in those editions?
I don't quite remember at what level (maybe name level?), but I do recall PCs gaining followers with associated troops (1st level fighters).

A 9th level fighter might also be bringing along his 5th level lieutenant, two 3rd level sergeants, 10 heavy cavalry troops, and 15 light infantry troops.

 

[blitzpackage 15]

No 1e module will have enough experience opportunities to bring a 5th level character to 10th by the end. The range is a spread based on the number of PCs.

 

[howandwhy99]

These were very generalized recommendations. They refer to the difficulty of the module like the difficulty of a wargame scenario (map setup) or a computer game level (area).

They also refer to how many PCs and of what ability (class level) should be appropriate. So 4-6 Players (single PCs) of 6th-8th level at start.

That's important. Very few early modules had anyone gain a level while playing them. They also could never technically be "completed" as they were dynamic and changed as long as the campaign was active. (Unless you "cratered" the entire area ...but then you have a crater module).

Not all modules gave these recommendations and they referred often enough to playing the modules individually, especially by later 1980s. That is as not part of an ongoing game, aka campaign, where the game's progression mattered. DMs had started selecting adventures to run for their players based upon their PCs' level rather than putting modules in a campaign world as level appropriate to the world. This one-off play is what led to "balanced" parties where everyone had to be "balanced" against each other. Not to mention the start of playing at higher level than 1 rather than having to earn your way up by way of playing the game. D&D the game is each player character scoring points (XP) separately and any class level of PC could potentially adventure with any other. It was part of the game for the players to judge the difficulty of what to do and where to go in the world as well as judging their party's ability overall given who was in it.