Meaning of Levels, Throughout the Editions

[Insight]

I've been looking at converting some iconic AD&D modules to 4th edition and one aspect of it got me curious about the "meaning" of levels throughout the various editions of D&D. I've played the vast majority of them, but have not meaningfully played the older versions in any form since about 1992.

BECMI
This is the version that started me off in D&D. As I recall, Basic was levels 1-3, Expert was levels 4-10, Companion was 11-20, Master was 21-30, and Immortal was 31+. I never had a character above 6th level because I had moved on to AD&D by then.

AD&D
In AD&D, a character reached "name level" at 9th. Thereafter, most characters did not gain meaningful abilities, though some classes became significantly more powerful after "name level". Official materials did not support play above 20th level.

2nd ED
As I recall, access to class abilities was a bit more graduated in 2nd ed. Characters still hit a "pinnacle" around 9-12th levels and infrequently gained abilities after that. Like "1st Ed" AD&D, the official materials did not support characters above 20th level.

3rd/3.5 ED
Characters were given class abilities at an even more graduated rate (especially in 3.5) and had meaningful gains at higher levels. "Name Level" was pretty much eradicated by this time. The main materials supported play to 20th level and the Epic Level Handbook supported play to 30th level.

4th ED
The core materials support play from 1-30. Class abilities are very much spread out throughout the levels and, based on my read of design intent, characters should level fairly quickly.

So, what does all of this mean? Could you (or should you) draw a comparison between say a 4th level Elf Ranger in 4E versus a 4th level Ranger in 2E or AD&D? Is there a way to calculate or eyeball a comparison of levels between editions?


Please, no edition warring. Thanks.

 

[Nagol]

AD&D supported play up to level 29 in the Player's Handbook (the Magic-User and Cleric spell progression tables went until the late 20's).

Play over 29th level was fully supported in that what was gained at any level break after that was fully detailed, if minimal in terms of improvement and the xp required was also detailed.

 

[Gryph]

IIRC, in a thread on Dragonsfoot Frank Mentzer said you can double the levels on an AD&D module to determine the appropriate character levels in BECMI.

I don't think there is a simple conversion factor between 1e/2e and 4e. I consider a 1st level 4e character to be about a 5th level AD&D character in relative power; but that doesn't allow for the fact that the lowly Kobold in 4e is as nasty as a 1e Ogre.

 

[Umbran]

So, what does all of this mean? Could you (or should you) draw a comparison between say a 4th level Elf Ranger in 4E versus a 4th level Ranger in 2E or AD&D? Is there a way to calculate or eyeball a comparison of levels between editions?

I don't think it means much, and I would not trust comparisons to yield much useful information.

In general, character levels only have meaning in the context of their rules. The more the rules differ, the less similarity levels will have in different games. You can do some fairly direct comparison between 1e and 2e, but beyond that, I think the rules are too dissimilar to glean much of use.

You might get more mileage out of being less granular - later editions of the game think in terms of "zones" of levels (like heroic, paragon, and epic). You can perhaps compare a bit how different games play out in each of these zones, without trying to compare individual levels.

 

[Insight]

IIRC, in a thread on Dragonsfoot Frank Mentzer said you can double the levels on an AD&D module to determine the appropriate character levels in BECMI.

I don't think there is a simple conversion factor between 1e/2e and 4e. I consider a 1st level 4e character to be about a 5th level AD&D character in relative power; but that doesn't allow for the fact that the lowly Kobold in 4e is as nasty as a 1e Ogre.

This is pretty much was I was going for. Those comparisons seem apt enough.

 

[aurance]

I don't think it means much, and I would not trust comparisons to yield much useful information.

In general, character levels only have meaning in the context of their rules. The more the rules differ, the less similarity levels will have in different games. You can do some fairly direct comparison between 1e and 2e, but beyond that, I think the rules are too dissimilar to glean much of use.

You might get more mileage out of being less granular - later editions of the game think in terms of "zones" of levels (like heroic, paragon, and epic). You can perhaps compare a bit how different games play out in each of these zones, without trying to compare individual levels.

I completely agree, and would add that individual campaigns contribute greatly to what levels mean as well.

On another note, BECMI level ranges were as follows: B 1-3, E 4-14, C 15-25, M 26-36, and Immortal being another set of "leveling" altogether.

 

[LostSoul]

I would look at standard monsters (goblin/orc/gnoll/ogre/troll/etc.) and their HD/CR/Level or place on the Wandering Monsters by Dungeon Level charts and go from there.

 

[S'mon]

4e "Paragon" (11th) seems to equate to 1e-2e "Name Level" (9th-11th depending on class), or maybe just below - 8th level AD&D Superheroes and Patriarchs seem of similar status to 4e low-Paragon characters.

4e "Epic Level" I think equates to around 1e 16th level, the level where Magic-Users gained 8th level spells and Clerics maxed out with 7th level spells.

Edit: You could roughly say then that 7 AD&D levels equated to 10 4e D&D levels.

 

[Dausuul]

That's a tricky business, and complicated by the fact that pre-3E characters are not designed to scale at a steady rate--power level for most classes is intended to plateau around level 10.

I think LostSoul has the right idea. PC power is only meaningful relative to the world around them. While a 1st-level 4E character may have five times the hit points of her AD&D equivalent, if she's still fighting "on the level" with a kobold, is she actually any more powerful?

So, the first step is to create a list of "benchmark monsters." (One challenge here is to make sure that the benchmarks don't change their relative order between editions.) Second step is to figure out the rough level-equivalence of those monsters in AD&D, probably based on XP value. Then it's relatively simple to judge PCs against the benchmarks.

This seems like a pretty interesting project. Might give it a go tonight or this weekend.

 

[howandwhy99]

I do not believe earlier editions used class levels as both discreet and static quantitative power totals per character once play began. You know, like DDM where each player picks a group of minis for an agreed total for all players. "200 points? That's 3 x 30-point goblins, a 45-point woodwych, and, my favorite, a 65-point cobalt blue ferrolisk!"

In d20 and 4E the design aims do include this static and discreet balancing by level for all characters no matter the class or other options. So character level = power level, though 3.5 got quite funky in its multi-classing, class vs. character level and all that. However, only when class/character level changed did quantifiable power change - a sort of step ladder with no further granularity between. (3E treasure tables withstanding)

As I understand earlier versions of D&D, character level was always in flux and never openly enumerated to the player. This was important as it enabled other members of a group to "power up" a new 1st level PC, something judged by each upon their ongoing mastering of the game. This was not only for the new guy's benefit, but for everyone in the group. "Give'r the Rod of Smaxalot, that'll help. Plus we can buy her some better armor before we go toe-to-toe." This sharing of resources in a cooperative gave allowed newbies to be useful even at low class levels. And by resources I mean everything quantified and tracked by the referee/DM: equipment, property, contacts, information, even past strategies are all examples.

At the start of a new campaign the class levels were (mostly*) balanced according to each one's quantitative strategy space. Swapping in 3E or 4E classes could only feasibly work, if these pre-existing classes were all uniform - something not done in pre-d20 D&D as each class was its own game. Anyways, most of the later edition class balancing built into the overall character power, the discrete and static quantity, a whole lot the earlier versions did not. I believe this was previously left out on purpose, mainly due to a design philosophy which included each declared attempt by a player causing an alteration to their PCs overall power (as well as the others). They did not want character power to remain static in any case where the player made a choice.

*By mostly, I mean their was some power level of the class being changed during character generation, but then this was specific to that PC. Right now, I'm thinking of the player personalization via textual description of certain class abilities, like spells for instance. This actually altered the functioning of the ability in quantifiable game terms. But as this was part of playing the game, one where the aim was to improve the character, balance was maintained for all new starting PCs. Purchasing initial equipment had a similar effect, but those decisions were (again , mostly) not related to specific class level power.