"4th Edition will assume roughly 10 encounters per level"

[Engilbrand]

The total XP after 10 should level you. Think about the other major thing that they've said, though. XP is not a resource. Nothing will ever drop it. That means that you don't even need to keep track of XP. You can just periodically level your players if you decide that it's time.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

While searching for posts by Chris Perkins, I found this quote on the Wizards boards:



While there have already been comments on faster leveling or two to three sessions per level, this is the first time I can recall anyone from Wizards mentioning the assumed number of encounters.

they also said that an "encounter" is now a lot of things not only combat

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Instead of snuffing out 256 lives to claim level 20 in 3E, the party of four PCs must take the lives of 1160 to see level 30 in 4E

Yeah, but they're all bad.

 

[KarinsDad]

The total XP after 10 should level you. Think about the other major thing that they've said, though. XP is not a resource. Nothing will ever drop it. That means that you don't even need to keep track of XP. You can just periodically level your players if you decide that it's time.

Precisely.

A simple system could consist of leveling after 10 encounters. If an encounter is super easy, ignore it. If an encounter is tough, make it the equivalent of two or three encounters. If the PCs accomplish a major goal or mission or roleplay especially well, give them a bonus encounter or two. Using this type of system, I could have XP figured out in 2 seconds at the end of a session. I cannot do that with 3E/3.5 XP.

The 3E system of XP with numbers in the 1000s is more bookkeeping than it was ever worth. They could divide that entire thing by 100 and still have a good enough system.

 

[Engilbrand]

I didn't even use XP for the most part. It just didn't seem important. The same group was always together and we didn't have anyone spending XP at the low levels we played. We just didn't need to worry about it. Now, XP isn't even necessary. If I run, I'll probably just level people every 2 or 3 sessions. Maybe right before or right after a major plot point. But I won't let them know how much they get at the end of a session. I don't see a need.

 

[Reynard]

Plus it looks like using alternate rates of advancement will be explicitly discussed in the DMG. I think it's easier for veterans to slow things down than new gamers to speed things up, so I'm not concerned with this change.

This is important. I think people underestimate the value of having the rule books -- particularly the DMG -- talk explicitely about what things the DM has control over and how to make use of that control. The 2E DMG was just as bad (or worse, since it didn't have a useful thing in it outside of magic items), but the 1E DMG was filled with actual advice, almost all of which boiled down to 3 basic tenets: 1) here is the rule as presented, 2) you may change it to fit your game/group, and 3) beware mucking it up! Those threee points are the most important thing for a DM to know, especially a new one. (And it helps if the players are told it to so they don't get up in arms when the DM says "We are using the 1/3 advancement rate because I think slower levelling will increase everyone's fun.")

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The advancement rate is probably the easiest thing for a DM to change to suit his or her campaign, so assumably everyone will find the rate of advancement that best fits their game, just like in every previous edition.

I disagree. In 3.x, you had to hand out magic items at a certain rate. If you handed out XP at a greater or lesser rate, you had to alter the rate of magic item handouts as well. However, if you slowed down advancement, you weren't just giving out less treasure, you were giving out lamer treasure. Slowing down advancement screwed PCs in the magic items department; at best, they had to sell all the magic items they got for better ones (as they never got the right ones for their level).

 

[Nyaricus]

Precisely.

A simple system could consist of leveling after 10 encounters. If an encounter is super easy, ignore it. If an encounter is tough, make it the equivalent of two or three encounters. If the PCs accomplish a major goal or mission or roleplay especially well, give them a bonus encounter or two. Using this type of system, I could have XP figured out in 2 seconds at the end of a session. I cannot do that with 3E/3.5 XP.

Beautiful thought

cheers,
--N

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Too fast, particularly given the trap/Rp/puzzle and other types of encounters. If this were only combat encounters I could live with it.

20 would be a better scale.

 

[KarinsDad]

Beautiful thought

Thanks. It would be nice if WotC say the elogance of these types of ideas.