4th edition's default rate of advancement

[Rechan]

However, that's assuming encounters run around the same playtime, which may or may not be the case. It's probably close, though, as we know that there are two forces at work with encounter design and the goal of combat rule adjustments -- 1) combat is supposed to move more quickly, as they streamline rules and eliminate a bunch of rolls (iterative attacks as default, for instance); and 2) encounters are supposed to be bigger, against more enemies and taking up more space.

Those two factors work in opposition: one extends the playtime needed for an encounter by presenting more enemies and larger ground for the fights to rove across, the other seeks to speed things up and require less playtime per round. If they pretty much cancel out, playtime-wise, then 8 seems like a good estimate.

Not necessarily. I see the two working on different axises.

The intent of 1 is to speed up each round of combat. That you go down the initiative list much faster.

So let's say a fight with 4 PCs and 1 monster takes 5 rounds, and each round takes 8 minutes. That's 40 minutes for a fight.

Now, let's take a fight with 4 PCs and 4 Monsters, that lasts 10 rounds, but each round takes 4 minutes. That's 40 minutes for a fight.

Both fights take the same amount of time, but fight #2 has more stuff going on, that takes less time to execute.

 

[NewfieDave]

The best houserule ever adopted by my D&D group was totally removing experience from the game. In our campaigns, the DM simply tells you when you level up. It removes a huge chunk of bookkeeping from the game, and it allows campaigns to progress at the speed that feels right to the DM. It also lets us ignore XP costs on spells/crafting items, which have never made sense to me. Best of all, it lets us rapidly advance our characters (usually gain a level every 1-2 sessions) since our play group has a very limited amount of time when everybody is available to play.

Despite my love for our houserule, this is not the approach I would take with the 4e rules if I was in charge. Experience rules are needed in the DMG, because a novice DM could have difficulty judging when giving out a level is appropriate. What I would suggest would be a variant rule sidebar that states something like this:

"Keeping track of experience can result in heavy bookkeeping that slows the game down. A simpler method of character advancement is to eliminate experience. The player's characters gain levels at the DM's discretion (usually after the party achieves an appropriate goal, such as completing a mission/adventure). This method is not recommended for beginners, but allows an experienced DM greater control over the rate of character advancement. Groups looking for a fast-paced campaign might enjoy gaining a level every 1-2 sessions, while groups with more time to play out a long campaign might prefer gaining a level every 4-6 sessions."

 

[chitzk0i]

I just hope that the advancement doesn't go so fast that it puts PCs out of the range of lowerish level monsters too fast.

First, the designers have stated that they designed monsters in such a way as to make them viable over a larger level range than in 3e.

Also, there was an article that talked about designing an encounter in 4e. The first step listed was to choose the amount of experience you wanted the encounter to give the PCs. With this explicit focus on the amount of XP the PCs are receiving, I think that DMs will be much more aware of the leveling rate in their campaign.

 

[Asmor]

First, the designers have stated that they designed monsters in such a way as to make them viable over a larger level range than in 3e.

Also, there was an article that talked about designing an encounter in 4e. The first step listed was to choose the amount of experience you wanted the encounter to give the PCs. With this explicit focus on the amount of XP the PCs are receiving, I think that DMs will be much more aware of the leveling rate in their campaign.

Chitz, might you have a link to that article, or at least an idea where to look?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I just hope that the advancement doesn't go so fast that it puts PCs out of the range of lowerish level monsters too fast.

No doubt we'll quickly figure out how to "E6-ify" 4E in due time.

 

[Flynn]

No doubt we'll quickly figure out how to "E6-ify" 4E in due time.

I'd suggest just going with Heroic levels only, as 10th level in 4E is supposed to be roughly equal to (20/3=6.67, rounded down is) 6th level in 3E.

Of course, that's just a guess without seeing the rules. You'll be better able to make a proper judgement once you've seen the rules, I'm sure.

Now, Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Thread, Already In Progess,
Flynn

 

[Nikosandros]

Chitz, might you have a link to that article, or at least an idea where to look?

Two useful articles might be:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a

and

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070921

 

[Incenjucar]

Faster is good.

There's just SO MANY THINGS TO DO these days that weren't in existence twenty years ago, and there's still all those things that we have ever-greater access to that have been around for ages.

Even as a DM, I'm still for D&D being casually playable. It has to compete with dancing at the club, playing Rock Band with my buddies, dating, hiking, biking, sailing, museums, videogames, drawing, writing, reading, theater, cooking, cleaning, education, political concerns, travel, and career advancement, to name just a few, and completely ignoring all the things to dabble in on the internet.

So, the more bang for the buck, the better. Advancement should only be slowed if it increases the fun of the game. Beyond that, there's no reason for it to last any longer than it takes for the excitement to build.

 

[Asmor]

Two useful articles might be:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a

and

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070921

Thanks!