Advancement even faster?

[Reynard]

From the news on the frontpage:

The way character advancement works now, it takes fewer encounters to gain a level, but it takes roughly the same length of time to reach 30 levels in 4th Edition as it takes to reach 20 levels in 3rd Edition.

So, they are going for even faster level advancement? I assume this is because levelling is considered the primary reward for sitting down at the table for 4 to 8 hours. This irritates me. I thought that playing was the primary reward for sitting down at the table for 4 to 8 hours.

back when there was the "Dead Levels" article on Wizards' site, I realized that something was happening to the game that i didn't like -- namely, that it was catering to a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of fun. This most recent snippet reagrding 4e has suggested to me that such is true for the new edition, and reaffirms my decision to just go back to running 1E and play the D&D that I want to play.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, see ya. I'm too old to wait seven real-time months between levels. At that rate, by the time I hit level 30, I'd be dead.

 

[mmadsen]

So, they are going for even faster level advancement?

No, not really, since a "level" doesn't mean the same thing between editions. Yes, characters will level up more often, but leveling up will entail a smaller increase in power.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Well, see ya. I'm too old to wait seven real-time months between levels. At that rate, by the time I hit level 30, I'd be dead.

Agreed.
Assuming fullfilling sessions, I could handle leveling up every two sessions.
Playing every week, it'd still take 14 months to hit the top, plus another two sessions to reach 'the end'(play two sessions as a 30th level, too.) And I know I sure won't have the opportunity to play every week. So, playing twice a month, now we're talking 29 months. I'll be lucky to ever see a game last that long, so let me have some advances!

BTW, Reynard, IMO, levelling is part of what makes the game fun.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, see ya. I'm too old to wait seven real-time months between levels. At that rate, by the time I hit level 30, I'd be dead.

It's an answer that sort of proves the original poster's point.

If you played the same amount of time, and you had fun, what does it matter what level you ended up at? Is it the playing the game that was fun, or is it the leveling up?

Hitting level 30 isn't fun. It's means, in a way, 'Game Over'.

I played a 3rd edition cleric in my only extended time as a PC in 3rd edition. I found I was leveling up so quickly, that generally speaking I wouldn't even get a chance to use all my new found powers before I'd level up again and get new ones. I didn't like that experience at all. It seemed to me like a tasty dish that was served and then yanked away before I could even chew the first bite. I want to play at a certain level until I've had a chance to use all my new powers a couple of times.

 

[zoroaster100]

I don't want faster advancement. I want slower advancement than 3e provided. However, if they are doing away with experience drain for crafting magic items and other effects, then it should be pretty simple for a DM to change the rate of advancement without any extra work.

 

[tlantl]

I figure I'll wait and see how things work with the game in hand. I like the slow and steady rout myself. I think there are times when a quick jump is necessary too, though. I have some reservations but the promise of a multiclass solution that works is fueling my optimism. right now. Maybe by the time the first preview is released we'll be better able to gauge the real worth of the game. I am disappointed in so much of the 3e that I actually welcome the change. I just hope that it is worth the trouble.

As for a speedier level advancement rate, well I feel that these things can be controlled at the table, even if it means adjusting experience awards downward.

 

[Treebore]

No, not really, since a "level" doesn't mean the same thing between editions. Yes, characters will level up more often, but leveling up will entail a smaller increase in power.

Well, if thats the case I can probably be happy with it. If not I'll just increase XP requirements by whatever gives the pace I want. If I even embrace 4E.

 

[Lanefan]

When I read this on the front page much of the tentative hope and optimism I'd built up for 4e just kinda drained away.

3e advancement needs to be slowed down, so what do they do for 4e? Speed it up.

Sigh...

Lanefan

 

[psionotic]

Luckily, the speed of level advancement is completely controlled by the DM. While I use the DMG table to set my baseline, I feel no qualms about bumping that number up or slowing it down when appropriate. I've done that for all previous editions, and will, I'm sure, continue it for 4e.

I will say this, though: I do agree that playing the game to play the game is the most important thing. But I also have always felt, that a big part of the game is growth of the character, both storywise and in power. Players tend to look forward to future levels and abilities. Part of the potential downside of having 30 core levels instead of 20, is that there will be that much more for them to look forward to (and thus, they might bellyache a little for faster advancement)

But I'm not too worried. My groups generally play twice a month, and level up (on average) every other session. At this rate, a 1 to 30 campaign will take... 2.5 years. That sounds about right to me.