Advancement even faster?

[Ares]

Same here. I don't think the faster leveling will be an issue, considering many players have never even seen level 20 in their 3.x games.

 

[Belen]

I suspect this has a LOT to do with the complaints from the RPGA that leveling takes too long. If you play weekly in the RPGA, then you only get to 12th, I believe. I think it sucks that the RPGA is pushing so much change.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Eh, I'm not to worried.

If the over all power at 4th ed '30' is roughly the same as 3rd ed '20', we're just spreading the power gain out in smaller steps.

That said...

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.

You do realise that you just declared that all of us who dont mind the speed of levelling are doing it for selfish reasons and are having 'badwrongfun?'. You might want to try less loaded language in the future.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I may actually start using experience again. Good move, WotC.

 

[Celebrim]

1e has fast levelling too. You have to houserule xp for gp away to make it slow.

This is partially true. First edition leveling rate is comparable to third edition through the first few levels of play. But, since each level requires double the experience points of the previous, things normally get slower and slower. The gap between 8th and 10th is huge. At latter levels the advancement rate is flat, but its a huge gap of like 325000 XP per level and treasure doesn't scale up past 10th level. It's going to stay slow at that point even if you don't houserule xp for gp away.

Besides which, if you actually read the fine print on the XP for gp rule in the 1st edition DMG, you only get the full xp for a gp if you earned it from an appropriate challenge. If for example, a party of 10th level characters entered a lair of kobolds, they'd only get 1/10th normal xp for any of the limited treasure that they might obtain for such a foray.

Besides which, and this ought to be an old and settled argument, exactly how much treasure your DM gave out in play depended alot on which of the conflicting examples of treasure allocation he used as canonical. If his perception of appropriate amounts of treasure was based strictly on the treasure tables in the MM, then advancement was very slow indeed. If on the other hand, the treasure tables were used for wilderness encounters and 'dungeons' were designed according to the example of treasure allocation in the 1st edition DMG, then advancement was somewhat faster. If on the other hand, you took the treasure allocation from published (tournament) modules as indicative of appropriate design, then advancement could be very fast indeed. As for myself, I was much closer to using the treasure tables as the appropriate guideline, and took the detailed example of treasure composition from the 1st edition DMG as gospel. Most DMs I played under where more or less the same, since no one wanted to be accused of being 'Monte Haul'. Everyone would have rather had a 'manly' reputation for harshness.

In all editions, levelling speed is probably the easiest thing to houserule there is, so it seems odd that it should be a reason for avoiding 4e.

I didn't say it was a reason for avoiding 4e in and of itself. I suggested that it was further evidence that the game being designed was not designed with me in mind as a target audience. It is further evidence that whatever concerns that they've chosen to address, they aren't my concerns.

 

[Wormwood]

I may actually start using experience again. Good move, WotC.

Me too!

Recently, I've simply been giving the party enough XP to guarantee they leveled every couple of sessions. More, if they really chewed through some tough encounters.

I'm eagerly looking forward to the 4e take on this.

 

[Cadfan]

I used to just tell the players when they leveled. There was no reason to award experience, since everyone got the same amount, so I just kept track of it myself. Then I realized that I was doing my best to ensure that everyone leveled approximately every 3 sessions, and with that timed so that they'd level right before a main push against a big evil bad guy. So I didn't need the numbers at all.

So, I stopped using them. I've found I'm not the only one.

 

[JDJblatherings]

quciker advacement - fixable at the game table.

My last 3.x campaign ran for over 5 years and the highest level anyone reached was 14. We played almost weekly.
i did this by decidng the 'average encounter' in the campaign was 6th level or so. Low level charcters had to be darned careful and high level charcters had to search out truely rewardign adventures.

 

[SavageRobby]

I've actually found (despite my older school leanings) that I like quicker advancement with smaller incremental gains at each level-up. That can seriously help shrink the difference between the lower and higher levels, and extend the "sweet spot" (or whatever the marketing speak has been).

I think it would be fantastic if they gave a choice at each level increment to:

* Increase HP
* Increase abilities
* Increase Fighting skill
* Increase spells known
* Increase spell casting capability
* Add a feat/special ability

Some choices would probably have to be restricted by level brackets (such as one ability increase per 5 levels). While I doubt they'd go that granular, I'd sure like it a lot more if they did.

 

[Nebulous]

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.

Yes, it is still ultimately in the hands of the DM as to how fast a party advances, no matter what the core rules say.

I used to just tell the players when they leveled. There was no reason to award experience, since everyone got the same amount, so I just kept track of it myself. Then I realized that I was doing my best to ensure that everyone leveled approximately every 3 sessions, and with that timed so that they'd level right before a main push against a big evil bad guy. So I didn't need the numbers at all.

So, I stopped using them. I've found I'm not the only one.

Agreed. I've found XP to be rather useless and a headache. I just level the party up when it feels appropriate, about every 4-6 sessions.