Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xnosipjpqmhd" data-source="post: 3301340">For some time I have had nagging doubts about what the heck xp and levels represent, and what the effect on the game would be if PCs didn't advance so... obviously. Related to this are a lot of unrealistic and yet all-too common situations in D&D games:- Campaigns that span a few weeks of game time and result in PCs with levels higher than their age... (Does it strain credulity for someone to leave his village an inept peon and return a month later as the most skilled warrior in the kingdom? So what if he went through the whole Age of Worms adventure path; how much could he actually learn in so short a time that experts who have spent their whole lives could not?)- Wide disparity in the power level of NPCs with no outward way to judge... (sure, smart PCs can tell low-HD monsters from high-HD ones, but how are they supposed to know whether the old hermit NPC is a crazy 1st level commoner or a 12th level sorcerer?)- High-level retired adventurers who are barkeeps but are just as sharp and skilled as they were decades ago... (How come their skills don't deteriorate from non-use?)Is it possible to imagine D&D without advancement? What would happen if your group simply decided on the level at which they wanted to play, and just started playing, without tracking xp?Is it possible to imagine D&D without levels... or more to the point, without large disparities in skill between anyone and anyone else? Would this still be considered a heroic game or would you classify this as gritty/realistic?Is it possible to link advancement with age? What would happen if it were impossible for someone to have more class levels than twice their age? I picked that ratio at random, but it could be any formula you like... What effect would this have on running a campaign?Obviously people can always learn new things, but is there a point at which personal improvement is maxed out until you are simply becoming more specialized in one (or more) professions at the cost of neglecting everything else?Perhaps more to the point, is it possible to replace the current advancement rules with something that better emulates diminishing returns on finite resources... that is, if a fighter all of a sudden starts spending his time studying magic, wouldn't his fighting skills deteriorate while his magic skills correspondingly improve?To give a crude example, what if the maximum potential of a person is, say, 20 levels of ability, and barring divine intervention, it's simply not physically possible to possess more raw skill than that. When a multiclassed Fighter 16 / Wizard 4 wants to gain a level in Wizard, it comes at the expense of a Fighter level. (This is a generous example, but what if the cap was 5 levels of ability?)To a lesser extent, the thoughts above apply to monsters with hit dice as well. Hypothetically speaking, there's nothing in the rules saying a DM couldn't design a normal-looking bunny with 24 HD and a +35 base attack bonus, right? That's an extreme example, but reduce it to 2 HD and it's still arbitrary.Thoughts and opinions anyone?</blockquote>

Verification