capping D&D at 5th level?

[Geoffrey]

Here is a very interesting article: http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

Here is a quote from it:


So what have we learned so far? Almost everyone you have ever met is a 1st level character. The few exceptional people you’ve met are probably 2nd or 3rd level – they’re canny and experienced and can accomplish things that others find difficult or impossible.

If you know someone who’s 4th level, then you’re privileged to know one of the most talented people around: They’re a professional sports player. Or a brain surgeon. Or a rocket scientist.

If you know someone who’s 5th level, then you have the honor of knowing someone that will probably be written about in history books. Walter Payton. Michael Jordan. Albert Einstein. Isaac Newton. Miyamoto Musashi. William Shakespeare.

So when your D&D character hits 6th level, it means they’re literally superhuman: They are capable of achieving things that no human being has ever been capable of achieving. They have transcended the mortal plane and become a mythic hero.


Given the above, would it not be a simple thing to cap the game (for both PCs and NPCs) at 5th level for a more realistic feel? And if you wanted, you could always slow advancement as much as you wanted (make it twice as slow, or four times as slow, or whatever).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I use a scale that says at 4th level you're a Hero with a reputation, and at 8th level you're a superheroic figure like Conan or John Carter. And 10th level is about the highest most mortals can aspire to.

While my musing on the subject talks about 10th level as a de facto limit, I've lately been wondering if even that's necessary. If you use the old "name level" model, where hit dice stop accruing around 10th level (depending on class), it has a similar effect (although spellcasters keep getting new and higher-level spells, which may not be what you want).

 

[pawsplay]

D&D is stingy enough with feats and skill increases that you effectively can't make some very reasonable character concepts at less than level 6. Should I really believe there is a 1 or 2 point spread in ability between me and the average professional boxer? Can Einstein's work really be summarized as a Knowledge check or Professon (physicist) check? Isn't it really more like Craft in some ways? Is a rookie cop really the same level as a veteran detective? Are grunts and Navy SEALs both 1st level warriors?

I think many, many people attain at least 2nd level by middle adulthood. Certainly, most military experts would have to be level 4 or so to have a decent selection of feats. In d20 Modern that is decidedly the case... in D&D I guess it is more arguable whether a longbow-wielding yeomen "needs" Rapid Shot.

 

[Nephtys]

The ability to stab someone two times in six seconds is hardly superhuman. Having five more ranks in your skills only gives you a moderate chance of being better at any given thing than a first level character. Sure, spells and hps give you a marked advantage, but those things don't exist in the real world so comparing them doesn't work anyway.

 

[Vorput]

You may want to take a look at E6.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323

It's not my cup of tea, but many seem to like it.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

If I wanted to play a game with a realistic feel, I wouldn't play D&D but GURPS. In fact, I do exactly that from time to time. When I play D&D, I want player characters whose power is intially very low, but which increases drastically over time. No, it's not realistic.

But when I play D&D, I don't care.

 

[Umbran]

Given the above

Well, I don't fully buy the above, at least for the examples given, in terms of skill checks and DCs. A 5th level character can't realistically make skill or attribute or save checks all that much higher than a 1st level one. The difference is 4 skill ranks, and maybe a feat - still enough to get seriously washed over by the randomness of the d20.

However, setting that aside, yes you can cap the game (and, I presume, slow down XP awards to match). I think the typical problem you'll find is that players like having characters who change and develop over time, and with that cap, they aren't going to change and develop all that much.

 

[shilsen]

Given the above, would it not be a simple thing to cap the game (for both PCs and NPCs) at 5th level for a more realistic feel? And if you wanted, you could always slow advancement as much as you wanted (make it twice as slow, or four times as slow, or whatever).

Yes, it would be a simple thing. But only if you wanted a more realistic feel. I don't play D&D for a realistic feel. I play it because D&D does mythic gaming beautifully. And for that you need to go past 5th lvl, which I'm very happy to do.

 

[smootrk]

I think using 10 levels is a more reasonable model, with slow advancement... the same thinking, except stretched over the 10 levels:
1-2 most common folk
3-5 professional, experienced
6-7 leaders of a field, noteworthy historical figures
8-9 truly noteworthy unique individuals (Einstein, DaVinci, Patton)
10+ beyond the typical ideas of human limits...

 

[Delta]

I think it's funny when people use skills & feats to compare D&D characters to real-life analogs. Those pieces are only supplemental add-ons to the system -- the fundamental core of the D&D system is adventurers in combat, resolved by attacks, AC, and hit points. The first thing you need to analyze is people's attacks vs. hit points, and then maybe you can think about other stuff (that are in some editions and not others) as a side-detail. Anyone that can be killed by one single sword-thrust has to be 1st level or close to it, and that's just about everyone I know.

Clearly the way the HD increase, doubling from level 1 to 2 (prior to 4E), supports the original poster's position. A PC of level 2, 3, or 4 is analagous to the physically toughest people in history, and 5+ are likely heroes of myth and legend.

Pick some kind of combat-related measurement in the real world to start with. Just to pick one example, I'll pick combat aviators. Anyone with 5 or more kills is considered a "Flying Ace". I think the record in WWI was Eddie Rickenbacker with 26 victories. If all of his opponents were CR 1, he'd have 26 x 300 XP = 7,800 for 4th level or something like that (under 3E).