Does it really matter how fast your characters level up?

[Aust Diamondew]

In game I prefer characters to level up 2 times in a year but no more than 3 times per year in game. Out of game I prefer characters to level up about 1-2 times a month of weekly gaming sessions (about 12-20 hours of play..

 

[S'mon]

Ah yes, I know exactly the encounter of which you speak. This led to probably one of the most fun 8 hour sessions we ever had in my Barakus campaign where they laid siege to the temple. It was one long tactical combat with miniatures and a little temple built out of Hirst Art blocks.

Hi Scorch - sounds tres cool!

Spoilers for Lost City of Barakus:

Spoiler

IMC 2 PCs were investigating the temple, both followers of the God of Magic (1 of them was asked to check it out by Stylus Kant, the head of the College of Magic) - unfortunately on their second attendance the Death-God cultists decided to take them out, and they were quickly overwhelmed & shackled in the punishment cell. The other 4 PCs launched an assault to rescue them - only 4 2nd & 3rd level PCs vs the EL 8 cultists, but fortunately they had just recruited Moorrin, who proved that a Sorcerer with 'Sleep' is an awesome force indeed. Plus the party Wizard has Sleep too and a high save DC, though the enemy Clerics proved not very susceptible. It was still a very hard-fought battle, and what with all the RPing and investigation they'd done that session (not to mention me giving the War-1 guards 9 hp each instead of 5) I didn't have the heart to halve their XP.

The players in my campaign have only just reached 4th level and have finished session 19 of Barakus. They have all but cleared out the first and second levels. Barakus has the built in 50% XP mechanism and with 6 to 7 players at any one session it has kept them at about the level I need them at. They recently were able to take down a CR6 Wyvern. Random encounters are becoming a problem since they are hanging out on the first level hoping to lure a competing party of evil adventurers into an ambush. I have had to start modifying random encounters to make them more challenging for them rather than throwing a "ho-hum another 6 dire rats" encounter at them.

I have been running XP on straight CR, not even bothering with EL since it seems to be more of an art than a science applying that.

Well I like to keep an eye on EL, though CR is usually more important - monster with CR over party level is very likely to kill them whereas a high EL comprised of several weaker creatures usually won't. I may need to implement the half-XP rule more strictly, generally I'd like about 1 level-up per 4 sessions (that's 2 months of play), and so far it's nearly twice that. 3 levels in 19 sessions would probably be a bit slow for my game, as that would be around 3 months' play per level.

 

[Arnwyn]

I guess my viewpoint is that even if there are complex plots moving in the background (and our adventures usually have a multitude of these) it's not that hard to adjust them to the character's current level.

I see no evidence that the assertion "it's not that hard to adjust them" applies to everyone and every game.

Your "viewpoint" is limited to you and your game.

 

[Celebrim]

Well I like to keep an eye on EL, though CR is usually more important - monster with CR over party level is very likely to kill them whereas a high EL comprised of several weaker creatures usually won't.

I also find that the EL for a group of creatures of CR lower than party level is actually less than the formula in the books would indicate. Instead of adding 2 to EL for each doubling of the number of weak creatures, I add one. This seems to work out better for everything but really high CR creatures because for low CR creatures, a creature with CR X+1 is usually more than twice as dangerous as a creature with CR X. With high CR's, there isn't alot of difference between say a CR 14 and CR 15 monster. Unfortunately, this means EL is relative, which probably wouldn't work out for published modules, but does work out for me better when working up encounters and awarding XP.

Also, NPC classes are actually worth about half thier class level in CR, rather than class level - 1. A 20th level orc warrior is not a CR 19 challenge, and is much closer to CR 10.

I don't have the 3.5 rules (not seeing a reason to by core books twice), but I wonder whether these problems were addressed in the current edition.

 

[S'mon]

Hi Celebrim - I agree with your points, certainly in the CR 4-8 range doubling the numbers is more like EL+1 than +2. Conversely at very high level (20+) it may be more like EL+4.

For NPC Warrior Aristocrat & Adept classes I tend to use CR = level x 2/3 rounded down, assuming they have some equipment (at very least equal, to the treasure of an appropriate CR monster), I think a 20th level orc warrior would only be CR 10 if it had almost no gear. Admittedly to check CR I tend to compare to the 3.0 DMG NPC characters, whose CRs don't match their levels either beyond about 10th - although spellcasters (Wizard Sorcerer Cleric) aren't too far off, but Fighters are weak, as are the 25 PB Monk, Paladin etc.
I don't really use Commoner any more. Experts' CR probably is about 1/2 their level, unless they're min-maxed for combat with eg Tumble & combat feats.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Is there a reason why the PCs can't do all of these things regardless of what level they are? To me, they seem like they could all be geared towards adventurers of any level, whether 5th, 15th, or 50th.

Dozens of reasons, ranging from PC capabilities to narrative imperative, and not least including simply not enough time to accomplish all these things before they top out at 20th.

 

[Von Ether]

Dozens of reasons, ranging from PC capabilities to narrative imperative, and not least including simply not enough time to accomplish all these things before they top out at 20th.

I've learned that the "power level" of a game in DnD is not as tied down to PC levels as some think.

I'm running a Eberron game right now and I'm aiming for the "power level" of the game to go off around 8th level. I'm using plenty of NPC classes for NPCs, action points and a ad hoc repuation system to make the group have a "low-level/high-action" experience. I'm looking forward to having epic adventures after 12th level. I want the world to be their sandbox while avoiding all of the additional muck about the Epic handbook.

On the other hand, in AD&D, I was in an early 90's game where we hit 16th level in jsut over a year and were worships as gods. This was before the Options book came out.

I encourage anyone to tweak the XP system to fit their style. For me, I found 3.x's XP system is much more tweakable than previous editions. YMMV. I do story rewards, bonus XP multipled by PC level and use the Spycraft Background mechanic and my players are happy. And if my players and I are happy, then a game system works ... even if it's broken. LOL!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm running a Eberron game right now and I'm aiming for the "power level" of the game to go off around 8th level. I'm using plenty of NPC classes for NPCs, action points and a ad hoc repuation system to make the group have a "low-level/high-action" experience. I'm looking forward to having epic adventures after 12th level. I want the world to be their sandbox while avoiding all of the additional muck about the Epic handbook.

This is an impression about the subjectivity of fast advancement. In Eberron, where most NPC's are low level, it's easy to be 12th and have epic adventures...you're more powerful than most of the people in the world.

In FR, for instance, it's harder, because most of the NPC movers and shakers are absurdly high level, to a "they will always be more powerful than you" kind of point. Fast advancement doesn't hurt FR at all.

Me, I play a lot of Planescape. Since the adventures are on the planes, high level is the order of the day, and there are things out there that define power itself. You will never be high enough level in my PS campaign to ever breeze through an encounter I don't want you to breeze through. If you're 40th level UBERGODS, I have a single Balor tucked away in some corner just waiting to take that 3k hp down to the single digits. It doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 100, I will never run out of challenges for you. That's part of the inherent advantage of PS -- it's so diverse, it's very easy to create any story you want out of it.

I think the reason that threads like this appear is that some GMs running 3.x games suddenly discover that their characters advanced from 1st to 15th level in a couple of months in-game - it's a common enough concern that I've seen it raised on bulletin boards many times over the years. I'm not suggesting that it's a "bad" thing, but it is a recurring point of contention with some GMs, as evidenced by the response in this thread.

I guess I can't easily sympathize with a DM who "suddenly discovers" they have high-level characters on their hands, since XP and pacing are entirely in the hands of the DM (even using the default recommendations). Surprise over the fact that the party wizard can suddenly teleport when one month ago he couldn't? That doesn't seem to be the system's fault, that seems to be an oopsie on the DM's part (not that we don't all make significant oopsies every week as DMs ). Blaming the D&D XP system for the woes seems...odd, to me, since a DM effectively controls the entire situation herself. But maybe I'm missin' somethin'....

The problem with this approach, for me, is that all it seems to do is reinforce the idea that 3.x instilled that the PCs are the most important entities in a huge dynamic campaign world where there are tons of other things going on - some of which may or may not affect the PCs - either on purpose or at random. My answer to that idea is "Wrong! It is my campaign world, I'll run it how I see fit." If I want to speed up or slow down the progress of level advancement, that is my prerogative as a DM.

What's wrong with the PC's feeling like they're the most important entities in a huge, dynamic campaign world where there are tons of other things going on? Heck, what's wrong with them BEING the most important entities in that world?

You should run your world as you see fit, but D&D *is* engineered to have the PC's be heroes, unique in the world, not just part of a greater whole, but somehow definitive of that whole. Because people like feeling like they had a humungous impact on the campaign world. In the campaigns I run that aren't PS, my players are constantly the "chosen ones" or the "reincarnation of the ancient heroes" or "the only creatures capable of saving the universe." Even in my campaigns that are PS, with the gods and the like, the PC's affect the world on their own level -- they define topography, shift towns, defend family and friends, discover world-shaking things, define reality in their own terms. What's wrong with that? Everyone defines their campaign world as they see fit. The implied D&D world is one where the main characters are several cuts above even the powerful NPC's, eventually....that's wrong?

Basically my case is that this:

Others may feel the same way, but I don't think a group of adventurers should be able to amass a fortune and a lot of power in a few months (i.e. go from level 1 to 9 in 2 months of game time).

Isn't so much a problem with 3e, it's a problem understanding what your players are doing. They didn't go from 1 to 9 in two months because of D&D, they went from 1 to 9 in two months because you made them. Space it out, sprinkle in low-level encounters that give crap for XP, and take it easy. It's not the XP system that's at fault, here. Though you may want to change it to better suit your own ends, it handles slow advancement just fine, I think. Those 13.3 encounters aren't the *only* encounters, they are just the encounters at your EL.

 

[Pants]

Hm, I find it strange how these threads seem to pull the 'extremely' opposite viewpoints out of the woodwork.

We have people who like to level at a pace similar to molasses and others who want something FASTER than the admittedly already fast leveling of 3.x. To each their own I suppose.

Personally, 3.x is just fine. It's quick enough that it gives the players a sense of accomplishment and slows down enough at later levels that the PC's CAN get to know their own abilities rather well. In a game that only levels once every 3 months+, I'd quit in a heartbeat. That type of game simply isn't fun for me and the lack of mechanical 'growth' with my PC would be unbearable.

Mostly this is due to the fact that I have yet to have a character get past level 10. Ever. I'm damn sick of fighting orcs and goblins and, as a DM, I'm sick of having the PC's fighting orcs and goblins. Give me a dragon, a powerful outsider, a lich, an evil cleric warlord, or anything over yet another entourage of level 1 warrior goblins and orcs.

Faster leveling might be fine, but I don't think I would really like to level every session. That seems a bit too fast.

I'm happy with 3.x since my rarely played characters feel like they're actually getting somewhere...

 

[3catcircus]

In FR, for instance, it's harder, because most of the NPC movers and shakers are absurdly high level, to a "they will always be more powerful than you" kind of point. Fast advancement doesn't hurt FR at all.

It does when you want the game to be slow enough to build the plot threads that lead the PCs to challenge the high level NPCs *when* they are high enough level to challenge them. I don't use the movers and shakers as save-the-day NPCs. In most cases, my players are the heroes, scaled to the situation.

Meaning - 1st level PCs will be the ones the villagers look to in order to stop the raids/murders/mutilated livestock/[insert threat here].

*When* the PCs are mid-level, instead of stopping the marauding goblin horde, and instead of finding out that the town blacksmith *wasn't* accidentally run over by a horse, they will discover that the goblin horde was paid to conduct raids - and the blacksmith eliminated as a source of competition - so that a local Iron Throne agent can sell weapons to the villagers at inflated prices.

Later still, they will find out that the Iron Throne wants the trade of weapons as a front in order to launder large amounts of coinage ill-gotten through the sale of slaves.

Maybe the PCs will pursue the slavery angle and discover that the slaves are needed to conduct a Red Wizard Experiment/Banite Religious Ceremony/etc. (of an as-yet unknown nature).

Finally - when the PCs are very high level, maybe they trace the Iron Throne to its source and discover the true nature of the Iron Throne. Maybe they discover that the Red Wizard Experiment/Banite Religious Ceremony/etc. is using the slaves to power an infernal machine that is in direct opposition to the Iron Throne's true goals...

If the progression of experience wasn't slowed down by the DM, then maybe the PCs discover the who and what, but not the why - which may lead them to ignore potential plot threads.

I guess I can't easily sympathize with a DM who "suddenly discovers" they have high-level characters on their hands, since XP and pacing are entirely in the hands of the DM (even using the default recommendations). Surprise over the fact that the party wizard can suddenly teleport when one month ago he couldn't? That doesn't seem to be the system's fault, that seems to be an oopsie on the DM's part (not that we don't all make significant oopsies every week as DMs ). Blaming the D&D XP system for the woes seems...odd, to me, since a DM effectively controls the entire situation herself. But maybe I'm missin' somethin'....

See above - I don't "suddenly discover" that my players have high level PCs - I want to fully develop as many different threads as possible - and the only way to do that is either through a slower xp progression or to spoon-feed the PCs information that they should be figuring out on their own. I have no problems dealing with PCs who have high-level abilities - it is the fact that those abilities mean nothing when the driver for your campaign has little to do with daily combats.

What's wrong with the PC's feeling like they're the most important entities in a huge, dynamic campaign world where there are tons of other things going on? Heck, what's wrong with them BEING the most important entities in that world?

Because that is not "realistic" (yeah, yeah - I know it is a fantasy game - I don't make them roll a d20 to determine if they got everything off when they wipe their behinds...) 1st level PC's aren't, and shouldn't, be the most important entities in the world. They *can* be the most important in their little corner of it, but until they have earned enough levels to be political movers and shakers, then they will be relatively unimportant to the world at large. Sure, at 1st level, they may be giving a headache to an orc tribe that is in the hills outside thier little town in Amn; but does a Amnian merchant who's livelihood is made from the sale of Maztican cocoa beans in Athkatla really care about that? Not at 1st level. Maybe later on, the fact that the PCs have eliminated an orc tribe means that a road is safe enough for the tiny little town to get it's first taste of these "cocoa beans of which you speak," at which point maybe the PCs are noticed by said merchant and asked to be caravan guards or go into business with him, or whatever...

You should run your world as you see fit, but D&D *is* engineered to have the PC's be heroes, unique in the world, not just part of a greater whole, but somehow definitive of that whole. Because people like feeling like they had a humungous impact on the campaign world. In the campaigns I run that aren't PS, my players are constantly the "chosen ones" or the "reincarnation of the ancient heroes" or "the only creatures capable of saving the universe." Even in my campaigns that are PS, with the gods and the like, the PC's affect the world on their own level -- they define topography, shift towns, defend family and friends, discover world-shaking things, define reality in their own terms. What's wrong with that? Everyone defines their campaign world as they see fit. The implied D&D world is one where the main characters are several cuts above even the powerful NPC's, eventually....that's wrong?

Basically my case is that this:


Isn't so much a problem with 3e, it's a problem understanding what your players are doing. They didn't go from 1 to 9 in two months because of D&D, they went from 1 to 9 in two months because you made them. Space it out, sprinkle in low-level encounters that give crap for XP, and take it easy. It's not the XP system that's at fault, here. Though you may want to change it to better suit your own ends, it handles slow advancement just fine, I think. Those 13.3 encounters aren't the *only* encounters, they are just the encounters at your EL.

Which is exactly my point - *I* slow down the xp progression by doing things like this, by giving out xp for goal accomplishment, by doing whatever it takes to ensure that my players don't grow faster than the plot hooks they've generated can support them.

It isn't about challenging them in combat - it is about keeping their growth in line with their storyline - a storyline that they are developing. At the same time, as a DM, you want campaign world continuity. I don't want the players to redefine certain things in my campaign - do I really want them to overthrow Cormyr's ruler? No - but can I allow them to clear out the Stonelands and gain a Barony? Sure. Can I allow them to decide to secede from Cormyr and start their own kingdom? Sure - that isn't to say that the Purple Dragons and War Wizards won't then suppress their rebellion and force them to go on the lam...