Einstein is a 5th Level Expert character

[Water Bob]

I just read Justin Alexander's remarkable essay, D&D - Calibrating Your Expectations, and I must say, it's a real eye opener.

Justin's excellent article concludes with:

Target the precise range of levels which form the “sweet spot” for whatever campaign concept I’m working on, and then tinker with the character creation and advancement rules to keep the campaign focused in that sweet spot. Those changes can be as simple as “XP awards will be 1/10th the normal size and everyone should create a 5th level character”, but more complicated variants are more than possible.

And, prior to that, he states:

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.

My question would be: What needs to happen to the game so that the Walter Paytons, Michael Jordans, Albert Einsteins, Isaac Newtons, Miyamoto Musashis, and William Shakespeares are considered to be 10th level rather than 5th?

Obviously, it's a function of skill points. So, do we need to limit the number of skill points awarded? Or just limit their use (say, by allowing the max rank of a skill to be equal to the character's level rather than the character's level plus three).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's more than just skill points, Justin just uses that to quantify his argument because it's the most relatable aspect of D&D to real life. (How far can humans jump? How far can D&D characters jump?) Attacking capabilities and (absolutely) the magical abilities also play large factors, among other things.

Why do you want to extend it to 10th level? If you just want more survivability, you could just give everyone double hit points (so a level 4 fighter with con 14 has 8d10 +8 hit points). Or increment the level gain so that first you actually hit level 3 and gain the HD and class features, etc.... And then you have to reach level "3.5," which gives you an additional hit die but nothing else, before you can work towards level 4.

 

[Water Bob]

Why do you want to extend it to 10th level?

More granularity. Justin's analysis has master smiths at level 1. I'd want the system to go through apprentice and journeyman levels before reaching master.

And, the XP system lends itself nicely to a 1-10 level game, where a normal character, doing normal things, earns about 1000 XP per year.

This is explained in a note I wrote to my players (of a d20 Conan RPG, based on 3.5):

-- Typical Ages and Character Level --




Most people in this campaign range in character level from 1-10. Characters that are level 11+ are true heros, in deed, known and recognized in many directions. Hyborian kings, arch-mages and great sorcerers, and clan heroes are the types of characters that can be statted at level 11+.

Otherwise, most of the population in this game can be judged by the chart below. But, beware, it is only a rule-of-thumb. It's a rule that is made to be broken.

For example, Finn, elder of Seven Stones Ridge, is 57 years old and 7th level. The chief of the Ice Leopards, though, is about ten years younger than Finn yet he is a level higher.



Level 1 - typical age is 15-16

Level 2 - typical age is 16-18.

Level 3 - typical age is 18-21

Level 4 - typical age is 21-25

Level 5 - typical age is 25-30

Level 6 - typical age is 30-36

Level 7 - typical age is 36-43

Level 8 - typical age is 43-51

Level 9 - typical age is 51-60

Level 10 - typical age is 60-70

See how the 10 levels "fit" with a typical career nicely?

Levels above 10 are reserved for the truly super-human.

So, what it seems to me is that Einstein et. al. should be boosted to around Level 15, and what we, as GMs, should do, is go in and look at retarding the rate at which skill points are rewarded, so that Einstein can't get to be Einstein until about level 15.

 

[Baron Opal]

An interesting article, I agree with it mostly.

I think that you would match your goal with three considerations;

First, have the gain of skill points to be halved.
First level characters should be made as per the RAW. The skill system has certain assumptions built in as to what 1st level characters can do. The skill DCs for special or exceptional tasks have that basic competency as a foundation.

Second, consider what changes should be made with spells.
A common criticism of some spell casting is that it can make certain skills redundant. Perhaps spells should give a bonus rather than an ability, or a bonus should be reduced. (c.f. jump, invisibility)

Third, consider what changes should be made to combat, particularly considering age.
Should there be a BAB penalty across the board? While I agree with you in part that age can track to level well, you end up with "Cohen the Barbarian"-s running around. I've found that the RAW age penalties are insufficient to balance that consideration.

It may be that you will want to advance by half levels in general. You could do this by awarding half of a level's gain at the appropriate xp mark, or simply awarding half xp in general. Would slowing the gain of skill points without changing anything else be a problem?

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I suspect that rejiggering 3.x so the sweet-spot happens around 10th would be difficult, mainly because there will be a lot of fiddly bits to consider with the changed character/class levels. You'll have to rescale monsters and spells as well.

If you're just interested in the granularity, I'll second Stream's suggestion of "half-levels" under the current system. To preserve the feeling of "levelling", a full class level can be split into two parts that isn't acquired all at once. Rather, part (perhaps BAB, saves, skills, and certain class features?) comes at the beginning of the level; and the rest (perhaps HD, feats, other class features, character-level dependent advances?) comes half-way through the level.

It's peculiar, of course, in that you'd see a level advancement like 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, .... but it does have the granularity of 10 levels, without forcing you to tinker with the numbers in the rest of the game to maintain balance. Imho, it works nicely as a way to "stretch" an E6 game into one with 12+ virtual levels; maybe it would work for your Conan d20 game.

You could try doing a similar thing on integer levels, so that 5th level effectively rescales to 10th. But this significantly changes the mathematical meaning of "level" in certain instances such as DCs, caster level checks or qualifying for PrCs. It also requires a rethink of multi-classing, monster CRs, spell casting, and so on.

Basically, I'm guessing there'd be a cascade of unforeseen little mathematical bits to deal with all throughout the game. It's definitely doable, but requires some heavy-duty testing to catch everything. If you're aiming for publication, maybe this is the preferred route; but as a houserule, I'd just use half-levels since that's probably the most straightforward and least unbalancing.

 

[ValhallaGH]

More granularity. Justin's analysis has master smiths at level 1. I'd want the system to go through apprentice and journeyman levels before reaching master.

Then change the DCs.
Why is it possible to be a master smith at level 1? Because the DC of master-quality work is 20, which can be routine for a first level character.

If you change the DC to 25, then a standard human expert needs to be level 5 to achieve mastery. (8 ranks + 3 focus + 2 tools + 2 ability [13 to 14 at level 4] = +15 skill bonus.) And Dwarves are still better smiths than humans because they either don't need special tools or they achieve mastery at level 4 (7 ranks + 3 focus + 2 racial + 2 tools + 2 ability = +16).

Similar retooling can be done for all aspects of the system. It will create some really screwy interactions with the stuff you don't change, but that's unavoidable given your stated goal.

And, the XP system lends itself nicely to a 1-10 level game, where a normal character, doing normal things, earns about 1000 XP per year.

This is an assumption about how the world works. Specifically, that a typical year for a typical person is worth 1000 experience, regardless of level.
Justin has a similar article, pegging life experience to the XP system of 3.5 (he stats a month as CR 1, which seems overly challenging to me), but remembers that XP rewards decrease as character level increases until a character stops gaining any XP at all for the non-challenging challenges.

Regardless, that's a lot of work. Good luck.

 

[aarondirebear]

Why even HAVE a "sweet spot"?
Is everyone's enjoyment of the game based solely on which iconic monsters they get to fight?

The reasin why a master smith can be level 1 is because you should not have to slay dragons to make a good weapon. I mean really do you want a world inhabited by level 10 guys sitting on their asses being blacksmiths and farmers?

And as always the obligatory "baisez votre canapé!" to any idea of nerfing any spells at all. I am sick of people moaning about how magic makes skills "redundant" or "useless". Shut up, you;re wrong. Stop trying to nerf magic.

 

[Water Bob]

Then change the DCs.

I was just about to say that. It is probably the best solution. Up 'em 5 or 10 points may be the answer.

 

[Water Bob]

If you're just interested in the granularity, I'll second Stream's suggestion of "half-levels" under the current system. To preserve the feeling of "levelling", a full class level can be split into two parts that isn't acquired all at once.

BTW, this won't work because, if you follow the essay, a 1st level character is like an Olympic athlete. Most people don't even know a 1st level character.

You won't get the granularity I'm talking about. At level 0.5, those will be the best of the best people you know. Then come the Olympic athletes. And your Shakespeares and Einsteins will be level 5. Level 2-4 characters will be about as rare as level 5 characters.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

BTW, this won't work because, if you follow the essay, a 1st level character is like an Olympic athlete. Most people don't even know a 1st level character.

You won't get the granularity I'm talking about. At level 0.5, those will be the best of the best people you know. Then come the Olympic athletes. And your Shakespeares and Einsteins will be level 5. Level 2-4 characters will be about as rare as level 5 characters.

Hmmm, my interpretation of Alexander's essay is that virtually everyone is a 1st level character-- and probably in a measly NPC class, to boot! With respect to physical skills, frex, the essay actually says Olympians are 3rd-4th level, while 1st levels are like college athletes-- and that assumes max ranks in the relevant skill, as well as a good score in the relevant ability. (I'll also say here that I don't fully agree with the essay, but only because the d20 system is limited in certain respects at low levels, not because Alexander's analysis is particularly lacking!)

In any event, though, you're quite right that there's something funny at 1st level when using "half-levels". There is no "0.5th" level, as that's completely undefined, and technically so is "1.0th" level. You could just say everyone starts with a "full" 1st level (ie, they start at "1.5st" level in the oddball terminology!), and start the half-level advancement scheme only at 2.0nd+ level. However, with some consideration of how stats and class-features are doled out at each .0th and .5th level, this problem can be eliminated, thus allowing for a real "1.5th" level differentiated from "1.0th" level.

That way your apprentices are 1.0st level, journeymen are 1.5th or 2.0nd, and masters are 2.5th or 3rd, depending upon exactly how you structure things. And this more or less holds to the premise of Alexander's essay: the most highly trained people end up around 3rd or so, and true geniuses progress beyond even that.