How many levels does D&D need?

[Lanefan]

15 levels.

1st level nobodies; 3rd level established in class; 6th level heroes; 10th level lords; 15th level epic.

In the very first reply in the thread, Raven Crowking got it right; at least for player characters. (one exception: I'd add a 16th "level", in effect a 0th-level for commoners, peasants, and so forth)

NPCs should be able to be whatever level you want and the game needs to at least wave at rules for very high-level types for this purpose, but 15 is about all you really need for PCs.

As others have said, though, much depends on how long your players are willing to go between level bumps; and on how long you want the campaign to last. If you're looking at a 5-year campaign you'll have different perspectives on this than if you're planning a 6-month sprint.

Lan-"10 levels in 26 years"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the very first reply in the thread, Raven Crowking got it right; at least for player characters.

Thanks.

(one exception: I'd add a 16th "level", in effect a 0th-level for commoners, peasants, and so forth)

I use a "normal man" instead of a class. I.e., the average normal man is a Normal Man 3 (NM3), with about 8 hp.


RC

 

[Ahnehnois]

20 levels gives you just the right scope with just the right amount of granularity.

Of course, you need an infinite epic system to cover divine and other similar entities (assuming you want such things to exist within the rules).

 

[Desdichado]

How many levels does D&D need? And what defines "need"?

Could D&D use 100 levels? Could D&D be satisfactory with just 10 levels? 5?

How does the number of levels in the game affect world creation?

Bullgrit

I like E6, so I'd say it needs 6 levels.

However, think of this. If you divorce your thought patterns from the idea of going up in level as a core conceit of D&D, how many do you need? Think of level as a way of pegging the power level of a shorter term game, for example. If you play in very many con games or one-shots, it helps with this exercise.

Although I've played in one 3.5 campaign that went from level 1 to level 23 or so, and found it to be a grind and a pain to manage the levels that far, I've also played in a very short-term campaign that started and ended at 20th level that was pretty fun.

So from that perspective, why not have all the levels we do now? It's just a handy shortcut for the players and GM to understand what power level the game is at.

 

[TerraDave]

You can of course just pick a number of levels and design from that basis, going right back to Bullgrits OP.

So, based on history, 20 is good, but some people want "epic" near divine levels, and these also have a history to the game, so you add 10 more epic levels.

But you also know that in practice, the game gets screwy from levels 12-15 and higher. So you spread stuff out over those 30 levels, and make the impact of leveling less dramatic but more even.

And you have...4th edition.

While the impact of leveling is more even in 4E (something at every level), each new level is really about half of what a level was in past editions. Half of 30 is of course 15, which puts us back to what RCK proposed. And something close to this is probably also my prefered range. But the 4E scale also works.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You must not be including pre-WotC versions of D&D in those "past editions".

 

[TerraDave]

Of course I am. You start with 2 hit points and a magic missile spell once a day and the impact of leveling is huge! In a proportional sense, 4E is probably even flatter then half, more like a third.

BUT, 4E is also far more even, and, I hate to say it, balanced. In any case, the change in a 4E wizard over 20 levels (or other classes when magic items are thrown in) is probably a little less then the change in a magic-user over 10.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hrm. And, say, the levelling impact of a 10th level 1e fighter going to 11th versus a 10th level 4e fighter going to 11th? You might find spots on the scale where 4e's impact is smaller, but, overall, I call shennanigans.

 

[TerraDave]

All the non-spellcasters seem to get more...

But, lets take the fighter, and keep in mind, this is often considered the "most improved" class in 4E. But lets take him at levels 1-9 first. The 1E is probably getting more HP (and way more in proportional terms) and is getting a better boost to his chance to hit (+1 vs. +.5 on a d20, and the 1E fighter will also see smaller increases in opponent AC). His saves, equivelent to non-AC defenses, also improve faster, on average.

But ya, there is stuff the 4E one gets the 1E will not. But that 4E fighter will not get magic items as cool as gauntlets of ogre strength or even javelins of lighting or potions of super-heroism. If a kindly DM wants the fighter to "keep up" with the magic-user, then he will also see big, big change over the first 10 levels.

At high levels, magic item depdendence really kicks in. But there will be situations where the 1E figter is the only one who can even damage an oponent. (that is a pretty strong "power") and of course he can raise his army. Also a nifty power in the right hands.

 

[TerraDave]

To some up:

An 8th level 1E fighter can fight hill giants successfully, but with danger, and so can a 16th level 4E fighter.