How many levels does D&D need?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

A "level" is a pure abstraction. Therefore, there is no objective answer to this question. It's somewhere on a spectrum between rhetorical and nonsensical.

It's like asking "How many bars does the jail cell need?"

Answer: "Enough to keep the thinnest prisoner from getting out."

That's really all there is to it, but at the same time, a great deal more could be said, since the devil is, as usual, lurking in the details.

To continue the silly example, there are several relevant factors, including, but not limited to size of the windows and doors, diameter of the individual bars, cost of each bar, and the heft and flexibility of the prisoners. Every time you change one of those parameters, you probably have to recalculate the whole darn thing.

Back to D&D.... There are probably several sweet spot, or local maxima, but it's going to depend on a lot of factors, most of them determined by the group as much as the system. Preferences for "leveling goodies", degree of tactical variation in fights, degree of importance of fights vs social mechanics vs pure roleplay, etc. One game could feel very tactically stale if the characters stay at the same level for multiple sessions, while another would feel constantly innovative even if the characters never level or change their abilities at all.... much of this can be chalked up to DM skills and experience, but player predilections factor in as well.

And the math of the specific system is a HUGE factor. 3e felt "wrong" to me pretty early on... maybe level 10. 4e.... the math is rather different.

 

[Hussar]

Bullgrit, I know you don't want to make this edition specific, but, I'm not sure how you can avoid it. The number of levels depends on a lot of factors - the power curve and the relative power curve of the opponents being the two biggies IMO.

In 1e, excluding unique opponents, you were looking at a range from about 1 hit point to about 120, tops. You don't need a lot of levels in that range. There just isn't enough space. OTOH, 3e had creatures in a mid 300 range in core, never mind expansions, so, you spread the number of levels out a bit more.

The number of levels=the range from smallest challenge to greatest, split into relatively equal parts.

 

[DEFCON 1]

D&D needs enough levels for characters to continue advancing through the lifetime of the campaign... provided the game's players are not so skilled or invested in group storytelling that they are capable/interested in continuing a story that does not see the numerical aspects of their character go up. If they still want to play the game even without the satisfaction of the *DING*... then it doesn't need levels (or XP, or additional skill points, or advancement points or whatever each game system uses to allow the characters to become "more skilled" over time).

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, I agree with the above - you can't talk about a component of a game system independently of its role in the game system. Level has no meaning without the structure of a game around it.

If you divorce the D&D concept of "level" from the mechanics of what happens when you level, you're talking about terms without meaning. IMO, the number of levels D&D needs depends on the edition and on the mechanics, before we can even get into flavor.

-O

 

[malraux]

In my ideal game, I'd level up once every 3-4 sessions, with about 4 sessions a month, and I'd like a campaign to last at least a year. Therefore, I'd like about 15 levels to last at least a year of gaming. It would be better if the system works beyond those numbers as well, so 20 to 30ish level total, assuming the later levels work as well as the earlier ones.

 

[Fifth Element]

15 to 20 sounds about right. That's enough to allow several "tiers" of play, if you want to call them that, while allowing some room for growth in each one. But it's no so much that the difference between high level and low level is not ridiculously disparate.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I have no clue how many levels D&D "needs" because different editions and different players have different needs and wants in order to make D&D work for them.

I just had a thought though. D&D with 10 levels might work really well. Spell levels would correspond with character level (no 0-level spells), so a level 5 character would have access to 5th level spells.

Levels 1-3: Aspiring hero
Levels 4-6: Hero (local)
Levels 7-9: Hero (regional) & lord
Level 10: Hero (epic)

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I think it's difficult to divorce levels from the system, just because the definition of a "level" is different. The jump in power gained with a level can vary a fair bit across editions-- and even across classes in the same edition.

Generally, though, my ideal is probably 6-8 relatively slowly advancing levels, with time for "lateral" development in between (typically in the form of reputation, equipment, profession, knowledge, and other rp effects).

 

[Nebulous]

Something along these lines was what I was thinking when I saw the thread title. I think 15 sounds about right.

In general i'd say 15 too for players, with 20 the absolute top for some campaigns, but that should be more of the exception. 30 levels is just redunant and pointless IMO.

 

[Holy Bovine]

36.


For humans