How many levels does D&D need?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
IMO, levels depend almost entirely on pacing:
How long are you going to be playing that character?
How many sessions? How often are you going to want to level up?
How many fiddly bits will the level contain?
If you're only playing one session, after which you either expect your character to be dead, or expect to swap characters, you only need one level -- the level everyone starts at. This could be Epic already (first level, 300 hp and +20 to attack rolls), if you want. The point being, you're not going to progress that character in power at all, so it doesn't matter.
If you're playing, say, for 3 months, once a week, after which you expect your character to be dead or to get a new character, maybe you have a spread of six levels, so you can level up every other session. Each level might contain a new ability, so you get six powers over the course of your character. Start in January, by March, you're playing something new.
In 4e, if you want to see all 30 levels of any one character, and you level up about once a month you will need to play, on average, over two years.
That's a bit long to play any one character for, IMO, so I think the level range needs to be brought down.
I'd like to see everything a character can do in a single year, leveling up about once a month (which might be every 2-3 sessions). So maybe 12-15 levels.
FFZ has 12 levels for this very reason. Your campaign should take about a year. Then, you get to have a new character.
How long are you going to be playing that character?
How many sessions? How often are you going to want to level up?
How many fiddly bits will the level contain?
If you're only playing one session, after which you either expect your character to be dead, or expect to swap characters, you only need one level -- the level everyone starts at. This could be Epic already (first level, 300 hp and +20 to attack rolls), if you want. The point being, you're not going to progress that character in power at all, so it doesn't matter.
If you're playing, say, for 3 months, once a week, after which you expect your character to be dead or to get a new character, maybe you have a spread of six levels, so you can level up every other session. Each level might contain a new ability, so you get six powers over the course of your character. Start in January, by March, you're playing something new.
In 4e, if you want to see all 30 levels of any one character, and you level up about once a month you will need to play, on average, over two years.
That's a bit long to play any one character for, IMO, so I think the level range needs to be brought down.
I'd like to see everything a character can do in a single year, leveling up about once a month (which might be every 2-3 sessions). So maybe 12-15 levels.
FFZ has 12 levels for this very reason. Your campaign should take about a year. Then, you get to have a new character.
I'd say it needs enough levels so that whatever powers exist in the game- spells, psionics, class abilities, racial abilities, etc.- have room to breathe.
To explain, D&D has always had spells that were too powerful or too weak for the level they were assigned. The weak ones, while interesting, routinely get ignored. The overpowered ones become nearly omnipresent on spell lists.
The more levels you have, the easier it becomes to properly distribute those special abilities, leading to more variety within PC design.
Assuming, of course, that the designers are paying attention to what they're doing. Even a D&D with infinite levels could stumble if a designer made Wish into a cantrip.
To explain, D&D has always had spells that were too powerful or too weak for the level they were assigned. The weak ones, while interesting, routinely get ignored. The overpowered ones become nearly omnipresent on spell lists.
The more levels you have, the easier it becomes to properly distribute those special abilities, leading to more variety within PC design.
Assuming, of course, that the designers are paying attention to what they're doing. Even a D&D with infinite levels could stumble if a designer made Wish into a cantrip.
Animus
Explorer
For pre 3E, 12 seemed good for me.
For 3E, my games tended to end around 16. I like the E6 (or E8) houserules Ryan Stoughton devised.
For 4E, I don't know yet. I have a paragon game going and am playing in another one. I lean toward a level 20 cap because of how the numbers scale.
In general, 20 seems like a nice round number for a level-based game to me.
For 3E, my games tended to end around 16. I like the E6 (or E8) houserules Ryan Stoughton devised.
For 4E, I don't know yet. I have a paragon game going and am playing in another one. I lean toward a level 20 cap because of how the numbers scale.
In general, 20 seems like a nice round number for a level-based game to me.
Reported.
malraux
First Post
Not to be snarky, but what's the point of unused levels?
Lord Zack
Explorer
Personally I'd like a few more levels where the character is not superhuman. For instance 11th lvl should be as powerful as 6th lvl is now. The cap aught to be around 50th lvl, and I imagine some powerful beings (demon lords, some gods) being within the ability of such characters to defeat, but perhaps not the mightiest.
Lord Xtheth
Explorer
No level cap. The game should evolve beyond the restrictions of level and you should be able to make your character advance as far as you and your DM deem fit for their story.
I mean, in real life, you keep lerning things until you die, so your character should too!
I mean, in real life, you keep lerning things until you die, so your character should too!
Similar Threads
