How many levels?

I'll toss another vote in for about 10 as "basic", because those ten levels are vital to most campaigns. Its really rare for campaigns to go much beyond that (for whatever reason.)

Additional levels should be supported, but it should all be modularized, because people have such wildly different expectations for what advanced levels look like.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I have a fondness for 1-20, and I like the symmetry of it. Third Edition did a fine job of covering all of those levels with the core books. In truth, none of the extra player material was necessary to have a robust game, which is good for a core.

That said, I most definitely wouldn't mind if the initial release focused exclusively on levels 1 through 10. While good for new players, the real benefit comes from giving the DM more focused support. For example, the Monster Manual would exclude most high level monsters in favor of more low level ones. Same with traps, adventure seeds, etc. Then, a later set of books can give similar focus to high level play.
 

20 with level 20 meaning your already into the epic tier.

I find after a point you are trying to make every level gain "meaningful" and with too many levels, you can end up cramming too much stuff in. By the time our 4e group was up to 15 feats a piece, things were just getting painful.
 

I actually think 10 levels would be plenty. D&D has often managed to be balanced/playable within some of the single-digit levels ('the sweet spot'), so why not focus on levels where it's historically been successful?

An idea I've had before was to have 'modules' of 10 levels each, with bounded accuracy parallel within those 10 levels rather than them stacking. You could have a very gritty/realistic module with long healing times, death spirals, limited options and weak/subtle magic that goes level 1-10; you could have other modules that are more fantastic or higher power. You /could/ stack them atop eachother and have characters progress from very ordinary people, to adventurers, to heroes, to paragons, to god-beings - or not.
 


Unbounded.

But have it slow down at 20 or so - with possible different rule structure after that (not unlike 3.x).

I tend towards higher level games. I dislike 1-3 levels, and really only feel like I am really hitting character stride somewhere 10-12th.

The 1st AD&D campaings I played and GMed went up like that - retired the one I GMed at 34th, the one I played in at 28th. Both the 3.x games I played in went somewhere near 30.

I find a character I like, I don't like to stop playing them. My avatar is a Champions character I've played for 25 years (although the 10 or so have only been for 2 or 3 adventures a year or so - played weekly before that).
 

The_Throne_of_Bloodstone.jpg


About that many. :)
 

For me it isn't about finding some correct number, but about the speed of progression and quantity of content per level. Quality matters too, of course.

My games are fast paced, very high on content, but very, very slow in leveling compared to almost everyone else. Each level of every class is jammed packed with content. However, advancement upwards is dependent on each player for what they do, even though I set the granularity of the bar. Plus, adventuring usually gains characters power that isn't tied to class level at all, so every moment a gain or loss may be had.

I like long levels as it makes it very hard to grind through a level without learning a large degree of mastery of it. Higher levels presuppose that player ability, so grinding is not only boring, but detrimental to future ability to play well.

Merging levels and content, making XP a dial, and leaving it up to each individual campaign is probably the best route to satisfy the majority. I can weld 1+1 levels to = 2 as a single level. Higher numbers at high levels can be a PITA, but with a clean system even that can be dealt with.
 



Remove ads

Top