Level Advancement Rate in 3e

[Drawmack]

I just finish a 9 month test drive of 3e. I ran a weekly game and we played for 9 months by nothing but the core rules. I wanted to find out what I liked and what I didn't like. The level advancement was one of the things that I didn't like. Not really that it went to fast but more so that it didn't slack off the characters kept advancing at the same rate throught the game about every 2 - 3 sessions. So I've come up with the following to fix this problem

Advancement Modifier = Party Level/2 rounded down to a minimum of 1.

encounter xp/advancement modifier and that's how much experience the party gets.

I do role playing experience on the same scale however rating EL (encounter level) is a bit subjective, basically I do it on the amount of time the PCs spent in the situation compared to how much time I think it should take.

I also adjest CR for varying party sizes as such CR - (Number of Pary Members - 4). I find that this works pretty well. It means that for a 5 character party a CR 5 monster becomes a CR 4 monster and for a 3 person party a CR 5 monser becomes a CR 6 monster. It seems to work pretty well with that whole 20% thing. Although a six person party is the largest party that I played with and a 2 person party is the smallest party I played with so it might not extrapolate outside of the tests very well.

 

[Schmoe]

or B) change your sensebilities by changing your idea of what "high level" really means.

In other words, if a really lucky, brave, unusually competent and highly motivated individual can go from levels 1 to 20 in about 2 game years, what does that logically mean for your campaign world?

Several months back, SHARK had a post that addressed this issue in a very refreshing light. He described a couple 20th level characters that wouldn't initially be perceived as being 20th level. One was a detective that had been walking the beat for years and had perfected his craft. He wasn't ambitious, he wasn't egotistical, he was simply the best darn detective in the city. Another was a bodyguard who had been in the gladiator pits, survived caravan ambushes, and worked for kings and emperors. Again, he didn't really perceive himself as "20th level", he wasn't too bright or too ambitious, but he was good.

Essentially, this new perspective of 20th level provides a framework in which characters can interact with 20th level characters in their everyday dealings without even knowing it. What sets apart a 20th level PC and a typical 20th level NPC is ambition and drive. It's entirely possible that the captain of the watch, who you just pissed off, is an 18th level warrior/2nd level fighter.

This framework doesn't necessarily provide a justification for rapid advancement from 1st through 20th and beyond, in fact it seems to imply more an accumulation over time rather than a meteoric rise. However, as others mentioned, the PC's and their experiences are rather exceptional, just as any NPC's who've had similar advancement would also be exceptional.

When it's all taken together, you can draw several conclusions:

1.) It's not unreasonable for there to be a number of very high level NPC's in the world, and they need not necessarily be in positions of power.

2.) The PC's advancement to 20th level is not unusual in terms of the power that they achieve.

3.) The PC's advancement to 20th level is unusual in terms of the speed with which they reach it, but that is a direct result of the unusual circumstances that have plunged them into adventure, whether it be fate, ambition, or something else.

4.) There will be other NPC's that have experienced the same rapid advancement as the PC's, but they will be rare, unless your average commoner gets involved in a quest to save the world once a year, and twice on leap years.

Anyway, I don't know if this helps at all, but it's at least interesting to think about.

 

[Psion]

I feel 3e advancement is a bit fast. Personally, I slow it down to about once every 20 hours vice the recommended 13.

Campaign time also bothers me. I require that a character cannot normally advance more than every 10 x new level days. This time can be compressed by training. At higher level, that translates into years to cover a few levels... as it should.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

advancement in 3e

It hasn't been very fast for my group. We're approaching our one year anniversary, and the highest level character is now approaching 10th level.

Part of it is that the Temple of Elemental Evil is very deadly. For awhile, I was killing a PC every 3 sessions or so, and players would leave the game saying, "Wow, no one died? That's new!" Don't forget the death and resurrection can eat up lots of money, time, and xp.

The other thing is that the players are approaching the game extra-carefully now, so many of the set-piece encounters are pre-planned. That means that the PCs get maybe three encounters a session instead of the expected four.

So for me anyway, the levelling has turned out to be just right.

I can't wait for the PCs to hit 15th-16th level so I can start throwing real nasties at them.

 

[Glyfair]

I think part of the key here is to find out what James is using as his baseline. Is it a group running once a week for 4 hours, more often, less often? I believe the original intent was for the average gaming group (which I think was the above mentioned 4 hours every week) to go from 1-20 in a year.

I also expect that it takes into account a certain number of deaths (and thus loss of levels).

If the advancement rate seems wrong to you, there are suggestions in the DMG to alter it. You can give less XP per encounter, or you can require downtime before advancing a level. Standard D&D assumes the player characters advance very rapidly, because WOTC market research discovered that a campaign, on average, lasts two years.

The problem here is how much you need to change an epic published adventure if you are running it. I've considered changing the way experience is working in my current RttToEE campaign. However, the adventure is paced so the PCs can handle the challenges while using the standard pace. If I slow it down the PCs will soon hit a brick wall.

David A. Blizzard

 

[Damon Griffin]

3e is too fast for me

I've only been in two 3e campaigns. The first, on haitus now for several months but not dead, took our half dozen characters from 1st level to an average of 12th in ten months *game* time. This struck everyone as much too fast, even though our down time was measured in days and weeks, rather than months, and the DM kept us hopping for a while. (We had to leave our home village for the first time, keeping ahead of a dark lord's minions and spies while carrying an artifact south to be tossed into a volcano, with our NPC allies bringing the number of the company up to nine...and the DM only realized *afterward* how much like LotR all this sounded, since our game started well ahead of the recent movie, and he hadn't read the books for many years.)

The second game, with the same group of players but a different DM, was designed to retard our meteoric progress. There was no set % reduction in earned XP, but the DM did intentionally cut the standard XP award so we'd rise more slowly. Treasure was also cut slightly. In this game, currently running, I think we've covered about 14 months, perhaps six or seven of which have been mostly downtime (for example, we spent four months wintering on an island and had one or two minor encounters the entire season). Most of the party has just reached 8th level, with the other characters being 7th (one joined the game late, and one died and came back with the usual level loss). Even this level progression sometimes seems a little too rapid, but it's a great improvement over our first "by the book" game.

I think I resent the notion that level progression was ramped up on the assumption that gamers have a short attention span. Most of the campaigns I've been in have run for years, not months...then again, some have failed after only a few sessions, so you never know.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Re: 3e is too fast for me

I think I resent the notion that level progression was ramped up on the assumption that gamers have a short attention span. Most of the campaigns I've been in have run for years, not months...

I have to agree, here. While I've played in a few that died off after a few sessions, most "campaigns" I've played in have lasted 5-10 years, and I know that a group I once gamed with still meet 2-3 times a month, making that game nearly 20 years running.

My current game is on its sixth year, and it's got plenty of mileage left to burn.

 

[ForceUser]

The problem here is how much you need to change an epic published adventure if you are running it. I've considered changing the way experience is working in my current RttToEE campaign. However, the adventure is paced so the PCs can handle the challenges while using the standard pace. If I slow it down the PCs will soon hit a brick wall.

David A. Blizzard

I agree with you. That's one reason I don't run published adventures

 

[drnuncheon]

Damon, I don't think you should take it personally that advancement was sped up - it's not a comment that gamers "have short attention spans", it's just based on the fact that most campaigns (according to their surveys) lasted a certain amount of time, and they wanted the full range to be playable in that amount of time.

As for myself, I think it's been 9 or 10 months (real time) since I started running my Freeport game (and 3-4 months game time), and the PCs have gone from 3rd level to 9th. I don't feel like it's too fast, as it's happening every 3-4 sessions: quickly enough to keep the players excited about getting to the next level, slowly enough that they're not outpacing the challenges I set up.

I expect it to slow down in game time quite a bit as I move into a section of the campaign where more downtime is possible (and I'm sure the wizard's player will be happy to hear that.)

J

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Re: Re: 3e is too fast for me

I have to agree, here. While I've played in a few that died off after a few sessions, most "campaigns" I've played in have lasted 5-10 years, and I know that a group I once gamed with still meet 2-3 times a month, making that game nearly 20 years running.

My current game is on its sixth year, and it's got plenty of mileage left to burn.

That may reflect your experience, but doesn't reflect mine. I've had darn near 50% turnover in players so far in my 1 year long campaign. Given how frequently people move in this country, my guess is that most groups don't last more than 1 year.

If the majority of the D&D market is college age kids, you can rest assured that no campaign can last more than 4 years, which is the time it takes to graduate college, and most wouldn't last past a year. (Say, you joined the group in the DM's senior year)

Now, you're not in that demographic, so those rules don't apply to you... For me, the advancement is just about right.