Level granularity, scale and power progression

[Quartz]

One of the big problems at the moment is that spellcasters lose so much by multiclassing. I wonder if those who hate high-level play would change their minds if they were to mandate multiclassing.

 

[Roman]

One of the big problems at the moment is that spellcasters lose so much by multiclassing. I wonder if those who hate high-level play would change their minds if they were to mandate multiclassing.

I cannot really comment on this issue, since I am one of the people who generally choses a class at the beginning and advances in the same class.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I like a much, much, much reduced power progression. On the order of spreading D&D's first 20 levels over about 80 levels, then adding what in D&D would be the first 10 levels of Epic (which still work fairly well) as an additional 20 levels.

In practical terms, it would be pretty much 1=1, then stretch 2-8 over the next 40 levels, with the higher levels being a bit less stretched. Most campaigns would wrap up in one year at around Level 45, with the party having gotten the equivalent of D&D's 5th level spells long enough ago to have played around with them for a bit while keeping them as capstone abilities - BUT, the game WOULD scale up to around Level 90 and a 2-3 year campaign with normal XP progression would get you there. Level 91-99 would be intentionally 'uber' and over the top.

EDIT: To answer the rest of the question rather than just the thread title...

A starting PC (about 5th level) would be about 150% to 200% the power level of a 'normal person' and would increase by 100% roughly every ten levels. So, a 45th level End Game PC would be about 600% the power level of a normal human. A 90th level Epic End Game PC would be about 1050% the power level of a normal human. From there, the power level would rise about 50-75% per level, so a 99th level PC would be about 1800% as powerful as a normal human. What those percentages mean obviously depends on the character.

 

[Dragonblade]

I would theorize that people play in the 13 and lower level range because the game can't sustain higher play long term without people really changing the way they play and DM.

Basically the standard dungeon crawl ceases to be a challenge to a party beyond 13. And a high level DM has to become a much more innovative thinker and planner to challenge a party with access to spells like Speak with Dead, True Resurrection, Teleport, etc. It can be done but requires moving away from the standard cliche of Middle Ages Europe where society is largely low tech and low magic. Such a world is simply not logical in a high level D&D game.

What I wish is that more people and DMs would be willing to embrace the challenges of high level play like Piratecat. I find it much more rewarding than constantly starting over campaigns because its too much work to challenge a 30th level character.

We need an advancement system that provides constant reward and the ability to deeply customize a character, but that also encourages continued play and advancement without breaking down the logical world.

A system that can not only accomodate epic level play in the vein of games like Exalted, but also one that can accomodate the old fashioned DM who just wants to run low magic dungeon crawls forever.

Is that possible? I don't know.

 

[Roman]

My own former campaign also petered out at approximately 13th level, but it was not due to my unwillingess to transition to a more open-ended game but more due to the unwillingness of some my players to make the switch!

 

[Roman]

One of the big problems at the moment is that spellcasters lose so much by multiclassing. I wonder if those who hate high-level play would change their minds if they were to mandate multiclassing.

Well, I must admit that when I play a character I tend to stick to the original base class all the way, so I am not certain.

 

[Li Shenron]

The number of levels itself is not a particular issue for me... 10, 20, 100?

I don't like to level up too fast, my guideline has always been "if you level up before you even had a chance to try out what you got at the previous level, then probably it's already too fast". Levelling up too fast means you end up thinking more about what powerup to get next, and less about how to USE your current abilities.

OTOH I don't think I'd have problems playing in a system where there's lots of levelling, but each of them is really minor, or even a level-less system.

If you get a little every time, and it happens often, it's ok for me.
If you get a lot every time, but it happens only every now and then, it's ok for me.

I'm much more concerned by the TOTAL power gained at a fast rate. I am definitely not fond of characters that go from pathetic apprentice to world #1 archmage in six month of their real life, or in just 2 adventures.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I guess it all depends on how you play. I have DMed a D&D game that went from lv 5-36 in 8 months and another game that lasted a little longer but went from level 1-13. My current d20 modern game started the players a 1st level they are only level 7 and we are a little more than 7 months in.

Some of my friends have some DC universe characters under another DM who simply allowed you an infinite number of points to the character you wanted to play. This was fine for them, but not me.

Personally I like to know Im getting stronger and see results. If im playing a point based game and I didnt get enough XP to at least raise something or get something new Im not satisfied (of course I might save the points for something bigger, but I at least want to know I could raise something). If I play a level based game I want at least a level every other session. I also like XP after every encounter, and story/RP XP at the end of the game.