Leveling is too powerful?

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Leveling is too powerful?

I'm not sure what provoked this tongue-in-cheek quasi-troll

Actually, it was the sudden appearance of a couple of threads over on the Rules forum that sparked this. Both of them were basically "Is (?) too powerful?". After reading them, I sifted through the old threads over there and made an interesting discovery. Nearly 90% of threads that contain "Is (?) too powerful?" are always started by someone that died, got beaten up, or disappointed by how badly their character got screwed over during their last game and they are now desparately seeking other opinions that comply with their own so that they may point their DM to said threads in order to change a ruling or outcome of a previous game for the sole purpose of saving their own character's butt. I got a kick out of it and started this thread over there, just for fun and irony's sake. Sure enough, it worked, as I managed to damn near instantly snare Crothian, and he couldn't resist feeding the humorous fire.

When it got moved over here, Darkness threw the proverbial bucket o' water over the flames.

 

[kreynolds]

I'm sure this is a troll following kreynolds posts in the high-level and sweet spot thread.

Not at all. See the above post. There is a method to my madness.

 

[Larcen]

I am currently playing a 6th level cleric that is 19 years old. Nuff said.

 

[kreynolds]

I am currently playing a 6th level cleric that is 19 years old. Nuff said.

Huh? Nuff said about what?

 

[Henry]

BACK! BACK, I SAY, TROLLSPAWN!

Actually, it would annoy the **** out of me. It all depends on how long you want a game to last. Piratecat's Game has lasted for ten years, and those players have 19th level characters. That's an average of two levels a year. Is that slow enough for this thread?

Most of our games average about a level per month. The first few sessions run pretty fast - say third level by two months. But then it slows down somewhat.

 

[Larcen]

Huh? Nuff said about what?

I just mentioned in another thread that sometimes my 1E upbringing gets in the way of playing 3E, and this just must be another example of it.

Way back in 1E, our PCs would be like in their 30's or so by the time they got to mid levels.

In the current 3E game we are playing, my PC started out at 19 years old...6 levels later he is STILL 19 years old!

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

My guess is that it would be entirely possible that, by following the current XP rules, you can have a 20 year old Archmage.

 

[Codragon]

...

Way back in 1E, our PCs would be like in their 30's or so by the time they got to mid levels.

In the current 3E game we are playing my PC started out at 19 years old...6 levels later he is STILL 19 years old!

Am I the only one who sees problem with this?

...

I wouldn't call it a problem.

While level advancement frequency has definitely risen from 1E to 3E, I think DM generosity and style of play have a lot more to do with it than "edition".

As far as level advancement frequency vs game days, you can get a lot of experience during a week-long dungeon excursion. Remember, a battle in game time lasts only about 10 minutes, tops. (6 second rounds)

 

[Zappo]

A heavy-combat, lots of dungeons, campaign can get the characters to level very quickly (game time).

Sure having wizards whose level is equal to their age sounds odd. It kinda makes you wonder what old wizards who are "only" level 18th have been doing in their life.

 

[kreynolds]

I am currently playing a 6th level cleric that is 19 years old. Nuff said.

I get it now. But I don't see anything strange in that.

 

[Numion]

What do you guys think?

Since you asked, I think it's a stupid idea. Probably better speak with players about it, before implementing.

It's stupid because one would assume that adventuring makes you better at it. Just like driving a lot makes you better at driving. Or would there be a reason for this sort of ruling?