Should character advancement be linear or logarithmical?

[Li Shenron]

What kind of "shape" should character advancement better have in your opinion?

3ed gives a linear advancement because even if levels are not equally spaced:
- it takes about the same time (amount of battles, if the CR is in line with your level) to go from level 1st to 2nd as it takes to go from level 19th to 20th
and
- almost all the benefits from levelling up accrue linearly (BAB, saves, skills, feats - spells are a bit more tricky to adjudicate)

IIRC 1ed/2ed gave a less-than-linear advancement (let's call it "logarithmical" but the exact shape doesn't matter) because it took a longer time between high levels than between low levels.

So which of the two you prefer and why?

 

[Kelleris]

Actually, I would dispute that advancement in 3.X is linear at all. Even leaving spells to one side, keeping up at increasingly higher levels assumes a certain synergistic approach to feats, skills, and class abilities, where even though you're technically getting a linear advancement of benefits the whole is increasingly well interleaved, forming a greater-than-the-sum sort of thing. Crucially, treasure advancement is also not at all linear - the amount of gold you're assumed to have at each new level increases by leaps and bounds and tends to increase the overall synergistic growth of a character by increasingly covering more and more weaknesses and providing more and more unique abilities as the game goes on - essentially, the treasure advancement means that everyone gets a nonlinear increase in the stuff they're able to weave together as part of the character. More stuff equals more synergy between stuff equals a deceptively linear-looking advancement that doesn't actually play out linearly at all. At least that's been my experience.

EDIT: Oh, heh, I didn't actually answer your question. I prefer the logarithmic advancement myself, but modified to suit the game. I prefer a rapid advancement to the levels that define the game you're going after and then a slower advancement after that (often much slower) once characters are established at the game-defining level (which can be anywhere, really). At least I would like that in theory, but my players have strongly resisted the idea so I keep to the default advancement in practice.

 

[FireLance]

Looks like I'm the first to vote for linear.

I enjoy the way the game changes between low and high levels, and I don't want to spend too much time at any one point. There is no one particular "sweet spot" for me - rushing through the early levels to spend more time at the middle levels and never getting to the higher levels is to me like rushing through the appetizer, lingering over the main course and never getting to dessert. Some people may like it that way, but not me. I want the whole experience, thank you.

 

[Thanee]

I prefer approximately linear (precise linear is pretty unreasonable, of course), but with a higher starting point and a lower slope.

For example...

D&D starts very low and rises extremely fast.
Shadowrun starts high and rises slowly.

I prefer what Shadowrun does over what D&D does. You start out on a level, where you can do quite a bit already and you still notice the difference when you gain experience, but it takes a long time until you become twice as powerful overall. In D&D you start out as a complete loser (ok, one step ahead of the Commoner ) and double your overall power every other level, roughly.

Bye
Thanee

 

[glass]

I prefer approximately linear (precise linear is pretty unreasonable, of course),

I voted linear as well, although I'd actually like advancement to be more linear than it is.

I'd agree with Kelleris that it isn't particularly linear at the moment. I'd actually characterise it as exponential.

but with a higher starting point and a lower slope.

I would like to move in this direction a little. But not to the extent of Shadowrun. I like that in D&D PCs rise from obscurity to greatness, but I'd like 1st level characters to be just a little tougher.


glass.

 

[Presto2112]

Since you used a term that almost made me fail grade 12 Math (Thank *insert deity here* for grading curves!), I am forced to reply "linear".

 

[Thanee]

I would like to move in this direction a little. I'd like 1st level characters to be just a little tougher.

For D&D there's a very simple solution, just start at 2nd level. It has multiple benefits over 1st level (better survivability, typical multiclass characters can start out with both classes already, same with LA +1 races) and no real disadvantage (you still start small).

I like that in D&D PCs rise from obscurity to greatness.

It certainly lends itself well for a heroic style.

Bye
Thanee

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Of course, advancement is a pretty relative term even with extensive (and quite good IMO) rules for experience, treasure, leveling, etc.

Currently playing in an Arcana Evolved game where we've leveled once in about 15-16 sessions. Played in a short-lived Vampire game back in high school where we leveled 4 times in about 6 sessions. So, as always, YMMV.

But I guess you guys aren't talking about how often you level as much as what you get when you do level. Hmmm...

 

[Thanee]

It's more about the time between multiple level ups.

Is it more like A (linear) or B (less-than-linear)

A ______*______*______*______*

B __*____*________*________________*

Bye
Thanee

 

[smootrk]

It's more about the time between multiple level ups.

Is it more like A (linear) or B (less-than-linear)

A ______*______*______*______*

B __*____*________*________________*

Bye
Thanee

Then I want to change my vote. I would prefer not only a slightly slower advancement rate, but I would also prefer a less extreme 'power-level' achievment rate... but it is just my own opinion, and I am sure there are other opinions out there.