Should character advancement be linear or logarithmical?

[Tinker]

First, I don't think DnD 3.x advancement is linear, I think it is exponential. That is, I think each level represents a breater increment of power than the one before (on average - there are a few dead levels here and there, but there's a generally increasing trend).

As an illustration, take a simple fighter. As she increases in level, she has more hit points and an equal or better armour class, so against the same oppoentent she lasts more rounds. And she has a better attack bonus and the same or better damage, so against the same opponent, she does more damage per round. Increasing damage per round times increasing number of rounds per combat, equals exponential increase in her ability to kill opponents.

Similar maths applies, perhaps even more so, to spellcasters.

So exponential advancement is inherent in the level progression. It is only exponential increase in opponent power that keeps it in balance.


As far as rate of progression throutgh the levels goes, I think it has to be by agreement between DM and players. Whatever is most fun. Like an earlier poster suggested, go slow through levels you like and fast through levels you don't have so much fun with. Adjust xp as necessary.

 

[Brimshack]

I prefer a slow start to a campaign, several games before the first level is even made. Then I want things to pick up around 3-5th, and by around 10th I prefer to slow it down. I'm not really concerned with whether or not the rules generate this arc; it is easy enogh to do with the shape of the campaign.

In the initial stages the characters are underpowered relative to those around them. They are lucky to survive at all. They hardly defeat any enemy, and they struggle to accomplish much worthy of x.p. EVentually they get an edge here and there and begin to make headway.

Then there is a stage where the characters are beginning to put everything together and they are winning battles. But they still aren't on the radar of the big stuff. They can kind of pick and choose their fights and most games are actually pretty uncomplicated politically speaking.

Then they start to get noticed, they accumulate recurring enemies whom they may not defeat in a game. They get enmeshed in political intrigue, and the plots get more complicated. Now they are struggling again, not because they are pathetic this time, but because they have increased responsibilities and obstacles. It takes more effort, more planning, and more risk. The victories are greater but they don't come as easily and the campaign slows down a bit.

 

[Woas]

Less than linear.
As a DM, I like to start games at level 1. But I also like to advance the characters out of the lower levels (2, 3 and sort of 4) fairly quick. Then once around level 4-5ish it slows down to 'normal' and become 'linear'.

So thats what I do by giving generally more XP at lower levels for what should be given.

 

[Aeric]

I think it should be linear, but I disagree that the current system is linear. It takes an average of 1-1 1/2 sessions to go from 1st level to 2nd, and from 2nd to 3rd. It's so bad I don't even bother having people start lower than 3rd level anymore.

 

[Nifft]

Are you conflating character advancement with ability enhancement?

Personally, I like Linear XP + Logarithmic Ability Cost (like found in the old White Wolf games, and perhaps in the new ones).

Basically, you get a few XP every session, and you can use them to buy abilities. Higher ranks cost more XP, so specialization is more expensive than versatility.

-- N

 

[blargney the second]

Personally, I like Linear XP + Logarithmic Ability Cost (like found in the old White Wolf games, and perhaps in the new ones).

Basically, you get a few XP every session, and you can use them to buy abilities. Higher ranks cost more XP, so specialization is more expensive than versatility.

Total agreement here!

 

[Li Shenron]

Are you conflating character advancement with ability enhancement?

I was thinking more about effective power advancement, but since it's pretty hard to define, I was thinking about it in quite general terms.

The actual amount of xp for each level isn't important of course. How often you level up has more to do with the players' perspective than with the actual effective power, so your description fits very much with what I was thinking when I said "less than linear"

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Linear, but with a much smoother progression - more advancement, faster, with less difference between levels.

 

[Seonaid]

I'm conflicted (or perhaps misunderstanding).

Logically, it makes sense for leveling to take the same amount of time (let's call it real-world time): low-level challenges should offer the same as high-level challenges and vice versa. The number of conflicts should be equal because the difficulty should rise. So, all things being the same, low-level characters should take X sessions to level and so should high-level characters.

However, my emotions tell me that it should take longer to go from 15 to 16 than it does 5 to 6, for reasons already stated (the math analogy was particularly apt). But, that could be in-game time that is represented on a different level in real-world time. That is, it could take the high-level characters months to accomplish something of the same order that would take low-level characters days, but in real-world time, it would take the same number X of sessions.

However, that might cause problems with the whole "challenges should scale with the characters." Which, of course, can be fixed by the players and GM acting appropriately. I mean, IMO, high-level D&D doesn't mean you don't fight kobolds, it just means you don't act out the fights because the conclusion is forgone.