Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 6254438" data-attributes="member: 29398">So, so many moving parts and variables...First, full disclosure: in the survey I voted for the longest slowest advancement option for every question.  When I start a campaign I expect it to last for many years, which just can't happen if characters are level-bumping every real-time month!One variable ignored by the survey (as it's probably carved in stone at the design level by now) is how many levels do you want your campaign to go through?  Me, I prefer an open-ended system but with with only the lower levels used in the run of play - example is 1e; there is theoretically no limit to level advamcement but most campaigns didn't go far into the double-digits.  All the E6 types would also give a different answer to this question than the designers might want...Another variable ignored is how long in the game world it takes or should take to level.  It's always been the case (but probably shouldn't be) that a character can go from apprentice nobody to near-demigod in a mere year or two of game-world time...which, when you think about it, breaks realism all to hell.Another question not asked is whether it's important or not that characters within a party always be the same level, and-or how much variance within a party is acceptable*.  Personally I've often found a good limit to be that the lowest level character should never be less than half the level of the highest-level character; but then I'm using 1e as an example and the gap between levels isn't as great there as in some later editions.  This also ties into variable advancement rates between classes (e.g. Thieves bump faster than Fighters), which I've never minded at all.* - ignoring things like henches, hirelings, etc.Yet another variable the survey didn't hit: they ask about number of encounters and sessions it should take to bump, but never about number of adventures.  Some groups can bang through a whole adventure in a session, others can spin an adventure out to last half a real-world year worth of sessions; most I think are in between.  I've often found the adventure to be an excellent measuring tool for various things - so, what should the bump-per-adventure rate be?  (for example in 4e, if the published WotC modules are any guide, it seemed to be 3-4 levels per adventure)  Maybe a level per adventure sounds about right to me.All in all, though - if there's one thing that needs to be put on a dial by design, this is it.  I mean, if pathfinder can do it, why not D+D?Lan-"30 years in play and just into 10th level"-efan</blockquote>

Verification