Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6283139" data-attributes="member: 22779">Wait, what?&nbsp; I'm not saying anyone is wrong.&nbsp; And, I was looking at the three movies as a whole to be honest.&nbsp; Luke is a Jedi half way through Empire, and then we have a whole lot more story after that.&nbsp; That's my point.&nbsp; If I want to be a weapons master, as an easy example, why not follow the same arc?&nbsp; Half way through the campaign, I'm the weapons master and now there's a whole lot more story.Using Elf Witch's Necromancer example - it's not unreasonable to think that &quot;Necromancer&quot; begins when you can animate dead.&nbsp; There might be other starting points, but, that's a pretty big one.&nbsp; For a wizard, that's seventh level.&nbsp; If Elf Witch was in Celebrim's campaign, she had to wait three years to reach that point.&nbsp; That's a pretty long wait to achieve the character you want to play. Now, no one is saying, &quot;well, then, start at 7th level&quot;.&nbsp; I don't mind the &quot;building up to it&quot; levels.&nbsp; That's fine.&nbsp; But, is it really wrong to want to achieve that, in say, eight months of play (which is generally the pace I play D&amp;D at)?&nbsp; For me, that would be about 100 hours of play.&nbsp; Give or take.&nbsp; 3 hour sessions, 4 sessions/month, times 8 months is about 90 hours of play.How is that &quot;instant gratification&quot;?And, Forever Slayer, you've still failed to prove that levelling is significantly faster in later editions.&nbsp; That's a very contentious point.&nbsp; Like I said, I've always seen play at about 4-6 sessions (and 3-5 hour sessions by and large) since the early 80's and we always advanced at about the same rate.&nbsp; And this is under multiple DM's and completely different groups, none of which have any connection to each other, well, other than me.AFAIC, levelling up after about 12-15 hours of play is perfectly reasonable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6283139, member: 22779"] Wait, what? I'm not saying anyone is wrong. And, I was looking at the three movies as a whole to be honest. Luke is a Jedi half way through Empire, and then we have a whole lot more story after that. That's my point. If I want to be a weapons master, as an easy example, why not follow the same arc? Half way through the campaign, I'm the weapons master and now there's a whole lot more story. Using Elf Witch's Necromancer example - it's not unreasonable to think that "Necromancer" begins when you can animate dead. There might be other starting points, but, that's a pretty big one. For a wizard, that's seventh level. If Elf Witch was in Celebrim's campaign, she had to wait three years to reach that point. That's a pretty long wait to achieve the character you want to play. Now, no one is saying, "well, then, start at 7th level". I don't mind the "building up to it" levels. That's fine. But, is it really wrong to want to achieve that, in say, eight months of play (which is generally the pace I play D&D at)? For me, that would be about 100 hours of play. Give or take. 3 hour sessions, 4 sessions/month, times 8 months is about 90 hours of play. How is that "instant gratification"? And, Forever Slayer, you've still failed to prove that levelling is significantly faster in later editions. That's a very contentious point. Like I said, I've always seen play at about 4-6 sessions (and 3-5 hour sessions by and large) since the early 80's and we always advanced at about the same rate. And this is under multiple DM's and completely different groups, none of which have any connection to each other, well, other than me. AFAIC, levelling up after about 12-15 hours of play is perfectly reasonable. [/QUOTE]

Verification