Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6287548" data-attributes="member: 2656">When I restarted my 4e campaign, I bumped the PCs up two levels a time at low heroic levels, as a signiicant part of my group prefer higher level PCs, but we had some new players who couldn't immediately cope with the complexity of high level PCs. Also I didn't start them of at high level immediately as I find that PCs grow better when they get some low level play - a high level PC created in one go is a lot of work. and often the end product isn't what was originally expected. I find actual play helps shake out what works in practice from what doesn't work. If the PC doesn't gel in play, it's easier to replace them at low level and still develop a viable replacement in play.Tinkering with the advancement rate is an important part of campaign design, and the expectations of players are distinctly relevant. The goals of the campaign,the desired real world expected length, player expectations all inform the decision. I remember back in AD&amp;D when I played a magic-user I was totally focused on surviving to 5th level and (had a chance of) getting Fireball (ah, back when Fireball was a good spell!) and having enough hit points to survive a hit or two. Playing low level M-Us was an exercise in terror as absolutely everything, including housecats, was a deadly risk. I wouldn't play M-Us in games that would stay at very low levels as for me the fun with M-Us was at level 5+.Extrapolating to the general case,&nbsp; &quot;Fun later&quot; classes and concepts are a main reason for wanting to level quickly, and have been built into D&amp;D from the earliest days.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aenghus, post: 6287548, member: 2656"] When I restarted my 4e campaign, I bumped the PCs up two levels a time at low heroic levels, as a signiicant part of my group prefer higher level PCs, but we had some new players who couldn't immediately cope with the complexity of high level PCs. Also I didn't start them of at high level immediately as I find that PCs grow better when they get some low level play - a high level PC created in one go is a lot of work. and often the end product isn't what was originally expected. I find actual play helps shake out what works in practice from what doesn't work. If the PC doesn't gel in play, it's easier to replace them at low level and still develop a viable replacement in play. Tinkering with the advancement rate is an important part of campaign design, and the expectations of players are distinctly relevant. The goals of the campaign,the desired real world expected length, player expectations all inform the decision. I remember back in AD&D when I played a magic-user I was totally focused on surviving to 5th level and (had a chance of) getting [I]Fireball[/I] (ah, back when [I]Fireball[/I] was a good spell!) and having enough hit points to survive a hit or two. Playing low level M-Us was an exercise in terror as absolutely everything, including housecats, was a deadly risk. I wouldn't play M-Us in games that would stay at very low levels as for me the fun with M-Us was at level 5+. Extrapolating to the general case, "Fun later" classes and concepts are a main reason for wanting to level quickly, and have been built into D&D from the earliest days. [/QUOTE]

Verification