I was discussing on the D&D forums and started a thread on how fast should characters level up. The first reply to my post came about 10 minutes after I posted it and boldly stated that characters should level up once every 13.5 encounters. I thought the ridiculously precise number was pretty funny, but then came a second reply that claimed the number was actually 13.33 encounters per level. I was stoked.
Following the Dungeon Master Guide’s guidelines
On one hand, the challenge rating system is great for assigning experience, if everything goes according to plan. But which game ever does? The encounters I think will be difficult often end up being easy or vice-versa. And do you really want to go through 13 – excuse me, 13.33 – encounters at level one? Personally I don’t.
Many liberal replies also were posted on the forum and I strongly suggest that you spend some time on the message boards. I know it broadens my dungeon master horizons when I do.
Switching gears
My take on how fast the characters should level up depends on the kind of game I am playing. When I’m in a very laid back game with casual players, I’d say that I would level every 3-4 games. If my players are veterans, I’ll breeze through the first 10-12 levels (1 lvl / 1 or 2 games) and then slow down dramatically. I think that experienced players have fun roleplaying, but they can be bored with low-level character, and the higher levels offer so much more complexity.
What about you?
Your thoughts? Do you often start a D&D game that lasts only a few weeks or months - meaning you rarely get to play high-level characters?
14 Comments
4:23 pm on July 23rd, 2007
When you said slow down dramatically you meant it. I think it took about 10 games for me to pass from level 11 to level 12.
Get a haircut and die!!!
4:27 pm on July 23rd, 2007
PeO is one of my players. He doesn’t really want me to die but he really means it about the haircut.
12:13 pm on July 24th, 2007
I advocate leveling up when it suits. I use a very good programme to determine the xp allocated based on CR and EL, and if you set the CR/EL about right, 13 encounters or so it is.
We use DnD standard xp allocations, and I believe it is generally one level per game….not session, GAME
Most of the games take a couple of months to play, once a week for four or five hours…there is lots of bimbling involved.(Roleplaying), so we often don’t get as much done as it would sound like.
Some people go up two levels some only 1, there is no real hard and fast rules about it. I expect to go up two in the next adventure, as I am personally 3k off 14th.
The only thing I would recommend is that folks actually say what they are working towards, skill and feat wise before the level they get it. They then only get those bonuses skills and feats when it is sensible for them to have done so.
Not “I woke up one day and POP I knew 2 weapon fighting and tumble 5.”
7:23 pm on August 18th, 2007
with the new campain ive just started I started all the players at 5th lvl, we couldnt be bothered with the low level stuff and its worked rather well!
8:28 pm on August 18th, 2007
I’ve started at level 3, 5, and even 10 before. It works well if your players know the inner workings of the game already. The learning curve for a first time player is too steep if you start a game at medium to high levels.
7:06 am on August 20th, 2007
I like the idea of 13 encounters, or at least something more like 10 - 15. However, that should include nearly everything as an encounter, traps, dealing with NPCs (successfully?), perhaps even choosing to retreat, finding and protecting a nice hide to hole up in as you refresh spells overnight (I’m an evil DM who will send something in to test the party overnight, especially if they have retreated from a fight).
I usually get through 3 - 5 encounters per session, usually more if it is primarily roleplaying. So with an average of 4 that’s a new level every 3 or 4 sessions. If anything I feel that might be a bit fast.
We’re still low level, and the players a new to the game (and, ee-gads!! I’ll be teaching them 4th ed soon) so perhaps leveling that fast isn’t so bad. I should also note that with a few players being shift workers we haven’t gamed for a few weeks now.
I don’t bother with CR and ECL and all that, just tell them to level up for the next game, usually fitting in with “we’re in town, find someone to train you in your new skills and feats.”
11:05 am on August 20th, 2007
Yep 4th edition is upon us and might be a good excuse to level faster than usual.
If the players are not too experienced it might be detrimental to the game though. They have to learn to handle the new powers at each level.
8:27 pm on September 27th, 2007
Perhaps I’m a schmuck DM, or perhaps my players have A.D.D. (yes I read the article you wrote on that), but we rarely get through 2-3 encounters per session. This makes the actual leveling time (according to the DMG, which is 13.33 encounters, as you are now well-aware) take about 6.5 sessions. We don’t play a lot, so that’s a lot of sessions for us. Verily, My players somehow end up leveling every 2-3 sessions, which would make for about 6-7 encounters be one level.
1:47 pm on September 29th, 2007
I love fast-leveling. If the players can handle their characters’ new abilities, it’s all good. Instant gratification can be a good thing!
1:51 am on October 26th, 2007
you guys are lucky im not the dm but my group only plays about once a month and in that we are lucky to get even 200 exp so we are stuck forever at what ever lv we start at for enstince we were in a lv 5 campiagn and it took us over a year to lv and after that our dm was like ok time for new chars and started us over on another campiagn .
7:41 am on October 26th, 2007
That’s probably an extreme. Changing characters before leveling is no fun IMHO
12:11 pm on June 3rd, 2008
I think that the 13.33 number that WotC in their infinite idiocy, err wisdom, came up with is just silly. First of all it tries to restrict the game to preset patterns and creates a system full of “this will happen at this time” kind of mechanics. As a player I don’t mind if I have to go through more than 13 (or many many more) encounters to level up if they are meaningful, story-progressing, adventurous, or just darned fun encounters. Likewise, going through a few really hard encounters should be worth more than only 7.5% of the XP I need to level my character up (100/13.33 = 7.5 ; for those that wondered where I got that number and didn’t want to do the math to figure it out ^_~). If I went through two or three very hard encounters I would feel ripped off if I had 10-11 more to go to level up just because of some preset number.
D&D isn’t an “exact science” kind of game. Heck, if we wanted that GM’s would all use a point-buy system to buy monsters like the miniatures game based on your party’s average level and all encounters of whatever average level would be worth the same set amount of XP and no guess work would be needed. It’d be the same *yawn* predictable crap that make bored games (Yes, I made that word selection on purpose) lose their appeal to RPG gamers… Those games ARE regimented to the letter for pretty much everything. Sadly WotC has decided to go this route with 4e and is now screwing D&D over by making it a half-assed excuse for an RPG by cramming role playing into some revised miniatures rules. Add some pretty pictures, a magazine-like presentation in the books (they’ve said: “More like a magazine with better images and flow where you’re not looking at text and tables and endless information thrown at the reader.” - I read that to say: “Oooh, looky looky! Pretty pictures! Big letters!” and worst of all “less content for your money!”), and a few new rules to make it much much harder to die so that the game “is more fun.” It’s complete crap! If they wanted to sell their miniatures better, they should have marketed them as accessories for gamers, not like they’re the D&D equivalent to Magic cards! They way they’re going we’ll see a revision to 4e in 3-5 years and it’ll likely have static damage for weapons and attacks and remove dice - it’s more fun since there’s less time wondering how things effect characters and monsters… right?!
Bah! They can shove those idiotic rules in the same place they can shove the 13.33 encounter “rule” - all in the same place their heads are shoved!
11:14 am on June 9th, 2008
Gryphon: “We use DnD standard xp allocations, and I believe it is generally one level per game….not session, GAME. Most of the games take a couple of months to play, once a week for four or five hours…there is lots of bimbling involved (Roleplaying), so we often don’t get as much done as it would sound like.”
Wha-wha-what? In my experience, with 3.5 at least, after about two encounters you’re typically at or close to 2nd level. And that’s just from a few combats or traps. How the heck can you go months without leveling? I realize you say there is a lot of roleplaying in your games, but (in my opinion) experience points should be awarded for roleplaying as well (not as much as for combat or traps, maybe, but some). As a DM, sometimes an entire session will go by without any combat, but I still like to reward my players for their efforts, even if it’s not from combat. Even without combat, the characters are doing a lot that gains them experience, including skill checks, gathering information from the tavern keeper, sneaking past the castle guard to enter the enemy castle, etc.
11:16 am on June 9th, 2008
One of the things they were mentioning about 3rd edition is that the “sweet spot” for fun was in the lvl 7-10 range because that’s where the “math worked”. Hopefully the goal of making it work from 1-30 will prevent the need for that initial rush to 6 or 7 and keep the early levels a bit more evenly spaced.