(poll) Level up speed and max level.

Conclusion (so far):
There should be options (fast, medium, slow, Stroy Paced)
4 sesseion (16 hours) per level, with 2 years to for a full range.  This is slightly faster then 4e.

About how many fights encounters hours of gametime (including traps, social, ect..) do you want to go though till you reach max level?
And at what rate do you level?

Assuming a base session time of 4 hours per week... (200 per year, cause you'll miss one or 2).

6 Months leveling per 1 session (25 levels)
6 Months leveling per 2 session (12 levels)
6 Months leveling per 4 session (6 levels)
6 Months leveling per 8 session (3 levels)

12 Months leveling per 1 session (50 levels)
12 Months leveling per 2 session (25 levels)
12 Months leveling per 4 session (12 levels)
12 Months leveling per 8 session (6 levels)

18 Months leveling per 1 session (75 levels)
18 Months leveling per 2 session (37 levels)
18 Months leveling per 4 session (20 levels)
18 Months leveling per 8 session (10 levels)

24 Months leveling per 1 session (100 levels)
24 Months leveling per 2 session (50 levels)
24 Months leveling per 4 session (25 levels)   (4e is around here)
24 Months leveling per 8 session (12 levels)

36 Months leveling per 1 session (150 levels)
36 Months leveling per 2 session (75 levels)
36 Months leveling per 4 session (37 levels)
36 Months leveling per 8 session (20 levels)

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

How about those of us who don't do a lot of fighting? 

Why does combat need to be the be all and end all of experience gain?

I reject the idea that gaining levels be tied to how many fights you get into. I really believe that this kind of thinking should go the way of the dodo.

Historically D&D has been an adventure/role playing game that included combat. When D&D became a combat game things went south. If the developers want a game that will work for the majority of gamers it would behoove them to move away from the perfect table top gridiron game and return the game to where it was.

D&D came from the limitations of table top war gaming. It was intended to move away from tactical and strategic combat and give the player something other than battle field game play. Well I guess the developers of more recent versions of the game forgot, (or never truly understood) this. 

I give experience points for overcoming obstacles figuring out puzzles and completing objectives. If you measure things by one metric then the only thing the group wants to do is that one thing because it's the only way to increase in power.

If D&D continues to be nothing more than some gridded combat simulator, then for me things remain as they are. 
How about those of us who don't do a lot of fighting? 

Fair enough...

Changed "fights" to "encounters".

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

A lot of these just don't apply or are pretty silly. 5000 encounters for 2500 levels? Really?

4e had it about right - 30 levels at around 7-10 encounters a level. Personally, I don't care much for XP because the only meaningful way to gain XP seems to be by killing things and not by actually participating in any other aspect of the game.

The level scale should fit the game and campaign you want to play. Don't want people ascending to godhood? Don't use Immortals or Epic level equivilants. Stop at 20. Want to keep your game gritty, cap it at 10 or even lower, and give a feat every time they'd gain a level. E6/8 worked in 3.5, certainly it could work in 5e and even be a supported module from WotC. There should be rules reflecting this need, and encourage DMs to run campaigns to scales they feel appropriate. 30 levels also creates 3 obvious tiers of play. 20 can create 4, smaller ones. But you'd need a wider XP gap, let's say 20-30 encounters per level, between those levels to feel like you're actually accomplishing anything in regards to that tier. You'd also need more choices within those levels (at a rate of 2/level, rather than 1/level) to feel like it's a meaningful tier. And if you're going to do that, you might as well split it into 40 levels, with those 4 tiers instead. Flatter math should help achieve this without the entire game breaking and collapsing in on itself at 20 or 30.
Over the past nearly two years, my 4e group has gone from 2 to almost 10.  This is dramatically better progress than I was making in my 3.5 group, but I do wish it were faster as a baseline.  The counterbalance to that though is partly character complexity - my group couldn't have handled faster leveling than what we are, in learning the system and their characters.  Adding on new pieces before you really understood what the last piece was supposed to do can be a strong negative for some people.  Character building should be Legos, not Tetris.

The numbers are pretty irrelevant - either in XP count or in number of encounters - the question to me is leveling speed per gametable hours.

XP gets a bad rap in earlier editions, being only given mostly for combat.  Later editions have done a better job of encouraging RP XP, and I think that should be even more strongly encouraged.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
While DnD is inarguably a historically combat oriented game (combat is the very foundation of DnD, without Chainmail, DnD wouldn't exist), I would like to see Skill challenges given more weight, and use the essentials DM book format. Go beyond that to detail how roleplaying solutions can be used in place of skill checks, and you've got pretty much exactly the system that's needed.

Of course, skill challenges have unofficially been around since before skills existed. They just got codified in a way that allowed the DM to easily assign XP for them in 4e.

And yes, that includes skill challenges that are enough of a challenge to merit full at level combat encounter level of XP.

Also, completing quests, both major and minor, already grants XP, so groups that don't do a lot of combat can level up primarily via skill use and quest completion.

Of course, if you stay away from certain classes, this already works just fine in 4e. You can play a primarily social/exploration campaign in 4e without a hitch. Essentials made it a bit easier, with classes like the scout and hunter and executioner, but it was possible before then.

next should make it even easier, but giving every class access to non combat abillities/options. We shouldn't have a fighter that is 90% combat, and a bard that is 70% social, 30% combat and a ranger that's 50/50 exploration and combat. Each class should be capable in at least two of the three pillars, at roughly an "equal" level.

By equal I mean that each class can contribute without feeling overshadowed or unnecessary in a given pillar simply because a member of another given class is around.


Back on topic: I like as many levels as possible, and what I'd like to see is no baseline level speed. Instead, take a cue from Pathfinder (as strange as it feels for me to say that) and give three xp tables, one fast, one medium and one slow. The group as a whole has to be on the same table, obviously. This would allow groups to decide if they want to be able to reach 30 in a year of solid once a week gaming, or if they want it to take 2+ years to get that high, or allow groups that only want to go to 20 have a nice year+long campaign, etc.

It would even allow for a group to switch after a certain point. Say, start with fast leveling early on, and slow down as they get higher level, or go the other way. Nicely modular.


Guidelines and recomendations for other ways of doing things would also be nice. X encounters per level, X sessions per level, X completed quests per level, DM whimsy/group consensus, etc.

But the baseline should be XP. Award XP for combat, and about equally for using skills to avoid combat while still completing the larger objective. Have guidelines for bonus XP if one is harder than the other, etc. Underdog fights give bonus XP, as does talking down the lizardfolk, getting taken to their chief, and convincing the chief to come to a mutually agreeable solution with the townsfolk.

Next to rules for skill challenges, have rules for award xp for singular uses of skills. Disable a trap? XP according to the level, chance of failure (DC), and consequences of a failure (does it blow up, does it take multiple fails to blow it up, or failing by a certain margin, etc.).

Rules could follow pretty much the same system for other skill checks, like convincing the pirate king to lend you a ship, instead of marooning you on an island with no rum. That could be skill challenge, involving intense negotiations and a wide range of skill checks from the whole party, or it could be done by one character using one or two diplomacy checks, depending on the situation and/or group preference.

The rules could very easily allow for both to work side by side.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
It all depends on the pacing of 4E.  If it is slow and takes forty minitues to an hour (or two hours) I wouild give one answer, while if encounters take five to fifteen minutes it would be an entirely different answer.

In short - I think the answer is:  You are asking an entirely wrong question.

The question should be:  "How many gaming sessions should it take to level up" (with a sidebar to standardize the length of the gaming session).


Also- who says the answer is linear?  What if you think that the lower levels should be quick and leveling fast, but that as the characters gain levels they find it takes more and more time to gain that next level?  None of your answers model that either.


For example - what if I want it to take one session per current level to gain the next level.  This is, in no way, represented by any of your options. 

If you want to put forth a poll - start by asking how many sessions it should take, not how many encounters.  And then take out the 'breakdown' (how you get there) because that is an entirely different question.  If you really want to know that - as people to provide that information in their comments - because there are just too many ways to get to that answer for a poll.

Carl
Back on topic: I like as many levels as possible, and what I'd like to see is no baseline level speed. Instead, take a cue from Pathfinder (as strange as it feels for me to say that) and give three xp tables, one fast, one medium and one slow. The group as a whole has to be on the same table, obviously. This would allow groups to decide if they want to be able to reach 30 in a year of solid once a week gaming, or if they want it to take 2+ years to get that high, or allow groups that only want to go to 20 have a nice year+long campaign, etc.

I have to say, i like this idea.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

5000 encounters at 2 encounters per level (2500 levels) ???

Great question, bizarre choices.  It does depend on Encounter time in 5th and obviously on playing frequency, but for my every week 4 hour session:

20 Levels in one year.
I think levelling up should be done on a more free-form system, based on story needs, number of sessions (regardless of encounters), and how well the players can learn their characters as they gain new abilities.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Re-Re-Re did the poll.

Anymore suggestions / objections? 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

5000 encounters at 2 encounters per level (2500 levels) ???

Great question, bizarre choices.

Just running the full gambit..  but yea, i don't see anyone seriously voting for that...

Though I could see it on an CRPG, where each level is small (say +1 to a d100), and the computer does most of the work for you.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

20 levels with a module for more ('Epic', be it 10 more or "goes to infinity")

Players should level every time they complete a 'significant' adventure, something that should take either a big marathon session or 2-3 shorter sessions.  Assuming you average two sessions a month, you should hit 20th and finish a first-to-level-end campaign inside two years.

Let's call an average session 4 hours (or a marathon session 8).  Using that metric, it's 8 hours minus setup of gameplay to clear a "significant adventure".  how many encounters is that?  the answer is going to varry, but then again most adventures don't consist entirley of at-cr encounters.  So, let's try to examine the skeleton of a few "classic" adventures

1) Resuce the Princess from the Dragon
>Find Your Way to the Dragon's lair... (Exploration encounter)
>... Running into some hostile wildlife on the way (Combat Encounter)
>Make your way into the lair, bypassing whatever defenses the dragon has installed (2-3 encounters, Exploration and/or combat)
>Slay the Dragon (Combat encounter); or convince the dragon to hand over the imperilled royalty (social encounter)
>Attempt to charm the winsome lass? (alternativley, Keep your cool long enough to NOT slay the obnoxious princess) (Social encounter)
Total Encounters: 6
Combat encounters: 2+
Notes: One encounter is with a dragon, likely to be harder and therefore worth more XP than a standard encounter.

2) Recover the artifact from the ancient, monster-infested ruins
> Navigate the maze-like ruins (Exploration encounter)
> Deal with some wandering monsters (2-3 Combat Encounters)
> Navigate warring factions in the dungeon (about 6 encounters, mix of combat and social up to the Players)
> Best the Artifact's guardian to take the artifact... (Combat encounter)
> ...And get the heck out of dodge before the horrific death traps finish you ('Exploration' Encounter)
Total Encounters: 11-12
Combat Encounters: 3-10

3) Stop Lord Vyle McKittensquisher and his Legions of Conquest
> Rally peaceful villagers to defend themselves from the first wave (Social Encounter)
> Get the aid of neighboring kingdoms to hold back Lord Vyle's Onslaught (2-3 social encounters)
> Win a decisive battle (Exploration [planning] encounter followed by 2-3 combat encounters depending on the plan)
> Storm Lord Vyle's Castle... (2-3 Combat Encounters)
> ... Remembering that Lord Vyle is a mage and likely to defend himself with wards and arcane traps as well as soldiers (2-3 Exploration Encounters)
> Defeat Lord Vyle (Combat Encounter)
Total Encounters 10-14
Combat Encounters: 5-7

4) Prevent the Cult of [REDACTED] from bringing about the apocalypse
> Find some information about the Cult and its membership (Social Encounter)
> Subdue a Cult Member... (Combat Encounter)
> ... And find out what he knows (Social Encounter)
> Get into the cult's secret lair (Exploration Encounter)
> Defeat the guards and free some prisoners (Combat Encounter)
> Audit the "Summoning [REDACTED] for dummies" Ritual... (Exploration Encounter)
> ... And bust it up (Combat Encounter)
> Take on the Evil High Priest of [REDACTED] in his sanctum (Combat Encounter)
> And the Avatar of [REDACTED] he called on? (Combat Encounter)
Total Encounters: 9
Combat Encounters: 4


It looks to me like an average, significant adventure would include about ten encounters, assuming you count encounters of all three pillars.  This smells right for an adventure per 8 hours of gameplay, as it would mean most encounters take a little shy of an hour.  If they go faster than that (as may well be possible) this could use some rethinking, but between setup, cleanup, inevitable off topic moments, munchies, and actually rolling the dice, I doubt they will go as fast as playtests have indicated.

I guess this means I'm for 200 encounters @ 10 encounters/level by the poll metric, though if 5e does play WAY faster than older editions as has been noted in playtests I might call it the unlisted 400 encounters @ 20/level

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Now, my only problem is the presumption of linearity.

How about:

Low Heroic Tier - ten sessions (e.g. five months leveling every two sessions) = 5 levels.
Mid Heroic Tier - fifteen sessions (e.g. five months leveling every three sessios) = 5 levels.
High Heroic Tier - twenty sessions (e.g. five months leveling every four sessions =  5 levels.
Paragon Tier - fifty sessions (e.g. 12.5 months leveling every five sessions) = 10 levels
Epic Tier - thirty sessions (e.g. 7.5  months leveling every six sessions) =  5 levels.


Although - admittedly, I have little to no use for the Epic levels.  I might even prefer a game where you stop gaining levels when you reach 'epic' as your goals are no longer the same - instead you focus on roleplaying and accomplishing 'epic ' goals.  But then someone would just accuse me of trying to emulate the endgame of an MMO).

The stretching of "Heroic" tier over fifteen levels assumes that the '1st level' is redefined back to something more akin to what it was in older editions (weaker, less competant characters).

Note - conversion of AD&D/ Vancian casting to this scheme also requires slowing down the spell progression as the fifth and higher level spells should not be available until Paragon Tier.   Whether this is done by completely re-defining the spell levels (i.e. some AD&D 3rd level spells might be left as third level spells whilie others are moved to fourth, etc) or by slowing the rate of spell progressions (you gain a new spell level at 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, and 13th) - or both.

Carl
Leveling speed is such a tiny thing, and the rules for it are likely to be ignored by half of all campaign groups.  Most DMs are going to level the party at whatever speed they feel is appropriate to the story.

I personally think XP for monsters should go away, and all XP should be quest-based.  But I'm sure I'm poking yet another sacred cow here, so I'll keep my ideas to myself.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
Generally, in my campaign PCs level up every third session. (8-12 encounters)  That speed works well, but groups can easily slow down or speed up as they see fit.

I like having xp not for the players, but for the DM.  It helps me build encounters and roughly figure out when PCs are ready to level up.  Xps are great guidelines.

 

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Leveling speed is such a tiny thing, and the rules for it are likely to be ignored by half of all campaign groups.  Most DMs are going to level the party at whatever speed they feel is appropriate to the story.

I personally think XP for monsters should go away, and all XP should be quest-based.  But I'm sure I'm poking yet another sacred cow here, so I'll keep my ideas to myself.



wel i think monster xp could still be a usefull tool for knowing how many monsters you could use in a encounter.
like the 4th edition xp budget system does.

a agree with the first statement in the groups I play in we asicly level at the speed detirmined by the plot of the DM.

also in DnD the journey is more important then the destination.
I think levelling up should be done on a more free-form system, based on story needs, number of sessions (regardless of encounters), and how well the players can learn their characters as they gain new abilities.



I could see that as an option, but the game needs to have a default value, or at least a short list of possible default values, that a group can use by just keeping track of some easy numbers.


And keeping XP makes it easier to build combat encounters fluidly, by adjusting things inside an XP budget. enemies are balanced on a given xp value, and you can plug pretty much any combo into an encounter, check the xp total, and have an idea of how close it is to the challenge level you want to throw at your party. It just works. Very well.

Back on topic: -snip-.

I have to say, i like this idea.



I can't think of any reason to do it another way.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
How about those of us who don't do a lot of fighting? 

Why does combat need to be the be all and end all of experience gain?

I reject the idea that gaining levels be tied to how many fights you get into. I really believe that this kind of thinking should go the way of the dodo.

Historically D&D has been an adventure/role playing game that included combat. When D&D became a combat game things went south. If the developers want a game that will work for the majority of gamers it would behoove them to move away from the perfect table top gridiron game and return the game to where it was.

D&D came from the limitations of table top war gaming. It was intended to move away from tactical and strategic combat and give the player something other than battle field game play. Well I guess the developers of more recent versions of the game forgot, (or never truly understood) this. 

I give experience points for overcoming obstacles figuring out puzzles and completing objectives. If you measure things by one metric then the only thing the group wants to do is that one thing because it's the only way to increase in power.

If D&D continues to be nothing more than some gridded combat simulator, then for me things remain as they are. 



Honestly man, if you are not that interested in fighting there are other games out there much better suited to your style. I'm not trying to say you are playing wrong, its helpful advice. It once took me two years to make a friend of mine realize that d20 Future was bad for running sci-fi games because the d20 system was not built for them in mind. He wouldn't believe me but steadfastly refused to even look at any systems set up for sci-fi games. Once he played in an Traveller campaign I ran he was so thankful afterward he felt like a moron for not realizing sooner.

About how many fights encounters hours of gametime (including traps, social, ect..) do you want to go though till you reach max level?
And at what rate do you level?



I prefer to level every session until around level 5, every other session until level 15(ish) and then every 3 sessions or so. Ultimately, it averages out to levelling every two sessions and I'd like it to take a year to play from 1-20.

I want to level every 8 hours real time I put into the game. Often times thats every session, but sometimes could break down to every other session if we meet for a shorter time. 


I don't care how that breaks down fight/encounter/trap/roleplaying wise. I generally like to have something new and cool every session. 


The important part of a system that allows this is that it basically has to get rid of XP, which I think should at most be retained as a tool for DMs to calculate fight difficulty. Use 4es method, but just don't bother awarding it to players. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

Although I am not sure whether we need to 'get rid of' XP for fighting, it needs to be severly de-emphasized.

One subtle change that has occured since the earlier days of D&D is that combat has gone from 'something you try to avoid (because it's dangerous and unnecessary)' to 'the whole reason we are out here because that is how we gain levels'.

Experience for Gold (in the earlier editions) got a lot of flak from a lot of people - and when it was gone the player base largely patted themselves on the back for getting rid of such an illogical reward mechanism.

But there was one difference between a game where the players got most of their experience from gold and one where they got most of their experience from combat: 

The former rewarded intelligent play - avoiding the monsters and only fighting when you absolutely needed to.  The group that avoided combat would gain as much or more experience as the one who charged into the fights headlong (this is also why Rogues were handy despite their being less useful in combat).

The latter rewarded killing as many monsters as you could - the group that avoided combat might earn less experience than the one who charged into the fights.  Granted  - the DMG added comments about awardnig experience for other things - but the most common way of gaining experience was killing stuff -and thus being cautious and avoiding fights hurt more than it helped.

This is something which should change - and not merely through sidebars in the DMG explaining that 'defeating doesn't always mean killing' or 'experience can be earned in other ways'.  The default mechanism and thus the default expectation should be changed.  I'm not saying that we should return to loot for XP (although I still think it is a better mechanism - assuming that the DM follows the guidelines and doesen't fill ihs world with Giant Beavers carrying sacks with thousands of gold pieces.).

But the default for gaining experience should be based upon something other than kill points.

Note:  This doesn't mean that experience point values for monsters  - or an analog of them - might not remain a useful tool for DMs to use when balancing their adventures.  Just that that specific use should remain behind the screen.  Perhaps the DM sets up an adventure worth X experience and the DM guidelines suggest that, for an adventure with that number of experience points include M experience points in monsters, T experience points in traps, and Q experience points in puzzles.  But the players receive X experience for success, regardless of how they got around those monsters, traps and puzzles.

Just so long as we get away from the idea that monsters represent experience points on the hoof, as it were.

Note:  And yes, - since 4E, this attitude has become far less common.  The cynic in me has to wonder how much of that is due to the long combats of 4E.  Knowing that any given fight will take an hour or more gives the playes an incentive to avoid any combat that isn't necessary to their goal - even if they fear they are losing out on experience because of that choice.

Carl
a guy playing for 4 hours a week once a week with less weeks during school, no weeks during mid terms and finals, and weeks off for holidays, (~24-36 sessions at 4 hours/session), should reach apex levels before the next edition comes out.

That means if D&D is projected to have a 5 year life span and max level of 30, then about 100-150 sessions to reach levels 26-32. Note that I mentioned level 30 as a cap and level 32 as a range.

You need some squishy buffer for characters who go into high levels. Originally the safety net was needing a quarter million or more experience points per level past 9th, in a game where orcs were worth 15 and the bosses at the end of a multisession adventure were worth 10-20,000. Later the idea of spending hundreds of thousands of exp to increase attributes, rather than levels acted as a buffer.

If you think about it, this system is also saying advancement opportunities should accelerate or increase as the next product line gets closer. That's because a person who buys the game in 2013 is going to have more time to level than the guy who buys it in 2017, because in 2018, everything he accomplished might mean nothing. 
Options are Liberating
I think levelling up should be done on a more free-form system, based on story needs, number of sessions (regardless of encounters), and how well the players can learn their characters as they gain new abilities.



Second that. When I've DMed 4e the past 2 years or so...we all started out with character creation (as a group) and talking about this, among other things. We agreed on making level 2 quickly, like in 1-2 sessions. then it got slower, slowly.

I had a lot more fun DMing by basically just ignoring the xp numbers on monster stat blocks, and sensing when people wanted to feel 'leveled up' now. My players did too. So, no matter what 5e does (or if I even buy into it), I see no reason to change that aspect of my DM style. 

I don't want to be an edition warrior. I think there was something good and something bad in all the editions I played. I do, however, believe that the game has gotten better over the years (and decades). I hope this holds true into the future.

Peace.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

The former rewarded intelligent play - avoiding the monsters and only fighting when you absolutely needed to.  The group that avoided combat would gain as much or more experience as the one who charged into the fights headlong (this is also why Rogues were handy despite their being less useful in combat).

To be fair.  The rule for 4e say you get the same XP for talking / sneaking past an encounter then you do for killing everyone.  It also gives roughly the same XP for roleplaying.

Though i'm sure most people over look that, and just fight.
4e has good fights.  (unless you don't like tactical battles).

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I have found that 12-15 hours of play per level is about right - so, about one level per month playing once a week for 4 hours. Faster leveling sacrifices the sense of accomplishment, and slower leveling risks player boredom.

However they decide to make that happen... depends on how long combats take, etc. Too complicated, let them figure it out! Tongue Out

I have yet to keep a group together for more than 18-20 months, so that would allow us to try some high-level play.

You do not need XP to help you build encounters.  You already have monster level.  If that's not good enough, they could attach a challenge rating or something.  XP really has nothing to do with it, I promise.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
You do not need XP to help you build encounters.  You already have monster level.  If that's not good enough, they could attach a challenge rating or something.  XP really has nothing to do with it, I promise.



But what if we like using experience, both as an encounter building rubric and also as an advancement mechanic?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
You do not need XP to help you build encounters.  You already have monster level.  If that's not good enough, they could attach a challenge rating or something.  XP really has nothing to do with it, I promise.



But what if we like using experience, both as an encounter building rubric and also as an advancement mechanic?



Then use it. The publishers and game designers should write it into core rules. And it should make sense.

I said a while ago, I wing it sometimes. Leveling up needs to be discussed with your group. I 'keep track' sort of...but, if the people I'm DMing seem to feel they've earned that next level, yet they are...I dunno, 165 points off...well, I drop it and level them. Or, just don't count, and level them at a logical conclusion.

P.S. CR never made sense to me....I prefer the 4e style xp budget/monster level system.... 

I don't want to be an edition warrior. I think there was something good and something bad in all the editions I played. I do, however, believe that the game has gotten better over the years (and decades). I hope this holds true into the future.

Peace.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

You do not need XP to help you build encounters.  You already have monster level.  If that's not good enough, they could attach a challenge rating or something.  XP really has nothing to do with it, I promise.



But what if we like using experience, both as an encounter building rubric and also as an advancement mechanic?



Then use it. The publishers and game designers should write it into core rules. And it should make sense.

I said a while ago, I wing it sometimes. Leveling up needs to be discussed with your group. I 'keep track' sort of...but, if the people I'm DMing seem to feel they've earned that next level, yet they are...I dunno, 165 points off...well, I drop it and level them. Or, just don't count, and level them at a logical conclusion.

P.S. CR never made sense to me....I prefer the 4e style xp budget/monster level system.... 



What's CR?  I'm a 4th ed only kinda guy, but it sounds familiar for some reason.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
You do not need XP to help you build encounters.  You already have monster level.  If that's not good enough, they could attach a challenge rating or something.  XP really has nothing to do with it, I promise.



But what if we like using experience, both as an encounter building rubric and also as an advancement mechanic?



Then use it. The publishers and game designers should write it into core rules. And it should make sense.

I said a while ago, I wing it sometimes. Leveling up needs to be discussed with your group. I 'keep track' sort of...but, if the people I'm DMing seem to feel they've earned that next level, yet they are...I dunno, 165 points off...well, I drop it and level them. Or, just don't count, and level them at a logical conclusion.

P.S. CR never made sense to me....I prefer the 4e style xp budget/monster level system.... 



What's CR?  I'm a 4th ed only kinda guy, but it sounds familiar for some reason.


CR (or Challenge Rating) was a number assigned to monsters throughout 3rd edition.  In general, a monster of CR N was a fair and balanced encounter for a party of 4 level N characters.

As a system for determining threat level, it worked pretty well.  there was also EL (Encounter Level) which was basically CR for more than one entity.  2 CR N opponents were EL N+2.  In general a level N party could be expected to win but have to spend resources against an EL N encounter (whether a single EL N monster or 4 EL N-4 entities).  Fresh or very clever a party of four level N characters could *probably* handle an EL N+4 encounter.  more than that and TPK became probable.

I generally find that, for a level N party, encoutners ranging from N-2 to N+4 provide an interesting range of challenge.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

I would not worry about leveling pace, since it is always possible to adjust it up or down. Just include some optional rules about leveling speed in DDN.

For me, I want to have 20-30 levels just because it allows enough different types of games by changing the starting level. We never play a normal campaign from 1st to 30th in 4th ed anyway, unless we do a really quick 1 session per level pace type of thing. We might however start at 10th and play to 20th, and be happy to stop there even if there are 21st - 30th levels still existing.
You do not need XP to help you build encounters.  You already have monster level.  If that's not good enough, they could attach a challenge rating or something.  XP really has nothing to do with it, I promise.



But what if we like using experience, both as an encounter building rubric and also as an advancement mechanic?



Then use it. The publishers and game designers should write it into core rules. And it should make sense.

I said a while ago, I wing it sometimes. Leveling up needs to be discussed with your group. I 'keep track' sort of...but, if the people I'm DMing seem to feel they've earned that next level, yet they are...I dunno, 165 points off...well, I drop it and level them. Or, just don't count, and level them at a logical conclusion.

P.S. CR never made sense to me....I prefer the 4e style xp budget/monster level system.... 



What's CR?  I'm a 4th ed only kinda guy, but it sounds familiar for some reason.


CR (or Challenge Rating) was a number assigned to monsters throughout 3rd edition.  In general, a monster of CR N was a fair and balanced encounter for a party of 4 level N characters.

As a system for determining threat level, it worked pretty well.  there was also EL (Encounter Level) which was basically CR for more than one entity.  2 CR N opponents were EL N+2.  In general a level N party could be expected to win but have to spend resources against an EL N encounter (whether a single EL N monster or 4 EL N-4 entities).  Fresh or very clever a party of four level N characters could *probably* handle an EL N+4 encounter.  more than that and TPK became probable.

I generally find that, for a level N party, encoutners ranging from N-2 to N+4 provide an interesting range of challenge.



Yeah...see? CR, EL.... confusing. 4e just assumed that 4-5 monsters the same "level" as the party of 4-5 PCs was a decent challange. But Elites=2 standards, and Solos= 4-5 standard monsters. While Minions = less than one standard monster. I guess they are both confusing. Maybe I had a bad DM for 3x...But I still didn't get how a monster can petrify (no save) and still have a EL or CR of 4....While in 4e there were much less instant suck effects. In fact, they had to toughen up monster damage in 4e. That's why everyone seems to say screw MM1 and 2....it's all about MM3, Monster Vaults, and Dark Sun Creature Catalog.

All really another reason why I do my XP rewards w/o looking. Everyone who plays deserves to level up, just for rolling dice, thinking, talking, and having fun at the table.   

I don't want to be an edition warrior. I think there was something good and something bad in all the editions I played. I do, however, believe that the game has gotten better over the years (and decades). I hope this holds true into the future.

Peace.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

In one of the D&D next videos the designers propose that the DM can choose between several mechanisms for awarding XP. She can award XP for gold or make progression slower.

This has always been possible but now it will become official.

vimeo.com/35778939
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
I'm hoping for the following, though I know it's a long shot, okay, probably not even a shot. Each encounter, social, combat or otherwise is 1 point, especially hard encounters might be worth 2. I'm not real fond of high level play, as you might be able to deduce. I see no real reason to drag it out, you're bad, let's kill Orcus and get over with.

Level/XP needed to achieve next level.

  1. 30

  2. 29

  3. 28

  4. 27

  5. 26

  6. 25

  7. 24

  8. 23

  9. 22

  10. 21

  11. 20

  12. 19

  13. 18

  14. 17

  15. 16

  16. 15

  17. 14

  18. 13

  19. 12

  20. 11

  21. 10

  22. 9

  23. 8

  24. 7

  25. 6

  26. 5

  27. 4

  28. 3

  29. 2

  30. 1



I'd settle for any system with decreasing XP per tier. Maybe 20 per level at Heroic, 10 per level at Paragon, and 5 per level at Epic.

You do not need XP to help you build encounters.  You already have monster level.  If that's not good enough, they could attach a challenge rating or something.  XP really has nothing to do with it, I promise.



CR was extremely hit or miss in terms of practical application. numerical values per monster, that add up to a target number based on level and party size, is extremely precise, and extremely adjustable.

It's also very easy to use. You can look at a table that tells you that at level XP budget for a 5th level party of 4 is X. Then, generally already having the monsters in mind, you find monsters of about the right level that fit the theme you want. That done, you add up monster xp values until you get close enough to the target number. (I never worry about being spot on, and usually overshoot a tad, but one of the other DMs I play with is more exact. Both methods work fine.)

If you want the encounter to be a little more challenging, you either set it up for a larger party, or at Level + Y.

If you can't find the kind of troll you want at that level range, you find the nearest troll you can, and adjust it's level until it's within range.

It's an awesome system.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
> To be fair. The rule for 4e say you get the same XP for talking / sneaking
> past an encounter then you do for killing everyone. It also gives roughly the
> same XP for roleplaying.

The funny thing is, most of the objections to this principle (at least on these forums) seems to come from self-styled "old school" DMs who insist that the PCs should get less/no XP for talking/sneaking/etc past an encounter rather than fighting their way through it.
I'm hoping for the following, though I know it's a long shot, okay, probably not even a shot. Each encounter, social, combat or otherwise is 1 point, especially hard encounters might be worth 2. I'm not real fond of high level play, as you might be able to deduce. I see no real reason to drag it out, you're bad, let's kill Orcus and get over with.

Level/XP needed to achieve next level.

  1. 30

  2. 29

  3. 28

  4. 27

  5. 26

  6. 25

  7. 24

  8. 23

  9. 22

  10. 21

  11. 20

  12. 19

  13. 18

  14. 17

  15. 16

  16. 15

  17. 14

  18. 13

  19. 12

  20. 11

  21. 10

  22. 9

  23. 8

  24. 7

  25. 6

  26. 5

  27. 4

  28. 3

  29. 2

  30. 1



I'd settle for any system with decreasing XP per tier. Maybe 20 per level at Heroic, 10 per level at Paragon, and 5 per level at Epic.




this is actually very similar to how 1e and to a lesser degree, 2e worked. You need a lot of experience early on, but you got next to nothing for your encounters. There was a pretty consistent doubling of that value, but the exp you got from monsters could more than double. Whereas the exp requirement for level 2 might be 2000, for level 20, it might be 100 times more, at 200,000 till next level. But your enemy at level 1 was worth 15 experience points, so it would take well over 100 encounters... But at higher levels, your enemy could be worth 15,000, so it might take less than 10 encounters to level - if you could keep up. Demons and gods were worth x10 on their home plane, so that might yield 150,000 or more, being your "1 encounter to level".

Options are Liberating
@CarlT
It's funny I've considered going back to gold as an x.p. reward for the exact reasons you stated.

I think x.p. should be defined so the DM that wants to give out partial rewards per session can do so without tracking it himself.  I also like x.p. as an undead fear mechanic.  Vampires drain x.p. basically.  I think entire levels is too much but some x.p. for me would be great.  (Not starting an argument on that subject just giving reason for tracking it for me).

I probably like to advance 2 level on the first session if it's long.  After that I like it every couple sessions until 5th.  Then every 3 sessions until 10th.   Then every four sessions until 15.  Then every 5 sessions until 20th.

That is 70 sessions to reach 20.  Since my group probably can't play consistently every single weed and with holidays that may turn out to be 2 to 3 years.   Thats a good campaign.


 
@ advancing quickly at low levels

Is it because you want things to get harder as you level? Or is it because lvl 1-2 are boring and you want to get them over with faster? (

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I remember the 1e/2e advancement tables.  That was when we used 'Whose Line' experience points.  We never added up the XP for the monsters or the treasure, we just said '1000 points for everybody!' (or some other essentially arbitrary number).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.