|
6 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2007 - 5:27AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
I'm begging you WotC, PLEASE slow down the advancement rate so we can have long-lived characters that fight their way up the levels by playing through great adventures like Temple of Elemental Evil and Scourge of the Slavelords without having to retire them as soon as we're done with one of them.
I agree completely. :D
Slow and easy... What's the hurry. 
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2007 - 5:45AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
Faster Advancement sounds like $$$$ for WotC. The faster we retire high level characters and start fresh the easier it will be to incorporate newly released a source book (with new feats/spells/options) into our games. More people will be willing to buy them because they are more ‘useful’ and thus more sales.  Yes I’m a cynic. 
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2007 - 9:23AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
From Chris Perkins' Blog: Has the road to the endgame been lengthened, level-wise, or is there a new upper limit to how powerful D&D characters will get? For example, will a level 30 character in 4th Edition be as strong as a level 20 in 3.5, or is a level 20 character in 4th Edition about as strong as an epic-level character in previous editions?
The way character advancement works now, it takes fewer encounters to gain a level, but it takes roughly the same length of time to reach 30 levels in 4th Edition as it takes to reach 20 levels in 3rd Edition. The rate of level advancement is still being playtested, however, so the jury’s still out on whether the final game will work this way.
Even he doesn't even know if this feature is going to stay.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2007 - 11:36AM
#14
|
|
|
3E's incredibly fast rate of leveling up, coupled with the large jumps in power-level between each level, caused be to 'blow up' the levels by splitting them in half. Well, almost. I made 3E's level 20 = my level 36.
The reasons I did this is exactly what these guys are talking about. I wanted each level to be more gradual and still maintain a reasonable rate of leveling up.
The PiazzaA renaissance of the Old Worlds. Where any setting can be explored, any rules system discussed, and any combination of the two brought to life.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2007 - 11:53AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2006
|
Giving less than the standard amount of XP is fine if you're running a completely homebrew campaign. The problem arises when you need to run published adventures (especially campaign paths or an adventure series). Most, if not all, of these expect a core XP progression and a DM really has to work to fill in the gaps with extra encounters or time lapses (which are seldom possible due to plot expectations).
I don't buy this argument. This is not a flaw in the system. This a logical consequence of you desire to have different advancement rate, and quibble about the structure of a supplementary product.
I recently purchased a canned adventure that doesn't exactly match the level of my group. So I have to go through it and adjust to their abilities and level. Unless you are lucky and find the adventure that fits perfectly in story and current campaign level, this is SOP for running a published module.
So adjust. Fill in down time with side quests, reduce the level of the monsters, or rearrange the encounters so that the PCs have a tactical advantage, and again, problem solved.
The same adventure I mentioned had a villain who wasn't high enough level to have cast a spell they'd said he'd cast (for plot purposes). Once I established that, I decided he'd used a scroll. (On a later, in depth, pass through the material I found a note saying he'd used scroll.) The point is, you can usually find an explanation for any inconsistencies that might crop up because you moved the encounter levels around.
Ask yourself where you want the PCs to be at a given level and prepare for it. I don't buy the excuse that this is more work for the DM. If you are using a published adventure, you should already be looking at the encounters in depth. Make re-leveling part of that in depth encounter work, and you'll have an even better grasp of the material. You can start the process with a high level overview of the encounter, and say "this guy need to shave off a level. That guy needs to lose his Harm spell." Make a check list of the steps you need to take to reduce a creature's level, or apply flat penalties to stats (-1 for each level on all d20 based checks, saves etc could work well). Make sure you know the aproximate level of spells you expect your PCs to be facing and don't use spells of higher level.
Is it work? Yes, but nothing you couldn't do in an afternoon off. And armed with that you can adjust any single published adventure on the fly!
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2007 - 12:20PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2006
|
Faster Advancement sounds like $$$$ for WotC.
The faster we retire high level characters and start fresh the easier it will be to incorporate newly released a source book (with new feats/spells/options) into our games.
More people will be willing to buy them because they are more ‘useful’ and thus more sales.
Yes I’m a cynic.
There's cynicism and there's grasping at straws. This sounds like the latter. The fact that a group has hit level 30 does not give that group more disposable income. Take that into account and your logic crumbles.
WotC wants more money. DDI is clear proof of that. Confessions of a Part Time Sorceress is proof of that. the plans for crunchless $20 preview books is proof of that. The rate of leveling in game is not.
You could accuse them of dumbing the game down, pandering to the power gamers or hack-n-slashers and make a case. Opinions of course will differ, but calling this issue a money grab isn't cynicism. It's paranoid lunacy...the seeking of nefarious motive in every aspect of WotC operations. It's anti-corporatism run amok.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 14, 2007 - 1:41PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2007
|
|
|
|
