| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As many know, I really, really, really, don't like the way Bounded Accuracy was handled in 5e (range too small, not enough differentiation in proficiency, etc...etc...etc...).
HOWEVER...while browsing on various forums and topics, I came across something that BA probably does VERY well and IS very laudable.
In older editions of AD&D (and B/X, BECMI) various races had level limits.
One of the big meta game/out of game reasons this was done was supposedly for world (not game) balance.
When elves live 1000 years, if they advance as quickly as the humans do (or even 1/5 as fast considering humans live 100 years and elves live 1000), there is NO plausible reason Elves don't dominate the world. If Humans got to be 20th-30th level in their lifetime...there is no reason a high level elf shouldn't be 200th-300th level, and the average elf anywhere from 10th to 30th level.
Even if humans numbered in the range thousands of times more numerous than other races, they'd be slaughtered (AD&D had far vaster ranges of proficiency, a 1st level human really was no threat to someone who was 9th or 10th level, much less several hundred levels).
Hence, level limits were instituted as a way to not only show races had different psychologies, emotional and mental ways of thinking, as well as physical differences, but also as a way to make it so that the other races didn't dominate the world due to their long life spans.
When I think about 3e and Pathfinder, there really isn't this restriction. IF you have elves that live 1000 years in your game...seeing they advance as fast as humans, by all rights the entire world should be ruled by a couple dozen high level Elves or Dwarves.
In 5e, we know that high level characters can be EXTREMELY threatened by the Hordes. An Ancient Dragon can be brought down by an army of bow wielding archers. Tiamat herself could probably be brought down by a ton of low level archers, spellcasters, or others.
In a game like that, you still have power, but it's not so overwhelming that armies are something you laugh at.
In that light, BA is a very good thing in regards to limitations.
Not something I say often, as I really don't like BA (honestly, despite what this post may sound like).
However, In that light which I mention above, with how BA operates in regards to low levels and high levels, the way it operates is actually a very POSTIVE thing in my view.
It's an interesting idea. Personally I like BA because I'm pretty darn sick of +35/+31/+blah blah and AC in the 49's and all the saves being all ridiculous all off of a d20. And because progression is really far too fast IMO.
As far as years go and leveling, I think there's a disconnect here. A human character can go from 1st to 20th level if they're consistent with adventuring in about a year. That's it. 1 Year and they've unlocked ALL the secrets of their trade (ie. class) and that's just purely ridiculous. Hence why Level has no actual mapping when it comes to the immersion part of the game.
An Elf can live to be 1000 years old but if the majority of that isn't in combat and isn't fighting for their life every 3 days and it's mostly hidden away in the seclusion of their own private sanctum or in the deep bowels of their forest fortress, how are they ever going to truely know they're might is as great as they believe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's an interesting idea. Personally I like BA because I'm pretty darn sick of +35/+31/+blah blah and AC in the 49's and all the saves being all ridiculous all off of a d20. And because progression is really far too fast IMO.
As far as years go and leveling, I think there's a disconnect here. A human character can go from 1st to 20th level if they're consistent with adventuring in about a year. That's it. 1 Year and they've unlocked ALL the secrets of their trade (ie. class) and that's just purely ridiculous. Hence why Level has no actual mapping when it comes to the immersion part of the game.
An Elf can live to be 1000 years old but if the majority of that isn't in combat and isn't fighting for their life every 3 days and it's mostly hidden away in the seclusion of their own private sanctum or in the deep bowels of their forest fortress, how are they ever going to truely know they're might is as great as they believe?
This level progression since 3rd edition has been my biggest disappointment. I agree whole heartedly with you, One year of solid adventuring can take you to 20th level, the end reaches of the game. If that is all it took, we would see a lot of characters/NPCs overly dominating the world. Wizards who are 19-21 years of age who hold the most powerful of magics in their hands. Elves would logically rule the world because there would be so many ultra powerful ones.
Ever since 3rd edition came out, I chose to use a progression system which was much closer (if not a little more difficult) than 1st edition. To me this is what D&D should feel like. Characters should have to earn their levels over a significant period of time. This gives the player the opportunity to roleplay and explore the character for several years of real time. They can build castles, join knighthoods, have arching plotlines, things that take several years of character exploration to do, not just one game year.
My post wasn't about downtime, it was character longevity and enjoying playing the same character for several real years of time. You missed the point.
As for worrying about everyone reaching the heights, don't. Great heroes require great threats and there don't have to be such great threats available for all the NPC adventurers to face. The PCs rocket up because they keep finding appropriate threats. In the early days that means they don't get splotted by monsters way tougher than they are. At higher levels it means they're still finding things that challenge them, not stuck dealing with small scale orc raids or old ruins with little more than zombies.
I do agree with you there though. That NPC threats are generally not the same as PCs threats and thus their advancement would be slower. But my point was all about having the characters advance slower so that the campaign itself lasts much longer than a year or so.
Altering the XP system is one way of extending the campaign for friends who want to play the same character for 5-10 real years and not roll up new characters every 9-18 months. Not my style, never was. I understand though that the faster progression style is more popular with players. Its just not for me.
One can also extend the campaign based on DMing style. Campaigns that have a much higher degree of roleplaying tend to have less combat and therefore those campaigns may last longer. It's about preference and game style, altering the XP is simply a tool to achieve the means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im really not sure what the alternative is. PCs that don't advance?
I think a temporary suspension of disbelief is required here. We just understand that PCs have more potential for greatness.
I guess I missed the point because it's so far outside my experience. I've been in several campaigns that lasted for several years. None of them ended because we hit 20th level and had to stop. Real-life considerations, simply wanting to play something else, finishing the main overarching plotlines.
Granted, I've never had anything last 5-10 years, but I've never really wanted to either.
We do tend to do much less combat than your average module, so that may play into it too. And how often/long you play as well.If I really wanted to stretch a campaign across a decade, I'd be tempted to ditch xp entirely and just fiat level when it seems appropriate.
And that would be a good way to handle things if you did want a campaign lasting that long. I have heard of others awarding levels at times they felt were appropriate rather than XPs. Had I not grew up on 1st edition and liked the slow progression, I'm sure my views would be different. Everyone likes different things, which is cool.
I play with 2 players I met in the early 80's and 5 from the late 80's.
I ran 2 first edition ad&d campaign. One through high school & Uni which petered out after about 12 years when the characters were about 18th level. The next lasted about 15 years but I converted in to 3e at about year and level 10 - they again got to about 18th as well. Because they were stretched over so many years it's difficult to recall how much time was spent but in high school and Uni we used to go away and play for a week at a time 2-3 times a year so that one had a lot of hours.
Both of these had multiple homebrew adventure stories - fighting invasion of humanoids, travelling to a "Egyptian myths" world, exploring a new land, recovering an ally from Hades etc or prefab adventures T1, A1-4, GDQ, L series etc
My first full 3e was a single adapted adventure path(night below). I altered it to go 1-20 and it took about 5-6 years, maybe 100-120 "evening sessions" of 3-4 hours.
After that I started running paizo adventure paths - RotRL, CotCT & the drow/elf one. Each finished at about 13-16th level but took about 6 "full weekend" sessions (fri-sun night). We got used to going up a couple of levels each weekend.
I think the adventure path - single story style campaign encourages faster progression.
We slowly got used to the faster progression speed of 3e and yes the consequence was:
1. The best way to deal with a dangerous threat is leave it alone for a few weeks while you fight something level appropriate, then come back when you are say 3 levels higher and kick its butt (many scenarios have the "if they are too weak to fight this foe, have them fight this other foe then they can handle the big bad");
2.after travelling away to battle something you could often come back a few months later 10 levels higher and the place you left behind with the troublesome ogre that lives on the hill was a joke; and
3. The speed meant if you played a new class you ofetn hadn't really got an understanding of how to play your 4th level bard when you were suddenly a 5th level bard.
But I do think part of the reason was this was what we got used to. Initially when we played we didn't advance quickly because it seemed daft to do so (but we didn't give xp for gold in ad&d either). Then we just accepted it. Now we are working to get back a bit of the old style.
I think it's largely player choice - but 5e makes it easier to choose the slower path because just as you are threatened by low level foes at high level - you can threaten high level foes at low level. The tiers aren't so rigid.
I must admit to slow it down I have also decided to run two parties (same players) in the same campaign this time partly so the players go slowly enough.
We now play 3 weekends a year. In 3e we expected to go up 2-3 levels in a weekend. In our latest 5e weekend 2 out of 7 characters in one of the two groups went up a level everyone else stayed the same.
It felt like in 3e you played to level up and btw there was a story and an adventure. In 5e it feels a bit like you play for the story/adventure and btw you get stronger over time.
Sorry - I seem to have gone quite off topic.
I actually agree with you on the topic, so I don't think it's quite off topic, but a branch of the original idea.
5e can have the fast advancement of other editions and games, but even if you are 20th level, it's not like you are going to be like a high level Pathfinder character.
1st level characters can still touch you in 5e, and if you have enough of them, they can kill you rather easily.
In Pathfinder, this is far harder. When you have an untouchable AC and a BAB that will hit every turn, and abilities that will turn the entire army to mulch before you...well...not much is going to be that threatening to the power level of a 20th level party.
In 5e, in some ways, with the speed of advancement, it's sort of a cross between the older editions and the new. You may have the HP and amount of attacks like a new edition, but your Ac and BAB and other aspects may be more akin to a 5th to 8th level character...meaning you are powerful, but not all-powerful.
In addition, with the restrictions (or changed) spellcasting rules, you will be far more challenged by a bunch of lower level adversaries than you would be in Pathfinder.
It's a way that balance is kept, NOT by different classes, but by the world and numbers around you.
Which is highly positive in 5e in many ways.
(That doesn't mean you can't have a super powerful character which should squash every 1st level character before you, but it does mean that you can never simply assume that you will quash any and everything simply because you are high level and gained that level in the past year vs. dozens of years of learning, adventuring, and training).