|
Does anyone else think 3E/3.5 advancement is too fast?
Before you tag me as a spoilsport/killer-DM, I'm speaking as both DM AND player.
I grew up with Basic D&D/1st Ed/2nd Ed., where a level 1 fighter needed 2000 xp to level up, and a goblin was worth 10xp, therefore it took 200 goblins EACH for fighters to reach level 2. For those who have only played 3E/3.5, different classes needed different amounts of xp, some more, some less. The above is just an example.
Now, I'm not suggesting we all should necessarily go back to that exact system, or that anyone who doesn't is a munchkin power-gamer, but it did explain:-
1) why relatively few people took up adventuring,
2) why those who did were considered 'special' (in all senses of the word),
3) why wizards were rare (try earning 2500xp with ONE spell/day, yes, you heard right, ONE spell/day. No bonus spell for high Int, no school specialisation until 2nd Ed.)
4) why town guards/militia/soldiers were mostly level 1 fighters, with a few level 2/3 sergeants for variety,
5) why level 9 was considered High Level (that being the level at which one settled down, built a castle, & attracted followers, with no need for a Leadership feat).
All the above contributed to gamers being a very strange, dedicated breed of people, who were prepared to devote years to one character, in the hope that they might attain powers that are now considered ho-hum by the new generation of players.
Levels 1-5 are now officially designated 'Low-Level'. I can picture the scene at the army recruiting office...
"So what can you do?"
"I can soar through the air, flinging balls of fire 40 feet across."
"Pfeh, come back when you can do something out of the ordinary."
Levels 6-10 are now 'Mid-Level'?
"So, you want to re-open the abandoned temple? How do we know you're a real priest?"
"I have witnessed the mysteries of creation; I have broken the final barriers of the heavens. I hold in my hands the miracle of life itself. I can raise the faithful from the dead"
"Yeah?"
"Well, as long as they still have their major organs, and they haven't been dead more than 10 days, yes"
"**** off, amateur. I said we need a REAL priest!"
I'm sure we've all been cornered at the store by the geek who wants to tell you ALL about his 30th level character. In the past, you could dismiss them out of hand, since there was NO WAY anyone could possibly have been playing long enough to have achieved this legally (unless, of course, they'd happened to know some guy called Gary at Lake Geneva in the mid-70's). Now though, you have to take care, as they may be genuine. With 8-hour sessions and/or multiple sessions/week, they could easily have done it inside a year.
It seems as if the writers of the game think the lower levels are a complete waste of time, and want to get them over with as quick as possible, to get to the 'real game'.
Finished an adventure? Have half a level for story award!
Set off a trap? Have 1000 xp! (Make sure you share it with the folk who were cowering in the next room, now...after all, they earned it too!)
Did you sneak past a sleeping minotaur? Have 1350xp! (Despite it effectively having a negative Listen score.)
Did you have a nice chat with the 7th level wizard? Have 3600xp!
In such a climate, is it any wonder the game often feels like a videogame? How else could it feel?
Whilst I am enjoying the Shackled City path very much, the speed of advancement seems ridiculous to me (as a player, I might add, NOT as DM). At level 3, I picked new 2nd-level spells, including one from my speciality school. I went to level 4 in one day (game-time; it was 4 sessions, real time) without ever casting it. I managed to cast it, just the once, before I went to level 5, and got access to level 3 spells. This is my chosen school, my signature spell, this is how I am defined to the outside world, and I barely got to use it before extra powers got shovelled on top.
Now, I know that people will say that I'm an old fogey, who's not part of the high-speed modern age, not in touch with what the kidz of today want from their gaming...
but I'm running a game for a group aged mostly 18-22 (with one crusty throwback of 35, who's my SCAP DM); we don't meet every week due to real life interruptions, but even allowing for that, we've still got over a full year's proper gaming done over the last 2 years, and they've just recently got to level 4. This is because I either ignore or reduce many of the suggested rewards, or think that many challenges are simply a lower CR than the rules as written.
(Eg: Fire Trap. Damage d4+7(fire). Reflex save DC16(half). DC 29 to find or disable).
How in the hell is that CR5? A 2nd level rogue should take zero damage over half the time. The damage type is the most commonly protected against. The max damage can't even kill a 1st level wizard with 6 CON. And as for the archetypal dumbass fighter....Feel free to throw it at him as his first ever encounter,...BOOM!....Hey, Ma, I'm 2nd Level! 80% of the way to 3rd! Hey, Mr EvilWizard, reset it and I'll run through again...I could do with an extra feat!
Despite this slower progression, and the fact that most players have known nothing but 3E/3.5, NO-ONE has complained. They seem to appreciate the fact that they get comfortable with their powers before getting new ones, that they can still enjoy the odd roleplaying session where hardly a die is rolled, and can still be considered movers and shakers in their sleepy town of Saltmarsh without riding round on the back of a tarrasque. I took about 6 months time off when my son was born, and several players nearly begged me to restart.
So, have the powers at WOTC got it wrong? Have we been so brainwashed by the idea that the kids of today want instant gratification via god-stat characters, that we do them a disservice? Are they, in fact, more mature than game designers give them credit for?
You are most certainly not alone. As I detailed in the thread "And It Hit Me" several months ago, I have decided to ditch the standard XP system all together after the current campaign I'm running wraps up. I plan on handing out XP based soley on "story rewards," but not just for talking to the shady guy in the corner. It should flow somewhat like this:
Every time the party completes a full adventure, they get XP. If they had an average challenge, then they have learned an average amount and gain XP for a CR equal to their level. Each character gets this XP, and it is not divided by party number. For example, if the party clears a dungeon rated for CR 3 when they are 3rd level, they each get full CR 3 XP.
At this pace, the party advances a level every 3.3 adventures, as opposed to something like 1.2 levels per adventure as it stands now (I think that's how it stands now- my math could be wrong).
It also takes out the questions of things like, "So why did killing an orc tribe advance my Diplomacy, but spending a month in the noble's court not?" and such. I've never liked wizards, who are supposed to learn arcane secrets from books, actually getting the power to level from killing things. Makes sense for fighters, not mages.
Anyway, with the XP system I plan on adopting, it's based on actual life experiences, having really gone through something that gave you a new look on the world, opened your mind, etc.
Now, if the party had a tougher than usual time going through that Level 3 dungeon at 3rd level, I'll give them CR 4 XP, or even CR 5 if they nearly all died (and it wasn't from something amazingly stupid). If they had an easy go of it, they get CR 2 XP, and if it was a cakewalk, they get CR 1 XP.
This will also stop people from jumping out in the woods and killing something to get the XP to level or make an item, when their characters would have no concept of this. It also stops people from seeing the dragon ahead as a gob of nice XP, since they no longer get any for fighting, per se. Monsters should be viewed as monsters now, not a numeric bonus in disguise.
Let me conclude by saying I've never played anything but 3.x, and I still found myself asking, "How the hell does this make any sense?" When I read a post where someone did the math and calculated that 3.x advances about 8 times as fast as 1ed/2ed, I knew I wanted to slow it down, but not as far as those, so I think I like the pace of this new system.
I do plan on starting an alternate campaign with some of my players, since our group often has trouble getting everyone together. This way, we can play without having to remand an absent PC to another player or make him miss out. It will be my first real test of this system outside of just making calculations. We should have the first session in about a week or so. I hope it goes well.
|
I admit I straddle the fence on this issue. I am a sole 3.x player/DM as well and am about to start Red Hand of Doom. Now,I have to say that it is nice to see a low-level party rise to the immense challenges of thwarting a ravening horde, stopping a planar conjunction, or halting the rise of a death god, which is why I love the Adventure Paths.
That being said, I too find joy in the gradual evolution of the player's strengths... I feel quite torn, really. I previously ran a campaign for 2.5 yrs through college, starting at 3rd and ending at 18th, and can't imagine how we would have finished if I slowed the xp gain, but then also recall the struggles I had to "keep up" with the party towards the end.
I like Saern's "chapter level" system, aside from its impact on players who utilize experience for spells or crafting, or who buy off the Level Adjustments ala Unearthed Arcana. By all rights, and my own calculations, these individuals eventually can catch up with their fellow party members, as they are awarded proportionally higher exp, and this is a big sticking point for me.
In the end, I suppose it depends on my and my fellows time constraints and the magnitude of the game- I'm in the process of writing a 1st-__ level game, likely to hit 17th or 18th, where magical items cost double and experience gain is halved (they balance one another out nicely, I found, as I can retain the treasure values for the party and just their magical content). This camapign won't be run until I'm settled down with a solid gaming group, but it's going to last us four years, easy, and the storyline is permitted to reflect a more gradual increase in their power.
I guess it's all based on player's tastes, but it is nice to be able to increase the power levels of the party's enemies without waiting 24 sessions to do so... I find 6 to be just perfect myself :).
This topic pops up on the boards about every 2 months. If you look at some older threads, you will see the umpteen different methods people have used to deal with this issue.
It's true, they deliberately sped up level progression so that people would be able to reach the high levels quicker. It's better to err on the side of giving rewards too frequently and making them less valuable, than to give rewards too infrequently and people getting bored.
Levels 1-5 would be better called "early levels" than "low levels". 5th level really isn't low level compared to the average person, it's only low level when you consider that there are people out there at 10th and 20th level. "Low levels" might be the accepted DM lingo, but don't call the players that to their faces or they might not appreciate how powerful they really are at those levels.
|
A simple fix and one I use that emulates 1st edition advancement:
1,000 xp per level, period.
XP is granted based on the real challenge the players faced, not some crummy CR rating that means little when circumstances radically affect it.
Easy Challenge 10 xp
Moderate: 20xp
hard: 50xp
very hard: 75xp
deadly: 100xp (someone died or more than one PC was at negatives)
Are you Fing kidding?: 100xp+
My players really liked this way of doing things. So now, when 4 4th elvel players ambush a tired minotaur, they probably earn an easy xp rating. Alos, this keeps players a lower level longer, and orcs are still a threat for some time. Also, feel free to give xp individualy to the players...if some schmuk rogue sat behidn the party and was never threatened due to the figthers in the group, give him a lower share...use caution fo course, so you dont overly offened the PC's who are doing just OK pulling their weight... it's a good idea to keep a hidden running xptotal for each PC and give it out at the end.
Well, If you are playing an Adventure Path, they need those levels to make it (to the endgame).
If it's a home game with multiple adventures, go with whatever works for you. Just be certain to give them an adventure that works, and not one that's "next in line", because they won't be able to handle it.
Oh. And yeah, 3.x advancement is too fast (player since 1982).
I'm about 16 months into my first ever 3.5 campaign. We've played about 25 gaming sessions in that time and the PCs just hit 13th level. While they're overloaded with magic and gobs and gobs and gobs of treasure (comes from running nothing but published adventures for this campaign and changing nothing except backstory), I don't think the level advancement is too fast necessarily.
In my future campaigns I will tone down the magic and treasure awarded and I want to figure out a way to keep lower level monsters challenging for higher level characters, but I'm okay with the level advancement.
I was on the fence for a long time as well and looking back at my previous posts on the issue, I also felt it was too fast, but I've changed my mind.
Why? The players (and me) are having bucketloads of fun and are looking forward to the "next" campaign when they can try some different characters. They're mostly 20+ year D&D veterans, but have never played 3.5 before and like the fact that they're not "stuck" with a character for the better part of a decade in order to play at high level. While they're all enamored with the computer game powerups they get every level, they're also doing some really good role-playing and getting into the story of my campaign, so I'm willing to go along, because I appreciate that from them.
Magic is too prevalent and low-level monsters need to remain "in the game" longer, but otherwise I'm okay with 3.5's level advancement.
I have a feeling that this is what WotC may have been shooting for, figuring that the DMs who want the slower advancement can just cut it back themselves.
|
|
Levels 1-5 would be better called "early levels" than "low levels". 5th level really isn't low level compared to the average person, it's only low level when you consider that there are people out there at 10th and 20th level. "Low levels" might be the accepted DM lingo, but don't call the players that to their faces or they might not appreciate how powerful they really are at those levels.
True. I know several players, in several local groups, who need a kick up the backside to start acting like the abilities, classes and alignments on their sheets, and stop mincing about.
"Oooh, my comrade, who I owe my LIFE to, is bleeding to death, but I can't run to heal him in case the goblin next to me has an AoO, somehow hits AC24, and does d4 damage to my cowardly, uninjured, yellow-bellied 34hp hide".
or
"Oooh, the party is being swamped by skeletons emerging from large crates. Nobody's noticed me, since I've spent 10 rounds cowering in a corner. There's an unarmoured guy on the balcony, resorting to using a mightycantrip to open the crates. He's much too powerful for me!"
While the above (true) examples are probably explained by selfish play, or out-of-character meta-gaming, it doesn't help when WOTC are ramming it down the player's throats that characters of levels 1-5 are worthless nobodies.
Take Leadership. Apparently, nobody could give a stuff about you until you hit level 6, and then, ONLY if you waste a feat. Doesn't matter WHAT you've done; you could have singlehandedly wiped out a tribe of marauders, found the crown jewels, carried a dozen orphans out of burning building with your head on fire. NPCs have to talk to you like they found you on the bottom of their shoe. They certainly won't offer to act as guides/squires/torchbearers until you buy that feat.
Charisma 18? Sorry.
Max ranks in Diplomacy? Fat chance.
Didn't the blacksmith's son want weapons training? Yeah, he went off with the complete stranger with Cha3...he had a certificate from the Adventurers' Guild confirming he had Leadership, so...screw you.
And don't forget, level 6 is when PCs qualify for levels in a Proper Class (PrC)...
If 3.5's progression is faster than previous editions, I see that as being an improvement on obsolete rules.
Level advancement is up to the DM. We just started Age of Worms at the end of March. I started everyone with 2 HD. We played four six-hour sessions, and after all that they gained one level. They explored all of Whispering Cairn down to Alaster, they had a number of encounters and scenarios in Diamond Lake, and I tossed in Dymrak Dread (modified heavily) to spice things up, and they gained one level after all that. I plan on the group still being at 3rd level when they enter the Dourstone Mines. I'm very pleased with the progression so far.
I think you have a reasonable concern snorter, that is probably why this discussion continues to crop up on a regular basis. My problem with the advancement rate has to more with keeping the world feeling cohesive, rather than reserving high levels to those that dedicate many years to a character. In my gaming group we have played games at all ends of the power spectrum, from a resident evil campaign where we all played schmoes of the street (my character was a bum :)), to epic level earth shaking games where the fate of the world was in our hands. It all depends on the kind of story we feel like telling at the moment. We have only had a couple of games in which we went from schmoes to powerful characters however, and those were long term games.
Anyway, with the XP system I plan on adopting, it's based on actual life experiences, having really gone through something that gave you a new look on the world, opened your mind, etc.
I like where your system is going for several reasons. First, it solves a dilemma I have had with the D&D world. Problem being that if PCs/NPCs (I believe that NPCs and PCs should be held to the same rules in most all cases) level up every adventure of so why isn’t the world littered with epic level characters? Using standard 3.5 rules a group of characters could get 10 levels per year of game time with plenty of R&R to boot. Slowing things down makes the world much more believable, which I think is very important. Second, I don’t like the idea of non-front line classes, like the bard, being penalized because they don’t get into fights as much as a barbarian. Or penalizing rogues because they do what their class does best, avoiding trouble instead of looking for it. “Wait up guys, I have to go brain that ogre with a rock so he will attack me and I can kill him or else I will never get better at sneaking around”. Also, keeping things simple with XP given out per story completed takes care of a lot of excess book work that just tends to slow things down and take time away from the story.
I don't know that there is a "right" level of advancement, though I think that perhaps, just like the character creation rules, for example, that there might be standard, exceptional, and heroic advancement levels for XP.
In my last campaign, I cut all the XP in half, including what I handed out for story awards, and the PCs still got to 10th level a lot faster than I would have liked. But it was a learning experience, and if I start a group up that I want to REALLY feel like it advances the way I want them too, I'll likely cut the XP down to 25% of normal.
|
|
I love the adventure paths but they make them work on a strict timeline. Adjusting the xp ratio ruins the AP's. Shackled City, Age of Worms, and the recent WotC adventure, The Red Hand of Doom all have a timeline which can't be altered too much. This makes adjusting XP a bit of a tricky proposition. I could just say F*** it and ditch the idea of using the APs but then 1/3 of my dungeon subscription is almost useless (except as salvage). What I am getting at is that I would like the Adventure Paths to be more freeform and less timeline regimented so if I want to slow down a game I can. I would love to throw 2 or more adventures in between episodes of the adventure path or maybe combine 2-3 different campaigns into one cool one with 2-3 different main plotlines. I hate being limited in the way I can use something. It's D&D. I want the freedom to choose.
IMO of course.
FH
If I run the Age of Worms the way I set it up, I plan on having a bit of a break between the first half and last half of the AP, after the PCs return to Diamond Lake (or in this case Daggerford), where they clean up a bunch of loosen ends and set Daggerford back to where it was before the AoW before moving on.
That having been said, I doubt I would tinker too much with XP when playing the AP. My /4 XP idea will likely be in a campaign that is pretty much all of my devising, with only single shot entries from Dungeon used.
Personally, I like the 3.x advancement rate - it means we don't need to play for several years just to use 1/3rd of the PHB. However, I can quite understand that others might want to slow advancement.
Two things:
1) If you reduce the XP awards, be sure to reduce the reward levels to compensate, or else your PCs will massively exceed the "Wealth per Level" guidelines, which may cause problems with balancing later encounters. But it's not quite a case of dividing the rewards by the same value as the XP awards, as some of the assumed treasure is in the form of 'consumable' items, which should not be reduced.
2) I would be wary of any scheme that awards XP based on how difficult the PCs find a given encounter. Such schemes reward players for poor planning - well-executed plans lead to easier encounters, which mean less XP.
I abandoned the standard exp award system long ago. Starting at the low levels my awards are about 60-80% of a level, after 4 games everyone will be level 3. When they hit the sweet levels 6-10 I am giving 40-60%. By the time they are aproching level 20 a good game session is 2500-4000.
Why? Because I love the advancement of characters and think you truely have the most fun before you hit level 12. Going through the teens is the true power gaming for me and I like to drag that out as long as possible.
The epic rules are very possibly the worst crap WotC have come out with since starting 3rd edition and I like to ignore it. I do hope they come out with a 3.5 revision of the epic rules soon but until then I will ignore any book that requires a 35 Dex to take a feat.
|
|
There have been some interesting posts here about the xp system.
Here are a few of my random thoughts.
I have never felt like WotC has crammed anything down my throat. If anything, I have seen things said to make it your game. Or do what works for you and your group.
I have seen a number of different xp systems and tried a number of them. I have done story based xp, anal every little encounter xp, and recently I ditched the whole xp thing and just told the characters "ok -- now you get to go up a level". Each one had its benefits as well as problems.
I am sorry that some people feel that they loose 1/3 of their dungeon subscription if they don't use the adventure paths. Any DM should be able to use each AP adventure as a stand alone adventure without incorporating it into the full adventure path. It might take a little work, but then so would any adventure to make it fit into any particular campaign.
I don't mind the Epic Rules as they are written (for the most part). I like that they give (decent) rules for play past 20th level. Having done it a few times though, I don't want to play Epic play too often. It really becomes tedious (and has been addressed on other threads).
All that being said there is kind of a paradox going on with XP and advancement. I really feel that the majority of people (players and DMs) have the most fun playing at the lower levels (say 2nd - 7th levels). I am not saying that they don't have fun later, but I just think that they have the most fun in those levels. On the other side, most players REALLY like it when they gain a level. You want to reward the players by getting them to the next level. You want them to have fun with these characters for as long as possible so you want to hold the advancement back a bit.
In closing I just want to say that it is your game. Make it work for you and your group. If the advancement is too slow, speed it up. If the advancement is too fast, slow it down. There are lots of good ideas here on this thread and as someone else said on a good number of other threads. If the Rules as Written are not working for you and your group, experiment a bit and find something that does work. Let them know what you are doing and why and, more often than not, they will be on board with your ideas and support you.
Good luck, roll some dice, and have fun.
This topic pops up on the boards about every 2 months. If you look at some older threads, you will see the umpteen different methods people have used to deal with this issue.
Luke is right here...look at some of the older threads regarding this topic. No need to reinvent the same solutions every other month unless someone has a fresh idea.
As ever,
ACE
I give my PCs half the DMG recommended experience points and they go up just about right - with no complaints or bored/complaining players.
Dido...
Ultradan
I love the adventure paths but they make them work on a strict timeline. Adjusting the xp ratio ruins the AP's. Shackled City, Age of Worms, and the recent WotC adventure, The Red Hand of Doom all have a timeline which can't be altered too much. This makes adjusting XP a bit of a tricky proposition. I could just say F*** it and ditch the idea of using the APs but then 1/3 of my dungeon subscription is almost useless (except as salvage). What I am getting at is that I would like the Adventure Paths to be more freeform and less timeline regimented so if I want to slow down a game I can. I would love to throw 2 or more adventures in between episodes of the adventure path or maybe combine 2-3 different campaigns into one cool one with 2-3 different main plotlines. I hate being limited in the way I can use something. It's D&D. I want the freedom to choose.
IMO of course.
FH
Thus my current effort to compile ideas for the Expanded Age of Worms, which will use the AP as a backbone, but will feature heavy changes in plot to allow for more free time and general freedom between adventures, and will use my "Chapter XP" system. I'm not going to NOT give XP for non-core adventures. I plan on making the Ebon Triad the main bad-guys for half the AP, with Kyuss's cult appearing only as an apparent recurring side quest for half the AP. They will start by seeing the cult as just lone necromancers to be dealt with, but they begin to appear everywhere, and eventually, around Champion's Belt, they'll get the info to actually make the connection. There will also be a lot of world-specific adventures to help introduce them to my homebrew. There were so many excellent plot hooks in all the backdrops, and this way I'll actually get to play with them without throwing things off.
But it's not quite a case of dividing the rewards by the same value as the XP awards, as some of the assumed treasure is in the form of 'consumable' items, which should not be reduced.
Actually, just converting a large amount of their treasure to expendables is a great compensator. First, you can give the enemy an oil of magic weapon of a far greater magnitude for less money than it actually costs to give him the real magic item, and of lesser power. Plus, once he uses it, the party doesn't get their hands on it (unless they kill him quick, in which case they get a +3 weapon in an upcomming fight without unbalancing the game). Also, all enemies can have so many more options as far as healing and tactics go when more of their money goes to potions.
Also, it helps emphasize the use of expendables. Parties are less likely to horde them for the guy that really matters since they're so common, which makes them a) feel bolder and go through more encounters at a time since they have the resources on hand, and b) stops them from unloading all their accumulated potions and scrolls on the BBEG.
It also gives the party more of a natural feel as far as treasure goes, with the imperminant nature of items letting them feel ups and downs in their amount of loot without getting out of balance.
|
|
I have never felt like WotC has crammed anything down my throat. If anything, I have seen things said to make it your game. Or do what works for you and your group...
...All that being said there is kind of a paradox going on with XP and advancement. I really feel that the majority of people (players and DMs) have the most fun playing at the lower levels (say 2nd - 7th levels)... On the other side, most players REALLY like it when they gain a level.
Apologies to all for sounding cranky before.
I do believe though, that the official rules do attempt to get levels 1-5 "out of the way" as quickly as possible, and that it is implied that "proper play" only begins after that point.
Prestige Classes are a case in point; I was under the impression that one of the main reasons for the 3rd Edition revision was to streamline play, by scrapping the plethora of needless classes/subclasses/kits that had sprung up in various sourcebooks and Dragon magazine. At the time, there were possibly hundreds of classes, where the only difference was maybe a favoured weapon here, a special combat maneuver there, a +1 bonus to this check, etc.
With 3rd Ed. it became possible to build a wide variety of classes, using the new concepts of feats and skills.
Non-standard characters could be built using the new multi-classing rules.
You want a Cavalier/Knight? No problem, play a fighter with Mounted Combat and max ranks in Ride and Handle Animal.
Now, all those players who did that are told, no, sorry, you're not a cavalier unless you pick this PrC, which you only qualify for after (at least) level 5 (I don't have the book to hand). Poor Sir Knight gets demoted to armour-polisher and jockstrap washer.
To answer the second point, yes, players do enjoy low levels, and there are many (in-game) ways to reward players for good play other than xp. Apart from the obvious monetary and magic rewards (which should be used sparingly), there is fame, free room and board, festivities in their honour, a beer named after them, a bard's song, a party portrait, a statue in the town square, romance from the grateful villagers of the opposite gender, hero-worship from those of the same gender, etc., all of which can be played out, if you wish, and serves to make the players feel 'special', without tilting the power level of the game or derailing the campaign.
Even lowly 2nd level characters used to have the option of squires and henchmen, but once again, the current rules specifically intrude on this. I wouldn't mind a sidebar that suggested that a DM should be wary of introducing too many supporting NPCs, but they actually enforce the notion that brave Sir Knight has to shovel his own horse-dung until his BAB exceeds his shoe-size.
I have trashed the current system... now it is more like a player of a lvl 12 character would come up to me and say: "OK, that was my 4th adventure + the mini we did 2 weeks ago. How many more do I have?
"hmm, I say about 2 cause the next one is a meatgrinder."
Anyone else do something like that or do you think it's to loose?
.
I am sorry that some people feel that they loose 1/3 of their dungeon subscription if they don't use the adventure paths. Any DM should be able to use each AP adventure as a stand alone adventure without incorporating it into the full adventure path. It might take a little work, but then so would any adventure to make it fit into any particular campaign.
Agreed, Bill. Adventures that I don't use straight out are dissected and reassembled into something I can use, even if all I use is the stat blocks and maps.
|
|
I've noticed at my local 1/2 Price Books there are 100 or so Dragon magazines and zero Dungeon magazines. Never know which adventure will pop up as the perfect thing or when. They have absolutely no utility loss; even adventures from 2ed. can be used or reused with a minimum of tweaking.
So of course an AP adventure could come in useful. I'm contemplating a little Cauldron action right now as a precursor to the upcoming Savage Tide AP--it makes sense with what's happening to get my people to Sasserine for the brouhaha.
|
|
Well, I kind of totaly abandoned the XP-system of 3.5E and use it only as a rough guideline.
As I prepare my campaign as far as possible, I know when my players need to have a specific level. I don't give away an XP-value to my players, instead I tell them:"You reached a new level!".
So I kind of give away levels according to when (in campaign time) I want them to have a specific level!
This is sometimes a bit faster, but more often slower and my players like it the way it is.
I dont think that level advancement is too fast, it seems to be just right for my group. Usualy we dont get alot of chances to play with many of us having loads of school work or jobs, or other things that make it hard to scedual gaming in. Also in 90% of our campaigns the group turns on each other before we make it to the good parts of the story. I admit, for many more dedicated players, the leveling may be a bit fast, but hey the rule books are always open to changes right? There isnt a D&D police thats going to break down your door for not using the exp table thats in the DMG. If you like the level rate, go with it, if not slow it down. My group however likes instant gratification and run straight for the NPC that is ment for when they are 10-15 levels higher, and usualy my NPC gets screwed sumhow and dies(grumble grumble)they level quite fast, and im fine with it cause it gives me chances to throw harder and stronger things at them, which is more fun for me. But like i said, if the leveling suits you, use it, if not, change it up.
I will probably start beating a dead horse now, but I don´t mind...
I am just DMing a campaign based on the original Slavers campaign, with heavy modifications. My PCs started at 1st level, hit Highport at about level 3 or so (just below the recommended level of 4-7 in the original adventures), went straight on (ok, I threw in Castle Amber...) and just entered Suderham in our last session.
They are at level 10 now, so I had to modify the enemies heavily to challenge them. The campaign has to end with the defeat of the Slavelords next session, as one of the players will work in the US for several years starting in August.
If you use the old adventures in the new game, you have to modify them to take that fast advancement into account. I was a bit overwhelmed by this advancement, I have to admit, as I had nearly no experience with leading a campaign under 3.x. It seems that the players have been a bit overwhelmed as well, as they nearly weren´t able to keep up with their characters abilities.
I will definitely use a slower advancement in my next D&D 3.5 campaign. Achilles´ idea seems to be easy and useful, so I will probably modify and use it. I will write down some guidelines and make them known to my players.
In the end, it is a matter of taste, but advancement every 2nd session makes my job as DM definitely much harder.
Stefan
I will probably start beating a dead horse now, but I don´t mind...
I am just DMing a campaign based on the original Slavers campaign, with heavy modifications. My PCs started at 1st level, hit Highport at about level 3 or so (just below the recommended level of 4-7 in the original adventures), went straight on (ok, I threw in Castle Amber...) and just entered Suderham in our last session.
They are at level 10 now, so I had to modify the enemies heavily to challenge them. The campaign has to end with the defeat of the Slavelords next session, as one of the players will work in the US for several years starting in August.
If you use the old adventures in the new game, you have to modify them to take that fast advancement into account. I was a bit overwhelmed by this advancement, I have to admit, as I had nearly no experience with leading a campaign under 3.x. It seems that the players have been a bit overwhelmed as well, as they nearly weren´t able to keep up with their characters abilities.
I will definitely use a slower advancement in my next D&D 3.5 campaign. Achilles´ idea seems to be easy and useful, so I will probably modify and use it. I will write down some guidelines and make them known to my players.
In the end, it is a matter of taste, but advancement every 2nd session makes my job as DM definitely much harder.
Stefan
I encountered exactly the same thing. I used an updated version of Return to the Keep on the borderlands. 6 players finished it at 7th level. 7th freaken level. The Caves of Chaos alone represent more then a 3rd of their life time adventuring career assumiong that they retire as kings or some such when they get to 20th.
okay, this thread has run a bit, and i know i'm repeating at least a bit of what's gone before, but.....
Yes, it's faster, and yes, in part at least it was designed that way deliberately. But....part of it for potentially shorter attention span/quicker gratification? maybe, but more likely, people who've played together for a while have noticed a few things. First, long gaps with no advancement can be frustrating. Second, campaigns usually don't last much longer than a year to two of weekly play, more often than not. yes, we all have had characters and campaigns that lasted longer, but they were more the exception than the rule.
The game is designed for the 13.3 encounters of equivalent CR to character level to advance to next level. So larger dungeon crawl adventures suddenly become mini campaigns if not full out campaigns. In addition to the ones cited here, I am reminded of the old Judge's Guild module Dark Tower. These modules are still very playable, but the DM does have to consider them carefully.
As with most things in the transition from the earlier versions to the current. The DM has to think about it. and if it's not what he wants, house rule adjustment. From what i understand, shifts in XP awards is one of the more common house rules
This is one of those long-winded cyclical arguments that really doesn't have any clear cut solutions. Some people can deal with the quick advancement system for XP, some people don't like it one bit. It seems that those that like the faster advancement rules leave it as it is (with possibly a few tweaks) while those that don't like it come up with alternate methods for advancment (some of which work and some of which don't). What really matters is whether the players are enjoying the game and the DM is enjoying the game. You really shouldn't worry about the advancement rules or anything like that unless its causing a problem for the group. Faster advancement has its pros and cons and so does slower advancement. I have experienced both, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying myself as a player or as a DM (where I have my own methods of awarding XP). I think that as a DM you should do what works best for you and your players. Nothing more and nothing less.