I'm always eager to level up 'til my build is "complete"... Usually about 5~7th level... Then I still enjoy leveling up, but I'm no hurry... There is a nice middle ground between "spend years at 12th level" and "20th level in 3 weeks!".
As long as my character can do what I want her to do, then I'm fine. Althoguh getting new abilities is always awesome, fo course!
I also enjoy creating characters builds, so I tend to plan my characters ahead of time, at the very least up to the point where their build is "complete".
Kinda funny, though... I usually create my builds as broken and OP as possible, but then, I tone it down as I play (e.g.: Playing a Sorcerer, I decided middle campaign to grab Skill Focus: Bluff instead of Toughness or Great Fortitude).
That's how I find it easier to make useful characters, feed my inner munchkin without creating an abomination who overshadows the characters of players who don't want optimize or can't do it very well:
1- Have an idea for an interesting character.
2- Design it as powerful as possible
3- During gameplay, occasionaly ignore the plan in favor of something more flavorful.
4- Have fun.
Between creating an absurdly powerful build and then not following it to the letter, I end up with a very useful character who doesn't make my GM throw books at me...
How closely I stick to the original plan for the build depends on the party's average level of optimization and campaign difficulty...
Back when I first started playing D&D, which was mostly done during clan rituals where we served brontosaurus burgers, I used to care a whole lot about leveling my characters up. In fact leveling up was a driving force behind my desire to play the game. I was always looking for some new spell level, or ability or magic item to add to my characters' repertoire.
Nowadays I find that I don't actually care that much about leveling up. It's nice when it happens, and I enjoy the process of picking new feats, spells, abilities, etc. but I have a number of characters I would be fine playing at their current level if they never leveled up again.
I wonder if I am unique in this regard. There are times when we reach a new level and I find myself saying "Dang! I haven't fully explored all the synergies of the stuff I just gained with our LAST level, now I have to add more to it?"
When I was playing 4e I was constantly feeling like my character was leveling up far too easily and quickly and that I was retiring powers that I had barely used. (4e has the concept of limited level-based powers so when you reach, say, level 14, to gain a new power you have to retire an older, lower level, one to make room for the new one.)
In general I feel I need about half a dozen sessions at least at any one level for me to feel like I've mastered the new capabilities and am ready to move on. In some cases even that's not enough.
I've also found that some levels are particularly comfortable to play and that moving up a level changes the party dynamic enough that I sometimes feel that the party has actually lost effectiveness as new, mostly untested and untried, abilities become the favorite tactic of a character whose previous tactics were reliable and predictable.
In general I guess I feel that my characters level up too fast for my taste. Of course holding my character back is not an option since he/she would rapidly become useless in a party of much higher level characters, but I'm sort of wondering if anyone else feels...
I too am on the same page. Time spent levelling up is also time not spent doing other, more fulfilling things. But some really like to level up and take a lot of time doing so. Unfortunately, the system has a lot of crunch as it tries to cover a lot of bases, so levelling does take a bit. Unless you are playing a fighter and know your feat list. lol. Then it is quick.
I too have noticed the sweet spot of levels, and the weird in between spot where some are a bit weaker as the monsters jump.
I always plan in advance. It saves me time from making decisions when it is time to level, but those decisions are not locked in stone. I have normally had an in-game event make me not want feat X, or I will decide it can wait until later.
I totally agree with this... It is all about playing the game.
I think people building characters out pregame is really well in a word silly and makes absolutely no sense to me.
Granted I can see where the excitement could be. But what you started at level 1, then totally on how you played the experiences you had you chose to level up and improve on the skills you actually used.
I was in a game and I was a Fighter, and I was like hmm I want to go wizard, so during the game I actively showed interest and put skill points where I used appropriate skills after failing at them. I feel the character gets so much more depth than starting out as a Cavalier and spontaneously combusting into a Druid or Bard... And never even acting like what. I feel the game is being done a disservice and not being played to its greater potential.
Reading these forums, it is like looking at an MMO forum. It really just does not make sense at least in my opinion.
Think about it you start your character on a Path say Fighter, not knowing what you are going to run into or what could happen. Your group or a Friend in the group is slaughtered by a Gnoll... You actively track him down and avenge your friend. Bam 1 level of Ranger.
You didnt know what was going to happen but now your character is like the ones in the books we read.
I agree with and admire much of what you are saying here. I am finding though that this being more how i have done "it" in the past and sometimes it worked fine , more often not so much, it seems like more and more of an unattainable ideal. That said, Wraithstrike made a statement recently that resonated with me, to the effect of I try to be good enough without being so good as to trivialize encounters. I am not a power gamer, I like effective characters which unfortunately does require some forethought at least for me and the people I play with. "crunch" isn't everything though and we do develop characters that aren't mechanically perfect both for thematics and game balance as steam rolling all the time is boring. Period.
I hate the feeling of "not moving."
It doesn't matter how much I "do" in a level.
I plot out my character well before I even choose a campaign for them. I already have all my new capabilities and stats planned out and could list them off from rote memory within 15 minutes of using the new level. If I haven't changed again within 3 sessions of leveling I'm bored.
(Yes I've done a slow progression game, where by slow progression I mean 3 combats in 5 months. I only stayed in because I was the face and the only person who had healing if we ended up needing it)
Oh man I couldn't do five months with only 3 combats. That was champ of you to give that much effort, bravo. Must have been a crushing bore. In fact I almost think not playing at all would be less boring than that sounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always thought that the drive to level was primarily because the GM is always baiting the players with higher level activities.
Well, that's partly it. Any time you fail some sort of level-based die roll -- I include things like attack rolls, skill checks, and attribute checks in this category -- there's implicitly a carrot that the game master is holding out for to that "if you were only higher level (had two more BaB points, six more skill points, another point of Wisdom, whatever) you would have been able to make it.
Compare that against a computer RPG like Monkey Island, where you are completely statless (this is even lampshaded in one of the later ones) because your capacities are determined by what you've done in the game, and you "improve" by finding the chewing gum that lets you open the lock or whatever.
Pathfinder never lets you get to be the -est. There is always a parade of turds that out level the PCs by 6-7 levels, or levels worth of templates and powers. It doesn't matter if you soloed a dragon - the mayor can probably solo two. No matter how many levels you get, there is never any satisfaction. You never get to be samurai jack. You are always samurai crap.
I agree this is how the game is often played, but I don't think it's a requirement of the Pathfinder system. I think that it would be possible to do an entire AP at a fixed level if the opponent CRs were adjusted. There's no reason that the Evil Vizier needs to have eighteen levels in sorcerer (especially if you're supposed to be 15th level at that point). Second level characters can be appointed to high office, too. Even evil ones.
The Three Musketeers is actually a very good example; D'Artagnan is the best swordsman in France, and it doesn't actually matter, because swordplay is a game, and not a very important one, against what's really going on between Cardinal Richelieu and the Queen. What's important is not beating the Cardinal's guard in a fight, but finding the Queen's diamonds --- and no amount of base attack bonus will address that issue.
|
I always plan in advance. It saves me time from making decisions when it is time to level, but those decisions are not locked in stone. I have normally had an in-game event make me not want feat X, or I will decide it can wait until later.
We usually level up between sessions. I guess that's helped me stay away from too much pre planning.
In game events are often my key reason to take a choice, particularly spell selection for limited casters or feat selection for fighty types.
Of course, that's only true if I believe it's a situation likely to turn up with some regularity. There's also those feats I realise I can get now I'm a certain level that make me go "oooohhhh". I like the way the feat tables are written now as well. These give me a great view of the prereqs needed for certain feats, and the feat chains that can be opened up too. It helps me avoid pre planning too much at all.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's very hard to do in PF, since so much comes with level.
Having a high BAB might not find the Queen's diamonds, but having high skills might. Your buddy with the high level spells will as well.A 2nd level villain can get appointed to high office, but he's not going to be that effective at it. You can't play the subtle behind-the-scenes manipulator without the bluff/diplomacy/sense motive/etc to back it up.
I disagree. There's no reason that the Evil Vizier needs a +20 Sense Motive if no one around him has a +15 Bluff.
One could easily run Pathfinder without levels and without levelling up; you start the game and finish it at 6th level, as does everyone, and you rely on in-game accomplishments to increase your power. (All of a sudden, that potion of Glibness starts to mean something....) You don't need spells to find the Queen's diamonds, you need the key to the chest in which they're kept, and possibly a map through the dungeon to the treasure vault.
(Actually, in T3M, you just needed a fast horse...)
Similarly, the second level Evil Vizier could have a collection of magical toys and spell effects that let him accomplish what he needs --he has two actual levels and the WBL of a 20th level aristocrat, most of them items from the kingdom treasury that he's requisitioned for the good of France.
The problem with using levelling up as a carrot is that you end up with ridiculous situations as the game progresses. Aragorn has to be 20th level, because he's the King of Middle Earth, which means that the orcs he slew in Moria also need to be 20th level --- and therefore everyone on the Pelennor fields needs to be at least 16th level, and the Witch King needs to be an epic demi-lich, and.... I'd argue instead that Frodo started the series as a first level aristocrat and ended it as a first level aristocrat.
Similarly, the soldiers manning the ramparts at the king's castle are probably first level warriors pulling four on and eight off. Maybe they're elite troops (e.g. 1st level fighters), but probably not -- why waste elite troops on that job? But if you're supposed to be 16th level by the time you storm the king's palace, the troops need to be at least 14th level or so, which makes them more powerful than the entire cavalry troop you faced in the first reel. If the king needs to deal with a bandit problem, why not just send Private Snafu from the Household Guard, instead of the entire Flying Legion?
Yes, too much too fast, desperate to please and poach the 3.5 crowd with MOAR abilities, MOAR every level.
Problem is, the crunch goes up, as does book-keeping.
It's very hard to do in PF, since so much comes with level.
Having a high BAB might not find the Queen's diamonds, but having high skills might. Your buddy with the high level spells will as well.A 2nd level villain can get appointed to high office, but he's not going to be that effective at it. You can't play the subtle behind-the-scenes manipulator without the bluff/diplomacy/sense motive/etc to back it up.
I disagree. There's no reason that the Evil Vizier needs a +20 Sense Motive if no one around him has a +15 Bluff.
One could easily run Pathfinder without levels and without levelling up; you start the game and finish it at 6th level, as does everyone, and you rely on in-game accomplishments to increase your power. (All of a sudden, that potion of Glibness starts to mean something....) You don't need spells to find the Queen's diamonds, you need the key to the chest in which they're kept, and possibly a map through the dungeon to the treasure vault.
(Actually, in T3M, you just needed a fast horse...)Similarly, the second level Evil Vizier could have a collection of magical toys and spell effects that let him accomplish what he needs --he has two actual levels and the WBL of a 20th level aristocrat, most of them items from the kingdom treasury that he's requisitioned for the good of France.
The problem with using levelling up as a carrot is that you end up with ridiculous situations as the game progresses. Aragorn has to be 20th level, because he's the King of Middle Earth, which means that the orcs he slew in Moria also need to be 20th level --- and therefore everyone on the Pelennor fields needs to be at least 16th level, and the Witch King needs to be an epic demi-lich, and.... I'd argue instead that Frodo started the series as a first level aristocrat and ended it as a first level aristocrat.
Similarly, the soldiers manning the ramparts at the king's castle are probably first level warriors pulling four on and eight off. Maybe...
Entertaining!
Yes, for world building you have to be careful, and not push the levels onto societies too hard or too weakly. I saw one guy push it too hard, and there were level 10s all over the place. We once sat down and worked out, what each one of them would have had to do to get to 10th level, things they would have to defeat (talking about combatants), and it just became quite ridiculous (think of the accomplishments of a party when they have gone from level 1 - 10, then imagine every half important person was like that).
I'm all for elites having some levels, rocking hard, but not every npc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I count myself lucky that I began playing in first edition. And further, in 1987 I hooked up with my game group that continues to this day, made up of my (now and for a long time) closest friends. We started a campaign at level 1 in the Forgotten Realms, and got to around 6th in a year, then about 9 in another, maybe 11th after another.
Then began the slow crawl through the upper levels of the Old Game (by now 2nd Ed.). But we quickly saw that the leveling charts were brutal at those levels; and so, we used our own ad hoc xp rewards...and it was still a looonng climb. But that is not to say we didn't enjoy it.
We didn't play the same characters constantly, we had several off shoot and alternate parties to busy ourselves with. Nonetheless, we reached around 20th level (more for some) by the summer of 2000. By the way, in game, about 20 years had gone by. And then...3rd Edition.
We played hard, in an off the cuff epic game with little support (until the ELH in 2002), and got to around 35th level for the mains by the summer of 2003!!! Talk about leveling fast! It was crazy. Since then (yeah, ten years ago!) it has been an elusive goal to even play those PCs.
Now, we start up a new group of PCs at level 1, and if we aren't careful, we could hit 20th level in 2 years.
As a result, I have become more and more interested in the various E# games (E6, E8, etc.), or even getting out of D&D/PF entirely...but I love levels. It is a conundrum that I am battling now as I lay the foundations for a truly epic campaign....that hopefully will not reach 20th!
Yes, too much too fast, desperate to please and poach the 3.5 crowd with MOAR abilities, MOAR every level.
Problem is, the crunch goes up, as does book-keeping.
"Too much, too fast" is a subjective phrase. A GM can always level at certain points like I do or use the slow XP track if the group prefers to stay at a certain level. PFS may not give that option, but then someone might say the leveling is too slow.
AP assumes fast. Seems just right for my group.
AP assumes fast. Seems just right for my group.
AP's use medium. The only one that uses fast now is RotRL Anniversary Edition
As a result, I have become more and more interested in the various E# games (E6, E8, etc.), or even getting out of D&D/PF entirely...but I love levels. It is a conundrum that I am battling now as I lay the foundations for a truly epic campaign....that hopefully will not reach 20th!What do you love about levels?
They make sense to me. If you go through hard times and live, you will come out stronger.
It destroys the romance of the game for me when the GM writes up NPCs that got levels by writing books, talking or doing kata. If your character sold his farm to buy a sword and shield, joined the army, went to war twice, did some bounty hunting and dungeon delving, and maybe killed a magic beast, he should be top of the world. It is so easy for all of that to only put you at 5th or 6th level though. Then you come back to town to find an adventure and the GM is having it assigned by a 15th level railroad guard. You ask, "what did he do to get those levels?" "Everything you did and much more - you are still a turd." It sucks man.
Yep. The way I run things, training is not enough to get beyond third level. You must put your life on the line, or test your spells against mighty beasts and foes. Want more hp and better saves? Get hit and have your saves tested. The sedentary life with a bit of safe activity will not make you a level 8, 10 or 15.
This of course goes way back to the elf threads, and is contrary to the claim that all elves should be level 9, because they have the years to dabble in so much and train up while safe and protected.
As a result, I have become more and more interested in the various E# games (E6, E8, etc.), or even getting out of D&D/PF entirely...but I love levels. It is a conundrum that I am battling now as I lay the foundations for a truly epic campaign....that hopefully will not reach 20th!What do you love about levels?
They make sense to me. If you go through hard times and live, you will come out stronger.
It destroys the romance of the game for me when the GM writes up NPCs that got levels by writing books, talking or doing kata. If your character sold his farm to buy a sword and shield, joined the army, went to war twice, did some bounty hunting and dungeon delving, and maybe killed a magic beast, he should be top of the world. It is so easy for all of that to only put you at 5th or 6th level though. Then you come back to town to find an adventure and the GM is having it assigned by a 15th level railroad guard. You ask, "what did he do to get those levels?" "Everything you did and much more - you are still a turd." It sucks man.
Writing a weighty tome may give you a level, but it won't be in ranger, barbarian or paladin. Lol.
That is fantastic.
Glad you found something you love.
|
If anybody cares:
I use slow levelling, but keep NPC levels down, so that a character of 5th level feels significant in the game, and in the 8th-12th sweet spot, they are powerful...and get plenty of time AS powerful characters. I tend to plan for games to 20th and beyond, if people want to keep playing those characters...so they might spend 2 or 3 (realtime) years as movers and shakers, with the possibility of growing into the real world-changers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a result, I have become more and more interested in the various E# games (E6, E8, etc.), or even getting out of D&D/PF entirely...but I love levels. It is a conundrum that I am battling now as I lay the foundations for a truly epic campaign....that hopefully will not reach 20th!What do you love about levels?
They make sense to me. If you go through hard times and live, you will come out stronger.
That's exactly what doesn't make sense to me. No one gets an MD fighting in gladiator pits. Except in Pathfinder, where you learn the Heal skill by killing monsters instead of working in a hospital.
On levelling one thing I did, was have it level fast to 9 or so, then double the xp for every level after that.
That's exactly what doesn't make sense to me. No one gets an MD fighting in gladiator pits. Except in Pathfinder, where you learn the Heal skill by killing monsters instead of working in a hospital.
As a result, I have become more and more interested in the various E# games (E6, E8, etc.), or even getting out of D&D/PF entirely...but I love levels. It is a conundrum that I am battling now as I lay the foundations for a truly epic campaign....that hopefully will not reach 20th!What do you love about levels?
They make sense to me. If you go through hard times and live, you will come out stronger.
And Conan, former slave, fought in the gladiator pits. By the second year, he was a doctor of medicine. DOCTOR CONAN THE BARBARIAN!
And Conan, former slave, fought in the gladiator pits. By the second year, he was a doctor of medicine. DOCTOR CONAN THE BARBARIAN!That's exactly what doesn't make sense to me. No one gets an MD fighting in gladiator pits. Except in Pathfinder, where you learn the Heal skill by killing monsters instead of working in a hospital.
As a result, I have become more and more interested in the various E# games (E6, E8, etc.), or even getting out of D&D/PF entirely...but I love levels. It is a conundrum that I am battling now as I lay the foundations for a truly epic campaign....that hopefully will not reach 20th!What do you love about levels?
They make sense to me. If you go through hard times and live, you will come out stronger.
And even in med school it usually takes three years...
That's my thought, too. The sixty year old bishop who devoted his life to the gods may well be eighth level. Or the sixty year old gardener who devoted his life to his plants.
You're also eighth level, and you're only 22.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere in Golarion, in a kitchen.
"Master Escoffier?" The sous-chef was tall, slender, blonde, and worried-looking. "Do you have a moment?"
"For you, Jamie, my boy, of course!"
"I'm,... well, I'm stuck. I've worked for you as a journeyman for two years now, but of course you know I've always wanted to open my own restaurant."
"And you'll do marvelously at it, Jamie. Someday, the whole world will know your name."
"Well, thank you. But I don't seem to be... progressing. I've been trying to get the sauce right for saucisse minuit, and it never comes together. I can't seem to get the texture for the quennelles bonnes femmes, and I couldn't even learn that easy new dish, the toast Melba you asked me to fix for that bard...."
"Oh." The master chef frowned and nibbled on his mustache. "I'm afraid, Mr. Oliver, that you may have hit a plateau."
"I don't understand."
"To truly master the secrets of toast Melba, you must first go out into the Orcish Wastes and return with the skulls of twenty orc warriors. Only then will you master the new dishes."
"Okay, now I really don't understand, Master Escoffier. Are you telling me that the secret ingredient is bone meal? Why can't we just buy it at the market?"
"No, nothing like that."
"Is this one of those silly prove-yourself-worthy quests?"
"Not at all. You are more than worthy. You are simply.... first level. You have spent all your skill points."
"I'm still not following, master."
"You can learn no more until you achieve a higher level of understanding. There are secrets that you simply cannot learn without further experience."
"And so, I need to gain.... experience?"
"Precisely. But it is written in the great Book of Gygax, blessed be his name, that only by facing twenty level-appropriate encounters will you achieve second level. At that point, you will gain more skills and can master the more difficult dishes. Only by doing this can you achieve master chef."
"But.... it sounds dangerous. I mean, when my sister Polly went for a soldier, she came back all changed. And my brother Johnny,.... well, he'd lost both legs, both eyes,.... I hardly knew him! What am I going to learn by killing orcs?"
"Only if you go through hard times and live, can you become stronger! It is so written. To do otherwise is to destroy the romance of the world we live in."
"But I don't want to become stronger -- I just want to open my own restaurant!"
"It matters not. Trial by fire, by combat, by ordeal is the only way to master skills. It is in the bread oven of combat that you will truly rise! Only through the sword, Mr. Oliver, will you master the true challenge that is fine dining!"
I have friends who sit down and plan out every level that their character will take over the course of their entire 20 level career.
Personally, I plan up until my build comes together. The combo that I really want to try. After that, I usually shrug my shoulders and say, "Whatever!" I want to get to that magical point when all of my powers come to fruition, and after that I usually judge how my build is working and what can improve before looking ahead.
Out of combat, having fun is being okay in a good number of skills combined with good roleplaying on my part. In combat, having fun is having my combos or character build fleshed out to the point where I'm having fun with the character.
I don't think anyone would like to be first level forever. As far as I can tell, first level -- by design-- sucks in order that you appreciate your newfound powers that you get when you enter the Fun Zone. But if you pick a level somewhere in the Fun Zone (I think the official design term for 4th Ed. was "golden zone"), which I think most people consider to start somewhere between 5th and 8th, you could play at 8th level forever and enjoy it. Casters are powerful and mystical without being overpowering, there are a wide variety of monsters to face, et cetera.
Basically, you can at that level be the best swordsman in the regiment while still facing challenges. Perhaps most importantly based on my experiences with even higher levels, combat doesn't degenerate into a collection of who-rolls-a-one-first as it so often does when two 18th level clerics square off.
As a result, I have become more and more interested in the various E# games (E6, E8, etc.), or even getting out of D&D/PF entirely...but I love levels. It is a conundrum that I am battling now as I lay the foundations for a truly epic campaign....that hopefully will not reach 20th!What do you love about levels?
They make sense to me. If you go through hard times and live, you will come out stronger.
It destroys the romance of the game for me when the GM writes up NPCs that got levels by writing books, talking or doing kata. If your character sold his farm to buy a sword and shield, joined the army, went to war twice, did some bounty hunting and dungeon delving, and maybe killed a magic beast, he should be top of the world. It is so easy for all of that to only put you at 5th or 6th level though. Then you come back to town to find an adventure and the GM is having it assigned by a 15th level railroad guard. You ask, "what did he do to get those levels?" "Everything you did and much more - you are still a turd." It sucks man.
OTOH, I don't like losing the classic scholarly NPC wizard, locked up in his tower doing research - If he's high level he has to be an ex-adventurer.
I don't like having all the top officials in the church hierarchy being ex-adventurers either. Why can't they get their god's favor by study and devotion?
Does the royal family send their young princes and princesses off on their own with 1st level gear in the hopes that some of them will come back high enough level to hold on to the kingdom?I'm not at all in favor of "15th level railroad guards" in every little town when the PCs reach high level, but there do need to be some high level people around. To keep high (or even mid) level PCs from running amok if nothing else. But it doesn't really matter to me how those high level NPCs got that way.
It doesn't even matter to me how the PCs got that way. If you're starting the game above 1st level or bringing...
The cleric levels to a seriously strong level, in addition to more spells and more powerful spells, they get tougher and better at taking hits, and becomes better at fighting, just by a bit of prayer?
Well that was easy.
I'm in RotRL so I have to pay attention to build just to make sure my char is adequate enough to keep up with the encounters. If he isn't optimized enough I have a feeling it could risk us dying or getting TPKed.
For me it depends on whether my character feels useful or not. Would I want to be first level for ever? No...simply because you're so limited on spells and options. If I had 300 options at first level I probably wouldn't care about leveling really.
It also depends in terms of how long its been since I've played a full campaign up to high level. Its been a long time since I've gotten up to higher tiers so right now I'm kind of impatient to have a character that can actually lay down some damage
That doesn't sound fun, you have to work and show obeisance to powergaming, or your character dies (and you don't have fun).
Is this a good thing for gaming? I don't think so.
I don't think anyone would like to be first level forever. As far as I can tell, first level -- by design-- sucks in order that you appreciate your newfound powers that you get when you enter the Fun Zone. But if you pick a level somewhere in the Fun Zone (I think the official design term for 4th Ed. was "golden zone"), which I think most people consider to start somewhere between 5th and 8th, you could play at 8th level forever and enjoy it. Casters are powerful and mystical without being overpowering, there are a wide variety of monsters to face, et cetera.
Basically, you can at that level be the best swordsman in the regiment while still facing challenges. Perhaps most importantly based on my experiences with even higher levels, combat doesn't degenerate into a collection of who-rolls-a-one-first as it so often does when two 18th level clerics square off.
That sweet spot, levels 6-9 if melee, 5+ if a spellcaster or rogue.
If they haven't earned the levels, they shouldn't have them.
I view training as the basics, and with a lot of effort and really difficult, trying training, you may get a few levels. Nothing beyond that, is how I roll, because it diminishes the strength and accomplishments of heroic adventurers.
A cowardly guard that lets others do the fighting, should not have many levels. No matter how many times he does his kata or hits a straw man that can't attack back.
A priest that prays and does some ceremonies, should not become a stronger harder fighter, a will like iron, or be granted the most powerful spells the patron god can offer. What have they earned? Why should they get levels for this?
Of course the dm can wave this, and make them a challenge, better than the pcs or equals, without actually having the achievements of the pcs. If a guard with very little combat experience is as good as a mighty barbarian hero, well that seems a bit off. So yeah, getting levels, it makes sense to me, should put you well above many, and not just one step closer to the average of most being level 6 or 10-12 (one dm I know did propose this).
[Elf entitled to free levels thread flashback]
Now some computer games push the idea that with enough training, you can start fantastic and truly elite. Look at all your chevrons new recruit. I don't bring such views over into my games. Someone trained without real experience, is still pretty green, and a veteran should dispose of them with minimal hassle.
The point on skills though makes a lot of sense.
Also if you want to represent age and skill experience in npc, give them levels in commoner or expert and dump feats into skills. That way, they are not mighty in the combat department, when they shouldn't be, and are untested.
A business leader gains cleric levels?
I am confused.
