What is a "level"?

[finarvyn]

Levels in 1e AD&D will not map directly to levels in DCC. 1e AD&D had 20-30 levels. DCC will have only 10. This basically means that every 1 level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in AD&D, so you would have to adjust the levels down. A level 8 adventure in AD&D would probably be a level 2-3 adventure in DCC.

If the reason that DCC is now being considered as only including levels 1-5 is because each level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in regular D&D, then I think they're trying to do TOO MUCH with each level.

I can't see the XP progression being 2-3 times larger. Are we going to see Wizards needing 7200 XP to get to level 2? I could be wrong. But I don't think so.

Also, I don't see a 5th level DCC Wizard or Warrior being comparable to a 15th level Wizard or Fighter in 3e. Is a 5th level DCC Wizard going to be dropping Finger of Death or Prismatic Spray twice a day? Is a 5th level DCC Fighter going to have 3-digit hit points? God, I hope not.

I don't think this is the case. I think the system probably has some cracks in it at the higher levels.

I think that this is an interesting issue, and one that was getting lost in the other thread (amidst all of the discussion about spell charts....) so I wanted to start a thread with this as the core impetus.

We all have our own concept of what a "level" means, and often it comes down to the scale of the campaign. If I consider 5th level to be the terminus of the campaign, each level takes on a significant value. If I consider 30th level to be the top, each level doesn't mean so much.

My son is a modern player, in that he enjoys the concept of having lots of levels and going up in a hurry. I'm more conservative and enjoy infrequent leveling-up and fewer milestones along the way. One of my solutions to this is the creation of sub-levels. I took the OD&D levels 1-10 and broke them into thirds, first calling them things like 6 2/3 and later re-numbering the whole thing so that I might have levels 1-30. My "new 30" level had eactly the same hit points, spells, etc, as the "old 10" level. (I discuss this on the OD&D boards as well as Knights & Knaves. I can post more here if anyone cares, or you can go there to check it out.) The point is that I could give my son the illusion of the quick level-up while not disrupting the power curve of the original game.

And you know what? It hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the game at all. The fact that my son might be able to chest-thump and brag about his 21st level magic user doesn't impact the fact that I know that it's really no stronger than an old 7th level magic-user.

Perhaps there is room for this in DCC. One possible solution might be to stretch out the level range so that "5th" isn't the top anymore, even if 20th (or whatever) has the same powers as the old 5th. Kind of like E6 but without putting such a hard cap on levels.

Just me thinking out loud, and curious what anyone else thinks of this.

[Ravenheart87]

There's a system like this in Dungeons & Dragons Online. Every level has five ranks, on the first four you get Action Points, that can be spent on Enhancements (in DDO, these are minor bonuses or the more expensive are prestigue "classes"), and on the fifth, you level up. Works pretty well.
I also like HackMaster's solution, where you only get new HD every odd level, on even levels you only reroll the previous. The classes also get attack bonuses at half rate, so a level 10 adventurer in HackMaster would be around level 5 in B/AD&D.

[finarvyn]

I also like HackMaster's solution, where you only get new HD every odd level

My solution to this was to get rid of the roll altogether and just add a few HP each time a character levels up. Not a perfect solution, since I know that I like the dice roll part of HD, but a way I could have a more gradual progression.

[geordie racer]

I like the splitting levels idea Fin but I prefer less levels, either with significant benefits/choices at each one or random advancement.

e.g If 5 DCC levels are roughly equal to 10 D&D levels, then why spread 5 over 10 and make the player roll on a table every 'odd' level to see what they get:

roll 1d10:
1 Go up a Level
2 You have a prophetic vision
3 You have some experience in a second profession
4 You come into possession of a map/great secret/heirloom
5 Gain +1 in a Stat
6 You gain a 0-level follower called Bob.
etc.

This gives them a chance of levelling quickly, may be grossly unfair to the unfortunate roller, but delivers variation within the party (it's not like Tolkien's Fellowship were all the same level) and may gift seeds for further adventures. No character really goes over 5th level - whether they receive it at 5th level or 10th.

Not perfect but I just thought I'd throw that idea into the mix.

[GnomeBoy]

I like the splitting levels idea Fin but I prefer less levels, either with significant benefits/choices at each one or random advancement.

e.g If 5 DCC levels are roughly equal to 10 D&D levels, then why spread 5 over 10 and make the player roll on a table every 'odd' level to see what they get:

roll 1d10:
1 Go up a Level
2 You have a prophetic vision
3 You have some experience in a second profession
4 You come into possession of a map/great secret/heirloom
5 Gain +1 in a Stat
6 You gain a 0-level follower called Bob.
etc.

This gives them a chance of levelling quickly, may be grossly unfair to the unfortunate roller, but delivers variation within the party (it's not like Tolkien's Fellowship were all the same level) and may gift seeds for further adventures. No character really goes over 5th level - whether they receive it at 5th level or 10th.

Not perfect but I just thought I'd throw that idea into the mix.

The idea of this thread I like in general, and this kind of thing I like a lot specifically!

[smathis]

And you know what? It hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the game at all. The fact that my son might be able to chest-thump and brag about his 21st level magic user doesn't impact the fact that I know that it's really no stronger than an old 7th level magic-user.

Perhaps there is room for this in DCC. One possible solution might be to stretch out the level range so that "5th" isn't the top anymore, even if 20th (or whatever) has the same powers as the old 5th. Kind of like E6 but without putting such a hard cap on levels.

Just me thinking out loud, and curious what anyone else thinks of this.

I like this a lot. Like I said in the other thread, levels are goalposts. And, IME, players like to kick them down.

Personally, I don't care much about levels either way. I like Barbarians of Lemuria and Marvel FASERIP and FATE and other games where the concept of "level" just isn't there.

But I know my players and the players I've played with over the last 2-3 decades. And they'd be more likely to adopt a game with 10 or even 15 levels, even if 15th level equates to only a traditional 8th level, than a game that was only 5 levels -- even if that 5th level equated to 4e's 30th level.

I understand it from a psychological standpoint. MMO's like World of Warcraft capitalize on the Pavlovian aspect of leveling. But it's fun for a lot of players and I'd have a hard time pitching DCC to my current group if they didn't level frequently. Even if leveling hardly meant anything at all.

I say do what finarvyn says. Take DCC from level 1-24 or 1-30. Just give us less per level.

And I like finarvyn's approach to hit points too. It's one of the things I think 4e got right. Randomizing hit points and mixing in CON bonus is a sure way to a party where the wizard is barely hanging on and the fighter has hardly broken a sweat, IMO.

I think both should be part of DCC as core. I can't see a reason why they shouldn't be.

[smathis]

Another thing that I like about Finarvyn's suggestion is that conversion appears to be pretty straightforward.

With the proposed DCC levels 1-5, we really have no idea what that translates to. At 5th level, a DCC character will have roughly the same amount of hit points as the same type of 5th level AD&D character and maybe a 4th level 3e character of that class. The saves we can assume will equate to a 5th level 3e character.

But the spells? Who knows? And MDAs fog it up a bit too. On one hand they're less reliable than feats but on the other they do a whole lot MORE than feats.

If I were putting this thing together, I'd compare DCC characters to AD&D characters or the B/X sample characters. I'd ask whether a comparable character of level X in B/X or AD&D could do what this DCC character could do. It would take some eye-balling and some gut instinct on it. But an extra set of eyes could help too.

Long story short, I'd figure out what Level 5 REALLY meant in AD&D or B/X. I'd completely skip a comparison to 3e. Those guys have Pathfinder.

Maybe a level 5 DCC character equates to a level 8 AD&D character or maybe it equates to a level 6 AD&D character. Whatever that final answer is... I'd take it and multiply it by three. Then I'd hook up with Finarvyn and map out a 30 or 24 or 18 level progression and tell people... "If you're playing a character in DCC, your AD&D level is your DCC level divided by three, rounded down".

In the end, I think the game benefits by having a LOT of little levels that are relatively easy to attain than a few BIG levels that take forever to acquire. The little levels will hook players onto the game play and keep them coming. The big levels will frustrate them but give them a big huzzah every month or two. There's a reason video-games don't take months and months to level (especially at the beginning). People would give up on them after a while.

This is genius. Joseph needs to DO this. And Finarvyn needs a spell or a module named after him.

Just saying.

[jmucchiello]

So take a tip from 4e and name the "5" levels. Instead of calling the levels, call them tiers. And then have levels between tiers:

1: Novice
2: Journeyman
3: Hero
4: Paragon
5: Master
6: Epic (and beyond...)

At each tier you gain hit points, attack bonus, etc. And maybe break up each tier with 5 levels where other effect can be gained.

Of course, something I never got an answer to in one of the other threads adds a twist to this discussion: Are xps equal for all classes? Does level 2 for a fighter have the same number of xp as level 2 for a mage?

[nanstreet]

So take a tip from 4e and name the "5" levels. Instead of calling the levels, call them tiers. And then have levels between tiers:

1: Novice
2: Journeyman
3: Hero
4: Paragon
5: Master
6: Epic (and beyond...)

At each tier you gain hit points, attack bonus, etc. And maybe break up each tier with 5 levels where other effect can be gained.

Of course, something I never got an answer to in one of the other threads adds a twist to this discussion: Are xps equal for all classes? Does level 2 for a fighter have the same number of xp as level 2 for a mage?

I hope the xp is equal for the classes, given all the talk about 1 level in DCC being equal to around 2-3 level in D&D. That's a huge difference for people in a party who are travelling together.

Plus, modules are labeled by level. What does that mean in a world where xp amounts mean different things to different party members? Will parties that consist of high xp requirement 3rd level classes be a different module level than parties that consist of low xp requirement 3rd level classes, or will 3rd level characters be comparable regardless of class?

jmucchiello's suggestion of tiers with mini-levels in between might work, since even with a different xp requirement between classes, a character who is almost 3rd would still be close enough to a 3rd level character to tackle a 3rd level module.

[Hamakto]

I hope the xp is equal for the classes, given all the talk about 1 level in DCC being equal to around 2-3 level in D&D. That's a huge difference for people in a party who are travelling together.

Plus, modules are labeled by level. What does that mean in a world where xp amounts mean different things to different party members? Will parties that consist of high xp requirement 3rd level classes be a different module level than parties that consist of low xp requirement 3rd level classes, or will 3rd level characters be comparable regardless of class?

jmucchiello's suggestion of tiers with mini-levels in between might work, since even with a different xp requirement between classes, a character who is almost 3rd would still be close enough to a 3rd level character to tackle a 3rd level module.

The XP tables in DCC are very similar (i.e. 2nd level varies by a few hundred XP between classes). So while not exact, they are not wildly different.

I would like to see a level progression that would go to at least level 10 for DCC. In most games, the level progression system are not broken until you start to compound character abilities at higher levels. (i.e. Linear spell progression of a sixth level spell at level 11. A 6th level spell is not necessarily linear in power progression from a 5th level spell).

So this would be my suggestion:

Design the XP tables so that XP requirements are exponential, but XP is gained in a linear fashion. This will provide a mechanism where a character will level up a few times quickly then as their levels increase the pace will greatly slow down. From a 'story' perspective, that first bit of training/experience will greatly increase the survivability of the character. They can now dodge things easier, know a bit more and have gained valuable experience. Then after 2-3 levels, they start to refine their skills. This refinement process is a slow process that takes many years and gets more difficult as you level up and up.

The game design purpose of this would be to allow leveling up 1 to 2 times fairly quickly. This provides enough HP's and class abilities to survive encounters without living in negative HPs. This is similar to graduation from college, you have skills but that first year you are out in the real world you refine them or learn what you really need to survive. After that, your learning progression starts to slow down and you slowly become an expert in your field after many years.

I am not necessarily a big fan of the way DDO did leveling up, but I would not be opposed to going to 20 levels and doing something like this:

Warrior---
Level 1: +d3 , d10 HP --- Starting
Level 2: +d3, d5 HP --- half STA bonus
Level 3: +d4, d5 HP --- Half STA bonus
Level 4: +d4, d5 HP --- Half STA bonus
etc...

At the time you hit 10th level, you would have the same HP, same combat progression, as a level 10 character.

Spell gains would be delayed a bit.

Wizard:
Level 1: d4hp, 1st level spells --- Starting
Level 2: d2hp, 1st level spells
Level 3: d2hp, 1st level spells
Level 4: d2hp, 2nd level spells
... Level 7: d2hp, 2nd level spells
Level 8: d2hp, 3rd level spell
NOTE: I think wizards should get d6 for hit dice not d4's, but I am using what is in the DCC right now.

This is just a thought. By doing a level up like this, you would average out the HP gains a bit. Provide more step goals for those that prefer leveling up characters. And not unbalance the DCC RPG extensively by creating a larger level range.

[nanstreet]

The XP tables in DCC are very similar (i.e. 2nd level varies by a few hundred XP between classes). So while not exact, they are not wildly different.

Hamakto, thank you for the info. I would prefer it if module level and caracter level meant the same thing, but "similar" is at least workable.

Design the XP tables so that XP requirements are exponential, but XP is gained in a linear fashion. This will provide a mechanism where a character will level up a few times quickly then as their levels increase the pace will greatly slow down. From a 'story' perspective, that first bit of training/experience will greatly increase the survivability of the character. They can now dodge things easier, know a bit more and have gained valuable experience. Then after 2-3 levels, they start to refine their skills. This refinement process is a slow process that takes many years and gets more difficult as you level up and up.

I like that idea. I like to play 1st level D&D, but not linger at it (of course, DCC might play very different than D&D), but at other levels I am happy to take to my time. In 1e and 2e I loved that progression slowed down at the mid-levels due to the doubling of xp needed every level. I think that the only time that leveling became a focus was if there was something boring about the game: either the character lacked things to do compared to the rest of the party, and there was a hope that a new level would rectify that, or the campaign was lackluster and people started to look to the mechanical aspects of the game to provide their fun.