http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=211603
I started the PCs at third level and then ran a first level dungeon. I believe letting the players accomplish something was more important than challenging them. Years before in second edition days I was in my "gritty realism" phase and slaughtered three entire groups of PCs right at the beginning of the campaign. We started playing Werewolf after that...
EDIT: As an "old timer" myself I thought Old School DnD was too restrictive and prefer the new system much more.
I've never had a PC make it past 9th level for the many years we have been gaming and my players still love the game.
Er, and it takes a long, long, long, time to hit 9th level in my campaigns.
LAst year we begin again to play, 3.5, but i really feel that players are gaining lvl very very quickly in this edition.
Do i make error when counting xp? no i don't think so, but i really feel it's quite easy to advance in lvl in 3+ ed.
Don't you feel that also?
Until lvl 5-6, ok, you can progress quickly, but for me level beyond 7 are long to obtain. and when i rea the tables i really find it to easy. (before xp were doubled each lvl until 10th, so it was quite esay at the beginning but after... AND it was good like that!)
in my semi-regular weekend greyhawk campaign I use standeard 3-3.5 rules, but only give the characters half the amount of experience for the monsters defeated that is listed in the DMG (I also adjust the treasure found tottals down a little to compencate, so that the cahracters still have roughy the correct amount of wealth for thier character level).
In my weekly weeknight GH game, which should be starting either monday or next monday, I plan on using the Unearthed Arcana Level independent XP awards system (again modified to slow the advancement somewhat).
Originally posted by leirbagsajoir
I was hoping to get the opinions of a few DMs out there. What do you think should be the highest CR to be placed in a 1st level adventure? Why?
Most of the encounters I use would probably fall into a CR 1 or CR 2 range, with 2 caveats: I don't actually use 3e anymore, so I'm just doing a rough calculation based on comparing the monsters I use in my Basic D&D game with the stats they are given in 3e, and I never really liked the idea of a strict formula for generating encounters, I tend to craft encounters more 'freestyle', weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the party with those of the enemies. Yes, that's what CR does, in a nutshell, but I don't bother with the numbers or always trust what the MM says a CR should be.
A party of characters with diverse abilities, run by clever players could probably handle an encounter of CR 3 or 4, or possibly 5 if you allow opportunities for parley, tactical combat, etc. Anything higher than that, unless you're seriously scripting the combat, is sending the sheep off to slaughter, IMO.
By "scripting the combat" I mean that you've pretty much predecided what will happen. The 1st level heroes meet the mighty Ogre chieftain and his posse of thugs, for example, and you've decided (and give plenty of hints) that this is a 'bargain, flee or die' type encounter.
The CR system is a bit iffy at the very lowest levels.
It works just fine as a guideline for encounters, but should never replace a DM's creativity or familiarity with his players.
Cheers
Nell.
Magic is cool but it shouldn't be the basis of every solution!
Originally posted by Argon
Actually slow advancement is better it makes players appreciate the amount of advancement it takes to make it to name level. I've had name level characters in my campaign before but that was after a few years of roleplaying the same character's it's bond to happen and that's with a strict rule on ressurrection and a very low level of hecate.
Just because it suits you doesn't make it "better", or suitable to everyone. I rewrote the XP tables in 2E to speed up advancement -- my college group was tired of players graduating before the characters reached 9th level. (I didn't go as far as 3e did, but I was getting there -- balancing class abilities and XP was a big goal).
Personally, I like the way 3e fits together mechanically, and the purportedly "fast" advancement suits the way I like to run games.
Cheers
Nell.
PS - I also keep a check on raise dead/resurrection -- characters might advance "quickly", but it sure ain't easy or bloodless!
Originally posted by Nellisir
Personally, I like the way 3e fits together mechanically, and the purportedly "fast" advancement suits the way I like to run games.
Actually, now that I think about it, I have to admit I agree. I think 3e goes a bit too far and characters level up too fast, but I think it's easier to slow things down than it is to try and speed things up.
Also, having the 'universal' experience chart as opposed to a different chart for each class makes adjusting things a lot easier.
OTOH, I mostly run Basic D&D now, and I've always been pretty happy with the advancement pace in that edition, so for me at least, it's a moot point.
OTOH, I mostly run Basic D&D now, and I've always been pretty happy with the advancement pace in that edition
Unless your playing an elf... :P
Originally posted by cwslyclgh
Unless your playing an elf... :P
Well, in all fairness, in Basic D&D, Elves just plain kick ass. Slowing down their advancement (to almost half the speed of other classes) is the balancing factor for their extra advantages. It's fair and it works, IMO.
We play every other sunday, and usually from about 12:00 pm to 17:30 pm, and every session they have approx. 4 encounters. So if they had to level up after every 14 encounter, it would take the better part of a couple of years to reach level 20.
We're more into fast paced campaigns, since the players feel more like they're getting somewhere.
Here is how I handle things as a DM:
1) Ability score generation is made using 32 point buy. For this I add an extra +1 to the CR.
2) We're usually 5 players and a DM, so for every character beyond the 4th, I add an extra +1 to the CR.
3) Hit points are assigned as explained in the back of the LGG. Max at 1st level, and half +1 at every other level. I also assign max hp at levels 11th and 21st.
This means that a party of five level 6 characters would typically meet a CR 8 encounter instead of a typical CR 6 encounter.
4) In order to speed up level progression I add +1 CR for xp purposes. So the players would gain Xp for a CR 5 encounter as if it was a CR 6 encounter.
5) I start all players at level 5 in order to be able to throw something worthwhile at them from the get go.
6) Instead of loosing a level when they're ressurected, they take an negative level penalty and drop in XP to the beginning of the current level, until they level up. It's easier to calculate than having to reverse an entire level. So a level 4 fighter who dies 3 times before reaching level 5 (maybe because he's stupid?!?!) would take 3 negative levels. One for each time he is ressurected. But once he reaches level 5, they all disappear, and he continues as a normal level 5. But each death reduces him to 6.000 xp, effectively forcing him to start that level over.
Originally posted by Mjordnir
6) Instead of loosing a level when they're ressurected, they take an negative level penalty and drop in XP to the beginning of the current level, until they level up. It's easier to calculate than having to reverse an entire level. So a level 4 fighter who dies 3 times before reaching level 5 (maybe because he's stupid?!?!) would take 3 negative levels. One for each time he is ressurected. But once he reaches level 5, they all disappear, and he continues as a normal level 5. But each death reduces him to 6.000 xp, effectively forcing him to start that level over.
I like that...
Nell.