Hyper Leveling!!! (3.5)

[Gabe the Bard]

The standard rule of thumb for experience gain is to go up one level every dozen or so encounters. But in 3.5 at least, the Challenge Ratings for an encounter can be so nebulous, figuring out the right CR and balancing that against "13.5 fights = 1 level" can be a challenge of its own. For me, using the CR system as written meant having the party level up once every 3 or 4 encounters, or once per session. Otherwise, the encounters were a cake walk.

So, I thought why not go for broke! Instead of slow and steady, we can have hyper leveling! Every encounter is a desperate fight for survival, every plot objective is epic in scope, but the reward is that much grander and sweeter.

Some pros:
- Players love gaining levels. If PCs gain a level after every encounter, or even 2 or 3 levels per session, they'll get to use all those shiny class abilities that much sooner.
- The party can go from level 1 to 20 very quickly, allowing for an epic storyline even in a short campaign. It could be good for groups that can't meet often or have short play sessions.

Some cons:
- If the players don't feel like they've earned the levels, it could cheapen the experience.
- The monsters and NPCs will have to scale up much more quickly. The players will need more treasure and equipment to keep up with their rapid experience gain.
- Players may not have had enough time to get accustomed to their new class abilities, or even update their character sheets, before they've already gained a new level.
- It may seem unrealistic to go from a Level 1 character to an epic level hero in such a short time frame, unless a longer period of time has passed in the storyline.

Do you have any thoughts about this? Is this a terrible idea, or is it something that you're done already?

[kaomera]

I think that hitting a party with enough CR worth of monsters (or better yet: a single monster!) that they level immediately after the fight, especially if you also give the monster enough magic items (that it can use, of course) to keep them on-par for expected wealth is an awesome idea and I'm sure that the group I spring it on will thank you for giving me the idea! :smalltongue:

Personally, I'm of the mind that levels come too fast in 3.5 and mean too little. But I'm in the significant minority in that respect. I think the issue (or at least as I can grasp it) is that players really want to play their character completed, and as players have come to looking ahead and planning out their characters' advancement that often means level 20+... Just starting at a higher level might help, I guess?

[gbprime]

My players level at the speed of plot and no faster. If I know how long the game is going to run and what level I'd like to finish up at, then they level every X weeks or so.

Example... my current game started at level 2. it's going to run for over 2 years and I want it to go Epic level by the time we're done. So my players level every 4 game episodes or so. Give or take. And I just make sure there's action and intrigue aplenty.

[Calanon]

When i first moved to Colorado and joined my current group I had to start as a level 1 Wizard (The party was already at level 28) in a faerun game... My DM saw this as a problem... everyone else in the party told me to do 3 things:

1. Survive

2. Don't be an idiot

3. If something is giving them trouble to use the scroll they gave me (It was a scroll of greater teleport)

This DM was hands down the most brutal DM I've ever had EVER! (The game started during the Netherese Magistracy) So he was trying to kill us all... we had daily games so catching up didn't take to (like 2 months or so of game play) long but still surviving was difficult... Ever fight a 3 headed black dragon? ugh... the horror...

[gbprime]

Sounds like the fellow that ran us through World's Largest Dungeon. We had one wipeout and one total party kill before we even got to the dungeon. From there it got rough. :smallsigh:

[/threadjack]

[Ravens_cry]

While having new toys to play with is fun, I personally prefer them to feel like they were earned.
Epic is not just, or even primarily, in what enemies you face, but why you face them, what is at stake for the characters personally. Retaking ones home town from an invasion of goblinoids lead by a ogre commander can be just as epic, if not more so, as saving the multiverse from ultimate destruction.

[Telok]

Cut about 30% off the level chart and use three to five encounters (equal or +1/+2 levels) per day.

This will get you about a level every two days, no including travel time and visits to the magic-mart. The downside is that any dungeon, trip, or other adventure will need to be less than 10 encounters. Otherwise you run the risk of someone getting an ability or spell that neuters much of your remaining preparation.

[Grendus]

The biggest issue I see is that they'll get powers faster than they can get used to having them. There's also limited use for downtime, and crafting would be... interesting to say the least. Might be fun in a one shot with decent optimizers who can plan out an entire build before hand, but I wouldn't try to run a campaign with it.

[Kol Korran]

i don't directly use the CR system, the partly levels about every 14-15 gaming hours on average. it's a bit fast, but due to our long time between sessions they like it that way. gives them enough time to get used to new powers, but shiny newones come fast enough.

but i think one of my players voiced my party's opinion on leveling: "you should level when you've done something impressive". the players want to feel as if they've accomplishedsomething. this isn't necessarily beating a tough monster though. next campaign i'm thinking ditching XP altogether and just using this. (though one player objects.

i don't think all battles should be tough and deadly. first of all there is a place fore mediocre or even slightly easy fights (represent the regular opposition, and resource taking challenges) and even slaughter fests (to give the PCs a feeling of power). if all battles are tough, you take away a lot from the supposedly climactic ones.

i guess my thoughts could be summed up in two points:
- differently challenging encounters should be used in context to the overall adventure/ campaign. different challenges have different roles.

- weak encounters don't matter if they are not impacting on stronger encounters. (mostly in the terms of resource use but there are other effects). if you play a dungeon where the party can rest when ever they want- then yeah, weak encounters are nothing. but if there is some reason to keep on going, then weak or mediocre encounters in fact should contribute to tougher encounters. design challenge of an adventuring day, not of single encounters.

[Calmar]

My group does level-ups between sessions - levelling takes time and we haven't got all day. And then, I let my players' characters gain new levels every two or three sessions; we're in no hurry and levels aren't worth much if you gain them too fast.

[Ravens_cry]

My group does level-ups between sessions - levelling takes time and we haven't got all day. And then, I let my players' characters gain new levels every two or three sessions; we're in no hurry and levels aren't worth much if you gain them too fast.
Quoted and bolded to express my agreement with this statement.
Whether it is truth I leave open as a question to the reader.

[Mastikator]

"Where are all of these super monsters coming from and why are we encountering them in the precise order that lets us defeat them?"

Is a valid immersion breaking question any of the players are capable of asking.
A con that you forgot to add is that the more contrived something is, the more contrived it feels, which cheapens it even if they legitimately defeat all encounters.

[gkathellar]

So, I thought why not go for broke! Instead of slow and steady, we can have hyper leveling! Every encounter is a desperate fight for survival, every plot objective is epic in scope, but the reward is that much grander and sweeter.

So ... you want to run a game based on Shounen Manga?

[Analytica]

The perfect campaign for me (as a player) might not even have levelling up, or not the same level gain for everyone. If you want to start out ancient and powerful, you can, but you won't gain more levels. If you want to start out as the Chosen Child from Remote Peasant Village, you will be level 1 and gain levels quickly. In-between, maybe you will gain some levels during a timeskip of some years?

More or less, though, I want my character to already be the way I intend it and play it without changes, alternately undergo "scripted" changes such as "growing up", "discovering my heritage and inner power" or "return from the war a changed person". These may also be used to eventually rectify intra-party power inbalances. I.e. the Old Witch level 18 PC who comes to teach the Chosen One will stay level 18, only decide to use more and more of her power. The Chosen One may eventually overshadow her. It does require that everyone is OK with this type of game, though, so I don't really get to experience it as often as I want...

[Techsmart]

Making the campaign more difficult is a good way to make your players put more thought into their gameplay, but I can't say I like the idea of hyperleveling. If the party levels after every encounter, you might as well end the session after every encounter. If you play with a party that knows exactly how it's going to go, its still gonna take 15-20 minutes for players to get the books out, look up exact rules, copy down numbers, adjust other numbers, and get back into gameplay mode. At this point, the story has pretty much been lost. If you do this, you would want to pass out levels at the end of the session. The only exception is if you really don't have much of a story and you want to give your players something to keep the game interesting in a very short time. As you said, players like being able to say "Hey look, now I can do 15d6 damage," "I can dance on my head and still get inspire courage to activate."
I also play E6... alot... For my groups, hyperleveling is a bad idea.

[nedz]

Your missing several more cons I think
- Unless your group are very experienced: Your players will have epic characters and not know how to play them. It takes some time to work out what works and what doesn't.
- Unless they have planned out a full 20 level build then they are going to make lots of mistakes as they level up. This might be mitigated by the fact that there will be another level along in a minute to allow them to fix their build.
- Levels are fairly major things, it is worth taking some time to find out what your character can do at a certain point. Your players will miss this.
- A large part of the enjoyment of this game is what might be termed aspriational. That is you look forward to what you will be able to do better in a few levels time. Your players will miss this also.

Personally I like to give out experience at major plot milestones, when they have the time to reflect on what they have learned. This will be after several encounters and generally involves leveling. This also allows me, as the DM, to plan for several balanced encounters. This is less of an issue at low level, but as the game advances it becomes much more of an issue.
This leads onto another con
- You will have trouble creating the encounters you are aiming for because no one, least of all you, will have any idea what the PCs are capable of.
This will cause supposidly major encounters to be either a cake-walk or a TPK.

[Telok]

D&D 4e is an example of hyperleveling. When my group was playing it we levelled every three game sessions. I literally had some powers that I never got to use, or only ever used once, before I out levelled them.

[Diefje]

Level just a smidge faster than the speed of boredom. If your players are happy with a certain power level and the challenges they have to overcome, there's no need at all to level up.

Powering through encounters just so you can level is silly. Might as well just create them at the level you want them to be. And if your speed of plot > speed of XP, you need to slow down and introduce some sidequests.

[Kenneth]

uh.. people don't do what teh Op is suggessting already?

i regularly put my players thorugh 10+ encounters a dungeon. upwards of 32 even.

I never ever bought into that 4 encoutner a day BS. if parties could get through 15 ish encounters a day in 1st/2nd then i expect the same to be true of 3rd. you just have to actually think and plan instead of trying brute force all the time.

[Coidzor]

Quoted and bolded to express my agreement with this statement.
Whether it is truth I leave open as a question to the reader.

Nothing is true; everything is permitted. :smalltongue:

[ZerglingOne]

I think the "12 encounters per level(ish)" number isn't out of the question. It all boils down to what you count as an encounter. Disarming a deadly trap is an encounter, solving a riddle/puzzle and giving hints based on int modifiers is an encounter, having a test of pure strength is an encounter (such as stopping an advancing wall that could crush the entire party), and of course straight combat is an encounter. This approach to campaigns makes everyone in the party feel useful to some extent regardless of class, and allows you as a DM to roll through experience gain -much- faster and more efficiently.