How many combat encounters do you want before leveling? D&D 3.5

[Boci]

I was talking to my friend, and he said that 13 encounters to level is too much. The main reason he thought so was that combat becomes less interesting if you continually fight with the same character powers. He acknowledged that a good DM could mitigate this to a certain degree by designing the encounters and enviorments to vary, encouraging different tactics and giving more options, but he said even this would ware thin if they stuck to the full 13.
I've gamed with him once as the University roleplaying society. The format there is one 4 hour session per week. The game I played with him in, we would have 1 or 2 encounters per session (with the occassional dungeoncrawl of 4) and level every other session. The game, like most, went on for 1 academic year. He seemed fine with this, but I found it a bit too fast for my likeings. So, playgrounders, assuming a game of roughly 50% combat 50% roleplay, how many encounters do you want before leveling? The full 13? 5? 9?
Personally I would go for somewhere around 7. It allows you to try out some new things with your character and encourages some creative thinking, but also should not be make it seem like an age before you level again.
Edit: By encounters, I mean fights. For the sake of this argument, lets assume that a combat encounter is an encounter where there is no immediate option to get past it without the use of violence (baring sneaking past/running away).

[Yora]

It depends a lot on what type of game you play.

I've played a game in which we got a new level every 2 or 3 sessions, but I'm not a fan of that. In another game we played for months without getting to 2nd level, which might have been a bit too slow.
Both games used the same rules for awarding XP.

In the games I run, there are usually 1 or 2 encounters per session, but I also award XP for other things like good planning or finding different ways to achieve the goals. So I think gaining a new level every 5 to 6 sessions seems a good rate of gaining levels.

[Critical]

Depends on how tough is, and also, I wouldn't discount roleplaying/quest rewards, so it's really tough to give an exact number. 5-6 sessions, as noted above, should be a fine rough average, though.

[Shpadoinkle]

You know, the reason they used the term "encounters" and not "fights" is because you don't just get XP for killing stuff. That's also why monsters have CRs and don't just give a flat number of experience points like they did in previous editions.

A room with a bunch of traps but nothing to actually fight is an encounter, and overcoming the challenge (by disarming, disabling, wrecking, or bypassing the traps) should give the PCs experience points. Meeting a hostle warlord and convincing him not to attack your city (he could bypass you completely or you could pay him a tribute to avoid violence, or whatever) without fighting him counts as an encounter, and the PCs should get XP for that too if they accomplish something (and this isn't in the books, but personally I think they should get some XP even if they don't convince him of anything. Less than if they'd convinced him to leave thier city alone, of course, but still something- it was an important meeting the PCs were involved in.)

Now, if you're asking how many FIGHTS a group should go through before leveling, I agree that that an average of 13 is way too many. If you're ony giving XP for fights, go ahead and boost it so the PCs level every 7 encounters or so, but that's not how the experience system was designed to work in 3.Xe.

[Amphetryon]

I'm afraid I don't get your friend's complaint, personally. For me, the game is about the journey and the roleplaynig, not as much about trying out shiny new powers every session. I feel like 13 encounters is about right for getting several different types of scenarios, where some of your abilities are well suited, others less so, and some tactics that worked before need to be rethought.

[molten_dragon]

I prefer to level every 2-4 sessions on average. I run and play in fairly combat heavy games though, so most of our sessions have 3-5 combats each. I'd say 13 (even level) encounters on average is about right for us honestly.

[Emmerask]

If we would use 13 encounters it would be around 13-20 sessions to level up
or 6 to 10 month. Even during our 12 hour + sessions we mostly don´t do more then one encounter the majority of the time is filled with roleplaying interaction & stuff.
So for us every 4-6 encounters (very low combat) a level up is about right

[lesser_minion]

Traditional 3rd edition is both too fast and too slow, IMHO.

It's too slow in the sense that I like to feel that a character is constantly growing and changing -- infrequent, discrete advances don't do much to evoke this, really.

At the same time, characters advance far too quickly overall -- while there are mitigating factors that do stop destitute farmboys from becoming planar conquerors in a matter of weeks, it shouldn't be possible at all.

I don't really like enforcing mandatory downtime, because while it helps the "ten weeks to multiversal conqueror" problem, it also means even more delays before characters can manage any small growth.

[Kylarra]

I prefer to level up every couple sessions, rather than on a per encounter basis.

[Siosilvar]

13 encounters per level which may or may not be combat-required (or even combat-related).

[The Dark Fiddler]

My group's weird. Everyone but me prefers heavy/all-combat games. But because we waste so much time, we rarely get anything done. Not to mention that I'm the only DM who uses anything other than "Here's a huge group of low-level enemies" or "here's a few powerful enemies", with that being the only encounter for the game. And with my group, if we don't level at least once every other session they get bored and mutiny.

Needless to say I don't like DMing for them very much.

I think it really depends a lot on the campaign. In a group like mine, 13 encounters is way too long. Most of our campaigns don't even last 13 sessions.

In a different group with like 8 encounters a session, 13 encounters may be too few. Or it might be just right. Or too many.

It depends on a lot. Personally, I'd prefer around 7 fights to the level, but that's just me.

[Gnaeus]

I like to level every 2-4 sessions. That is usually well under 7 combat encounters for our group, but our encounters tend to be of the 1-2 fight per day at CR=APL+2 or 3 or 4.

[aje8]

I also dislike leveling on an encounter basis. I don't care how many enemies I fight, I just care how long I've been using the same set of abilities both in and out of combat. I perfer to level about once every 2-4 sessions.

[Curmudgeon]

Lots of combat per level: 13.33 or more.

[Boci]

Okay, so lots of different opinions, but the most people seem to be in favour of leveling every 3 sessions with about 7 combat encounters. That leaves 6 non-combat encounters. Sounds goods.

but that's not how the experience system was designed to work in 3.Xe.

Says WotC. Who then proceeds to make 95% of encounters in their adventure modules to be combat ones.

It's too slow in the sense that I like to feel that a character is constantly growing and changing -- infrequent, discrete advances don't do much to evoke this, really.

Come to think of it, that would be an interesting idea: break down what they will gain next level and then grant those to them gradually. I wonder if it could work?

[lesser_minion]

Says WotC. How many encounters in their adventure modules are non-combat?

WotC's ability or inability to write adventure modules is irrelevant. The rules are pretty clear that you should be allowing for and awarding experience for non-combat challenges.

[Boci]

WotC's ability or inability to write adventure modules is irrelevant. The rules are pretty clear that you should be allowing for and awarding experience for non-combat challenges.

I wasn't disagreeing with Shpadoinkle. I was just pointing out why me and a lot of of my friends automatically equate encounter to fight, even though the DMG says to do otherwise.

[lesser_minion]

I wasn't disagreeing with Shpadoinkle. I was just pointing out why me and a lot of of my friends automatically equate encounter to fight, even though the DMG says to do otherwise.

Cool. Although I've seen a few complaints about reviewers panning adventures that include encounters that are unbalanced as a fight, which might justify what WotC do.

[Vangor]

We do not calculate experience per encounters but what we accomplished in the course of each session for a campaign. Thirteen combat encounters seems a tad much since we truly try to make combat which progresses the campaign rather than filler action, and this could easily lead us all the way through a chapter, as it were.

[arrowhen]

Every 2 to 4 RL weeks or whenever dramatically appropriate.

[akma]

13 combat encounters per level seems way too much for me. How exectly can you do 13 combats without resorting to having some that are not part of the plot, or just make the plot longer without realy adding anything to the story?I think it would be much better to have less battles, but to make those battles harder and more intresting.

[Ranos]

We give XP for non-combat and combat encounters, but we still generally get the most XP by far during the climatic battles, which are usually way above our CR. So in the end, we mostly level after those, every 4 or 5 sessions.

[Curmudgeon]

13 combat encounters per level seems way too much for me. How exectly can you do 13 combats without resorting to having some that are not part of the plot, or just make the plot longer without realy adding anything to the story?

What's wrong with having non-plot combats, or (more interestingly) having multiple simultaneous plots? Adventurers are prosperous sorts, so they're very good targets for ambushers. Or you can have attacks that aren't (or at least don't start out as) combat -- like a confidence game to deprive the PCs of their wealth.

[Zeta Kai]

1) The game is designed around the concept of 13⅓ encounters per level.

2) This is one of the few mechanics that actually kinda works.

3) Don't mess with it.

4) Even using this, at 4 encounters per day, you're leveling up every 3-4 days, going from LV1 to LV20 in a little of 2 months, if you wanted to. That's too fast for my taste.

5) There are enough monsters to reach level X without ever fighting the same thing twice, even if you ignore homebrew (don't) & just count published material (don't). WotC released 2,678 monsters, so just pick some & go.

6) Also, non-combat encounters (such as traps & social discourse) give you XP equal to monsters of an equal ECL, so you can chat your way to the next level, if your DM is up for it.

7) It's your game, so mess it up any way you choose. Just be aware that you have options without needing to tweak the game's mechanical foundations.

[mjames]

1)
6) Also, non-combat encounters (such as traps & social discourse) give you XP equal to monsters of an equal ECL, so you can chat your way to the next level, if your DM is up for it.

7) It's your game, so mess it up any way you choose. Just be aware that you have options without needing to tweak the game's mechanical foundations.

Love it. Although, my DM hates it when I try to bypass fights and go for the social aspects. (Instead of fighting the Lords of the Hell, I had a dinner party with the ruler of the 8th and he invited the ruler of the 2nd.)

Also can I sig "It's your game, so mess it up anyway you choose"?

[Gametime]

I prefer to let my players level up whenever they accomplish something big. Usually, this means advancing the plot in a significant way, but it can also be the result of a big sidequest. This had the advantage of me not needing to calculate out experience for encounters (which isn't that big of a deal) and not feeling obliged to fit in a certain number of encounters to an adventure (which is).

It wouldn't translate to a system with experience costs, though.

[Jastermereel]

In the group I run, we've basically done away with XP*. Instead, I've just had them level when it made sense story-wise, basically at the "chapter" ends. You saved the village? Level up. You finished the journey of mini-adventures-designed-for-irregular-play-times-from-summer-travels? Level up. You found out what the problem in the city was? Level up. Solved with a big final battle? You get the idea.

I wouldn't be surprised if we had close to the right number of encounters, but we're running at roughly 5.5 sessions a level. Last weekend was our 22nd, where they leveled to 5th after 10 months of bi-monthly game-nights.

I can't speak from much experience, but I think I prefer having them know that the next level comes when they finish something of significance rather than after a set number of encounters. I don't imagine many groups would want to grind to get stronger faster (nor would many DMs let them), but this keeps the players focused on what their characters should be doing rather than figuring out how to level up. They still look forward to it and rejoice when it happens, but they don't fixate on it as the end goal.

*If anyone were into crafting or a high level magic-user this could be a problem, but they aren't...yet.

Edit: Drat! I think thats the first time I've been "ninja"ed. I knew I shouldn't have taken a break to consult the game-journal while typing it up!

[Dr.Epic]

I'd say 5-10.

[Zeta Kai]

Also can I sig "It's your game, so mess it up anyway you choose"?

By all means, feel free. Or should I say "It's your signature, so mess it up any way you choose"?

[Fiery Diamond]

Interesting. Seems people are similar to me on liking it to be 2-4 sessions between level-ups... though, this is what I prefer to have it be as a DM. I haven't been a player in so long....

Anyway, I give out experience in really weird ways for RP XP, so the XP total is somewhere around 50% fighting 50% everything else. The number of encounters varies, as I rarely pit the players against ECL appropriate fights, I usually pit them up against EL=ECL+1 to ECL+3. So...I guess probably around 5 combat encounters on average?