Yet another 7e Level advancement house rule

[kwll]

The topic of level advancement in 7.x vs 5.x has been debated here to death, and it seems that each have his promoters and detractors. One common point of view (which I share) is that the newer system is simpler to apprehend, and permits a more fluid way to improve a character. On the other hand, the way levels are computed makes the attributes values go very high very quickly, which, to put it mildly, changes radically the game. The previous system, on the other hand, had a more harmonious way of making the character go higher in levels, even though at higher level it could take a tremendous amount of time between two level advancements.

I was thinking about this problem yesterday, and came up with an idea which I found so simple that I was suprised I did not come up with it earlier. Why not take the problem from the other side, and determine levels by tallying the number of attribute improvements? Here is a simple table, built from this idea by simply adding the new level number to the previous tally value at each level (starting from 0):

Level	Attribute improvements tally
1	0
2	2
3	5
4	9
5	14
6	20
7	27
8	35
9	44
10	54
etc.

There probably is a simple math formula wich sums up the whole table in one line, but you get the picture. The idea is to say: "I am at level 5 if I improved my attributes 14 times since I started adventuring". So one would simply keep the count of improvements on his character sheet, in addition to APs. Each individual attribute improvement would be performed by spending APs as per 7e rules. This could be modified, for example, by making LK improvements half as expensive as the other attributes, in the spirit of 5e advancement (especially if you use a LK spending house rule).

I have found that using a x100 multiplier (as in the original 7th edition) to compute the number of APs to spend to improve an attribute makes the progression quiet similar to 5e. To make it even closer, double that every four levels (that's x100 for elevels 1-4, x200 for levels 5-8, x400 for levels 9-12 and so on).

Is this idea too wacky, are does it appeal to some?

[khaboom]

It's a good way of looking at it (the other side is normally a good place to try out!).

Without working it out, I would guess that characters would be higher levels more quickly eg my character, Perry, a specialist conjuror, started out as L2 because his INT is 23. He has improved various attributes 14 or more times but he is still L2 as he has no attribute near 30 yet. He feels like L2 to me, not L5.

I'm using the 7.5 rules - attribute x 10 is the cost in APs of a raise of 1 point.

[danhem]

Interesting idea Kwll. I obviously do like the idea of separating attribute and level advancement.

One potential problem of basing level on number of attribute increases however is that characters that start off with some very low attributes (like by Dwarf Warrior with a DEX of 4) will rise in levels pretty quickly with a minimal gain in Adventure Points compared to a character with no attribute lower than 10.

We could make it even simpler by just keeping track of how many APs are spent to increase attributes using the 10x current attribute system. Once this number reaches the number of APs specified in 5th edition for each level (1000 AP = 2nd level; 3000 AP = 3rd level; 7000 AP = 4th level; etc) you gain a level. The caveat would be that these APs would have to be spent to count, not just be sitting in the "bank."

This system shouldn't give an advantage to characters with high or low starting attributes. It also has the advantage of eliminating the chance of characters starting at 2nd level, like every Dwarf on the planet.

Hmmm. I like this. It may call for a blog post. ;D

[danhem]

Done!

danhemsgamingblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/level-and-attribute-advancement.html

[kwll]

I cannot comment on your new tweaked system (it is certainly a good idea to test it in play), but you make good points. To be honest, this whole thread of thought started from the wish I had to have characters of the same level having comparable capabilities. So my first idea was to use the sum of a character's attributes to determine its level. Of course I did not go very far with this, since the dice can give you a character with a very low or very high sum, even without counting kindreds or TARO...

I guess the whole purpose of this is mutt. This game simply does not lend itself very well to comparisons between characters. Which makes the very concept of character level in T&T... savory.

[grrraall]

Jan 14, 2013 9:12:28 GMT -5 kwll said:

I guess the whole purpose of this is mutt. This game simply does not lend itself very well to comparisons between characters. Which makes the very concept of character level in T&T... savory.

Which is probably why most T&T solitaire adventures include indications as to both the character's level and his combat adds.

[zanshin]

Yet another idea - how about level derives from adds

Every full 10 adds gets you a level. So level 1 = up to 19 adds, L2 up to 29, and so on.

That will mean wizards gain levels more slowly, but they gain the most benefit, so there is a trade off for them.