Is Progression too Fast?

[Philhelm]

The experience gains are definitely not too quick for a game like this.  If the game were a video game that I could casually play in the evening, then it would definitely be too quick, but I would imagine that the average player isn't able to play so many games that the gains are too quick.  In fact, it wouldn't be as fun to play a couple of games only to add +1 to a casting roll.

I calculated that my Thaumaturge would need to reach level 812 in order to max all stats, learn all spells, and max all casting rolls to 5+ (I've only included the core spells for this calculation).*  Even if I gained three levels per game, I would need to play 271 games.  I'll be lucky if I even play 271 games of Frostgrave, much less for an individual warband.  Obviously, maxing all stats and spells isn't the objective of the game, but it will still take plenty of games before the wizard really develops and has a core set of reliable, bread and butter spells.

Regarding overall warband development, I do think that the basic soldiers become obsolete too quickly, especially since the plastic kit is so wonderful.

* Actually, I wish that the lowest casting roll was 5 + adjusted penalty, so that wizards from other schools of magic will not have the same potential when casting spells from other schools.

[markdienekes]

I've only played 7 games in the short time I've played (average about a game a week), and for me the game system works well, the leveling is fine.

[Nooblord]

I quite like the elegance of making it just 5 treasures in the basic scenario. It forces the issue a bit but also gives the player placing last the choice of taking a risky placement option which he might want to do if currently 'behind' in the campaign. In addition, by removing the gold and items that 6th treasure would represent, it should also serve to stop warbands from getting too rich too quickly.

In short, just changing that one character in the rulebook (6 to 5) might improve the game (which is very good already) in a few areas at once.

[Polkovnik]

Personally I don't think levelling up should be linear. Something like current level x 100 to get to the next level would be better I think. The higher level you are the harder to improve,  and it makes it easier for lower level warbands to catch up.

[Mr Vampire]

Personally I don't think levelling up should be linear. Something like current level x 100 to get to the next level would be better I think. The higher level you are the harder to improve,  and it makes it easier for lower level warbands to catch up.

I was thinkin similarly, some sort of increasing scale proportionate to level.

As for treasure, I think it's maybe a little easy to accumulate. Perhaps offering more luxury items to spend it on would balance that off (Louis Vuitton armour and such).

[Awesome Adam]

Personally I don't think levelling up should be linear. Something like current level x 100 to get to the next level would be better I think. The higher level you are the harder to improve,  and it makes it easier for lower level warbands to catch up.

With an average 250Xp per session, that would slow progression to a crawl.

1 0
2 100
3 200
4 300
5 400
6 500
7 600
8 700
9 800
10 900

4,500 XP to get to 10th level, so about 18 Game sessions to get to where it should take 3-4 now.

[Philhelm]

Personally I don't think levelling up should be linear. Something like current level x 100 to get to the next level would be better I think. The higher level you are the harder to improve,  and it makes it easier for lower level warbands to catch up.

That sounds good in theory, but it would slow down subsequent progression way too much.  Something like that might work for a video game, but not a tabletop game where the ability to play whenever one wants is much more restricted.

I think that leveling seems more extreme at the earlier levels, since a Wizard can easily max Fight after only three games.  However, as the campaign progresses, most of the gains will be improving casting values by a point per level, which isn't all that profound.

[Harry]

This is an interesting thread to read ... but one of those that leaves me feeling a bit out of my depth and I tend not to comment on as I am not into rules and numbers enough to be able to predict how changes will affect a game.

However...my 'feeling' is that maybe it is a little fast BUT then I always liked playing low level D&D.

I like the fact that you could not buy all the kit you wanted and had to make tough choices ... I liked the fact that you only had limited spells....I liked the fact that their was a high isk of death when adventuring ... I liked the fact that you had to be sensible and could just go wading in to every fight. All the games and campaigns I enjoyed were 1s level to maybe 4th or 5th Level at a push .... Never enjoyed the higher level games when you were so tooled up with magic armour, weapons and powerful spells that you could take on anything ...although it was nich to get as far as building a stronghold ....

So back to this game .... when you discuss maxed out characters it does not seem all that appealing to me .... for me the longer my warbands stay bummping along the bottom having to make tough choices and every time they go venturing iinto the Frozen city it is high risk .... the happier I will be.

Now I remember reading, Joe, that you were trying to capture some of that D&D flavour ..... now, I suspect that you also enjoyed D&D at the lower levels because that is what you have captured very nicely. Never quite being able to get everything you want, having to make tough choices, those first magic items not being game winners but giving you an edge but still a good chance that you are going to die anytime you go adventuring....hell you even get to build a stronghold.

Having said all that I like the sound of 5 treasures for noother reason than you can't walk away with an honourable 3 and 3 treasures  ... someone 'wins'

[Magos Kasen]

Personally, having played half a dozen games so far in preparation for our actual campaign that should start next month, I think leveling is about right. 'levels' in FG don't mean that much, they aren't significant advances, more incremental improvements. Given how many spells there are, and how hard most are to cast reliably, it would take at least ten levels to get my eight starting spells to the level where I can reliably use them with my apprentice, that's before improving stats and learning new spells. Any slower and campaigns would need to be very long indeed.

[Coenus Scaldingus]

It's good that levelling up doesn't take too much time. A single level doesn't represent much; you need many levels to noticeably reduce the casting value of a spell - besides which, that only happens once after each game (at most) anyway.

Gold is a much trickier matter. Starting out, I hadn't expected to go from a band with a thief, thug, two dogs and only a single somwhat expensive soldier (one of the 80s) to a single dog (kennel), infantryman, 2 treasure hunters, 2 rangers, barbarian, knight & marksman band just four games later - while also having bought 1500+ gold worth of magic gear. However, those four games have been very succesful in many ways: always getting additional treasure from reveal secret, never leaving the table with less than 4-5 chests, losing very few soldiers, finding several grimoires of known spells or relatively useless scrolls. The thing is though, I am now spending money simply because I happen to have it, purchasing some magic weapons (not particularly great value) mainly because I just as well might. A single disastrous game could change anything however: perhaps gaining just a few hundred gold at most, while having to replace a lot of soldiers, possibly even my apprentice. For those occasions, it is all but necessary to find rich rewards, as otherwise the entire campaign might just as well be over.

As others have said, it is nice to actually 'achieve' something after a single game, being able to add a newly painted soldier or two, gain a new item with some nice effects, learn a new spell.

[zellak]

Imho, the progression rate is fine.

I really like this game, however if I could change one thing.

I would keep the 6 treasure tokens, though they should be placed deeper on a 3' x 3' table, maybe 15" in (with 4" between tokens ), and NOT allow escaping off the side edge with treasure..... but off the warbands entry edge. 

[Timeshadow]

Progression is good though I might make it 150/lvl after 10, 200/lvl after 20 just to slow down runaways. (I wouldn't go more than 200/lvl as it would hinder advancement too much per game)

Loot ... the only issue I see here is the ability to just buy magic items. I think a rarity system like from Mordhiem might be appropriate.
You could send surviving "hired" minions (not animals/constructs/daemons/zombies ect) to look for items and with the proper roll you could find it.
You could evin put in success ratings: Critical fail minion is lost and does not participate next battle, Fail nothing found, Low success with a x2 modifier to cost, a moderate success with a x1.5 modifier to cost, a good success "normal" price, and finally Critical success 10% discount.

You could have a new HQ option: Market place giving a modifier to these rolls and a trader minion with apothecary stats who can carry an extra treasure (and one treasure unencumbered) if he is not carrying any other items(preventing the run grab 2 treasure and teleport ring) out of battle he has a bonus to make rarity rolls.

More base options would be great as well both upgrades and buildings (it's all more stuff to spend our loot on right).

[Dakota Mike]

Imho, the progression rate is fine.

I really like this game, however if I could change one thing.

I would keep the 6 treasure tokens, though they should be placed deeper on a 3' x 3' table, maybe 15" in (with 4" between tokens ), and NOT allow escaping off the side edge with treasure..... but off the warbands entry edge. 

We've done something similar.  We have changed it so that each of us must place one treasure inside the middle 12" of the board.  The remaining treasures are placed as normal.  This means that in order to get three treasures you have to go right out to the middle.  Also, it wasn't clear from the RAW, but we have decided that treasure cannot be placed within 6" of either non-deployment edge.  This keeps it so that you can't just grab a treasure and walk off the side in one turn.

[Daniel36]

I think a lot of people feel it goes too fast, not because their wizard grows exponentially powerful or anything, but because it just feels like it goes fast when you level up several levels per battle. And I guess that at one point there isn't much to level up any more, and it may become stale.

One idea is to have the leveling mechanic scale up after a bit. Maybe something like:
Level 1 - 5 : 100 xp per level
Level 6 - 10 : 200 xp
Level 11 - 15 : 300 xp etc.

Someone probably already came up with something similar... so make that a +1 from me.

[Awesome Adam]

I think a lot of the people who think the game levels too fast havent't played a lot of Frostgrave and have a D&D background.

The advancement in Frostgrave is in tiny increments, and your character's level doesn't indicate overall power level like it does in other games.

How much gold they've collected is more important than level.

How many games they've played is more important.

How they player chose to advance his wizard and warband is important.


I know Frostgrave superficially looks like D&D, with Wizards, spells, d20s, and levels, but it mechanically functions more like a skils based RPG, like WEG's Starwars or White Wolf's Vampire The Masquerade, both games without character levels.

The more you play, the more you learn new spells or improve the ones you already know. There are too many variables on this process for character level to equate to combat efectiveness.

A player who focusses all his advances on the 2 spells he uses the most is likely to be more effective on the table than a comparable wizard who spends all his advances learning every spell he finds a grimoire for, and this is magnified at lower levels of play.