Leveling speed

[DonAdam]

While DM's do control how much XP they give out, it is still meaningful to discuss the system as presented in the core rules, not as giving a number of sessions per levelling but rather as giving a number of encounters of X difficulty (as pointed out above).

In regards to that system, I find it too fast. This is purely a question of preference, but it still means something in that I am judging the system as written. However, I find XP themselves to be a headache, so I do the "you level when I say" thing.

One area in which it is not simply a question of preference but something actually problematic is in the conversion of old adventures, which used an exponential experience progression. Characters level too much in the middle of adventures.

A math professor friend worked out an equation that gives a pretty good approximation of the 1e experience charts: divide experience gained by the square root of the character's level.

 

[BryonD]

I used to think it was to fast.

But after playing a few years with it I think it is about perfect.

I tweaked it into a spreadsheet using one level per ~15 average encounters and don't bother with actual CRs. But it comes out about the same. Playing 1/week and missing around 1 out of every 4 weeks, the real-time pace of leveling is nice.

I get why a slower pace is preferable to long term epic scope campaigns. But divide by 5 or 10 or something and you are there.

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

I think it's fine, but it all depends on the DM. For example, in one group, we often get bogged down by encounters far below our party level, and it generally takes somewhere between 8-12 sessions to gain. In my opinion, this is far too slow, as it's difficult for working adults to gather very frequently, and individual level gains are often anticlimactic. Although I am a great advocate of roleplay, I feel that sessions containing all or mostly roleplay should yield just as much experience as those with little or none. I tend to get disinterested and lose my zeal if the story of my character progresses too slowly. The DM's argument is that we would "realistically" face monsters of all power levels when in the wilderness, but I feel that too much "realism" often detracts from the game.

 

[Crothian]

Crothian and others, I think you need to distinguish between playing by the book and what goes on in individual campaigns.

Even by the book a DM can control how much XP a group gets. A DM determines what foes they have and how much fighting they do. I wasn't talking about house rules or rule 0 here. As DM one can have the group fight things that are not worth as much XP but are still a challenge. Or they can just stretch out the encounters so less obsticles faced in a given session. And this is both by the book and can go on in Individual Campaigns.

 

[dreaded_beast]

...need to distinguish between playing by the book and what goes on in individual campaigns.

Exactly.

As a player and a DM I feel the the rate of experience gain, according to the book is fine. Echoing others, I believe it is up to the DM to set the speed. With that in mind, the DM can determine the rate of level gain while staying true to the books just by planning the types and difficulty levels of encounters beforehand.

I see nothing wrong with the speed of level gain, which I believe is ultimately in the DMs hands.

If everyone is house-ruling the same thing, chances are the RAW are seriously flawed.

What is "everyone?"

I believe if the rate of experience gain was a serious problem and "everyone", or at least a vocal majority, complained, WotC would have addressed it during the upgrade to 3.5.

In fact, I believe it was tweaked a bit, in regards to the amount of experience gained for a particular CR. I think the higher CRs alotted less experience in 3.5, but I could be wrong. Someone please correct me if I am.

 

[LizardWizard]

I'd say that it's more slow than fast, but overall, there's nothing wrong with the system.

 

[Umbran]

Even if you go "by the book", how slowly or quickly it goes really depends on how many encounters you have in a session. If you're only really doing two encounters a session, and only play once every two weeks, you don't level up terribly quickly, in terms of real time. If you plow through 6 encounters a session and play every week, it'll look too fast.

 

[DragonLancer]

By the DMG, I have found levelling under 3.X to be far too quick.

 

[Gundark]

I think it's about right. It might have been too quick if I played more than once a week. I have a wife, grad school, children, work, church, gym, and other things that take up my time, it's nice to see some payout. If it was any slower I wouldn't bother. As the DM you have the power to speed up or slow down the gain. Remember to include your players in the decision as it's just not the DMs game but the groups game.

 

[S'mon]

I think the 3e XP systems works fine for 2 core demographics - (1) powergaming munchkins who want the kewl powerz without having to wait a long time, and (2) older gamers who only get to play occasionally. Currently I'm in the latter group, and it seemed ok to me; if anything I give out more than core XP (full monster XP + lots of mission & roleplay XP on top) and with a group that's often been rather ineffectual combined with the long duration of high-level combats they've still advanced if anything slower than I'd have liked. If you're playing in a mature non-munchkin group of high school or college students, or otherwise get to play frequently but don't want a munchkin game, I can see it could feel far too fast.