XP and leveling progressions compared.

[Geron Raveneye]

One thing that nibbled at my mind since I started DMing D&D 3E was the fact that the characters seemed to go up in levels much faster than I was used to. I didn't change much in the way I set my adventures, and it looke to me as if the characters reached a new level (and new abilities) before they even managed to properly get used to their last one.

I did some comparing between my favorite game system from "back then" (Basic D&D) and now, to see how they compared on that regard, trying to mull it down to a few numbers (which of course is likely to fog up when you look at the detailed picture, but was enough to make it clear to me ).

Let's take a group of 4 characters, archetypes, in order to compare between the systems: fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue (thief ). All at first level. Now reduce their only source of XP to the primary ones: monsters.

Basic D&D gives you a flat 10 XP for one orc. Nothing more, nothing less. (Yeah, I know...treasure is XP here. If you check the treasure of one orc, it's around 10 cp. Mucho XP, huh?) So, the above group of adventurers would have to kill, between them, enough orcs to gain 7300XP, and spread them out so each of them would get to 2nd level. Which wasn't really likely, as the different XP progressions would quickly send the thief and cleric soaring, while the fighter and then the magic-user lagged behind.

In D&D 3E, the amount of XP is based on CR and level of the group as well as amount of monsters. One orc is CR 1/2, with a group level of 1, you get 150 XP for one orc. So, 27 orcish corpses later, the group reaches 2nd level, all at the same moment.

It's no surprise level progression feels so much faster to me now...it's like they tied a rocket to the level progression.

And the fun part is that killing monsters is by far not the only source of XP...in both games, I want to add. Even Basic D&D told a DM that characters earn XP for reaching certain goals in a given story. So story awards were already there. And the game was set up to bing characters to 36th level, and they by far didn't get as many flashy new powers to play with at each level.

So, did you notice that, too, in your transition from older versions to 3E? By now I'm seriously pondering to replace the XP table from the PHB with that from Unearthed Arcana, and quarter the XP awards in the CR/XP table in the DMG, just to get the progression speed back to something I can manage with my slow, leisurely mind.

 

[el-remmen]

Not being a fan of rocket fast progression myself I did the following:

I halved all awards to begin with - and then I determined how much XP something was worth a group of more than 4, by dividing the award by the number of characters involved (only if there was more than 4) and then multiplying it by 4.

So that 150 xp orc would be worth 60 ((150/2)/5 * 4) for a party of five people or 12 xp each.

Later, I dropped giving XP based on killing monsters altogether. . .

 

[MonsterMash]

IMC I'm using the XP chart from the Players Guide to the Wilderlands which doubles the amount of XP per level, e.g. 2nd = 2000, 3rd = 6000, etc. I've been using standard awards with this and it has resulted in the party levelling once in seven sessions (after five) and I'd see that rate of progress with a new level every four-five sessions being acceptable to me, but I may slow it down a bit more after about third level (PC's currently second level).

Got to admit used RAW I find 3e levelling too fast.

 

[Ravellion]

We used the 2e optional rules in the DMG for XP. 3e was about as fast, and less competitive between players, so I had no problems.

Rav

 

[Turjan]

Well, this breathtaking pace of leveling is one of the first things that sprang to my attention when we started with 3E. I also first came to the solution of simply swapping the XP table, because this does not change anything else in the daily gaming practice. But now I'm more in the boat of giving up on this XP business altogether. When it's time to level, e.g., after successfully finishing an adventure, we level .

 

[Thanee]

But orcs are also dangerous now, unlike the previous editions.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Umbran]

It's no surprise level progression feels so much faster to me now...it's like they tied a rocket to the level progression.

Yep. That's by design. Surveys found that most campaigns last for something like 18 months of regular play. With the old progression, this meant most campaigns didn't last long enough to see all the neat stuff in higher levels. So, they decided to adjust the progression.

If you play the game once every week, and go through about four encounters each session, you'll go up one level a month, real time. For the groups I've played with, that didn't need mucch adjusting, because they don't go through nearly four encounters each session. If you find your players chugging along too quickly, cutting the XP awards by some percentage should easily control the thing.

 

[Henry]

It's no surprise level progression feels so much faster to me now...it's like they tied a rocket to the level progression.

There's a reason; before, the system was set up so that PCs would attain 9th level after about a year of very long (6 to 8 hours) play sessions. The system is now designed so that four players playing a 4 hour session once per week could gain 20th level in 18 months or so. D&D play as a whole has changed considerably over the years, and the majority of players are putting less time into the hobby on a weekly basis. No surprise - the majority of players grew up, and life intrudes!

That said, people use a host of levelling schemes. Fellow ENWorlder Rel has a pretty good XP system he and his group devised, that rewards different types of activities. I'll attach the document I have to this post.

But orcs are also dangerous now, unlike the previous editions.

Bye
Thanee

I have to say that in 1E Orcs were plenty dangerous, because not only were hit points lower overall, but combat bonuses were lower. However, it can be safely said that Orcs are now more dangerous over a larger range of levels; in 1st edition, orcs were quite useless as opponents after 2nd level, except in tremendous numbers.

Nowadays, one lucky shot with an orc with a greatsword will end your character quick clear into 3rd or 4th level.

 

[Henry]

Oops! Sorry.

XP System used by Rel:

http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14391

 

[Quasqueton]

Basic D&D gives you a flat 10 XP for one orc. Nothing more, nothing less. (Yeah, I know...treasure is XP here. If you check the treasure of one orc, it's around 10 cp. Mucho XP, huh?) So, the above group of adventurers would have to kill, between them, enough orcs to gain 7300XP, and spread them out so each of them would get to 2nd level. Which wasn't really likely, as the different XP progressions would quickly send the thief and cleric soaring, while the fighter and then the magic-user lagged behind.

In D&D 3E, the amount of XP is based on CR and level of the group as well as amount of monsters. One orc is CR 1/2, with a group level of 1, you get 150 XP for one orc. So, 27 orcish corpses later, the group reaches 2nd level, all at the same moment.

But doesn't it make much more sense now?

A 1st-level BD&D fighter had to defeat 200 orcs to reach 2nd level. Then 400 to get 3rd level.
If each orc had 10 gold pieces in his pocket, the number drops to 100 and 200.

A 1st-level AD&D1/2 fighter had to defeat 143 orcs to reach 2nd level. Then 286 to get 3rd level.
If each orc had 10 gold pieces in his pocket, the number drops to 84 and 168.

A 1st-level D&D3 fighter has to defeat only 7 orcs to reach 2nd level. Then 14 to get 3rd level.
It doesn't matter how much treasure the orcs have in their pockets.

The D&D3 xp/leveling system just makes more sense to me. I don't see D&D3 leveling as really all that *fast*. Rather I think back on the earlier editions and marvel at how leveling was so *slow*. I mean, 7 dangerous fights versus 143, just to gain 2nd level? I like the idea of leveling every four to six game sessions.

Quasqueton