D&D 5E 5e recommended 2.5 sessions/level rate

Esker · Jul 2, 2019

Something I have never understood about XP advancement in 5e is the disconnect between the recommended measure of encounter difficulty and the amount of XP awarded. If encounter balancing guidelines use an adjusted XP measure to account for action economy, why shouldn't XP awarded also use the adjusted number? If characters are supposed to gain experience as a reward for overcoming challenges, why not tie XP to the scale of the challenge? As it is, facing many weaker creatures incurs a double whammy relative to one big one, holding assumed difficulty constant: more play time to get through it, and less payoff afterward.

Draegn · Jul 2, 2019

[MENTION=6912801]BlivetWidget[/MENTION] in my game I increased the amount of experience required to level. To reach level ten requires 300,000. I do this because I never liked the level 1-20 in a year adventure paths. It felt too fast. People wouldn't show up unless we had the next dungeon magazine and most were not interested or cared about making different characters for the other adventures in the issue.

BlivetWidget · Jul 2, 2019

Nothing wrong with that, I was just putting out a few charts based on the published material. I prefer a goalpost system myself, but everyone's got their own preferences.

Jer · Jul 2, 2019

Esker said:
Something I have never understood about XP advancement in 5e is the disconnect between the recommended measure of encounter difficulty and the amount of XP awarded. If encounter balancing guidelines use an adjusted XP measure to account for action economy, why shouldn't XP awarded also use the adjusted number? If characters are supposed to gain experience as a reward for overcoming challenges, why not tie XP to the scale of the challenge? As it is, facing many weaker creatures incurs a double whammy relative to one big one, holding assumed difficulty constant: more play time to get through it, and less payoff afterward.

I think it's because the XP rules are only in 5e because they're a thing that D&D players expect to be there. Much like how the game still hands out monetary treasure but doesn't really give you much to spend it on or how stats still range from 3-18 even though the bonus is generally the only thing that matters - it's there because it wouldn't be D&D without it, but I don't think the design team considers those things to be a substantive part of the game, more a stylistic choice that people would complain about if it were missing, and so I don't think they put a lot of effort into them.

FWIW - I think your argument is the correct one. XP should be determined by the encounter difficulty, which may be more than the sum of the individual monster XP. However I also don't trust the Encounter Building system to correctly tell me the level of difficulty of the encounter - because of bounded accuracy and making monsters threatening across more levels, the CR system for 5e is possibly even more borked than the CR system for 3e was. I'm coming round to the idea that the Encounter Building system in 5e is in the same boat as I feel that the XP system is - a thing that the design team knew they had to include because people expect it to be there, but that they didn't put a lot of effort into - though in this case less because they didn't think it mattered and more because they knew that no matter how they did it the design goals they had for 5e weren't going to let them build one that actually worked.

ART! · Jul 2, 2019

I think the 2.5 sessions thing is too fast, for the same reasons as other who have posted their dislike: as a DM I want the players to have time to get used to their new abilities, and as a player I want time to get used to them, too. Sometimes a single session will be pretty focused, with little or no opportunity to explore new features.

My basic rule is: did one or more PC almost die or actually die, or was there a genuine threat of a TPK, or something equally catastrophic? Then they've probably earned a level.

DND_Reborn · Jul 3, 2019

Esker said:
Something I have never understood about XP advancement in 5e is the disconnect between the recommended measure of encounter difficulty and the amount of XP awarded. If encounter balancing guidelines use an adjusted XP measure to account for action economy, why shouldn't XP awarded also use the adjusted number? If characters are supposed to gain experience as a reward for overcoming challenges, why not tie XP to the scale of the challenge? As it is, facing many weaker creatures incurs a double whammy relative to one big one, holding assumed difficulty constant: more play time to get through it, and less payoff afterward.

Yep, a lot of people have said they just award the adjusted XP since that is what the encounter difficulty is based on. Nothing wrong with going that route.

S'mon · Jul 3, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Yep, a lot of people have said they just award the adjusted XP since that is what the encounter difficulty is based on. Nothing wrong with going that route.

I find that not doing this, the advancement rate at level 5-10 is more like 6-8 sessions per level, far from the recommended 2.5. Which is ok but I generally give some bonus xp to make it more like 5 sessions per level.

Nebulous · Jul 3, 2019

I don't use XP or any kind of measurable milestone system. PCs level up faster at low level, and it slows down as they get to 5th and higher. I like to control the "sweet spot" of D&D as the DM, it makes it far more enjoyable, and the fun factor of the game for me steadily decreases after 10th level when they go from fantasy heroes to super heroes.

Nagol · Jul 3, 2019

A level every 2.5 sessions maps pretty well back to 3.0/3.5 where a level is about 13 encounters. So 5e is assuming about 5 encounters a session which seems mostly reasonable.

I tend to prefer a wider level band myself where a PC would be the same level for at least 1, maybe 2-3 whole adventures.

Fanaelialae · Jul 3, 2019

Esker said:
Something I have never understood about XP advancement in 5e is the disconnect between the recommended measure of encounter difficulty and the amount of XP awarded. If encounter balancing guidelines use an adjusted XP measure to account for action economy, why shouldn't XP awarded also use the adjusted number? If characters are supposed to gain experience as a reward for overcoming challenges, why not tie XP to the scale of the challenge? As it is, facing many weaker creatures incurs a double whammy relative to one big one, holding assumed difficulty constant: more play time to get through it, and less payoff afterward.

Both approaches have pros and cons.

The existing system rewards the same XP regardless of approach. Let's say you spot a group of a dozen goblins. If you can lure away half the group and kill them 6 at a time, the encounter will be much easier because the players approached it with a smart plan as opposed to brute force. Additionally, for "living worlds", the DM can have a patrol break off from the main group at given times, without having to recalculate their XP value.

Challenge based rewards discourage that style of play, while encouraging a kick-in-the-door approach. If you're dealing with players who really want to maximize their XP, they may even try to provoke multiple encounters simultaneously.

Either way is fine, provided it works for your group.