XP is way too high in 4th Edition!

[MarkB]

One thing to bear in mind is that 4e includes 30 levels for normal play, as opposed to 3e's 20, and 2e's somewhat more variable level limits. It also doesn't include an unending expansion of PCs' options (after 11th level, PCs begin swapping out old powers for new ones, rather than just accumulating more).

So "gaining a level" in 4e doesn't necessarily represent the same increase in power and versatility that it did in earlier editions. I'd consider 4e's levels to be more frequent, but smaller steps than 3e's, and probably compared to earlier editions too.

 

[malraux]

I'll third or fifth or whatever we're on with the idea of leveling up when you feel it's right. I'll just add the caveat that you should make sure the players are on board with the idea. If the players really like tracking those numbers, then you shouldn't take it away.

I'll also point out that because the power curve of 4e is sloped relatively shallowly, you can pretty easily make sure that your level 1-3 dungeons of older editions covers the entirety of the heroic tier. Because monster leveling is easy and fast, for example, kobolds can be a threat up to level 7 or 8 without difficulty.

 

[Sentack]

If you go by the 4E DMG1, but I won't swear to this, it appears wizards expects you should have a 5-6 hour session a week. The players should earn about 1 encounters worth of exp an hour. And it takes about 8-12 encounters to go up a level, average 10. So by that standard, you should be leveling up every other week, effectively. About 60% is to come from Encounters, 30% from Skill Challenges and 10% from Quests. Give or take 10%, of course.

That's the rough estimate.

In general, Wizards seems to think that the average group should reach 30 in 1 year of play.

I doubt most groups reach Paragon in 1 year of play.

The average group I've seen, runs combat 2 encounters a night with maybe 1 skill challenge or quest reward.

That averages to about combat 100 encounters, maybe a hand full of skill challenges (Because most experiment with them and find them lacking) and a lot of people just give out "Quest" experience when the group is short for the next level.

That usually comes out to about one 'tier' a year. Level 30 just after 3 years.

That seems more realistic, but at the same time, I see a lot more people these days that want to experiment with different classes, different character types, and just try different styles of games. That being said, spending 3 years on one game seems a hell of a long time. 1 year seems sort of long even. Lately, I've seen players that want to quickly move on from one game, and jump into something new. So faster leveling and more concentrated story arcs are becoming more common.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

What sort of encounter is the OP talking about, I wonder?

DM: There's an orc in the kitchen, tending the fire. He has his back to you.
PC: I bop him on the head with a frying pan.
DM: He drops.
DM [to self]: Okay, that makes 23 encounters. Curse this infernal pace!

I mean, seriously? This post has "trolling for lols" written all over it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you go by the 4E DMG1, but I won't swear to this, it appears wizards expects you should have a 5-6 hour session a week. The players should earn about 1 encounters worth of exp an hour. And it takes about 8-12 encounters to go up a level, average 10. So by that standard, you should be leveling up every other week, effectively. About 60% is to come from Encounters, 30% from Skill Challenges and 10% from Quests. Give or take 10%, of course.

That's the rough estimate.

In general, Wizards seems to think that the average group should reach 30 in 1 year of play.

I doubt most groups reach Paragon in 1 year of play.

The average group I've seen, runs combat 2 encounters a night with maybe 1 skill challenge or quest reward.

That averages to about combat 100 encounters, maybe a hand full of skill challenges (Because most experiment with them and find them lacking) and a lot of people just give out "Quest" experience when the group is short for the next level.

That usually comes out to about one 'tier' a year. Level 30 just after 3 years.

That seems more realistic, but at the same time, I see a lot more people these days that want to experiment with different classes, different character types, and just try different styles of games. That being said, spending 3 years on one game seems a hell of a long time. 1 year seems sort of long even. Lately, I've seen players that want to quickly move on from one game, and jump into something new. So faster leveling and more concentrated story arcs are becoming more common.

DMG1 p104 pretty much provides the default advancement assumptions. They specify an encounter mix of 1 level-1, 4 level+0, 3 level+1, and 1 level+3. That's 9 actual encounters, with one of the level+0 ones being noted as probably being a major quest. Assuming you also use minor quests you would roughly eliminate one more encounter of standard level.

Assuming you use SCs for say 1 in 3 encounters on the average you'd be at 5 combat encounters, 3 SCs, one major quest, and 5 minor quest awards making up a level. Assuming you can do 2 combats and an SC in a play session of 3-5 hours you get pretty close to 1 level every 2 sessions. 1 level every 3 sessions is probably a bit more realistic but the DM can easily speed things up just slightly and keep to the 2:1 ratio. That will get you pretty close to a full 1-30 campaign in a year.

Sure, a lot of groups may go somewhat slower. I also know groups that go much faster, burning through combat encounters in 30 minutes consistently. It is probably safe to say that most groups won't always keep up the pace and nobody manages to run 50 sessions in a year (well, most of us don't), so yeah, realistically you can probably plan on a full length campaign running a couple years.

One way to make things more interesting is just to let the players develop several PCs. All of the players in my main campaign have at least 2 and sometimes 3 PCs they switch in and out. Usually if a character is out of the loop for a while we will go over what they were doing offstage and grant them equivalent level ups with those attained by the main party, so when they reappear in the story they're usually the same level as the other PCs. You could run side groups too, but that takes away from the rate of progression unless maybe it is a separate session. Anyway, this lets the players experiment with other classes and have some variety without slowing things down much. Now and then one of the main characters doesn't get played for a couple levels, but I don't find that to be a big deal. I have a large setting with a lot of stuff in it, so even if the character isn't adventuring whatever they do offstage is interesting and relevant.

 

[Dausuul]

DMG1 p104 pretty much provides the default advancement assumptions. They specify an encounter mix of 1 level-1, 4 level+0, 3 level+1, and 1 level+3.

Which recommendation, incidentally, should be taken with a huge grain of salt. My players and I would be bored stiff if I stuck to those guidelines. We never have an encounter at less than level+2; mostly I give them level+3, with the occasional level+4 when I'm feeling extra sadistic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which recommendation, incidentally, should be taken with a huge grain of salt. My players and I would be bored stiff if I stuck to those guidelines. We never have an encounter at less than level+2; mostly I give them level+3, with the occasional level+4 when I'm feeling extra sadistic.

Depends very much on who's at your table and what types of monsters you use and how encounters are designed. I've found that with MM3 monster math my players at least are not going to be handling anything bigger than level + 2. OTOH they tend to rip through SCs like termites in balsa wood. So the mix is a bit different, but I think the end result has generally been fairly close to the guidelines. In any case, if you ARE throwing a lot higher level encounters at them all the time, I'd be guessing that using XP you'd have some pretty fast advancement. I'd have to go back and look at my notes, but I think in our group there were roughly 5 combat encounters in the last level. That seemed pretty good. People went down, the fights were tense and fun.

 

[Dausuul]

Depends very much on who's at your table and what types of monsters you use and how encounters are designed. I've found that with MM3 monster math my players at least are not going to be handling anything bigger than level + 2. OTOH they tend to rip through SCs like termites in balsa wood. So the mix is a bit different, but I think the end result has generally been fairly close to the guidelines. In any case, if you ARE throwing a lot higher level encounters at them all the time, I'd be guessing that using XP you'd have some pretty fast advancement. I'd have to go back and look at my notes, but I think in our group there were roughly 5 combat encounters in the last level. That seemed pretty good. People went down, the fights were tense and fun.

Oh, right--I didn't mean to imply that everyone should run all encounters at level+3 or higher. Just that the guidelines are very much guidelines, and DMs need to adjust for optimization, player tactics, and specific character abilities. The party I'm running for is a finely tuned engine of death, so I have to crank up the difficulty. For other parties, even that single level+3 encounter in the guidelines might be a TPK.

IMO, the best approach is to start with an equal-level encounter and see how they handle that. If it's a yawnfest, turn it up to level+1. Continue until the desired level of tension is reached, and use that as your encounter baseline.

Then, if using XP, figure out how fast the party will level up at this baseline. If it's too fast or slow for your liking, apply a suitable multiplier to XP awards. (Personally, I dispense with XP altogether and just level the party up when I think they've earned it.)