Does it take longer to gain levels at higher levels?

[Chainsaw Mage]

Here's a simple question about OD&D / AD&D / B/XD&D / RC D&D. (I imagine the question would apply to more recent versions of the game too; it isn't really a system specfic topic).

In terms of sheer numbers, it takes far more XP to level up the higher up a character goes. Using Cook's D&D Expert (1981) rulebook, consider a simple example: the Fighter. He needs 2000 XP to get to 2nd level, but 120,000 XP (!!) to go from level 8 to 9. Just looking at the numbers, it would seem rather obvious that it takes him WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY longer to go from 8 to 9 than it did to go from 1 to 2.

However, we all know that the monsters he is fighting at 8th level are far higher hit dice and thus offer far more XP than the kobolds and goblins he slaughtered back in level 1. But do these higher-level monsters offer enough XP to allow him to level as quickly as he did in the beginning, or is it still going to take longer to get to each subsequent level?

I'm really asking three things here: (1) What does the math itself seem to suggest (since I'm not really a math guy ), (2) What were the design intentions (did EGG and company imagine that each level would take equally long to attain?) and (3) What do YOU think it should be?

 

[Nagol]

First, monster XP scaled much more modestly than 3.5 XP did.

An orc was worth 14 xp, an ogre 185 xp, a troll 790 xp, and a balor was only worth 4130 xp (before party division).

That said, monster XP is a pittance compared to treasure XP.

Overall, did the game level slower? I think it was bit. It varied over the levels of the campaign.

I found that low levels (1-5) could go by relatively quickly (if the character survived) -- slower than 3.5, but not much slower -- probably the same number of sessions, but more encounters. The cash required for training was often a limiting factor. PCs had to continue to adventure to get the cash to train and not get the xp for the adventure because they'd capped.

Leveling seemed to slow down as the Magic-User was trying to get to 5th level, but sped up again between 7-9th level. Once name level was reached, (9th for everyone but Thieves and Magic-Users, they got their name @ 11th) leveling starting to speed up again as the amount needed to advance became a constant and the rewards and capabilites typically kept advancing.

 

[Sekhmet]

I found that early levels seemed to speed by pretty quick, the middle levels were a rough patch, but once you had the gear (around level 10 or so), it became easy enough to level again.
I would note that even though you have an easy time leveling, it still takes much longer if you do it just through killing monsters.

I'm fine with that, to be honest.

A level 1 person doesn't really need to learn much that hasn't been covered to get to level 2. Many people in your home town can teach you what you need to know to get that new level.

Once you're in the 5-6 range, people who can train you become scarce - and so you're forging out on your own. Perhaps you've heard of a way to do this or that, but you don't know how it was done.

When you get to 10, you're one of a handful of people in the universe that has that level of training, and becoming any better than you currently are is new territory. Much more trial and error, much more deep thought or meditation on the subject. How do you get better at something you've mastered?

Hitting 15 or 20 is a feat that is absolutely unheard of. No one is there. You're in a world of your own. What could you possibly do better now that you've perfected every detail of every step and swing?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Perfecting perfection is what Epic level characters do pretty much.

As for leveling speed, the 3.5 DMG states:

The experience point award for encounters is based on the concept that 13.33 encounters of an EL equal to the player characters’ level allow them to gain a level.

Quick napkin math shows that the book's XP chart follows this to the exact number. It takes the same number of encounters to level from 1 to 2 as it does 19-20. Supposedly Epic levels follow the same route. What happens as these challenges get harder though is they tend to drag on a bit more because there's far more possibilities and each of the classes has a different way of scaling.

In short, if the DM is following 3.5's suggested XP system, then no: It does not really take longer to gain levels at higher levels.

 

[S'mon]

In short, if the DM is following 3.5's suggested XP system, then no: It does not really take longer to gain levels at higher levels.

IME it does take more play time, because encounters take longer and you have fewer encounters per session at 19th than at 1st.

 

[Sekhmet]

I find that, at later levels, there is far more room for throwing in lower encounter levels. Not every fight at level 20 is going to be a CR20 fight, taking up 1/4 your daily resources.
You're going to have 15s and 18s, yes - they might be an easier fight, but they're still able to target weak saves and still able to hit you.

 

[the Jester]

Yes, higher level leveling took substantially longer.

However, lots of that was because pretty much nobody that I played with ever gave xp for treasure.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Here's a simple question about OD&D / AD&D / B/XD&D / RC D&D. (I imagine the question would apply to more recent versions of the game too; it isn't really a system specfic topic).

Nagol's analysis is probably close when looking at by-the-book xp for 2E and earlier, but the problem is that so few people actually did handle everything BTB. Not everyone gave XP for treasure. Not everyone required the high, listed payments for level training (or required level training at all). Some kept strict requirements to qualify for classes meaning rarer appearance of classes like paladins and rangers thus skewing perceptions. Most also ignored or freely extended or altered demi-human level limits also heavily skewing perceptions. Some just tallied xp for monsters and gold and split it equally. Some 2E games used optionaly individual awards schemes where xp was awarded for use of "class" abilities - spellcasters got xp for casting spells, thieves for the gold they actually stole, etc.

The AD&D system is also very resistant to analysis simply because there are so many variables. Thieves required less xp in general so they leveled up faster than other classes in general and typically would have been a full level or more ahead of others in the same party. The xp progression for any given pc to level up at any given level is HIGHLY inconsistent. Some classes are even and regular (if a logarithmic scale can be described that way) but take odd jumps where levels may suddenly require more xp or less than they otherwise would.

Adventure design was also not such that awards were likely to be consistent. In 3E as has been pointed out the whole xp system was well calculated to produce a constant, even rate of advancement for everyone at least as far as the NUMBER of encounters was concerned. Only the increasing duration of conducting the combats should have slowed the pacing of advancement from one game session to the next. Earlier editions had no built-in expectations of party size and they could be a dozen or more PC's - with accompanying henchmen, hirelings and NPC's making up a small army. They could also be just the typical, basic four cleric, fighter, mage, and thief by themselves. Predictable degrees of challenge were utterly absent. The equipment possessed by the PC's could still be mundane, non-magical stuff at 6th level - or they could be walking around with +5 Holy Avengers and Staves of Power at 4th. The DM could "challenge" an 8th level party with a dozen Kobolds or a dozen huge, ancient dragons and only the outcome of the battle and the subsequent feedback from players to tell him if things were too easy or too hard and only previous experience to rely on to figure out where in between the extremes he should be given the PC's actually involved.

(2) What were the design intentions (did EGG and company imagine that each level would take equally long to attain?)

I think as long as they were having fun and levelling up took place at a rate acceptible to both DM and players they didn't give a hoot what the actual numbers were (and the chaotic, haphazard charts and lack of discernable mathematical formulae shows it). They weren't "designed" with an intent - they were thrown out into the mix and if it worked it worked. If it stank, well it was probably published anyway and left it up to you to decide what to do with it.

(3) What do YOU think it should be?

A much slower pace than 3E. No award for treasure gained - unless it had to be gained by some other means than defeating guarding monsters/NPC's in combat but then the award should be based on the difficutly of getting the loot - not its cash value. It also shouldn't ALL be coming from just killing monsters. Story awards and achieving set goals should figure fairly prominently, not just the height of the pile of corpses around you. Characters SHOULD have different xp requirements at different levels but they should be reflective of what the character can do in comparison to other PC's. If wizards, for example, are deemed highly powerful at high levels then their xp requirements to reach those levels should have them advancing a LOT slower than anyone else to keep them in line. If a class is excessively weak by comparison he should advance RAPIDLY so he can catch up. Of course, there may also be reasons you WANT a character class to be weaker or more powerful at a given level, to advance slower or faster for reasons that have nothing to do with relative power of the class at that point.

 

[irdeggman]

2nd ed not only had different xp advancement tables for different classes but they also had an option xp award system that granted different xp for each class for doing different things - spellcasters gained xp for spells cast, Magic users got xp for creating magical items, thieves got xp for using their class abilities, etc.

IMO thieves advanced way too wuickly compared to the other classes. (in 2nd ed).

In 3.5 it is balanced (all classes are the same) and it is supposed to take about the same number of encounters to advance regardless of the PC's level (since this is based on a CR equal to the to party)

 

[Greenfield]

As far as monster scaling is concerned, the answer is in the numbers.

For the EXP to scale evenly, a 1st level monster had to be worth X, a 2nd level monster had to be worth 2X, a 3rd level monster needed to be worth 4X, 4th needed to be 8X, etc. Just keep doubling.

That, of course, presumes that the proportion of Exp earned between wealth and combat stayed the same as you leveled up.

And all of this, of course, varied from DM to DM and adventure to adventure. Some were generous with the goodies, others weren't. And I guess that's the ultimate answer, right there: It depended on your DM.