D&D 5E Are DMs getting lazy?

[SirAntoine]

You should listen to what I said.

Maybe it's that I said, "supposed to". That's just a way of saying it's what I expect.

I don't really think there is much interest in this subject, but I'll add that even though the treasure you get may have an impact on the rate you advance in level, my comment was about the rate you would advance in level from combat only. Since 2nd Edition, experience was not earned from treasure acquired, as a standard rule. There is another word many have a problem with: standard. If you break from it, you will defy expectations whether you like to admit that or not. No one is calling you "wrong" or ridiculing you personally, and to suggest they do is a straw man.

 

[Zardnaar]

Mallus should be reported, too. It's not that he is wrong, which he of course is, it's that he is trying to foster resentment and animosity.

Any time you feel like trying to mock others, stop yourself and either make no comment or a positive and constructive one.

Was not having a go at you just 5 adventures to a level would mean short adventures or the treasuere in the old modules is out of whack with the core rules expectations of advancement.

5 adventures for level 9+ maybe YMMV but you have mega adventures like ToEE or The Night Below which are multiple levels in one adventure not one every 5 levels. I do remember words to that effect in AD&D or BECMI in regards to advancement. They probably meant short adventures you would design yourself.

I'm about as subtle as a brick in the face. If I am having a go at you you will know about it.

 

[SirAntoine]

Was not having a go at you just 5 adventures to a level would mean short adventures or the treasuere in the old modules is out of whack with the core rules expectations of advancement.

5 adventures for level 9+ maybe YMMV but you have mega adventures like ToEE or The Night Below which are multiple levels in one adventure not one every 5 levels. I do remember words to that effect in AD&D or BECMI in regards to advancement. They probably meant short adventures you would design yourself.

I'm about as subtle as a brick in the face. If I am having a go at you you will know about it.

I didn't really think you were, but I wasn't sure. Thank you for this reassurance.

 

[pemerton]

You should listen to what I said.

I did. I listened to the bit where you said that 'the standard in AD&D and BECMI' was 100 good fights for a level.

my comment was about the rate you would advance in level from combat only. Since 2nd Edition, experience was not earned from treasure acquired, as a standard rule.

Well, if you're talking about 2nd ed AD&D then why mention AD&D in general, or BECMI?

The latest published version of BECMI I own is the Rules Cyclopedia. Page 128 of that book has a box that says "each 1 gp of treasure wone by a character = 1 XP earned by the character". So BECMI follows the XP-for-gole rule that was standard to pre-2nd ed AD&D versions of the game. You can't just ignore that rule when talking about the rate of advancement in that edition.

I don't own much 2nd ed AD&D Monstrous Compendium/Manual, but have recently been looking over my Greyhawk stuff and found some monster pages from the From the Ashes boxed set. I can't really make sense of the XP values: a 2 HD Losel with AC 7 and a THACO of 19 for average 6.5 damage is worth 35 XP, while a 3 HD Derro with AC 5 and THACO of 17 for weapon damage is worth 975 XP. A 5+5 HD Abyss Bat with THACO 15 for average 8.5 damage plus a relatively strong cone of cold is worth 2000 XP.

At 35 XP a pop it would take 100 goood fights with the Lorel to gain a level, which I personally think might make for a fairly tedious game. Finding some Derro to take on - they look about twice as dangerous per head but are worth nearly 30 times as much XP! - would be more like it.

 

[SirAntoine]

I established it clearly, pemerton. If you want to say 2+2 = 5, I will accept that's how it works for you.

 

[Hussar]

My guess is you didn't play very strictly with training costs in 1e. Training slowed level advancement down considerably. A lot of optimally calculated XPs ended up being wasted in the practical issue of wrangling training time and cost.

Not IME. About 75% of xp came from gold. Meaning that past about 3rd level, training costs were never a problem. After all, you don't lose any xp until you bump to 1 point below the next level. We always had evough money to train before then. At worst you might have lost a few hundred do at very low levels but considering it takes tens of thousands of xp to go up levels after 5th, we always had tens of thousands of gold. So no loss of xp.

That was my experience anyway.

 

[Zardnaar]

The trick to levelling up fast in AD&D was killing elves (tt least in 2E). 7xp for a Kobold, 420 xp for a 1+1 HD Elf.

 

[pemerton]

The trick to levelling up fast in AD&D was killing elves (tt least in 2E). 7xp for a Kobold, 420 xp for a 1+1 HD Elf.

That is similar to the disparity I noticed between the Lorel and the Derro. Apparently magical abilities are weighted very heavily in the 2nd ed AD&D XP charts.

 

[Hussar]

Heck, pound for pound, in 2e small demons or Devils like Manes or Drrtches were worth thousands of xp.

 

[Reynard]

The trick to levelling up fast in AD&D was killing elves (tt least in 2E). 7xp for a Kobold, 420 xp for a 1+1 HD Elf.

Plus, it's just good policy.