D&D 5E Gaining Experience

[werecorpse]

Slower level rising is good, but to allow the players to experience more adventures, participate in more stories and get a handle on their character abilities before they gain new ones. Not to allow experience hunting to be a purpose for the PC's, that just encourages meta gaming IMO

 

[wedgeski]

I use the XP rules as written and they're working out fine for my group. I can see how some groups favour a milestone or even DM-fiat style of leveling, but that wouldn't do for my guys, who've been playing since the early days and expect to be given a number to add to their tally after an encounter. Let us not forget that D&D is, in fact, a game, and getting to a high level without dying is part of that game. It's not all about the story.

If I would say anything about 5E's design, it's that I think the knee-point of the XP curve is a little acute. It's a gallop to third/fourth level and then flattens considerably. But that's a minor thing.

 

[Hussar]

The point remains, however, that carrying out said mission wouldn't bump you 3 levels. You might get one. (and by RAW 1e you could only get one, with advancement thereafter completely stopped until you got back to town and trained up)

Which is, IMO, far better - at one level (or less) per adventure the campaign has a chance to last a while.

Lan-"I'll say it again - level advancement works best as an occasional side effect of play, rather than the central goal of play"-efan

No edition of dnd bumps you three levels for a single mission. An entire module might bump you two but you'd typically have several missions.

Now while you couldn't bump two levels at once, you didn't stop gaining xp until you hit the end of the level. So you might be one xp below the next level when you trained and then have to wait a bit to get the following level, but not that much. And by about 5th that problem goes away. You just have so much gold.

 

[Shiroiken]

Back in the day, you didn't grind XP by killing monsters... you did it by getting gold. 1 gp = 1xp in 1E, so you were far better off trying to loot than kill.

While I don't like leveling nearly as fast as many like in 5E, it's not hard to slow it down by simply giving out less XP.

 

[MrZeddaPiras]

It's a side-effect of not gaining xp from treasures: if you're out there for the money, you might want to avoid fights as much as possible and you don't necessarily need a quest to fulfill or something. Without that, you're left with quest-based gameplay or a monster-hunting mob. Not that the 1 gp = 1 xp rule was devoid of problems...

 

[amerigoV]

Well, if you are just going to grind for xp, why leave town? There is plenty of xp just walking around just waiting to be harvested.

 

[SirAntoine]

Slower level rising is good, but to allow the players to experience more adventures, participate in more stories and get a handle on their character abilities before they gain new ones. Not to allow experience hunting to be a purpose for the PC's, that just encourages meta gaming IMO

I think you have the wrong picture. Experience hunting is a practical strategy. It could lend itself well to min/maxing, especially in 5th Edition where I enjoy planning out my level advancements for picking abilities and multi-classing. I will often think of what I want my character to be at 20th level when I play. I am starting a new ranger now, and I wonder if I want to take a few levels as a paladin of the ancients. As someone recently pointed out to me, being able to advance characters quickly lets you play more different characters you want to, and in turn have more diverse adventures and experiences with different combo's and builds. So faster level advancement, too, can provide for more adventures and more play of the game (which is a GOOD thing).

The term, grind, implies a little boredom there but you'd naturally be free to stop whenever you want. In a good sandbox, the PC's can go wherever they choose, and most importantly, in any order they choose. The DM reacts to what they do, and spends most of his time just as referee.

Going out for experience is first done to test your mettle and get the lay of the land. Second, and not so much anymore but very commonly in the past, it's done as a matter of survival. Just getting to 2nd level will make the difference between life and death for many characters. Some may enjoy going on an adventure right away, but without assurances from the DM that the encounters won't be too difficult, it's only common sense to be cautious and try to be prepared. Adventures know about experience. They talk to one another in the inn all the time, and they understand that whenever anyone is starting out they need to give priority to getting more experienced not only for their own survival, but so they can get better work or take on more awesome adventures. Campaigns often start in the inn, and suppose you walk in and see a party of confident, popular characters telling tales to the crowd. Can you go up to them and ask to join their group? Certainly. They'll size you up, and if they're nice they'll tell you to get some experience first. They might take you on as a retainer, though, which is also an opportunity to adventure and hopefully come back in one piece.

The encounter tables could be brutal, too, so experience hunting was also dangerous. If you knew you wanted to explore a dungeon, say with 2nd level monsters in it for a quest purpose, naturally it would be better to get to 2nd level yourselves first. Every potential adventure is still just as interesting, and experience hunting is over the long term is heroic work that only aids immersion and verisimilitude. You'd be protecting the community from dangerous monsters, thinning their populations, and staying aware of what's going on in the land so organized enemies have a hard time putting their plans in motion. You will meet travelers on the road, farmers bringing their harvest in, and also be able to back-up other adventurers and the patrols of the local authorities who also may be in danger.

It's not any sort of cheating or meta-gaming. When no more monsters are out there, the land is safe.

 

[SirAntoine]

I did grinding for XP in the early Final Fantasy games, but never in D&D.

As far as 5e XP goes, since the DMG tells you what the general schedule is for leveling up, it's pretty simple, I think, to adjust it to fit whatever schedule you prefer.

It's a good supplement to following adventure hooks or paths. It's great when you're close to the next level, and you really want the next level of spells, for example. It's also great to bring up a new character. They usually cut their teeth by about 4th level, so won't need a lot of protecting in the rest of the adventure.

 

[delericho]

We did XP grinding in 2nd Ed, but won't be doing it again. I prefer the 1st Ed approach where combat was something that should actually be avoided - it was a risk, and an unnecessary one when the bulk of XP came from treasure anyway. But even better, IMO, is the notion of quest XP where you have goals (either those you set yourself or which are set for you) and you get XP for completing those - and it doesn't matter how you complete them, so diplomacy might be as good an approach as slaughter.

As for the rate of XP gain, I prefer 1 level every 3 sessions (after 1st level). But if you prefer a slower, or indeed faster, rate, that's trivially easy to achieve.

 

[Henry]

I get 3 to 4 hours, once a week (until recently, once per two weeks), and grinding for XP is at the absolute BOTTOM of my list for play experiences. I hated random encounters 30 years ago, and also now. Just as my friends and i don't roleplay bathroom breaks, washing clothes, or purchasing basic supplies, we dont visit the sausage-making of random encounters, either. Like a lot of people, we dropped XP as a mechanic and level at a regular rate of every 3 to 4 sessions (on average, depends on story).