D&D 5E Adventuring Days, XP & Leveling

[robus]

So after a while of doing milestone leveling I've decided to switch back to XP based leveling - not to the granular level of monsters mind, just encounter difficulty based XP (plus bonus XP for discoveries, achievements etc). I just want my players to get a kind of progress meter again.

But what's bothering me is how few encounters are needed to level. For example, based on the Adventuring Day XP in the DMG (on page 84), the amount of XP an adventurer at 16th level would get is 20,000. The amount of XP needed to get to level 17 is 30,000. So just 1.5 adventuring days and, boom, level up!

This, to me, seems ridiculously fast (especially at higher levels, in fact you'd kind of expect the leveling rate to slow down the higher you get...). To my mind something more like the equivalent of 5 adventuring days should be required for the players to get any feel for the level. 5 adventuring days would give them plenty of encounters which to test out their new abilities. It would also allow me to go somewhat easy on them the first couple of days, make it a bit tougher on the middle and then really push them on the last one or two so that when they level up again they feel some sense of relief/accomplishment.

I guess I don't understand the logic behind the current tables, and I'm hoping someone could explain it?

 

[CapnZapp]

The logic is that they want you to breeze through high levels.

There really isnt more to it than that.

On the flip side, if you change things so it takes ten or a hundred encounters to level up, you won't break anything. There simply is no precious logic for you to break.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course, I prefer simply to level up every three game sessions (or thereabouts), skipping xp entirely. But that's off-topic for this thread.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

I didn't examine your math for accuracy (and will assume it is), but maybe the thing to examine is why you have any preference at all for how quickly the characters level up. What is the basis for this concern? If you can answer that, then it might be easier to get at a means of resolving the issue.

 

[Satyrn]

I guess I don't understand the logic behind the current tables, and I'm hoping someone could explain it?

Zapp's answer seems the right one. I understand the pace they aimed for was to rush through th early levels, slow it down through the middle, then speed it up through the end.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I (we, actually...my group) also thought leveling was WAY too fast; ever since and including 3e. I've tried different methods. So far I like the following two I've used to great success over the decades:

1. My Go-To Method: XP granted by GP value of treasure 'recovered' (found, stolen, taken from the dead, paid for job, etc) on a 1:1 basis, but monster XP value is halved (sometimes thirded or quartered even). Reasoning: XP is already just a "game mechanic" with no real basis in "game logic/reality"...AND... by switching to GP value being the 'motivating factor', it encourages the Players to look at each situation individually and not always jump to "How do we kill it?". The fighter can go in an start swinging...the cleric can try to persuade...the thief can try to stealthily steal...the magic-user can threaten/deal/or blow 'em up; it allows each PC to deal with a situation as their strengths dictate. And besides...I'm a pretty stingy DM by nature, and my players know that taking on a dozen orcs when they are all 10th level isn't going to be worth a "set amount of XP based on CR". Keeps the "I only need 12 more orcs to level up!" idea out of their heads, allowing them to think more in terms of the story and what's going on in the campaign.

2. My Second Choice Method: Believe it or not, I like the xp method that the Palladium Games system uses. (I know, right?). There is a small list of 'things' that give XP or a range of XP. These 'things' are sort of 'goal oriented' and it is based on the actual difficulty...not what "should be". Think of it this way: It's like using the CR system, but the DM determines the CR after the PC's deal with it. For example, say a group of 5th level PC's go into battle with some monstrosity and it's few minions. The DM has pre-set the base CR of the encounter at CR 6. A tough battle, but not that unwinable. Round one: every single PC "novas" and all the minions die, and the main beastie is down to below half it's HP's. Two rounds later, it's dead. This was hardly a "difficult" encounter! So...the DM gives it a rating of CR 3. Palladiums xp system sort of works like that. They have XP for other stuff too, like "Makes everyone at the table laugh", "Avoiding unnecessary violence", "Risking life to save another", and so on. The easy thing is, a DM can then make up new XP values as suites his campaign, style, and players. If everyone is generally violent and mercenary, maybe change "Avoiding unnecessary violence" to "Uses group military tactics to successfully overcome situation", or whatever. Point is that each gives a flat XP or range (100, 200, 50, 100 - 300, etc), and the general "combat" award is based on how the actual encounter played out (CR 6 being reduced to CR 3, as my example above; in Palladium it would have been a downgrade of "Killing/subduing a Major Menace" to "Killing/subduing a Minor Menace".

The beauty of my #1 is that it's fast and simple, and relies more on what the characters do over what they kill. The beauty of my #2 is that its based on "actions" (both PC and Player) and actual difficulty. I've found that #2 has a huge side benefit; it even's out the 'weak' vs the 'powerful' PC's. A 'weak' PC will get more xp for Encounter 14 than a 'powerful' PC would get for the same encounter...because the weak PC had to deal with it longer and with more risk. Made me smile when an absolute munchkin player (back in early/mid 90's) played with us for a while and his uber-character got ## XP for some monster, by him self...and then another player (heavy RP girl) got ### XP for the same monster, by herself, later. He accused me of 'cheating/favouratism'. I pointed out how the XP system works and why he got less XP by a factor of ten...because his character was a factor of ten more powerful than hers. Needless to say...he hated it! And, IME, any munchkin/powergamer that complains that something isn't "fair" is proof that whatever 'it' is, 'it' is definitely FAIR.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[robus]

I didn't examine your math for accuracy (and will assume it is), but maybe the thing to examine is why you have any preference at all for how quickly the characters level up. What is the basis for this concern? If you can answer that, then it might be easier to get at a means of resolving the issue.

Well I thought I tried to cover that in my OP. Basically a level is supposed to have some meaning and be a reward for : a new Feature, Feat, Spells etc. In other words it's not just a number. And by breezing through a level it seems like there's no chance to actually appreciate the new feature or whatever before another one is coming along.

But really it was more the amount of time spent at a level, one can hardly get anything done before another level comes knocking.

But [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is right - there's nothing stopping me choosing a slower level progression rate. I just have to figure out the math (which I'm doing in a spreadsheet) so that I can roughly figure out how much XP to dish out per encounter.

I guess my issue with the way it currently progresses is I can't imagine much sense of satisfaction with reaching level 20. It doesn't seem like much of a struggle. Level 20 would be just another milepost that goes whizzing by, blink and you miss it.

 

[iserith]

Well I thought I tried to cover that in my OP. Basically a level is supposed to have some meaning and be a reward for : a new Feature, Feat, Spells etc. In other words it's not just a number. And by breezing through a level it seems like there's no chance to actually appreciate the new feature or whatever before another one is coming along.

But really it was more the amount of time spent at a level, one can hardly get anything done before another level comes knocking.

But [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is right - there's nothing stopping me choosing a slower level progression rate. I just have to figure out the math (which I'm doing in a spreadsheet) so that I can roughly figure out how much XP to dish out per encounter.

I guess my issue with the way it currently progresses is I can't imagine much sense of satisfaction with reaching level 20. It doesn't seem like much of a struggle. Level 20 would be just another milepost that goes whizzing by, blink and you miss it.

I think the deeper question still remains, separate from how or why WotC made the choice: Why do you think there's less meaning in a level gained in less time than more time? It's all just arbitrary it seems to me. Something else to consider is how much real time does it take in terms of hours played or sessions completed? In some cases, 1.5 adventuring days could be several sessions. So are you basing this feeling on real time or game time? If it's game time, on what basis are you deciding whether it's the "right" amount of time? It sounds like you haven't quite sorted that out yet.

 

[werecorpse]

1. I run a slow progression game (and a couple of normal progression game with many of the same players). The slow progression game I gave out 1/5th exp for monsters up to 5th level and now 1/10th. I also give out goal achievement xp in both games. The players refer to the slow xp game as "the main game".

2. I like that palladium XP idea. I already base XP on foes overcome rather than beaten but like the idea of XP for as wide a range of activities I want to encourage. Have to look that up.

Maybe a reason why WOTC made high levels breeze past is that the increase in power from 15-16 is less than the increase in power from 5-6 (ie 5-6 you get 20% more HP, etc 15-16 you get 6% more HP )? Just a thought.

 

[jimmytheccomic]

The leveling rate for the epic tier is insane! I was actually about to post about this today as well.

We normally run three hour sessions, but every year on my birthday we do an all day game. The party I run for JUST hit Level 15. (They were just about a thousand XP over the level 15 threshhold.) I ran a 12 hour session...at the end of the day, we totaled up the XP, and they jumped ahead to level 18! They were thrilled, I was a bit less so, haha.