Anyone using an alternative exp chart?

[Grimstaff]

Here is the exp chart I'm using for my current campaign, with notes:

1 - 0
2 - 2000
3 - 4000
4 - 7000
5 - 10000
6 - 20000
7 - 30000
8 - 50000
9 - 70000
10 - 100000

You'll notice the exp requirement for 5th lvl has not changed, but the pace at which the characters arrive there has. This gives the players a little more time to get used to their characters' abilities and personalities. Once 5th is passed, progression slows way down. This fulfills two needs in my campaign: a) it gives my players more time to enjoy levels 6-12, which time and time again has been described as their "favorite" levels of a campaign, mostly because the characters have a nice balance between having a bit of power but still feeling the all important sense of danger and challenge; and b) it gives the campaign world a sort of power-level-line between the average joes and the real heroes. most NPCs will be 1-5th lvl, as it takes a lot of effort to get beyond that.

Exp for 10th level in my campaign is roughly equivalent to what you need to get to 14th lvl in the RAW. So far, none of my players have minded this a bit, and have enjoyed the extra time at mid levels.

I tried the "double experience" chart as listed in the Wilderlands PG, and it actually slowed down low levels too much, at least for guys that only get to play 4-5hours oncce a week.

Experience for high-level play (which I never run much beyond 13-15th level) is as follows:

11 - 130000
12 - 160000
13 - 200000
14 - 240000
15 - 280000
16 - 330000
17 - 380000
18 - 430000
19 - 490000
20 - 550000

I list those levels seperate mainly due to the fact that I have not used this chart at those levels in actual gameplay as of yet, and hesitate to endorse anything before playtesting it, but I don't see why it wouldn't hold up as well as it does from 1-10.

 

[Crothian]

Seems to do what you want them to do. I personally leave the table the same and just hand out XP at a rate I want. Same results different method

 

[the Jester]

Seems to do what you want them to do. I personally leave the table the same and just hand out XP at a rate I want. Same results different method

Ditto. I reduce my awards appropriate to the advancement speed I'm looking for; however, something like this might be an easier way, and it can certainly be better fine-tuned (as noted in the notes below the xp table in the OP). I like the approach.

 

[The Levitator]

I agree with Jester. It's a nice approach to EXP. We currently just play at 50% of Raw, but I tend to hand out a lot of RP EXP, so our progression is close to Raw in the end, but still slower. We are going to experiment with an idea I found here on another thread. Only instead of peaking at 6th, we peak at 12th before going to a buy system. Our group actually likes the slower progression, so that they have more opportunities to use their new abilities before acquiring new ones. We're also afraid of the dreaded "Power Creep"!

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

In the current game I DM for I use the alternate Xp charts in Unearthed Arcana. While said charts vex my players to no end, they make dealing out experience rewards much easier. 30 1st level fighters? thats approximately 9000 xp.
It really takes the hassle out of figuring out encounter level. I think it's a little slower than standard level progression. (Before I switched over, I had planned for the party to be 10th level by the current point in the campaign, and had put more than enough XP rewards to get there. The PCs just reach 8th level. Lower than my expectations, but still about where I want them.)

 

[airwalkrr]

In the current game I DM for I use the alternate Xp charts in Unearthed Arcana.

I do this as well in home campaigns although I award half XP and usually parcel down treasure a tad. I find them getting more treasure is not as big of a deal if I make sure a lot of it includes consummable items like potions, scrolls, wands, staves, and other items with charges.

 

[Grimstaff]

I experimented a bit with reducing the exp I gave out by half or so, but found it a little too arbritrary. My players are rules savvy enough to know roughly what to expect when they take down a CR6 or whatever creature, so a smaller reward seemed to lower their ambition for the next encounter a bit, wheras they had no complaints whatsoever about needing to reach a higher goal to level. Go figure...

 

[Blue]

I had halved combat XP, but that was okay because I give a lot of RP and story awards. However, I was running a lower wealth / lower magic game, and opponents started to have more risk for the CR at higher levels, so I reduced then removed that penalty.

The campaign reached a suitable climax, and we restated with new characters 80 years after. I intend to reduce combat XP again, but not until after the first few levels - low level characters are so fragile and don't have many options. Once they hit 3rd (which they just did) I will think about it. I want to get to interesting levels - where they can be heroes and a single lucky crit from an ogre won't kill them, but they still know they have room to grow.

So in the end, to steal and mangle a quote from JMS, my XP moves at the speed of plot - it's slower then the breakneck pace of standard, but gets us to the places we want to be.

Cheers,
=Blue

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I use the one from Unearthed Arcana. Easier and faster to hand out the carrots for all the sticks I hit the players with.

 

[Flynn]

Here's a suggested alternate XP progression table. It starts with the assumption that a character needs 13 encounters to advance from 1st to 2nd level, 14 encounters from 2nd to 3rd, and so on. The number of encounters required to advance to the next level is thus 12+Level. If you assume standard XP awards (so that you don't have to change XP calculators or the like), this rougly means each encounter is worth approximately current level * 75 XP each. Add up the XP for the number of encounters at each level, round the total off to the nearest value of 1000, and create a table by adding the XP totals up at each level. If you do this, you end up with the following table:

Lvl		New XP Table
1		0
2		1000
3		3000
4		6000
5		11000
6		17000
7		25000
8		35000
9		47000
10		61000
11		78000
12		97000
13		119000
14		143000
15		170000
16		200000
17		234000
18		271000
19		312000
20		356000
21		404000
22		456000
23		512000
24		572000
25		637000

Using the rule of one XP-worthy encounter per hour, and assuming a four-hour gaming session, you end up with Real Time values such as the following:

Lvl		#Enc		Sessions/Lvl	Total Sessions
1		13		4		4
2		14		4		7
3		15		4		11
4		16		4		15
5		17		5		19
6		18		5		24
7		19		5		28
8		20		5		33
9		21		6		39
10		22		6		44
11		23		6		50
12		24		6		56
13		25		7		62
14		26		7		69
15		27		7		75
16		28		7		82
17		29		8		90
18		30		8		97
19		31		8		105
20		32		8		113
21		33		9		121
22		34		9		130
23		35		9		138
24		36		9		147
25		37		10		157

Under the old method, a year of gaming (maybe 48 sessions, to take into account holidays and similar cancellations), meant 12th-13th level characters after a year, and 24th-25th level after two years.
Under this suggested XP progression, you'll see 10th level characters at the end of the first year, and 17th-18th level characters at the end of the second year. After three years of gaming, you'll finally see 23rd-24th level characters.

So, what do you think? Does it spread the advancement out a little bit better?

With Regards,
Flynn