D&D 5E Does progression rate slow down?

[FormerlyHemlock]

XP is more compatible with heterogenous party levels than fiat leveling is.

 

[the Jester]

I think one thing that will make a significant difference in leveling speed is how many encounters are with 'at level' monsters vs. groups of lower level monsters. My game features tons of the classic humanoids (goblins, orcs, etc), so I suspect leveling will be slower than 'expected', based on my experience so far (but our highest level pcs are only now level 6, so who knows? Maybe the number of inferior foes will make up for the higher xp value of tougher monsters.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think one thing that will make a significant difference in leveling speed is how many encounters are with 'at level' monsters vs. groups of lower level monsters. My game features tons of the classic humanoids (goblins, orcs, etc), so I suspect leveling will be slower than 'expected', based on my experience so far (but our highest level pcs are only now level 6, so who knows? Maybe the number of inferior foes will make up for the higher xp value of tougher monsters.)

It's essentially impossible to make up the XP with inferior foes. 10,000 XP worth of vampires is 140ish HP. 10,000 XP worth of elementals is 500 HP. And 10,000 XP worth of drow is 2600 HP. Even if you fought them one at a time it would still take ages to kill them all.

For fast advancement you definitely want to pursue high-CR foes. Bring on the iron golems and fire giants for first-level characters!

 

[halfling rogue]

I understand this system but absolutely detest it.

It's not about getting a ton of XP for saving the princess, it's more about player freedom and not being subject to the DMs rails.

Maybe you don't want to save the princess and do something unexpected like kill the Dragon. "Sorry guys no level up for you, I haven't planned for that and don't feel like thinking about maths".

Like I said, everyone approaches it differently. And I think it really depends on who is playing.

I don't know how you think it gets in the way of player freedom though. Players can do whatever they want. If by freedom you mean players cannot take side quests to beef their stats, then I'd ask you if that's really player freedom? Wouldn't they just be subject to the XP rails? Or are you more thinking of individual freedom between players, as in Player 1 has the 'freedom' to level faster than Player 2?

I think your concern boils down to more of a playstyle issue, and whether or not you have a healthy DM and group. Any system can be abused. DM's can abuse the XP system just as they could abuse a Level-Up system. What you described is the abuse of the system. We use this system because it works to our advantage. It makes the game more fun. I don't use it as a weapon to beat down their fun. The exact opposite is the case. Which is the very reason we do it this way.

 

[Grainger]

In terms of campaign and world-building, getting to 20th level in two years just seems daft to me. First of all, you've nowhere to go (you can keep playing, but you no longer get to level). In terms of the world it's crazy - 20th-level people would be everywhere if it was that easy... where were they when the PCs were lower levels?

Personally, I don't give out XP for killing foes... never have done. For one thing, I don't usually have many fights in my game, and I'm also very happy for my players to avoid fights where they can - I won't penalize them for that. I just give out arbitrary amounts of XP so that there's a slow progression over time. Even then, I've found the first few levels flew by in 5e (the required XP amounts are so small)... so I'm going to slow it down dramatically from now on.

Finally, from a tactical standpoint, it makes sense to slow it down, too, IMO. The players are just getting used to their current set of spells and abilities, and haven't had a chance to really use them in various situations, before their characters all change again, and more is dumped on them. This is more marked than in older editions (pre 3rd), where you didn't have that many powers anyway, and didn't change that much from level to level; now, you get cool powers all the time, which is a good thing, but I think it's better that the players get to play with it before the tactical situation changes yet again.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In terms of campaign and world-building, getting to 20th level in two years just seems daft to me. First of all, you've nowhere to go (you can keep playing, but you no longer get to level). In terms of the world it's crazy - 20th-level people would be everywhere if it was that easy... where were they when the PCs were lower levels?

It's two years of real time. In-game, the whole thing could take place over a month or two. That's something I came to realize while playing in Pathfinder, with their official Adventure Paths.

If that sort of thing seems off to you, then I highly recommend that you require training time of at least a week between levels. It's not the sort of thing that would work in a fast-paced adventure arc, but it should help solve the problem of why the world isn't flooded with high-level characters.

 

[S'mon]

In terms of the world it's crazy - 20th-level people would be everywhere if it was that easy...

Well there are usually only 5-6 player characters in my world at any one time.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's two years of real time. In-game, the whole thing could take place over a month or two. That's something I came to realize while playing in Pathfinder, with their official Adventure Paths.

If that sort of thing seems off to you, then I highly recommend that you require training time of at least a week between levels. It's not the sort of thing that would work in a fast-paced adventure arc, but it should help solve the problem of why the world isn't flooded with high-level characters.

Alternately, run a game that's deadly enough that retiring at level 10 with a pile of gold is a safe and attractive option for anyone who isn't an adrenaline junkie.

I basically agree with Grainger though: 5E advancement is extremely generous, and explaining why the PCs are significant to the gameworld takes some setup given the intrinsic positive feedbacks built into the XP system and the shape of the XP table.

 

[Greg K]

That puts a different complexion on it because a year to reach
10th level is pretty much the AD&D planned rate per Gygax, so 5e might really be the same, just with 2 5e levels = one 1e level...

Well, that works to a point, but after 10th level, Gary thought each level should take much longer like 1 or 2 levels per year, if I recall correctly.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, that works to a point, but after 10th level, Gary thought each level should take much longer like 1 or 2 levels per year, if I recall correctly.

New XP table:

Level 20: 355,000 XP Prof +6
Level 21: 710,000 XP Prof +7
Level 22: 1,065,000 XP Prof +7
Level 23: 1,420,000 XP Prof +7
Level 24: 1,775,000 XP Prof +7
Level 25: 2,130,000 XP Prof +8
Level 26: 2,485,000 XP Prof +8
Level 27: 2,840,000 XP Prof +8
Level 28: 3,195,000 XP Prof +9
Level 29: 3,500,000 XP Prof +9
Level 30: 3,855,000 XP Prof +10

Fighters gain 3 HP per level past level 20; Barbarians gain 4 HP per level; wizards and sorcerers gain 1 HP per level; everyone else gains 2 HP per level.

Spell progression (full casters) starting at level 20 for reference:

Level 20: 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
Level 21: 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1
Level 22: 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2
Level 23: 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2
Level 24: 6 6 5 5 3 3 3 3 2
Level 25: 7 7 5 5 4 4 3 3 3
Level 26: 7 7 6 6 5 5 3 3 3
Level 27: 7 7 6 6 6 5 4 4 3
Level 28: 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 4
Level 29: 9 9 8 8 7 7 7 6 4
Level 30: 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 7 5

Select one epic boon at level 25 and another at level 30.