D&D 5E Does progression rate slow down?

[Grainger]

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.

Thanks for the tip - I forgot that game time can go even more quickly when I wrote my post! I've actually implemented the Slow Healing official variant rule for a couple of reasons, but one of them is to slow the campaign down. I don't like the idea of training between levels, really (it's just more admin, and I also like the idea of characters sometimes levelling up when far from civilisation)... I'll just give out XP more slowly, and see how that goes. I might go down the training route if it still seems too fast.

 

[Grainger]

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

I think you were joking, but in case you missed my point... if we apply the same logic to PCs and NPCs, then there should be hundreds (or thousands) of 20th level NPCs in the world. I know we can say that the PCs are exceptional, but I do like the idea of NPCs (who go adventuring) being able to level up too, just as PCs do. And if it's that's quick, then that equates to vast numbers (by old edition standards) of high-level NPCs. That has all sorts of ramifications if you're running a relatively low-magic and low-wealth world (like I do).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Thanks for the tip - I forgot that game time can go even more quickly when I wrote my post! I've actually implemented the Slow Healing official variant rule for a couple of reasons, but one of them is to slow the campaign down.

Remember that having a cleric in the party means you can get anyone up to full in no more than two days, unless you've slowed down magical healing as well.

Again going back to Pathfinder, the longest downtime we've had was an entire week spent waiting for the magic item delivery service to show up with the scroll of Stone to Flesh. (And yes, this was an official Adventure Path - this is how they want you to play.)

 

[DaveDash]

My group went from level 11 to 16 in 15 days of adventure. In fact it takes about 32 days of adventure to go from level 1-20. Constant combat with no downtime means you do level up pretty quick, the game assumes lots of downtime.

As for why there are not worlds filled with high level adventurers? Well, adventuring is dangerous. We just assume that most adventurers don't make it.

 

[werecorpse]

Rough calculations suggest you need to resolve about 6-8 medium encounters per level until 5th, then 13-14 per level until 11th, 8 to 12th , then 9-10 per level until 20th. This ignores bonus experience for storyline stuff.

A total of about 190 medium encounters ( which are not very dangerous )to get to 20th level. So, to play it safe, maybe 40 adventuring days scattered over a couple of months of game time and your done.

It seems skewed towards the adventure path style gaming where you roll through bigger and bigger threats getting rapidly tougher and tougher until you meet the big bad. I am planning a more sandbox 1e style slower progression game so I am having to think about this more. I was thinking of simply dividing exp by 5 but that may be too little.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A total of about 190 medium encounters ( which are not very dangerous )to get to 20th level. So, to play it safe, maybe 40 adventuring days scattered over a couple of months of game time and your done.

If you use the option where a long rest is once per week, and overnight is just a short rest, then this gets much closer to a year of in-game time.

Still, though, the wizard goes from Magic Missile to Wish in under a year. That just doesn't seem right.

 

[werecorpse]

If you use the option where a long rest is once per week, and overnight is just a short rest, then this gets much closer to a year of in-game time.

Still, though, the wizard goes from Magic Missile to Wish in under a year. That just doesn't seem right.

I'm not a fan of that method of extending the time taken to adventure, it seems to unduly punish spellcasters. I am currently intending on using a multi pronged approach

1. Not recover hp ( only hit dice) with a long rest
2. A version of lingering injuries
3. A reward system for being at peak condition ( requiring R&R - and maybe training)
4. More tangible benefits for training
5. Reduced experience

Of course this is on top of encouraging non game mechanic type rewards for downtime ( reputation points, downtime benefits etc)

The one I am trying to figure out now is getting the exp rewards right.

My background is that I have run two 15 year long 1e campaign ( one converted to 3e for the last 4 years) a 6 year 3e and most recently a few campaigns lasting 5-6 gaming weekends spread out over a couple of years. The levelling up has got faster and faster and I am looking for a bit of a return to the old days ( not 15 years but not going up 3 levels in a weekend).

I think I will err on the side of lower exp for monsters ( ie divide it by 5 - so goblin worth 10, Orc 20 ( about the same as 1e but you need much much less to level up)) which leaves me plenty of room to give out exp for resolving non combat issues (finding significant treasure, ending threat, solving mystery).

 

[Grainger]

My group went from level 11 to 16 in 15 days of adventure. In fact it takes about 32 days of adventure to go from level 1-20. Constant combat with no downtime means you do level up pretty quick, the game assumes lots of downtime.

As for why there are not worlds filled with high level adventurers? Well, adventuring is dangerous. We just assume that most adventurers don't make it.

Sure, adventuring is dangerous, but if you could go from zero to almost godlike hero in 32 days, then I think more people would do it. Think how many people take up risky careers anyway (for far longer than a few weeks) without this promise at the end ("Shall I join the army? On the one hand, I'll be put in a dangerous posting, far from home. On the other hand, it's only for a handful of weeks, then I'll get to retire if I want, and be able to cast Wish spells. I'll have so much power I'll be as close to immortal as anyone can get, and I'll easily be able to influence world events. Hmmm, I wonder if I should do it."). I think you'd get more than a few takers.

Combine this with a medieval world where life is a lot tougher than the modern western one (for the vast majority of people) and where life expectancy is a lot shorter... why wouldn't people try it? Anyone who could afford to pick up a sword would probably give it a shot. Sure, most of them might die, but you'd have a fair proportion making it through; I mean, compared to editions past, getting to a high level is a cakewalk in 5e.

I suppose under the feudal system tenant farmers wouldn't be allowed to go and be adventurers, but very few campaign worlds use this restriction... maybe they should! The barons might find it hard to hire men-at-arms, though, as most of them might be off dungeon delving.

My solution is to award level-ups periodically. It avoids the "reward for kills" aspect of the game, and guarantees I have control over the pacing.

 

[S'mon]

Thanks for the tip - I forgot that game time can go even more quickly when I wrote my post! I've actually implemented the Slow Healing official variant rule for a couple of reasons, but one of them is to slow the campaign down. I don't like the idea of training between levels, really (it's just more admin, and I also like the idea of characters sometimes levelling up when far from civilisation)... I'll just give out XP more slowly, and see how that goes. I might go down the training route if it still seems too fast.

I've been giving XP for carousing, but it takes time, at least a week. You could give XP for training, for
wizard research, for prayer & good works - anything that sucks up a lot of both time & money is good. This really works well to stretch time out without player resentment.

 

[S'mon]

I think you were joking, but in case you missed my point... if we apply the same logic to PCs and NPCs, then there should be hundreds (or thousands) of 20th level NPCs in the world. I know we can say that the PCs are exceptional, but I do like the idea of NPCs (who go adventuring) being able to level up too, just as PCs do. And if it's that's quick, then that equates to vast numbers (by old edition standards) of high-level NPCs. That has all sorts of ramifications if you're running a relatively low-magic and low-wealth world (like I do).

They can level up too, but it would be crazy to apply the 5e XP table to all NPCs. Look at the 5e Monster Manual - NPCs have hit dice, not levels. They may level up through life experience if desired, but there is no indication this resembles the XP table in the PHB.

I progress the NPCs who adventure alongside my PCs, but it's much more incremental and less
dramatic than what the PCs get. And even the highest hit dice NPCs in the MM are much more limited
than PCs. 5e is not a return to 1e-3e "PC=NPC"; NPCs are a bit more PC-like than in 4e but any NPCs created and run exactly like a PC need to be rare & exceptional for the game to work. A 1st level PC is more
like a 3 hd warrior NPC or 2 hd caster NPC, and the disparity only increases. We just had a duel IMC where a 5th level Barbarian PC duelled a 15 hit dice CR 5 NPC pirate queen with numbers based off the Gladiator stats in the MM - basically to a draw, the pirate queen yielded when it looked like she might die.