D&D 5E EXP Complaint leads me to this idea.

[S'mon]

XP needed to level up at 20 medium encounters per level:

Level / XP to Level
1 +1000
2 +2000
3 +3000
4 +5000
5 +10000
6 +12000
7 +15000
8 +18000
9 +22000
10 +24000
11 +32000
12 +40000
13 +44000
14 +50000
15 +56000
16 +64000
17 +78000
18 +84000
19 +98000
20 N/A

This should give more of a Classic D&D type feel, with PCs levelling after 20 medium encounters, or about 20 hours of play if there's an encounter every hour.

 

[jasper]

Hmm OP has 3 good suggestions. 3xp per level chart. Reduce xp per x%. Or smons post which I will mod.\
Take one xp chart out of 1E. That is your home brew xp chart.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

GameOgre said his players like getting XP.

I have also used the no-XP levelling approach and I like it for various reasons. For example, XP tend to encourage the players to play less immersively, not acting like their characters would. That's because XP is an OOC reward essentially, unlike treasure. It's easy to imagine that some characters would risk their lives for treasure, but XP is quite different. I don't want to start a long debate here, however. The bottom line is that without XP, the players are more likely to choose a non-combat resolution, meaning more variety overall (because it's very unlikely anyway that the game will have too little combat). There is overall more attention on the narrative.

But I have to admit that XP have their own merit, because they give this constant feeling of advancement into the game. They add more reasons to keep playing, when you can get the feeling of how close you are to completing your current level and seeing the next one.

It's complicated and sometimes reminds me of the colored belts in martial arts. On one hand, a martial artist should only care about her learning and improvement, which is what really matters, not the color of her belt. But the belt system helps the martial artist have a plan, and kind of sets a visible next target, so overall it probably acts to add motivation for hard training. Maybe it's not a good motivation, but it works.

I only reward XP for combat and equivalent challenges where they are solved by class-based abilities (other than just skill usage). If you want to get better in your class, you have to use it. Social encounters and general tasks never grant XP by themselves. Modest quest XP is only granted as a way to account for all the little things you did with your class features (spells, exploration events enhanced by rogue expertise or champion athletics, etc) that I'm not bothering to hand out individual XP for.

I haven't found my players at all driven towards combat by the fact that that's where almost all of the XP comes from. They go entire sessions with no combat and no XP, just investigating things and talking with people.

I understand this might be atypical, and probably won't work with every group. But I explained to my players that I use a "you get what you pay for" approach to character rewards rather than just handing out XP for everything that shouldn't really make you any better at your class abilities.

If you expect to award 4 medium encounters worth of XP per session (4 hour session, 1 encounter per hour) and want a 1e/Classic type progression rate, it should take 20 medium encounters' worth of XP to level up. That compares to 3e's expectation of 13.3 encounters/level, 4e's expectation of 10 encounters/level.

In 5e you'd almost certainly want to use Hard rather than Medium encounters for comparison, as they are about equivalent to prior edition mediums (or maybe even weaker).

 

[Blue]

My players think 5E's exp advancement is way too fast.

They don't want to have a stable of characters or create a new character with every adventure path( or even do adventure paths for that matter). They want to play their characters for years and years through many story arcs and adventure lines.

I have experimented with exp advancement in our games(mostly be milestones and just having them leveling slower without tracking the exp) but it's hard because they really feel that the exp portion of the game is fun and like the constant accumulation of exp's.

Just a question - what levels have you played where you are getting this feel?

Because it seems that there's been a re-calibration in 5e that level 3 is a bit like level 1 back in AD&D and 3.x days where you get the main powers of your class, and level 5 is sort of coming into your own as a hero, so about level 1 in 4e.

The trip from levels 1 to 5 is pretty quick, and it looks like it's planned that way. But the same amount of XP that took you from starting to fifth again still won't get you to sixth. Things slow down.

Now, I played years-and-years campaigns, where it was a year to go from 10 to 11. But that was back in the AD&D (2ed) days, and not since TSR has owned D&D have we had the punishing high end curve.

Now, ignore everything I said and continue on your path to find what's right for your table. But if you experience was with the first tier, know that it seems engineered to go fast to get you from fragile neophyte without your real class abilities to someone who should actually be adventuring and is on the path to be a hero.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Now, ignore everything I said and continue on your path to find what's right for your table. But if you experience was with the first tier, know that it seems engineered to go fast to get you from fragile neophyte without your real class abilities to someone who should actually be adventuring and is on the path to be a hero.

My problem with the fast-forwarding to level 3 and beyond approach is that so many of what I consider fairly standard D&D challenges become obsolete once you hit 3rd or 4th level. You really need plenty of time at 1st and 2nd level if you want to actually be challenged by stuff.

Take an ogre. Fighting a single ogre ought to be a cool dangerous option early in your career. Or a single werewolf, or a single...you get the idea. In 5e, this is only true at 1st level. If you are at 3rd or above you have to give that ogre a buddy, or a handful of orc allies; you have to give that werewolf a pack of wolves; etc.

I like playing D&D at all levels, and that includes levels where what makes your characters special is that they actually are brave (and capable) enough to go face that single ogre (a 1st level fighter is slightly superior to a typical guard or soldier), not that they can chew through 4 of them without breaking a sweat.

 

[S'mon]

In 5e you'd almost certainly want to use Hard rather than Medium encounters for comparison, as they are about equivalent to prior edition mediums (or maybe even weaker).

If you take it that the typical encounter is with multiple opponents it should all work out.

 

[Lanefan]

I only reward XP for combat and equivalent challenges where they are solved by class-based abilities (other than just skill usage). If you want to get better in your class, you have to use it. Social encounters and general tasks never grant XP by themselves. Modest quest XP is only granted as a way to account for all the little things you did with your class features (spells, exploration events enhanced by rogue expertise or champion athletics, etc) that I'm not bothering to hand out individual XP for.

Other than I do give out xp for important social encounters and "first time doing something" this is close to what I do; though if an encounter is defeated without combat (e.g. stealthed past or talked past) that earns xp too.

I haven't found my players at all driven towards combat by the fact that that's where almost all of the XP comes from.

Where mine are; and I am as a player, perhaps because beating something up is usually the least-thought-involved way of dealing with it so let's just throw down and have done with it.

They go entire sessions with no combat and no XP, just investigating things and talking with people.

This happens on occasion too, though it harshly strains the boredom thresholds of some us.

I understand this might be atypical, and probably won't work with every group. But I explained to my players that I use a "you get what you pay for" approach to character rewards rather than just handing out XP for everything that shouldn't really make you any better at your class abilities.

I see xp as reflecting the character learning things as it goes, not all of which will necessarily be directly related to (or directly learned through use of) class abilities; but I can live with the disconnect between this and the mechanical reality of xp going only toward improving your class.

Lanefan

 

[GMMichael]

Now, ignore everything I said and continue on your path to find what's right for your table. But if you experience was with the first tier, know that it seems engineered to go fast to get you from fragile neophyte without your real class abilities to someone who should actually be adventuring and is on the path to be a hero.

Humble AND meta? Well said!

I get that the OP's players like tracking XP. But that's just because they're fiending for a fix. Throw XPs out, and toss them a little bone after each session: next session, you get 1 more HP. Or next session, your proficiency bonus goes up by 1. Maybe you can slowly add up the pieces they need for the subsequent level.

 

[Blue]

My problem with the fast-forwarding to level 3 and beyond approach is that so many of what I consider fairly standard D&D challenges become obsolete once you hit 3rd or 4th level. You really need plenty of time at 1st and 2nd level if you want to actually be challenged by stuff.

Bounded accuracy has kept foes relevant a lot longer then they did in earlier editions. You may need to use more of them, but they are still a credible menace.

I understand that you want "single, low CR foe" - yes, that has a limited window.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Bounded accuracy has kept foes relevant a lot longer then they did in earlier editions. You may need to use more of them, but they are still a credible menace.

Yep, I love that they've done that.

I understand that you want "single, low CR foe" - yes, that has a limited window.

Yep, it's kind of a drag.