D&D 5E IMHO level progression is too fast

[Nebulous]

Yup, me too. However, in a system like the older (A)D&D games with different progression tables, like my recent ACKS game, I do track XP.

Same here. All the experience point charts and XP for monsters and the calculations rules....i use none of that. Honestly, it seems like a system far better suited for a computer game. BUT...some people love doing the math, so i guess it doesn't hurt anything.

 

[Storminator]

I stopped tracking experience a long time ago. Characters just level up when I want them to.

I also stopped tracking XP. The characters level up when THEY want to. ;D

PS

 

[Charles Wright]

So you must be in need of some high-level challenging adventures, then!

Might I suggest Rappan Athuk or The Slumbering Tsar Saga from Frog God Games?

www.froggodgames.com

 

[Tony Vargas]

And has been too fast the last couple of editions.

One of the perennial issues seems to have been that campaigns rarely make it to higher level. Perhaps the idea was to make those levels more accessible?

I also miss when classes progressed at different paces as well.

It could be seen as an extra layer of balancing through imbalances. Not sure it ever worked /that/ well. But, it would be interesting to see later organized play or convention games or published adventures that say they're for "Fighters level 4-6, Rogues level 8-12, or Wizards level 3-5, or submit your multiclass character to the DM for analysis..."

I wonder if alternate progression tables might be a part of the Dungeon Masters Guides alternate rules?????

If the theory is that the classes are balanced by the existing distribution of imbalances, at the current rate of progression, for "days" of the prescribed 'length,' then it seems unlikely they'll be different for each class, as it would presumably also require changing encounter guidelines, at the very least.

But, alternate progression tables designed to linger in one tier or another might very well be presented, or at least the DM given some guidance on creating them. As it stand, IIRC, progression is designed to be very fast through the first level or two, and slow down in the second tier, only to speed up again in the fourth? (Oh, and it seems the tiers have lost their colorful 'Apprentice'/'Heroic'/'Legacy' labels in Basic.)

 

[Paraxis]

IMHO the rate of advancement mentioned in the organized play article of about 1 level every 2 game sessions is just right.

I don't track XP and just tell my players when to level but it is on average every other game session sometimes every 3rd, except for 1st level which is almost always just one session.

I don't do different XP for different characters, and if you need to bring in a new character for any reason it comes in as the same level as everyone else.

As to the point of different XP for different classes, that is how they tried to achieve class balance back in the day with the classes being balanced around being equal progression now it would throw everything off.

 

[Grazzt]

We used to double xp needed in 3e to enjoy the "sweet spot" levels longer, not hard to hr this.

Probably the route we go if we move the "official" campaign to 5e. Double,triple, quadruple, or more the XP needed to level. Just need to find the correct (for us) pace (because default, for us, is way too fast).

 

[rastus_burne]

Changing XP rates has got to be one of the simplest modifications you can make. Double it, triple it, remove it entirely, award a new level every x sessions, or make up your own rate.

 

[Lanefan]

But changing the xp charts so they are different for different classes is a terrible idea, IMHO. In the old days, a 7th level rogue was weaker than a 7th level magic-user or fighter; that's no longer true. In addition, it would absolutely complicate multiclassing.

It only messes up milti-classing if you're using additive levels (as in 3e) as opposed to side-by-side levels like a RAW Elf F-MU could do in 1e. I don't even want to think what happens if someone tries a 4-class or 5-class wonder like some 3e builds; fortunately I don't have to worry about this as I just ban having any more than 2 classes in a character.

If you're using side-by-side levels it's easy in fact to let your players assign what % of their earned XP goes to each class; and each class bumps whenever it bumps. Another way to do it that simplifies the math is to add together the bump points and just put all the earned xp in one bucket, and the classes both bump at the same time. Example: a starting Thief-MU where Thief needs 1250 to bump and MU needs 2200; adding those gives 3450 thus when you've got 3450 xp you bump on both sides (so now 2-2; and need to train both sides, expensive!)

But yes, this doesn't work at all in a 3e-like system where thigns like BAB, saves, etc. all stack rather than just take the best.

As for slowing down advancement, I'm all for it; but watch out if the game system assumes any sort of wealth-by-level as part of its underlying math - if you slow down advanacement but want to stay true to WBL your players aren't going to find very much treasure; and that's no fun at all!

Lanefan

 

[rastus_burne]

It only messes up milti-classing if you're using additive levels (as in 3e) as opposed to side-by-side levels like a RAW Elf F-MU could do in 1e. I don't even want to think what happens if someone tries a 4-class or 5-class wonder like some 3e builds; fortunately I don't have to worry about this as I just ban having any more than 2 classes in a character.

Agreed. A 7th level thief and 7th level MU were not equal in AD&D because they needed different amounts of xp for each level. If you were starting a party on say a 4th level module, you're better off allocating a set amount of xp rather than a specific level.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And has been too fast the last couple of editions.

This seems like a hard argument to justify, given level progression is pretty much entirely in the hands of the DM, and two groups, playing the same edition, are likely to progress at drastically different rates.

I mean, I saw 1E games where people leveled every session (thanks, gold = XP!), and I've seen 3E games where people went half-dozen sessions without leveling. The main differences were how the DM handed out XP, and how long the sessions were. Not everyone, is able to play a 4 hour+ session every week, for example.

Even looking at default rules, it's hard to see how 3E (for example) could be really seen as being "too fast", unless purely at 10+ levels, given it had a 13.3 encounters of equal CR expected per level, which is more "fairly easy/doable" encounters than it typically took to level in 2E, in my experience (until 10+).

As others have noted, it's probably the easiest thing to control, too - just give out more or less XP - you can simply multiply the XP you give out by a percentage to reduce it - i.e. half speed = just multiply all rewards by 0.5. Hardly need a rule for that, do you? But as Mistwell has noted, they are apparently going to discuss it.