D&D 5E IMHO level progression is too fast

[Jack Daniel]

Well, for comparison, here's the paladin/ranger XP table from 2nd edition, which is the overall slowest advancement table in that game (the mage table is slower in places, but the paladin table really crawls for most of the middle levels by comparison). Since all 5th edition classes have some pretty nifty abilities, the paladin table is a good benchmark to measure by:

Lv1 ... 0
Lv2 ... 2,250
Lv3 ... 4,500
Lv4 ... 9,000
Lv5 ... 18,000
Lv6 ... 36,000
Lv7 ... 75,000
Lv8 ... 150,000
Lv9 ... 300,000
Lv10 ... 600,000
Lv11 ... 900,000
Lv12 ... 1.2mil
Lv13 ... 1.5mil
Lv14 ... 1.8mil
Lv15 ... 2.1mil
Lv16 ... 2.4mil
Lv17 ... 2.7mil
Lv18 ... 3mil
Lv19 ... 3.3mil
Lv20 ... 3.6mil

Now look what happens when we multiply the 5th edition table tenfold:

Lv1 ... 0
Lv2 ... 3,000
Lv3 ... 9,000
Lv4 ... 27,000
Lv5 ... 65,000
Lv6 ... 140,000
Lv7 ... 230,000
Lv8 ... 340,000
Lv9 ... 480,000
Lv10 ... 640,000
Lv11 ... 850,000
Lv12 ... 1mil
Lv13 ... 1.2mil
Lv14 ... 1.4mil
Lv15 ... 1.65mil
Lv16 ... 1.95mil
Lv17 ... 2.25mil
Lv18 ... 2.65mil
Lv19 ... 3.05mil
Lv20 ... 3.55mil

This modified 5th edition table is noticeably slower at low levels, but about the same at high-levels... and when you consider that monsters in 5th edition are worth so much more XP than they are in 2nd edition (a 2e orc is worth, what 7 XP? a 5th edition orc, 100 XP), the difference should dissipate pretty quickly. At any rate, most of the XP in 2nd edition was supposed to come not from monsters, but from story awards ad-hoc'd by the DM; or, optionally, from the old 1st edition "1 XP awarded per 1 GP of treasure found" (which the 2nd edition DMG only mentioned in passing, and strongly discouraged because it might make the DM "tend to give out too much treasure", but of course everyone knew that grognards from the 1e/basic days would keep on using that rule anyway because it's damned good game-design).

So here's what I'm probably going to do: I'm going to use this x10 XP table here, awarding the full amount given in 5th edition for monsters slain, and also 1 XP for every 1 SP (since my games use a silver standard, not a gold standard) of treasure that they recover from the dungeon. That should pace the game just about perfectly for my tastes. Will 3rd level drag for a bit? Yeah, probably, but that's just when the player characters are supposed to be coming into their own as Big Damn Heroes, with their newly chosen sub-class and what-not, so that doesn't bother me at all.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, for comparison, here's the paladin/ranger XP table from 2nd edition ...

This modified 5th edition table is noticeably slower at low levels, but about the same at high-levels... and when you consider that monsters in 5th edition are worth so much more XP than they are in 2nd edition (a 2e orc is worth, what 7 XP? a 5th edition orc, 100 XP), the difference should dissipate pretty quickly.

Interesting. Easy to tweak once you've seen how it plays, if specific levels tend to drag on or go by too fast.

At any rate, most of the XP in 2nd edition was supposed to come not from monsters, but from story awards ad-hoc'd by the DM; or, optionally, from the old 1st edition "1 XP awarded per 1 GP of treasure found" (which the 2nd edition DMG only mentioned in passing, and strongly discouraged because it might make the DM "tend to give out too much treasure", but of course everyone knew that grognards from the 1e/basic days would keep on using that rule anyway because it's damned good game-design).

Not everyone; we dropped the xp-for-gp rule very early on (1981?) and 33 years later it's still dropped.

Lan-"but we do use a 'dungeon bonus' story reward system to make up a bit of it"-efan

 

[Mercule]

Interesting. Easy to tweak once you've seen how it plays, if specific levels tend to drag on or go by too fast.
Not everyone; we dropped the xp-for-gp rule very early on (1981?) and 33 years later it's still dropped.

We didn't even notice it until 2E came out. But we ignored a number of other rules, too, like weapon v. AC.

After becoming disenchanted w/ high-level 3E and the group voting down 4E, I really wanted to go back to 1E and play 100% by the rules to see how different it actually played. Between the negative experience (my group had, YMMV) with 4E and time demands, it never really materialized, though.

 

[Keldryn]

And has been too fast the last couple of editions.

I don't think that the rates of advancement across all editions are actually comparable, as they reflect very different assumptions about how the game is played.

How do we measure whether advancement is too fast, too slow, or just right? Is it the number of game sessions played? The number of adventures completed? The number of hours spent gaming? The amount of real-world time that passes between each level advancement? The amount of game-world time that passes between each level advancement? The number of combat encounters in which the party has engaged in?

Using the number of sessions played as a measurement is problematic. For argument's sake, let's assume that one session is 4 hours of gaming time. A 4-hour session of 4e or mid-to-high-level 3e can easily mean 2 or 3 combats with about an hour left for exploration and role-playing. A 4-hour session of AD&D can often include 8 or more battles with still half the session left for exploration and role-playing. In all likelihood, at the end of those four hours, the AD&D PCs will have killed more monsters and acquired more treasure than the PCs in the 3e or 4e game.

Thus, the number of hours spent gaming isn't a very good measure, either. A 3e or 4e game might need 8-10 hours for the characters to accomplish the same amount in-world as the AD&D characters.

Either one is problematic when you consider gaming groups that play on a very regular schedule versus those that play much less frequently. The group that plays for 6 hours every week will naturally progress more quickly than the group that plays for 4 hours every third week. However, it will take the second group two months (3 sessions) to match what the first group can accomplish in two weeks (2 sessions). Despite the fact that both groups spent the exact same amount of time playing the game (12 hours) over a similar number of sessions (2 vs 3), the first group might feel like the rate of advancement is way too fast, while the second group might feel that it is way too slow.

I would argue that the rate of advancement should to be tailored to how frequently the group plays. It's easy to say that it should take at least 4 sessions of play to gain a level, but when you're in that second group and you're just reaching 4th level at the end of the first year of gaming, you might feel differently.

The rules of TSR-era D&D, as well as the accounts of how Gary ran his early D&D games, suggest that frequent play was assumed. Frequent play starts to balance out a lot of the randomness inherent in character creation and "I failed my save" deaths. The structure of the campaign -- indeed the very nature of a campaign -- was quite different from how we tend to think of a campaign today.

 

[rastus_burne]

Well, for comparison, here's the paladin/ranger XP table from 2nd edition, which is the overall slowest advancement table in that game (the mage table is slower in places, but the paladin table really crawls for most of the middle levels by comparison). Since all 5th edition classes have some pretty nifty abilities, the paladin table is a good benchmark to measure by:

Nice idea!

I think a lot boils down to what each game decides a level is 'worth'. Is it worth 4 sessions, 10 sessions, 20 sessions, 1 session? Does it represent something about the character's ability or skill? Maybe it's representative of a particularly milestone or accomplishment. If you have a clear idea of that then determining how levels are awarded likewise becomes clear.

I never really tinker with XP. For me each game is representative of different ideals and flavours. But it is so simple if that is your inclination.

 

[the Jester]

Not everyone; we dropped the xp-for-gp rule very early on (1981?) and 33 years later it's still dropped.

I never used it back in the day, but I recently started a 1e game in which I am, for the first time, trying to really use both xp for gp and henchmen.

 

[Zardnaar]

I never used it back in the day, but I recently started a 1e game in which I am, for the first time, trying to really use both xp for gp and henchmen.

You actually level up quite fast playing BECMI/1st ed with the gold for xp rule. My 1st DM did not use it and I cut my teeth on 2nd ed for AD&D as a DM so it took a while for the PCs to level up.

I find it easier to reduce xp handed out if you want slower progression. Divide xp by 2,3,4, or 5 if you think going up a level is to fast.

 

[the Jester]

You actually level up quite fast playing BECMI/1st ed with the gold for xp rule. My 1st DM did not use it and I cut my teeth on 2nd ed for AD&D as a DM so it took a while for the PCs to level up.

That's what I've found so far. Interestingly, uneven treasure distribution (because some pcs take a share in the form of art objects and the like, while others take an unidentified magic item) has already created interesting xp differences.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's what I've found so far. Interestingly, uneven treasure distribution (because some pcs take a share in the form of art objects and the like, while others take an unidentified magic item) has already created interesting xp differences.

Try using the 2nd ed class xp bonuses. Thieves get 200xp per successful skill use and priests can get it by casting spells of their mythos so a Cleric of a healing god gets bonus exp per healing spell cast. In 2012 I started playing TSR era D&D again and went to clones and the xp for gold rule in BECMI/ACKs/Castles and Crusades has been popular.

 

[Lanefan]

That's what I've found so far. Interestingly, uneven treasure distribution (because some pcs take a share in the form of art objects and the like, while others take an unidentified magic item) has already created interesting xp differences.

And that, of course, comes down to how your party divides its treasure.

Also, it depends on when you-as-DM assign the treasure-based xp - when they find it? When they get it back to town and can identify and-or value it? When they divide it? Some other time?

Lanefan