My latest 5e campaign (set in Damara/Blodstone Lands, 1359 DR) is a multi-group sandbox game which started in August 2020. I use standard 5e XP with a lot of lower CR monsters, which gives a rather sedate advancement rate. Currently PCs are in the 3rd-6th range (I currently start new PCs at 3rd). In order to keep the progression rate about the same and allow for long term play, I'm planning to halve XP awards for PCs at 11th+ level. I was wondering if anyone else has done this and how did it work out?
D&D 5E Reducing 5e XP after 10th level
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
I would put it on the back burner as a possibility for later, if a problem arises. As it is, it looks like you're trying to solve a problem that hasn't happened yet. While it is true that the XP needed to advance per level, as a function of level, shrinks after 10th, you're already using a primary means of slowing progression -- building encounters of low XP creatures and using numbers to make up the challenge. Given the structure of your campaign, if this continues, it should be fine and perhaps even get stronger. If you get there, in 5 more levels, and find you need more, then you can stretch xp totals. I, again, wouldn't worry about it now.
Well one issue is that some PCs will hit 11th while others are say 8th or 9th level; faster progression at 11th will increase the level disparity, whereas I'd prefer to see it shrink naturally.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Not if they're earning the same XP from the same encounters. The only weird place on the XP chart is 10-11-12. And this is because of 11th level xp. The jump from 10th to 11th is from 64k to 85k or 21k xp. Then for 12th you need only 100k, meaning another 15k more. This is weird, and causes a real slowdown at 10th to 11th, but a quick jump from 11th to 12th. After that, it settles back out into steadily increasing chunks. If this is an issue, it's a simple fix -- change 11th level XP to 80k. That makes the jump from 10th to 11th the same as for 9th to 10th at 16k, and make the jump from 11th to 12th 20k, same as for 12th to 13th. This makes every level need either the same or more XP as the previous level to advance. Much simpler fix than doubling XP gain needed after 10th, which still means 11th to 12th isn't that bad but everything else afterwards is a huge slope. And, given your propensity to use lower XP creatures in numbers, this is already slowing progression time nicely.
Having both run and played in Tier 3, I highly recommend this. It was fairly common for characters to level after only 1-2 sessions. Even if you're using more lower CR creatures for overall lower xp, this is still going to be somewhat of an issue. Since you have a disparity, you should talk to the players about it before they get near level 10, since surprising them with it might feel unfair to those ahead of the curve.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Weird, that wasn't my experience with T3. It seemed it took about the same as prior levels, but then I also had encounters that were appropriate and stressed the daily XP expectations in play. The only weird part was the 10-11-12, where 11th took quite awhile and 12th was pretty quick. I've also had experience using lots of lower CR creatures as the mainstay of encounters (I tend to like larger encounters of individually lower threats rather than small encounters with higher threat creatures -- I find the former is more of a challenge to PCs), and these do act very much to slow XP progression. If you have a level disparity, it does so even more.
jgsugden
Legend
#1: You're better off using Milestone advancement. If you don't like the rate of advancement created by using the RAW core system, you're wanting a change, and that change is motivated by a sense of where you want to go. Milestone advancement skips straight to that goal without unnecessary math.
You don't need to tell the PCs you are using it, either. I have used a version of Milestone advancement since the 1980s when I realized that tracking experience for combats was a waste of my time, and often unsatisfying as the difficult of encounters did not match the rewards given. To that end, I would look at one PC, see how much they needed to level, and then award xp to the group based upon what percentage of the way I felt they deserved to reach after a session. Nobody realized I was not doing the math anymore - ever. And that is after running thousands of sessions.
#2: Look at the design of 5E and you'll see something hidden in there: We do not have levels 12 through 20. At least, they are not levels like the earlier levels. Advancement is faster, but the abilities, and primarily magic abilities, are stretched out more. You get fewer spell slots per level. Fewer spells known for sorcerers. The secret is that it generally, but not always, takes more levels to get the same 'impact' on a PC that you felt for achieving a lower level. This is not true of all mechanics - but it is true of enough that you can see it if you play enough high level play. Don't feel bad if your PCs advance higher in levels between levels 12 and 20 because they're not really advancing as quickly in terms. I think of levels 12 to 20 in 5E as (12 to 14), (15 to 16), and (17 to 20) as three mini tiers that PCs advance through at about the same rate that they went from 10 to 11.
You don't need to tell the PCs you are using it, either. I have used a version of Milestone advancement since the 1980s when I realized that tracking experience for combats was a waste of my time, and often unsatisfying as the difficult of encounters did not match the rewards given. To that end, I would look at one PC, see how much they needed to level, and then award xp to the group based upon what percentage of the way I felt they deserved to reach after a session. Nobody realized I was not doing the math anymore - ever. And that is after running thousands of sessions.
#2: Look at the design of 5E and you'll see something hidden in there: We do not have levels 12 through 20. At least, they are not levels like the earlier levels. Advancement is faster, but the abilities, and primarily magic abilities, are stretched out more. You get fewer spell slots per level. Fewer spells known for sorcerers. The secret is that it generally, but not always, takes more levels to get the same 'impact' on a PC that you felt for achieving a lower level. This is not true of all mechanics - but it is true of enough that you can see it if you play enough high level play. Don't feel bad if your PCs advance higher in levels between levels 12 and 20 because they're not really advancing as quickly in terms. I think of levels 12 to 20 in 5E as (12 to 14), (15 to 16), and (17 to 20) as three mini tiers that PCs advance through at about the same rate that they went from 10 to 11.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Except that he has characters of different levels that he wants to level up at different rates - with rate changes not just represented by the XP chart. Milestone doesn't work for that at all.
Last edited:
pogre
Legend
I think it is an interesting idea - largely because I enjoy higher level play and would not mind having a few more sessions between 11-20.
I also run a table with variable level PCs. I have 8 players and most weeks I have 6 at the table. My solution for XPs is take the XP earned, divide it by the number of players, and distribute that amount to each of the highest level PCs. For each level below the top level I give a 10% bonus.
Example: Party has five people that earn 10,000 XP.1 PC is 10th, 2 are 9th, and 3 are 8th level. 10th level PC gets 2,000 XP, 9th level PCs get 2,200 XP, and the 8th level PCs get 2,400 XP.
I also run a table with variable level PCs. I have 8 players and most weeks I have 6 at the table. My solution for XPs is take the XP earned, divide it by the number of players, and distribute that amount to each of the highest level PCs. For each level below the top level I give a 10% bonus.
Example: Party has five people that earn 10,000 XP.1 PC is 10th, 2 are 9th, and 3 are 8th level. 10th level PC gets 2,000 XP, 9th level PCs get 2,200 XP, and the 8th level PCs get 2,400 XP.
Similar Threads
