Worse, it's pointless. I made this because I don't generally play at that level and many people don't but some might be interested and I think they'd be as surprised by this as I was so I thought I'd post it and hopefully help them plan better for high level play.I think that's being hyperbolic.
This edition plays very well at high levels.
The XP chart in 5e makes no sense whatsoever.
One of the topics I wished they'd addressed in the DMG was the number of encounters required to level up by level (breaking down and explaining the chart linked from the OP).
I agree although I have never gotten there myself as a player or with any campaign. Usually real world circumstances intervene. I was just talking with another player in my group last night about a campaign that we were running that tanked. We couldn't remember why it did but we might bring back parts of it in our current game.Reaching 20th is fun. Which is the whole point of the game.
That breakdown is interesting. I started a new campaign last Friday this could come in useful because were planning to have multiple DMs throughout the course of it so I'm going to give this a more thorough read through and pass it along to the other two DMs so we're on the same page.They do have an 'encounters per day' and 'Adventuring day XP' table to give you some idea of how much XP you're expected to get per adventuring day.
Breakdown is here:
With good reason I think. They understand that their adventures that they're writing are paced based on the story they are telling, and aren't wasting space or time "filling in" areas with additional monster encounters just to make sure PCs have the chance to get enough XP to level at the points they think it makes sense for them to level in the story.
That's less leveling up pacing and more adventure pacing. Which is indicative that the DM isn't considering downtime to its fullest since that is the main purpose of downtime anyways
You can go from fighting kobolds when you leave home to fighting kobolds a decade later if the DM decides the second Kobold adventure takes place 10 years after the first one. That's not an issue.
But the problem with slow leveling up in real time is that players will feel like their character has stagnated. This is exaggerated with noncasters since they can't usually switch tactics anytime soon before a level up and must concede to their standard tactics the entire time. They may also be longingly looking at their future features.
That's probably why the level 11+ class progression feels different from 1-10.They actually did seriously consider having the game only go to 10th level. But, since part of 5e’s job was to win back players who felt the game had lost touch with its roots, they ultimately decided that having only 10 levels would be too risky.
Exactly. It makes more sense than the dungeon who have rooms so close they're basically overlapping.A small dungeon where I narrate that the hallways are so long that it takes you weeks to go from one room to the next does not at all feel the same as a large dungeon with many rooms.
It doesn't have to be isolated as "only give a ton of exp" or "only provide story with no level ups."If all you're doing is opening up monster closets and slaughtering the inhabitants, sure. It gets boring after the 3rd or 4th closet has the same sort of enemies, and you do the exact same things to kill them. I'll refer to you what I said earlier: A great campaign is fun regardless of how fast you level. The goal should be to present content at a high enough quality that players are there to engage with the world, not unlock the next doo-dad on a chart. I mean, how is it that Rob Kuntz enjoyed playing Lord Robilar for years, despite a 0e Thief getting little in the way of new widgets after a few levels? If all you're doing is grinding XP to pull the lever on the Skinner box, then something is missing.
Exactly. It makes more sense than the dungeon who have rooms so close they're basically overlapping.
That is, I assume you're still talking about the pacing of the game where your character goes from level 1 to level 20 within a year.
In fact, my point is that it should be both. As much as we'd love for all of our players to be able to enjoy their character regardless of when they get something new, certain players still want to know what it feels like to get that second Action Surge or that Barbarian Capstone.
I mean, its gotta be one helluva story to have a whole JRPG turn-based game that the characters never gets new stuff with that keeps us players engaged.
Its a problem for me. If your players are completely content on playing games where leveling is slow, then that's how they should play. However, in terms of adventures meant for the public, relying on milestones that come out at a slow pace can be quite a problem.I'm talking about the claim that DMs who run games where you don't level up quickly are a problem. It's not that running big dungeon complexes like Greyhawk Ruins or Temple of Elemental Evil are characteristically different from a modern WotC storybook adventure and break down if the characters level up every 2-3 adventuring days, it's that they're just plain designed wrong, and DMs who want to run adventures like that like that are just doing it wrong.
You're talking about how long it takes in real time. Gotcha. But my players don't often have the ability to take things slowly because of their other obligations. Its not that the rush the story but engaging in things that were – in both story, roleplay, and mechanic-wise – a waste of time can be annoying when the players realize that they very well might not even see the climax due to a campaign that peters out due to real-life time constraints.Being 20th level isn't about adding 6 to your damage instead of 3. It's about being a demigod, a hero (or villain!) before whom the world kneels, so powerful that you and your best friends can waltz into the Abyss and challenge Demogorgon to his face. I don't see any fundamental reason an adventure has to be there in a year's time, such that it's a problem if, instead of defeating Zuggtmoy in direct combat, you're desperately seeking a way to banish her back to her realm and end the Cult of Elemental Evil once and for all. IMO, enjoying the adventure takes precedence over enjoying your character sheet, and if an adventure can still be fun while you're a somewhat mundane fella with a sword and a thirst for an adventure, that's not a problem.
I have. Both the older ones (I've played shadow dragon but haven't beaten it but I have beaten Blinding Blade and Three Houses amongst some in-between).You ever play Fire Emblem? The powers your characters get as they level up aren't much compared to D&D.
We don't know where we'll be in 3 years, so planning a campaign to take that long is basically never planning on them to see their characters to their conclusions. That's why a quicker leveling, and a quicker yet saturated adventure, structure is more appealing to me than one where being unnecessarily slow comes with the threat of a incomplete story.
I have. Both the older ones (I've played shadow dragon but haven't beaten it but I have beaten Blinding Blade and Three Houses amongst some in-between).
It helps, though it can still be annoying since its rare that the campaign dies out just at the conclusion of a small arc.Just a quick note on this - when it comes to campaign structure I try to plan major and minor arcs. At low level the big threat is the corrupt captain of the guard or the wererat gang that's causing havoc in your neighborhood. So even if you never get past 5th level, you may resolve 1 arc, 1 story. Kind of like reading a book series.
There will be the bigger arc hinted at, and if we all get to that conclusion it's fantastic. But we can still wrap up smaller stories and have multiple "conclusions" along the way.
I wonder what would happen if we played the game very simply by advancing 2 levels at a time, and called them half: start the game at 2nd level and call it level 1, next jump to 4th level and call it 2nd... end game at 20th but call it 10.I would just prefer less levels with a cap at 10 maybe 15. I don't necessarily want level 9 spells to go away, or higher level powers disappear, just would like to see things condensed down so the players reach a higher power level earlier/faster.
Seems like a good idea. I dont see any problems with doing so. We're 1 game into a new campaign, might not be too late to give it a try.I wonder what would happen if we played the game very simply by advancing 2 levels at a time, and called them half: start the game at 2nd level and call it level 1, next jump to 4th level and call it 2nd... end game at 20th but call it 10.
PCs would never start with too little HP.
Spell level would match class level.
Levelling up would not be that fast.
No level up would ever feel too little.
Less granularity for sure, but doesn't sound that bad to me.