D&D 5E Relative Difficulties of Advancing in 5e

[iserith]

If DMs just recorded the exp and had more full adventure days, I feel like leveling up can go much faster.

It does in my experience. My group runs with XP and it's fast. I'm in a West Marches game separate from my regular group and that's all XP and it's also fast. It's all in how many opportunities are available and how motivated the players are to Get Stuff Done.

 

[Charlaquin]

If they recognize that the game bogs down after a certain point why not just design that part out of the game? Here's an idea, just get rid of levels 11-20 or make them fun and worth playing. I'd be all for a restructuring of the level and advancement system in future editions of the game. One where there are fewer levels but more options per level, and a balanced progression would be fine with me. As it is now in 5E isn't just about every other level one where you get nothing?

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.

 

[R_J_K75]

That could probably be done just by increasing exp rewards attached to CR.

But honestly, I still think the problem is how stingy DMs are anyways. Its why I don't really like milestone leveling. The DM will hold you at level 7 until they realized that level 8 exists in the game and still waits until the next plot point.

If DMs just recorded the exp and had more full adventure days, I feel like leveling up can go much faster.

I mean, it usually doesn't take me more than 2 sessions to level up until level 5 where it takes only 3 sessions. Each session is roughly 2 hours (I do downtime stuff outside of sessions). Generally, my group gets to level 20 in a year or a year and a half.

I stopped using xp early into 5E. I just kind of level players every couple sessions give or take, if they are playing their characters reasonably well. In all honesty I've kind of been stuck in a pre-3E mindset when it comes to creating adventures and encounters, Once the ECL/CR system came into play, I never had much success with it, so I just threw stuff at them that I thought would be a good challenge, Sometimes it works, other times it doesnt. But this is probably why I dont have as good of a handle on the class advancement/level system as others in regards to how its balanced and designed.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The XP chart in 5e makes no sense whatsoever.

I disagree. I think the XP chart is pretty well done because the designers understand the reality of the game.

The designers know level 1 and level 2 suck. They're there so that multiclass dipping is pretty unappealing, so you're supposed to get through them both in about three sessions.

Levels 3 through 10 or so are the sweet spot, where 90% of the game is actually played. The table expands these levels.

Levels 11, 12 & 13 are where the game starts to break down. The game still functions, but it's pushing into the endgame. Encounters can be difficult or time consuming here... or else over really quickly. It's increasingly like rocket tag.

Levels 14 and higher are trash levels. It's tolerable at first, but it eventually gets pretty unpleasant to DM and play. Level 20 has capstones to distract you from how godawful most of the non-spellcaster levels are at these levels, usually even compared to level 1-5 for those classes. Magic is way too good at these levels, but the desire to have those spells still in the game means they still exist. Encounters are difficult to run at this level, and and adventures are often difficult to plan. These levels are short to rush the PCs to the end of the campaign and save the DM's sanity.

With the exception 4e -- which plays tricks to plateau progression at about level 7-8 across all 30 levels of play -- essentially every edition of the game fits this mold. 5e is just the first one that doesn't make the XP table do silly things and pad out the levels that people don't actually want to play.

 

[Charlaquin]

It makes a lot of sense. It just isn't intended to be linear.

If you take the "DEADLY ENCOUNTER" experience for a given level (for 1 PC), and divide it into the amount of experience you need for the next level, you get "deadlies / level".

To get to 2nd and 3rd, you need 3 deadlies / level (per PC).
4th is 4.5 deadlies, 5th is 7.6, then 6 to 10 is ~6.66 (with some small variation).
11 jumps up to 7.5, and it drops down to 4 to 4.5 per level from there on out.

In my experience, PCs can handle about 2.5 Deadlies per level in a 4 to 6 hour session. PCs do not just face deadly encounters, but generally speaking, easier ones go faster so the rate holds.

This means that PCs advance at around this pace:

1 or 2 sessions to 2nd level (for a 4 to 6 hour session).
1 or 2 session to 3.
2 session to 4.
3 sessions each for 5 to 10.
4 sessions for 11.
2 sessions per level from there on.
That rate allows PCs to go all the way through 20 levels in less than a year, if they're facing challenges at a pretty steady rate.

If your sessions are 3 hours, double the number of sessions.

And you want to know a secret that shows that this is intentional by the designers? Using these number of sessions per level, if you follow the guidance on treasure hoards per level, it splits up evenly to 1 treasure hoard per session (if you give no treasure hoard when they're 1st level adventurers).

7 hoards for levels 1 to 4 (which you'll get to in about 8 session)
18 hoards for levels 5 to 10 (which take 18 sessions)
12 hoards for 11 to 16 (which takes 12 sessions)
8 hoards for 17 to 20 (which takes 4 sessions).

Also, if you follow the 6-8 medium or hard encounters per day, you get the same result.

 

[el-remmen]

By D&D's surveys, most campaigns last 6 mos. to a year, ending between 9th-12th level.

Don't mind me just collecting evidence of how much of an outlier my playstyle is. My campaigns (all edition) last 3 to 6 years and highest level we've ever reached was 12th.

 

[R_J_K75]

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.

I kept track of the playtest early on but our group broke up for awhile in between when it started and 5E was finally released so I didnt pay much attention after while. Was that in the playtest or just mentioned after all was said and done, IDR hearing that?

 

[Bacon Bits]

Don't mind me just collecting evidence of how much of an outlier my playstyle is. My campaigns (all edition) last 3 to 6 years and highest level we've ever reached was 12th.

The time you take to get to the end of the campaign isn't that important. It's the highest level reached that WotC cares about. Your games do match everyone else on progression; you just take longer to get there.

 

[Charlaquin]

I kept track of the playtest early on but our group broke up for awhile in between when it started and 5E was finally released so I didnt pay much attention after while. Was that in the playtest or just mentioned after all was said and done, IDR hearing that?

Unfortunately I don’t remember the source, and a lot of that stuff is hard to find anymore. But I know I heard either Mike Mearls or Jeremy Crawford say something to that effect, and I’m pretty sure it was in an interview shortly after the open playtest wrapped. Might have been a live Q&A at a convention? But I’m really not sure.

 

[Oofta]

During my session 0 I ask people how quickly they want to advance, and I check in every few levels. Then we just level up accordingly. Personally? I really enjoy playing low levels, and have fun DMing at all levels.

I also have months (game time) between sessions and explain that in part people are training for the next time things go to heck in a handbasket.