Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7126243" data-attributes="member: 5100">This. One of the things I think is a cause of the shift is the "XP economy" and the expectations of a certain rate of advancement that's existed since 3E (it may have existed, in some groups, early than that but it wasn't enshrined in the rules).Dead levels are now a bad thing because, apparently, what's important is to be able to get new toys for your character automatically. And, because every level has a carrot, players are constantly looking towards the next level. XP tables are built so that PCs advance about once a month at the "normal" rate of  play (3-4 hours per week).  Monsters award XP to meet that pace based on their CR, which is based on the 2 shorts and a long cadence and the expected resource drain. So, if your group opts to not follow that cadence in 5E, there's a ripple effect that runs all the way up. In AD&D, progress was more often measured by the magic items you found and how many foes you'd defeated. Levels happened, but (IME) there was no real expectation that anything but the longest of campaigns was going to get to name level (10th-ish). In that light, you had quite a bit of leeway in just picking harder monsters for the PCs to fight if they insisted on pursuing the 5-minute workday. When a chunk of the XP was expected to come from looting, you could also put in more reinforcements with no more treasure. If you do that in 5E, it actually just makes things worse, because the PCs level-up faster and have bigger nukes to use.I've actually been sorely tempted to half (or more) the XP values of all monsters in 5E. Since I've been running the published adventures, I haven't, but I came really close with PotA, which was extremely susceptible to guerrilla tactics, as written. If I do home-brew adventures, I may do just that, though.</blockquote>

Verification