Revised (Slightly) Character Advancement Table

[clearstream]

I figured that might be the case and wondered about it, and I appreciate the confirmation, but personally don't see a reason for it. For my aesthetic's, I do prefer a continually progressive EXP curve (hence, why I made my version). Since I wasn't into 5E during development and initial release, I am sure a lot of my issues with it are likely the designer's intent and simply a disagreement of gaming style/ preference.

I forgot to mention something else. In terms of "continually progressive" as it plays out at the table, the XP curve is only one side of the advancement mechanic; the other side is how much XP is awarded.

For example, imagine that you happened to award exactly 50% per session of needed in tier 2, but then in tier 3 started awarding 33% of needed. Regardless of what the XP curve then is, the proportion being awarded is lower so advancement will slow. For this reason, it can be worth reversing out your thresholds from your curve. I'll attach a spreadsheet here which informs my own pacing assumptions. What I'm doing is changing the Encounter Multipliers to center on 3-6 as 1*, changing the hoard gold scaling to 5* increase per tier instead of 10*, and using three kinds of "encounter" for XP: "attritional" which average to Hard, "lethal" which average to Deadly, and "quest" which average to Medium (and are for achieving narrative goals rather than overcoming foes). I also use something like training and gritty realism from the DMG.

As you might see, this approach leaves the XP curve as the book, but controls pacing through XP awarded.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Very nice! I like a lot of your approach, but I suppose my fundamental problem isn't with pacing really, but the idea that you require less EXP for a higher level than a lower one. To me, it is counter-intuitive. While I can understand the tiered approach, and in a sense having the level "reset" to a lower amount of EXP at certain junctions, I just don't agree with it.

As far as the pace is concerned, I get it is now more geared towards immediate satisfaction than older versions of D&D. I explained to my current players in 1E, we would normally spend 1 to 2 months gaming just at first level! Why? Because low-level monsters were worth so little and you needed 2000 EXP for second level (Fighters, anyway...). Even using my session-based scheme for 5E, it would take a player four years to reach Level 20 assuming one session a week. In 1E/2E, I ran a campaign with the same players/characters for five years, playing every week with few exceptions, and in the end they ranged from 16th-19th levels. Are many newer players willing to put that kind of time into a character nowadays? Seems unlikely from my exposure, but I could be (and hope) I am wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My math is perfect, thank you very much. The needed for next level is the difference between the current level and the new one. For example, I have 64000 EXP at 10th, I need 21000 more to reach 11th, which is a total of 85000.

Mea culpa, it displayed weirdly on my phone and I misunderstood what it was doing. The convention you're using wasn't clear. I see it now.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Very nice! I like a lot of your approach, but I suppose my fundamental problem isn't with pacing really, but the idea that you require less EXP for a higher level than a lower one. To me, it is counter-intuitive. While I can understand the tiered approach, and in a sense having the level "reset" to a lower amount of EXP at certain junctions, I just don't agree with it.

As far as the pace is concerned, I get it is now more geared towards immediate satisfaction than older versions of D&D. I explained to my current players in 1E, we would normally spend 1 to 2 months gaming just at first level! Why? Because low-level monsters were worth so little and you needed 2000 EXP for second level (Fighters, anyway...). Even using my session-based scheme for 5E, it would take a player four years to reach Level 20 assuming one session a week. In 1E/2E, I ran a campaign with the same players/characters for five years, playing every week with few exceptions, and in the end they ranged from 16th-19th levels. Are many newer players willing to put that kind of time into a character nowadays? Seems unlikely from my exposure, but I could be (and hope) I am wrong.

Your change will not seriously affect pacing -- it'll slow it down some, but not much. At 11th, the 3k extra xp is a few extra combats or a few extra story awards. The game is geared towards getting a full campaign in with a good bit of leveling in a year's weekly play -- ie, mostly 1 to high teens in a year. The adventures published exemplify this well. Your changes, again, aren't large enough to get anywhere near your current goal. As I said above, understanding the thing before you change it makes your changes work. All you've done is really rearrange the deck chairs and declare it's prettier while you're still not achieving anything like your goal -- the Titanic is still sinking.

If you want marathon progression, add a multiplier. Use your table or the original, doesn't much matter they're not that different. Multiple everything by x10 and you'll be a lot closer to your rose-colored visions of past games. I wouldn't suggest it for 1-3, as 5e is considerably more deadly at those levels than past games, but YMMV and all that.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

No problem. I thought the layout was clear, but if not I apologize for the confusion.

As I wrote in other posts, the problem isn't pacing. I am fine with 5E having faster level progressions as it is obvious that was the intent of the designers and given the nature of my players, will probably be more agreeable to them anyway. The point I was making with prior editions was just how much slower level progression generally was compared to 5E, not that I wanted my 5E game to reflect that pace of progression.

Like you said, I think my table makes the deck chairs prettier, as I want a constantly increasing amount of EXP needed, not a regression to a lower value at higher levels. That was the goal of my revised table, just to make it a smoother curve, which it is.

If I want my marathon progression, as you put it, I will simply make it session-based, requiring a number of session equal to the new level (as previously stated), e.g. 11th Level will require 11 sessions of 4-5 hours each.

 

[Blue]

FYI, the designers have said that this is intentional, in that 11th level is a huge level at which you enter another 'tier'. I don't know if this changes your view- I understand the aesthetic objection- but just so you know.

I was coming to say the same thing.

To break the rules, you first have to understand why they are there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No problem. I thought the layout was clear, but if not I apologize for the confusion.

As I wrote in other posts, the problem isn't pacing. I am fine with 5E having faster level progressions as it is obvious that was the intent of the designers and given the nature of my players, will probably be more agreeable to them anyway. The point I was making with prior editions was just how much slower level progression generally was compared to 5E, not that I wanted my 5E game to reflect that pace of progression.

Like you said, I think my table makes the deck chairs prettier, as I want a constantly increasing amount of EXP needed, not a regression to a lower value at higher levels. That was the goal of my revised table, just to make it a smoother curve, which it is.

If I want my marathon progression, as you put it, I will simply make it session-based, requiring a number of session equal to the new level (as previously stated), e.g. 11th Level will require 11 sessions of 4-5 hours each.

You changed the table so that it looks prettier just to make it look prettier, not because there was a game aesthetic you were attempting to create? Okay, that's not what I was expecting.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Okay, that's not what I was expecting.

LOL! That is okay, maybe I didn't make it clear from the beginning.

As written, the wonkiness (although intended by WotC) bothered me so I tweaked the table a bit. I never thought it would break anything, and it satisfies my sense for ever-increasing EXP requirements from level to level. It actually speeds up the middle and higher levels, which I can't imagine my players arguing with!

 

[Umbran]

I figured that might be the case and wondered about it, and I appreciate the confirmation, but personally don't see a reason for it. For my aesthetic's, I do prefer a continually progressive EXP curve

Here's the basic reason for it - The players aren't looking at the graph, and saying, "This game is great because this line is so smooth!"

What matters in a game is not mathematical elegance, it is play experience. The breakpoints are placed so that the thing you get after them really feels like a payoff for an achievement - you worked hard, risked much, and were rewarded for your effort. They are looking at what they've done, and feeling the reward for it when they get it. The intent is to work well with human perception and psychological rewards.

 

[Charlaquin]

The goal of the exp table is to make advancement work like this:


It looks messy and ugly, but it’s hardwired into our brains to find the rising tension -> peak -> climax -> falling tension -> repeat structure satisfying, particularly when it’s nested within a larger tension curve composed of many small tension curves. Your version is more aesthetically pleasing, creating a nice, ever-increasing slope. But it’s not going to be as satisfying to your players’ “lizard brains.”

That’s not anything new, of course. Tons of DMs throw out the XP table. Heck, lots of people throw out XP entirely, so this will at the very least be more satisfying than that. You certainly won’t break the game.