Revised XP progression

[Stormhound]

See bottom of post for PDF of XP table
Version 1.1 update, 7/2/08, now with advice on altering treasure rates

One of the things that's itching me the more I think about it is the rush to endgame that I see on the experience tables. Granted, I'm originally from the Old School, but it seems to me like it should be a heck of a lot more work to get from 29th to 30th level, timewise, than it was getting from 1st to 2nd. Maybe I'm just silly, but I kind of think that "epic" levels should be just that, epic, not some mad rush toward 30th and retirement/godhood. As is, if a PC faces 303 normal (not minion, elite, or solo) monsters of whatever their level is at the time, they'll make it from 1st to 30th. That number drops when you include quest bonuses, and even more if the GM awards XP for much of anything else. I know we're a society in a hurry to get somewhere, but whatever happened to taking some time to enjoy the trip?

With that thought in mind, I present an advancement table which goes well in the other direction (to leave room in the middle for those who like the idea but think it's a bit much), and which keeps early advancement still fairly quick while slowing down epic levels quite a bit. After all, they've got all those megapowers, they might as well have some time to enjoy them, eh?

XP Table						
[U]Level       XP     Enc/Lvl[/U]
   1            0     15
   2        1,500     16
   3        3,500     20
   4        6,500     26
[U]   5       11,000     33[/U]
   6       17,500     36
   7       26,500     40
   8       38,500     44
   9       54,000     50
[U]  10       74,000     52[/U]
  11      100,000     57
  12      134,000     63
  13      178,000     70
  14      234,000     71
[U]  15      305,000     76[/U]
  16      396,000     83
  17      512,000     91
  18      658,000     91
  19      839,000     92
[U]  20    1,060,000     97[/U]
  21    1,330,000    103
  22    1,660,000     96
  23    2,060,000     96
  24    2,550,000    100
[U]  25    3,150,000    114[/U]
  26    3,950,000    117
  27    5,000,000    123
  28    6,350,000    127
  29    8,000,000    133
  30   10,000,000 (2,132 total)

Enc/Lvl: Number of encounters (or encounter-equivalent XP items) of the current level required to reach the next level. (In 4e standard rules, this is always 10.)

The thing I like about this, aside from prolonging higher levels, is that it leaves lots of leeway for any other XP bonuses I wish to include (such as for RP, ideas, and so on). For those to whom 10M seems too much, the PDF also includes tables for 5M (1115 encounters) and 2M (508).

Let the outraged howls of righteous indignation begin.

 

[Sukairaa]

I'm torn whatever I like this or not, so here by opinion

Advantages:

1. Long time to level, making it good for long campaign (two, three years)
2. Allows the players to see there character slowly grow, showing more realistic side
3. Each level up feels very rewarding

Disadvantages:

1. Bad for a short campaign, as the character will never be able to taste that epic 30th level (My campaign for example, will only run year)
2. Players might get bored of playing the same character and might wish to try something new (Me for example, cannot play the same character for more then a year without having the urge to try something new)
3. Players have to wait a while before they gain new abilities, while having a new ability is swell, like a toy, it will get boring after a while.

my 2 cents anyway

 

[Stormhound]

Yep, this is along the lines of what I'd thought of. For my part, I prefer to run longer campaigns, as I usually use a world of my own devising and it's just more fun to put the time into expanding on it.

As to new toons and toys, I also enjoy letting players run alts and level them up too, which means that every time around doesn't have to be the mains and that any overarching plots can sometimes be advanced in unexpected (to the players) ways. I get a break (of sorts), and so do the players. So long as you don't let it become a zoo ("Hey, can I bring all my alts along and run 5 PCs at once?" "Not just no, but hell no!", it can keep things fresh and give players a chance to do things they might have missed otherwise.

 

[Cat Moon]

I like this. It looks well enough thought out. I do prefer longer wait times between leveling up.

To be honest only 10.1 encounters per level is ridiculously fast. I do like games that are a bit slower paced. 4E seems to favor hot and heavy action with complete disregard to thinking modules. At least this helps to rectify that in some way.

 

[Stormhound]

One other point that is likely less than obvious: you can also use the same total values for the treasure parcels; as levels go up, you subdivide the total into more pieces to reflect the longer amount of time it'll take to gain the next level. Thus, rather than gaining vast treasures in no time at all at Epic levels, you can have entire adventures aimed toward gaining the equivalent of a single parcel.

For some things, slower can definitely be better.

 

[the Jester]

Nice, I like the thought you have obviously put into this.

I could do with something similar, though my traditional approach has been to lower xp awards instead.

 

[Sphyre]

As is, if a PC faces 303 normal (not minion, elite, or solo) monsters of whatever their level is at the time, they'll make it from 1st to 30th.

Wouldn't that more properly be, "as is, if a PC faces in a one on one fight, 303 normal monsters of whatever their level is at the time, they'll make it from 1st to 30th."

303 normal 1v1 monsters. And live to survive it. That's quite a feat. In fact, if you're in a party of 5 adventurers, all 5 of you, collectively would have fought 1515 monsters. That seems a bit epic in my eyes. But yes, you also have other experience gaining rewards to consider as well.

Let the outraged howls of righteous indignation begin.

If someone scowls at this, they didn't read the fact that you wanted slower leveling and that's what this was for. One of my players actually wants to gain level 2 and we've had two sessions that were a total of 15 hours. 15 hours of game time and they are 70%, to where there's about 20 hours for the first level seems very good in my opinion.

I do, though, like to role play in between encounters though, so I'm not measuring it purely off of the encounters they've been in.

 

[Stormhound]

I could do with something similar, though my traditional approach has been to lower xp awards instead.

I thought about that, but:

1. The numbers are a lot simpler if you don't cut XP rewards, and
2. I wanted to really alter the progression at the higher levels, and merely cutting XP rewards wouldn't do that.

 

[keterys]

I'm totally cool with where you're going with this, but it seems a little sharp of an increase. Maybe you play a lot more than my group does, but let's say you an do the equivalent of 4 encounters per session and play 40 weeks a year - which I think is quite a lot of play!

Okay, it still takes almost _14_ years to get from 1st to 30th. That just seems way too long to me. I mean, do what you want, but I wanted to make sure you got the implications of how much you stretched things.

 

[Stormhound]

Oh, I understand how much I'm stretching things (though as noted above, I also throw in bonus XP for other things, and then there are quest XP and such).

A good part of it is getting away from the mad dash...if the campaign isn't interesting enough to motivate the players to something other than level advancement, it isn't (to me) much worth running. And if the players are primarily interested in gaining levels, they're not going to be happy sitting at my table.

Some of it is also re-instilling the sense of epic. There are high-level NPCs around, and it took THEM a long time to get there too. Few characters will ever reach 30th level, and those that do will be (in)famous indeed.