D&D 5E XP Chart and High-level NPCs

[S'mon]

IMC
a) I don't use the full PC class write-ups for NPCs
b) Few NPCs have any magic, so eg the ability to cast Revivify is rare
c) NPCs don't progress on the PC XP table
d) NPCs don't get balanced encounters (heck, PCs often don't either!).

If the reverse of all those is true then a world full of 20th level NPCs is plausible, it'll resemble a MMORPG where everyone else who's been around a while is max level and playing the end-game content.

 

[S'mon]

The assumption has to be there, because the alternative would create inconsistencies within the narrative, since there is nothing within the game world which distinguishes a PC from an NPC.

IMC PCs are generally more competent than NPCs, and advance faster than NPCs. They may be luckier too, in the sense of often facing encounters appropriate to their level, or at least being given a chance to do so.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Doubling the number of required attackers is a bad method of applying disadvantage. You actually need to square it. It takes 400 attacks on average for one to get through, not 40.

You can't use a bad method to justify not applying disadvantage. Those are just two related ways of being unfair.

Sorry, I forgot entirely to mention the whole part of my prior statement which was seriously important: advantage/disadvantage when applied to a static value is +/- 5, roughly... which was why I find there being nothing at all wrong with using it not as "they have to roll 2 20s at the same time to hit" but as "they still only have to roll a 20 because the -5 to their attack roll or +5 to the target's AC doesn't change that only a 20 on the die hits."

That's why I originally completely disregarded disadvantage and didn't consider it unfair; it is totally my fault for not saying it before.

And again, if their is "unfairness" in play in this example, it is an unfair benefit to the player.

 

[S'mon]

In my (relatively) realistic medieval campaign world, if it really was too easy to reach higher levels, half the knights in the kingdom would be off seeking their fortune, and the society would collapse. Hell, half the serfs would be trying their luck in the local caves, even though it's illegal for them to do so, as it would be a viable way to get out of their situation.

"Serf, you have been charged with Taking the King's XP!"

 

[S'mon]

20 levels in a couple of years is insanely fast, not just from a power gaming perspective, but because it doesn't leave you anywhere to go. Who wants to be at 20th level with no prospect of advancement, in a game that has levelling at its core? Do you just retire the character and start again? And if so, where does that retired PC fit into the game world. They'd be a world-shaker for sure; it raises all sorts of issues, unless you parcel them off (immortality, like in the old BECMI rules?).

The DMG Epic Advancement rules look fine to me - Epic Boon, Ability Score Increase, or
Feat for each advancement beyond level 20.

 

[S'mon]

P.S. It seems to me that the smartest thing for the guards to do would be to take his cloak while the other guards shoot the fighter full of crossbow quarrels. That's probably some kind of variant on a Disarm maneuver: attack roll vs. Athletics roll. Low probability of success per soldier but quantity has a quality of its own.

Yeah, the strategy depends on a single magic item that is overpowered in 5e, so the enemy should concentrate on removing or negating the item.

An army of 10,000 2 hd mooks seems more a thought construct than realistic, enemy.
A real army of 10,000 should certainly have Veterans, Knights, Scouts, probably some Acolytes and
Priests. In most settings it would have at least a few Mages and in a high magic setting
even an Archmage - but you don't need casters to make it a threat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sorry, I forgot entirely to mention the whole part of my prior statement which was seriously important: advantage/disadvantage when applied to a static value is +/- 5, roughly... which was why I find there being nothing at all wrong with using it not as "they have to roll 2 20s at the same time to hit" but as "they still only have to roll a 20 because the -5 to their attack roll or +5 to the target's AC doesn't change that only a 20 on the die hits."

That's why I originally completely disregarded disadvantage and didn't consider it unfair; it is totally my fault for not saying it before.

And again, if their is "unfairness" in play in this example, it is an unfair benefit to the player.

...I'm still not seeing how the unfairness is in the player's favor. Getting hit 10x more often than normal more than cancels out any benefit from ignoring critical hits.

 

[S'mon]

Sorry, I forgot entirely to mention the whole part of my prior statement which was seriously important: advantage/disadvantage when applied to a static value is +/- 5, roughly... which was why I find there being nothing at all wrong with using it not as "they have to roll 2 20s at the same time to hit" but as "they still only have to roll a 20 because the -5 to their attack roll or +5 to the target's AC doesn't change that only a 20 on the die hits."

That's why I originally completely disregarded disadvantage and didn't consider it unfair; it is totally my fault for not saying it before.

And again, if their is "unfairness" in play in this example, it is an unfair benefit to the player.

I agree your approach is reasonable. The Cloak's Disadvantage models reduced attacker accuracy, but if the enemy is just filling a zone with arrows it wouldn't actually make any difference. Ignoring it is more reasonable than having it make the Fighter 20 times as durable.

 

[Grainger]

The DMG Epic Advancement rules look fine to me - Epic Boon, Ability Score Increase, or
Feat for each advancement beyond level 20.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that - I'll have to check it out. For some reason, I always miss that section when I browse through the DMG. It won't be relevant for a very long time in my campaign, but it will be interesting reading.

 

[devincutler]

I find it nearly impossible to justify anyone going from 1st level to 20th level in 7 weeks. Anyone in the game world is going to see the PCs do that and want to duplicate it. I mean, how can you begin to argue that a 1st level wizard just out of his apprentice diapers is casting time stop and meteor swarm in 7 weeks? It's simply ludicrous!

I understand the PCs are the heroes of the story and that the rules for them don't apply to NPCs, but still some amount of internal verisimilitude is necessary in order to have immersion and suspend disbelief.

My current 3.5 campaign is in its 7th real life year of running and the PCs are just hitting 18th level (we play every other Saturday). I did this by:

1. Halving XP rates
2. Enforcing time off for the PCs (i.e. you simply cannot adventure and put your life on the line for week after week without taking a break...you will collapse emotionally and physically and mentally)
3. Having the PCs have to take time to do things like sell or buy magic items
4. Greatly increase the magic item crafting times (45 times longer!).

I am just starting a 5th edition campaign which I intend to go for at least 5 years real time. I intend to use the training rules in the DMG for levelling and am considering using the rule where 1 day is a short rest and 1 week is a long rest. I am not a big fan of PCs naturally healing all of their wounds with a single 8 hour rest. I will also halve XP. I think all of these, along with inducing downtime with roleplaying, will at least cut the advancement rate down to where the PCs are still likely the fastest advancers in the world, but at least at a speed that doesn't defy all logic.