XP progression: too fast, too slow, or just right?

[Aeric]

The 20th Level teenager is what I hate about the levelling in 3.x Edition. Sure you can extend things out over years if you want to but some adventures have very pressing timelines that don't let you do this. Take the Shackled City AP as an example. There should be some way that you can run these adventures without ending up with epic level children. I haven't figured out how as yet though.

Olaf the Stout

If extrordinary things are happening to the characters at an alarming rate, then why shouldn't they be 20th level teenagers? I see this as a problem when the campaign covers the careers of "typical" adventurers. If all your PCs are doing is looting dungeons, then maybe they shouldn't be garnering that much XP. If they're fighting hordes of badguys on a daily basis in order to save the world, then they should be bad@$$ by the end of it.

Besides, who's to say how long the old retired paladin who runs the city took to hit 20th level? Maybe adventurers are wunderkind who peak in their early twenties and then retire? They certainly make a ton of money at it...it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Nevertheless, I voted "too fast" simply because I want to run a campaign that lasts longer than six months without going into epic levels or retiring old characters once they hit 20th level.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

IMHO the way 3.X deals with XP is the way I dreamt for 2nd Edition XP to be. So for me, the current XP system is a dream come true.

 

[Nyaricus]

I am ever so slowly converting over my games to the standard of: okay guys, you level up now. So, when I feel a campaign arc is over, and they have gained experience in a campaign manner (not a "I kill the orcs way") I level them up.

I don't think the XP progression is too fast, too slow or just right; I think it's just not right for the games I run.

 

[Monkey Boy]

XP gained entirely depends on the DM. If they want to keep the game low level they will roleplay more and throw little fights at you now and then. If they want to run a high level game, the DM will probably run more of a dungeon delve sort of adventure and you'll level practically each session.

I voted about right but really the final decision rests with the DM.

 

[Li Shenron]

1) The 3.x advancement was designed so that on the average you would level up every 4 sessions, assuming that those sessions had a total of combat enounters equivalent to 3-4 monsters of CR = party level.

Is it too fast? For my tastes it's not necessarily too fast.

I have my own idea of how to adjudicate this: if you often level up before you actually had a chance to use the new class features you received at the previous levelling, then you are indeed levelling up too fast.

2) The advancement rate is the same at every level.

This is something that I don't like much, although I lived with it. It would be best if advancing became slower and slower, the higher in level you go. Sometimes the game is a bit boring at very low levels (in fact, nowadays we almost always begin a campaign at levels 3-5), and a little speed up is nice. But on the other hand achieving a very high level could be more rewarding if it takes a longer time to reach, and spending more time using the same abilities in different combinations means not only you're character is getting more powerful but you are getting better at playing it.

Solution: at progressively higher levels, use encounters with lots of weaker creatures (either alone or together with the BBEG) which might give very little Xp but still consume party resources.

-> this might have a couple of small extra advantages:
a) it doesn't break suspension of disbelieve like when suddenly all low-CR creatures have disappeared from the world, and PC only meet powerful ones
b) it allows you to have dungeons full of monsters, making the exploration fun and challenging, but without the stupid "retreat & rest every 3 battles"

3) Not many DM follow rule 1)

...meaning that many times it happens to me that another DM throws against the PC monsters which are higher in CR than the party level. They think it's more fun because it's more challenging, but then they invariably DOWNPLAY them! Net result = not more challenging, but grant more Xp.

Solution: try to play monsters as good as you would play your own PC, without metagaming or cheating of course. Do that as a DM, and suddenly an opponent with CR = party level becomes a significant challenge.

 

[drothgery]

Start your characters older. Why do they have to be teenagers at 1st level?

Because unless they got level-drained, the idea of a 1st-level/LA+0 character as someone beyond 'just barely competent enough to be trusted on their own' makes no sense given D&D mechanics.

 

[MonsterMash]

For me its too fast in 3e and 3.5 default assumptions, but there are lot of different ways to play this game and I do it with revised XP awards and treasure to match my game idea.

 

[Korak]

A simple measure to encourage more downtime, or to blunt the xp impact of the super time pressure modules would be to house rule a maximum amount of experience that a PC could acrue in any given month of game time. It's not so hard to justify. I'm not really in the "training required to level up" camp. However, I would think it is entirely appropriate to require a barbarian to become literate and to spend 6 months of game time in an academy that he had secured admission to in order to gain his first level as a wizard.

 

[Shade]

For me, it falls between "too slow" and "just right". We only play one night a week, so for me personally, it is a bit too slow. But I realize my group plays less frequently than the norm. Therefore, I think the RAW are "just right".

 

[KB9JMQ]

I voted Just Right.
We seem to blow thru levels 1-4 pretty quickly but it slows down from there.
We arent deliberatly slowing it down it just seems the way we play that level 5 and up are not as quickly achieved.

I ran a year-long campaign with the "level them up at my whim" option but didnt like it overall. So I will stick to the charts unless the game needs a different speed.