XP progression: too fast, too slow, or just right?
- Thread starter Hairfoot
- Start date
Too fast.
Not "way to fast", but the XP system works to normalize the number of encounters per level - hence flavor encounters at low levels tend to give more XP than I would really desire.
Of course, I'm seeing more XP adjustments in Dungeon adventures that reduce or increase XP based on danger/threat. Solving a flavor encounter, while potentially rewarding role playing that require some action by the heros, shouldn't get as many XP as an encounter that is central to the mission and survival. Other rewards such as information, allies, or monetary/treasure may be appropriate (of course, if running a politically based adventure, I would have to re-evaluate the nature of danger/threat). Doing some of that may solve the too rapid advancement issue, so that I can add some comaign flavor to a published story arch without advancing the PCs beyond what the arch expects.
Not "way to fast", but the XP system works to normalize the number of encounters per level - hence flavor encounters at low levels tend to give more XP than I would really desire.
Of course, I'm seeing more XP adjustments in Dungeon adventures that reduce or increase XP based on danger/threat. Solving a flavor encounter, while potentially rewarding role playing that require some action by the heros, shouldn't get as many XP as an encounter that is central to the mission and survival. Other rewards such as information, allies, or monetary/treasure may be appropriate (of course, if running a politically based adventure, I would have to re-evaluate the nature of danger/threat). Doing some of that may solve the too rapid advancement issue, so that I can add some comaign flavor to a published story arch without advancing the PCs beyond what the arch expects.
painandgreed
First Post
There are two parts to this as others have mentioned.
In game, it can be too fast with teenagers becoming 20th level before hitting 20 years old. Of crouse, this would depend greatly on the campaign. If you want a campaign where this happened and it reaches an end point, it might not be a problem. If you want a sustainable campaign where you play out the lives of your characters, I'd say it is. The easiest way to get around most of this is to invoke the RAW suggested guildlines for training between levels. IIRC, it's a week per skill point or feats. A rogue of average intelligence would only go up one level every two months. At a max of six levels per year, he could still make 20th by 20 but couldn't do it in a year or two as some campaigns do.
DMs have to encourage downtime and stop using rushed adventure paths where they are expected to go from CR 1 to Cr 20 challenges within a year of game time. A DM could just state "time passes" but I often find that the PCs will want to do things in that time, even reasonable things like role playing character development stuff. Other ways to pad time is for item creation and spell research. Make them wait for items to be made before they can used them and they'll postpone adventuring till their new toys are ready. Perhaps ecourage PCs to come up with their own feats in exchange for down time spent developing them. Come up with some rules for businesses that reward players enough to take downtime. Introduce travel times to the adventures. There are lots of ways to get the game time between levels to be longer and still keep the players interests.
As for mechanically, I also think the progress between levels is too quick. One year of weekly four hour play is what I could consider causual gaming. I don't think higher levels should always be reached in that time period. Many of the serious campaigns I've played in have consisted of 8-12 hours of weekly gaming for two years. I don't want to see those develop into what I would consider silly epic campaigns in a quarter of that time. The one things I wish Unearthed Arcana had done is propose different XP tables for different style of games. I prefer a more logarythmic table where advancement at lower levels is about the same as now but it grows quickly between the higher levels providing for a longer campaign life.
In game, it can be too fast with teenagers becoming 20th level before hitting 20 years old. Of crouse, this would depend greatly on the campaign. If you want a campaign where this happened and it reaches an end point, it might not be a problem. If you want a sustainable campaign where you play out the lives of your characters, I'd say it is. The easiest way to get around most of this is to invoke the RAW suggested guildlines for training between levels. IIRC, it's a week per skill point or feats. A rogue of average intelligence would only go up one level every two months. At a max of six levels per year, he could still make 20th by 20 but couldn't do it in a year or two as some campaigns do.
DMs have to encourage downtime and stop using rushed adventure paths where they are expected to go from CR 1 to Cr 20 challenges within a year of game time. A DM could just state "time passes" but I often find that the PCs will want to do things in that time, even reasonable things like role playing character development stuff. Other ways to pad time is for item creation and spell research. Make them wait for items to be made before they can used them and they'll postpone adventuring till their new toys are ready. Perhaps ecourage PCs to come up with their own feats in exchange for down time spent developing them. Come up with some rules for businesses that reward players enough to take downtime. Introduce travel times to the adventures. There are lots of ways to get the game time between levels to be longer and still keep the players interests.
As for mechanically, I also think the progress between levels is too quick. One year of weekly four hour play is what I could consider causual gaming. I don't think higher levels should always be reached in that time period. Many of the serious campaigns I've played in have consisted of 8-12 hours of weekly gaming for two years. I don't want to see those develop into what I would consider silly epic campaigns in a quarter of that time. The one things I wish Unearthed Arcana had done is propose different XP tables for different style of games. I prefer a more logarythmic table where advancement at lower levels is about the same as now but it grows quickly between the higher levels providing for a longer campaign life.
DragonLancer
Hero
For my tastes levelling in 3.X is just a bit too fast. I have always preferred a 3-4 scenarios per level ratio at low levels, increasing slightly as the characters go up levels. Thats scenarios not game sessions.
barrowwight
Explorer
for me as a DM, i say alittle too fast. my players on the other hand would probably say just right.
Ashrum the Black
Explorer
I'd have to say to fast. I long for the days of being able to run the PC's through three modules and them being able to level up maybe twice. My current AE game is in its second year and because I've had my foot on the XP break they're just now hitting the 15's with tons of back story and adventures to talk about. They've become some of the most powerful folks around, and it feels like a campaign instead of a extra long adventrue to reach these high levels.
I'm not opposed to fast leveling in a beer and pretzels game, but when I'm out to save the world, start my own kingdom, and become a serious force of nature, I like to stop and smell the roses along the way.
-Ashrum
I'm not opposed to fast leveling in a beer and pretzels game, but when I'm out to save the world, start my own kingdom, and become a serious force of nature, I like to stop and smell the roses along the way.
-Ashrum
I too voted "too fast".
But I would prefer to look at it from another point of view: it's the size of the incremenets which is too large, not the speed with which they occur. Probably just my point-based vs. level-based bias creeping in again, but I would much rather see regular but minor increases in power, rather than a big chunk every once in a while.
But I would prefer to look at it from another point of view: it's the size of the incremenets which is too large, not the speed with which they occur. Probably just my point-based vs. level-based bias creeping in again, but I would much rather see regular but minor increases in power, rather than a big chunk every once in a while.
Well first of all, many of the people that adventure all the time....are dead. Adventuring is dangerous dangerous work. PCs often make it because they have DM fiat, the convenant that says most DMs will not give you encounters so crazy your going to get vaporized without a chance. Most NPCs don't have that, like in real life stuff happens and they get killed off.
Second, leveling after 13 1/3 combats isn't that unrealistic to me. Your telling me if I take a guy straight out of boot camp and have him fight in 13 1/3 different engagements he's not going to be better at shotting his gun, better at controlling his fear, and better at gaining cover and staying out of the way of bullets? Heck, if a normal guy gets into 13 fights in his life, he's certainly going to be better at fighting than a guy who never has.
Third, keep in mind how powerful a 1st level character is compared to the benefit you gain for the next few levels. You start out with max hp, if you assume average rolls that's as much as you gain for the next 2 levels. You get +2 to your best save, you get max 4 ranks in a skill. It will take you 4 more levels in order to "double" the skill you've acquired in that "background training." Wizards get 1st level spells, they won't get a higher grade of spell for 2 more levels, barbs gets rage, rogues SA, etc. So I think 1st level does well to show the background training a character has gone through.
So I don't think the leveling speed is so unrealistic, no more unrealistic than what high levels characters can do in the first place.
Second, leveling after 13 1/3 combats isn't that unrealistic to me. Your telling me if I take a guy straight out of boot camp and have him fight in 13 1/3 different engagements he's not going to be better at shotting his gun, better at controlling his fear, and better at gaining cover and staying out of the way of bullets? Heck, if a normal guy gets into 13 fights in his life, he's certainly going to be better at fighting than a guy who never has.
Third, keep in mind how powerful a 1st level character is compared to the benefit you gain for the next few levels. You start out with max hp, if you assume average rolls that's as much as you gain for the next 2 levels. You get +2 to your best save, you get max 4 ranks in a skill. It will take you 4 more levels in order to "double" the skill you've acquired in that "background training." Wizards get 1st level spells, they won't get a higher grade of spell for 2 more levels, barbs gets rage, rogues SA, etc. So I think 1st level does well to show the background training a character has gone through.
So I don't think the leveling speed is so unrealistic, no more unrealistic than what high levels characters can do in the first place.
Olaf the Stout
Hero
Shade said:
Emphasis mine.
Shade,
I can't speak for everyone here at EN World but I would have thought that once a week would be about as many times as most people play. I play once a fortnight and even that sometimes becomes difficult to organise due to scheduling clashes. Sure there are some people that might play multiple times per week but I would have thought that they would be in the minority.
Olaf the Stout
Similar Threads
