Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6805584" data-attributes="member: 996">One thing I like about 5e is that, even as it captures the feel of the classic game, it neatly inverts the speed at which you leveled.&nbsp; In AD&amp;D, the 'sweet spot' started at 3rd level and ended by double-digits.&nbsp; Between the kinds of monsters you could expect to fight and treasures they'd likely have at the various levels, and the weighting of the exp charts, 1st level could be an interminable grind, especially if you had to replace dead PCs, and the next couple of levels not a lot better.&nbsp; Then, just as the game started getting playable, you'd start blowing through levels as you could take on more, juicier-exp monsters and get bigger treasures, up until 'name level,' when you'd slow to a crawl again as the chart ballooned into 6-figure exp targets... just as the game started to fall apart.&nbsp; 5e neatly evokes the classic sweet spot, the perilous nature of 1st level, the heroic/capable but still easily challenged mid levels, and the over the top, potentially boring high levels.&nbsp; But, it intentionally has you zip through 1st level in as little as one adventuring 'day' (which you just might be able to get through in a longish session), through the rest of apprentice tier almost as quickly, putting you in the Sweet Spot ASAP, then slowing down to let you savour the good bits, before speeding up again and racing to PC retirement before you can get too crushingly bored with your high-level uber-PCs.&nbsp; As to the OP's chart, I can't imagine what kind of statistical contortions it required to compare such disparate exp systems, but they certainly don't match up to 'reality' IMX.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6805584, member: 996"] One thing I like about 5e is that, even as it captures the feel of the classic game, it neatly inverts the speed at which you leveled. In AD&D, the 'sweet spot' started at 3rd level and ended by double-digits. Between the kinds of monsters you could expect to fight and treasures they'd likely have at the various levels, and the weighting of the exp charts, 1st level could be an interminable grind, especially if you had to replace dead PCs, and the next couple of levels not a lot better. Then, just as the game started getting playable, you'd start blowing through levels as you could take on more, juicier-exp monsters and get bigger treasures, up until 'name level,' when you'd slow to a crawl again as the chart ballooned into 6-figure exp targets... just as the game started to fall apart. 5e neatly evokes the classic sweet spot, the perilous nature of 1st level, the heroic/capable but still easily challenged mid levels, and the over the top, potentially boring high levels. But, it intentionally has you zip through 1st level in as little as one adventuring 'day' (which you just might be able to get through in a longish session), through the rest of apprentice tier almost as quickly, putting you in the Sweet Spot ASAP, then slowing down to let you savour the good bits, before speeding up again and racing to PC retirement before you can get too crushingly bored with your high-level uber-PCs. As to the OP's chart, I can't imagine what kind of statistical contortions it required to compare such disparate exp systems, but they certainly don't match up to 'reality' IMX. [/QUOTE]

Verification