Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caligula 01-07-07, 09:45 AM	D&D 3.5's XP reward system is a failed system. The more I play, the more ridiculous I find it. I have played the different versions of the D&D game for about 20 years. I think the 3.5 system is the best one yet, and the best RPG out there, but the level progression rules are ridiculous. Or how else can you explain that over just a couple of days of adventuring, the PCs can easily turn from beginner adventurers to realm-changing superheroes!??? Play Red Hand of Doom, or any other longer adventure module and you will find out what I mean! It is just TOO EASY to progress in levels. It goes way too fast! I think instead of raising the barr with a mere 1.000 XP per level, it should double each level as in the old system. The system we use now in 3.5 make it possible for the PCs to level from 3rd to 10th level in under a month of in-game time!!! Is this how we really want the game to be? :confused: For most D&D NPC's it is a devlopment that may take years and many adventures to reach the 10+ levels. But for the PCs it can take under a month with intense adventuring. Now, this is absurd and the D&D system must change!!! I call upon all of you to demand this change from the Wizards D&D staff so the game we all love doesn't turn into a ridiculous fast-lane RPG! Caligula
Witch 01-07-07, 09:51 AM	Amusingly, I find it too slow for a campaign. It's too reliant on fights. I don't have that many fights.
Anaxander 01-07-07, 09:52 AM	I stopped using the XP system altogether. I just figure out within how many sessions I think the characters should level and I give them xp accordingly. They gain some additional xp for roleplaying and stuff.
Artector 01-07-07, 10:03 AM	Really, I don't have a problem with it. If you are running 4 encounters a day with instant-level-up, it gets ridicoulous. But I don't run an encounter every day, I run it more along the lines of every third day. Standard training for going up a level is 1 week. Adventures like the Red Hand of Doom (haven't played) push the characters to their limits, and they are expected to grow. As is, I have no problem with the XP system. But you can change it as you wish.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-07-07, 10:14 AM	D&D 3.5's XP reward system is a failed system.That's a fine opinion you've got there.
Board_Rider 01-07-07, 10:18 AM	I guess when you look at it in game the PCs are world changers by 25 years old if human. However the D&D system is here to promote fun for the players in RL. Most players like change and getting more powerful abilities rather quick. It may not make sense within the campaign world but thats the game and it is up to each DM to "show" the impact of the PCs actions as they take place on the landscape. If preferred, and agreed upon by the players, go for a gritty, story based progression system. Levels are gained by how the story progresses.
Caligula 01-07-07, 10:46 AM	Really, I don't have a problem with it. If you are running 4 encounters a day with instant-level-up, it gets ridicoulous. But I don't run an encounter every day, I run it more along the lines of every third day. Standard training for going up a level is 1 week. Adventures like the Red Hand of Doom (haven't played) push the characters to their limits, and they are expected to grow. As is, I have no problem with the XP system. But you can change it as you wish. What you are saying here is that within 20 weeks, your standard PC can turn into one of the most powerful persons in the world! Regardless which campaign setting you play in. Powerful beings in FR or Greyhawk, or Eberron, have had years to develop and turn into 20th level NPCs. There simply is no logic or no sense with todays level progression system. It needs to be wlowed down like before. I say we should demand that they turn back to the double-up every level (1.000 - 2.000 - 4.000 - 8.000, etc) How can you defend being a 20th level PC after just some weeks of active play?
Caligula 01-07-07, 10:48 AM	I guess when you look at it in game the PCs are world changers by 25 years old if human. However the D&D system is here to promote fun for the players in RL. Most players like change and getting more powerful abilities rather quick. It may not make sense within the campaign world but thats the game and it is up to each DM to "show" the impact of the PCs actions as they take place on the landscape. If preferred, and agreed upon by the players, go for a gritty, story based progression system. Levels are gained by how the story progresses. That's ofcourse a good idea, but wouldn't it be easier if Wizards could just give us back the system we so revered with doubling-up XP's each level?
Cthulhu3125 01-07-07, 10:55 AM	What you are saying here is that within 20 weeks, your standard PC can turn into one of the most powerful persons in the world! Regardless which campaign setting you play in. Powerful beings in FR or Greyhawk, or Eberron, have had years to develop and turn into 20th level NPCs. There simply is no logic or no sense with todays level progression system. It needs to be wlowed down like before. I say we should demand that they turn back to the double-up every level (1.000 - 2.000 - 4.000 - 8.000, etc) How can you defend being a 20th level PC after just some weeks of active play? How about you change the experience cap per level in *your* games, and the rest of us keep it how it is.
Sarella Starshine 01-07-07, 10:58 AM	There is nothing right now that's preventing you from doing so in your own game. It even says so right on page 40 of the DMG. You the DM control how much XP your players get and how fast they level. As long as they agree with you, I don't see the need why you want every game out there changed to match what you want, when we (as a collective whole) are happy with how our individual games are going.
Artector 01-07-07, 10:59 AM	What you are saying here is that within 20 weeks, your standard PC can turn into one of the most powerful persons in the world! Regardless which campaign setting you play in. Powerful beings in FR or Greyhawk, or Eberron, have had years to develop and turn into 20th level NPCs. There simply is no logic or no sense with todays level progression system. It needs to be wlowed down like before. I say we should demand that they turn back to the double-up every level (1.000 - 2.000 - 4.000 - 8.000, etc) How can you defend being a 20th level PC after just some weeks of active play? I'm fine with it. You're also assuming that PC's gain power INSTANTLY after going up a level. Its a preference thing, you don't want your PC's to level to awesome power in 20 weeks, so don't give out XP that fast, I'd rather not be stuck at level 4 forever. And as you said in the first post, there is a logical progression, that progression tends towards faster level-up. I can defend it because I like it. Its the exactly the same thing as your saying. My character has gained 3 levels in probably a month of game time, that's plenty slow for me.
Palladium 01-07-07, 11:04 AM	Use the variant training rules. PCs still need the same XP for a level but leveling up takes time.
Azar_of_Faerun 01-07-07, 11:05 AM	Sorry Caligula. I like you as a poster on other fronts, but in this situation I have to disagree :weep: The thing is, I keep a fairly balanced list of challenging and non-challenging encounters to intersperse between the plot of my games (such as wilderness encounters or random NPC element in a city) to the point where the XP gain isn't that much of a hindrance, or, I place in good roleplaying possibilities (like meeting the king, a word at the rogue's guild, consultation with a wizardly mentor) to the point where it hardly comes up as a problem.
christOrisen 01-07-07, 11:07 AM	D&D 3.5's XP reward system is a failed system. The more I play, the more ridiculous I find it. I have played the different versions of the D&D game for about 20 years. I think the 3.5 system is the best one yet, and the best RPG out there, but the level progression rules are ridiculous. Or how else can you explain that over just a couple of days of adventuring, the PCs can easily turn from beginner adventurers to realm-changing superheroes!??? Play Red Hand of Doom, or any other longer adventure module and you will find out what I mean! It is just TOO EASY to progress in levels. It goes way too fast! I think instead of raising the barr with a mere 1.000 XP per level, it should double each level as in the old system. The system we use now in 3.5 make it possible for the PCs to level from 3rd to 10th level in under a month of in-game time!!! Is this how we really want the game to be? :confused: For most D&D NPC's it is a devlopment that may take years and many adventures to reach the 10+ levels. But for the PCs it can take under a month with intense adventuring. Now, this is absurd and the D&D system must change!!! I call upon all of you to demand this change from the Wizards D&D staff so the game we all love doesn't turn into a ridiculous fast-lane RPG! Caligula I guess the DM can pace encounters and XP as he likes. I remember things did move a little more slowly in AD&D. I am not really that troubled by XP but by the challenge rating system. That seems very broken to me.
Caligula 01-07-07, 11:07 AM	There is nothing right now that's preventing you from doing so in your own game. It even says so right on page 40 of the DMG. You the DM control how much XP your players get and how fast they level. As long as they agree with you, I don't see the need why you want every game out there changed to match what you want, when we (as a collective whole) are happy with how our individual games are going. Well, that's a good point. But at the same time, if you play an adventure module like RHoD or CotSQ, it counts on you allowing the PCs to level in a certain pace - or the they will stand no chance. So really, this "choice" is there only in theory. I still like the game, I just wish that they could give us back the slower pace levelling which in my opinion was much betetr and more in-game realistic! :)
Caligula 01-07-07, 11:08 AM	Use the variant training rules. PCs still need the same XP for a level but leveling up takes time. I do that in a sense. I only allow level progression in natural "pauses" between encounters, unless special circumstances apply.
Caligula 01-07-07, 11:10 AM	Sorry Caligula. I like you as a poster on other fronts, but in this situation I have to disagree :weep: The thing is, I keep a fairly balanced list of challenging and non-challenging encounters to intersperse between the plot of my games (such as wilderness encounters or random NPC element in a city) to the point where the XP gain isn't that much of a hindrance, or, I place in good roleplaying possibilities (like meeting the king, a word at the rogue's guild, consultation with a wizardly mentor) to the point where it hardly comes up as a problem. I'm sorry if I came out to harsh, but this is my honest opinion. :) I am quite disappointed with the XP-progression as it is now. I wish they could take us back to the time where you needed to double your XPs to level.
Azar_of_Faerun 01-07-07, 11:19 AM	Well there are some parts of that I share a belief in - such as skills or feats gained upon level-up that seem dubious at best to be gained in a dank dungeon or bluffs of a frontier town (unless the reason for is done with intelligence and panache) :cool:
Board_Rider 01-07-07, 11:33 AM	That's ofcourse a good idea, but wouldn't it be easier if Wizards could just give us back the system we so revered with doubling-up XP's each level? I get the feeling that many wouldn't want to go back to "the old days". I personally wouldn't mind it though. I will agree that linear modules do have the PCs grow in power rather quickly and that DMs "choice" is limited. Thats a good point. However, I would propose that if levelling were an issue than perhaps the "set" ways of a module would simply need to be changed. On the other hand I don't think that is what the designers have in mind for the game anymore. Basically the Players come up with PCs they like, they gain power quickly (despite it not making sense in accordance to the campaign fluff) and they go on to do great things. Then the campaign resets and the PCs start over again. To me the game simply puts the PCs in a bubble which is guided by the DM and everyone has fun. The footprint on the campaign reality is put on the back burner because many simply feel it interferes with their RL fun. Of course if you find a group who loves deep and immersing storylines, long drawn out campaigns and evolving and deeply spiritied PCs then I would use the old way. Today, in my XP anyways, players just like to level and amass stuff.
Malraux 01-07-07, 11:38 AM	The leveling system in 3.5 is clearly out of whack with the reality of the game world. It does happen very fast from a character's perspective. That said, I think it's about right from a player's perspective. It works out to about every 4-6 sessions I get something new and interesting to play with (new feat, class ability, more skills changing tactics), which takes about 2-3 sessions to get used to, which leaves a few sessions to start thinking about what I want next. There's something to be said for playing the same character for years and years IRL, but for many (most?) people that is unrealistic.
Sanmateo 01-07-07, 12:01 PM	Personally, I'm happy with the system the way it is. Which is to say my players are happy with it, so I am. Folks really need to remember that WoTC isn't going to come to your house and beat you with a stick because you changed the rules or concocted your own house rules in your own gaming group. It isn't necessary for WoTC to change the game system because something isn't working (unless it's so bad that it effects their sales, of course). Just change your own game in whatever way makes it fun for you and yours. ;) If you want to change the experience progress for your game, there's nothing stopping you...except the players, maybe. Probably have to clear with them first. :eek:
jeffepp 01-07-07, 12:04 PM	It's also worth pointing out that the "officially suggested" progression is approximately 13-14 encounters per level up. The number of XP that a character has is more a function of "Loss" or "Cost", such as when a familiar dies or when Crafting a magic item. And. it sounds like your problem is not with the normal progression, but that expected by the authors of modules. The real problem is that Wizards is not holding these authors to a reasonable progression within there modules.
Caligula 01-07-07, 12:19 PM	The leveling system in 3.5 is clearly out of whack with the reality of the game world. It does happen very fast from a character's perspective. That said, I think it's about right from a player's perspective. It works out to about every 4-6 sessions I get something new and interesting to play with (new feat, class ability, more skills changing tactics), which takes about 2-3 sessions to get used to, which leaves a few sessions to start thinking about what I want next. There's something to be said for playing the same character for years and years IRL, but for many (most?) people that is unrealistic. The core here of my critizism is that how do they explain that it takes many, many years for the most powerful NPCs in D&D to reach 15-20th level, when a PC can do that in a few months time? Now think about that for a while guys. I mean, we all want a system that gives us the opportunity to progress in levels at an appropriate rate, but we also wants the general gaming world to make a little bit sense. Or should the NPCs live under completely different developing-curves? I find that hard to accept as a matter of fact. A key NPC, let's say the King of a country, or the General of an army, need 15 years to reach 20th level. A Player Character can do it in 12 months. Now, what does that say about the XP-system today? Does it work in your mind? In mine it doesn't. I'm sorry guys. I think we need to get back to the double-up XP per level system.
Caligula 01-07-07, 12:22 PM	Folks really need to remember that WoTC isn't going to come to your house and beat you with a stick because you changed the rules or concocted your own house rules in your own gaming group. Are you really, really sure about that? :D
Caligula 01-07-07, 12:26 PM	It's also worth pointing out that the "officially suggested" progression is approximately 13-14 encounters per level up. The number of XP that a character has is more a function of "Loss" or "Cost", such as when a familiar dies or when Crafting a magic item. And. it sounds like your problem is not with the normal progression, but that expected by the authors of modules. The real problem is that Wizards is not holding these authors to a reasonable progression within there modules. But this is not about one particular module, but rather all modules I have played. The PCs progress too fast. I have played perhaps 12-15 modules with the 3.0-3.5 system. And the PCs explode in levels. In under a months gaming time they will be around 10th level. Among the most powerful beings of Faeun or any D&D world. It just doesn't make any sense to me! How do you explain that in your campaign to the players? "Yes, my friend, you are now 16 years and 1 month old, and have turned from a farmers boy to one of the most skilled warriors in all of Faerun." Real nice.... :confused:
Monteblanco 01-07-07, 12:26 PM	Caligula, you're right in saying the D&D experience system to be ridiculous in any reality check. However, you should agree that D&D is a very poor simulation of the real world. As many others have said, there is nothing that refrains you to set your own pace of leveling. The only problem, of course, is playing big adventure modules, such as Red Hand of Doom. I used to have a problem with the old modules (never run a 3.x module) regarding money and magic items. Usually, I divide money per ten and severely restrict the magic items given. You can do the same thing with experience, but you should also nerf a little bit the opposition at higher levels. Considering how irritating you find the official advancement rate, it should pay off the extra effort.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-07-07, 12:28 PM	I feel characters should start out stronger than punk wanderers and then slow down. I figure that if they're big damn heros, they should fit the part.
Caligula 01-07-07, 12:31 PM	Caligula, you're right in saying the D&D experience system to be ridiculous in any reality check. However, you should agree that D&D is a very poor simulation of the real world. As many others have said, there is nothing that refrains you to set your own pace of leveling. The only problem, of course, is playing big adventure modules, such as Red Hand of Doom. I used to have a problem with the old modules (never run a 3.x module) regarding money and magic items. Usually, I divide money per ten and severely restrict the magic items given. You can do the same thing with experience, but you should also nerf a little bit the opposition at higher levels. Considering how irritating you find the official advancement rate, it should pay off the extra effort. Ofcourse it's impossible to compare with the Real World! But I'm not comparing it with the Real World, mind you. I'm comparing it with in-game mechanics. Let me give you a direct example. Drizzt Do´Urden is one of the most potent NPCs in all of Faerun. He is a 16th level NPC. It took him years and years of enormous work and adventures to reach this level of power. For any Player Character, this can easily be achieved with a couple of months play. This is the key issue here! Should the players be able to reach this star-studded heights that quickly? And how can a serious campaign defend or even explain this?
NineInchNall 01-07-07, 12:31 PM	Caligula, you're right in saying the D&D experience system to be ridiculous in any reality check. However, you should agree that D&D is a very poor simulation of the real world. And never intended to be a good simulation, as freely stated in the OD&D Rules Cyclopaedia and the 2e Player's Handbook.
Caligula 01-07-07, 12:34 PM	I feel characters should start out stronger than punk wanderers and then slow down. I figure that if they're big damn heros, they should fit the part. Fine, I agree. But do you think a PC should be able to turn from a 16 year old farmers boy to an ultimate fighting machine worthy of a swordmaster when he is 16 years and 1 month old? Is that a XP-reward system that we want and find logical in our D&D world? I sure don't.
Roland the Crownbreaker 01-07-07, 12:36 PM	Our gaming group just cut all awarded xp in half, that slowed things down enough not to be insane, but not to the sad and pathetic crawl it was in earlier editions.
DIESCUMDIE 01-07-07, 12:41 PM	Lots of good movies have the character start out as a ***** willow but within a short amount of time they suddenly kick ass. But I agree xp doesn't work. No group I've played in bothers sticking with it.
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 01-07-07, 12:54 PM	Is XP in 3.5 terribly different than 3.0? I'm running 3.0 and it's working petty good, if not a little slow (though then again we usually have sesions every-other weak) Anyways, using FR NPCs as comparison is stupid...why? Because FR NPCs are stupid. And as for a king or general taking years and years to reach 20th level- let me ask you this- how often is that king doing stuff that earns him XP (also I tend to prefer nobles not be 20th level...because it's stupid)? The PCs are fighting baddies every single day as a career. Those nobles aren't. I should also not that it's more realistic to have high level foot soldiers. I make it so that career soldiers and vetrans are usually level 2-4, mercenaries level 3+, your basic grunt usually level 2 unless he's never seen combat before or is a town gaurd in some tiny hamlet, and your basic squad leader or officer on the field as level 3-6. It feels a bit more realistic to me.
mangoman72 01-07-07, 12:55 PM	I'd have to disagree with this one. I have tons of fun with a fast levelling rate. See, I'm a newbie at that game, which means I have zero idea of what classes I like, or anything else like that. A fast levelling rate allows me to experience a lot of the content at a good pace and be comfortable with it. Does it make sense? No, not really. But then again, you're the heroes! That's how it is in almost any fantasy game. The hero will always always always advance in power exponentially so he can whoop some butt. That's pretty much true for any RPG I've ever played. Of course, those were all on consoles, so you may expect something different from a tabletop game. I don't. Really, I think the problem here is balancing logic and fantasy. I find that a game bogged down with the former becomes un-fun, while a game bogged down with the latter doesn't make any sense. So, your opinions and the opinions of your players will decide where to set the line between those two. But as for me, I'm A-OK with the rate they've set down, so long as it gives me enough time to become familiar with my abilities before acquiring new ones.
Board_Rider 01-07-07, 01:01 PM	Let me give you a direct example. Drizzt Do´Urden is one of the most potent NPCs in all of Faerun. He is a 16th level NPC. It took him years and years of enormous work and adventures to reach this level of power. You must remember though that story/authored NPCs do not necessarily follow the rules. Therey are not "played"..they are written. NPCs are intended to act as backdrop, fluff, imagry etc. and not a balancing stick to what the rules represent for PCs. Take a look at the Eberron model. Many people praised the fact that when the setting was introduced the PCs would truly shine because there were no "Elminsters". However that quickly changed, for whatever reason. My point is that NPCs should not be held under the same light as PCs because they are there for different reasons. PCs are to be played and to have fun with while NPCs are there to add color and background. To look at it a different way. Remember all those BBEGs you created? Suddenly you have this great NPC who has motivations, dreams and powers. None of that means a hill of beans because he is most likely going to be killed in 3 rounds by your gaming party. In short NPCs do not fall under the XP rules or level progression standards. They are just "there". To be used at a DMs whim, or not be used at all. The point of the game is to advance and have fun. I agree that it doesn't make sense when looked at on the whole but that is not the games design or intent IMO.
Robert Craven 01-07-07, 01:10 PM	If you play some homebrew campaign you can adjust XP easily in any way you want. Or you adjust the "rhythm" of the game. Not every day has to be packed with encounters. But with premade adventures you have to follow the rules in order to keep your characters up to the challenge. CotSQ is intended to last around 90 day (in-game) and the characters should get from level 10 to level 18. So roughly speaking, they should level about once a week. Not very realistic. But than again, in the Underdark you have to improve quickly or be killed. Just Survival of the fittest. And only the best ones will get through.
Malraux 01-07-07, 01:36 PM	The core here of my critizism is that how do they explain that it takes many, many years for the most powerful NPCs in D&D to reach 15-20th level, when a PC can do that in a few months time? Now think about that for a while guys. I mean, we all want a system that gives us the opportunity to progress in levels at an appropriate rate, but we also wants the general gaming world to make a little bit sense. Or should the NPCs live under completely different developing-curves? I find that hard to accept as a matter of fact. A key NPC, let's say the King of a country, or the General of an army, need 15 years to reach 20th level. A Player Character can do it in 12 months. Now, what does that say about the XP-system today? Does it work in your mind? In mine it doesn't. I'm sorry guys. I think we need to get back to the double-up XP per level system. Well, as a minor quibble, the XP per level is an arbitrary number calibrated off the XP per CR chart, so I think worrying about specifically doubling the xp to level is silly. Personally I'd prefer it where it always took 1000 XP to level, just so that it were easier to see how close I was to the next level. But whatever. Anyway, no the XP system does not make sense in terms of the game. Just as the wealth system doesn't make much sense, in that if a PC tries to sell a sword, it always goes for half the amount on the price tag in the store. Or that beating up on goblins gives you greater knowledge of undead (you level and put ranks into Knowledge (religion)). It is a concession to the player to help maximize fun. It is a matter of game design trumping world design. In short, do you think that the designers should consider what makes the game more fun, or what makes the game more consistent? And if you would have completely different solutions to increase "fun" vs increased realism, how do you reconcile the two?
Someone 01-07-07, 01:53 PM	I'm not sure what kind of game world would let you "power level" like that. Its not very good DMing to throw only CR 1s followed only by CR2s, followed by CR 3s, etc. I mean, how the heck are they separating themselves like that? Also, just how many CR X opponents do you think exist in a game world? i.e. the PCs beat the one CR 19 creature in the region, why is there another one right behind it?
Caligula 01-07-07, 02:49 PM	Well, as a minor quibble, the XP per level is an arbitrary number calibrated off the XP per CR chart, so I think worrying about specifically doubling the xp to level is silly. Personally I'd prefer it where it always took 1000 XP to level, just so that it were easier to see how close I was to the next level. But whatever. Anyway, no the XP system does not make sense in terms of the game. Just as the wealth system doesn't make much sense, in that if a PC tries to sell a sword, it always goes for half the amount on the price tag in the store. Or that beating up on goblins gives you greater knowledge of undead (you level and put ranks into Knowledge (religion)). It is a concession to the player to help maximize fun. It is a matter of game design trumping world design. In short, do you think that the designers should consider what makes the game more fun, or what makes the game more consistent? And if you would have completely different solutions to increase "fun" vs increased realism, how do you reconcile the two? I think the focus should be on players having fun, but I still believe they can do it with just a wee little bit more in-game realism. Having a PC progressing from pig-farmer to almighty warrior in a months time is just bad politics. You could still have fun, with a slower and more natural development in my opinion. We played earlier versions of D&D where you had to double your XP to level and that worked just fine. Back to the good old days please! :)
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 01-07-07, 03:02 PM	I think the focus should be on players having fun, but I still believe they can do it with just a wee little bit more in-game realism. Having a PC progressing from pig-farmer to almighty warrior in a months time is just bad politics. You could still have fun, with a slower and more natural development in my opinion. We played earlier versions of D&D where you had to double your XP to level and that worked just fine. Back to the good old days please! :) I should point out that somone with class levels probably isn't a pig farmer, or they are pig farmer who dose alot of VERY interesting things on the side. Your standard town gaurd is a warrior, and your pig farmer is a commoner. You character may have been a pig farmer at some point, but farming pigs isn't going to be thier specialty. 1st level characters are decentely trained, and aren't just random farmers. They've had about the equevelent to a bachelor's degree worth of education in thier "field", though thier education might not be incredibly formal (Rogues and bards probabl lack formal training, but they have been doing thier thing for a bit on a small scale)
CharlieBrown 01-07-07, 03:08 PM	The XP system is wonderful for fast-paced, limited duration campaigns - if you have a story arc that ends with the campaign ("Once you kill the Dragon King of Anaraxis, it's over"), or "we're playing until we hit level 20 then starting over" or "we're gaming for the next six months then I'm shipping out" situations. If you want a more open-ended campaign, or slower pacing, or whatever, you need to tweak the system. The game shouldn't do all of your thinking for you; it SHOULD provide guidelines for doing this, either in the official rules or in some semi-official supplement somewhere. Tweak the XP tables - either the XP needed OR the XP awarded ones - to fit the needs of YOUR game. Make sure your players know you're not following the "stock" rules, and if they get uppity, explain WHY, but it IS your game. Hasbro/WOTC provided the rules, but they do not stand over your table (well, unless you're a playtester...) with a whip and a scorecard punishing deviations and rewarding compliance.
Malraux 01-07-07, 03:13 PM	I think the focus should be on players having fun, but I still believe they can do it with just a wee little bit more in-game realism. Having a PC progressing from pig-farmer to almighty warrior in a months time is just bad politics. You could still have fun, with a slower and more natural development in my opinion. We played earlier versions of D&D where you had to double your XP to level and that worked just fine. Back to the good old days please! :) Is your complaint singularly around the ingame leveling rate? IE do you have complaints with the players leveling every 4-6 game sessions, or only with the rate of advancement in the game world?
Caligula 01-07-07, 03:26 PM	Is your complaint singularly around the ingame leveling rate? IE do you have complaints with the players leveling every 4-6 game sessions, or only with the rate of advancement in the game world? My main complaint is that the PCs level to fast in the 3.5 system. After just a few weeks of adventuring they will turn out to be among the most experienced and dangerous beings in the entire D&D universe. Not very acceptable in my opinion....
Malraux 01-07-07, 03:29 PM	The XP system is wonderful for fast-paced, limited duration campaigns - if you have a story arc that ends with the campaign ("Once you kill the Dragon King of Anaraxis, it's over"), or "we're playing until we hit level 20 then starting over" or "we're gaming for the next six months then I'm shipping out" situations. If you want a more open-ended campaign, or slower pacing, or whatever, you need to tweak the system. The game shouldn't do all of your thinking for you; it SHOULD provide guidelines for doing this, either in the official rules or in some semi-official supplement somewhere. Tweak the XP tables - either the XP needed OR the XP awarded ones - to fit the needs of YOUR game. Make sure your players know you're not following the "stock" rules, and if they get uppity, explain WHY, but it IS your game. Hasbro/WOTC provided the rules, but they do not stand over your table (well, unless you're a playtester...) with a whip and a scorecard punishing deviations and rewarding compliance. :thumbsup: Based on my experience, most people prefer the former style, explaining why the rules focus on this style, the published adventures use that, etc. On the later, the leveling rate is easily adjusted by whatever means, with minimal impact on the game. Off the top of my head, only the wealth by encounter rate would need to be adjusted, to account for more one time use items being purchased, or more action points if you use them. But its hard to call the system failed.
ZombieDragon 01-07-07, 03:31 PM	Yes it would take a mere 13-14 encounters verses your level, but paraphrasing Someone "where are these creature packs?”. The general taking years to get to level 15 is in part due to the fact he always fights low level creatures with a group of soldiers with him. I see this as a problem with the modules, and I never use them anymore. They seem to gear modules at the videogame crowd that love quick rewards, and instant compensation. I learned ways to make my own so that I can level my characters when I want. I make them role play training/research/study between levels. I also never give out XP. Instead I just announce “you have gone up a level” at set points in my stories/adventures timeline. The points do reflect when the XP would be achieved through the chart. I like getting players up to a nice working power level rather quickly, about 5th. After that I tend to slow progression until they reach the next plateau, around 12th. Then they tend to go and do big things for the world, and start to level a bit quicker. Once they achieve hero status and close in on epic levels, they due huge major things for the world. A lot of the time the world doesn’t even know about these deeds as they take place outside the material plane. From 1st to 5th they level about, 2 levels every 3 sessions. From 6th to 12th they level, 1 level every 3-4 sessions. From 13th through 18th they level about, once every 2 to sometimes 3 sessions. After that it’s random, depending on the “monster packs” they find or in more cases sent to kill. This tends to be the time when monsters of level make their appearance. As they are sent out to find and vanquish these threats to the stability of the world. It’s not just the heroes XP that breaks the world in views of balance. The peasant farmer if you look at it could never make a living. The economy if you look at it, is on the verge of collapse. In the end, it’s a game to tell an interactive story for the amusement of the players. It’s not a world that needs to make sense, just a world that needs to be there so the story may unfold.
IceFractal 01-07-07, 03:33 PM	This seems like a misunderstanding of how encounters work. Just because 4 encounters a day are recommended, doesn't mean it has to be 4 encounters every day (and note that "day" in this case is more like "time between rest periods"). So for instance, the heroes set off from the city to go find the golden magic thingy. After a couple weeks of travel, they come to the one bridge over the great canyon, and must battle their way through the orcs that live there. That's one day of encounters. After that, they travel a few more weeks before they reach the cave of the unpleasant creatures, where they risk life and limb before finding the golden magic thingy. That's two days. The travel back to the city is uneventful - but when they get there, it's bad news. Those orcs they fought earlier have gotten tired of robbing the rare travellers on the bridge and are coming to sack the town. After a couple weeks of preparations and seige, they do their part in the counterattack against the orcs and the city is safe. That's three days. Now they can sell the golden magic thingy, and they make quite a bit of coin off it - enough to construct their own guildhouse. The work on this takes a couple months, but its finally complete, and they're now a full guild - or are they? Suddenly, a noble accuses them of treason and tries to have them arrested. While on the run, they have to infiltrate the noble's mansion, break through his guards, and find evidence of his corruption. But they do, and their guild is safe - at which point it's been four days and they gain a level.Now in this case, one level took over four months of game time, and could have taken longer. Even if published adventurers run faster, there's no reason you have to run them back-to-back. Now if you're saying that levels should take longer IRL, I can't agree. Most campaigns I've been in don't run forever - even if the group stays the same, it's likely that we start a new campaign every so often. If levels took as long as 2E, we'd never get to high level unless we started there. And personally, I like being able to play from 1-20.
TheCobra 01-07-07, 03:40 PM	I share the original posters concerns, but there are ways to make leveling up take longer. In one of the campaigns I'm currently running, it's taken over a year for the PCs to go from level 3 to level 13. A huge increase in power, but a year is a while. I tend to think of PCs as rather blessed. Their skills have improved so much because few others are brave or foolish enough to push themselves so hard. It's luck or fate that the PCs have survived it all. Most NPCs tend to be more cautious. Others burn out and retire or roll low and die. I suspect adventuring has a pretty high turnover rate.
a_psh 01-07-07, 04:10 PM	The core here of my critizism is that how do they explain that it takes many, many years for the most powerful NPCs in D&D to reach 15-20th level, when a PC can do that in a few months time?XP doesn't apply to NPCs. They are whatever level they need to be. This is Keith Baker's openly-stated design method in Eberron. It's definitely the case in FR, too, given the way novel characters are adapted to stats. ... I don't think you fully remember the degeneracies inherent in the old XP system. Monster XP was static, which is very different from how 3e handles it, so "doubling" means something completely different. Also, the scale became linear after level 9, which resulted in you leveling faster and faster and faster after level 9 (barring repetitive death or hitting a racial limit), since you'd be getting into tougher encounters at level 15 than level 10 but still only needed the same amount of XP per level.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 01-07-07, 04:21 PM	For any Player Character, this can easily be achieved with a couple of months play. Only if they do nothing but fight every single day. And quite frankly, if someone does nothing but do "live-fire" training, they are going to get very, very good very, very fast. For every PC that makes it to level 20 through constant fighting, there's many more that die.
Caligula 01-07-07, 04:55 PM	I would prefer a system where the better you get, the more difficult it gets to improve yourself. There was a Swedish rpg that used the %-system. If you had 87% ability with a skill, 13% would be your chance to improve it when you gained experience in a skill. If you had 99% ability in a skill, you only had 1% to improve it. That's a bit simplified as you understand, but something like that would be appropriate in my opinion. I really find it ridiculous that a 16 year old adventurer can become a realms dominating warrior in about a months time. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all....
Malraux 01-07-07, 05:00 PM	I would prefer a system where the better you get, the more difficult it gets to improve yourself. There was a Swedish rpg that used the %-system. If you had 87% ability with a skill, 13% would be your chance to improve it when you gained experience in a skill. If you had 99% ability in a skill, you only had 1% to improve it. Call of Cthulhu/BRP from Chaosium uses that system. OTOH, in D&D to continue to level at the same rate, you have to fight harder and harder monsters, so by some measures it is more difficult to improve yourself.
Dracomortis 01-07-07, 05:06 PM	Well, I can see this argument going both ways. 1) It's too fast. I can definitely sympathize with htis position. Generally speaking when we hold a session, it's an all-nighter that lasts about 12 hours and we can usually cover a good 5 in-game days worth of adventure. Using the XP rules, that means we level up at least once (and sometimes twice) per session, which is way too often for me. 2) It's fine as is. Again, I can sympathize with this. Although we get a lot done in a single session, we only get in one session every month or two. If it was any slower, it could take us literally months before we leveled up. Overall though, I do agree that it's just a little bit too fast. You shouldn't go from level 19th to 20th as fast as you do from 1st to 2nd. I don't know, maybe I've just played too many RPGs where it takes weeks to level up after 80th, but I prefer characters to have to work hard for their levels.
a_psh 01-07-07, 05:15 PM	I really find it ridiculous that a 16 year old adventurer can become a realms dominating warrior in about a months time. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all....Then start the PCs out at age 25. ;)
DarkRhystar 01-07-07, 05:23 PM	Ofcourse it's impossible to compare with the Real World! But I'm not comparing it with the Real World, mind you. I'm comparing it with in-game mechanics. Let me give you a direct example. Drizzt Do´Urden is one of the most potent NPCs in all of Faerun. He is a 16th level NPC. It took him years and years of enormous work and adventures to reach this level of power. For any Player Character, this can easily be achieved with a couple of months play. This is the key issue here! Should the players be able to reach this star-studded heights that quickly? And how can a serious campaign defend or even explain this? Time (in game) is abstracted in D&D and moves just as fast or as slow as the DM wishes. The DM can wave his hand and say "5 days pass" or "5 months pass." If it makes you more satisfied to pass time in the world quickly then fine, it's really a trivial matter. Time (per session) however is not abstracted. Players aren't playing to simulate reality. Sometimes it takes one hour to simulate 2 minutes in game, sometimes it takes 2 minutes to simulate one hour in game. The important thing isn't the amount of time that passes. The important thing is how much fun is had during the time spent. More time DOES NOT EQUAL more fun. In fact, more time most often equates to tedium. Making players wait to increase tension or drama or fun in some way is acceptable, but making them wait simply to appease your own aesthetic sense of time progression is not.
Gollum 01-07-07, 05:24 PM	After just a few weeks of adventuring they will turn out to be among the most experienced and dangerous beings in the entire D&D universe. Not very acceptable in my opinion.... Let's take a look at what would be required for a group of adventurers to go from 1st level to 10th level in several weeks. To level up requires 13-14 successful combat encounters of the party's CR, so 10 levels is 130-140 encounters. Since a good portion of those are likely to be below the party's CR, we'll say that 180 combat encounters should be sufficient. 180 combat encounters in 30 days is 6 combat encounters per day. This probably taxes the PCs to the limits of their ability, since each encounter of the PCs' CR is supposed to use up 20% of their resources. Incidentally, this means that the PCs have a much greater chance of dying. If a DM is running a campaign where the PCs are having nonstop combat all day, every day, without even pausing for segue to the next adventure, then why would they complain about "realism?". Sure, it takes NPCs like Drizzt years to reach the high levels, but that's because in game terms, each of their combat encounters is separated by good chunks of time, roleplaying encounters, etc. Conclusion: Any supposed XP problems are not inherent in the system. If the PCs level up every adventure, then separate each adventure with at least several months of game time. What really strains credulity is for the PCs to leave a dungeon, only to immediately stumble across the next one, which just happens to be perfect for their level of ability.
Reversefigure4 01-07-07, 05:30 PM	I really find it ridiculous that a 16 year old adventurer can become a realms dominating warrior in about a months time. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.... You're simplifying. It doesn't just "happen". The adventurer would have to fight, constantly, 4 encounters of appropriate CR per day, every day, and level instantly - as well as acquiring all the requisite gear he needs instantly (no time to craft it, order it, or go travelling around shops looking for it). If your games run like so: "PC is standing around. On day 1, 4 groups of goblins come running up to him over the day, and he beats them up. On day 2, 4 groups of skeletons attack. On day 3... On day 30, four groups of dragons, demons, and other CR appropriate challenges attack." If that's the case, I can see why it doesn't make any sense. Where are these waves of monsters coming from? Why doesn't the PC ever have to travel, or have a day off, or spend some time doing something other than constant monster slaying? IceFractal laid out an excellent example of how it should be, so I won't bother to repeat it.
Amni 01-07-07, 05:36 PM	3rd-10th in a month?! holy crap man, you must play everyday. I think the system now is indented for slightly less really "game-time". What i mean is if you only play once a week then within a month OFG you should be gain a level-give or take a week or two. At that rate plays may even find the rate of progression slow, i know i do. If you do play alot and don’t like how fast the play are gain level you can make it a time progression. Instead of the giving gaining xp they can gain a new level has ever month of gaming. So if you play 2 times a week, that would mean that after 8 game nights, the plays gain a new level. That way if a player misses a night he would have 7 weeks toward a new level.
Amni 01-07-07, 06:16 PM	3rd-10th in a month?! holy crap man, you must play everyday. I think the system now is indented for slightly less really "game-time". What i mean is if you only play once a week then within a month OFG you should be gain a level-give or take a week or two. At that rate plays may even find the rate of progression slow, i know i do. If you do play alot and don’t like how fast the play are gain level you can make it a time progression. Instead of the giving gaining xp they can gain a new level has ever month of gaming. So if you play 2 times a week, that would mean that after 8 game nights, the plays gain a new level. That way if a player misses a night he would have 7 weeks toward a new level.
Lokiyn 01-07-07, 06:19 PM	What really strains credulity is for the PCs to leave a dungeon, only to immediately stumble across the next one, which just happens to be perfect for their level of ability. Ah, HA! (http://www.zogonia.com/zogoniaarchive/Resources/z078.jpeg) We also talked once about a kobold Tunnel that had Succesivly harder traps.If gaining a Level had a 50% death rate, 512 Kobolds Enter the tunnel and one comes out at level 10.
johnhansen 01-07-07, 06:33 PM	WoTC is just giving most players what they want, instant gratification (just like most computer games, console games and movies). Is it totally out of whack with almost any great story ever written about heroes, sure is it. Is it totally out of whack with the worlds they create for their NPCs and PC to live in, sure. But most people and especially people in modern society want what they want now now now. As a plus if every player cared about playing their character for a long time and creating a persona worthy of a great legend then WoTC would not be able to sell a new book filled with prestige classes every month and get that instant gratification we almost all want (Money).
AJ53 01-07-07, 06:35 PM	I agree with the sentiment- to an extent. It's easy to work your way around this accelerated levelling without actually doing so- simply implant much more downtime in your campaigns. Just finished a major dungeon? Ask the players to tell you how they spend the next uneventful <input length of time here>, allowing them to use craft, profession, perform, and "craft magic item" feats here, as well as a bit of roleplaying to top it off. It doesn't take that much time, but includes a larger perceived time-gap between levels.
Malraux 01-07-07, 06:44 PM	The Hobbit takes place over a single year. LotR is about a year and a half. In that time, characters starting a relatively low levels, with the help of some DMPCs, remake the world.
TarlSS 01-07-07, 07:21 PM	Caligula, You post a hell of a lot. Regardless. Alot of people just don't want to play the same damn PC for years or take months to level up. It's not meant to be a real life or fictional simulation. If you want realistic, think about it- you can go from punk highschool kid to Navy Seal or Delta Force in about 4 years. That's like level 1-20 in real life. As for months, most adventuring takes place in short bursts of terror punctuated by long stretches of boredom. Why do most characters take years in books to level? Because the writer says, "X character takes some time off and blah blah blah." In reality Elminster went from level 1-20 in about maybe 40 hours, the time it takes you to read 5 books. Judging 40 hours gametime, you're not even going to get from level 1-10. Realtime passes faster than written time, same thing for gametime. That's how it's meant to be. Encouraging extrapolation is a horrible idea. That's how you get monstrous things like Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time.
a_psh 01-07-07, 07:25 PM	WoTC is just giving most players what they want, instant gratification (just like most computer games, console games and movies).RPGs are an entertainment industry. The primary design criterion of any RPG is to be entertaining. Change is more entertaining Is it totally out of whack with almost any great story ever written about heroes, sure is it.Okay, let's say it takes 100 encounters to get to level 20 (I'm assuming a lot more encounters are on the "hard" to "nearly impossible" side, to be more heroic). Now, go read The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings or the old Dragonlance books or pretty much any fantasy story that fits into one to three long books. How many fights do the protagonists participate in? Or just how many scenes in general, for that matter? Not much more than 100, if even that, definitely. Is it totally out of whack with the worlds they create for their NPCs and PC to live in, sure.XP is, for the most part, a meta-mechanic. It's strictly a metagame reward system rather than a way to simulate anything. Meta-mechanics don't have any obvious reflection in the world itself. In essence, the player characters get special protagonist powers, just like they do in the stories you refer to. But most people and especially people in modern society want what they want now now now. As a plus if every player cared about playing their character for a long time and creating a persona worthy of a great legend then WoTC would not be able to sell a new book filled with prestige classes every month and get that instant gratification we almost all want (Money).Oh, please! It's silly to associate length with quality. Especially when you're using fantasy novels as your main reference. If you look at good, well-structure stories, most of them aren't 10,000 pages long. A well-written short story has strong pacing, good characterization, and a thorough exploration of theme, all in something like 20 to 50 pages. A good movie actually says everything it needs to say in all of two hours. Heck, look at the prototypical epics: Beowulf hardly fills up that much more space than that, and, flashbacks and sidestories and all, includes not much more than two dozen scenes (with only a handful of battles), while the Iliad, despite its long-windedness, fills a only a modest book and basically covers only 50 days' worth of events. Greek tragedies and Shakespeare plays aren't very long, either. Our actual legends -- tall tales, fairy tales, other little stories we've repeated to each other since the dawn of time are all short and to the point. So, where's this proud tradition of onerous, plodding, unending epics? A good story is as long as it needs to be to tell the story, and no longer. Because adding more stuff after that is just diluting it.
Manyfist 01-07-07, 07:48 PM	Real time does not pass in the same way as fantasy time. A month in game could really be 2 hours in real time. The XP system is fine as is. It requires a little common sense and some ingenuity, which I find in many posters on this thread are lacking. You do not send waves after waves of enemies after your guys. The 3 encounters/day isn't written in stone, if you want to have a in game year before another encounter then do so. D&D is not ment to be a straight forward hack and slash, which is why many people are complaining about leveling too fast. Sit down, have a good RP session, give XP accordily. Give your characters breaks every now and then, many of our party memebers levels at least once per session. However we can only get together at odd times, and so its no biggy. Our DMs allow up to 3months in one town, in which for literally 3 months of game time, no XP or anything. The XP system is good as is, however the DMs who Hack and Slash are not.
enlightened 01-07-07, 08:21 PM	I have to agree that is seems a little too fast sometimes. My group is only three people and we handle it like this: One person runs one adventure that raises the party level by 3 to 5 levels then when the adventure comes to a good breaking point we set it aside. Then the next person becomes DM and runs an adventure in a different world for different characters. After that adventure comes to a good close and the characters advance 3 to 5 levels we set it aside. Then the next person runs something. We try to alternate between GURPS, D&D, and D20 modern/future evenly. After everyone has run something we go back to the original group, advance the world about five years and do another adventure with them. We keep going in a circle like that. So each group does one adventure every five years or so of game world time. In this way we are able to: 1) Use the system as written but still make advancement take years in the game world. 2) Not get burnt out on a particular set of characters or a particular setting. 3) Give everyone a chance to DM. 4) Because several real-life months pass before we get back around to a particular group of characters, it is easier to swallow the idea that several years have passed for them in the game world in the meantime.
LordHell 01-07-07, 08:36 PM	The thing you have to remember is that playing 4 hours a week, and 13.3333 encounters per level (the way the game is designed) it takes about a year of real life time to get to 1-20. I don't know about the rest of you, but most games barely last that long. If characters in terms of time level up too fast (which I have had to deal with as a DM) you need to add in more down time, travel time, or whatever between adventures ("a couple of years have past since you drove off the goblins...."). RHOD is a war scenario in which you either get very good very fast, or you die. YOU can always alter the pace and increase it to 160 days or so if you wish. I think the most important factor however again is the real life time. I've spent about 4 months at level 3 in one game and I'm getting a little bored of it. My current DM has added 'training' into the game to add 'realism' and it's more a pain than anything for not only the players, but also him. If you're going to use training or something like that you need a totally open ended game, not some pre-determined module. If the PC's want to bug out of a quest to get some downtime they need to be able to.
Otto the Bugbear 01-07-07, 08:51 PM	I think the focus should be on players having fun, but I still believe they can do it with just a wee little bit more in-game realism. And do the players also believe this? Or is this your belief on their behalf? And if they have fun on the pace that the core rules set?
johnhansen 01-07-07, 09:56 PM	a psh What level do you think Frodo,Sam start at in the beginning of the books and what level are they at end of the books. Originally Posted by a psh A well-written short story has strong pacing, good characterization, and a thorough exploration of theme, all in something like 20 to 50 pages. A good movie actually says everything it needs to say in all of two hours. I agree I just think that a short story should see a character go up a level and a two hour movie should only see a character go up around two levels. I hated the first D&D movie because it took low level characters and had them save the world from a army of dragons. I feel that a good D&D movie franchise would not get to saving the whole world till movie III or IV. Regards
Artifact 01-08-07, 01:56 AM	I apologize if this has been mentioned already, but here's how I would handle the 'problem'. There is a variant rule on page 40 of the DMG: If things are happening 'too fast' with the PCs, then lower the XP rewards by some suitable fraction of the original. Okay, maybe that was too easy, but its the best advice I got ;). I don't agree the XP system has to be dumped and redesigned from the ground up.
Always-Late 01-08-07, 02:10 AM	a psh What level do you think Frodo,Sam start at in the beginning of the books and what level are they at end of the books.The level system sucks at approximating Lord of the Rings. I don't know if there's a system that comes close to it. If we'd had to, I'd chalk Frodo as a level 3 Commoner 2 Survivor 2 with an absurd (read: 100+) amount of free action points, and Sam about the same. At the beginning, they might be Commoner 2; they might pick up two levels over the course of it. They also have hundreds of action points free (if you actually want to simulate it without being super high level) so it doesn't really matter.
SageBahamut 01-08-07, 02:26 AM	I have a couple of points here, but forgive me if in my half-asleep-ness I don't express them very clearly. It's 2am. 1: NPCs are already held to a different standard of measure than PCs in several regards. First and foremost, 100% of PCs have levels in PC classes, compared to... what does the DMG say? Something like 4% of the population overall? PCs also pay twice as much as anybody else to buy anything, the flip-side of their only being able to sell for half. Thus it is only possible to turn a profit making magic items if you're not a PC. The upside to this is that in 20 levels a PC will make something like five or six orders of magnitude more money than the average NPC. 2: Named NPCs are not PCs. They do things besides adventure. They sleep. They travel for uneventful days on end that are spelled out at great length. (Just go read that section of Fellowship where you see Tolkien describe the entire contents of Bag End and who by name Frodo gave it to for something like 11 pages.) Drizzt is something like 150 years old as of the Hunter's Blades Trilogy. He has only been adventuring hardcore for the last... let's say 15 years of that, since Cattie-brie was a child when they met and his lover now. And he fights mostly what? Orcs? CR 1/2 each, vs his current ECL of 21 or 22? How much XP do you think he gets for killing an orc? He could probably lawnmower his way through half of King Oubold's army and come out the other side a few thousand orcs short of level 23. He'd probably still have HP left. Even if you include his time in the Underdark as The Hunter, he spent most of his time walking around, hiding, and sleeping. He probably killed mostly rats. At least when he started in 2nd Ed those rats were worth a whole xp each. Now, to rebut this a little. Be fair - Lord of the Rings was not a brief time period either. The time that Frodo was hiding the ring while Gandalf researched looked like a couple of days in the movie, maybe a month at best. In the books it was 17 years! So just because the movies went by in six hours, that was still 15 months (according to Frodo in Return of the King) of a kind of relentless adventuring we would call a DM cruel for requiring of a D&D character. In the books it was much longer. I think it was something like 30 years from the beginning of Fellowship to the end of Return. In Faerun it's even longer. Drizzt's story, as I said, is filled with leaps and bounds of either downtime or skirmishing combat that probably didn't earn him jack in terms of XP. For Elminster it's even spottier, since he "lay dead" for something on the order of a thousand years, trapped in some sort of time-bubble-thing. He was also a prisoner in Hell for a while (although that book made no sense so I can't really tell you /if/ time passed in it).
Anaxander 01-08-07, 02:51 AM	I don't understand the complaints about fast levelling. My group and I've played a one year lasting campaign which took us from 1st to 7th level, with the 3.5 XP rules. I think it lasted two months in game time. In general, we played every week during 5 hours or so. If you're playing a hack & slash campaign, with every session multiple combat encounters, than you're levelling fast. But if you play each session with a balanced amount of combat, NPC interaction, exploration and character development than you just cannot level fast. So we decided that levelling went in fact too slow with the current rules and so I made sure now that we're levelling each 3 or 4 sessions. The XP system cannot be a failed system per se because you always have to apply it to your own methods and needs of gaming. In addition, as said by others, in D&D the PCs are adventurers and heroes. They are not pig farmers or even soldiers. Danger is their profession so they should level faster than any other NPC - if they survive it.
Brightblade 01-08-07, 03:09 AM	How about you change the experience cap per level in *your* games, and the rest of us keep it how it is. Exactly what I was going to say. Furthermore, I'd point out that many modern RPG's make a point of mentioning that the "average" pc is anything but the average member of his species. Remember that as the heroes of any given story/module/campaign, the pc's represent the exceptional members of their society. It only stands to reason that they accomplish more in a "shorter" time over the course of their lives than the average (and all too often less than average) civilian. The average farmer will take one good look at an ankheg and probably run screaming for his life. The pc, being the exceptional being he is (perhaps exceptionally brave, maybe exceptionally dumb) will practice the exception: stand up to the beast and fight. If he survived, he probably learned a lot from the experience: how to fight an ankheg and live, the fact that he CAN fight an ankheg and live, what he might have done different to make the encounter less painful (it's an ANKHEG...he probably got hurt fighting it, maybe even lost a comrade or two). In essence, he has just performed the world’s hardest form of on-the-job training and has gained "xp", maybe even "leveled". Did the farmer gain much experience or skill from the encounter? He may have learned to run a little faster.... The experience charts are just a method of arbitrarily quantifying such a concept. Take a look at World War II, EZ company for example. We are talking men that changed the course of history in the space of two to three years. Men, who through the harsh and immediate gauntlet of battlefield combat, either became skilled warriors or died, all too often dying regardless. We can see the RPG equivalent easily. Men of EZ who had been with their units through D-DAY+ often saw the very "green" replacements that came to their units as dead men or worse as walking hazards. Why? Because in RPG terms the d-day vets had already leveled several levels of their class (warrior/fighter/whatever) through real combat, where as the replacements were usually raw recruits (level 1) who had never experienced real combat and as such were "dumb" to the many methods and skills they would need to survive, and just as importantly to keep their comrades alive. All it took was one rooky to give away a squads position (failed hide check, low skill) to put an entire unit's lives on the line (as opposed to the vet's higher level, better skilled hide check). Mind you the seasoned vets had only been in hard combat a fairly short time if you think of it in context of the average human lifespan. Now remember, these differences could develop themselves in mere days or weeks of combat. You either got good (leveled) or you got dead (no resurrections for you kiddo). Now take this paradigm a bit further, the average raw recruit, fresh out of basic and combat school (level 1), was already a better warrior than the average Joe off the street. He had the training to be a warrior hammered into him ruthlessly in typically less than a year. Now compare the d-day vet to both, and you have a man who could out-fight either of them in most circumstances, probably any given day of the week. He got his levels in a fairly short amount of time as well or he was dead. As a warrior, he is already distinguished as an exceptional example of his class, even of his species. He is capable of facing the horrors of combat, the likes of which the average man would wilt in the face of, and surviving if not overcoming and defeating them. Read any accounts of real world heroism from that war and you can easily see what I am speaking of. Does this rule out the rooky doing something stupendous? No, but I bet'cha he gained a "level" or two doing it (we all roll 20's sometimes don't we?) Our fictional heroes are built in this mold. They are refined by the fires of combat and strife into something more than the typical peasant. They face dangers most men and women would die from. They survive a crucible that ultimately either improves them, or kills them. Those that live gain "levels" and improve, those that don't learn usually fall to their foes that have. And very often, they do so in a span of time far shorter than one would expect, the immediacy of conflict demands it. I promise you, the soldier who faces the fires of war becomes a far greater warrior faster than the one who mans a quiet post far from the rigours of combat. But this entire long-winded treatise ultimately means nothing. It is simply stated that if you think the xp ladder is too forgiving, change it. It is your game. Just keep in mind that real heroes can "level" surprisingly fast too, so any argument of "realistic leveling" is probably a fallacy. Exercise your OWN initiative and problem solving instead of expecting someone else to change it for you (i.e. Wizards).
Valoy_Muniz 01-08-07, 05:14 PM	One thing also that most groups I have seen do not do is take in game breaks. My players while hack and slash will burn alot of ingame time on things. Some things thay do that make the calander yer pass quickly is 1) have week long party in town from slaying the dragon that was terrizing the town. 2)Go fishing to relax up in a cabin. 3) Visit loved ones that they have not seen for a while. 4) Take the winter off so they do not freeze out side when they have a nice warm house to live in. 5) Spend time healing both they bodies (bones) and souls. 6) Just sleeping in since they are tired from the day before. These thing have almost no effect on the game (other then cost some gold) but it makes the calender year go by faster. Mix in time they need to craft stuff and travel times and you can make the calender year fly by very quickly as they lose 1/4 of the year from #4 alone. While I do not make them do this they do as part of the rpg element as you know your self do you want to push your self every day sleeping on the outdoors and never rest. If you want to make them do some of these thing give them problems if they do not. Maby something like is they do not take a vaction every so offen they "Burn out" witch is -10% xp.
Archangel62 01-08-07, 05:24 PM	Fine, I agree. But do you think a PC should be able to turn from a 16 year old farmers boy to an ultimate fighting machine worthy of a swordmaster when he is 16 years and 1 month old? Is that a XP-reward system that we want and find logical in our D&D world? I sure don't. Well, apparently you never served in combat. A soldier is something akin to a first level fighter or warrior, the difference between a soldier in his first combat and his tenth is incredible. Also, Drizz't had many years of downtime and adaptation to the surface where he had little reaction with the world aside from hiding, that means he wasn't fighting very often was he? Not to mention that his level didn't matter since he had the feat "Cash Cow" which meant he was effectively immortal and unbeatable. If you have a constantly escalating CR over those months and the fights are constant then the DM isn't running the game very realistically either so the fault is equally on the DMs end. But then if DMs cared about making a good story they wouldn't need all those monster manuals or anything like that would they :rolleyes: .
leixela 01-11-07, 12:43 AM	I've been playing in the same campaign for almost two years now. We just reached level 17 with about 16 years of in game play. I don't think it's too slow or fast. It's all about how the DM distributes encounters and time. We'll be epic soon, I think. But that's only because our characters are about to go and fight a bunch of demons. Overall, the progression seems fair. The DM gives XP for roleplaying (and the better the RP, the better the XP per player...... and we all don't get the same XP, everyone is different), monsters, bonuses for awesome stuff we may do... and the worst: minuses for things we may do. If a player uses out of character knowledge that is extremely wrong to use, they get a loss. If a player ruins game play by making an a$$ of himself, well, he loses XP for not being a fair, team-player. If a player cheats, he also loses XP. In the end, the system is really up to the DM. I think the way they have it set up is good. After all, what adventurer is REALLY going to face a lot of monsters at within a month?? Unless the area is crowded with them and the fact that they are there is the real problem, then I don't see it as likely.
ORC_Paradox 01-11-07, 02:56 AM	The current system is not a failed system and indeed works rather well. Can you imagine a seperate XP chart for each and every prestige class there is? Ugh... Besides, it's designed to level your characters quickly to get them "out of the basement" early on, and then taper off in mid levels. How many characters in the older versions did you get to play past level 5? And I mean start from level 1 and work your way up? I can say I never had one get up that high. By the time we did get to that level, the DM would want to start a new campaign. (And this is with different groups, too!) High level characters were rare or never played. I couldn't even imagine playing an 11th level character.
christOrisen 01-11-07, 11:49 AM	The current system is not a failed system and indeed works rather well. Can you imagine a seperate XP chart for each and every prestige class there is? Ugh... Besides, it's designed to level your characters quickly to get them "out of the basement" early on, and then taper off in mid levels. How many characters in the older versions did you get to play past level 5? And I mean start from level 1 and work your way up? I can say I never had one get up that high. By the time we did get to that level, the DM would want to start a new campaign. (And this is with different groups, too!) High level characters were rare or never played. I couldn't even imagine playing an 11th level character. I kind of liked progressing more slowly, and it the different XP requirements helped to balance out the classes a little. Wizards had to advance more slowly. I have also found that in the new system, once you reach 10th level the game becomes rather boring. I know some people enjoy high level games. I just feel my character is little too powerful at that point. I have been playing 3e for about six or seven months now, and we have hit 10th level twice, and each time we have started over again. I am new to 3E so I have not really formed a strong opinion one way or the other about the system. But I think the old XP system was a little better. I kind of enjoyed the time it took to get out of the basement.
Hochiu 01-11-07, 12:38 PM	It took us two years of real time play (technically, 4 semesters with no playing over breaks) to get from level 1 to level 17 with one grace level around level 13. We were also playing an Oriental Adventures campaign off and on as well as our d20 Modern game. Two years to get to level 17. Is that slow enough for you? I don't even know how long it took us in game to get there. Years, maybe? We weren't really keeping track. I think that you should suck it up, make your own system and use your own system if it irritates you so much. But don't make wild assumptions without having any real background in it and trying to force it down the throats of people who like the system. If you level up way too fast for your liking, then use the Alternate Experience Point Progression variant in the Unearthed Arcana book, located at page 214, under the Level-Independent XP Awards section. There's a table that suppliments and changes the standard table for XP in the PHB, located at Table: 6-13. Stop whining and do something about it except to complain here.
AXESHAFT7 01-11-07, 01:55 PM	in the last 2 years alone i have played about hmm 17 to 20 charachters. not cool.But the general jist of what everyone is saying is that if you take it at a good pace and have good players and meaningfull plot you can play DND how it was ment to be played :) . for me unfortunatley this is not the case :( and i shall aspire to change this. until then :D
MerricB 01-11-07, 03:04 PM	I've got to ask this... How does this differ from any other edition of D&D? Any version of D&D, pretty much any RPG, has a fast rate of level gain. Ok, AD&D is slightly slower than D&D, but it isn't that slow. It doesn't take 20 years to reach 20th level. One or two at most. Did you ever play Baldur's Gate (I & II)? It's pretty faithful to AD&D 2e in terms of level-gain... possibly slower. And if you can't get to level 30 or more within a year of game-time, you weren't trying. Cheers!
christOrisen 01-11-07, 03:11 PM	I've got to ask this... How does this differ from any other edition of D&D? Any version of D&D, pretty much any RPG, has a fast rate of level gain. Ok, AD&D is slightly slower than D&D, but it isn't that slow. It doesn't take 20 years to reach 20th level. One or two at most. Did you ever play Baldur's Gate (I & II)? It's pretty faithful to AD&D 2e in terms of level-gain... possibly slower. And if you can't get to level 30 or more within a year of game-time, you weren't trying. Cheers! But you fought so many more things in Baldur's gate than in regular AD&D. Unless your DM was insane.
MerricB 01-11-07, 03:14 PM	But you fought so many more things in Baldur's gate than in regular AD&D. Unless your DM was insane. Didn't change much at all. In any AD&D campaign you fought lots of things (and gained more treasure, which gave more XP in 1e than monsters did). If you *weren't* fighting much, you probably weren't playing the game. Cheers!
Escef 01-11-07, 03:25 PM	The system we use now in 3.5 make it possible for the PCs to level from 3rd to 10th level in under a month of in-game time!!! The CR system is designed so that 13 1/3 CR equivelant encounters is enough to level, with 4-5 encounters per day. So, doing the math of 7 levels times 13 1/3 CRs to level, divided by 5 encounters per day yeilds about 18 or 19 days. Throw in some travel time between adventure locations and the PCs getting some R&R in, and you're well past a month. Honestly, if PCs are advancing that fast the problem lies not with the system itself, but with the pace of the campaign. Don't blame the tool for the faults of the user. Also, I've found that at higher levels advancment slows a lot because you can throw large numbers of poor CR monsters at the PCs, which will yeild little XP for a similar expenditure of resources.
christOrisen 01-11-07, 04:15 PM	Didn't change much at all. In any AD&D campaign you fought lots of things (and gained more treasure, which gave more XP in 1e than monsters did). If you *weren't* fighting much, you probably weren't playing the game. Cheers! Have to disagree. We had between 2-10 encounters a game. I am guessing this is about average.If we were playing Ravenloft he number was much lower. The game is not only about encounters. It depends on what the adventure is. If your DM was just throwing encounters at you every five minutes, I would think that would get very boring. For us the number always seemed to be between 2-10 a night. But this is no where near the number of creatures you would fight in a game of Baldur's Gate. As for not playing the game, I would say that is a very rigid definition of playing D&D. But the point is, characters do advance much more quickly these days. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to each individual. They also move at a more egalitatian pace. before it used to take wizards a while to advance in level.
theotherdraxen 01-11-07, 04:24 PM	If you level up way too fast for your liking, then use the Alternate Experience Point Progression variant in the Unearthed Arcana book, located at page 214, under the Level-Independent XP Awards section. There's a table that suppliments and changes the standard table for XP in the PHB, located at Table: 6-13. That progression is no slower or faster: it's been scaled to offer the same progression speed (approximately 13 encounters between levels). Quick housefix for slower leveling: have each monster offer a fraction of the normal XP. By offering them only 1/2 the normal XP, it will take twice as many encounters to level up.
Aryxbez 01-11-07, 05:54 PM	I find the Xp system fine, levels up at a good pace besides I use the training rules variant. where a ability=2weeks a rank=1 week and feats=2 weeks Also as the DM I can speed up or slow down XP as I please Also I can also decide If i want the group to be higher level or not Although if you adventure everyday, then yes then characters will level up quickly.
High Octane 01-11-07, 06:23 PM	I really think the game should have more to it than dungeon crawls, but I think it should also be a situation where when it rains, it pours so to speak. I think there should be some good time inbetween crawls spent travelling, information gathering, and training and character development.
MerricB 01-11-07, 07:21 PM	3e is designed with the idea that a PC advances every four sessions (or thereabouts). 1e & 2e had advancement at about every six sessions, slowing down after "Name" level. Both advancement rates, when looked at in game time, were very, very fast. Cheers!
Otto the Bugbear 01-11-07, 10:27 PM	Quick housefix for slower leveling: have each monster offer a fraction of the normal XP. By offering them only 1/2 the normal XP, it will take twice as many encounters to level up. TADAAA!!!! You win the thread.
a_psh 01-12-07, 01:42 AM	Both advancement rates, when looked at in game time, were very, very fast.This is a problem because they represent almost expontentially-increasing power, and because D&D has a paradigm wherein most creatures are too strong or too weak for you and only a few are "just right" at any given time. If, for example, being level 1 meant being a competent combatant and being level 10 meant being a seasoned veteran about twice as skilled as the competent combatant, you wouldn't really go "Hmm, my character gained 10 levels after a month of battling. That's really weird." The thing is, it's not really the rate of advancement that's a problem, it's the scope: you start out weak as a mewling kitten and achieve godlike power as you go. There's no way to really make that feel natural no matter how much you slow it down.
The Hive Custodian 01-12-07, 03:37 AM	Unfortunately, the exponential increase of power is a consequence of designing a system to fit our perception of improvement. To elaborate: We tend to perceive improvement in power not as the rate of increase of power, but as the rate of increase of power compared to how much power we already have. To take a simple example, 5 hit points is a lot to a 1st-level character, since such a character has few hit points. On the other hand, 5 hit points is but a pinprick to the average 20th-level character. Now suppose we are designing a system so that we get a constant feeling of improvement, as in, the feeling of improvement is the same all the time. Let p(t) be our current power at a given point in time. Then, according to the above, (dp/dt) / p should be a constant, which we will denote by k: (dp/dt) / p = k dp/dt = kp dp/dt - kp = 0 The solution of this is an exponential expression, specifically C e^(kt), where C is a constant. Indeed, this is exactly how D&D is designed. The experience charts are designed so that you level up at the same rate regardless of level, and the levels are designed so that power scales exponentially with level. (To what degree this was actually achieved is a topic for a different debate.)
Solik 01-12-07, 12:15 PM	I've never been in a group that got characters to 8th starting at 1st. In 3.5. Rare is the group that can stick together and play a single campaign over the course of even one year, much less several. It normally takes us about 2-4 sessions per level. We play once a week, often skipping once every four sessions or so because not enough people can make it. Meanwhile, there's so many different campaigns we could play, so many different characters we could try, and so little time to do it all in. Fast levelup rate please. I have a lot of D&D to play.
Elessara 01-12-07, 12:56 PM	You want slow leveling? Try this one ... I was in a campaign once where we started at 10th level. We spent months (in game time) travelling the countryside, battling monsters, working through problems, traversing dangerous dungeons, climbing mountains, working on a huge convoluted storyline. I think we played about a year IRL, mostly once a week. At the end of that RL year, we were level 11. Yes, we were 11th level at the end of all of that. The DM gave out XP twice. We all got fairly bored with it. Ele~
OravennasBrother 01-12-07, 02:17 PM	I'm a bit surprised that NO one has Cited the Oberoni Fallacy. The OP states the XP system is broken and several respondents have replied to the effect "No it isn't, you can HOUSERULE a slower advancement." Isn't that a classic fit for Oebroni? I agree that 3.X has become a game restricted, as written, to the highest fantasy levels. Anyting gritty workds far better in a different system. The last campaign I ran went level 1 to 20 in less than a year, playing once every two weeks, but the players were focused on the goal of the campaign; they had inherited the blood of gods and were striving to increase in power before anyohter young godlings could dominate a niche - (it was the Deific status which allowed them the rapid levelling which resulted from following the XP/advancement Rules as Written) Yes the group had a lot of tough fights, but the players Characters were built on a whopping 32 point buy and they all worked as part of a group, so they were able, with good tactics and a bit of luck, to avoid death despite the high odds. ONLY the rationalization that they were not Human at the beginning allowed the group to accept hte uneblievable rate of levelling. The comparison with combat veterans is inaccurate. Combat verterans have no more ability to survive a bullet or shrapnel wound than a green recruit. They have instead a better set of reactions allowing them to avoid getting hit. Navy SEALS caught in a straight up firfight (as has happened on occaision) frequently get mauled. Even though their unit has more per man firepower, they cannot sustain casualties any better, and when the enemy outnumbers them 4 to one, that factor (sustaining casualties) is decisive. Were theyu actually 10th level Fighter/Rangers facing 1st and 2nd level Warriors, they could easily mop the floor with 4 times the number of opponents.
Solik 01-12-07, 02:39 PM	Sorry, the fallacy doesn't apply here. No one used house rules to argue that it wasn't broken. They either stated their opinion that it wasn't broken, then supplied house rules anyways, or just simply supplied house rules. Not to mention, raising or lowering XP gains is discussed in the DMG, so it's an official variant more than a house rule.
a_psh 01-12-07, 02:47 PM	Also, "your suggested house rule sucks, here's a simpler house rule that's already in the books" (which is what this thread is) isn't an Oberoni fallacy moment.
vardock 01-12-07, 04:17 PM	if your character bocomes one of the most powerful people in the world that quickly, Your campaign is seriously lacking powerful individuals. and besides if you make it too slow, people will get bored with their characters and lose interest.
Dan Hemmens 01-12-07, 06:49 PM	D&D 3.5's XP reward system is a failed system. The more I play, the more ridiculous I find it. It's not a failed system, it's a system which is intended to reward a specific style of play, namely going out and having adventures. The more I think about it the more I *like* the D&D reward system. Rather than arbitrarily giving the PCs XP for showing up at the session, or worse still for "roleplaying" (which nine times out of ten means "doing what the DM wants" or "attention seeking") it rewards the players for playing the game as it was meant to be played. You go out, you kill things, you take their stuff. This in turn gives you XP so you can get better at going out, killing things, and taking their stuff. Joyous.
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 01-12-07, 06:57 PM	It's not a failed system, it's a system which is intended to reward a specific style of play, namely going out and having adventures. The more I think about it the more I *like* the D&D reward system. Rather than arbitrarily giving the PCs XP for showing up at the session, or worse still for "roleplaying" (which nine times out of ten means "doing what the DM wants" or "attention seeking") it rewards the players for playing the game as it was meant to be played. You go out, you kill things, you take their stuff. This in turn gives you XP so you can get better at going out, killing things, and taking their stuff. Joyous. I have to agree with you, though I will point out that I think more "story rewards" should be given. That is, rewards for solving the overall problem. So if your "task" is to get to a magical sword in some castle, and you decide to storm the walls, kick down the front door, and take fire from hundreads of archers while wading through hundreads of soldiers (or more likely dying) and actually suceed by some wierd reason you should not get more XP than the people who scouted the place out, discovered a crawlspace, snuck in, disguised themselves, and walked out without drawing a sword. Being a kill-happy dumbass should not give you more XP, but niether should just showing up or "role playing".
DreadArchon 01-12-07, 07:11 PM	But for the PCs it can take under a month with intense adventuring. Now, this is absurd and the D&D system must change!!! Yes, I know this has been said a dozen times already, but since he's asking for some kind of public outcry: If you're deliberately making your PC's go through an endless orgy of violence with no downtime ever, you have no right to complain about them advancing too fast. I've yet to see or be in a campaign where anyone grew up that fast. The campaign I'm in right now has us at level 6 and we've been adventuring for a couple years in game time. Nowhere have I seen a core book declare that multiple, or even any, battles per gameworld day are necessary or even suggested.
kelvinaw273 01-13-07, 01:00 AM	D&D 3.5's XP reward system is a failed system. The more I play, the more ridiculous I find it. I have played the different versions of the D&D game for about 20 years. I think the 3.5 system is the best one yet, and the best RPG out there, but the level progression rules are ridiculous. Or how else can you explain that over just a couple of days of adventuring, the PCs can easily turn from beginner adventurers to realm-changing superheroes!??? Play Red Hand of Doom, or any other longer adventure module and you will find out what I mean! It is just TOO EASY to progress in levels. It goes way too fast! I think instead of raising the barr with a mere 1.000 XP per level, it should double each level as in the old system. The system we use now in 3.5 make it possible for the PCs to level from 3rd to 10th level in under a month of in-game time!!! Actually, yes. At low level the characters have been extensively trained but lack confidence and testing of their abilities. Once that starts to click, they gain in their ability to use what they know at a rapid rate. Is this how we really want the game to be? :confused: It's a game. If you don't like the rules, award less XP. Change the CR settings. Or don't award XP at all and just level the party when you feel it is appropriate. For most D&D NPC's it is a devlopment that may take years and many adventures to reach the 10+ levels. But for the PCs it can take under a month with intense adventuring. Now, this is absurd and the D&D system must change!!! Why? Most NPCs are happy to sit back and chill between encounters, they don't go out looking for trouble. So encounters are much rarer, and they gain in levels more slowly. Take the 'soldiers in the Last War' from Eberron - OK, they fought inthe war for twenty years - whay are they only level 4 warriors? Because most soldiers (other than elites and maniacs) are mainly concerned not with fighting the enemy but with staying alive. Just look at the casualty figures for a RL battle of any period: the casualties are small compared to the numbers of men involved, because most of the men hacked and slashed and actually inflicted little damage - most of the time it would be several battles fought to one enemy killed. That's not much xp. PCs, though, are diferent stuff. They are meant to be heroes. Let them hero. I call upon all of you to demand this change from the Wizards D&D staff so the game we all love doesn't turn into a ridiculous fast-lane RPG! Caligula Fast lane? It all depends on how you play it. Remember the DM is the final arbiter, so xp awards are up to you, as is the pace of the adventure. If the PCs are adventuring every single day, that is up to you and them! But (a) where are they getting all these adventures (and why are you providing them if you feel they level up too fast)? and (b) When do they get to stop and rest, recovering hit points, spells, shopping for replacement gear etc.? For every day adventuring, the PCs should take a week of R&R downtime. This allows them to practice what new things they have learned, replace broken gear, practice crafts/professions/hobbies etc. The only time they should be going every day for an extended period is in a race against time scenario where they cannot afford to stop. Wasn't Caligula meant to be insane ...?
DarkRhystar 01-13-07, 01:12 AM	You go out, you kill things, you take their stuff. This in turn gives you XP so you can get better at going out, killing things, and taking their stuff. Killing things for their stuff has a long and distinguished history. People enjoyed it over a decade ago and people enjoy it today. Truly it transcends time. Everyone from all walks of life can come together in the name of "Killing things for their stuff." It's touching really. :P
Escef 01-13-07, 07:14 AM	Being a kill-happy dumbass should not give you more XP, but niether should just showing up or "role playing". That depends on how liberally one interprets the word "defeat". If you sneak past a pair of guards you have defeated their purpose and advanced your own. BAM! XP! If you roleplay your way past a stubborn politician who's an Aristocrat 4, BAM! XP for a CR3!
Drucilla_Rocks_my_Socks 01-13-07, 12:41 PM	That depends on how liberally one interprets the word "defeat". If you sneak past a pair of guards you have defeated their purpose and advanced your own. BAM! XP! If you roleplay your way past a stubborn politician who's an Aristocrat 4, BAM! XP for a CR3! I would include that as part of "defeat". Though talking people who are particularely stupid or already kind of friendly into doing things shouldn't yield rewards. However, getting interregated by a cleric using detect lies (and wording everything not to be a lie and have people not notice it) and "passing" should give just as much XP as killing said cleric. I'm just talking about when some dumbass bard thinks he's being special by butchering some old tavern song and singing it in front of the group, or the guy who has an in game spouse.
High Octane 01-13-07, 01:10 PM	That depends on how liberally one interprets the word "defeat". If you sneak past a pair of guards you have defeated their purpose and advanced your own. BAM! XP! If you roleplay your way past a stubborn politician who's an Aristocrat 4, BAM! XP for a CR3! BAM! Lets kick it up a CR!
Escef 01-13-07, 01:26 PM	BAM! Lets kick it up a CR! BAM! What for? NPC classes aren't worth the same as PC classes. Edit: Unless that's also a reference to the chef of infamousness. Sorry, don't watch much TV.
Laucian The Black Hearted 01-13-07, 02:15 PM	I sort of agree with Caligula. Not about how to fix it, but if you run an encounter heavy game the PCs grow in level quite quickly. At first I tooled around in trying to make my own fix to the system but that failed just as miserably as the old system. What I began doing is creating adventures in which the PCs only fight when necessary. Very, very seldom do the PCs have more than 1-2 encounters per session, and that's only when they have them. It's quite typical for one, sometimes two, sessions to go by without a single fight. Early on the PCs still level up quite quickly. It's a pretty common occurence for them to jump from level one to two in two sessions. After hitting level three, the average is 3-4 sessions. I haven't run enough games in the past year to comment any higher than that. Of course, if your players love the cliche kick in the door, kill some monsters and collect the treasure type play, this style will go over very badly. However, if you have PCs that are pursuing character goals and developing a persona while trying to immerse themselves into your world (of FR or Eberron etc), this is the style for you. As far as game length goes, I generally run a 4-7 hour session every week or two. During that time anywhere from a single day, to several weeks can pass. In a given month of real-time play, I'd say the game-time progresses by around two months. I should also say I do not generally run epic storylines. I generally focus on the politics of a single nation or the struggles between nations, and only when they attain somewhere around 10th level will the PCs be gallavanting around the world in days, exercising some amount of renown. The last campaign I ran lasted only two months before the PCs died, and in that time they never once left the city they were in. I believe if you're playing a very hack & slash type game, that your characters will level at an unrealistic pace. I think this type of pace resembles something of a Diablo type game, where the story is only there to justify the slaughter of countless monsters. The DMG says something I think is very necessary: play monsters as smart as they are, no more, no less. I often feel many monsters get used because they're cool, not because they're appopriate.
High Octane 01-13-07, 05:11 PM	BAM! What for? NPC classes aren't worth the same as PC classes. Edit: Unless that's also a reference to the chef of infamousness. Indeed. Emeril. LETS KICK IT UP A NOTCH!
Plugh 01-14-07, 04:59 AM	That progression is no slower or faster: it's been scaled to offer the same progression speed (approximately 13 encounters between levels). Quick housefix for slower leveling: have each monster offer a fraction of the normal XP. By offering them only 1/2 the normal XP, it will take twice as many encounters to level up. So, the players are killing twice the number monsters to get the same amount of XP as a group doing the same encounters. But if the DM awards standard treasure for the encounter, the players getting 50% XP are going to get effectively double loot for their level. Don't complain when the level 4 fighter in the party has enough gold to purchase a +4 weapon. Oh, yeah, you could scale down the loot too so that dungeon crawl that took 3 months of weekly games gave them enough cash to buy lunch at the local tavern. I think the system has been created to set a reasonable pace. If players are levelling too quickly, it's probably more a factor of excessive game play than the XP table. As the DM, it's easy enough to fix that, "Lidda searches, finds a trap. She disarms it. Regdar opens the door. Okay, guys. We'll see you all next week. Jim, it's your turn to buy pizza."