Does 5e...seem to easy?

[CyberThread]

I know that 5e is still brand new, so not going to have high level challenges really yet for higher skilled players, but does the XP table seem to be set to low, giving characters new abilities quicker then it seems ever before?

[Yuki Akuma]

The first two levels are designed to go by quickly, because that's essentially the 'tutorial' period - once you hit level 3, everyone has their specific Path.

After that, level gains aren't nearly so rapid.

I am also not sure what the speed of progression has to do with "difficulty". Or why a game needs to be "difficult" mechanically to be challenging.

[CyberThread]

Well while I know as a DM I can fudge numbers and abiltlies, just when you have a dungeon setup, I don't want my players to get hands on new tools in the middle of the dungons like spells and higher combat abilties. I have ran one level 4 starting dungeon, adn they are already level 7 , by the second session.

[Yorrin]

Well while I know as a DM I can fudge numbers and abiltlies, just when you have a dungeon setup, I don't want my players to get hands on new tools in the middle of the dungons like spells and higher combat abilties. I have ran one level 4 starting dungeon, adn they are already level 7 , by the second session.

Design your dungeons to have them level up afterward? I know that when I build dungeons I either have the party level up right before or right after the boss fight (if there is one), or right after returning to town afterward.

[Palegreenpants]

Just to make sure, Yorren, have you been dividing aquired XP by the number of people in the party? Doing otherwise would make things easy.

[obryn]

The basic assumptions of the game are thus:

(1) 1 session each for Levels 1-2
(2) Experienced players will probably start at Level 3.

Think of 1-2 as the "tutorial" period. Also you get to level up, because leveling up is awesome.

[Envyus]

Yeah it looks like he forgot about the divide exp by number of people in party.

[Inevitability]

Think of 1-2 as the "tutorial" period. Also you get to level up, because leveling up is awesome.

I like this. Some RPG's (I'm looking at you, 4e!) just gave too many abilities in a very short period of time, and then had you fight for multiple sessions to gain one new thing. A tutorial period accounted for seems like an excellent solution.

Although I do fear that you'll run through 20 levels too fast. Epic level rules maybe?

[Elderand]

And then there is the fact that we don't know if we'll gain as much XP as before too. They might have shrinked those numbers as well.)

[Yorrin]

Just to make sure, Yorren, have you been dividing aquired XP by the number of people in the party? Doing otherwise would make things easy.

I calculate required xp for level ups for my party and populate my dungeons around those numbers. So, for example, since it takes 300 xp to hit level 2 and I'm planning an adventure for five people, my campaign introduction and first dungeon will add up to 1500 xp. Some of this might be "bonus" xp for completing a mini quest by finishing the dungeon, a moderate chunk will be the boss fight, and the rest are lesser critters populating the dungeon.

[Jeraa]

And then there is the fact that we don't know if we'll gain as much XP as before too. They might have shrinked those numbers as well.)

They did shrink, at least for some. 3.5 ogres gave 900xp to a 3rd level party, but in 5e only give 450 xp. Your typical 3.5 orc warrior gave 150xp to a 1st level party, but seems to give 70 xp now. Goblins and human commoners give 10 xp. Human warriors 20 xp. And these are the numbers before dividing it among the party members.

[Envyus]

They did shrink, at least for some. 3.5 ogres gave 900xp to a 3rd level party, but in 5e only give 450 xp. Your typical 3.5 orc warrior gave 150xp to a 1st level party, but seems to give 70 xp now. Goblins and human commoners give 10 xp. Human warriors 20 xp. And these are the numbers before dividing it among the party members.

Orcs give 100 xp, Goblins 50 and Commoners 10. Your are mistaking the playtest right now.

[Jeraa]

Orcs give 100 xp, Goblins 50 and Commoners 10. Your are mistaking the playtest right now.

It seems I am. Though the ogre xp is correct. Still, monsters give less XP in 5e than they did in 3.X.

[rlc]

That just means they're different.

But, as for the original question, there was a mud I used to play where you had to return to town and talk to your guild leader every time you wanted to level up or learn a new spell/maneuver/whatever. You could do something like that in your game, too.

[spelley]

On the official 5e forum there is a discussion (read: argument) about whether early encounters being far too lethal. Hobgoblin and Bugbear damage is rather high and both are in the starter set adventure so people are freaking out that new people will TPK and never want to play again. Personally, I think it just reinforces the notion that the party shouldn't be trying to bumrush every encounter.

With bounded accuracy, flatter power levels and hp/damage being the primary effect of leveling up, these same creatures can also be used later on in large batches to whittle down high level parties, meaning you dont get into the "one man army" scenario.

[Fwiffo86]

That just means they're different.

But, as for the original question, there was a mud I used to play where you had to return to town and talk to your guild leader every time you wanted to level up or learn a new spell/maneuver/whatever. You could do something like that in your game, too.

I agree with this mentality 100%. I remember an old DM of mine that did something similar. You couldn't level up automatically. You hit your required XP plateau and then you had to spend one game month training to actually level up. It made it difficult later when the party "out leveled" the area and had to start looking for famous or not so famous Warmasters, Archmages, and the like and convince them to train us. Great RP. It was something I always wanted to do with PrCs but people were far too focused on the numbers to care about the reasons any particular PrC existed. *glares menacingly at 3.x*

Because of this, I completely support the Multiclassing requirements and trade-offs. You want an armor and weapon wielding wizard. Sure, here ya go. Just understand you will never be as good as either of your parts at doing what they do. Like it should have been all along.

[PracticalM]

In the group that I'm running level 1-3 generally took about 1 adventure (1-2 sessions). Now that characters are level 5-7, it takes much more time to level up (4-5 sessions)

One thing that was nice was adding new players at level 1 showed that even low level players were able to be effective. And because things were dangerous each new character leveled up 1 per session until about level 4.

[Yuki Akuma]

One thing that was nice was adding new players at level 1 showed that even low level players were able to be effective. And because things were dangerous each new character leveled up 1 per session until about level 4.

This is a thing I love about the shallow power curve - level 1 characters aren't completely useless in a group of, say, level 5 characters.