The strangeness of the XP/Level table

[hymer]

More than a quick glance at the XP-advancement table seems to give some strange readings. Generally speaking you need more and more XP to gain a new level, which makes sense. You get more powerful, and can deal with greater problems, so to avoid advancement getting faster and faster, something must change.
But then something strange starts happening. Getting from level 10 to 11 is 21k XP. But the next level actually costs less, 15k. That's also less than the 16k needed to get from 9 to 10. It's also relatively easier to get, e.g., from level 13 to 14 than from 12 to 13 - you need the same 20k for both.

Can anyone tell me what's going on? I mean, other than explaining it as a holdover from previous editions, when XP tables also came up with a surprise or two.

[Rogue Shadows]

I dunno. I remember when it used to take millions of XP to get anywhere. Why, in my day, 355,000 XP only got you halfway through 11th level, if you were lucky and a thief or bard! Everyone else was only 9th level! Oh, except mages, they were 10th level. And druids, they would have been 12th level. Bastards.

But the point is that we weren't even done! We still had a long way to go! Uphill! In the snow! And we liked it! You young whipper-snappers don't even know what leveling is, everything handed to you on a silver platter...

:smalltongue:

[7heprofessor]

My assumption is that this progression was intentionally designed to keep players at levels 5-10 for longer because that is the level range that "most" campaigns take place in.

By extension, many campaigns begin to fall apart after level 10, and players become disinterested. So, to keep players interested, the Developers decided they would lower XP requirements for leveling so players were more enticed to continue playing the same character in the same campaign.

It's just a guess, but it really makes sense to me.

Either way...just my 2 cp

[Picasso007]

Yeah, it's even more entertaining when you compare the XP table to the "Adventuring Day XP" table on p. 84 in the DMG. Comparing the amount of XP needed to go from one level to the next to the amount of XP each character is expected to earn in a day of adventuring, a brand-spanking-new adventurer with no XP will only need a bit over a month of actual adventuring to get to 20th level, needing about 33 1/3 days. Talk about power leveling!

[Rogue Shadows]

Yeah, it's even more entertaining when you compare the XP table to the "Adventuring Day XP" table on p. 84 in the DMG. Comparing the amount of XP needed to go from one level to the next to the amount of XP each character is expected to earn in a day of adventuring, a brand-spanking-new adventurer with no XP will only need a bit over a month of actual adventuring to get to 20th level, needing about 33 1/3 days. Talk about power leveling!

I really don't like this...

[Balor777]

I hate it really.And if my DM realises that the horde of the dragon queen series of adventures makes you lvl 20 at a month and a half will eat me alive because i was the guy who convinced him to move from 3rd edition to 5e.

Once the problem that a berzerker can die because he attacked 1 extra time for 6 minutes but the same berzerker can jump from a cliff take 90 out of 100max damage and the next day he is full hp,now this.
Oh ****.

[LucianoAr]

isnt that 30 days of ACTUALLY playing? for the usual weekly dungeoneering thats like a year of consistent gametime. its actually not that bad.

[Madfellow]

Yeah, it's even more entertaining when you compare the XP table to the "Adventuring Day XP" table on p. 84 in the DMG. Comparing the amount of XP needed to go from one level to the next to the amount of XP each character is expected to earn in a day of adventuring, a brand-spanking-new adventurer with no XP will only need a bit over a month of actual adventuring to get to 20th level, needing about 33 1/3 days. Talk about power leveling!


I really don't like this...


I hate it really.

I imagine that's why the DM Guide includes the optional rule for training to earn levels. Once you've earned enough XP, you can't gain a new level until you've spent a certain amount of downtime training for it. It's 10 days each for levels 1-4, 20 days each for levels 5-10, 30 days for 11-16, and 40 days for 17-20. That's a grand total of 500 days devoted to just training to get from level 1 to 20.

[Khanjar]

I hate it really.And if my DM realises that the horde of the dragon queen series of adventures makes you lvl 20 at a month and a half will eat me alive because i was the guy who convinced him to move from 3rd edition to 5e.

One thing to consider, is that the DM has the ability to use Milestone progression if they prefer. If the players and DM both want an adventure where levels aren't just a function of murder-hoboing your way through dungeons and are are more a function of progressing agendas, achieving goals, etc. this is a valid option.

[Slipperychicken]

This is one of the big reasons why I support mandatory downtime and training montages for level-ups. It alleviates a lot of the realism concerns associated with the leveling-up process.


Yeah, it's even more entertaining when you compare the XP table to the "Adventuring Day XP" table on p. 84 in the DMG. Comparing the amount of XP needed to go from one level to the next to the amount of XP each character is expected to earn in a day of adventuring, a brand-spanking-new adventurer with no XP will only need a bit over a month of actual adventuring to get to 20th level, needing about 33 1/3 days. Talk about power leveling!

I recall 3.5 was the same way. You could get from 1-20 with a month of 4 CR-appropriate encounters per day. Of course, that does mean somewhere in the neighborhood of 120-150 "challenging" combats.

[Once a Fool]

If you'll notice, the oddities in the progression chart coincide with tier breaks. As near as I can tell, this is done to emphasize the power-jump of entering a new tier; not only is it significant, it is also relatively quick.

[hymer]

If you'll notice, the oddities in the progression chart coincide with tier breaks.

In one case, yes. Getting from tier 2 to tier 3 is much easier than getting the last level in tier 2. But getting from one tier to another is not generally met with this strangeness.

[RedMage125]

I dunno. I remember when it used to take millions of XP to get anywhere. Why, in my day, 355,000 XP only got you halfway through 11th level, if you were lucky and a thief or bard! Everyone else was only 9th level! Oh, except mages, they were 10th level. And druids, they would have been 12th level. Bastards.


As I recall there was reasoning behind that. Thieves (and Bards) levelled up the fastest at first, because they were the kinds of characters who lived by their wits. Wizards, meanwhile, levelled the slowest, because magic was difficult to master.

Then at high levels, Thief/Bard XP slowed down, while Wizard XP sped up. Reason being is that thieves/bards eventually plateau and have to work REALLY hard to improve any more, while the wizard who struggled at low levels has now taken off with his understanding, as learning comes easier and easier, lie gaining momentum. The more magic you know, the easier to understand.

[hymer]

As I recall there was reasoning behind that. Thieves (and Bards) levelled up the fastest at first, because they were the kinds of characters who lived by their wits. Wizards, meanwhile, levelled the slowest, because magic was difficult to master.

Then at high levels, Thief/Bard XP slowed down, while Wizard XP sped up. Reason being is that thieves/bards eventually plateau and have to work REALLY hard to improve any more, while the wizard who struggled at low levels has now taken off with his understanding, as learning comes easier and easier, lie gaining momentum. The more magic you know, the easier to understand.

Well, no. Not 2nd edition, at least. The Rogue classes (Thief and Bard) could make level 20 while a Wizard class (Mage or Specialty Wizard) was still level 15. Take a look (bolded for weirdness):

Rogue:
1 0
2 1250
3 2500
4 5k
510k
6 20k
7 40k
8 70k
9 110k
10 160k
11 220k
12 440k
13 660k
14 880k
15 1.1m
16 1.32m
17 1.54m
18 1.76m
19 1.98m
20 2.2m

Wizard:
1 0
2 2500
3 5k
4 10k
5 20k
6 40k
7 60k
8 90k
9 135k
10 250k
11 375k
12 750k
13 1.125m
14 1.5m
15 1.875m
16 2.25m
17 2.625m
18 3m
19 3.375m
20 3.75m

Strangeness, strangeness...

[Picasso007]

Errr, hymer, I don't know if it was you intent or not, but you highlighted the one point on the progression table where it takes the exact same amount of XP for both classes to level: 20k from 6->7 and 30k from 7->8.


Rogue: Wizard:
XP/lvl XP/lvl Diff
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 1250 1250 2500 2500 -1250
3 2500 1250 5000 2500 -1250
4 5000 2500 10000 5000 -2500
5 10000 5000 20000 10000 -5000
6 20000 10000 40000 20000 -10000
7 40000 20000 60000 20000 0
8 70000 30000 90000 30000 0
9 110000 40000 135000 45000 -5000
10 160000 50000 250000 115000 -65000
11 220000 60000 375000 125000 -65000
12 440000 220000 750000 375000 -155000
13 660000 220000 1125000 375000 -155000
14 880000 220000 1500000 375000 -155000
15 1100000 220000 1875000 375000 -155000
16 1320000 220000 2250000 375000 -155000
17 1540000 220000 2625000 375000 -155000
18 1760000 220000 3000000 375000 -155000
19 1980000 220000 3375000 375000 -155000
20 2200000 220000 3750000 375000 -155000

[Doug Lampert]

I imagine that's why the DM Guide includes the optional rule for training to earn levels. Once you've earned enough XP, you can't gain a new level until you've spent a certain amount of downtime training for it. It's 10 days each for levels 1-4, 20 days each for levels 5-10, 30 days for 11-16, and 40 days for 17-20. That's a grand total of 500 days devoted to just training to get from level 1 to 20.

Assuming your list is correct that's 490 days actually, you don't need to train for level 1 since that's where you start. (Alternately, training for level 1 takes years, but it's pre-game time.)

[Once a Fool]

In one case, yes. Getting from tier 2 to tier 3 is much easier than getting the last level in tier 2. But getting from one tier to another is not generally met with this strangeness.

Actually, all three tier changes represent some degree of it.

Going from level 4 to 5 requires +1.4X of the total XP vs. the 3X needed for 3 to 4.

Level 10 to 11 requires just under +0.33X vs. just over +0.33X for 9 to 10.

Level 16 to 17 only requires +0.01X vs. the 0.15X needed for 15 to 16.

All of these are approximations, of course.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, it's even more entertaining when you compare the XP table to the "Adventuring Day XP" table on p. 84 in the DMG. Comparing the amount of XP needed to go from one level to the next to the amount of XP each character is expected to earn in a day of adventuring, a brand-spanking-new adventurer with no XP will only need a bit over a month of actual adventuring to get to 20th level, needing about 33 1/3 days. Talk about power leveling!

That assumes an unlimited quantity of dragons/liches/beholders, all coming in convenient bite-sized packages, are available every single day of that adventurer's life. The "XP per day" table is a maximum, not a minimum, and it's a gamist construct at that. In a less artificial environment you sometimes run into a whole Nautiloid full of illithids on some days, because that's how illithids roll; and on other days you chat peacefully with your friends and make a painting and discuss the construction of your keep with the foreman. D&D calls the latter activities "downtime" and so what this really means is that you can hit 20th level over the course of a couple hundred combat encounters, each of them pushing the envelope of what you can do.

But yes, I agree that 5E levelling is greatly accelerated compared to AD&D. That's probably a good thing, since killing 200 orcs in order to get from 1st to 2nd level is really no longer in the cards.

-Max

[Shadow]

As has been stated, Milestones + Training.
I've used both for a very long time, and I've always had better control of the games. I've also always had better games when using them. Players playing with Milestones are much less MurderHobos and actually try to find non-combat solutions to problems in many cases (because everything isn't seen as a bag of XP), which creates more RP situations, which makes for a better game overall.

[MeeposFire]

AD&D leveling is also perceived to be so slow because the XP tables were designed to include a bunch of different ways of getting bonus XP as for one example getting XP for gold, magic items, and other treasure. If you don't use these rules (technically optional in 2e) then leveling is painfully slow but is much more manageable with them.

[MaxWilson]

As has been stated, Milestones + Training.
I've used both for a very long time, and I've always had better control of the games. I've also always had better games when using them. Players playing with Milestones are much less MurderHobos and actually try to find non-combat solutions to problems in many cases (because everything isn't seen as a bag of XP), which creates more RP situations, which makes for a better game overall.

You can give XP for non-combat solutions to combat-oriented problems too, you know.

You can even give XP for non-combat solutions to non-combat problems. XP is a Pavlovian reward to the player (which is why players hate level-draining), and you can award it for any behavior which you wish to reinforce.

Currently I award XP to any PC whose player discovers a Secret (e.g. the world is flat = 1000 XP; humans came from another planet = 5000 XP; NPC So-and-so predates human settlement on this planet, and actually comes from a prior civilization that was wiped out by Witchlight Marauders during the Unhuman Wars = 20,000 XP) and tells me so, because I want them to look for patterns and clues in the things they observe, the way people do when they read Brandon Sanderson novels (e.g. Parshmen are crustaceans!).

You can't do any of that with milestone levelling because it doesn't have enough granularity. For some groups that's fine, because they're more focused on the roleplay, but some players (especially teenagers) like the continuous concrete feedback that they get from XP. Pavlovian, as I said.

[Shadow]

You can give XP for non-combat solutions to combat-oriented problems too, you know.

You can even give XP for non-combat solutions to non-combat problems. XP is a Pavlovian reward to the player (which is why players hate level-draining), and you can award it for any behavior which you wish to reinforce.

Currently I award XP to any PC whose player discovers a Secret (e.g. the world is flat = 1000 XP; humans came from another planet = 5000 XP; NPC So-and-so predates human settlement on this planet, and actually comes from a prior civilization that was wiped out by Witchlight Marauders during the Unhuman Wars = 20,000 XP) and tells me so, because I want them to look for patterns and clues in the things they observe, the way people do when they read Brandon Sanderson novels (e.g. Parshmen are crustaceans!).

You can't do any of that with milestone levelling because it doesn't have enough granularity. For some groups that's fine, because they're more focused on the roleplay, but some players (especially teenagers) like the continuous concrete feedback that they get from XP. Pavlovian, as I said.

You just described Milestones.

MILESTONES
You can also award XP when characters complete significant milestones. When preparing your adventure, designate certain events or challenges as milestones, as with the following examples:
--Accomplishing one in a series of goals necessary to complete the adventure.
--Discovering a hidden location or piece of information relevant to the adventure.
--Reaching an important destination.

When awarding XP, treat a major milestone as a hard encounter and a minor milestone as an easy encounter.
If you want to reward your players for their progress through an adventure with something more than XP and treasure, give them additional small rewards at milestone points. Here are some examples:
--The adventurers gain the benefit of a short rest.
--Characters can recover a Hit Die or a low-level spell slot.
--Characters can regain the use of magic items that have had their limited uses expended.

I don't keep track of XP, I follow how many Milestones they have reached. I tell them when they reach a Milestone, and when they've reached enough I tell them that they've earned a level.
It's no different than what you do, but you quantify it with a number while I simply tell them that they've achieved it.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't use XP for this reason. The party levels after a number of sessions equal to the level they are becoming, or if they are in the middle of an adventure at the end of it. Brings it up to about 196 sessions.

[hymer]

Errr, hymer, I don't know if it was you intent or not, but you highlighted the one point on the progression table where it takes the exact same amount of XP for both classes to level: 20k from 6->7 and 30k from 7->8.

And since it's otherwise everywhere else, you don't think that's strange? But what I was reacting to was that until that point, the wizard has to gain as much XP as s/he has in her/his career so far, in order to go up another level - the XP need doubles (which makes it easier to get from level 2 to 3, than 1 to 2, funnily enough). This is an approximation of a general rule for XP in 2nd edition for levels 2-9. But for those two levels for wizards, the numbers brake hard, down to 50% of the expected. Later, they speed up again, to the degree that wizards level slower than anyone else, despite this peculiar discount in their mid levels.

[ghost_warlock]

AD&D leveling is also perceived to be so slow because the XP tables were designed to include a bunch of different ways of getting bonus XP as for one example getting XP for gold, magic items, and other treasure. If you don't use these rules (technically optional in 2e) then leveling is painfully slow but is much more manageable with them.

Yeah, there's (variant) rules in 2e for getting something like 1XP per 1gp of treasure the character finds, as well as rules for spellcasters getting XP for casting spells and warriors getting extra XP for defeating foes in combat.

A buddy of mine played briefly with a group that actually used these variants (most people, afaik, didn't). The group was all level six or seven but started him out at 1st. He calculated out that if he just stood around in town and spammed spells like detect magic and protection from evil or maybe entertained local children with illusions, while they adventured, he could actually out-level the rest of the group in a couple weeks without ever entering a dungeon. :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

Submitted for your approval: 5E reminds me so much of 2E that I felt like doing up some alternate experience tables in the vein of 2E's, where different classes level up at different rates. I freely admit each class was sorted into the category it was based on how powerful I perceived it to be. There's two versions, one that has a more 5E-type experience cap (tens of thousands of XP), and one that has a more 2E-type cap (millions of XP).

I have also included a companion table, wherein you stop gaining HD past a certain level and instead just apply a flat bonus (plus CON modifier) to your level, again as in AD&D.

http://i62.tinypic.com/1y20sm.png

Multiclassing: Okay, say you’re a Rogue 1. You gain 250 experience. If you want, you can invest that experience in Rogue to become a Rogue 2. OR, you can save that experience until you have 300, at which point you could invest it into the Fighter class to become a Rogue 1/Fighter 1, with a total of 300 experience. And basically that’s how multiclassing works. HAVE FUN WITH THAT.

[MaxWilson]

Submitted for your approval: 5E reminds me so much of 2E that I felt like doing up some alternate experience tables in the vein of 2E's, where different classes level up at different rates. I freely admit each class was sorted into the category it was based on how powerful I perceived it to be. There's two versions, one that has a more 5E-type experience cap (tens of thousands of XP), and one that has a more 2E-type cap (millions of XP).

I love it! Probably won't use it, but I love it.

[MaxWilson]

You just described Milestones.

[i]MILESTONES
You can also award XP when characters complete significant milestones. When preparing your adventure, designate certain events or challenges as milestones, as with the following examples:
--Accomplishing one in a series of goals necessary to complete the adventure.
--Discovering a hidden location or piece of information relevant to the adventure.
--Reaching an important destination.

Negative, Secrets (in my current campaign) aren't milestones as you have described milestones.

If the information were relevant to the adventure, it would be its own reward and wouldn't count as a Secret worth XP. Secrets are background knowledge, like, "The duke is in love with Rosanna! That's why he's been acting so reckless, he's trying to impress her!" or "Humans aren't native to Roshar! They came here from Braize!" They are totally optional, and not discovering one won't impact play at all, but the good ones will hopefully blow somebody's mind and that is why I want to encourage players to look for them.


It's no different than what you do, but you quantify it with a number while I simply tell them that they've achieved it.

Gaining that quantifiable number of XP is the important part, at least to some players. (Probably including me, when I'm a player.) It's the same principle as Facebook counting the number of "likes" a post gets: a positive reinforcement mechanism to increase the behavior desired by the entity granting the reward. In the case of Facebook, they want you posting content into their network. In the case of me as a DM, I want them engaged and looking for depth in the world around them.

[Naanomi]

If you grow up in a hell arena, your life never having any downtime or travel time, only consisting of four 'challenging combats' a day like clockwork; then narratively I'm actually pretty comfortable with the survivors gaining huge amounts of combat prowess after only a year of that lifestyle

[Shadow]

Negative, Secrets (in my current campaign) aren't milestones as you have described milestones.

Yes, they are. Those were simply examples, as stated in the description.

[Once a Fool]

Submitted for your approval: 5E reminds me so much of 2E that I felt like doing up some alternate experience tables in the vein of 2E's, where different classes level up at different rates. I freely admit each class was sorted into the category it was based on how powerful I perceived it to be. There's two versions, one that has a more 5E-type experience cap (tens of thousands of XP), and one that has a more 2E-type cap (millions of XP).

I have also included a companion table, wherein you stop gaining HD past a certain level and instead just apply a flat bonus (plus CON modifier) to your level, again as in AD&D.

http://i62.tinypic.com/1y20sm.png

Multiclassing: Okay, say you’re a Rogue 1. You gain 250 experience. If you want, you can invest that experience in Rogue to become a Rogue 2. OR, you can save that experience until you have 300, at which point you could invest it into the Fighter class to become a Rogue 1/Fighter 1, with a total of 300 experience. And basically that’s how multiclassing works. HAVE FUN WITH THAT.

As much as I would like to bring something like that back to 5e, 2e's classes were (theoretically) balanced with others at specific XP amounts, rather than by level. In later editions both mean the same thing, so if you intend to adjust XP per class, you will skew the level-based balance of the classes.

In 3.x, this might have been a good thing. In 5e (or 4e, for that matter), not so much.

[SiuiS]

I really don't like this...

Don't adventure 24/7 and it won't happen. Really, it's bizarre how kids these days just amass piles of gold and never spend any of it on ale and wenches, living like kings in the lap of luxury! What are you even adventuring for? You kids are weird.


I hate it really.And if my DM realises that the horde of the dragon queen series of adventures makes you lvl 20 at a month and a half will eat me alive because i was the guy who convinced him to move from 3rd edition to 5e.

Once the problem that a berzerker can die because he attacked 1 extra time for 6 minutes but the same berzerker can jump from a cliff take 90 out of 100max damage and the next day he is full hp,now this.
Oh ****.

3e is just as bad, if not worse. The trick is not to pretend D&D is a computer game.

[Mrmox42]

We still had a long way to go! Uphill! In the snow! And we liked it! You young whipper-snappers don't even know what leveling is, everything handed to you on a silver platter...

+1 Grumble grumble, young people today :smallbiggrin:

I tweak the XP-output a bit, so that players do not progress THAT fast. Seems an okay solution.

[archaeo]

The trick is not to pretend D&D is a computer game.

Seriously.

[Doug Lampert]

Seriously.

Ditto.

Especially at low level there's this time called WINTER, you stay home in the winter or your DM gets to look for rules for freezing to death while lost in the snow.

There's also this thing called "saving the village", your first adventure is likely to be this thing, after that first adventure you are maybe level 3, and the VILLAGE IS SAVED! Yeah! There are no village scale threats left in the area!

You can wander the countryside at random and discover the sleeping CR 25 or so dragon that didn't threaten anyone till you woke it up (and won't threaten anyone again for a hundred years or so when it's finished its nap after the free mid-nap snack that wandered in), or you can WAIT for the next level 2-4 or so appropriate threat to show up.

Strangely, the adventurers don't get to decide when that next level 3 threat comes up, the DM decides that, and he can have as much or as little downtime as he likes and as the PCs have patience for.

Hundreds of fights to advance to level 20 isn't unreasonable! (Well, no more unreasonable than the existence of level based advancement and level 20 characters.)

What's unreasonable is a setting that has hundreds of fights standing around waiting in a long line each of which is level appropriate to be easily beaten by someone who's finished off the earlier entries in the line. Gosh, shouldn't the guy at the far end of the line NOTICE what's happening by day 5 or so and utterly CRUSH the still relatively low level party?

Time passes when you AREN'T adventuring, and there aren't unlimited level appropriate adventures lying around waiting for you or showing up just the instant you're ready for them.

[broodax]

The issue is that the Encounters/day relationship is built for 4 people to go into a "dungeon", fight non-stop for a couple days, then return as heroes and live for a bit before repeating.

I have never actually had a campaign that worked like this. I don't think the XP/level is off, nor the XP/encounters. I think it's actually the encounters/day (or per rest) that is just wildly different than most campaigns are in practice. The rub, then, is that you can fix the XP gain however you want, but the rest system is still wacky.

I have never played or run a game that had 6-8 encounters in a day. I've rarely had an actual day that had 6-8 encounters, much less averaged that over an entire campaign. Almost every campaign I've played in has had long periods of travel with scattered encounters, trips to cities with one or two major encounters, long periods of rest, etc.

[archaeo]

The issue is that the Encounters/day relationship is built for 4 people to go into a "dungeon", fight non-stop for a couple days, then return as heroes and live for a bit before repeating.

I have never actually had a campaign that worked like this. I don't think the XP/level is off, nor the XP/encounters. I think it's actually the encounters/day (or per rest) that is just wildly different than most campaigns are in practice. The rub, then, is that you can fix the XP gain however you want, but the rest system is still wacky.

I have never played or run a game that had 6-8 encounters in a day. I've rarely had an actual day that had 6-8 encounters, much less averaged that over an entire campaign. Almost every campaign I've played in has had long periods of travel with scattered encounters, trips to cities with one or two major encounters, long periods of rest, etc.

This encounters/day expectation is only a baseline. It's the system telling you, "Hey, we balanced the game so that players will run out of steam in 6-8 encounters, so if you want to do fewer or more, you should think about rebalancing the encounters to challenge the players." The game says nowhere else that it expects this kind of breakneck pace; indeed, given the huge amount of downtown the system expects you to take to accomplish a lot of things, the opposite seems to be true. Instead, the system just wants you to know long rest abilities take 6-8 encounters to exhaust, and short rest abilities take about 2-3 encounters.

This isn't materially different from prior editions, all of which likely have equivalent (if unstated) baselines. 5e tells you about it with the expectation that, if you want to maintain this precise level of balance (which is neither necessary nor always desirable!), you need to adjust encounter difficulty accordingly, or adjust the resting mechanics, or any number of other things the system offers to tweak the baseline to an appropriate level.

[rhouck]

I would keep in mind that people have different opportunities to play and for varying lengths of time.

If you are meeting once a week for 3 hours, you are not going to fit in 6-8 encounters per session -- in fact, I'd be surprised if you can hit even half that. That stretches those "33 adventuring days" into at least 66 "sessions"... and even that is generous (as 3-4 combat encounters per session would leave virtually no time for the rest of the roleplaying). And meeting once a week, that's still over a year to hit level 20 assuming you play every single week. (I still play a 2e game as well, so I do sympathize with those that think even THAT is insanely fast!)

I know with my group that tries to meet once a week (but obviously misses various weeks due to holidays, work, or other real world obligations), we are level 4 after about 3 or so months. So, for us, the rate of advancement is hardly breakneck and hitting level 20 will take a significant amount of in "real world" time.

I can see if you have the opportunity to play a couple times a week and for longer (e.g., 6-8 hour) then you'll obviously advance much faster. Luckily level advancement is probably the easiest thing to adjust that has zero effect on game balance. The only person that rapid advancement is really hard on is your DM, as they constantly have to reassess party abilities, and building challenging encounters for high level PCs is harder than for low/mid level PCs.