Leveling in 5th

[Sploggle1]

I was curious what other DMs thought of my new XP chart for 5th edition. I just thought leveling was way to fast. Plus, with me finally getting to play testing it it's kind of hard to test it if they level too fast. It's a fusion of 3.5s chart and 5th editions. You are welcome to cannibalize it yourselves.

Experience Points ... Level ... Proficiency Bonus
0 .................. 1 .................. +2
1,000 .................. 2 .................. +2
3,000 .................. 3 .................. +2
6,000 .................. 4 .................. +2
10,000 .................. 5 .................. +3
15,000 .................. 6 .................. +3
23,000 .................. 7 .................. +3
34,000 .................. 8 .................. +3
48,000 .................. 9 .................. +4
64,000 .................. 10 .................. +4
85,000 .................. 11 .................. +4
100,000 .................. 12 .................. +4
120,000 .................. 13 .................. +5
140,000 .................. 14 .................. +5
165,000 .................. 15 .................. +5
195,000 .................. 16 .................. +5
225,000 .................. 17 .................. +6
265,000 .................. 18 .................. +6
305,000 .................. 19 .................. +6
355,000 .................. 20 .................. +6

[Slipperychicken]

In 5e, levels one to 4 ish are tutorial levels that are designed to go by quickly. They're supposed to allow the players to start off with simpler PCs (that don't have a dozen powers to manage) to let them start off without drowning in complexity, but they go through those levels faster to get people their character-defining powers once the players sort of know what they're doing. Players aren't supposed to be there very long, it's more a way of pushing the learning process deeper into gameplay, reducing the amount of studying players need to do before the game.

This revised XP chart looks helpful for a group that would prefer staying in those tutorial levels for a longer time.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I just did the math, comparing the rates of leveling. It actually takes almost twice as much total experience to hit 20th in 5e as it did in 3rd. The trick is that 5e leveling is quadratic, while 3.5 was linear. The first four levels are substantially faster, after which it falls behind very quickly. 5e also has extra-long levels-- 10th to 11th and 15th to 16th both take much longer than the overall pattern suggests.

Like so:


Level
5e xp to next level
3.5 xp to next level
Difference
Percentage


1
300
1000
-700
30


2
600
2000
-1400
30


3
1800
3000
-1200
60


4
3800
4000
-200
95


5
7500
5000
2500
150


6
9000
6000
3000
150


7
11000
7000
4000
157.1429


8
14000
8000
6000
175


9
16000
9000
7000
177.7778


10
21000
10000
11000
210


11
15000
11000
4000
136.3636


12
20000
12000
8000
166.6667


13
20000
13000
7000
153.8462


14
25000
14000
11000
178.5714


15
30000
15000
15000
200


16
30000
16000
14000
187.5


17
40000
17000
23000
235.2941


18
40000
18000
22000
222.2222


19
50000
19000
31000
263.1579

[Firechanter]

I just did the math, comparing the rates of leveling. It actually takes almost twice as much total experience to hit 20th in 5e as it did in 3rd.

That's correct in absolute numbers, but relatively speaking there is very little difference. What you forgot to take into account is that Monster XP _also_ scales quadratically.

There's this one _huge_ speedbump between levels 4 and 5, but after that it's pretty straightforward. If you compare the levelup intervals to the XP by CR, you'll find that typically, a party of four will need roughly 11-12 encounters of equal CR to level up.

--

To the OP:
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't want to stretch out the low levels. Especially levels 1-2 are only "very limited fun", and their only redeeming quality is that you get through them quickly. For me it's a chore, and the actual fun starts at level 5. If I was invited to a game where the DM announces we'd stay in the low levels 2 or 3 times as long, I'd pass.

[ProphetSword]

Are you calculating the monster XP correctly, according to the rules? Awarding the face value amount for all encounters will speed up leveling dramatically.

[Slipperychicken]

levels 1-2 are only "very limited fun", and their only redeeming quality is that you get through them quickly. For me it's a chore, and the actual fun starts at level 5. If I was invited to a game where the DM announces we'd stay in the low levels 2 or 3 times as long, I'd pass.

What, you mean you don't want to live on the edge, just one wrong move away from a painful death, nothing but your wits and maybe a plate of metal standing between your flesh and a goblin's arrow?

IMO, a lot of real fun can happen at low levels when players need to use their brains and not just their character sheets. So I think OP's mod could be helpful for a group which would like to extend that kind of play for longer.

[Sploggle1]

I'll try to reply to all in one response lol. to

1 (Monster xp rescaled) I understand they scaled the xp down by half on a lot of monsters, but even so accounting for the 11 + encounters to level they would have a lot of xp stocked up by the time that comes. I had the same problem in 3.5 as well, so I had to scale the monster xp back a bit as well in that. 5th edition did a good job at scaling back the xp for the monsters, but personally I thought the charts shouldn't have taken a hit.

2 (Correctly calculating monster xp) I believe I am because most of the groups I ran had around 4 - 6 pcs. I would split the monster XP equally to them all, but the more PCs there are the more monsters I would have to throw at them. That would also lead to more monster XP to be thrown out.

3 (Leveling in 5th surpasses 3.5 at level 5) I noticed that as well. In my chart I kept the leveling the same up to that point and then went off of the 5th edition chart.

4 (Tutorial levels) I also understand that the first few levels are tutorial levels, but I personally didn't think they would be good tutorial levels if they got out of them within a few encounters.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If you skip the first two levels entirely the chart looks a lot more consistent. I recommend doing that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What, you mean you don't want to live on the edge, just one wrong move away from a painful death, nothing but your wits and maybe a plate of metal standing between your flesh and a goblin's arrow?

IMO, a lot of real fun can happen at low levels when players need to use their brains and not just their character sheets. So I think OP's mod could be helpful for a group which would like to extend that kind of play for longer.
If your players can overcome your adventures "with just their character sheets," you need tougher adventures.

[Socratov]

snip
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't want to stretch out the low levels. Especially levels 1-2 are only "very limited fun", and their only redeeming quality is that you get through them quickly. For me it's a chore, and the actual fun starts at level 5. If I was invited to a game where the DM announces we'd stay in the low levels 2 or 3 times as long, I'd pass.

I agree. I think that lvl 3 is where the fun starts: everyone has been given their subclass and everyone has been given the core of their toys. IMO that makes play more fun. the fact that a lucky crit can't 1HKO a supposed tanky/beefy class (i.e. the classes that should be able to take a punch or two and laugh about it) I can only see as a redeeming feature. % is naother fine point to start since both the martials and caster are given their special stuff (for valour bard and blade singers this is at lvl 6, but that's quite another thing) like extra attack or 3rd lvl spells.

So, yeah, completely agree.

[Tanarii]

Good idea. I generally find most campaigns end before level 11 anyway, and players enjoy the lower levels the most.

Otoh I run a high lethality campaign, so the odds are high that PCs won't make it to high levels. So far that's playing out in practice. They need that quick advancement purely to increase chance of staying alive.

I'll note that back in the really old editions (BECMI / AD&D 1e) leveling was one hell of a chore at the lowest levels. Unless you got lucky and found a treasure trove, or you went with a higher level group that dumped gold on you to power level you, Since 3e it can feel a little too fast, but much as I liked the old way it was a pain in the ass after you'd done it just once.

[Sploggle1]

Good idea. I generally find most campaigns end before level 11 anyway, and players enjoy the lower levels the most.

Otoh I run a high lethality campaign, so the odds are high that PCs won't make it to high levels. So far that's playing out in practice. They need that quick advancement purely to increase chance of staying alive.

I'll note that back in the really old editions (BECMI / AD&D 1e) leveling was one hell of a chore at the lowest levels. Unless you got lucky and found a treasure trove, or you went with a higher level group that dumped gold on you to power level you, Since 3e it can feel a little too fast, but much as I liked the old way it was a pain in the ass after you'd done it just once.

I started in 3.5 and noticed that right away. I looked back at 1st and 2nd and some classes were between 2-3,000 to just get to level 2. I see why they lowered it in 3rd though. A lot of people now a days wont want to wait months to level. I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, but a lot of my players probably would. That is why I opted for the 3.5 chart fused with the 5th edition chart.

I have a DM that's been playing since the white books and he is currently running 3.5 e. He fixed the fast leveling by going by the monster xp in the 1e books. Bringing goblins in 3.5e from 100 xp to 15 xp. For 5e it would go from 50 xp to 15 xp. I went about that when I was running 3.5, but for 5th the only thing I currently changed was the leveling chart. I really only did that for the hard core players I had at the time.

[Sploggle1]

Good idea. I generally find most campaigns end before level 11 anyway, and players enjoy the lower levels the most.

Otoh I run a high lethality campaign, so the odds are high that PCs won't make it to high levels. So far that's playing out in practice. They need that quick advancement purely to increase chance of staying alive.

I'll note that back in the really old editions (BECMI / AD&D 1e) leveling was one hell of a chore at the lowest levels. Unless you got lucky and found a treasure trove, or you went with a higher level group that dumped gold on you to power level you, Since 3e it can feel a little too fast, but much as I liked the old way it was a pain in the ass after you'd done it just once.

I've noticed that too. By 11 either the players are bored with their characters and want to move on, or the DM runs out of story for the campaign.

[Socratov]

I've noticed that too. By 11 either the players are bored with their characters and want to move on, or the DM runs out of story for the campaign.

It's not that weird... By lvl 11 you start to get more of the same. Maybe you get your subclass capstone in the next few levels, but as far as shiny new toys go, that's about it. Plus, a clever party will be able to handle stuff way above their level (like a full grown dragon) and so they have no real challenge anymore, unless you throw in ridiculous things to challenge the party, inducing a bit of rocket-tag in the mix. considering that the excitement tapers off and only new spell levels will bring something shiny to the table (as well as the subclass capstones) the players don't really have much to look forward to and the class capstone (often found at 19 or 20) is just soo far away.

I can definitely see why starting over seems like such a good option.

AS for our group, we have played with individual xp, party xp, and now we are going to level arbitrarily. One of the partymembers (and a DM on occasion) remarked that it might be nice idea to implement the following system: assuming weekly sessions of an afternoon with a bit of evening mixed in, to gain a level after walking around for your current proficiency in sessions. That means it takes 2 sessions to go form lvl 4 to lvl 5, but 3 sessions form 5 to 6. Assuming you start at lvl 3 that's: 4 sessions total to get to 5, 20 total to get to 10, and so on. That way you get to experience about 20 weeks to grow out of the low levels, but to really get to 20, you need to spend 70 sessions playing that character.

[Tanarii]

but to really get to 20, you need to spend 70 sessions playing that character.
Holy crap that's fast. If I let players do that, some of them would be level 20 in 4-5 months. Even with 1/week sessions, you're still talking level 20 in just over a year!

[Socratov]

Holy crap that's fast. If I let players do that, some of them would be level 20 in 4-5 months. Even with 1/week sessions, you're still talking level 20 in just over a year!

And that's short? :smallconfused: I haven't had any campaign last longer than 3 months. Either because players grow bored, or because people move away (college setting), sometimes because we can't seem to get together anymore. Nevermind that we run through a storyline in about 3-4 months, to switch DM's (though we sometimes port our character through while the DM's character is either on a holiday/sabbatical, is the guide or trundles along as a drooling automaton for healing or out of combat stuff). Seriously, how do you keep the story going without either stretching it thin or some such?

[Firechanter]

Roughly one and a half years, yes. So? That's an excellent duration for a single campaign. Campaigns that last significantly longer than that tend to suffer from fatigue effects and deteriorate. So getting from level 1-20 in ~70 weeks and then enjoying max level for another ~6-10 weeks -- enough time for an epic finale and then some dénouement -- sounds _perfect_ to me.
After that, a couple of months of oneshots and minicampaigns with various different systems, and after that, a new longterm campaign.

That's how we do it. Our previous longterm campaign was AD&D2, went for about 15 months, and we were about level ~13 in the end (levels work differently in 2E though so you can't compare it 1:1). Then a Red Hand of Doom playthrough with 3.5, took exactly 10 sessions. After that a couple of runs with Legend D20, took a couple of months until we were thoroughly fed up with that system. Then about half a year after finishing the AD&D campaign, we kicked off the 5E one with fresh characters. That one's running since October and we're level 9 now. However, our DM doesn't award or count XP at all anymore, we simply level up whenever we reach a milestone, which also happens roughly every 3rd session or so.

[coredump]

Holy crap that's fast. If I let players do that, some of them would be level 20 in 4-5 months. Even with 1/week sessions, you're still talking level 20 in just over a year!


And that's short? :smallconfused: I haven't had any campaign last longer than 3 months.

See, I wouldn't even call 3 months a 'campaign'. Its just an extended adventure. I have been in a number of campaigns that lasted longer than a year. In three months, I barely have time to get into the 'feel' of the character.

Seriously, how do you keep the story going without either stretching it thin or some such?You get multiple arcs, some end, some continue. Just like a TV show can last years, or movies have multiple sequels, or several books in a series.

[Safety Sword]

Milestone levelling is a DMs best friend.

[Tanarii]

Milestone levelling is a DMs best friend.or worst enemy. It really only works if you have a single group of players, that you want to level all at the same pace.

If you have a campaign in the traditional sense, with many players, all playing in different sessions, it's better to use XP. And XP with a curve, so lower level characters catch up when they adventure with higher level characters.


See, I wouldn't even call 3 months a 'campaign'. Its just an extended adventure. I have been in a number of campaigns that lasted longer than a year. In three months, I barely have time to get into the 'feel' of the character.Same. For me as the DM, campaigns last years. PCs may retire, or die, and players may move on. But the campaign continues.


You get multiple arcs, some end, some continue. Just like a TV show can last years, or movies have multiple sequels, or several books in a series.TV shows is probably the best analogy for me. A movie series usually more closely matches and adventure arc. Sometimes a few though, like Indiana Jones. But movies focus on the same characters, and usually have one clearly defined protagonist or protagonist group. TV shows have characters leave and new ones come in over the seasons. But the TV show goes on.

Edit: and unlike most movie and TV shows, campaigns can easily have opposing groups of protagonists (PCs). I've had many a session where PC group 1 and PC group 2 are on opposing sides of something going on in the campaign.

[eastmabl]

Milestone levelling is a DMs best friend.


or worst enemy. It really only works if you have a single group of players, that you want to level all at the same pace.

I've found that you can maintain milestone leveling with multiple groups of players. Absent players can level while doing other things away from the table - they just don't get gold/items/magic items that the players who are present do get.

[Tanarii]

I've found that you can maintain milestone leveling with multiple groups of players. Absent players can level while doing other things away from the table - they just don't get gold/items/magic items that the players who are present do get.I don't reward PCs with XP that aren't in the session. XP is a reward for adventuring. Unless their away from session activities are XP generating, of course. (For example, in BECMI ruling a domain generates treasure, which generates XP.)

That's in a campaign with multiple groups of players, which can rotate PCs between groups, and show up for sessions (or not) as they please. In an adventure-arc (or series of adventure arcs) with static groups, or even just a single-group campaign, I can understand why the DM and Players might want to keep everyone at the same level. In that case, milestone leveling can indeed be your friend.

Edit: I get your point though. It's possible if you have multiple relatively static groups to use milestone leveling. It doesn't make much sense in a traditional open campaign though, with non-static groups and PCs rotating in and out of them for specific sessions (or series of sessions).

[Democratus]

I don't reward PCs with XP that aren't in the session. XP is a reward for adventuring. Unless their away from session activities are XP generating, of course. (For example, in BECMI ruling a domain generates treasure, which generates XP.)

This kind of policy probably would have worked for us when we were all students.

But playing D&D with grownups can change the equation. I'm not going to punish a player because their baby sitter fell through, an emergency came up at work, or a car broke down. The policy of "No show, no XP" is a bit draconian for people playing a game in their limited free time.

[Tanarii]

This kind of policy probably would have worked for us when we were all students.Almost all my players are adults, with full time jobs, and in many cases families.

Edit: I've found they rarely feel "punished". They usually appreciate the flexibility to walk in to any session with their PC and play whenever they have time to show up. The exception is adventure arcs that take more than one session and lock a PC or henchman into a place. Then they are expected to show up for the several sessions for that arc, and if they want to play in another adventure sessions they need to use a henchman.

[Democratus]

Almost all my players are adults, with full time jobs, and in many cases families.

Then it follows that it is draconian to penalize people in a game for having a life outside it.

[Tanarii]

Then it follows that it is draconian to penalize people in a game for having a life outside it.It doesn't follow. You're making a connection that doesn't exist. No penalizing is happening. They aren't gaining a reward, but that's not the same thing as penalizing.


Edit (general comment): I should be clear, none of my posts are meant to say my way of running campaigns is the right way to do it. I'm just trying to point out there are campaigns that don't consist of just one table, just one adventure arc (or series of them), with a small group of PCs. Any of those clearly benefit from the PCs leveling together. And if a Player can't attend a session or two, it's beneficial to the group to have the PC continue to level with the rest of the party, and even have the PC played by another player or the DM as part of the on-going adventure. But that's not the only way to play D&D.

Besides, with the XP curve and increasing rewards, lower level PCs come close to catching up with higher level PCs. In the time it take a PC to go from level 8 to level 10, a brand new character can go from level 1 to level 7 (and almost to 8).

[Safety Sword]

Horses for courses.

I play with adults and we're all friends, so having people 2 levels behind everyone else just because life happens a few times isn't a thing we like to do.

[Democratus]

Horses for courses.

I play with adults and we're all friends, so having people 2 levels behind everyone else just because life happens a few times isn't a thing we like to do.

Exactly.

Friends don't let friends lose XP. :smallcool:

[Tanarii]

Horses for courses.

I play with adults and we're all friends, so having people 2 levels behind everyone else just because life happens a few times isn't a thing we like to do.


Exactly.

Friends don't let friends lose XP. :smallcool:whatever floats your guys boats and makes you happy.:smallbiggrin:

I run a campaign for well over thirty adults, including both occasional and regular players. They aren't personal friends, although they've mostly become gaming buddies. They're players who play when they can, and are happy to be get rewards for the play time they put in.

[Safety Sword]

whatever floats your guys boats and makes you happy.:smallbiggrin:

I run a campaign for well over thirty adults, including both occasional and regular players. They aren't personal friends, although they've mostly become gaming buddies. They're players who play when they can, and are happy to be get rewards for the play time they put in.

You won't see me telling you that you're doing it wrong.

I still have to calculate XP for encounter budgets anyway, I just rather not make it be so important to the players

[LordVonDerp]

or worst enemy. It really only works if you have a single group of players, that you want to level all at the same pace.

If you have a campaign in the traditional sense, with many players, all playing in different sessions, it's better to use XP. And XP with a curve, so lower level characters catch up when they adventure with higher level characters.


Then you run the risk of having players with characters of different levels, which is at odds with the whole traditional campaign idea.

[R.Shackleford]

My new way of leveling, even in normal 5e, is to divorce Character Level and Class Levels.

First level is normal but to gain more prof bonus you gain XP as normal. However you don't gain class levels. Class Levels are given out based on story, rewards, and DM whims.

HP from Con is from character level while HP from HD is from Class Level.

Levels are shown like...

Character: 2
Class: Wizard 1

Which would be 1d6 + (2×Con) HP.

Character 3
Class: Wizard 2

Which would be 2d6 + (2xCon) HP

So far my groups are liking it and we have started at higher character levels with low class levels and was able to take on higher CR creatures at "low levels".

4 Character Level 8, Class Level 2 characters took on a young red dragon and won. Really had a unique feel to it.

[Tanarii]

Then you run the risk of having players with characters of different levels, which is at odds with the whole traditional campaign idea.No it isn't. PCs being different levels was one of the biggest assumptions of traditional campaigns. One that fell by the wayside when D&D became more common to play with smaller groups of players and with a Combat-as-Sport style of play.

It was one of the two reasons Gygax used exponential XP tables at low levels. (Or is it geometric? I always get them confused.)
It allowed lower level characters with higher level characters to catch up somewhat. The other was because GP was XP, it encouraged higher level PCs to venture into lower levels of dungeons, where GP rewards were greater. And dangers were greater too of course.

[LordVonDerp]

No it isn't. PCs being different levels was one of the biggest assumptions of traditional campaigns. One that fell by the wayside when D&D became more common to play with smaller groups of players and with a Combat-as-Sport style of play.


Dungeon crawls? Maybe, but not campaigns.

[MaxWilson]

I was curious what other DMs thought of my new XP chart for 5th edition. I just thought leveling was way to fast. Plus, with me finally getting to play testing it it's kind of hard to test it if they level too fast. It's a fusion of 3.5s chart and 5th editions. You are welcome to cannibalize it yourselves.

Experience Points ... Level ... Proficiency Bonus
0 .................. 1 .................. +2
1,000 .................. 2 .................. +2
3,000 .................. 3 .................. +2
6,000 .................. 4 .................. +2
10,000 .................. 5 .................. +3
15,000 .................. 6 .................. +3
23,000 .................. 7 .................. +3
34,000 .................. 8 .................. +3
48,000 .................. 9 .................. +4
64,000 .................. 10 .................. +4
85,000 .................. 11 .................. +4
100,000 .................. 12 .................. +4
120,000 .................. 13 .................. +5
140,000 .................. 14 .................. +5
165,000 .................. 15 .................. +5
195,000 .................. 16 .................. +5
225,000 .................. 17 .................. +6
265,000 .................. 18 .................. +6
305,000 .................. 19 .................. +6
355,000 .................. 20 .................. +6

It looks almost unchanged. First few levels are slower but by 10th level or so I don't even recognize any differences. So, too fast for my taste still.

I'm running a campaign right now where all advancement requires 10x PHB-listed XP. So far I like that pace. (I also give XP for spending gold on Bonds/Flaws/Ideals on a 1:1 basis, so this campaign is mostly about treasure rather than kill XP.)

[Tanarii]

Dungeon crawls? Maybe, but not campaigns.
Campaigns were Dungeon crawls. That's how traditional campaigns started. In Megadungeons. They were the cornerstone of traditional campaigns.