In the 3rd, 3.5, 4th and 5th editions of D&D they drastically changed the amount of experience points required for advancement. I would be what you consider old school, I started playing D&D in 9th grade with AD&D. With much different XP progression tables it took far longer for a character to advance in levels. I always preferred this because once you finally created the "Perfect" character for yourself, the one you love to play month after month, year after year, they would last for years.
These days the XP progression is much faster. I'm assuming that this is to please a younger audience that is use to faster gratification due to playing video games. I might be completely wrong about "WHY" XP tables were changed so drastically and I'm curious to see why others feel the reason(s) were.
I've found my solution to slowing down the XP system....If you changed it, how did you do it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The amounts of XP required can't be directly compared since XP rewards are different too. (Remember when you got 1XP for every 1GP you found?)
Fast leveling also exists to please an audience of adults who don't have much time for playing D&D games and have trouble holding a group together for more than a year or so before someone has to stop playing because his wife gave birth or he got a new job in another city.
My current system is, "You level up whenever the GM says so." This is every two or three sessions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to note is that 5e is set up so you're not really a true adventurer until you're level 3. Levels 1 and 2 are designed to fly by, and the you settle in for a longer game.
This is reflected in the XP chart, but it's also mentioned in several adventures. The game designed is that you do not spend more than a single session on levels 1 and 2 (sometimes even advancing both leaves in a single session).
Princes of the Apocolypse - the 5e version of Temple of Elemental Evil - flat out starts you at 3rd level. Then, way in the back of the book, it gives suggestions for how a GM might want to start at first level, and some guidelines for how to run Hamlet if they wanted to. It also says not to spend too much time on levels 1 and 2.
Out of the Abyss starts the characters off at level 1, but quickly advances them to level 3. The characters are expected to be level 3 by the end of the first chapter, and if you really draw it out the first chapter *might* take two sessions. From there it takes the next 6 chapters to get to level 6, or about two chapters per level. Chapter 1 even has suggestions to start the characters off at level 2 or 3 if you want to make it a bit easier.
Here's some more info:
Mike Mearls has said, "Level 10 - 11 XP: It's by design. Data shows campaigns stop at 10, we're trying to speed up 10+ a bit so groups can reach 20 in a campaign"
Levels 3-10 are considered the sweet spot of gaming. So the system is designed to get you to level 3 and then slow down play through level 10. After that, the leveling rate increases again to get you to level 20 (but not as quickly as getting to 3).
The big part of this is that the new XP system is based off of data. And their design philosophy is based what the gaming community is actually doing. The old XP charts were basically arbitrary, and some of us may like it for nostalgic of reasons, but there's really nothing backing that system. The current system is backed by data. It's yet another reason why I like 5e - they really looked at the design of this game with some intellect.
I found this conparison of XP charts for the pat few editions:
Some interesting things stand out. First, XP progression for the first six levels are faster in 5e than in 4e or 3e. By level 7 5e requires more XP, and it continues to be that way all the way through 20. After level 7, you need more XP per level to advance than you would in 4e or 3e. A comparison of 1e and 2e is more difficult due to the varied XP charts by class.
So a simple conprison of the past few previous editions doesn't do us much good. What we need is to compare that in combination with how much XP is given per level (also known as how many encounters to beat per level, with an assumption that XP is only gained from encounters). Again, 1e and 2e are difficult to compare due to gaining XP from their means, such as every time you cast a spell or every good piece you acquire (and one's experience of "slow" XP progression in those earlier editions may actually be from the DM ignoring a lot of the XP rules).
I found such a chart here: Link
The problem with the chart in post #1 is that it assumed only a single creature per encounter. But even with that, you can see the trend: quickly get to level 3, slow down between 3-10, increase the pace from 11-20.
So what does all this tell us? A good conprison of systems requires more than just looking at the XP charts - it also requires an analysis of how much XP is given out by game design. Without looking at that, a conprison is kind of useless - and to learn how the game is designed to advance levels yoi simply have to play it. :)
I can understand the reasoning presented here. Having a faster XP system allows these people to experience different types of level based play before the campaign folds. I can see why WOTC would collect data in order to find what most players would like or expect their campaign to last and make the appropriate changes to back up this data and audience.
I know lifestyles have changed a lot since the 80's and its hard for people to get together to play, I have the same problem...can't find players. I know there are plenty of people in my community that play but finding them is difficult. Having a faster XP system allows these people to experience different types of level based play before the campaign folds.
I'm more into roleplaying and savoring the longevity of a good character and thus I elected to change the progression system so that it is closer to 1st edition, especially since that's what I grew up on.
It's all good. I was just curious how others felt about these significant changes.
Oh, don't get me wrong. Each of us has a preferred style of play, and no style is wrong (unless you're activey harming others). Find what works for you and your gaming group and go with that. :)
I've found my solution to slowing down the XP system....If you changed it, how did you do it?
I've used two options:
The easiest is just to use milestone levelling (so the PCs go up a level when they achieve a goal the DM determines is worthy/sufficient/whatever to justify it). I'd have to say this is my players' preference, although I happen to enjoy watching the process of accumulating experience points - albeit I like it to be very slow.
The second is to adjust the rate at which experience points are handed out. I quite like (hp x CR) for monsters - divided amongst however many party members helped. I also like the "1gp = 1xp" approach from AD&D, although I require that it be spent in some kind of character-appropriate way: clerics might tithe it, carousers lose it all gambling and buying rounds of drinks, paladins fund orphanages, etcetera.
I multiply stated XP awards by 0.4. I keep the players handbook stuff the same.
What do you do?
Ps I like the idea of giving cr X hp. Have to look more closely at that.
I also find the higher cr monsters tend to give out more XP than their actual threat level. Especially once you get to CR 4 or higher.
I multiply stated XP awards by 0.4. I keep the players handbook stuff the same.
What do you do?
Ps I like the idea of giving cr X hp. Have to look more closely at that.
I also find the higher cr monsters tend to give out more XP than their actual threat level. Especially once you get to CR 4 or higher.
Well I don't expect my solution to be well received but... I was use to 1st edition and really enjoyed the slow progression and longevity of the characters and campaign. When I started playing 3.5 I multiplied the actual XP listed in the PH by the characters level. When I last played this character several years ago (3.5 edition), she had 682,000 xp. so she was 11th level. I awarded for monsters, traps, plot resolution and any kind of unique character growth that seemed appropriate. I did not award XP for gold found. I cannot recall if 3.5 awarded for magic items found.
The first chart was 1st edition and we played it as written
Wizard, 1st Edition
2: 2,501
3rd: 5,001
4th: 10,001
5th: 22,501
6th: 40,001
7th: 60,001
8th: 90,001
9th: 135,001
10th:250,001
11th: 375,001
12th: 750,001
13th: 1,125,001
14th: 1,500,001
15th: 1,875,001
16th: 2,250,001
17th: 2,625,001
18th: 3,000,001
19th: 3,375,001
20th: 3,750,001
This is the 3.5 modified chart where I multiplied PH XP listed by character level in an attempt to get somewhere in the ball park to 1st edition. I wanted to have the players refer to the book still and not modify it when the DM gave out XP. I had no complaints from players who were also use to first edition.
Modified 3.5 Edition
2: 2,000
3rd: 9,000
4th: 24,000
5th: 50,000
6th: 90,000
7th: 147,000
8th: 224,000
9th: 324,000
10th:450,000
11th: 605,000
12th: 792,000
13th: 1,014,000
14th: 1,274,000
15th: 1,575,000
16th: 1,929,000
17th: 2,312,000
18th: 2,754,000
19th: 3,248,000
20th: 3,800,000
This is the 5th edition modified chart if I use the same system of multiplying the listed XP times the character level. as you can see there are some drastic changes. I still want to have the players refer to the book to calculate how much XP they need for a level. I only have 1 player now and she has never played D&D. She will be starting out at 11th level Ranger in order to continue the campaign which was started several years ago. Using this chart places my 3.5 edition character at 10th level, though I was considering starting her at 12th simply because I had already used 6th level spells in the campaign from the previous 3.5 edition.
Modified 5th Edition
2: 600
3rd: 2,700
4th: 10,800
5th: 32,500
6th: 84,000
7th: 161,000
8th: 272,000
9th: 432,000
10th:640,000
11th: 935,000
12th: 1,200,000
13th: 1,560,000
14th: 1,960,000
15th: 2,475,000
16th: 3,120,000
17th: 3,825,000
18th: 4,770,000
19th: 5,795,000
20th: 7,100,000
Now I am open to other peoples suggestions because as you compare the charts you'll see huge differences overall. Being use to playing in Greyhawk, 1st edition, my primary goals were...
1. Retain the feel of slow progression
2. Enjoy the characters as long as one can, as in playing them for years and not months. Players put tons of work into their characters in my campaign, far more than most others. As a result I want to reward them with longevity so they can enjoy that individual and not max out in the game.
3. If levels were attained so easily, many NPCs would be running around with ubber levels. Greyhawk has enough NPCs that are 15th level and higher. I want to minimize this.
4. Retaining the debatable "sweet spot" of D&D levels.
Of coarse perhaps the largest problem with such slow advancement is the acquisition of treasure. The longer it takes to go up, the more treasure in gold and magic the PCs will acquire. Those of you that recall 1st edition play will most likely attest to "Monty Haul" feel. I do take measures in the campaign to reduce this issue but certainly it is not fool proof. Donations to churches, sacrifices to deities, not all magic items being magically intune with every character but rather are aligned with religions when found are ways I have curtailed some of these issues.
Check the links I provided earlier. Some of the posters there made some slower progression XP charts that you may like. Some of the most common recommendations have been to do exactly what you did - simply provide a multiplier to the current charts.
Another option is to keep the chart, but provide a multiplier to the XP awarded. So you did a x3 multiplier to the XP chart, but instead you could have the same effect running in the background and give out x0.3 XP each time you hand it out.
For WBL issues, I recommend automatic bonus progression. This does a few things- it takes care of the Big 6, which are the strongest items to get a hold of, it allows for stronger NPCs without handing out tons of sellable items, it reduces the Christmas Tree Effect by tying important things to players, and it means that lots of interesting items that would be passed over are useable. I'd do this rather than relying on items that the NPCs can use, but not the PCs.
For WBL issues, I recommend automatic bonus progression. This does a few things- it takes care of the Big 6, which are the strongest items to get a hold of, it allows for stronger NPCs without handing out tons of sellable items, it reduces the Christmas Tree Effect by tying important things to players, and it means that lots of interesting items that would be passed over are useable. I'd do this rather than relying on items that the NPCs can use, but not the PCs.
Wrong thread? There are no Big 6 in 5e. WBL isn't a thing anymore. The Christmas tree effect is gone.
Check the links I provided earlier. Some of the posters there made some slower progression XP charts that you may like. Some of the most common recommendations have been to do exactly what you did - simply provide a multiplier to the current charts.
Another option is to keep the chart, but provide a multiplier to the XP awarded. So you did a x3 multiplier to the XP chart, but instead you could have the same effect running in the background and give out x0.3 XP each time you hand it out.
Thank you, Bookrat, I will take a second look at them. I considered doing the XP change when you award the points but would rather have the players look at what they need once or twice a level than have me recalculate XP each encounter. Just seemed like one less headache.
Another thing I had considered doing is downgrading the number of really powerful NPCs in Greyhawk. Those that are super powerful would remain that way, but there would be less of them at levels 16+.
For example, a ruler of a kingdom might be reduced a few levels or the leader of the Thieves Guild, or a leading cleric at a temple might be at 11th level rather than 15th like the game provides.
My primary reasons for this are:
Less chances of PC reliance on such NPCs.
More limitations to what these NPCs can do for the PCs.
Less potential world dominating NPCs.*
*What I mean by this is when the producers of the game design a kingdom they seem to want to include a unusually powerful Cleric, Wizard or other character, such as levels 16-20. This in itself is not a problem. The issue becomes one when they do this for nearly all the kingdoms. If I had a push pin for each NPC in the Greyhawk World that was 15th level or higher...it would be so dotted that one would wonder how they can all coexist without someone truly upsetting the world. When you look at such a map the pins would be all over the place. Even though the books claim such people are very rare, the products they publish such as modules and world gazetteers do not seem to back this statement up. Instead you have a Christmas Tree of super powerful NPCs. Thus it may be best to have less of them in the world than the D&D products provide.
If there are 20+ NPC Wizards capable of casting 9th level spells and another 20+ clerics doing the same thing....suddenly the world seems a bit overwhelmed by what is considered to be extremely rare.
If you calculate the percentages of adventurers in the game world...then yes I would consider the above numbers to be rare. However in D&D it doesn't take a lot for PCs to find these individuals and start making contacts that can later be overly exploited.
Just my views of coarse.
Another thing I had considered doing is downgrading the number of really powerful NPCs in Greyhawk. Those that are super powerful would remain that way, but there would be less of them at levels 16+.
For example, a ruler of a kingdom might be reduced a few levels or the leader of the Thieves Guild, or a leading cleric at a temple might be at 11th level rather than 15th like the game provides.
My primary reasons for this are:
Less chances of PC reliance on such NPCs.
More limitations to what these NPCs can do for the PCs.
Less potential world dominating NPCs.**What I mean by this is when the producers of the game design a kingdom they seem to want to include a unusually powerful Cleric, Wizard or other character, such as levels 16-20. This in itself is not a problem. The issue becomes one when they do this for nearly all the kingdoms. If I had a push pin for each NPC in the Greyhawk World that was 15th level or higher...it would be so dotted that one would wonder how they can all coexist without someone truly upsetting the world. When you look at such a map the pins would be all over the place. Even though the books claim such people are very rare, the products they publish such as modules and world gazetteers do not seem to back this statement up. Instead you have a Christmas Tree of super powerful NPCs. Thus it may be best to have less of them in the world than the D&D products provide.
If there are 20+ NPC Wizards capable of casting 9th level spells and another 20+ clerics doing the same thing....suddenly the world seems a bit overwhelmed by what is considered to be extremely rare.
If you calculate the percentages of adventurers in the game world...then yes I would consider the above numbers to be rare. However in D&D it doesn't take a lot for PCs to find these individuals and start making contacts that can later be overly exploited.
Just my views of coarse.
What source are you using for NPC level? I own the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer and I agree that there seems to be many high level NPC, but I blame this more on 3e than on the setting. :D
I'm not blaming the setting, its the designers of the products that create the number of NPCs of high levels. The 3rd edition Greyhawk Gazetteer and the Adventure Begins feel like they are heavy handed as products and thus the world is affected.
Another thing to consider is that in 5E, high level NPCs have a lower CR than they did in 3.PF.
For example, a 5th level mage might be CR 2. A 9th level mage is CR 5.
It's difficult to compare editions like that.
An AD&D 1e magic user that goes from level 10 to level 11 has less hit points than a 5e one but gets the following benefits to their spell casting (I'm ignoring any save or to hit increases )
All their magic missiles now produce 6 missiles
All their fireballs lightning bolts cones of cold etc now do 11dice
and they get an extra 3rd 4th & 5th level spell
- there is other stuff as well but you get my point.
A 5e wizard gets to learn one new spell and gets a single 6th level spell. All their magic missile do 3dice and their fireball stay at 8dice. The big thing they get is their firebolt goes from 2d10 to 3d10.
At super high level(15+) a AD&D spellcaster character is much more powerful than a high level 5e one. But a low level (4-) 5e one is more powerful than a 1e one.
1-20 5e is kinda like levels 4-16 AD&D. If I was converting a level 18 AD&D wizard to 5e I would make it a level 20 spellcaster with a couple of DMG boons. (Btw I think this is why in 3e greyhawk products the previously 10th level NPC is now 15th level - it is a better representation of their personal power compared to the power of the regular warrior)
I tried to do a "how many orcs do you need to kill to get to level 15 in each edition" but iirc trolls in AD&D netted you as much exp as about 40 orcs and hill Giants got you as much as about 120 so it ended up being an interesting but not illuminating exercise. 40 orcs in 5e means the death of just about any character if they can't out run them.
But back to the point about running the slow game. I do like the relative emphasis of 5e (rapid advancement to level 3, slow a lot between 5 and 10, a bit of a speed up at 11-13 then a gentle consistent rate 14-20. I have run three quick 3e adventure paths in the last 5-6 years and they get characters to 14th level but the characters seem to lack depth. Previously my first exposure to 3e was running a 6 year 1-20 level campaign and before that I ran AD&D - a couple of 15 year 1-18 level campaigns (not consecutively) so I come from a slow advance background.
For mine I'm going to keep the exp table in 5e (for the relative level advancement) I think as my campaign gets to mid levels (it's level 3-4 at the moment) the 0.4 multiplier looks like it will not work as well. I suspect I will simply redo the exp table for each CR.
Honestly, I'm kind of disappointed they didn't change things up so Kobolds were 1 XP, Orcs were 2 or 4 XP, and ghouls are 8 XP. And then you would need 40 XP to go to 2nd level or whatever.
Mostly because I think it would be neat to "spend" XP to affect some game mechanics, like extra Inspiration or re-rolls and the like. Or just spend 5 XP to add 5 to a roll.
I guess you could spend 100 XP or whatever for a +1 or whatever, but it just ain't the same.
Honestly, I'm kind of disappointed they didn't change things up so Kobolds were 1 XP, Orcs were 2 or 4 XP, and ghouls are 8 XP. And then you would need 40 XP to go to 2nd level or whatever.
Mostly because I think it would be neat to "spend" XP to affect some game mechanics, like extra Inspiration or re-rolls and the like. Or just spend 5 XP to add 5 to a roll.
I guess you could spend 100 XP or whatever for a +1 or whatever, but it just ain't the same.
I was nodding along while reading your first paragraph, then I saw the next two.
Do not even begin to think about going there. Just no.
We've been playing a 5E campaign, we're scheduled to meet weekly, but we also play other games and sessions get cancelled a lot. I'd say we average about 1.5 sessions of D&D per month.
It took us a year to go from level 3 to level 4. Doesn't seem that fast from my experience.
Yeah, spending XP is probably a really bad idea.
I don't even like XP. I think the whole party should level up all at the same time. If a player misses a session, that player is already being punished enough by missing a session. There is no need for that player to play at a level below the rest of the group, too. That's just adding insult to injury.
|
If a player misses a session, that player is already being punished enough by missing a session.
I do not think I will ever be able to wrap my head around this concept! I just don't believe one should receive benefit from something unearned, even if that something is imaginary.
Also, I have never viewed missing a game session as "punishment"; sure it sucks, especially if it's because of something like having to work or what-not, but punishment?? That's quite a stretch...
When a friend misses a basketball game, do you make them play the next game with one hand tied behind their back? I'm guessing not....
:-)
Hmm, I give all my players the same XP, no matter whether they are present or not. Luring players with XP to be active might work on the short run, but I feel it conceals the real issues with the campaign. Additionally, that way we only have to track one XP amount at all, not one per player.
A GM of mine gave half XP to absent players - that would be a compromise.
|
|
When a friend misses a basketball game, do you make them play the next game with one hand tied behind their back? I'm guessing not....
:-)
If the CEO of your work comes in from out of town on a surprise visit, and takes everyone in your department out for lunch on the day you called in sick, does he come back the next day and give you a gift certificate?? I'm guessing not... ;-)
But part of the issue I suppose is that I come from, and still play an edition that uses different XP table for each of the base character classes, so level disparity is a non-issue (but then, even when I played 3.x/PF it never was). I also game, and have gamed with people that feel as I do, in that, as much as we all love the game, missing a session has never been seen as some sort of punishment in-and-of itself.
YMMV... :-)
If a player misses a session, that player is already being punished enough by missing a session.I do not think I will ever be able to wrap my head around this concept! I just don't believe one should receive benefit from something unearned, even if that something is imaginary.
Also, I have never viewed missing a game session as "punishment"; sure it sucks, especially if it's because of something like having to work or what-not, but punishment?? That's quite a stretch...
I'm getting close to 40, role play is pretty much my only not-work, not-family related activity. Coming back after a burn out, this game plays a big part in my wellbeing and mental health in general. As far as I'm concerned, missing a game is a punishment in its own.
I have done the "level up when I say so everyone the same level" it's a fine way to go. Especially in 3e because being even 1 level different can matter. In 5e you can play at different levels in the same group and that gives an interesting dynamic without making it suck for the lower level character IMO.
With regards to XP some people just want to play a character that is of similar level to everyone else & don't want to be penalised for having to miss a session, others want to play a character who "earns" every XP. Who am I to argue with either option.
Currently my campaign consists of running two groups of PC's (same players) and I give out XP to those who are there when the encounter happens. However I also allow the players if they have missed a bit to increase their XP to the next lowest XP in the group. I figure I am creating adventures for their fun and I don't need to adjudicate this aspect of the game - it's up to them. Let them decide what's fun for them. I'm even thinking of letting those that don't care about recording XP just link their level up to the lowest XP in the group.
(my players are all gaming veterans with 30+ years experience but I don't think this would matter)
I'm getting close to 40, role play is pretty much my only not-work, not-family related activity. Coming back after a burn out, this game plays a big part in my wellbeing and mental health in general. As far as I'm concerned, missing a game is a punishment in its own.If a player misses a session, that player is already being punished enough by missing a session.I do not think I will ever be able to wrap my head around this concept! I just don't believe one should receive benefit from something unearned, even if that something is imaginary.
Also, I have never viewed missing a game session as "punishment"; sure it sucks, especially if it's because of something like having to work or what-not, but punishment?? That's quite a stretch...
That's how I feel. It's my form is stress relief from an otherwise busy life.
Of course, most of my "missing a game" is when my players don't show up, and I'm stuck with a bunch of soda, beer, and food ready to serve to nobody. I typically buy and prepare the food and drinks because game is at my house and my players spend their money on gas to get here. So when they don't show without advanced notice, I'm out money and my hobby.
I was using "punished" in the game theory definition, not as if you were judged for doing something wrong.
And where I work, rewards are distributed fairly. If you are off, you at least get leftovers or a gift certificate to keep things equitable.
But whatever you and your friends think is more fun for you is what you should do. It's a game and it's supposed to be entertainment.
We've been playing a 5E campaign, we're scheduled to meet weekly, but we also play other games and sessions get cancelled a lot. I'd say we average about 1.5 sessions of D&D per month.
It took us a year to go from level 3 to level 4. Doesn't seem that fast from my experience.
That would be about 18 games which certainly sounds like a long time for a character to earn 1,800 XP. I always push for slower advancement if possible but never quite at this pace. Could you give me an idea of what most games were like? Was most of the game spent roleplaying? Did the DM make XP adjustments which reduce the rate of which characters advanced?
Yes, we do a lot of roleplaying. I'm unaware of any XP adjustments he's made, but it's something we would talk about if he had. Game design isn't just a hobby at that table (for a couple it is, for others it's a profession).
Part of it had to do with the DM making some mistakes with the challenge system early on, so I think he pulled back more than he needed too. All told, I would estimate it was at least 17 encounters, could have been 20-22 though. And this doesn't count the couple encounters my first character had (made level 3, died a little bit later and new character started at base XP for 3 again). I've also missed the fewest sessions.
Our sessions are shortish though, usually only 3 hours, sometimes an extra 30-40 minutes. Even still, that's about 54 hours of game play at one level.
Then, you have to consider that from one level to the next usually isn't a huge difference. 3rd is a decent milestone, but getting 4th level really didn't feel that much different. I suspect 5th will feel bigger, but then 6 will be a smaller jump again. For example, from 1st to 3rd, none of the numbers actually changed, just a couple added options for each character.
4th is fun because you can get your first feat (if that option is available to you).
5th is a huge milestone. Your proficiency bonus finally improves, and most classes get really major features, like Extra Attack or 3rd level spells (fireball, call lightning, mass healing word, revivification, counterspell).
One thing to remember is 5E is about getting more features and more options as you rise in level.
Yes, I'm just saying that some levels feel bigger than others. Regardless though, the numbers barely change from one level to the other. Other than Hit Points, basically no numbers change from levels 1 to 3. At level 4, you either get a feat, or a +1 to the modifier of one stat (maybe two stats). At level 5, you get a +1 to your proficiency bonus. So from level 1 to 5, your attack bonus with your primary attack has probably gone up by +2 in total, maybe +3 if you got a magic weapon. In Pathfinder, if you're a martial character that number would be closer to +7 or +8, possibly a couple more.
Irontruth, you speak the truth. But unironically.
;-)
That's one of the big paradigm shifts between 3.PF and 5E. 3.PF uses ever-increasing numbers, and 5E has "bounded accuracy." The PC numbers don't go up that much, but neither do the monsters'.
Well, except for hit points!
:-D
That's one of the big paradigm shifts between 3.PF and 5E. 3.PF uses ever-increasing numbersYeah, that is one of the bigger reasons I stopped playing 3.x and PF, and one of the reasons I like 5e over-all. I really disliked those artificially inflated numbers...
It's fascinating to see the different perspectives. Here you are claiming the large numbers are artificial and that bounded accuracy feels natural. In another thread someone was complaining that the low numbers in 5e felt artificially low and that it made no sense to have low numbers, and that the large numbers felt natural.
I wonder what it correlates with. My immediate thought is that those who "grew up" with games that had lower numbers will be more apt to prefer 5e, while those who "grew up" with larger numbers will be more apt to enjoy 3.X. But I have no data to back my speculations.
|
|
My immediate thought is that those who "grew up" with games that had lower numbers will be more apt to prefer 5e
There's probably at least some smidgeon of truth to that. At least from my anecdotal experience, most of those that I have known and gamed with since the early days seem to prefer lower over-all numbers over the higher over-all numbers.
I like the lower numbers because it seems less "gamey" to me.
For example, in 3.PF, sometimes skill check DCs got ridiculously high (like 30 or 40) because PCs had skill bonuses around +15 or +25 or +35!
And those super high DCs seemed kind of artificial to me. For example, a frictionless wall coated in special anti-friction oil so the climb DC is 40. Why? How? What would normal creatures and characters do when presented with this special super-slippery walls that made it impossible for naturally wall climbing spiders from climbing? Just too bizarre for me.
When I GMed 3.PF, if the PC rolled a climb check and got a 40, they just scrambled up the wall like Peter Parkour. If they got a 40 on a Perception check, they heard the lice whispering in the thief's hair hiding in the barrel around the corner. If it they got a DC 40 on a monster lore check, they knew a ton about that monster! I wasn't going to gyp my PCs for investing 15 ranks in Knowledge blah and then have the blah monster have super secret abilities. It just rubbed me the wrong way.
In 5E, DC 10 might be kind of risky at 1st level, and pretty easy at 20th, but still be challenging for 20 levels. If you chose to be proficient in whatever helps in Challenge A, you should be rewarded by getting better overcoming Challenge A. Challenge A shouldn't become harder because you practiced at it!
Ugh. I think I'm rambling here....
A fun variant is to not level up at all. Pick one level (Usually around 6-8 for us), and stay at that level. The hard part is finding clever in character ways of disposing of the extra magic items.
|
|
I like the lower numbers because it seems less "gamey" to me.
Yeah, to me, those higher numbers created a never ending "arms race"; sure you can get some of that with lower numbers as well, but at least with the older editions of D&D and it appears with 5th edition as well, those numbers quickly max out at a much more reasonable level (well, "reasonable" IMO anyway - YMMV).
To me, the problem with large numbers is that you have to invest to get them. And you have limited resources for which to invest. So if you invest in abilities A-D, then you're not invested in abilities E-H. Which means you've now eliminated those abilities from ever being an option for your character.
Once the DC gets over 30, then you pretty much have to specialize to be able to accomplish tasks. Whether that task requires magic or weaponry or skills or something else, you're forced to specialize. If you try to have a broad area of exposure and be able to do many things equally well (but not as good as a specialist), then by the time you're at the level where DCs become extremely high, you simply won't be able to do anything at all.
High numbers with limited investment resources force people to specialize.
I often struggle with this in PF, because I like to have at least 1 rank in most skills, but then this means those skill points aren't being spent to keep other skills maximized. Which means that I simply can't contribute to skill challenges by mid level games where the DC's can reach the 30s. In my last PF game, the DCs for my 8th level character was in the 30s and no aid another was allowed (per the book), so not only did I need to have specialized, I also needed to have a high stat in the relevant check and had to have other investments into it. Alas, I failed, as expected, because I'm not fond of specializing.
In 5e, I can set my characters to have a broader spectrum of abilities, where specializing in one area doesn't necessarily hurt me in another if I choose to pursue a different path mid-game.