I've having a bit of a closer look at 5e given all the praise for it that I'm hearing. But one thing strikes me as really out of whack. To get from 1st to 2nd level, PCs need only 300 xp. Compare that with the B/X thief (the class that levels most rapidly), which needs 1,200 xp to get to 2nd level. What's going on here? Can someone explain how 5e handles xp and level advancement in such a way that it doesn't make it seem like a gimme?
As I understand it, levels 1 & 2 are seen more as an "apprenticeship," while the real game starts at level 3. Many more XP's are needed to raise levels after that.
I think its hard to get a grasp on leveling in 5e versus B/X because in 5e your gaining xp under the 2e killing monsters structure rather than the B/X looting coin structure.
I have a graph charted out and the 5e EXP curve actually follows the AD&D curve to a fair degree. Moreso than I ever expected. It is just less number crunching. Knock off a zero or two off AD&D's EXP needs and they mesh.
Up to level 5 they climb about the same. Then from level 6-11 it accellerates. Then it slows down until 17 and then accellerates again. 5es cuve is closest to the clerics progression curve for a while.
Keep in mind that the EXP from monsters in 5e is a little different AND you do not get EXP for treasure.
BUT.
The stated goal of 5e was a game where you could go from 1-20 in a single years campaign. The initial levelling is quick. Then it slows down more and more as you get to the higher levels. But it is still quick even with the lack of treasure EXP.
It is one aspect I am not quite so fond of. It works though so cant complain too much.
The XP system as written is indeed a fast leveling structure. Levels 1 and 2 are designed to last only a single adventure session each.
Even after that if you play according to standard guidelines the PCs will reach level 20 in perhaps less than a year of game time IF you insert downtime between adventures. If not then it can take as little as a few months.
Luckily, XP is the easiest sub-system to rip out and completely replace with one of your own choosing.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;860606The XP system as written is indeed a fast leveling structure. Levels 1 and 2 are designed to last only a single adventure session each.
Even after that if you play according to standard guidelines the PCs will reach level 20 in perhaps less than a year of game time IF you insert downtime between adventures. If not then it can take as little as a few months.
Luckily, XP is the easiest sub-system to rip out and completely replace with one of your own choosing.
LOL level 20 in less than a year? How the times have changed.
you dont even need to rip it out. Just add a zero at the end of every levels EXP needs and it maps more or less to the AD&D clerics progression which is about the middle between the speed of the thief and the slowness of the magic user.
And in AD&D the MU was till level 10 the second fastest class to level up.
In several threads around the net, I've read that there are frequent mid-combat resurrections in 5e? Is PC permadeath infrequent in 5e?
That (and the rule some groups use where dead PCs mean you roll up a new one at the current "party level") seems like it would also make the game expect to shoot PCs up to high levels (as opposed to some of them dying and starting new level one characters).
Quote from: Skarg;860611In several threads around the net, I've read that there are frequent mid-combat resurrections in 5e? Is PC permadeath infrequent in 5e?
That (and the rule some groups use where dead PCs mean you roll up a new one at the current "party level") seems like it would also make the game expect to shoot PCs up to high levels (as opposed to some of them dying and starting new level one characters).
There's a 3rd level (i.e, gained a 5th) resurrection spell available to Clerics, but you could easily ban that spell if you did not care for it.
Quote from: Skarg;860611In several threads around the net, I've read that there are frequent mid-combat resurrections in 5e? Is PC permadeath infrequent in 5e?
That (and the rule some groups use where dead PCs mean you roll up a new one at the current "party level") seems like it would also make the game expect to shoot PCs up to high levels (as opposed to some of them dying and starting new level one characters).
For my 5E campaigns I do replacement characters by tiers. If the party is level 1-5 then new characters start at 1st level. If the party is level 6-10 then new characters start at level 6.
I've been running a 5e campaign online most of this year. 40 sessions; highest level PC just reached 9th.
It talks about expected levelling rate in the DMG: 1 session each for levels 1 & 2, 2-3 sessions/level thereafter. My own game rate is about half that due to the text-chat format.
It's about twice as fast as AD&D I'd say (eg my 45 session AD&D online game only saw PCs reach 5th level, although I did have another one where a PC reached 5th in only 20 sessions), but with a similar curve. The big difference is the minimal XP needed for the first two levels; it slows down from 3rd, and levels 6-10 go much slower. The XP chart is designed to speed progression up again after 10th, much as AD&D's did - since XP to advance after 9th remained static while awards increased.
Another thing worth noting is the shallower power curve in 5e; the 7th-9th level PCs IMC don't feel 'high level', they feel mid-level, still threatened by mundane foes, more like 4th-6th in 1e I'd say. So although PCs level up quicker than in 1e, they don't get more powerful quicker; it's about the same.
Quote from: Omega;860605Up to level 5 they climb about the same. Then from level 6-11 it accellerates. Then it slows down until 17 and then accellerates again.
That doesn't seem right at all. I've seen very fast advancement 1-3, fast 4-5, moderate 6-9. Here's the chart - note the amount needed to level drops from 21000 10-11 to 15000 11-12. Apparently the fast progressions in Tier 1 (1-4) and Tier 3 (11-16) is deliberate, as is the slower progression in the Tier 2 (5-10) "sweet spot".
Level: XP Proficiency
1: 0 +2 (300 to level)
2: 300 +2 (600 to level)
3: 900 +2 (1800 to level)
4: 2700 +2 (3800 to level)
5: 6500 +3 (7500 to level)
6: 14000 +3 (9000 to level)
7: 23000 +3 (11000 to level)
8: 34000 +3 (14000 to level)
9: 48000 +4 (16000 to level)
10: 64000 +4 (21000 to level)
11: 85,000 11 +4 (15000 to level)
12: 100,000 12 +4 (20000 to level)
13: 120,000 13 +5 (20000 to level)
14: 140,000 14 +5 (25000 to level)
15: 165,000 15 +5 (30000 to level)
16: 195,000 16 +5 (30000 to level)
17: 225,000 17 +6 (40000 to level)
18: 265,000 18 +6 (40000 to level)
19: 305,000 19 +6 (50000 to level)
20: 355,000 20 +6 (30000 per Bonus*)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;860614For my 5E campaigns I do replacement characters by tiers. If the party is level 1-5 then new characters start at 1st level. If the party is level 6-10 then new characters start at level 6.
I do tier-based (1, 5, 11, 17) for new PCs; I'm now allowing players to bring in PCs with half the XP of their deceased PC, eg session before last we lost a Warlock-8; replacement was a Cleric-6.
The lethality rate in my 5e game seems pretty similar to my other D&D games of various editions (high level 4e has the lowest lethality).
BTW the 5e DMG discusses replacement PCs, says that you can either keep everyone the same level, or a 3-level gap is fine too. That fits my experience - with 4e & Pathfinder I have 1 party XP tally and everyone the same level, but 5e is fine with a few levels difference between PCs, probably moreso than pre-3e even.
I actually did some tables for this and the previous 2 Wizards editions when 5E came out to look at this. Here is the experience needed for each experience level:
TOTAL XP NEEDED:
Level 3E 4E 5E
1 0 0 0
2 1000 1000 300
3 3000 2250 900
4 6000 3750 2700
5 10000 5500 6500
6 15000 7500 14000
7 21000 10000 23000
8 28000 13000 34000
9 36000 16500 48000
10 45000 20500 64000
11 55000 26000 85000
12 66000 32000 100000
13 78000 39000 120000
14 91000 47000 140000
15 105000 57000 165000
16 120000 69000 195000
17 136000 83000 225000
18 153000 99000 265000
19 171000 119000 305000
20 190000 143000 355000
And here's the chart of the experience needed for each individual level increase:
INCREASE FROM PREVIOUS LEVEL:
Level 3E 4E 5E
1>2 1000 1000 300
2>3 2000 1250 600
3>4 3000 1500 1800
4>5 4000 1750 3800
5>6 5000 2000 7500
6>7 6000 2500 9000
7>8 7000 3000 11000
8>9 8000 3500 14000
9>10 9000 4000 16000
10>11 10000 5500 21000
11>12 11000 6000 15000
12>13 12000 7000 20000
13>14 13000 8000 20000
14>15 14000 10000 25000
15>16 15000 12000 30000
16>17 16000 14000 30000
17>18 17000 16000 40000
18>19 18000 20000 40000
19>20 19000 24000 50000
Obvious caveat here is that 4E is built on a level 1-30 scale rather than a 1-20 scale, but even so it's quite clear that once you hit level 5, 4E actually ends up with a much slower level progression than any previous Wizards of the Coast edition of D&D.
You could also quite easily swap out the level targets for levels 1-5 for 5E with the ones for 3E if you want to slow down the level progression early on. This is a trivially easy part of the game to adjust to taste.
Weird. My 5e campaign is about to reach 1 year old and we played nearly every two weeks. The highest level the PCs have reached is 6th.
And, for the record, I don't bother with CR. If the PCs accidentally come face to face with a Vampire, Storm Giant or Mummy at levels 2-4 (which has happened) that's just it. No character deaths yet.
Well, that's all good to hear. I guess it's less of an issue than I thought.
I use milestone XP so it's not as big a deal. I think we've played 30 sessions and everyone is around level 4.
Quote from: Skarg;860611In several threads around the net, I've read that there are frequent mid-combat resurrections in 5e? Is PC permadeath infrequent in 5e?
That (and the rule some groups use where dead PCs mean you roll up a new one at the current "party level") seems like it would also make the game expect to shoot PCs up to high levels (as opposed to some of them dying and starting new level one characters).
3rd level spell Revify. Raises a person who has died within the last minute with 1 HP. Clerics do not get it till level 5. Clerics do not get Raise Dead until level 9 which is the same level Druids get Reincarnate.
What you were likely hearing was the complaining that it is supposedly bitchingly hard to kill the PCs. In 5e when you go to 0 you have about 3-5 rounds where you may either recover with 1 HP. Or die. As in AD&D though anyone can try to stabalize a fallen member.
While in this 0 HP state the PC can take an absurd amount of punishment.
What the detractors miss though is that attacks on the fallen have advantage and any hit is an automatic critical. Which counts as 2 failed death saves. 3 fails and thats it for your character. Bullywugs and other multi-attack monsters are a real terror for fallen characters now.
So on one hand the PCs are harder to kill, and on the other they are easier to kill.
Quote from: Necrozius;860683Weird. My 5e campaign is about to reach 1 year old and we played nearly every two weeks. The highest level the PCs have reached is 6th.
And, for the record, I don't bother with CR. If the PCs accidentally come face to face with a Vampire, Storm Giant or Mummy at levels 2-4 (which has happened) that's just it. No character deaths yet.
Mummies are much lower CR than they used to be. While still tough, their vulnerability to fire, combined with infinite fire cantrips, make them pretty beatable even at low levels.
Quote from: aspiringlich;860712Well, that's all good to hear. I guess it's less of an issue than I thought.
PCs are much harder to kill past the first few levels. They either have to get hit 3 times while already at 0 (only reasonable with lots of monsters), or have nobody do any healing at all to them for a few rounds and also be unlucky...or just be really unlucky with no help for two rounds.
The "instadeath" rule can kill a character, but only if the monster can deal as much damage as the character's starting hit points--most monsters won't be able to do that kind of damage to a character past 4rd level, outside of incredible flukes (dragons being the notable exception).
As far as leveling goes, characters really don't seem like they're supposed to be level 1 for long. Low level monsters hit much more accurately and for more damage (plus the possibility of crits) than in older versions of D&D. An AD&D first level fighter with good armor/shield could realistically last several rounds against 4 kobolds, but it unlikely to last two against that many attacking at once in 5e.
In short, it's probably best, unless you're not doing much combat, to get characters through the first two levels in a handful of sessions at best.
For levels past 3, it's totally up to the DM. Yes, the EP numbers are different than in older editions, but this is meaningless. Ultimately, level advancement is completely subject to how the DM runs the game, the numbers are just a rough guide that, I reckon, is ignored to some extent at every table (as it was in most every other edition; curiously, 4e was the only edition I played where following the EP award numbers closely actually worked).
Cue the fan club in 3...2....1....
Quote from: Warthur;860660Obvious caveat here is that 4E is built on a level 1-30 scale rather than a 1-20 scale, but even so it's quite clear that once you hit level 5, 4E actually ends up with a much slower level progression than any previous Wizards of the Coast edition of D&D.
With 3e xp has no platonic value, 1 xp means more the higher level you get.
My experience is that 3e & Pathfinder progression rate is quite similar to 5e after the first couple levels, but the power increase per level is much more so it feels much faster. My Pathfinder campaign started at level 2 and wrapped up yesterday at level 14 after 34 tabletop sessions; 12 level-ups so 2.8 sessions/level, but in the single digit levels it was generally 2 sessions/level. Similar to 5e, BUT 3e/PF PCs double in power every 2 levels, they start feeling like demigods around level 11. 5e PCs feel much much more grounded, I'd say they double in power more like every 4 levels (faster 1-5) so it doesn't feel nearly so weird.
4e PCs double in power about every 4 levels, much like 5e PCs. XP awards look similar - it's designed around 10 standard awards to level - but the fights are much much slower than in 5e and this keeps the actual speed of progression down. My 4e campaign started at level 1 and is level 25 after 92 sessions, 24 level ups so 3.8 sessions/level. It was 2-3 sessions at low level and has been very consistently averaging 4 sessions/level for most of the campaign.
My experience is that in practice 3e/PF levels fastest and has the fastest power progression, 5e next, and 4e is the slowest.
I'm also running a Classic D&D campaign, PCs currently around level 6. It seems to be around 3-5 sessions to level (the recommended rate in the Rules Cyclopedia as I recall), and actual PC power increases more slowly than 3e/PF but similar to 5e and 4e, maybe a bit faster.
Quote from: Doom;860719Mummies are much lower CR than they used to be. While still tough, their vulnerability to fire, combined with infinite fire cantrips, make them pretty beatable even at low levels.
A lot of monsters are much lower CR than previously - eg I was surprised Manticores are only CR 3 now - which works ok if you run it like 4e with PCs normally fighting groups of monsters. Also, higher level monsters are much more fightable than in 3e; they may get lucky and kill PCs, but they are definitely beatable. Conversely, bounded accuracy means hordes of low level monsters are much more dangerous than in 3e.
Overall I like the change - the paucity of monsters above CR 10 was initially surprising, but the intent seems to be that high level PCs fight lots of mid-CR monsters, hordes of low-CR monsters, or the occasional high-CR solo monster.
I'm running 5e weekly and sometimes even twice a week for about 7 months now and so far the highest character -- a handful of character deaths included -- is at level 6.
I don't play with challenge ratings, because I'm running a sandbox and give out xp awards not only for monsters, but for bigger investigative accomplishments.
Quote from: Doom;860721They either have to get hit 3 times while already at 0 (only reasonable with lots of monsters)
The "instadeath" rule can kill a character, but only if the monster can deal as much damage as the character's starting hit points--most monsters won't be able to do that kind of damage to a character past 4rd level, outside of incredible flukes (dragons being the notable exception).
Cue the fan club in 3...2....1....
1: incorrect. the downed character just has to get hit twice and they are gone. 1 hit = auto critical = 2 automatic failed saves out of 3. Or hit once and fail their death check. As noted. A bullywug can wipe you out in one round as it has 2 attacks. if both connect then thats 4 fails and ta-ta.
2: The insta-death rule isnt even a factor past a point. And doesnt effect 0hp targets if you read the rules on that one way. As some did. YMMV of course. Past level 1 I stopped checking as it wasnt likely to happen short of something catastrophic which is likely going to kill the character anyhow.
3: Not me. I've made vocal my various irks with parts of 5e. It works fine. But could have been better. Though is easy enough to tweak. Lockdown initiative, cantrip damage , and the whole 0 HP mechanic are three.
Just a kobold with two daggers 5' away from the downed PC can do it. But as a GM I try not to run my monsters like a crack squad of Navy SEALs. A little opportunism goes a long way, so I still keep things lethal, just not coordinated vindictiveness.
As for the rules on how to gut PCs quickly while down, here:
Unconscious
• An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the
condition), can't move or speak, and is unaware
of its surroundings.
• The creature drops whatever it's holding and
falls prone.
• The creature automatically fails Strength and
Dexterity saving throws.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
• Any attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the
attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.
(Basic D&D 5e, Aug 2014. p. 105.)
Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while
you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw
failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer
two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds
your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death.
(Basic D&D 5e, Aug 2014. p. 76.)
As it being an issue... Popping people back up from unconsciousness can feel like a thing to the GM. It can feel like whack-a-mole, yet as a GM I don't care about keeping players down and out. 5e players are to feel a sense of urgency as they work Lay on Hands, Heal Kit + Healer feat, or Heal spells, as they try to juggle combat.
If it becomes a thing there's always the three solutions of: give monsters death saves, or make monsters ensure players stay down, or remove that rule. I think of death saves as swooning from shock, a la Final Fantasy, not death per se. It's its own conceit.
I describe the 0 HP state differently depending on the situation. It could be bleeding out, it could be unconscious, it could be dazed and immobilized, etc.
It does feel silly or like its trivializing the threat of death when someone gets downed and then revived like 8 times in a row.
Mainly because after being downed and revived several times the downed PC could have absorbed several times their own HP worth of damage, just separately instead of all at once.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860825I describe the 0 HP state differently depending on the situation. It could be bleeding out, it could be unconscious, it could be dazed and immobilized, etc.
It does feel silly or like its trivializing the threat of death when someone gets downed and then revived like 8 times in a row.
Mainly because after being downed and revived several times the downed PC could have absorbed several times their own HP worth of damage, just separately instead of all at once.
As my fan club points out, it's generally more reasonable to say 2 hits on a downed character will kill him (plus the hit that knocks him down to 0), instead of the completely wrong 3 I claimed earlier (not counting ranged attacks).
Like you, I donn't necessarily take "knocked to 0" as unconscious, instead treating it, usually, as just incapacitated. I'm still a little conflicted about it--most fatal blows don't instantaneously knock people unconscious, instead they generally suffer and bleed first, which is how I interpreted the "death saving throw" mechanic.
I'll see if my players want to go to the official rules, or switch to them as they gain some levels. I'm averaging a PC death a week in the new campaign (everyone's level 2), so not exactly motivated to make death more common as yet.
We generally read it as similar to AD&D where it is the hit that takes you down that actually hits the meat. The rest is wearing down stamina, skill, luck, whatever to keep from being seriously harmed.
So you go to 0 and either start bleeding or go into shock or who knows what.
Then a cat comes along and bites you twice and you die. :eek:
This will likely slow down the levelling at least.
People still die in the real world from slipping into unconsciousness by shock, quite often even. Something like 1 in 5 die from it still, and there's several major types of shock. As a descriptive concept, that leaves the condition unconsciousness, it works for me.
That and those other terms are already keyworded with their own mechanics. (Incapacitated directly, dazed=stunned, immobilized=paralyzed, etc.) I try to avoid descriptive overlap with extant rules when I can. I don't want any table confusion, hence I use shock as part of the description instead.
As for it looking weird, it definiltely can. But there's only a few main sources for bouncing someone back into battle, and most of them are magical or class features. The feat suggests a remarkable combat medic capacity, and as a feat it's optional. Think of it as rescuing someone from the brink by otherworldly intervention or very strong medicine. Like an adrenaline shot through the breastbone to the heart.
As for 8 times in a combat... I've seen around 5 or 6 max. When it's that often the party's in a tough fight, definitely surviving by a surplus of healing options. However I could see an argument for it limited to a PC's Hit Dice — or costing a Hit Die.
The game's already lethal enough as is though, so I don't see a pressing need.