(Unsure if this belongs in this topic or General Discussion. Please let me know if it belongs there or if it's fine here, thanks)
I've been looking at the 5e XP progression chart (if anyone happens to care, I'm making an RPG system based on 5e because I like writing rules), and I can't for the life of me figure out a pattern, if there is one at all. At levels 1-4, it's triple the XP threshold of the previous level, then at 5th level and up it appears to forgo any sort of rhyme or reason.
It looks like the overall progression climbs to 50,000, but it definitely gets sloppy after level 11.
Most content is balanced for levels 4~12, but other than that, I don't have much. People have been debating this from inception, and I don't believe the is a clear answer.
I borrowed the chart from a thread discussing this 7 years ago. Here are some other charts that come up:
The first reflects the "XP Valley", and the latter shows the number of level appropriate encounters required to level up.
Interestingly, this seems to suggest tiers of play, wherein Mid-levels require more combats, and higher levels require fewer. So, it looks like the answer to the question may be to look at Encounter EXP progression and work backwards.
A funny realization. I just realized that I have played all kinds of pen and paper rpgs for 22 years and we have never used any kind of xp progress system. Except a friend of mine tried once, but the campaign didn't really take off.
We just grant a level when the players do something worthy of a level. It just always felt very natural. 😁
Thanks for the info. I don't exactly understand the charts but they're insightful nonetheless. I was generally talking about some sort of mathematical pattern for the amount of XP required to progress to the next level. The XP progression in my game, for instance (though as of yet untested), is that the required amount of XP to reach the next level equals the required amount to acquire the previous level + 100.
1:0
2: 300
3: 700 (300+400)
4: 1,200 (700+500)
5: 1,800 (12,000+600)
6: 2,500 (18,000+700)
etc.
2nd level starts at 300 instead of 100 because the system is based on 5e, will probably change in future.
We started at 0th level and made first level 500xp. There after each level was your present level xp plus 150%.(second would then be 1250). It gets a little stiff at higher levels but it does make one work for it.
We also believed that playing higher level characters was a little boring. Normally a character should have enough cash and fame to retire sometime between 10th and 15th level, playing beyond that was normally just a personal power grab.
We started at 0th level and made first level 500xp. There after each level was your present level xp plus 150%.(second would then be 1250). It gets a little stiff at higher levels but it does make one work for it.
We also believed that playing higher level characters was a little boring. Normally a character should have enough cash and fame to retire sometime between 10th and 15th level, playing beyond that was normally just a personal power grab.
I like your XP progression system, though I think it's a little high for my game. I've also been considering having characters start at 0 level, but 1st-level characters aren't that much more powerful than they would be without any class features. There is going to be an optional rule for starting at 0 level, however. Ideally, the XP progression would be akin to 5e but with an easily-repeatable pattern.
As of yet, I've only written the system to go up to 10th level, but I've also made it simple to go higher if your group wants to. All of the game's progression is based on simple patterns; each base class has 2-3 features that they acquire from levels 1-3, 1-2 of which improve every X amount of levels. 4th and 8th level each grant an ASI, and the Fighter gets an extra ASI at 6th and 10th level.
My new progression is as follows:
0: -100
1: 0
2: 300
3: 600
4: 1,000
5: 1,500
6: 2,100
7: 2,800
8: 3,600
9: 4,500
10: 5,500
Next XP threshold = Previous XP threshold + (Level x 100)
Thanks for the info. I don't exactly understand the charts but they're insightful nonetheless. I was generally talking about some sort of mathematical pattern for the amount of XP required to progress to the next level. The XP progression in my game, for instance (though as of yet untested), is that the required amount of XP to reach the next level equals the required amount to acquire the previous level + 100.
1:0
2: 300
3: 700 (300+400)
4: 1,200 (700+500)
5: 1,800 (12,000+600)
6: 2,500 (18,000+700)
etc.
2nd level starts at 300 instead of 100 because the system is based on 5e, will probably change in future.
The value of the charts is to show that the "mathematical pattern" for XP progression for 5e may be based off of encounter calculations, not the other way around. A smooth XP progression like your looking for might not be appropriate, depending on your end goals.
In many video games, especially MMOs, leveling gets harder to continuously slow advancement, so having a simple non-linear growth is fine because the point is to keep the bulk of the population within a statistical curve.
In games like D&D, the point is the story and gameplay. You want to have reasonable advancement to keep the game interesting, but the difference between being level 4 and level 8 only matters from a narrative perspective. This is why solo games and many D&D groups use milestone leveling.
We don't want players "grinding" swarms of low level monsters just to bulk up. There is no social hierarchy to impress.
When plotting EXP by CR, you get a chart like this:
And when you plot the steps between CR 5 and CR 16, it almost follows this line Y = X+ CR*100. Which is essentially what you are already doing. So, Your model is the equivalent of a PC soloing a CR appropriate monster on their own. The only difference is that they seem to be that they are rounding up to the nearest 25, 50, 100, 1000, etc... and then introducing bumps at the transition from low level and high level play.
From there, the designers seem to have chosen some reference encounters, and chose a number of desirable encounters per level to determine XP leveling requirements.
Thanks for the info. I don't exactly understand the charts but they're insightful nonetheless. I was generally talking about some sort of mathematical pattern for the amount of XP required to progress to the next level. The XP progression in my game, for instance (though as of yet untested), is that the required amount of XP to reach the next level equals the required amount to acquire the previous level + 100.
1:0
2: 300
3: 700 (300+400)
4: 1,200 (700+500)
5: 1,800 (12,000+600)
6: 2,500 (18,000+700)
etc.
2nd level starts at 300 instead of 100 because the system is based on 5e, will probably change in future.
The value of the charts is to show that the "mathematical pattern" for XP progression for 5e may be based off of encounter calculations, not the other way around. A smooth XP progression like your looking for might not be appropriate, depending on your end goals.
In many video games, especially MMOs, leveling gets harder to continuously slow advancement, so having a simple non-linear growth is fine because the point is to keep the bulk of the population within a statistical curve.
In games like D&D, the point is the story and gameplay. You want to have reasonable advancement to keep the game interesting, but the difference between being level 4 and level 8 only matters from a narrative perspective. This is why solo games and many D&D groups use milestone leveling.
We don't want players "grinding" swarms of low level monsters just to bulk up. There is no social hierarchy to impress.
When plotting EXP by CR, you get a chart like this:
And when you plot the steps between CR 5 and CR 16, it almost follows this line Y = X+ CR*100. Which is essentially what you are already doing. So, Your model is the equivalent of a PC soloing a CR appropriate monster on their own. The only difference is that they seem to be that they are rounding up to the nearest 25, 50, 100, 1000, etc... and then introducing bumps at the transition from low level and high level play.
From there, the designers seem to have chosen some reference encounters, and chose a number of desirable encounters per level to determine XP leveling requirements.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks for clarifying. The goal for my game is pretty much just to see if the systems and rules work, and because I enjoy figuring out how to phrase rules and balance games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[REDACTED]
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(Unsure if this belongs in this topic or General Discussion. Please let me know if it belongs there or if it's fine here, thanks)
I've been looking at the 5e XP progression chart (if anyone happens to care, I'm making an RPG system based on 5e because I like writing rules), and I can't for the life of me figure out a pattern, if there is one at all. At levels 1-4, it's triple the XP threshold of the previous level, then at 5th level and up it appears to forgo any sort of rhyme or reason.
Is there a pattern?
[REDACTED]
It looks like the overall progression climbs to 50,000, but it definitely gets sloppy after level 11.
Most content is balanced for levels 4~12, but other than that, I don't have much. People have been debating this from inception, and I don't believe the is a clear answer.
You should add a second line for daily encounter XP budget and maybe a third line for monster XP yields by CR.
I borrowed the chart from a thread discussing this 7 years ago. Here are some other charts that come up:
The first reflects the "XP Valley", and the latter shows the number of level appropriate encounters required to level up.
Interestingly, this seems to suggest tiers of play, wherein Mid-levels require more combats, and higher levels require fewer. So, it looks like the answer to the question may be to look at Encounter EXP progression and work backwards.
A funny realization. I just realized that I have played all kinds of pen and paper rpgs for 22 years and we have never used any kind of xp progress system. Except a friend of mine tried once, but the campaign didn't really take off.
We just grant a level when the players do something worthy of a level. It just always felt very natural. 😁
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Thanks for the info. I don't exactly understand the charts but they're insightful nonetheless. I was generally talking about some sort of mathematical pattern for the amount of XP required to progress to the next level. The XP progression in my game, for instance (though as of yet untested), is that the required amount of XP to reach the next level equals the required amount to acquire the previous level + 100.
1:0
2: 300
3: 700 (300+400)
4: 1,200 (700+500)
5: 1,800 (12,000+600)
6: 2,500 (18,000+700)
etc.
2nd level starts at 300 instead of 100 because the system is based on 5e, will probably change in future.
[REDACTED]
We made a game where the progression was simple.
We started at 0th level and made first level 500xp. There after each level was your present level xp plus 150%.(second would then be 1250). It gets a little stiff at higher levels but it does make one work for it.
We also believed that playing higher level characters was a little boring. Normally a character should have enough cash and fame to retire sometime between 10th and 15th level, playing beyond that was normally just a personal power grab.
I like your XP progression system, though I think it's a little high for my game. I've also been considering having characters start at 0 level, but 1st-level characters aren't that much more powerful than they would be without any class features. There is going to be an optional rule for starting at 0 level, however. Ideally, the XP progression would be akin to 5e but with an easily-repeatable pattern.
As of yet, I've only written the system to go up to 10th level, but I've also made it simple to go higher if your group wants to. All of the game's progression is based on simple patterns; each base class has 2-3 features that they acquire from levels 1-3, 1-2 of which improve every X amount of levels. 4th and 8th level each grant an ASI, and the Fighter gets an extra ASI at 6th and 10th level.
My new progression is as follows:
0: -100
1: 0
2: 300
3: 600
4: 1,000
5: 1,500
6: 2,100
7: 2,800
8: 3,600
9: 4,500
10: 5,500
Next XP threshold = Previous XP threshold + (Level x 100)
[REDACTED]
The value of the charts is to show that the "mathematical pattern" for XP progression for 5e may be based off of encounter calculations, not the other way around. A smooth XP progression like your looking for might not be appropriate, depending on your end goals.
In many video games, especially MMOs, leveling gets harder to continuously slow advancement, so having a simple non-linear growth is fine because the point is to keep the bulk of the population within a statistical curve.
In games like D&D, the point is the story and gameplay. You want to have reasonable advancement to keep the game interesting, but the difference between being level 4 and level 8 only matters from a narrative perspective. This is why solo games and many D&D groups use milestone leveling.
We don't want players "grinding" swarms of low level monsters just to bulk up. There is no social hierarchy to impress.
When plotting EXP by CR, you get a chart like this:
And when you plot the steps between CR 5 and CR 16, it almost follows this line Y = X+ CR*100. Which is essentially what you are already doing. So, Your model is the equivalent of a PC soloing a CR appropriate monster on their own. The only difference is that they seem to be that they are rounding up to the nearest 25, 50, 100, 1000, etc... and then introducing bumps at the transition from low level and high level play.
From there, the designers seem to have chosen some reference encounters, and chose a number of desirable encounters per level to determine XP leveling requirements.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks for clarifying. The goal for my game is pretty much just to see if the systems and rules work, and because I enjoy figuring out how to phrase rules and balance games.
[REDACTED]