Do you agree that, upon reaching a higher level, it is always harder to gain xp ??

then, to gain xp would require to lower your own defenses, taking more risks while it is easier to get back to full defences when time gets odd...
Fighting off bigger monsters IS taking more risk
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
It is actually easier to gain experience points at higher levels Since it is easier to defeat monsters that grant more xp.

The amount of xp it takes to gain a level increases but the rate of xp gain increases as well. 
It's not generally harder to gain levels as you level, as while it take more, the monsters you should be fighting are giving you more xp. This prevents parties from going after weaker monsters for easy xp; to get enough xp, you actually need to fight enough of them to pose a threat (at least with bounded accuracy).

If anything, I found in 3E it was easier to gain levels from 5-12 than 1-4, because you could last longer and fight more monsters.
I think it should scale up a bit, and the last few levels should always be hard-fought. What greater accomplishment is there than Level 20?
I'm not a big experience point fan anyway, and really believe the party or DM should decide when it's the "right" time to level in a story.

That said, if experience is looked at like in real life, I think the better you get at something the harder it is to keep learning.  Think of MMA fighters.  That first year of training they probably learn dozens of moves, punches, feints, etc.  As the years continue, they become more esoteric in their skillset.  Yes, they have a broader skill set, but they're refining the ones they already have.  Same is true for physics majors, doctors, and plumbers.  Yes, you keep learning, but that curve starts getting more and more refined. 
I'm not a big experience point fan anyway, and really believe the party or DM should decide when it's the "right" time to level in a story.

That said, if experience is looked at like in real life, I think the better you get at something the harder it is to keep learning.  Think of MMA fighters.  That first year of training they probably learn dozens of moves, punches, feints, etc.  As the years continue, they become more esoteric in their skillset.  Yes, they have a broader skill set, but they're refining the ones they already have.  Same is true for physics majors, doctors, and plumbers.  Yes, you keep learning, but that curve starts getting more and more refined. 



When I studied martial arts (Taekwondo), my organization had a certain system for when you were eligible to test for the next rank at high ranks. When you're a 1st degree black belt you were eligible in a year, at 2nd degree you would wait two years, at third degree three years, and so on, so to reach the highest rank of 9th degree it would take a minimum of 36 years from 1st degree (but nobody passed as soon as they were eligible).

I don't think D&D should scale quite that much, but the principle should be in place.
No, not really.  It just takes more XP.

As for the rate you gain them?  That varies alot depending upon the game your in.
  
I'm not a big experience point fan anyway, and really believe the party or DM should decide when it's the "right" time to level in a story.

That said, if experience is looked at like in real life, I think the better you get at something the harder it is to keep learning.  Think of MMA fighters.  That first year of training they probably learn dozens of moves, punches, feints, etc.  As the years continue, they become more esoteric in their skillset.  Yes, they have a broader skill set, but they're refining the ones they already have.  Same is true for physics majors, doctors, and plumbers.  Yes, you keep learning, but that curve starts getting more and more refined. 



This is excactly what I think.  Most of the time, I just use xp of monsters, quests, non-combat encounters as a guide for me (the DM).   When a chapter of my story is up I have PCs level up (it is usually between 10-15 encounters worth of adventure, but sometimes more or less).

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

People still use XP?
People still use XP?



Outside of sanctioned events, I question why it even still exists.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Because many people like them
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I like experience points, makes me feel like I've earned it instead of just having a level handed to me.
Yes, we use XP.

As DM, I track XP for the players. I have a sheet where I record the XP gained for each session, and work the levelling and training into the storyline. PCs don't level up in the middle of an adventure. When the current stage is complete and a PC is ready to level, I use one of the story-related methods to tell him it's time to go train.

We find that takes the players' attention off the character mechanics and keeps it on the story. They don't have a field on the character sheet that they're watching with an eagle eye to see when they're going to level up (or when they're getting close) so they don't get distracted by "OMG I have to go fight two goblins so I can level up!"

The other two DMs in the group work it pretty much the same way.

We don't find that it's any harder as the PCs grow more powerful. They're facing harder challenges, so it's about the same percentage of "xp needed to next level" now that they're in the 12s (2e) as what they were getting at Level 3. In my game they're facing powerful liches and dangerous magic instead of goblins and orcs. It works out.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

In real life finding challenges that suit advancing competance often becomes harder and harder... if that is happening in the stories you tell then advancing should be slower and slower... if not then not ;p
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

if you dont believe in using xp, and that alignment is bad, and classless system is the way to go, and racial stat bonuses should be removed then go play gurps and leave dnd alone. it will come to a point that by ripping things apart you wont be able to put them back together and have them be dnd
if you dont believe in using xp, and that alignment is bad, and classless system is the way to go, and racial stat bonuses should be removed then go play gurps and leave dnd alone. it will come to a point that by ripping things apart you wont be able to put them back together and have them be dnd

D&D is like religion. People focus far too much on the differences rather than the similarities.
Pathfinder and 13th Age are both very D&D whilst being unlike eachother, they're certainly not Star Wars or Call of C'thulu.

If you aim on people going up a level every 5 or 3 or 10 play sessions and want to give as much a reward to an evening spent on RP as combat then just do it.
If you want to track individual xp and give individual xp awards based on players using class abilities then do that instead.

It's still D&D. Just remember the DM's dicision is final. If you don't like it, run your own game or find a different DM.
D&D is like religion. People focus far too much on the differences rather than the similarities.
if you dont believe in using xp, and that alignment is bad, and classless system is the way to go, and racial stat bonuses should be removed then go play gurps and leave dnd alone. it will come to a point that by ripping things apart you wont be able to put them back together and have them be dnd

D&D is like religion. People focus far too much on the differences rather than the similarities.
Pathfinder and 13th Age are both very D&D whilst being unlike eachother, they're certainly not Star Wars or Call of C'thulu.

If you aim on people going up a level every 5 or 3 or 10 play sessions and want to give as much a reward to an evening spent on RP as combat then just do it.
If you want to track individual xp and give individual xp awards based on players using class abilities then do that instead.

It's still D&D. Just remember the DM's dicision is final. If you don't like it, run your own game or find a different DM.

There seems to generally be an inverse relationship between the extent to which someone frets about little things making something "not D&D" and the extent to which they understand what's actually responsible for making D&D what it is.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
the little things is what made dnd diffrent and in my opinion better than other games. now i support changing things for the modern world however when you take some core things and throw them out and not even make them optional then you have something that dosent pay homage to its origional and becomes something closer to some other rpgs out there. if thats the case do you want dnd or a 2nd rate copy of another games system. if you want poison to do ability damage fine if you want poision to do hp damage and have other effects it should be included. if alignment dosent work for you fine but include it as a option. i lived thru the begining of the hobby from wargaming to today and that is what made dnd what it is its history from start to finish. to ignore past mechanics wether in your opinion they need to be changed or not dosent mean that is shouldnt have a place at the table as a module
There seems to generally be an inverse relationship between the extent to which someone frets about little things making something "not D&D" and the extent to which they understand what's actually responsible for making D&D what it is.




Well said.