Community

OK, did a little math.  No wonder I was getting bored as a DM while running this.

I looked over the XP to level requirements, and I got a bit of a surprise I hadn't pieced together yet.  IMO there's a glaring problems with the curve.  I hope it is not un-noticed and will be adjusted.  As is, it's a big part of why I won't be testing the Barbarian packet.  The first one was bad enough.

Lookeee here:

From Level 1 to 2: 250 xp required per character

A level 1 monster reanges from 10-50 XP
Min: 10 XP = 25 monsters per PC * 5 PC party - 125 monsters
Max: 50 XP = 5 monsters per PC * 5 PC party = 25 monsters

Split the difference in the middle = 75 total level 1 monsters average to level up

From Level 2 to 3: 700 more XP required, range from 60-100 XP
Min: 60 XP = 11.7 monsters per PC * 5 PC party =58 monsters
Max: 100 XP = 7 monsters per PC * 5 PC party = 35 monsters

Average number = 46 monsters to level up

A similar trend continues throughout.

As a DM, even with fights taking 2-3 rounds, I just don't have the time or inclination to wade through this many fights and find endless excuses for characters to fight armies of what are basically minions just to level up.  The higher XP-level monsters, that might be workable, but that would constrain my choices as a DM.  It's gone from tabletop MMO to tabletop FPS.  That's not for me.

Add to this that a 60 XP encounter is in no way a challenge for level 1 characters, much less a 'tough' challenge, these stats and figures would not work for me as written.  I suppose I could simply start my players against level 3 mobs and keep 2 levels ahead of them to keep the challenge and XP curve ahead of them, and artificially constrain the number of mobs required to level that way.  Anyone tried that yet?  How did it work out?

I really hope the monsters get much more balanced and soon.  2-3 rounds too short a fight.  I'd prefer 4-5 average.  Monsters need some heft, and fights should be more meaningful than steamroller-fests.  They don't need to be mechanically overloaded to be challenging.  The Need For Speed Factor is dialed up way too high for my taste, and myself and some of my players got bored after awhile. In such a system, spell slots also become a huge problem, since the mage and cleric are quickly confined to the cantrip realm, with tons more lifting yet to do in any given adventuring day.  Meantime they become a two-trick pony, with serious issues around repetitive actions.    

As I noted on my survey, the balance factor is very badly off, IMO.   

Am I crazed?  What do you all think?  Am I missing something?  I am working with the assumption they will change/fix this in the near future. 

Isn't quest exp still a thing? Maybe those numbers need to go up. "Kill a clan of kobolds" sounds genocidal enough to be a large quest, could easily be a quarter to a half a level.

The majority of the monsters - especially ones that are more miniony (more low-level monsters than high-level monsters) border on irrelevantly weak at-level unless they're used in quite large numbers or in unusual settings. Whatever the intent is supposed to be, currently at-level is about a lower bound on where I would use a monster other than as set dressing, at least at lower levels and at least for the lower-XP ones.

In general, the monster math is in a pretty bad place right now, and XP is just part of it.

Actually the monsteer math itself isn't bad.

It's just that the XP values and Level values don't match the monsters.

If you follow the XP guide
Level 1-2 monsters are "minions"
Level 3-4 monsters are "standards"
Level 5-9 monsters are "elites"
Level 10+ monsters are "solos"

If you follow the levels only
Level 1-2 monsters are weak
Level 3-4 monsters are about right
Level 5-9 monsters are brokenly overpowered or underpowered
Level 10+ monsters are weak

In the DM Guidelines page 12 it says that if you want to build an encounter using a lot of monsters the encounter might be more difficult than the table indicates. If the characters are outnumbered 2 to 1, an easy encounter becomes average, and an average encounter becomes tough. If they’re outnumbered 3 to 1, what looks like an easy encounter is probably tough.

I took this to mean that if the players are outnumbered 2 to 1, I add 50% to each encounter.

If they are outnumbered by 3 to 1 or more, I triple the xp amounts.

I tend to have players level up every 3-4 gaming sessions (which last about 3 hours each).

I adjust xp with quest xp and achievement xp and other roleplaying xp to achieve this.

I don't think combat length, leveling, or combat difficulty should increase with levels.  A 3-4 round combat at 2nd level should still be a 3-4 round combat at 16th level.  

The math isn't that difficult.  Not sure why WOTC can't seem to get it right.  I still think they need to hire a mathematician who has significant input into the design process.