| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 18 Jul 2012 : 08:59:15
I typically cut XP in half as I prefer a slower progression. Not too slow, mind you, but definitely slower than 3.5 offers off the bat.
For example: I started a new campaign last night and the party of 4 fought: 3 rats, a dire rat, 3 wolves and 2 ogres.
Sure, that's a lot for a first level part but still, sometimes that just happens, especially when you are trying to run a sandbox style game. By the book they would have been something like 50xp away from leveling just in that one session. IMO they need to be level one for AT LEAST 4 sessions, but preferably more!
And on that note, do you think it is more viable to
A) reduce monster xp by %50 or
B) double the amount of xp needed to gain each level?
Both effectively the same, but A will still vary depending on how many monsters they get to fight.
Thoughts? |
| 1 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Monkeyofficeboy |
Posted - 18 Jul 2012 : 11:56:56
I have always run things by the book but have often felt that the advancement is way too fast, and that the players never really get to enjoy low level, more just pass it by on their way to bigger and better (?) things.
So I think cutting XP awards in half to keep low level progression slow is a good idea (although players may not agree!) |
|
|
