Quote from: thedungeondelver;763936I bring that up because I've heard/seen "One level per session" bandied about.

For the first two levels, which are meant to be training wheel levels.

The devs have said they expect a full level 1-20 campaign should run a college year of weekly sessions. I personally think that's too fast. But then, I still don't understand why they designed a level 1-20 game when apparently only a fraction of D&D campaigns last past level 10.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;763896Yes, without a doubt.  I would stick to an older edition's (1e, 2e, basic's) XP tables and XP values.  10th level in 10 sessions is insane.  You might have 10th level characters after 10 sessions but do you have players who can play at that level of challenge?

Depends on the type of games you run.  I can't seem to run a game that does not go 30+ sessions, most a lot more.   that would never work for me.

Quote from: LordVreeg;763969Depends on the type of games you run.  I can't seem to run a game that does not go 30+ sessions, most a lot more.   that would never work for me.

I gotcha, dude, if that's your thing.  Like you said, depends on the type of game.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;763970I gotcha, dude, if that's your thing.  Like you said, depends on the type of game.

Think he meant 10 levels in 10 sessions would never work for him.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763981Think he meant 10 levels in 10 sessions would never work for him.

Actually, I meant both.  10 levels in 10 sessions won't work for me because I end up running such long games.  I literally play a game with each skill having it's own experience and level so that there are little levels broken regularly, so as to allow for lots of very slow growth.  this ideal above can't work, when you average well over 50 sessions in a campaign or game.

I'd like to play it raw before monkeying with it; imo w/the hobgob's, stay out of their danger zone.

Quote from: dragoner;764017I'd like to play it raw before monkeying with it; imo w/the hobgob's, stay out of their danger zone.

"Show me on the doll where the hobgoblin touched your danger zone."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;764025"Show me on the doll where the hobgoblin touched your danger zone."

It's worse, much much worse, it's a Kenny Loggins song ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0P1Bk8Cx4

Quote from: thedungeondelver;763936I bring that up because I've heard/seen "One level per session" bandied about.

Interestingly enough, that's what Dave Arneson was using, at least in 2006.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?286043-Dave-Arneson-Blackmoor-and-Me!

I've used it for OD&D campaigns for groups who only meet once/month and it works really great, especially with max 10 levels. I am not sure how it would
work if I had a weekly group.

QuoteSpecial: Once per turn, deals extra 2d6 damage to creature if target is within 5ft of hobgoblin's ally

Quote from: Larsdangly;763947But I want to go on record as hating abilities like the Hobgoblin situational damage bonus. It is exactly the sort of meta, card-game-y stuff that bugged the shit out of me in 4E. 'Ha ha, gotcha! you are 2 feet from my zone of control and 6 feet from the nearest bucket so I get to automatically do you 900 points of damage!' I was hoping (and kind of assuming) this wouldn't cary over to 5E.

Shit, I agree with you 100%. I'm assuming a turn is 10min...

• why use once every 10 mins? is that extra 2d6 damage so exhausting that I need the refresh? This sounds like some sort of nitro-boost meta game crap. Magic and magic-like abilities I can at least understand having a use-per-time, but this seems to just be a fuck-you trump card that the hobgoblin can play.
• does the ally have to be another hobgobin that the attacker trained with?
• can my party train in formation to gain the same 2d6 damage ability?
• it is a shit move for a DM to pull this on players who are playing well and trying to use tactics, skill, and creativity to defeat the hobgoblins.

I mean, yeah, I can just leave it out of my game. But my list of things to leave out of my game is getting pretty long. Instead, if/when I get around to running 5e, I think I'll do it as close to RAW as I can and let the game live or die on its own merits.

Quote from: languagegeek;764281Shit, I agree with you 100%. I'm assuming a turn is 10min...

It's not, Turn = round

As for the rest, what counts as an ally is in the hands of the DM. Rogues get a very similar power (Sneak Attack) which works when fighting in formation, so yes players can kind of get it with the right training. Whether or not you find abilities like this acceptable at the table is probably down to play-style.

... Its basically Sneak Attack 2d6 guys (though a little more restricted). Like a 3rd level Rogue has. I'm not sure why people are freaking out over this.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;763896Yes, without a doubt.  I would stick to an older edition's (1e, 2e, basic's) XP tables and XP values.  10th level in 10 sessions is insane.  You might have 10th level characters after 10 sessions but do you have players who can play at that level of challenge?

Theres an ooooold MMO called Anarchy Online.

One of the problems in it was that players could level up very quickly and for reasons unknown the devs removed a mandatory starter zone.

So you ended up with mid range level characters run by players who had no damn clue how to actually play. They just speed leveled based on a spreadsheet and then got wiped out by players who actually took the time to learn things.

I think the current progression is ok. Personally I'd have added say 50% more exp to the requirements. But as is things slow down after around level 5. Still feels a bit fast. But eh.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763945Which, I should note is about damned time players get out of this "every encounter should be able to be beat in combat" mindset that 4e pushed.

To be fair, I think that started early in 3e's lifetime.

I'm not bothered by the experience progression as presented because it's so very, very trivial to just substitute in some other XP table.

And it should definitely be emphasised that stuff does seem to slow down a LOT when you hit 5th level, and in fact compared to both 3E and 4E you actually need much more XP to hit 20th. Check it out:



Compared to 3E, in 5E you need about the same number of XP to go from level 4 to level 5 (4000 vs. 3800), and substantially more XP for every level increase after that; in terms of total XP, 5E overtakes 3E at level 7.

It's even more stark compared to 4E (possibly due to 4E being calibrated for a 1-30 scale, and to have you hit level 30 at a cool 1 million XP). Comparing with 4E, in 5E you need a little more XP to go from level 3 to level 4, and masses more XP for every level increase after that, and the 5E table overtakes the 4E table at level 5.

(Of course, with earlier editions you needed millions of XP to hit 20th, mind, but a comparison there is more difficult because you didn't have a unified XP progression.)

It occurs to me that if you wanted a slower early progression, a quick and simple fix would to be to use the 3E target numbers for levels 1-5, and then use the standard 5E progression from then on. If you wanted even slower progression it requires more tinkering, but that's easy enough to do.