Been running 5e D&D both online & tabletop for just over three years now. A few thoughts. Feedback/abuse welcome. :D
The monster creation rules are garbage, I just have to do it 3e style and eyeball a CR.
The encounter-building rules are also garbage, I do it 1e style and ignore them, which works great in 5e.
The rapid advancement from 1st to 3rd is one of those 5e things that works much better in practice than on paper, and has significant potential gameplay benefits when combined with 'bounded accuracy'. Unlike 3e-4e or even really 1e-2e, I can start new players & new PCs of current players out at 1st level alongside 5th level veteran characters. They can contribute to the group, and if they survive they can catch up fast, hitting 3rd in a couple sessions. And there is something very special about starting D&D at 1st level. Partly the new PC is easy to understand, partly there is kind of a freshness to them, their whole life ahead of them, combined with a feeling of vulnerability.
XP - Been playing around with this a lot. The 5e XP system is over-focused on monsters I think, and tends to make wandering monsters a source of welcome XP rather than a threat. I was giving 1/5 monster XP but been finding that too little, and tending to over-award "quest" XP to compensate. Currently going with 0.5 standard monster XP, plus XP for gold looted from the dungeon & returned home. Did that last session & seemed to work; the party didn't do great on finding treasure so total was about 3/4 what they'd have got from standard full monster XP. 11th+ PCs will get only 1/10 treasure XP though, since 11-20 treasure awards are much bigger while XP per level almost flatlines.
Advancement Rate:
Overall for my sandbox Wilderlands I generally want an advancement rate of around 3-5 sessions/level, from 1-3 sessions at 1st-4th going to maybe 5-8 sessions at levels 5-10 and much slower, around 10 sessions/level, at 11-20. This is generally what I'm seeing in play with the XP chart as written, though with occasional spikes - 2nd level PCs carry off the orc hoard, or high level PC solos the dragon/lich/BBEG. That's great, advancement spikes are a good thing in my book.
Yeah, pretty much. Going to straight XP for killing monsters was just a bad idea. But then, what do I know, I love the Rolemaster experience system that everyone thinks is too much work.
What about using some of the milestones from Phandelver as inspiration for xp?
Quote from: RunningLaser;1026820What about using some of the milestones from Phandelver as inspiration for xp?
Can you talk more about this?
I, too, think XP for killing monsters is a horrible idea. It turns every session into looking for a slugfest instead of looking to solve problems in creative ways. (IMO) But if the module has something unique in its structure for milestones I'd really love that.
I have yet to read 5e, but I would have thought, from everything I've heard about a retrenching back to basics, it would have gone with XP for Gold -- which might be goofy but mechanically does a ton of things to supports awesome game play.
The two things that bum me out about 5E are the high ratio of typical HP to typical damage, which draws out combat by a factor of a couple relative to OSR versions of the game, and the great complexity of class powers after you accumulate a few levels. As a seasoned 5E player, what do you make of these things?
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1026841I have yet to read 5e, but I would have thought, from everything I've heard about a retrenching back to basics, it would have gone with XP for Gold -- which might be goofy but mechanically does a ton of things to supports awesome game play.
Like I said, I use XP for gold in my 5e tabletop games, it works great. For online play I go with a fairly freeform quest/session award based on what's been achieved.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1026843The two things that bum me out about 5E are the high ratio of typical HP to typical damage, which draws out combat by a factor of a couple relative to OSR versions of the game, and the great complexity of class powers after you accumulate a few levels. As a seasoned 5E player, what do you make of these things?
I find PCs do plenty of damage generally to eat through enemy hp. High HP is only ever an issue if there are very large numbers of high hp foes, eg 24 vrocks & 20 veterans were a couple I remember. Anything vaguely resembling 5e encounter parameters is fine.
Complexity of class powers - generally fine IME, for most players. I've even taken to building a few PC-class NPCs, although it's usually better to make NPCs as monsters. Slow pace of advancement is important for players to get used to their powers, though.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1026843The two things that bum me out about 5E are the high ratio of typical HP to typical damage, which draws out combat by a factor of a couple relative to OSR versions of the game, and the great complexity of class powers after you accumulate a few levels. As a seasoned 5E player, what do you make of these things?
HP is a tough one in 5e. I feel that about every class except for the Fighter and Paladin should probably have their HD dropped one die level. So wizards are using a d4, Rogues a d6, and so on, and roll for starting HP or use the suggested average. Though it works as it stands as alot of monsters deal out alot of damage. Characters drop fairly easy, especially at the early levels.
A second solution would be to stop HP advancement at level 10 and thereafter use just the CON bonus. Your typical 5e 10th level Rogue would then average around 45 hp before CON mod and would max at level 20 between 45 and 145 depending on how much they pumped CON. But the characters are then alot more vulnerable to some of the high damage output monsters. And they are deadly even using normal HP.
I've found that most combats no matter the level tend to be over in around 5 rounds. A few have gone to 10. But overall its not been too long really. A battle lasts anywhere from 10-20 minutes and overall the class abilities dont impact that as much. Its not that hard to have this stuff noted down for quick reference. The rest is frontloaded.
Agree with the OP.
Instead of XP for milestones, I've used something from the 2E era (though I have no idea if it was standard or some Dragon article or from some other source), where "quest" XP is based on the difficulty of the quest, and calculated based on a 20th of the XP needed to hit that level. So a 5th level standard quest would be worth 6500 / 20 = 325. Then a minor version is half that, and a major one is double or triple (though more likely, split into multiple parts, only some of which may be gained). The quest XP applies to each character. Worked fine up through the first 4 levels, and then I decided for ease of use and remembering, I'd rather make it a base of 30 points per level, then award them more freely (that is, about double my previous rate). That works out to gradually slowing advancement past 3rd. When the characters are really daring, they get about 2/3 of their XP from monsters. When they are more cautious, it's about 1/2. I'm fine with either outcome. We get some of both in play.
On the increased hit points, I wonder if the main problem is that many of the monster manual creatures are a little weak on damage? I haven't done an exact comparison, but I have been using a lot of Tome of Beast monsters lately, which seem to be more of a threat, CR for CR. So yeah, either dropping hit points a little or upping monster damage will work to keep things moving. Also matters how much you play the monsters as creatures of the world with natural reactions versus playing as a game with the monsters trying to focus fire and take out PCs. I think the game might have been designed for somewhere in the middle of those extremes. I tend to go for more natural reactions, which means I need more or nastier monsters to pose a real threat.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1026841Can you talk more about this?
I, too, think XP for killing monsters is a horrible idea. It turns every session into looking for a slugfest instead of looking to solve problems in creative ways. (IMO) But if the module has something unique in its structure for milestones I'd really love that.
I have yet to read 5e, but I would have thought, from everything I've heard about a retrenching back to basics, it would have gone with XP for Gold -- which might be goofy but mechanically does a ton of things to supports awesome game play.
In the Lost Mines of Phandelver, you get XP not just for defeating monsters, but also finding new areas or completing a quest. So, if you find the entrance to the cave, 100 xp. Stuff like that.
Quote from: RunningLaser;1026877In the Lost Mines of Phandelver, you get XP not just for defeating monsters, but also finding new areas or completing a quest. So, if you find the entrance to the cave, 100 xp. Stuff like that.
Thanks!
A couple of more questions:
- In terms of XP rewards, how much of the proportion generally comes from monsters compared to the milestones? (PCs get XP for defeating monsters in OD&D and BX, after all... but compared to gold it is a small amount).
- Do the Players know what the milestones are ahead of time? Do they know the value of the milestones ahead of time? Or do they simply get XP when they stumble over a milestone?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026870Agree with the OP.
Instead of XP for milestones, I've used something from the 2E era (though I have no idea if it was standard or some Dragon article or from some other source), where "quest" XP is based on the difficulty of the quest, and calculated based on a 20th of the XP needed to hit that level. So a 5th level standard quest would be worth 6500 / 20 = 325. Then a minor version is half that, and a major one is double or triple (though more likely, split into multiple parts, only some of which may be gained). The quest XP applies to each character. Worked fine up through the first 4 levels, and then I decided for ease of use and remembering, I'd rather make it a base of 30 points per level, then award them more freely (that is, about double my previous rate). That works out to gradually slowing advancement past 3rd. When the characters are really daring, they get about 2/3 of their XP from monsters. When they are more cautious, it's about 1/2. I'm fine with either outcome. We get some of both in play.
On the increased hit points, I wonder if the main problem is that many of the monster manual creatures are a little weak on damage? I haven't done an exact comparison, but I have been using a lot of Tome of Beast monsters lately, which seem to be more of a threat, CR for CR. So yeah, either dropping hit points a little or upping monster damage will work to keep things moving. Also matters how much you play the monsters as creatures of the world with natural reactions versus playing as a game with the monsters trying to focus fire and take out PCs. I think the game might have been designed for somewhere in the middle of those extremes. I tend to go for more natural reactions, which means I need more or nastier monsters to pose a real threat.
I use that 1/20 of a level quest XP idea, it's in BECMI/RC I think as well as 2e. 3e has it as 1/13, and 4e has it as 1/10 of a level. For 5e though I went over to quest XP = 100 per level, so level 1 100, level 5 500, level 12 1200 to level 20 2000. Works well and gradually slows advancement at high level.
I agree some 5e MM monsters lack damage, I tend to simply give more attacks where it feels lacking, often increasing CR+1 in return.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1026891In terms of XP rewards, how much of the proportion generally comes from monsters compared to the milestones? (PCs get XP for defeating monsters in OD&D and BX, after all... but compared to gold it is a small amount).
It depends on how you set it up. The DMG gives guidelines for awarding milestones however leaves the exact mix to you.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1026891Do the Players know what the milestones are ahead of time? Do they know the value of the milestones ahead of time? Or do they simply get XP when they stumble over a milestone?
No, but in practice it obvious when a milestone award going to occur. We are not talking about collecting gold bennies here, but awards for accomplishing goals whether it some personal goal, exploration, defeating the big bad.
Quote from: S'mon;1026893I use that 1/20 of a level quest XP idea, it's in BECMI/RC I think as well as 2e. 3e has it as 1/13, and 4e has it as 1/10 of a level. For 5e though I went over to quest XP = 100 per level, so level 1 100, level 5 500, level 12 1200 to level 20 2000. Works well and gradually slows advancement at high level.
I agree some 5e MM monsters lack damage, I tend to simply give more attacks where it feels lacking, often increasing CR+1 in return.
Long ago in the early 80s, I ditched money and magic item xp for when I use D&D rules. I still still tally the monster XP but the lion share of the player's XP comes from milestone xp. In it's place I created a roleplaying award.
This document was typed out around 1984.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BZTX-A9DIF8/TZp8gdRH-BI/AAAAAAAABMU/vFeEv0GX1qU/s1600/add_xp.jpg)
When I started running OD&D campaigns in 2007 I changed from a roleplaying award to a milestone award. Although I didn't call it that back then. My formula was a base xp award times their level times a factor. The base XP changed to being from 100 xp to 400 xp depending on how fast everybody wanted to level. That only time I go higher than 100 xp as the base is for when I run campaigns with time constraints like once or twice a month at a game store, or once a week two hours in the late evening. The factor is based on the significance of the goal. One for when it is a ordinary evening with some progress, up to four for achieving something major. In my old system 3 was the typical factor but I found "punishing" player with a 1 or 2 rarely worked as intended. So I just increased the base award and dropped the default factor to 1. Now I only reward.
What I reward is achieving personal and party goals. I studiously avoid trying to state what anybody ought to be doing. Instead I listen to what their plans are and craft the milestones based on that. This way if for some reason the party wanted to go chicken farming, I got it covered. Note I don't consider character level to be a mark of specialness only a indicator of general experience. Similar to saying one D&D level = 25 GURPS points.
D&D 5e take on it relies on Challenge Levels, in theory higher level characters take on more difficult challenges and get a higher milestone. I didn't care for that so I used the above for the two D&D 5e campaigns I ran. Adventure in Middle Earth has their own milestone version with different details but operates on the same idea so I use theirs for my AiME campaign.
Remember "Knights of the Dinner Table" with Dave wandering through the woods banging cookpots together to draw wandering monsters to slaughter for XP? Or Newt hamstringing the horses in the stable as "a safe source of locally available XP?"
That's what "XP for monsters" gets you.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026917Remember "Knights of the Dinner Table" with Dave wandering through the woods banging cookpots together to draw wandering monsters to slaughter for XP? Or Newt hamstringing the horses in the stable as "a safe source of locally available XP?"
That's what "XP for monsters" gets you.
Yeah which is why I allowed players to pay for training at a rate of 12 hours for 10 xp.
Quote from: estar;1026915When I started running OD&D campaigns in 2007 I changed from a roleplaying award to a milestone award. Although I didn't call it that back then. My formula was a base xp award times their level times a factor. The base XP changed to being from 100 xp to 400 xp depending on how fast everybody wanted to level. That only time I go higher than 100 xp as the base is for when I run campaigns with time constraints like once or twice a month at a game store, or once a week two hours in the late evening. The factor is based on the significance of the goal. One for when it is a ordinary evening with some progress, up to four for achieving something major. In my old system 3 was the typical factor but I found "punishing" player with a 1 or 2 rarely worked as intended. So I just increased the base award and dropped the default factor to 1. Now I only reward.
I like this.
Thanks!
I been going with XP amount based on difficulties of quests, regardless of how characters worked/pushed through them.
Quote from: S'mon;1026809Been running 5e D&D both online & tabletop for just over three years now. A few thoughts. Feedback/abuse welcome. :D
The monster creation rules are garbage, I just have to do it 3e style and eyeball a CR.
Agreed...I don't even bother. CR is just a number that gives the player XP. It doesn't give a meaningful scale in a rigorous system, though.
QuoteThe encounter-building rules are also garbage, I do it 1e style and ignore them, which works great in 5e.
Same here.
QuoteThe rapid advancement from 1st to 3rd is one of those 5e things that works much better in practice than on paper, and has significant potential gameplay benefits when combined with 'bounded accuracy'.
What it doesn't work with is old-school modules. I ultimately found it easier to revise 5e's experience tables than to try and figure out how to jigger the Temple of Elemental Evil so that the party isn't level 15 by the time they hit the nodes.
QuoteXP - Been playing around with this a lot. The 5e XP system is over-focused on monsters I think, and tends to make wandering monsters a source of welcome XP rather than a threat.
The crazy thing is even 4e had encounter formulae for traps & challenges. I grafted in 1e's advancement rather than try to mess with things on a granular basis. The PCs all level up using the Thief table, and 1gp = 1xp. It has taken players a while to adjust to the fact that killing every monster they find is the slowest possible way to level up, but they finally seem to be coming around. It's kind of fun to watch them debate whether to sell an Elven Cloak or keep it.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1026973What it doesn't work with is old-school modules. I ultimately found it easier to revise 5e's experience tables than to try and figure out how to jigger the Temple of Elemental Evil so that the party isn't level 15 by the time they hit the nodes.
I mostly run conversions of OSR stuff; I haven't noticed this to be a huge problem but yes default advancement is faster esp post level 10. But 5e PCs are relatively weaker, esp post level 10, so being high level matters less.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1026973It's kind of fun to watch them debate whether to sell an Elven Cloak or keep it.
Today I saw the party trade a +1 warhammer for the raising of a dead 1st level Druid, which was cool. :cool: I think they regretted blowing most of their cash on excess healing potions when they lost 2 PCs in one fight & needed raising.
I often award pcs training paid for by their patron. Magic items are more likely to be awarded than found because I want them to be special. I also require gold to be spent on training at a rate of 10gp / day to turn it into experience.
I'm with Gronan when it comes to xp for killing monsters turning the game in a somewhat nastier direction. Though, if you do Rolemaster kill stealing becomes a problem because you get awarded for what you do, there's your experience and other people's experience and it can make things a bit hostile.
Another way to curb level gain is to adapt older editions of D&Ds system where the challenge of the encounter effects the EXP. So if you are level 10 and kill a kobold thats probably 1 to no EXP even if you killed a bunch of them. 5e actually has something like that in the rules. But it is a bit too convoluted.
I've been running or playing 5E since the Next playtests.
Positives:
* Supports theatre of the mind.
* Takes the best parts of the 3.x rationalization of the game systems and discards the worst of the fiddly parts.
* Easy to convert traditional D&D adventures.
* Fixes a lot of little issues with earlier editions (ie tracking durations of spells and effects, imbalanced spells, etc.)
* Offers lots of options for customized PCs without going full char op.
Negatives:
* Ranged attacks are overpowered. I've had to houserule disadvantage on firing into melee or through combatants.
* On a related issue, I don't think I'll ever get used to Rogues being death-dealing strikers. The 5th level Rogue in my current group routinely does 20-30 damage per round with a hand crossbow.
* Looking up spells is still a big pain in the ass. Spell cards at the table are almost mandatory.
* It's really tough to challenge a party with a single monster. A party of five can focus so much fire in a single round that a solo monster doesn't stand a chance. This weekend I thought a Gorgon (AC 19, 114 HP, petrification attack, etc) would pose a tough challenge to the party of five 5th level PCs. Nope. They used summoned creatures to prevent it from charging or reaching petrification range and dropped it in two rounds with ranged attacks.
* The move-attack-move capabilties, along with attacks of opportunity, means combat is still vulnerable to annoying and gamey tactics.
* There's enough vulnerability in the PC options that we still have players doing using cheesy optimization. Maybe some guys will do that no matter the edition.
Quote from: Haffrung;1027062* It's really tough to challenge a party with a single monster. A party of five can focus so much fire in a single round that a solo monster doesn't stand a chance. This weekend I thought a Gorgon (AC 19, 114 HP, petrification attack, etc) would pose a tough challenge to the party of five 5th level PCs. Nope. They used summoned creatures to prevent it from charging or reaching petrification range and dropped it in two rounds with ranged attacks.
I observed as well. Luckily most of the big bads have minions, but for the truly solo monsters I beef them up to where I think they ought to be. I don't do scaling. I rather populate things to how I think people would find them if it existed. I have a sense about how experienced a party should be to take on various creatures and locale and when it is a lair of a solo monster I learned to beef them up a bit when using 5th edition to run the Majestic Wilderlands.
Quote from: Haffrung;1027062* It's really tough to challenge a party with a single monster.
Once the Monk gets Stunning Fist a solo non-legendary monster IMC rarely even gets an action! :D
As far as XP for other than killing monsters, they did put out that "3 pillars" leveling system that really allowed for a shift in focus (although it ultimately left it up to the GM to decide whether they wanted all the pillars to matter or not). There are also some optional leveling systems in the DMG and adventures. I was quite a fan of XP for gold but I have to admit I often run without using XP these days, a lot of players just don't care about it and would rather just trust the GM to decide when they level.
We level every 2-3 sessions. Haven't used XP in years.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026917Remember "Knights of the Dinner Table" with Dave wandering through the woods banging cookpots together to draw wandering monsters to slaughter for XP? Or Newt hamstringing the horses in the stable as "a safe source of locally available XP?"
That's what "XP for monsters" gets you.
I remember a blog posts talking about nobles etc. being high level because of them doing a lot of hunting with lots of servants to make things easy for them as they had a constant stream of XP coming in. Which makes a certain amount of sense for some settings...
Quote from: happyhermit;1027150a lot of players just don't care about it and would rather just trust the GM to decide when they level.
If they don't care about levelling, I'm happy for them to stay at 1st. :D
For the kind of open table multi-GM transferable PCs type thing I'm running, XP is a vital mechanic. For a typical "1-15 quest for 5 PCs" type campaign levelling by milestones every few sessions is ok.
Mind you, I think every 2-3 sessions is too quick. Even when I ran my "Runelords of the Shattered Star" quest based campaign, PCs went from 1st to (highest) 18th level at generally about half that rate (using XP as written). Checking the blog http://smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.co.uk/ it was 64 sessions so 3.7 sessions/level on average, but that includes the rapid 1-3 and 11-12 bits.
Quote from: Haffrung;1027062Negatives:
* Ranged attacks are overpowered. I've had to houserule disadvantage on firing into melee or through combatants.
* On a related issue, I don't think I'll ever get used to Rogues being death-dealing strikers. The 5th level Rogue in my current group routinely does 20-30 damage per round with a hand crossbow.
* Looking up spells is still a big pain in the ass. Spell cards at the table are almost mandatory.
* It's really tough to challenge a party with a single monster. A party of five can focus so much fire in a single round that a solo monster doesn't stand a chance. This weekend I thought a Gorgon (AC 19, 114 HP, petrification attack, etc) would pose a tough challenge to the party of five 5th level PCs. Nope. They used summoned creatures to prevent it from charging or reaching petrification range and dropped it in two rounds with ranged attacks.
* The move-attack-move capabilties, along with attacks of opportunity, means combat is still vulnerable to annoying and gamey tactics.
* There's enough vulnerability in the PC options that we still have players doing using cheesy optimization. Maybe some guys will do that no matter the edition.
1: Firing into melee counts as at least half cover. +2 to the targets AC. A big creature might grant 3-quarter cover. +5.
2: Rogues can crank out alot of damage if they get surprise. And can keep that up if they can team up with someone else on a target. A 5th level Rogue with a dagger averages 14 before stat and/or item bonus for the sneak attack. Then drop down to average 3.5 if they cant team up or hide again. A fighter with a greatsword can crank out the same. But doesnt have to meet extra conditions to sustain that. A team of a Rogue and a Fighter can make mincemeat of an encounter if they work together.
3: Yes. Cards or a quick ref sheet. For fun I handed a wizard PCs player a Pocketmod booklet and told him to write down his spells in it, adding another pocket mod as each spell level was gained. Keep in mind about all the classes have some sort of limit on how many spells they can memorize. So it keeps things to a certain level. But index cards or pocketmod really helps.
4: So true! CR is is more a guideline than a hard gauge. For a group of 5 level 5 characters a CR 5 monster youd more likely need at least 2. And if the group has summons then than effectively increases the party. Even without the summons the encounter calculator rates it as an Easy encounter. And honestly I wouldnt be to irked at the players for using a good tactic as petrification can be a serious problem. At level 5 the only class with a summons is the Druid with conjure Animals. And even that knocks the encounter down to Trivial. And potentially lowers the EXP.
5: Havent run into that yet as we dont use minis and no one in the groups I am playing with or DMing for care to provoke opportunity attacks and equivalents. Everyone tends to get in and not dance around much unless necessary.
6: No game is immune to that.
Quote from: Daztur;1027168I remember a blog posts talking about nobles etc. being high level because of them doing a lot of hunting with lots of servants to make things easy for them as they had a constant stream of XP coming in. Which makes a certain amount of sense for some settings...
BX and AD&D nobles and constables seem to have a high tendency to be retired or part time adventurers. Cities in particular seem to be so harsh that half the encounters are creeping up there in levels in AD&D. But there are also nobles with no levels or equivalent level 1. Even the occasional farmer turns out to be a retired adventurer.
Quote from: S'mon;1027170For the kind of open table multi-GM transferable PCs type thing I'm running, XP is a vital mechanic. For a typical "1-15 quest for 5 PCs" type campaign levelling by milestones every few sessions is ok.
Mind you, I think every 2-3 sessions is too quick. Even when I ran my "Runelords of the Shattered Star" quest based campaign, PCs went from 1st to (highest) 18th level at generally about half that rate (using XP as written). Checking the blog http://smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.co.uk/ it was 64 sessions so 3.7 sessions/level on average, but that includes the rapid 1-3 and 11-12 bits.
We play once every 2-3 weeks, less frequently in the summer months. So for us, leveling rate is about real-world practicalities. Even leveling once every 2 sessions, our Princes of the Apocalypse campaign took well over a year. 64 sessions would take us more than three years.
Quote from: S'mon;1027170If they don't care about levelling, I'm happy for them to stay at 1st. :D
For the kind of open table multi-GM transferable PCs type thing I'm running, XP is a vital mechanic. For a typical "1-15 quest for 5 PCs" type campaign levelling by milestones every few sessions is ok.
Mind you, I think every 2-3 sessions is too quick. Even when I ran my "Runelords of the Shattered Star" quest based campaign, PCs went from 1st to (highest) 18th level at generally about half that rate (using XP as written). Checking the blog http://smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.co.uk/ it was 64 sessions so 3.7 sessions/level on average, but that includes the rapid 1-3 and 11-12 bits.
Well... now that you mention it one of the reasons I don't mind not giving players XP in 5e is that I like the low levels and by default they just zoom by. Most games I run level very slowly but the people I am playing with are cool with it and I am up front about it. Obviously doesn't work with all players and situations like yours with different GMs.
Quote from: Haffrung;1027185We play once every 2-3 weeks, less frequently in the summer months. So for us, leveling rate is about real-world practicalities. Even leveling once every 2 sessions, our Princes of the Apocalypse campaign took well over a year. 64 sessions would take us more than three years.
2-3 years is about what I like for a short campaign. :D
Quote from: S'mon;1026809The rapid advancement from 1st to 3rd is one of those 5e things that works much better in practice than on paper, and has significant potential gameplay benefits when combined with 'bounded accuracy'. Unlike 3e-4e or even really 1e-2e, I can start new players & new PCs of current players out at 1st level alongside 5th level veteran characters. They can contribute to the group, and if they survive they can catch up fast, hitting 3rd in a couple sessions. And there is something very special about starting D&D at 1st level. Partly the new PC is easy to understand, partly there is kind of a freshness to them, their whole life ahead of them, combined with a feeling of vulnerability.
That was the goal.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1027488That was the goal.
I think it's something that's easy to miss, and I guess it was designed mostly with Adventurer's League in mind, but with my open table meetup I absolutely love being able to start newbs at 1st and see them try to survive alongside mid-level PCs... and often they do very well. Last session the AC 13 druid-1 got killed by a ghoul ambush, but his AC 18 Cleric-1 friend fended off all attacks & was able to recover his body, giving up the +1 warhammer he'd taken from the ghoul lair to pay for a
raise dead.
Yes, in my own campaigns I often mix low-level and high-level adventurers. So I wanted to make sure to advise that this sort of play be viable in 5e.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1027915Yes, in my own campaigns I often mix low-level and high-level adventurers. So I wanted to make sure to advise that this sort of play be viable in 5e.
Well done mate. :D
Re the fast advancement, I had three new players at my table yesterday. They were amazed and delighted to survive an expedition to Stonehell's second level - especially as the veteran level 3 half orc Rogue got killed by ghouls - and even moreso to hit level 2 in one session. It occurred to me - and I said so - that the game seemed designed like a drug dealer getting his clients hooked with the whoosh of early rapid advancement, before settling down to a much slower pace.
Quote from: RunningLaser;1026820What about using some of the milestones from Phandelver as inspiration for xp?
Re milestones, I do give milestone & quest awards at 100 xp per level. So locating a new area of Stonehell dungeon on level 2 was worth 200 XP per PC yesterday.
This 100xlevel tends to promote 5e's rapid advancement at low level & slower later, which I like.
I tend to level my players every 3 sessions / 1 quest or so. But we play for "chunks" of 3 or 6 weeks at a time, then swap out to something else. I'm liking the idea of different levels though ... will have to give it some thought if it'll suit my set-up.
I threw out XP for roleplaying a long time ago. (And I only use milestones IMG these days anyway).
I don't want people to roleplay well, or badly. I just want them to have fun and the more fun they have the more they embed in their character. Scoring that just seems cruel, unusual, and very subjective.
I do toss out Inspiration chips for cool things players do, or something that makes us laugh, etc, that works great.
Quote from: Motorskills;1028002I threw out XP for roleplaying a long time ago. (And I only use milestones IMG these days anyway).
I don't want people to roleplay well, or badly. I just want them to have fun and the more fun they have the more they embed in their character. Scoring that just seems cruel, unusual, and very subjective.
I do toss out Inspiration chips for cool things players do, or something that makes us laugh, etc, that works great.
Yes, I find Inspiration is a much better award than XP for cool roleplay.
Quote from: S'mon;1027953Well done mate. :D
Re the fast advancement, I had three new players at my table yesterday. They were amazed and delighted to survive an expedition to Stonehell's second level - especially as the veteran level 3 half orc Rogue got killed by ghouls - and even moreso to hit level 2 in one session. It occurred to me - and I said so - that the game seemed designed like a drug dealer getting his clients hooked with the whoosh of early rapid advancement, before settling down to a much slower pace.
I used the exact same principle in Lion & Dragon. You start out as a 0-level nobody, which is very high-risk. But if you survive one adventure you hit level 1, which is the single biggest power-jump in the game. Two adventures after that you hit level 2, which can be a pretty tough character by that point.
Compared to other OSR games, characters in Lion & Dragon of levels 1-3 are generally somewhat more powerful than in most other rulesets, but when they get to higher level they tend to be somewhat less powerful (usually less hit points, for example, and slower saving throw progression) than in other rulesets.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1028294Compared to other OSR games, characters in Lion & Dragon of levels 1-3 are generally somewhat more powerful than in most other rulesets, but when they get to higher level they tend to be somewhat less powerful (usually less hit points, for example, and slower saving throw progression) than in other rulesets.
I think that is a really good method/speed of gaining power. Lets newbies catch up quickly, and if you want to get really, really good, you have to play for a long time. Fits my sensibilities to a "T". Curse you, Pundit, I'll have to give it a look now! :-)
Quote from: spon;1028318I think that is a really good method/speed of gaining power. Lets newbies catch up quickly, and if you want to get really, really good, you have to play for a long time. Fits my sensibilities to a "T". Curse you, Pundit, I'll have to give it a look now! :-)
Good, please do! I bet you'll like it.
Quote from: S'mon;1026809XP - Been playing around with this a lot. The 5e XP system is over-focused on monsters I think, and tends to make wandering monsters a source of welcome XP rather than a threat. I was giving 1/5 monster XP but been finding that too little, and tending to over-award "quest" XP to compensate. Currently going with 0.5 standard monster XP, plus XP for gold looted from the dungeon & returned home. Did that last session & seemed to work; the party didn't do great on finding treasure so total was about 3/4 what they'd have got from standard full monster XP. 11th+ PCs will get only 1/10 treasure XP though, since 11-20 treasure awards are much bigger while XP per level almost flatlines.
I think the shift away from gold as XP in 2E and 3E was a mistake unless you can do something better. CR seems to be a really bad plan. It has several awful features. My least favorite is that it makes balance wonky if you have any class with an advantage versus certain monster types. Think of Turn Undead or Rangers with favored enemies. It focuses on assaulting monsters instead of accomplishing goals. And it leads to fights needing to be balanced since they are the advancement mechanism.
Gold as XP had its own flaws, too. An award for a completed adventure quest (like Lion and Dragon) might be better. But I like the idea of avoiding monsters being both a viable and wise strategy.
Quote from: Votan;1028764I think the shift away from gold as XP in 2E and 3E was a mistake unless you can do something better.
My current tactic is to give xp awards for everything. Exploration, skill use, defeating enemies, treasure gained. I usually take the expected amount of xp for the session, divide by number of encounters (all types of encounters, events, etc) and then divide among features (creatures, treasure, traps, etc). And I'll give a token amount even for an empty room. I don't find it to be more bookkeeping, as every encounter location or event gets it's own xp value, and then I simply underline them and add them up at the end of the session.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1028767My current tactic is to give xp awards for everything. Exploration, skill use, defeating enemies, treasure gained. I usually take the expected amount of xp for the session, divide by number of encounters (all types of encounters, events, etc) and then divide among features (creatures, treasure, traps, etc). And I'll give a token amount even for an empty room. I don't find it to be more bookkeeping, as every encounter location or event gets it's own xp value, and then I simply underline them and add them up at the end of the session.
That is actually quite clever. And not a lot more work than summing up the XP for combat
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1028767My current tactic is to give xp awards for everything. Exploration, skill use, defeating enemies, treasure gained. I usually take the expected amount of xp for the session, divide by number of encounters (all types of encounters, events, etc) and then divide among features (creatures, treasure, traps, etc). And I'll give a token amount even for an empty room. I don't find it to be more bookkeeping, as every encounter location or event gets it's own xp value, and then I simply underline them and add them up at the end of the session.
In practice how I award XP varies a lot, especially in my online games. For roleplay-heavy sessions I may do a flat amount of XP for time played, with a multiplier based on what was accomplished. At level 8+ doing high level political shenanigans I give up to 500 XP per hour for this, so typically 1000-1500 XP for a productive 2-3 hour session. Last night with 3 level 5 PCs exploring a dungeon, there was some combat but it was mostly non combat challenges, I gave 50 or 100 XP per room explored and a total of 400 XP each for the 2 hour session. I didn't bother calculating the XP for the monsters fought as they were very low CR.
In Lion & Dragon, none of the standard forms of XP awards make any sense. The setting itself means that depending on what a GM is doing, there might not be tons of combat. And the notion of XP-for-gold goes radically against the values of various different classes and social classes in medieval culture.
So I just have people level up by 'adventures completed'. They're free to just RP their characters however they feel those characters would be, and will advance based on that.
I think I'll probably do that for all my OSR campaigns in the future. Or the vast majority of them, at least. It works really well.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1029027In Lion & Dragon, none of the standard forms of XP awards make any sense. The setting itself means that depending on what a GM is doing, there might not be tons of combat. And the notion of XP-for-gold goes radically against the values of various different classes and social classes in medieval culture.
So I just have people level up by 'adventures completed'. They're free to just RP their characters however they feel those characters would be, and will advance based on that.
I think I'll probably do that for all my OSR campaigns in the future. Or the vast majority of them, at least. It works really well.
I like the idea, except, won't that mean they will go a long time with nothing "moving the needle" experience wise?
I used to only give experience for "quests completed" and that meant months of not a single XP, then suddenly a huge windfall. It made some people feel like they were making no progress. It also was hard to decide what to do if someone was absent the one session when the boss bad guy was slain.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1029027In Lion & Dragon, none of the standard forms of XP awards make any sense. The setting itself means that depending on what a GM is doing, there might not be tons of combat. And the notion of XP-for-gold goes radically against the values of various different classes and social classes in medieval culture.
So I just have people level up by 'adventures completed'. They're free to just RP their characters however they feel those characters would be, and will advance based on that.
I think I'll probably do that for all my OSR campaigns in the future. Or the vast majority of them, at least. It works really well.
Even in non-traditional games (ie not centred around gold & killing), I definitely prefer some kind of XP staged advancement mechanic. It can be as simple as Savage Worlds "average 2 XP/session, Advancement at 5 XP" - but I find it's a very very good thing for players to have a progress track on their character sheet. One big reason I moved away from 'group XP' back to individual XP was that players don't bother tracking it if everyone has the same. XP definitely increases their/our engagemement IME, and gives a semi-objective measure not fully dependent on the GM's judgement. Advancement as an emergent property of XP gain just works better than GM declaring each advancement IMO.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1029038I like the idea, except, won't that mean they will go a long time with nothing "moving the needle" experience wise?
I used to only give experience for "quests completed" and that meant months of not a single XP, then suddenly a huge windfall. It made some people feel like they were making no progress. It also was hard to decide what to do if someone was absent the one session when the boss bad guy was slain.
Yes, I definitely find it's important to award XP each session, no matter how little.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1029038I like the idea, except, won't that mean they will go a long time with nothing "moving the needle" experience wise?
I used to only give experience for "quests completed" and that meant months of not a single XP, then suddenly a huge windfall. It made some people feel like they were making no progress. It also was hard to decide what to do if someone was absent the one session when the boss bad guy was slain.
That's not how it works on Lion & Dragon. A 'completed adventure' is usually one session. Sometimes, if there's a multi-part adventure, it could be a couple or a few sessions. But it's not when you complete a "quest". In fact, completing some kind of major saga gets you one extra 'adventure completed' xp point.
The whole thing is set up so that you level fairly quickly for the first few levels, and then you spend a long time taking 4-5 sessions to level up. Which is to me, more or less the ideal rate.
Of course, a GM could easily make it a bit faster or a bit slower if they wanted to.
Quote from: S'mon;1029045Yes, I definitely find it's important to award XP each session, no matter how little.
Generally speaking, in L&D, each session completed gives you 1 xp. Maybe 2 if you were voted the best roleplayer of the session by the group.