D&D Next Q&A

tlantl · Aug 3, 2012

am181d said:
The answer around adding levels to NPCs gave me a great idea: Every player should have an XP value that's written on their character sheet! Otherwise, how will I know when my kobolds level up???

I've done this for years. every time the players fail a mission I give the monsters involved their experience point values. Believe me when I say it really gives the players an incentive to avoid failure.

You should have seen the looks on their faces when I told them to add up their exp values. It was priceless.

As for the topic at hand, I'm probably not going to spend too much time using xp or any other method for designing adventures, especially since they wind up being long and involved. I'm sure after a few sessions I'll be able to judge the strengths and weaknesses of the players and get an idea what tactics the group favors.

Once I have an idea of what to expect the party to do it's pretty easy to match up with them or plan encounters that are entertaining if not truly difficult or underwhelming. They will meet the arch nemesis several times before figuring out how best to deal with him or her.

I do like the idea that the npcs can be built the same way as player characters. I hate having to run monsters that don't have the same tricks as the players. Sometimes the best way to show a player how useless or over powered an attack is, is to use it against them. Sort of like suddenly showing up in their living room with a small army and killing them while they are least prepared.

It works both ways you know.

Over all, I found the article to be a bit lacking

gweinel · Aug 3, 2012

Am i the only one who really doesn't really take into account the xp system? I always leveled up my pcs empirically and in relevance with the story. When i thought the players would deserve a level then i was leveling them up. Also, when they encounter and survive a challenge that would characterize for the rest of their adventuring lives then i again i was giving them a level regardless of the xp of the monsters/"obstacles"(usually in a world shaking events).

Crazy Jerome · Aug 3, 2012

50/50. I was a bit discouraged by the idea that they see no mechanical influence on the scaling of play for different numbers of characters. That's obviously wrong to anyone that has run well outside the norm and adapted mechanics to better fit their group.

For example, side-by-side initiative scales better with increased players than cyclic initiative. Systems that simply add or subtract monsters from an encounter to adjust difficultly for a different number of players scale more poorly than systems that keep the monsters closer to the same but adjust their abilities. Systems that depend on equipment being handed out on a regular basis adjust more slowly (on the DM prep side) than systems which don't so depend. This is pretty basic stuff. I hope that comment was ill-chosen words expressed in passing.

ComradeGnull · Aug 3, 2012

am181d said:
The answer around adding levels to NPCs gave me a great idea: Every player should have an XP value that's written on their character sheet! Otherwise, how will I know when my kobolds level up???

I had some thoughts along similar lines, but more of a "hey, my rogue only needs 1,000 xp to level up... what's the Wizard worth these days?..."

gweinel said:
Am i the only one who really doesn't really take into account the xp system? I always leveled up my pcs empirically and in relevance with the story. When i thought the players would deserve a level then i was leveling them up. Also, when they encounter and survive a challenge that would characterize for the rest of their adventuring lives then i again i was giving them a level regardless of the xp of the monsters/"obstacles"(usually in a world shaking events).

You're certainly not the only one doing that, but in terms of creating a system for less experienced players and DM's to use in judging when is the "right" time to level there has to be a bit more structure than that. XP is the default way the game is played, and is probably a significant majority of the player base.

Argyle King · Aug 3, 2012

At the end of the recent Combat Superiority article, I felt pretty good about that proposed aspect of the game. Even though there weren't any specifics, I had (what I feel) was a pretty good idea about how something like that would work.

Somehow, at the end of this article, I feel as though I know less about D&D 5th Edition than I did before I started reading it.

Chris_Nightwing · Aug 3, 2012

If you play one game of tennis in a day, you will doubtlessly expend your every effort and play much better than if you were playing five games of tennis that day. Of course, you could blitz your first game and then fail miserably in the other four, but the point remains that if you play one game of tennis instead of five, you will play much better.

If you want a day with just one encounter, need it be as challenging as another day with five encounters? It's up to you. People speak of plot reasons for only having one encounter in the day, but refuse to accept that this should be either less challenging than five similar encounters on an other day or more complex because it is as challenging as five encounters. To me, encounter-based logic defies my simulationist brain - I work on a daily schedule, then rest, then I am ready for the same day again, which may include one kickass tennis game, or five long tiring games, or even one game against Roger Federer*, but for sure I will use different amounts of energy in each game, and only have so much I can give in one day.

*Or more likely, no tennis games, because I prefer badminton.

Steely_Dan · Aug 3, 2012

As long a 1, 7, or 0 encounters in a day can all groove, I'm good.

My campaigns often have sporadic "encounters".

Minigiant · Aug 3, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
If you want a day with just one encounter, need it be as challenging as another day with five encounters? It's up to you. People speak of plot reasons for only having one encounter in the day, but refuse to accept that this should be either less challenging than five similar encounters on an other day or more complex because it is as challenging as five encounters. To me, encounter-based logic defies my simulationist brain - I work on a daily schedule, then rest, then I am ready for the same day again, which may include one kickass tennis game, or five long tiring games, or even one game against Roger Federer*, but for sure I will use different amounts of energy in each game, and only have so much I can give in one day.

*Or more likely, no tennis games, because I prefer badminton.

The problem is that it ruins story.

The biggest example is encounters in an upscale urban situation like a party or ball.

The fight breaks out or the group is negotiating with some noble, and the party novas as mindcontrols the prince or firebombs the traitor with 8 spells. Unless you spontaneously drop 1d4+3 imps in the ballroom or have the prince have 1d6 mages dispelling the party as they walk in, it goes all loco it you have only 1 encounter.

The first time ever I saw Charm Monster casted, it was casted 3 times in a row indoors on a nonaventuring day right in a peaceful town.

Chris_Nightwing · Aug 3, 2012

Minigiant said:
The problem is that it ruins story.

The biggest example is encounters in an upscale urban situation like a party or ball.

The fight breaks out or the group is negotiating with some noble, and the party novas as mindcontrols the prince or firebombs the traitor with 8 spells. Unless you spontaneously drop 1d4+3 imps in the ballroom or have the prince have 1d6 mages dispelling the party as they walk in, it goes all loco it you have only 1 encounter.

The first time ever I saw Charm Monster casted, it was casted 3 times in a row indoors on a nonaventuring day right in a peaceful town.

Right, but if you haven't fought all day, wouldn't you be at your peak condition? Wouldn't you be better in a single fight than a fight after four others?

Chris_Nightwing · Aug 3, 2012

Right, I have a proposal that avoids encounter powers or changing the rest cycle. As DM, you can decide whether any given day is an adventuring day or a downtime day.

Adventuring days are typical, you start the day with full resources and decide how best to use them yourself. Downtime days are different, and any typical daily resources are reduced in scope. This could be fine-tuned according to what the DM has planned, but it might be easier to say something like 1 spell per spell level, 1 hit die, 1 use of any other daily ability. A single encounter on a downtime day would hopefully be targetting towards these resources.

Where did your other abilities go? You had to prepare some boring bookkeeping spells, or train with your sword, or you're just not fully ready to combat the hoards that day. You could even rule that there be no more than X adventuring days in a row before you must take a downtime day - thus preventing novas with frequent rests.