D&D 5E Poll: Experience, Leveling, and Groups

With bounded accuracy, lower level character can contribute to fights and encounter with higher level opponents. A character "playing up" will not find their spells resisted and miss as often - although their expected damage might be less.
As such, mixed level groups are more viable.

Should the game encourage mixed level groups, such as by only awarding experience to PCs who attend and not those who miss a session? Or starting new or replacement PCs at a lower level?
Or should the default be the same as 4e, where everyone gains experience?

Should experience even be used, or should PCs just level up when convenient to the story or after a set number of encounters/sessions?

If the party might be gaining experience at different rates, should the DM also award bonus experience and individual awards?

My group has always kept the entire party at the same XP total, because it sucks to punish people for not attending (and because math is hard).

I do like the idea of replacement characters starting at a lower level. Depending on how the XP tables shake out, I might be persuaded to start replacement characters at (e.g.) five levels below the party median.

A key challenge I have frequently witnessed is that restarting a campaign is very exciting. People like the optimism of creating new characters and undertaking those initial adventures when anything is possible. As a result, being overly punitive towards people who can't attend or restart characters hasn't been a good idea. If someone is 2 levels behind everyone else, all of the sudden the allure of restarting becomes even more appealing.

I tend to just level everyone at the same point in time and keep things tight. If someone wants to play a powerful race, its fine to let them be a level behind because it is their choice.

In general-- no penalties, only choices.

Jester Canuck said:

Should the game encourage mixed level groups

Click to expand...

I run mixed level groups in 3.5e.

I do my XP (which I see as at best a tangentially related issue) in the RAW 3.5e way. That is, you get more XP for the same CR opponent if you are lower level. So in a mixed-level group, the lower level characters get more XP, so overtime the levels will converge.

I give extra XP for good roleplaying and a small amount for attendance. So attendance is good, but it's not going to make or break a character.

Who do I get mixed level groups? By adding new players. My rules are either start at 1st level, or take over an existing NPC (lower level than the party).

It works well in campaigns where new people are joining, so that there's a benefit to having been it from the beginning.

Also, I play at seems like "low levels" compared to a lot of folks here. The party I ran today was 4 4th level and 2 2nd level PC's. After today's fighting, it's 4 5th level, 1 4th level, and 1 3rd level PC's. The middle one got two levels because he was playing longer, and even if you get the XP, I don't let you level up until you are out of the dungeon and have downtime to rest and train. He was on a long adventure since he gained 2nd level.

AeroDm said:

If someone is 2 levels behind everyone else, all of the sudden the allure of restarting becomes even more appealing.

Click to expand...

In the last few games I've been in, the DMs have said we could all make up a new character any session we wanted (same level as the party) if we were having trouble getting into it or it just wasn't working out. No one took them up on it (at least yet in the current one), but I thought the offer was nice.

My favorite early game started everone off at 1st level when they died and the party had the entire range of levels at one time... of course trying to actually survive 1st level was a big part of the fun. I think now a lot more players are putting significant time into developing backstory, and the rules require more time in generating your character, so the 1st level blood bath isn't as much fun.

One 3.5 game I ran had each players take two characters, a main character and a one-level-behind replacable red shirt. The red shirts did tend to have the higher mortality rate. I don't remember the details of how it happened, but for one player the red shirt actually ended up living quite a while and being more useful in combat than their main character.

I tend to just level everyone at the same point in time and keep things tight.

Click to expand...

It wasn't even possible to really worry about this in 1e or 2e was it?

Whether we give XP if you've missed a game has depended a lot on the DM recently. A lot of the XP seem to be multi-session story awards though, and none of us have cared enough to keep track of who happened to miss once. The characters totals do get off a little bit by giving bonus XP for a particularly insightful decision or thought that the rest of the players as a group thought was particularly outstanding too.

Other: Core 5e should award XP based on treasure, and modules should be available for alternative advancement methods.

The New Skool Method Module should explain how to award XP for killing/defeating monsters. It should include charts that a DM can use to assign XP based on monster and/or encounter level.

The Postmodern Method Module should say: "Simply level up the party when appropriate." ...That's it.

GX.Sigma said:

My group has always kept the entire party at the same XP total, because it sucks to punish people for not attending.

Click to expand...

XP is a reward for attending and playing the game. Awarding XP to those who don't show punishes those who kept their word and showed up when they were supposed to since they could have taken that time and worked overtime, got hammered or pursued their gender of choice.

No, it isn't always easy to keep other responsibilities from intruding on ones agreements to be somewhere, but it is those who keep their word and show when they said they would that should be rewarded.

Miss a court date, you get a warrant.
Don't show up to work, you get fired.
Stand up a date, you get dumped.
Miss a game session, you don't get XP.

frankthedm said:

XP is a reward for attending and playing the game. Awarding XP to those who don't show punishes those who kept their word and showed up when they were supposed to since they could have taken that time and worked overtime, got hammered or pursued their gender of choice.

No, it isn't always easy to keep other responsibilities from intruding on ones agreements to be somewhere, but it is those who keep their word and show when they said they would that should be rewarded.

Miss a court date, you get a warrant.
Don't show up to work, you get fired.
Stand up a date, you get dumped.
Miss a game session, you don't get XP.

Click to expand...

Interesting take, but my group is made up of adults who permanently have their Thursday evenings booked for D&D. The only times they don't come is when they have important real-life commitments, in which case (obviously) any XP penalties will be unable to convince them to cancel. It seems unfair to punish my friends for having a life, and it seems a great way to generate awkwardness and hostility within the group.

Wow, seven posts in and we're slinging 'BADWRONGFUN' around.

Good show, good show!

GX.Sigma said:

Interesting take, but my group is made up of adults who permanently have their Thursday evenings booked for D&D. The only times they don't come is when they have important real-life commitments, in which case (obviously) any XP penalties will be unable to convince them to cancel. It seems unfair to punish my friends for having a life, and it seems a great way to generate awkwardness and hostility within the group.

Click to expand...

Yeah, same here. We're a casual group, and intentionally so. I trust that my players make it when they can. If they start to feel like it's an obligation and would rather not come ... then maybe I'm the one doing something wrong here.

-O