Yup - Mike Mearls had the same 100-XP idea in an Unearthed Arcana column, and that certainly influenced my thinking. I played around with 100 and with 20 - I'd use 20 if I were going for 5 sessions to level, just as Classic RC D&D recommends 5 sessions/level and quest XP awards of 1/20 a level. There's also Savage Worlds which uses 5 XP per Advance and 2-3 XP per session. I also considered pure fiat or by-sessions leveling. But for what I'm going for, and to encourage swifter advancement, I think 10 XP based on the 4e standard of 10 encounters/quests per level looks best.
S'mon's New XP System
Yup - Mike Mearls had the same 100-XP idea in an Unearthed Arcana column, and that certainly influenced my thinking. I played around with 100 and with 20 - I'd use 20 if I were going for 5 sessions to level, just as Classic RC D&D recommends 5 sessions/level and quest XP awards of 1/20 a level. There's also Savage Worlds which uses 5 XP per Advance and 2-3 XP per session. I also considered pure fiat or by-sessions leveling. But for what I'm going for, and to encourage swifter advancement, I think 10 XP based on the 4e standard of 10 encounters/quests per level looks best.
I don't find this actually happens in practice. Everyone still prefers to get a Long Rest and a full reset.
Well most folks would prefer long rests over short rests if all else bring equal. So by that standard short rests can just be done away with.
But when circumstances set the two not equally available (circumstances that you can also exert some control over) that's where that question of balance comes in.
The druids fighter and warlocks likely have as much chance st assured long weeks of safety as anybody else, but when it comes to crunch times and only short rests over a couple days they get a major gain due to that week vs hour that would not be as pronounced if that SR got pushed up to a day like the dmg variant.
A very strong tactic for such against a more typical party would be raids, maybe only one a day, maybe two, keeping their quarry from ever getting a long weeks rest while the short resters and druid locks get lotsa healing and recoup each day from just the 3 short rests.
Obviously a gm can simply solve that by not having NPCs ever have "figured that out" in the millenia of that world. Then it's only a possible issue if the players figure it out when they learn the house rules before chargen.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Libramarian
Adventurer
I would much prefer doubling the numbers to allow 1 XP for easy encounters/minor achievements. This precludes the weirdness of 0 XP combats and is only slightly more complex. I also kinda like 20 XP to level for symmetry reasons.
So 20 XP to level. 1 XP - Easy encounter/minor achievement, 2-3 XP - Medium-Hard encounter/achievement, 4-5 XP - Deadly encounter/major achievement.
A minor achievement might be learning about or agreeing to do a quest.
An achievement would be a standard quest completion.
A major achievement might be completing a quest that caps off previous quests.
So 20 XP to level. 1 XP - Easy encounter/minor achievement, 2-3 XP - Medium-Hard encounter/achievement, 4-5 XP - Deadly encounter/major achievement.
A minor achievement might be learning about or agreeing to do a quest.
An achievement would be a standard quest completion.
A major achievement might be completing a quest that caps off previous quests.
Last edited:
i think you mean sorc divine soul... which yes - for cures alone is good - but... the druid option gives you the short rest recovering wildshape as well. The sorc is usually pretty long rest focused - tho the warlock pact casting slots help that of course. Also if the Gm does not nerf Healing Springs - going to 3rd level druid and then the rest 3rd level warlock gets you a massive cure spell for your recoveries between short rests One second level short rest slot for 35 HP recovered per character over a minute? Oh yeah.
The biggest factor in any rule or ruleset "balance" occurs at the table by the nature of the challenges and campaign's encounters... so its great you found a rule change that fits your campaign, your players, your setting and playstyle. i can imagine if all of your campaign particulars lead the current rule to seem to play balanced that it almost certainly would did seem unbalanced against the short resters if played by the normal rules.
Different campaigns with differences in all those specifics likely find very different results.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Outside of sacred cows, what is the "weirdness" of 0 XP combats?
Should you get an XP for negotiating a good deal on a stay at the inn? Or are some things trivial and not really worth an XP? To use a real world example, how much does your ability to drive from improve from an uneventful daily commute?
Milestone XP ignore combats completely, except as one method towards an end. Many game systems that aren't trying to emulate D&D don't give any character advancement specifically for combat either. The weird bit is giving character advancement for some work-a-day tasks and not others.
Libramarian
Adventurer
I fear that the difference between insignificant and significant encounters will not seem as definite to the players as the difference between zero and some XP. In which case it might feel arbitrary or even railroady when [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] decides not to award XP. 1 XP vs. 2 XP offers just enough granularity to make it clear to the players that they can advance without abiding by the DM's definition of significant play, albeit slowly.
If an encounter were truly pointless, then I imagine the monsters would immediately flee or surrender, in which case I would not award XP for slaying them. Likewise I'm not suggesting awarding XP for killing random peasants/noncombatants.
Similar Threads
