D&D 5E New Players same level as Current Players?

[S'mon]

Probably loses initiative. Eats a single 5th Level Fireball (along with the rest of the party). Average damage = 35. Fails saving throw. You're going to have to babysit him in the back ranks, and hide him from AOE constantly.

Only way this sort-of-works is with a Dex/Con Bear Barb.

If your campaign is full of non-BPS damage (in my Wilderlands 5e game it's rare) then yes he'd beed to be Bear Totem. But the fact that we can even discuss this shows the huge difference from
3e & 4e.

 

[S'mon]

Not to mention that giving XP is no more or less likely to award people for doing nothing than leveling up everyone at the same time. One is simply more granular than the other.

I don't understand this claim. If I only give XP to PCs who do stuff then it's not the same as levelling everyone up at the same time no matter what they do.

 

[Iry]

I don't understand this claim. If I only give XP to PCs who do stuff then it's not the same as leveling everyone up at the same time no matter what they do.

Things get extremely awkward if you become granular to the point where you are awarding different amounts of XP for things like roleplaying, exploration (puzzles, trap solving, etc), major story goals, or attendance. So any time you are giving out party-wide XP there is the chance that you are awarding someone for doing nothing.

Things get even more hazy when you start debating about what constitutes 'doing nothing'. Absolutely nothing? Whack something one time? Make mundane ranged attacks with no tactical engagement at all? Offer a single suggestion to a puzzle or roleplaying suggestion?

I don't see the point in fussing about it. If the player is not meeting your expectations when it comes to participation, figure out why and gently encourage more, accept their level of participation, or sit down with them and have 'The Talk'. Otherwise, the biggest punishment for not doing anything is... not having done anything.

 

[S'mon]

Things get extremely awkward if you become granular to the point where you are awarding different amounts of XP for things like roleplaying, exploration (puzzles, trap solving, etc), major story goals, or attendance. So any time you are giving out party-wide XP there is the chance that you are awarding someone for doing nothing.

Things get even more hazy when you start debating about what constitutes 'doing nothing'. Absolutely nothing? Whack something one time? Make mundane ranged attacks with no tactical engagement at all? Offer a single suggestion to a puzzle or roleplaying suggestion?

I don't see the point in fussing about it. If the player is not meeting your expectations when it comes to participation, figure out why and gently encourage more, accept their level of participation, or sit down with them and have 'The Talk'. Otherwise, the biggest punishment for not doing anything is... not having done anything.

If a PC is absent, I give no XP. If I judge a PC to have contributed inadequately (rare), they get a reduced XP share. I give small XP bonuses for outstanding contributions. Puzzle solvers get the XP only if they contributed to solving the puzzle.

YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH THIS but it is not the same as levelling everyone up at the same time - my high level group has a 3 level spread (10-13), my low level group typically has a 1 level spread but I think they're all currently 4th level. You may say that's BADWRONGFUN, but clearly it can happen! Also I have lots of players and we seem to have a good time.

 

[pemerton]

Experience points are the reward a character gets for what it does; and they (one hopes) will eventually lead to an increase in level.

I think it stems from seeing leveling as two different things. Some see leveling up as a reward, and others treat it more as a pacing mechanic.

For me, leveling up is a way to pace the game. It goes from simpler to more complex. You start out fighting weaker enemies like goblins or orcs, but move up to more epic battles with fiends and ancient dragons. You have more things, more hp, more gold, more spells, more options.

So, leveling isn't about rewarding someone for doing whatever. It's about evolving the game over time.

I think that ThirdWizards's "pacing" model of levelling is particularly true of 4e (at least as that system is presented in its core rulebooks).

Central to 4e's mechanical design is that system's version of "bounded accuracy": bonuses and DCs scale with level, so that the typical odds of success remain more-or-less constant at all levels (though variation across PC builds grows with the increasing complexity of build that is commensurate with level gains).

In this design framework, levelling isn't a reward: it's a device for increasing mechanical complexity and (assuming default powers and default monsters are being used) for changing the fiction. Instead of PCs who fight goblins using simple martial techniques and modest magic, PCs fight demon lords using martial techniques on a par with gods of battle, and using magic that permits flying, domination, raising bodies of earth from the ground, etc.

I don't have a good sense of how much 5e lends itself to this sort of approach. It seems to have more room than 4e does for bonuses gained by levelling (and finding items, etc) to actual change the odds than does 4e, which probably increases the scope to experience levelling up as a type of reward (though the "reward" can backfire if in fact success in action resolution becomes so easy as to be boring - in combat this is shifted from hitting to hit point attrition, but I don't have a good feel for how it works in non-combat).

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think that ThirdWizards's "pacing" model of levelling is particularly true of 4e (at least as that system is presented in its core rulebooks).

It's interesting that you say this, because I started this mentality within the first year of starting up 4e. Before that, I had given out XP individually and used leveling as a reward for overcoming obstacles. Success = XP = levels. I would say that the nature of 4e D&D made moving away from that the obvious choice for me.

Actually, when I started out playing D&D, I only gave XP to the character who made the killing blow. That led to some awkward situations (to say the least), and I look back at that with regret and embarrassment.

On the topic of 5e, I actually started my current 5e game giving out XP for successes, and it felt strange. It felt like busywork that was an excuse to achieve some kind of impartiality in the system toward player advancement. I gave everyone the same XP, even if they missed a session, so what was the point in the granularity? I couldn't find any. Eventually, I just started leveling everyone up after two adventures which is what was happening anyway by chance. I like this much better and feel more comfortable playing this way.

 

[Lanefan]

While you're at it why not just send me a text message you want to play character X never show up and after the campaign ends I send you a mail with your level 15 character sheet, as we just agreed your PC stayed at the inn the whole time.

Taken to its ridiculous extreme this would, in some levelling systems mentioned in this thread, be possible.

Wrong as hell, but possible.

Great to now have a level 15 hero without ever having him have risked his life. A pity on the gaming you missed out, but who cares you got XP

Ah, but (again at the edge of ridiculous) who says I missed out on the gaming? I could have shown up every week, sat around and laughed with my friends, watched their characters die in all sorts of horrible ways (earning my character xp and levels in the process and maybe even treasure as well, thank you very much) and been thoroughly entertained all the while. And afterwards I can boast about how my character got from 1-15 in this lethal game without ever dying.

Then again, I could have done all that (except the boasting) without a character, and the party could have replaced my guy with someone much more useful.

Things get extremely awkward if you become granular to the point where you are awarding different amounts of XP for things like roleplaying, exploration (puzzles, trap solving, etc), major story goals, or attendance. So any time you are giving out party-wide XP there is the chance that you are awarding someone for doing nothing.

To break this down, I don't give xp strictly for roleplaying; if there's xp-worthy diplomacy or the like then those characters who took part in it get xp for it. Ditto for exploration...those who do the solving get the xp. Story goals is a different animal: at the end of each adventure I give what we call a "dungeon bonus", a catch-all batch of xp intended to cover off all the little finicky trivial things that don't get recorded on the fly, and this varies based (usually) on how many days of the adventure each character was involved. So if it's a 10-day adventure and Joe the Bard didn't show up until day 4 (so 7 days involved) he'd get 70% of whatever the full bonus is.

I don't give (or withhold) xp for player attendance or anything else done by a player; xp is for what characters do.

Things get even more hazy when you start debating about what constitutes 'doing nothing'. Absolutely nothing? Whack something one time? Make mundane ranged attacks with no tactical engagement at all? Offer a single suggestion to a puzzle or roleplaying suggestion?

This is very true. Usually I say if you did something - even just one whack - that counts. Once in a while a player might try to intentionally abuse this and even make a point of jokingly saying so, but when it's someone who is otherwise most of the time right in there I'm not worried. The ones who do concern me are those who maybe unintentionally do this all the time, and if I see this becoming a pattern I might start only giving half xp.

I don't see the point in fussing about it. If the player is not meeting your expectations when it comes to participation, figure out why and gently encourage more, accept their level of participation, or sit down with them and have 'The Talk'. Otherwise, the biggest punishment for not doing anything is... not having done anything.

Except that some players don't see this as a punishment at all if their character survives where others do not.

Not participating at all is one thing, but fully participating in a way designed to let others take the fall is something else again (as per my Eeyore example a few pages back, or was that even in this thread???); and is what I'm digging at here.

Lan-"no passengers allowed"-efan

 

[TwoSix]

So... E6?

I love e6, so I'm all for it.

I'd be all for a 5e modification that's entirely horizontal advancement, much like max-level E6.

 

[Lanefan]

On the topic of 5e, I actually started my current 5e game giving out XP for successes, and it felt strange. It felt like busywork that was an excuse to achieve some kind of impartiality in the system toward player advancement. I gave everyone the same XP, even if they missed a session, so what was the point in the granularity?

Probably none, if you were giving the same xp to each character regardless of whether he-she was involved in the encounter(s); in which case you might as well just level 'em up when it makes sense.

The point of xp-per-encounter is to allow those characters who get involved in things to advance a bit faster than those who do not. Now in a small party of only 3-5 characters chances are high that everyone is going to get involved in most things in which case arbitrary levelling might serve the same purpose, but in larger parties (ours tend to average around 10) not everyone is going to get in on everything. And level variance within the party is an eventual given anyway via all sorts of means including level loss or gain from various effects, so I don't care about trying to keep everyone the same.

It also depends on what you view xp and-or levels as actually representing. I see xp as a game-mechanical representation of what the character has personally experienced and thus learned from. Thus a scout going over the wall alone to quietly take out the guard while the party waits below would be the only one to get xp for that, as she's the only character who actually took part in (and experienced) that event.

I couldn't find any. Eventually, I just started leveling everyone up after two adventures which is what was happening anyway by chance. I like this much better and feel more comfortable playing this way.

As long as everyone's pulling their weight and it works for all involved, good on ya!

Lan-"a level per two adventures sets you up nicely for a decent-length campaign too"-efan

 

[ThirdWizard]

For the record, I've never played with anyone who put more emphasis on survival than roleplaying a fun character. That is to say, anyone who put pure survival over participation. I have played with some people (especially at conventions) who were introverted and lacked participation based on shyness, but that's a different animal altogether so I wouldn't lump those together. I've never, as an example, had a player whose character refused to participate in a battle that the others started or who refused to engage an NPC who addressed them directly. I suppose it isn't a problem that has ever needed to be addressed.