D&D 5E Wandering Monsters 01/29/2014:Level Advancement...

[Savage Wombat]

Hmmm... does the rise of "Level when the DM says" correspond to the prevalence of MMORPGs? It occurs to me that the reason one would want the PCs to be, say, 7th level is when they've finished all the prepared content for 5th-6th level characters. If you finish the adventure and still need to kill boars to be ready for the next adventure, that's "grinding" and not fun.

So, in a sandbox/Gamist/player-controlled environment, XP are a reward for skilled play/accomplishments, but in an adventure path/Story/DM-controlled campaign, XP are a marker for what kind of adventure the characters can handle?

Edit: XP are the currency for unlocking new content.

 

[Storminator]

Hmmm... does the rise of "Level when the DM says"

In my case it's "level when the players say". I've abdicated even more power . . .

So, in a sandbox/Gamist/player-controlled environment, XP are a reward for skilled play/accomplishments, but in an adventure path/Story/DM-controlled campaign, XP are a marker for what kind of adventure the characters can handle?

That's kind of how it works. When the players tell me they level up I go looking for higher level monsters. Our story has escalated more or less in tandem with the PC power (they're currently starting a war in reaction to a war that was a reaction to the war they started to cover the war they wanted to start . . . whew!) so it's growing pretty seamlessly.

PS

 

[Remathilis]

I'm going to use a slightly different standard: the Caves of Chaos method.

A group of adventurers (we'll say six of them) go into the infamous Cave A of the module and begin to slaughter kobolds and take their stuff. This is completely in line with the original module.

They fight (and defeat) everything in the dungeon via multiple trips. Thanks to luck and smart play, they never lose a member. In all, they fight.

19 rats (5 xp each)
51 kobolds (5 xp each)
3 guards (15 xp)
1 chieftan (20 xp)
255 + 95 + 45 + 20 = 415 from killing

BUT WAIT

They also carried out everything not nailed down and got. 1800 gp 61 sp, 203 cp, and 22 ep (plus variable sums from each kobold slain) for ~1900 XP worth of treasure.

1900 + 415 = 2315 XP for one cave. 385 XP (and change) per PC. roughly 1/5th of the XP needed to level a fighter, 1/3 of a thief and 1/6 of a mage. Typically, it took about a session to clear out cave A (if you were lucky, you did two caves a session). So a character levels after about 4-5 caves (depending on class) or 2-3 sessions.

Not too far removed from what Next is proposing. Except they want 2nd level after 1 session.

 

[howandwhy99]

The PacMan Method (Man)

XP Rating & XP Requirements aren't the only factors we can use to help guesstimate game length.

Think of it like PacMan. 10 bits over there, 15 bits in the corner, a bit grouping is a "monster". Or a challenge, if XP is rewarded for other stuff. The number of bits is an XP Rating.

XP Requirements are all the pellets on the board to be gobbled up to get to the next level.

More pellets means more XP required.

And vice versa, only higher level monsters might be rated so the same number of monsters is to be overcome for every level.

That is, if players only ever moved within level appropriate dungeon levels. And if only the 1 level of monster were ever in their level of dungeon. etc. etc. Roll dice for variability.

Now if you are a 10th level Fighter and want to fight 10,000 kobolds to level up, then that's on you. 10,000 pellets are needed however you get them to level up. The time you waste is your own.

But what is another factor effecting game speed?

Maze design. This is the art of adventure module design.

By default harder level PacMan mazes, the proverbial "dungeon levels", increase in difficulty with the increase in level. Pacman may start easy enough, but the difficulty goes up as the players repeatedly demonstrate their own proficiency with the game overall.

You might think 10,000 kobold on a featureless plain could stand as a 10th level dungeon, but dungeon level / difficulty is determined more by clustering into more complex challenges. A monster itself can be seen as a separate "board" with its maze difficulty determining its "pellet rating". Navigating it to gain XP is part of the difficulty of navigating the overall board it is part of as well. Not that figuring out how to expediently wipe out 10,000 kobolds in a blank environment isn't a challenge in and of itself. But I don't go in for those "avoid the tedium" adventures myself.

 

[Savage Wombat]

1900 + 415 = 2315 XP for one cave. 385 XP (and change) per PC. roughly 1/5th of the XP needed to level a fighter, 1/3 of a thief and 1/6 of a mage. Typically, it took about a session to clear out cave A (if you were lucky, you did two caves a session). So a character levels after about 4-5 caves (depending on class) or 2-3 sessions.

Not too far removed from what Next is proposing. Except they want 2nd level after 1 session.

That fits with my memory of 1st ed, and definitely how it felt like it took forever to make it to 3rd level.

It would probably feel less dull and grindy if the pile of coin you had made a significant difference in your equipment. If you started with a short sword and ring mail, but now you've got chain mail, a shield, a long sword and a long bow you'd feel tougher even without new class abilities.

By default harder level PacMan mazes, the proverbial "dungeon levels", increase in difficulty with the increase in level. Pacman may start easy enough, but the difficulty goes up as the players repeatedly demonstrate their own proficiency with the game overall.

I'm not sure I've seen a tendency for modern D&D games (3rd and 4th) to increase in difficulty with level - the challenges are tethered to the party's abilities at the same rate. A 15th level module is just as difficult for the players to overcome as the 3rd level module was. Have you noticed differently? I've wondered whether this should be baked into the rules in some way - 4 level 1 monsters are a "fair" challenge for a 1st level party, but the equivalent fight for 10th level characters would be 5 or 6 level 10 monsters. Or that "level 10" monsters are really more like level 12 compared to the party's combat output.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I actually stopped using XP for a bit. I designated certain parts in the game for when the PC's were to level.

 

[Uller]

And you should, but does a system built on this then crowd out serendipity? Should characters not be able to learn from tangential side adventures or encounters? Ideally, I think there's value in PCs gaining XPs from a variety of sources - goal based ones and event-based ones that may not be related to goals.

Where in the article does it say that you can't gain XP from other sources? All the article says is a monster's XP will be based on this formulation. Wouldn't it be a big divergence from every previous version of D&D if they say that XP is only awarded for killing monsters? I've never played in a D&D game or DMed a game where XP awards weren't handed out of non-combat related things. XP award for an encounter that saps X% of party resources yields Y XP and typically takes up about an hour of table time. That gives you a base line. So if your adventure is finding your way out of a maze, talking your way through an enemy camp, engaging in intrigue at court or what have you, the DM can substitute that scene, challenge, goal, etc equals an easy, average or hard encounter and hand out XP. If you are really into awarding individual effort you can give bonus XP to the players that contributed the most (I used to do this...before I got lazy)

Some DMs will hand out XP at significant milestones (the Hobbits make it to Rivendel, example), some at the end of each game session for how well the party did that night, some for each individual encounter and challenge, but I don't see anything from WotC saying the only way you get XP is by killing monsters.

 

[JasonZZ]

This change was made in AD&D 2nd Edition.

Kind of. You still got it if you were a rogue and the DM used the optional individual rewards rules.

 

[JasonZZ]

(le snip)

Not too far removed from what Next is proposing. Except they want 2nd level after 1 session.

IIRC, aren't levels 1-2 supposed to be an introduction/apprentice level, rather than serve as real adventurer material? Fine if you want to play there, but most groups aren't going to want to stay, even if that's where they start.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Honestly, I hope they go with something akin to how Palladium Fantasy handles it. XP is gained for lots of different things (ideas, saving the party, sacrificing self [or potentially] for good of the group or many people, etc.). One thing is that it has that I really like is how it handles "killing/overcoming stuff".

In Palladium Fantasy, if a group of PC's defeat (kill, trick, bypass, etc.) an encounter, the DM looks at how tough the encounter actually was, with an eye towards it's potential danger. There are three 'tiers':

25 - 50 Killing/Subduing Minor Menace
75 - 100 Killing/Subduing Major Menace
150-300 Killing/Subduing Great Menace

The thing about this is, it doesn't really matter how powerful or weak a character or group of characters are. If everyone min/MAXES their characters to a stupid degree, then most fights are going to be in the "Minor" or possibly "Major" tier. If we were talking 3.x D&D, a min/max build where a 3rd level character takes on a CR 10 encounter without breaking a sweat, he wouldn't get CR10 XP...he may get CR2 or CR3 XP. Likewise, if you have an uber-character in a group of normal characters with a weak character...it doesn't matter. The end result of "how challenging was the encounter" is the determining factor.

I'd like to see 5e do something very similar. As for amount/level...from the sounds of it all classes are "balanced vs. other classes at same level"; so do something simple, like "Next level x500" and reset xp to 0 upon gaining a level (plus overage).

^_^

Paul L. Ming