D&D 5E XP Multiplier

[TheCosmicKid]

That is your perogative. Based upon my experience, the frustration with being a second tier PC is common, and it is seen in people that don't exhibit 'entitled' behaviors.

Sure, but you can always just give XP-and-a-half or doubled to characters who are behind. They catch up fast.

It sounds like you have tried the approach I suggest, but I have tried both approaches with significant experience in 'both'. I stand by my assessment. Obvioudly, it is a somewhat subjective issue, but I think the vast majority of games are better suited by the ease, balance and equity of milestone advancement.

I think you're underestimating the number of players who appreciate a direct correlation between their characters' achievements and the rewards they receive. It's fun to hear, "You killed the dragon, so you get all this XP!" just as it's fun to hear, "You killed the dragon, so you get all this gold!" (Please don't tell me you also give out treasure on a milestone model...)

 

[iserith]

That is your perogative. Based upon my experience, the frustration with being a second tier PC is common, and it is seen in people that don't exhibit 'entitled' behaviors.

Feeling like one is "second tier" is really a matter of poor spotlight management in my opinion. That's on the DM, not on the differential between PC power levels. D&D 5e is very forgiving when it comes to playing with PCs of differing power levels, largely due to the flatter math I imagine. You have to make some adjustments to the math for that to work in a system like D&D 4e.

What experience have you had in D&D 5e with characters of disparate levels in the same party?

There are a lot of ways for that to play out. A common one, for example, would be for the lower level PC to die when facing a reasonable challenge for the higher level allies. I've seen players run through several PCs before one survived long enough to be relatively durable. Alternatively, they might hide or be relegated to dealing with lower power minions of the big bad monsters until they level up. Neither approach is as much fun as being a significant player throughout the session.

It sounds like you have tried the approach I suggest, but I have tried both approaches with significant experience in 'both'. I stand by my assessment. Obvioudly, it is a somewhat subjective issue, but I think the vast majority of games are better suited by the ease, balance and equity of milestone advancement.

In fact, I have tried both approaches. I didn't use XP in D&D 4e at all, for example, and we leveled up "whenev's" even if the players weren't at all the sessions since the last level-up. It's fine. It's the "standard XP is a punishment for people with lives outside of D&D" tact with which I take issue. Please don't mistake my distaste for that particular argument with distaste for alternate forms of XP rewards.

As for milestone XP, I think that's a good approach for a plot-based campaign. It incentivizes the PCs to follow the plot rather than wander off to do something else. If the campaign is not plot-based, I think other forms of XP awards are better incentives to encourage other sorts of behavior.

 

[guachi]

That is your perogative. Based upon my experience, the frustration with being a second tier PC is common, and it is seen in people that don't exhibit 'entitled' behaviors.

I've never seen it, myself. The closest are first level PCs being fragile. But that's true basically no matter what. I have yet to see very wide level differences in play, but I've not seen anyone really care if they were one or two levels below another player.

Like iserith has said, when you give XP for something you are signalling to your players that type of behavior and action is preferred (insofar as players care about leveling). If you want people to show up (and I do), give XP for showing up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Feeling like one is "second tier" is really a matter of poor spotlight management in my opinion. That's on the DM, not on the differential between PC power levels.

It's on the DM for not compensating for the differential between PC power levels, if one exists for any reason.

D&D 5e is very forgiving when it comes to playing with PCs of differing power levels, largely due to the flatter math I imagine.

I'd imagine it'd be pretty unforgiving of PCs with differing levels, /in combat/, due to the rapid scaling of hps/damage. A 1st level character in a 10th level party might be able to contribute a successful check fairly often, being no worse than a non-proficient 10th level character at many of them, and hit the enemy now and then, but the first save:1/2 AE the party catches will instantly kill him. :shrug:

You have to make some adjustments to the math for that to work in a system like D&D 4e.

I only ever pulled this trick with NPCs, but I did have a 'party of inexperienced adventurers' show up in one paragon game, statted as minions....

I've toyed with the idea of "phone it in" and "punch above our weight class" options for PCs, that'd accept a block penalty to most defenses & checks in return for a huge chunk of temp hps (turning you into a faux 'Elite') and getting a big bonus to all defenses & checks in return for being bloodied by a single hit and dropped by a second (faux minion). Never actually saw the need, though - usually easier to shift the monsters/NPCs across secondary roles like that. :shrug:

I have tried both approaches. I didn't use XP in D&D 4e at all, for example, and we leveled up "whenev's" even if the players weren't at all the sessions since the last level-up. It's fine.

Nod. Works fine in 5e & 3e, too. Ever since 3.0 standardized all the classes on one exp chart, it's made perfect sense to just advance the whole party evenly, regardless.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Like iserith has said, when you give XP for something you are signalling to your players that type of behavior and action is preferred (insofar as players care about leveling). If you want people to show up (and I do), give XP for showing up.

That's meta-gaming, though, which is an illegal action when playing an RPG. You can't tie an in-game event (like skill progression) to an out-of-game event (like player attendance) without breaking causality. As long as the character is in the dungeon, and swinging their sword - facing the same challenges as everyone else - then the only reasonable option is for them to advance at the same rate.

 

[iserith]

I'd imagine it'd be pretty unforgiving of PCs with differing levels, /in combat/, due to the rapid scaling of hps/damage. A 1st level character in a 10th level party might be able to contribute a successful check fairly often, being no worse than a non-proficient 10th level character at many of them, and hit the enemy now and then, but the first save:1/2 AE the party catches will instantly kill him. :shrug:

The level disparity I've played in has only been 6 levels between PCs, but there really was no issue here. And it lasted all of a single session as they jumped up several levels in power due to the increased XP awards. The players reported it being really exciting and fun. If someone's concerns about this are purely theoretical, I can vouch for it not being a problem in actual play within the range I've seen. (And those were the most vulnerable levels.)

I only ever pulled this trick with NPCs, but I did have a 'party of inexperienced adventurers' show up in one paragon game, statted as minions....

I've toyed with the idea of "phone it in" and "punch above our weight class" options for PCs, that'd accept a block penalty to most defenses & checks in return for a huge chunk of temp hps (turning you into a faux 'Elite') and getting a big bonus to all defenses & checks in return for being bloodied by a single hit and dropped by a second (faux minion). Never actually saw the need, though - usually easier to shift the monsters/NPCs across secondary roles like that. :shrug:

I think the D&D 4e DMG2 had rules for PCs of different levels in the same party. IIRC, it was just some adjustments to hit and defenses. I think I tried them out a couple times back in the day and they seemed fine.

Nod. Works fine in 5e & 3e, too. Ever since 3.0 standardized all the classes on one exp chart, it's made perfect sense to just advance the whole party evenly, regardless.

I have no issue with it even if I don't choose to do that in any of my D&D 5e campaigns so far. I do take issue with the argument that standard XP is a "punishment for having a life outside of D&D" though. There are plenty of good reasons to prefer the whole party advance evenly and that's just not one of them in my opinion. It's a really negative way of looking at things in my view.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The level disparity I've played in has only been 6 levels between PCs, but there really was no issue here

Doesn't sound too bad, though 6 levels from what. 1st vs 7th could still be pretty grim - keep your head down, kid.

And it lasted all of a single session as they jumped up several levels in power due to the increased XP awards.

Yep. I declined to use the training rules in some mixed-level AD&D games to allow just that kind of thing, back in the day. Let a replacement or new character catch up rapidly.
Level disparity is, ultimately, a self-correcting issue, when it's an issue, at all - as long as the lower-level character doesn't just up & die.

I think the D&D 4e DMG2 had rules for PCs of different levels in the same party. IIRC, it was just some adjustments to hit and defenses. I think I tried them out a couple times back in the day and they seemed fine.

Sounds similar. Fairly obvious, really, I guess. Biggest PC gaps I ever dealt with must have been about 4 levels, not enough to be a problem.

 

[iserith]

Doesn't sound too bad, though 6 levels from what. 1st vs 7th could still be pretty grim - keep your head down, kid.

That was exactly the level range I saw - 1st to 7th. In my last campaign, if your character died, you brought in your backup character. If you hadn't been playing your backup character actively, that guy or gal was 1st level. So there were several instances of players either tapping in a backup character to either replace a dead one or to level it up a bit so it didn't fall too far behind the main character. As a result, I saw a lot of 1st-level PCs traveling with higher-level PCs. They mixed it up with the other PCs just fine and would usually end up making 3rd or 4th level in the very first session.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you hadn't been playing your backup character actively, that guy or gal was 1st level. So there were several instances of players either tapping in a backup character to either replace a dead one or to level it up a bit so it didn't fall too far behind the main character.

OK. So if you wanted to keep your back-up character only a few levels behind, you'd skip sessions with your regular character?

Why not just have the back-ups some modest number of levels behind the party?


(Also, the game is deadly enough for 7th level PCs to die and need a back-up, but not deadly enough to gank a 1st level PC in one session?)

 

[iserith]

OK. So if you wanted to keep your back-up character only a few levels behind, you'd skip sessions with your regular character?

Why not just have the back-ups some modest number of levels behind the party?

Because that game was about gritty dungeon survival. You paid for every XP, gold piece, and magic item in blood. You earned it. It wasn't just given to you. To do otherwise would undermine the theme in my view.

In my current campaign, which is not that sort of game, your backup character gets half the XP you acquire on your main. They are with the party, guarding the caravan while the main PCs are completing quests, and helping avoid random encounters while traveling.

My next campaign will handle it some other way, no doubt, based on what supports its particular theme.

(Also, the game is deadly enough for 7th level PCs to die and need a back-up, but not deadly enough to gank a 1st level PC in one session?)

Depends on where they went, what they did (and how effectively), and how lucky they were.