D&D 5E Class-Based Milestone Advancement (or a new look on leveling up with XP)

[5ekyu]

IMO it would help the DM develop the PCs in the way their players want them to progress. To become a better fighter you have to fight, to become a better rogue you have to steal and sneak, etc. I think it helps immersion by having players think more about what they character would do rather than having them do the easiest thing.

IMO... I hate the idea if used as "class" based. My rogue might well be a warrior built to kill, just by other means than muscle. Same for my cleric who might be focused on other things too. Class has moved beyond the olde straight jacket and lets not "help" the game with GM defining what you have to be.

But, the same kind of "fix" to the threshold can be achieved with reducing the xp payouts of varmints of lower tiers. That allows the "plateau" to be reached where without tougher challenges the levelling stops (from world and pc.)

For milestone type leveling or session based leveling, this is easier by just not counting "lesser" sessions or goals.

I do not like and have not seen a lot of benefit from shackling advancement to "actions chosen." I have seen a host of problems when it was done and the GM decided the link, told the player how they had to run their character by basically defining a lot of things as not profitable for advancement.

Inspiration imo is the in game mechanic for gm saying "do these get cookie" not advancement.

If you the gm feel you dont have enough control already... So that you have to subset your player's characters choices to favor ones you approve of...

Do the work and put these nilestones in for class, sub-class, race, sub-race and backgrounds so that as a pc builds hos character and makes choices **they** are the ones making their choices on "what is it i do a lot of."

Might also consider adding traits like flaws, ideal, bonds to that too.

 

[77IM]

I love this idea, but also dislike the notion of different characters leveling up at different times. Even worse, this may pull different characters in different directions, in search of individual XP.

I'd modify as follows:
- Each class has a list of Great Deeds, let's say 2-3 at each tier. So it's not enough to get you all the way to the next tier on your own.
- When anyone in your party accomplishes a Great Deed, everybody levels up. This encourages you to help your teammates achieve their Great Deeds.
- In fact, you could just make it a rule that a character can't benefit from another Great Deed until everyone else in the party has gotten a chance.
- The character who actually accomplishes the Great Deed gets some transient benefit, instead of becoming higher level than anyone else. Something like super-inspiration. Actually 3 Luck Points (like from the feat) sounds good.


BTW I grant permission to use my cool and awesome terminology "Great Deeds" which I totally thunk up myself just now and am quite proud of.

 

[wellerpond]

I do something similar without the crunch. Using the milestone method, when it’s time to level up, the players need to “earn” it.

For example, they try something that would normally be way out of reach, like a crazy ricochet arrow shot, and I give them a non 100% chance they will make it via a series of DCs.

A fail means the new skills aren’t yet achievable but they can sense something new within reach. A success means their effort paid off and they level up.

I leads to some incredible storytelling because they can play anywhere on the spectrum of abject failure to unqualified success!

 

[wellerpond]

I do something similar without the crunch. Using the milestone method, when it’s time to level up, the players need to “earn” it.

For example, they try something that would normally be way out of reach, like a crazy ricochet arrow shot, and I give them a non 100% chance they will make it via a series of DCs.

A fail means the new skills aren’t yet achievable but they can sense something new within reach. A success means their effort paid off and they level up.

It leads to some incredible storytelling because they can play anywhere on the spectrum of abject failure to unqualified success!

 

[toucanbuzz]

Tricky. I could see 5 different players all wanting to go different ways. One criticism of 1st edition was the XP system encouraged players to be selfish (doesn't mean they were, it was just set up that way).

If you had a campaign with downtime, perhaps it could be incorporated into optional training. The fighter takes everything she's learned and must face down a foe in solo combat. The bard must compose something original, engage in a contest. The cleric must convert someone to the faith. It'd incorporate your Tier system so that each successive level requires more (and I'd have 3 ways they could advance).

Anyways, curious how it goes!

 

[Erekose]

As an aside, didn’t the 1E Druid have to defeat the current incumbent at higher levels? You could easily adapt something like that for any class that exists within a formalised structure or institution. Although “defeat” could mean something very different from class to class.

 

[Lanefan]

Worth noting that 5e tends to support variable character levels within the party far better than either 3e or 4e did.

Interesting idea in principle. My main question is how well does it balance risk with reward - do each of the goals at any given tier carry about the same degree of risk* for each class? And how do other party members get rewarded for helping out? Suggestion here might be to have each of the goals be easier to achieve if they are done with assistance than if done solo; and give those who assist a few xp as a reward for their help....?

* - risk here being mostly physical, as loss of items wouldn't be as big a threat in a very-low-magic game such as the OP proposes.