D&D 5E (2014) Downtime: When, How, and How Much?

[Hriston]

I generally require downtime to level (training, practice, etc.). At the same time they can gather information or manage businesses / stongholds, search of clues and/or jobs/adventures, etc. We haven't formalize it, but my rule of thumb is 1 week/level full time training to gain a level or 1 month / level if it is part time (doing other downtime activities). Because of this, almost all of our downtime activities happen between levels.

Leveling up requires training in my games too. It’s a flat five days (or ten days without a tutor if you’re below a certain level) at each level. The training costs are what increases with level. (It’s basically the 1E system.)

In you games, when someone has enough XP to level and it’s a good time to pause the current adventure, how does the downtime actually take place? Does the player say they are setting aside the time, or is it a case of you, the DM, carving out a period where nothing is happening that requires anyone to go on an adventure?

 

[dave2008]

Leveling up requires training in my games too. It’s a flat five days (or ten days without a tutor if you’re below a certain level) at each level. The training costs are what increases with level. (It’s basically the 1E system.)

In you games, when someone has enough XP to level and it’s a good time to pause the current adventure, how does the downtime actually take place? Does the player say they are setting aside the time, or is it a case of you, the DM, carving out a period where nothing is happening that requires anyone to go on an adventure?

I should have clarified that we don't use XP. We simply level when the have adventured enough to gain experience (no hard fast rule, just by feel) and they have the time to take a break and train, research, etc. So, generally it is after a particular adventure/quest/task is complete.

For example: If the players have been tasked with rescuing a princess that was stolen by a kobolds serving a dragon and half way through the mission the would have enough XP or experience to level, they can't really stop and train to gain a level. They need to complete the mission before they can take the time to train. I guess they could choose to stop in the middle and train (which might be appropriate in some situations), but in this example it is probably lethal for the princess and the mission would be a failure.

Now, the players don't know when they have enough experience to gain a level, so I don't think stopping in the middle would cross their minds, but if they thought they had to become stronger to complete a task, it could make sense to stop, train, and level-up mid-way through an adventure.

For how the downtime takes place: It generally involves heading back to their home base (they have a stronghold) for training with a possible trip to nearest town or city as needed to accomplish their task. Since it is typically post adventure, part of the downtime is spent training/research to level, part is managing their stronghold, and part is looking for new adventures.

 

[Oofta]

Personally I've never liked tying downtime training to leveling. I assume people are "training" all the time. A fighter may have learned a new technique and simply doesn't use it until they're comfortable with it. In order to get comfortable the new technique becomes part of their nightly exercises. A wizard studies continue even on the road.

I know that when I'm learning something new as a software developer, it takes both study and application before I feel like I've actually gotten better. It's kind of foreign to me to think that my skills could not improve incrementally simply because I haven't had a class or taken a week off just to study. In fact, that week of study could easily just be the starting point of mastering a new technology.

In other words, D&D isn't particularly granular. New skills don't just happen overnight, it's a gradual improvement. Gaining concrete levels is used for simplicity, but people are incrementally getting better all the time.

 

[dave2008]

Personally I've never liked tying downtime training to leveling. I assume people are "training" all the time. A fighter may have learned a new technique and simply doesn't use it until they're comfortable with it. In order to get comfortable the new technique becomes part of their nightly exercises. A wizard studies continue even on the road.

I know that when I'm learning something new as a software developer, it takes both study and application before I feel like I've actually gotten better. It's kind of foreign to me to think that my skills could not improve incrementally simply because I haven't had a class or taken a week off just to study. In fact, that week of study could easily just be the starting point of mastering a new technology.

In other words, D&D isn't particularly granular. New skills don't just happen overnight, it's a gradual improvement. Gaining concrete levels is used for simplicity, but people are incrementally getting better all the time.

I don't disagree, and that is how I imagine it as well, except they also need explicit training and practice which they can't generally get during adventuring. Not saying it is impossible, but generally not practical. That is why the players must spend a bunch of time adventuring and a bunch of time training. It is about equal parts IMO.

For example: I can't imagine a wizard doing the in-depth arcane research needed learn new spells while adventuring, but I could see them practicing some spells they have already researched, but not yet mastered.

EDIT: for us this also solves the issue of going from a novice to a master in less than 1 year. In our system, becoming 20th level takes some serious effort, which feels right to us.

 

[Oofta]

I don't disagree, and that is how I imagine it as well, except they also need explicit training and practice which they can't generally get during adventuring. Not saying it is impossible, but generally not practical. That is why the players must spend a bunch of time adventuring and a bunch of time training. It is about equal parts IMO.

For example: I can't imagine a wizard doing the in-depth arcane research needed learn new spells while adventuring, but I could see them practicing some spells they have already researched, but not yet mastered.

EDIT: for us this also solves the issue of going from a novice to a master in less than 1 year. In our system, becoming 20th level takes some serious effort, which feels right to us.

I assume that wizard knew about that fireball spell when they learned scorching ray. They just didn't understand how to manipulate the energies well enough to cast it.

But I get it - I assume a fair amount of downtime in my campaign. I just don't necessarily tie it to leveling. Leveling in my game is story based, most of the time people level over a break in the action. However those breaks don't always include leveling and they can level after a long rest if it makes sense. Sometimes thing just "click".

 

[dave2008]

I assume that wizard knew about that fireball spell when they learned scorching ray. They just didn't understand how to manipulate the energies well enough to cast it.

Not how we do it, but that is an interesting idea.

... and they can level after a long rest if it makes sense. Sometimes thing just "click".

I think that is reasonable and I would do that too, but we ran into the issue that it didn't make sense for everyone to "click" at the same time and then some would level and others wouldn't. My players just preferred to have everyone level at the same time. So we went with the strictly downtime leveling.

 

[Bawylie]

I used to use it as currency.

But I need to rethink it. Downtime shouldn’t get you things that adventuring gets you. Adventuring needs to remain the primary method of filling needs.

So if downtime exists as a mode of play it has to happen with minimal (if any) table time and accomplish those tasks that don’t need adventuring to accomplish. (Shopping/resupply, for example).

And because it’s off-table, it shouldn’t really involve dice or judgment calls. Maybe an exchange is appropriate. Accumulated resources to pick stuff off a menu. Again, like shopping. But for BIG projects, say like building a castle, you can “buy” it in phases. Phase one: survey land. Phase two: level and clear. Phase 3: dig. Phase 4: lay foundations. Etc. Prices for each phase.

Idk. I have to think about it.

 

[Fenris-77]

Downtime is a function of narrative. From an adventure design standpoint there are obvious places to insert downtime (in between cosmos threatening events or whatnot). How much downtime you add, and the extent to which you layer on rules to enrich the narrative and game impact of that downtime are conscious choices that each DM and group has to make.

Personally, I add as much DT as the players are going to have fun with. If everyone wants to strap up and slay some baddies then the DT will be pretty minimal, but in 3rd pillar-heavy games with more business/politics/intrigue then DT can be a rich source of story advancements. The comment upstream about having minions to manage DT type stuff whilst the management types gallivant around slaying dragons is well taken. At mid and high level it's a great idea, and one I probably don't use enough in my own games.

 

[dave2008]

I used to use it as currency.

But I need to rethink it. Downtime shouldn’t get you things that adventuring gets you. Adventuring needs to remain the primary method of filling needs.

So if downtime exists as a mode of play it has to happen with minimal (if any) table time and accomplish those tasks that don’t need adventuring to accomplish. (Shopping/resupply, for example).

Hmm, I guess that is how I've traditionally handled it as well, but we've enjoyed handling downtime at the table in 5e. Sometimes it can be the majority or the whole session.

 

[touc]

For the OP: It depends on the campaign, but by default I prefer players to initiate downtime ideas as I don't like a "list" or the term as it suggests, by having a list, there aren't rules or options for anything else. Yet, I know players may be shy to initiate, not wanting to guess at what's allowed and not. It might not cross their mind that they are allowed, by the rules, to become proficient in a skill or tool with enough time and study. As a DM, it might better be implemented by dropping hints into the game such as: "the sage Filani spots you browsing through the library as you were waiting to speak with her. She mentions that she tutors aspiring students, and if you're interested in learning about ancient history, she can teach you, for a fee of course."

If we can get a few of these ideas dropped into the game, it lets players initiate the activity.

And, of course, it depends on the campaign. When running Curse of Strahd, everyone knew in advance we weren't going to be taking time to make items or the like. It wasn't the time or place. And, if you're on a time crunch (like Strahd should be), taking weeks out to train, carouse, or learn a new skill while Charlie is out in the jungle getting stronger isn't an option.

But, my next campaign is likely to be a Kingmaker conversion. Tons of "downtime" will be involved. I'll have to decide if magic item creation is permitted (e.g. do I drop lost lore for crafting something awesome that will take many levels to find ingredients for early on?) I'll want to think about training costs, which really are a way to bleed wealth from players and make that gold feel useful. I'll have to be ready with some "kingdom events" and local scandals. In that case, downtime will come to the players, whether they want it or not.

So, in summary, it's a mixed bag, but I'd prefer to drop hints, roleplay it, and let the players "make the list" over time of what they do in their free time instead of providing one.