S'mon's New XP System

[S'mon]

I'm about to start two new 5e campaigns, and I decided to use a completely different XP system, almost identical. Basically the idea is 1 XP per significant encounter or achievement, such as a quest completion or big treasure haul, 2-3 XP in exceptional cases.

1. For Princes of the Apocalypse running for ca 5 hours 1/4 weeks, initially 5 XP 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd, then 10 XP/level.
2. For Primeval Thule running for ca 3.5 hours 1/2 weeks , a flat 10 XP per level, but I am giving PCs a hit point kicker at 1st level (hp = full CON + max hd, rather than max hd plus CON bonus) so they can stay at 1st level for longer.

This will resemble the fiat 'milestone levelling' suggested method, but I wanted a bit more structure than that, and one better suited to sandboxy play. I'm looking for about 2-3 sessions of play per level (10 XP), which is the 5e DMG suggested rate, but much faster than in my current 5e games, which use the standard XP rules.
________________________

This is partially inspired by the design of the 4e D&D XP system, which was basically "10 moderate encounters or quest awards to level up", with the goal of 1 level every 10 hours of play. So I thought why not just simplify it down to what's significant, and make 1 award = 1 XP?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

What about 10 moderate encounters = 1 level? Seems even more significant and easier.

 

[Blue]

I am concerned there is a mismatch between the 4e "10 moderate encounters and achievements per level" that does fit with the 5e "6-8 encounters per day". If you include some non-combat achievements in there occasionally you're getting a level a day. (Or potentially 1st to 3rd in a day for PotA.)

How to vary that would depend on the feel you are going for.

If you want to keep defeating combat encounters a primary source of advancement, I'd up it to 25 XP per level. (Again, assuming both some light days and some achievements granting XP on top of encounters.) So a solid week adventuring will grant a level and then some.

An interesting change would be to keep the XP per level, but change what you give it out for. Meaningful battles or achievements for 1 XP, with 2-3 XP for really major, campaign arc ones. And "whatever" encounters are worth 0. Breaks the murderhobo mold a bit when you aren't gettting XP rewards for most encounters, and also rewards a party (by not using resources for no reward) for using cleverness, stealth, spells and social to avoid encounters.

 

[S'mon]

I am concerned there is a mismatch between the 4e "10 moderate encounters and achievements per level" that does fit with the 5e "6-8 encounters per day".

Not much of a mismatch - using 5e RAW XP it's 6 moderate encounters per level 1-3, I think 13 per level 5-10, and 10 per level 11+. This is supposed to level up 5e PCs every 2-3 sessions, but I find in practice it's more like every 4-6 sessions (often 6-8 sessions in the level 5-10 range). So my system should get closer to the stated intent of the 5e XP system, rather than its actual result. I think the main reason is that 5e PCs simply don't do 6-8 moderate-to-hard encounters per day, or per session; it's more like 3-4. Which is much like 4e, where PCs were supposed to do 4 encounters in a 4 hour session but really it was more like 2.

 

[S'mon]

An interesting change would be to keep the XP per level, but change what you give it out for. Meaningful battles or achievements for 1 XP, with 2-3 XP for really major, campaign arc ones. And "whatever" encounters are worth 0.

I think that's pretty much what I'll be going for - an encounter that feels 'routine' won't earn XP. At higher level that would likely include many encounters that are officially 'moderate' using the 5e RAW system.

Looking at PoTA, ideally I'd like the PCs to hit 2nd in 1 session, 3rd in another session, but only if they achieve a fair bit - the suggested milestones in PoTA chapter 6 seem to work for this.

 

[Blue]

Not much of a mismatch - using 5e RAW XP it's 6 moderate encounters per level 1-3, I think 13 per level 5-10, and 10 per level 11+. This is supposed to level up 5e PCs every 2-3 sessions, but I find in practice it's more like every 4-6 sessions (often 6-8 sessions in the level 5-10 range). So my system should get closer to the stated intent of the 5e XP system, rather than its actual result. I think the main reason is that 5e PCs simply don't do 6-8 moderate-to-hard encounters per day, or per session; it's more like 3-4. Which is much like 4e, where PCs were supposed to do 4 encounters in a 4 hour session but really it was more like 2.

The inter-class balance between at-will, short-rest recovery, and long-rest recovery gets out of wack when you dip too far below the 6-8. We're so used to "well, fighters just don't do as much as casters" that we often write it off or not even register it, but it's still there. Putting the mechanical balance point for the resource management part of the game so high is perhaps the biggest failing of what is otherwise my favorite version of D&D. If they balanced around 3-4 encounters per long rest, like you mentioned, it would fit the majority of how people actually run. And the times you're under would be balanced by the times you're over. But I don't know anyone who regularly exceeds 6-8 sessions while plenty are regularly under it.

 

[S'mon]

The inter-class balance between at-will, short-rest recovery, and long-rest recovery gets out of wack when you dip too far below the 6-8. We're so used to "well, fighters just don't do as much as casters" that we often write it off or not even register it, but it's still there.

Indeed - that's why in 2016/17 I went over to 1 week Long Rests while keeping 1 hour Short Rests (max 3/day). It's a lot easier to get 6-8 resource draining encounters (aka 'fights') into an Adventuring Week.

 

[Satyrn]

I think that's pretty much what I'll be going for - an encounter that feels 'routine' won't earn XP. At higher level that would likely include many encounters that are officially 'moderate' using the 5e RAW system.

This might prove unsatisfying to your players. It raises a caution flag in my mind as a player, anyway. If a fight that felt routine to you felt significant to me, I might wind up feeling ripped off. And the reverse could happen, too, wondering why I got XP from a fight I felt was routine.

I think you'd be safer to decide ahead of time if a fight is going to be worth XP. And even make sure the players know if the fight would be worth any or not, sooooo they get to make an informed decision to engage, or not bother.

 

[5ekyu]

Indeed - that's why in 2016/17 I went over to 1 week Long Rests while keeping 1 hour Short Rests (max 3/day). It's a lot easier to get 6-8 resource draining encounters (aka 'fights') into an Adventuring Week.

That would seem tho to strongly shift towards the short rests or do you limit those?


On the core topic I just use session xp - after x sessions they level up.

At tier 1 it's basically 3-4, at tier-2 its gonna be 6-8. At tier-3 it will be 9-12. Basically the variable is looking for a good narrative break point for it to occur.

 

[S'mon]

This might prove unsatisfying to your players. It raises a caution flag in my mind as a player, anyway. If a fight that felt routine to you felt significant to me, I might wind up feeling ripped off. And the reverse could happen, too, wondering why I got XP from a fight I felt was routine.

I think you'd be safer to decide ahead of time if a fight is going to be worth XP. And even make sure the players know if the fight would be worth any or not, sooooo they get to make an informed decision to engage, or not bother.

Well I'm guessing this system is not aimed at you or players like you.

I know the Princes of the Apocalypse players well, and they are more 'play for the story' 'save the world' types, not XP farmers. And with the Thule game I don't want combat entered into lightly or routinely, PCs should best avoid it where possible as it's not going to be very balanced.