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

[Jan van Leyden]

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?

Yes, sure. In these modern games the complexity of the characters rise with level, as the players get new toys to select to play with. This increases the gap between sloppy built and optimized PCs. So with groups of the same level we see a distribution of capability, whose variance increases with the levels.

If you go by some encounter design guidelines two DMs would - or at least could - design the same encounter for their 15th level group. This encounter might be nigh impossible for one group whereas their optimised counterparts on the other table breeze through it without breaking sweat.

 

[delericho]

I was referring to the bolded portion of the equation. Which you'd know, if you'd been reading my posts. Pet. Peeve.

That's one wall-of-text post in a multi-page thread, and one that's unlinked to any of the posts that it is in reply to. Is it really so surprising people missed it?

The problem WotC have is that they cannot just ignore the second half of you equation, because setting a baseline according only to that first half renders it utterly meaningless.

The designers at WotC are well aware of the value of the levelling mechanic to the game. They're also well aware that there are constraints on the frequency of levelling. Too fast, and people don't get to properly try out their new toys; too slow, and the whole thing just becomes a grind.

And these are real-time constraints on levelling - they work in terms of hours played, sessions per month, and even the length of the campaign.

Now, as discussed, those XP advancement tables and the reward levels for creatures represent a baseline for progression. Which means that WotC will have to set one. That being the case, and since that baseline has to account for the real-time issues noted above, WotC will have to make some assumptions. Once they get to that point, we're all better off if they make the best assumptions they can.

So, yes, they should aim to find out how long, on average, groups play for, how frequently, on average, they play, and so on and so forth. And thus, set the baseline that is closest to 'correct' based on those averages.

But then, to make the tool really useful, they should provide the DM with the advice he needs to tailor the system to his group: "We have assumed this many encounters per hour, that many hours per session, so many sessions per month, and a campaign spanning some months will gain the PCs some levels. Since your group probably doesn't match this exactly, here's now to adjust the XP rewards..."

That way, instead of us all just being given a meaningless jumble of numbers that someone at WotC picked because they 'feel right', we get something that has some thought behind it that we can then tailor accordingly.

Your formula, that

The equation for how many levels a PC gains in an arbitrary length of time (we'll call it a month) looks like this:

levels/XP * XP/encounter * encounters/hour * hours/session * sessions/month

is probably not too far from being right. And you're also right that the differences between groups increases along with the terms. But that doesn't actually matter - WotC don't need to provide the perfect system for all groups. All they need to do is give me the equation and I'll plug in the numbers for my group.

 

[Grydan]

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.

I'm of the "level when the DM says" school of thought, and for me MMORPGs played no role in shaping that preference. I figured out that it was my preferred method through playing D&D 4E by the book and finding that (at least when using published adventures) the timing of when the characters levelled was often an awkward fit with the events of the story. So after discussing it with my players I started using the rules as merely a loose guideline: when they were close to "officially" levelling, I would keep an eye out for an appropriate place in the chain of events. It feels much more natural to gain an increase in capability after you've just overcome a major challenge or completed a quest than to have it happen after you knocked off a random patrol or convinced a minor official to do you a favor.

To date I've only played one MMO (Star Trek Online), and not only was it after I'd figured out that approach, but one of my biggest and most frequent complaints about the game from as far back as the beta was that I disliked their approach to levelling (admittedly, much of my complaining was about how it interacted with the largely irrelevant to D&D issues of rank and position).

 

[Storminator]

Storminator, for eff's sake. If there were only a license to revoke.

LOL. What's the problem, man? Is this as bad as when I told S'mon I don't police my players for cheating? Cuz he blew a gasket when I said that.

PS

 

[am181d]

Hmmm... does the rise of "Level when the DM says" correspond to the prevalence of MMORPGs?

It goes back at least as far as the 80s. The graphics for World of Warcraft were TERRIBLE in the 80s.

 

[Remathilis]

Why are you lumping 3rd and 4th together? In 3rd, you could die from one hit just like the editions before. You only jad slightly more HP by taking Toughness and adding your Con bonus. You stilled rolled for HP in 3rd. This is no where near the level of 4th.

In HP, I agree. However, I also mentioned feats and subclasses, which give a level of customization that mimics 3e and 4e more so than AD&D (though 2e kits seem fairly close).

 

[am181d]

I was referring to the bolded portion of the equation. Which you'd know, if you'd been reading my posts. Pet. Peeve.

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make. In order to determine how much XP a character needs to level up, they have to make some assumptions about all those things. It sounds like you're saying they... don't?

 

[TwoSix]

Since XP currently serves as one currency rewarding two unaligned goals (a. reward for skillful play and b. story pacing mechanic), I'd like to see Next use a system more like the Mythic Adventures book for Pathfinder and decouple Level and XP.

Use "Level" as a means of determining the character's ceiling of ability, and increase it upon achievement of a major plot point.

Use "XP" as a currency for rewarding skillful play. Dispatching monsters gives XP. Defeating encounters, monster or otherwise, through exploration or interaction play should give XP. (Perhaps giving bonus XP to dispatching monsters through exploration mechanics, depending on the campaign type.) Spending gold on things that are not combat items gives XP. (I think ACKS does this, it's a solid rule.) Acquiring magical items powers up the character, thus also rewarding an increased character capability without the need to grant XP.

Have a system to spend the XP on feats and other character abilities. Higher level allows you to purchase more powerful feats. Hit points and proficiency bonuses are a function of level, every other ability becomes purchased through an XP currency.

Naturally, this isn't D&D enough to actually be in Next.

 

[Jester David]

Better than . . . ? 4e has rules for both of these (quest XP for exploration, skill challenge and DMG 2 "free roleplaying" XP for non-combat encounters), but I'm not sure if you're saying you want better ones than 4e's.

Better than the current ones. And, yes, better than 4e's. Not because they were bad, but because I think we can do better.

There are no rules for traps currently, which should give xp. They're one of the big exploration hazards.
And hazardous terrain gives no xp, which was a big problem with both 3e and 4e, as it could make an easy encounter much harder with no comparable reward. Natural terrain that is hard to get past and requires some creative thought and skill should also award xp.
But there could also be xp for exploring hexes and the like.

Role-playing gave out negligible xp in 4e. An hour of combat gave you 10% of the experience needed to level-up. An hour of role-playing gave you 2%. I'm not sure it MUST be higher but options might be nice, for low/ medium/ high combat games.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Since XP currently serves as one currency rewarding two unaligned goals (a. reward for skillful play and b. story pacing mechanic), I'd like to see Next use a system more like the Mythic Adventures book for Pathfinder and decouple Level and XP.

Use "Level" as a means of determining the character's ceiling of ability, and increase it upon achievement of a major plot point.

Use "XP" as a currency for rewarding skillful play. Dispatching monsters gives XP. Defeating encounters, monster or otherwise, through exploration or interaction play should give XP. (Perhaps giving bonus XP to dispatching monsters through exploration mechanics, depending on the campaign type.) Spending gold on things that are not combat items gives XP. (I think ACKS does this, it's a solid rule.) Acquiring magical items powers up the character, thus also rewarding an increased character capability without the need to grant XP.

Have a system to spend the XP on feats and other character abilities. Higher level allows you to purchase more powerful feats. Hit points and proficiency bonuses are a function of level, every other ability becomes purchased through an XP currency.

Naturally, this isn't D&D enough to actually be in Next.

Sort of a breadth (XP) vs. depth (Level) measurement, yeah?

I honestly don't see a problem with implementing something like this in D&D (of practically any edition). Hell, it's kind of what E6 does.

Might throw off some CR/level calculations...someone at level 5 but with an extra 10 feats might not be level 6 in some ways but might be level 6+ in others...could use some designer-level maths to help figure that out. But doable.

Part of what I love about D&D's XP system is that it is so frickin' customizable that it adapts perfectly to whatever someone wants at their table without much hassle in most cases.