D&D 5E When to award XP?

[delericho]

"Lost Mine of Phandelver" seems to use different guidelines at different times - in Part One XP seems to be given once at the end of the part. Parts two and four seem to suggest XP should be given out immediately at the end of the encounter. And Part Three, IIRC, has certain milestones when giving out XP is appropriate.

"Hoard of the Dragon Queen" discusses the possibility of milestone-based XP, further suggesting that PCs could thus level-up at the end of each chapter (except 5 - don't know why that is).

The bottom line seems to be: give out XP whenever seems good to you.

Personally, I intend to use a slightly-modified form of my old approach: PC gain a level every three sessions. Except for moving from 1st to 2nd level, which will be at the end of the first session.

 

[Joddy37]

I record all xp gained during a session and give it to the players at the end of the session if they finish it with a long rest. If there is a cliffhanger at the end of the session, like closing the scene just at the beginning of a discovery or a battle, I keep the earned xp for the next session end.

 

[Lrdroland]

I got in a small argument toady with my regular DM because he didn't give us XP for dispatching a couple monsters. They attacked and the party fought and got them low and they ran away before we could get the killing blow and we couldn't follow them. We definitely defeated the monsters, but couldn't get the killing blow. Was trying to get an opinion on whether others would give out XP for this encounter and if so would it be full xp or a prorated amount for not actually killing it?

 

[Thaumaturge]

Just whenever I post is good.

Thaumaturge.

 

[delericho]

I got in a small argument toady with my regular DM because he didn't give us XP for dispatching a couple monsters. They attacked and the party fought and got them low and they ran away before we could get the killing blow and we couldn't follow them. We definitely defeated the monsters, but couldn't get the killing blow. Was trying to get an opinion on whether others would give out XP for this encounter and if so would it be full xp or a prorated amount for not actually killing it?

Generally speaking, I award XP for "overcoming challenges". It doesn't matter how you overcome the challenge (so trickery is as valid as combat), nor do you need a kill to win a combat (forcing a retreat or a surrender is enough). So I would award full XP for that combat.

(It's perhaps worth noting that if you later faced those same opponents again, you wouldn't get the XP a second time. You've already overcome that challenge.)

That said, I'm not your DM, and how he chooses to award XP is his prerogative.

 

[Uder]

I got in a small argument toady with my regular DM because he didn't give us XP for dispatching a couple monsters. They attacked and the party fought and got them low and they ran away before we could get the killing blow and we couldn't follow them. We definitely defeated the monsters, but couldn't get the killing blow. Was trying to get an opinion on whether others would give out XP for this encounter and if so would it be full xp or a prorated amount for not actually killing it?

Without being there or being the DM, I don't know. I would resent a player running off and talking about it (and only presenting one side) on the net before talking (not arguing) about it with me first.

 

[Lrdroland]

Delericho - Thanks and I know it is his prerogative. When I say argument I through out a passive aggressive comment. Just saw this post and decided to high jack it with my own question. Just wanted a second or third opinion.

 

[Lrdroland]

Without being there or being the DM, I don't know. I would resent a player running off and talking about it (and only presenting one side) on the net before talking (not arguing) about it with me first.

I am not going behind his back or trying to bash him in anyway. Why so aggressive?

 

[TRD23]

For those of you that actually award XP (I am referring to home games here not Adventurer League type organized games) why do you do it?

I have always thought the hassles of XP accounting and the constant requirement of setting up encounters to meet an XP budget to outweigh any benefit - just curious why some DM's do it?

 

[Paraxis]

I got in a small argument toady with my regular DM because he didn't give us XP for dispatching a couple monsters. They attacked and the party fought and got them low and they ran away before we could get the killing blow and we couldn't follow them. We definitely defeated the monsters, but couldn't get the killing blow. Was trying to get an opinion on whether others would give out XP for this encounter and if so would it be full xp or a prorated amount for not actually killing it?

The characters would earn experience, the same amount as for killing the monsters.

It varies from campaign to campaign whether I just track xp and tell everyone when they level, or just hand out xp at the end of the night. But either way you gain xp for dealing with a scene of the story, that can be sneaking past a group of enemies, killing them outright, getting them to surrender, making them run away, tricking them with an illusion, make some kind of diplomatic pact with them, anything.

If you only reward xp or award the majority of xp through one type of behavior all you are doing is reinforcing that behavior.

So if the only thing that gives xp is killing, the game becomes murder hobo rampage. If you give out xp for gold obtained, they become murdering thieves.

If you want interesting stories about trickery, stealth, subterfuge, diplomatic negotiations, and everything else that makes a fun evening that is the behavior that needs to be rewarded.

Example, if you want to get players to get into a game about political intrigue, tell them that only half xp is awarded for killing enemies and full xp is awarded for overcoming difficult scenes in other ways.