D&D 5E XP for Gold (without the XP)

[jgsugden]

To me this feels like 'video game' mechanics, and it can hurt storytelling options.

You no longer have the freedom to spend that money on story related ideas. No building a castle, freeing slaves by purchasing them and releasing them, buying a skyship, etc... There is a lot that you can do storywise with PC wealth.

You also have to stop the action and 'return to town' to level up often. Or, perhaps travel far and wide to find a master to train you. This is not possible if you have a storyline with a time limitation - which either means they skip leveling up, or they can't meet any such deadlines. That either punishes them for following a story or takes the intensity out of many storylines. That isn't generally fun.

It is also extra accounting. Some of the most common changes we've seen in the game are aimed at reducing the accounting. Milestone experience eliminates individual experince - and it has been widely used. In the 1980s many of us tracked every meal and every lb carried - but in modern D&D it is far more common to abstract it and not sweat the details as it gets in the way of fun.

I get the impulse behind the rules - but I think overall, you'll find most players are less receptive to this approach and that you, as a DM, may find yourself limited by it as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

Excellent. My post was not a critique and more a way to get one thinking about the higher level training and in what way it would make in-game sense. It's my inner crazy.

Thanks for the clarification, although I also wouldn’t have minded if it had been a critique . But yeah, what training will look like at higher levels is something I’ve been considering, since the starting area definitely won’t have trainers beyond the 6-11 tier. The idea is to expand the sandbox as the need arises, so when players start pushing those levels I’ll have to give them new places to adventure and new powerful characters/creatures to train with.

 

[Charlaquin]

To me this feels like 'video game' mechanics, and it can hurt storytelling options.

Well, it’s inspired in part by the way leveling works in the Soulslike games, so yes, it is literally based on a video game mechanic.

You no longer have the freedom to spend that money on story related ideas. No building a castle, freeing slaves by purchasing them and releasing them, buying a skyship, etc... There is a lot that you can do storywise with PC wealth.

Keep in mind, these costs should be in parity with rewards from treasure hordes leaving rewards from individual monsters, selling unwanted magic items, and rewards for paid jobs as spending money. Of course, if the players decide to dedicate that spending money to leveling up as well, I feel that option should be open to them. If players want to save up to build a stronghold instead of saving up to get to 12th level or whatever, that option is also available.

You also have to stop the action and 'return to town' to level up often. Or, perhaps travel far and wide to find a master to train you.

Yes, that’s exactly the gameplay pattern I devised this system to incentivize. Early game the PCs should be making day trips into the dungeon and back to rest and, after a few such trips, to level up. By mid-game they’ll have the tools to safely venture further from the starter town to find new trainers and more lucrative (and dangerous) places to adventure. And by late-game they’ll need to start venturing beyond the mortal plane to find entities powerful enough to train them, enemies powerful enough to challenge them, and rewards rich enough to be worth their time.

This is not possible if you have a storyline with a time limitation - which either means they skip leveling up, or they can't meet any such deadlines. That either punishes them for following a story or takes the intensity out of many storylines. That isn't generally fun.

Sure, and if this was an adventure path with a storyline to follow, this system would probably be a poor choice for it. The campaign I’m intending to use this in is a location-based, open-table sandbox affair. The intended gameplay loop is that players will delve as deep into the dungeon as they feel they can safely manage, then return to town to sell the valuables they acquired and spend the gold to level up so they can push further in next time, rinse and repeat until they outpace the local area, then venture out to find a new place to adventure that’s more their speed.

It is also extra accounting. Some of the most common changes we've seen in the game are aimed at reducing the accounting. Milestone experience eliminates individual experince - and it has been widely used. In the 1980s many of us tracked every meal and every lb carried - but in modern D&D it is far more common to abstract it and not sweat the details as it gets in the way of fun.

Yep, this system will definitely require more bookkeeping than story-based or session-based advancement. I believe that will be a worthwhile tradeoff. I’ve always found the benefits of tracking XP to be well worth the little bit of bookkeeping required, and this won’t be significantly more bookkeeping than that. Heck, my players have always kept very good track of their gold, despite 5e not giving them anything to spend it on; this should actually be less bookkeeping than XP because it’s just one number to keep track of instead of two.

I get the impulse behind the rules - but I think overall, you'll find most players are less receptive to this approach and that you, as a DM, may find yourself limited by it as well.

Thanks for the concern. Maybe it won’t work out, but I think it is well-suited to my goals for this campaign. If not, no big loss, we can always go back to regular XP in the next one.

 

[Blue]

I worry about heavy armor users and casters, especially wizards in T1. Wizards have scribing costs on top of the material component costs.

When something like a revivify is the same cost as gaining a level, it gives me concern.

Also, this seems that it precludes characters actually using gold in ays the characters would - no tithes to churches, ale & parties, founding orphanages, bribing officials, building keeps, buying titles, gambling or investing without a big hit to character advancement. It doesn't make sense that those come out of the same currency.

 

[wedgeski]

My experience with training costs, however well intentioned, is parties forever in debt to generous patrons, and an attitude to dungeon exploration exemplified by questions like, "How much are those curtains worth, do we think?" I know (and play with) DM's who still enjoy this mode of play, but it's not for me.

 

[jgsugden]

...Thanks for the concern. Maybe it won’t work out, but I think it is well-suited to my goals for this campaign. If not, no big loss, we can always go back to regular XP in the next one.

Very true. Heck - you can also drop it mid process by telling players it only applies to the lowest levels if you find the issues I raise impact your game more than expected.

 

[Charlaquin]

Very true. Heck - you can also drop it mid process by telling players it only applies to the lowest levels if you find the issues I raise impact your game more than expected.

Indeed! It’ll at least be an interesting experiment if nothing else.

 

[iserith]

I've been using gold for XP in my hexcrawl campaign for the last year or so. It works just fine, despite all the concerns mentioned upthread. What tends to happen, at least in my group, is that the players look at any windfalls and prioritize their expenditures, then decide among themselves who is leveling up with the rest of the money. So they may say, okay, let's get our fighter into plate armor now, the level up the cleric so we get access to revivify, and purchase a couple of diamonds. Then off they go again into the wilds. (They even bought themselves a keel boat with a whole crew to get around easier in the swamp.)

You can also "correct" for any shortfalls if you see them with bounties and quest rewards in gold if you want. Particularly early on I had a few quests available that paid out gold for doing certain things. I tended to err on the side of shady NPCs for this which made it feel like the PCs were doing something kind of bad to get ahead.

The trainers in this game are NPC adventurers of the same class and they belong to a group called the Guild of Transient Heroes whose leadership - Tordek, Jozan, Mialee, and Lidda - are thoroughly corrupt. This eventually led to conflict with the PCs who were in a real pickle because they had fighters, clerics, and wizards among their number. Do they risk losing the ability to level up those characters by dealing with this corruption? (Turns out, yes they did!)

 

[Charlaquin]

I've been using gold for XP in my hexcrawl campaign for the last year or so. It works just fine, despite all the concerns mentioned upthread. What tends to happen, at least in my group, is that the players look at any windfalls and prioritize their expenditures, then decide among themselves who is leveling up with the rest of the money. So they may say, okay, let's get our fighter into plate armor now, the level up the cleric so we get access to revivify, and purchase a couple of diamonds. Then off they go again into the wilds. (They even bought themselves a keel boat with a whole crew to get around easier in the swamp.)

Oh, interesting! I would have expected them to prioritize leveling up first, and gear after. I also suspect since I’m going to be running this campaign open-table style that my players will be less inclined to lend each other gold given that they won’t be able to count on always being with the same party.

You can also "correct" for any shortfalls if you see them with bounties and quest rewards in gold if you want. Particularly early on I had a few quests available that paid out gold for doing certain things. I tended to err on the side of shady NPCs for this which made it feel like the PCs were doing something kind of bad to get ahead.

That’s a good point! I’ll definitely keep that in mind.

 

[Charlaquin]

I worry about heavy armor users and casters, especially wizards in T1. Wizards have scribing costs on top of the material component costs.

Only if they want spells beyond those they gain for free by leveling up, which I think is very appropriate to come at the cost of delaying their next level. Heavy armor and material components could potentially be a concern, but don’t forget that these costs are based only on hordes and leave out individual monster treasure.

When something like a revivify is the same cost as gaining a level, it gives me concern.

Revivify is only the same cost as gaining a level in tier 1. And when the alternative is making a new character at first level, paying one level worth of gold for an extra life looks like a pretty good deal to me.

Also, this seems that it precludes characters actually using gold in ays the characters would - no tithes to churches, ale & parties, founding orphanages, bribing officials, building keeps, buying titles, gambling or investing without a big hit to character advancement.

Tithes, carousing, and the like will be accounted for in downtime expenses (which can be subsidized by downtime activities like practicing a profession). Building keeps, buying titles, and finding orphanages is, in my experience, not something players really do anyway. Part of the goal is to give players something to spend large amounts of gold on that’s actually directly useful while adventuring.

It doesn't make sense that those come out of the same currency.

I’m not especially concerned with whether or not it “makes sense,” as long as it makes for good gameplay.