D&D 5E XP vs Story Line Progression Leveling model in 5th edition

[Rya.Reisender]

You are probably interesting in checking this very similar thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469057-Do-people-still-track-XP

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Actually, I'm confused as to why encounter difficulty is measured in XP, if one is not awarded difficulty XP.

Since real encounter building advice (try things out, note what works and repeat that, note what doesn't and avoid doing that again, eventually you'll not even have to really think about it) is very poorly received by a significant number of gamers, they have to give some kind of advice, and the XP value math is the easiest to remember and use version of the same concept that has been around for a long time (that monsters don't add a linear amount of challenge) that has been thought up - and it errs on the side of the DM ending up with an easier encounter than expected, rather than one that is more difficult than expected.

And I think the point to not having the effective XP for difficulty purposes be the actual reward is because that would mean a high-level party dropping a meteor swarm on a goblin army and ending the encounter in one action is worth the same amount of XP as some potent demon (or whatever) the party dedicates a lot more effort and resources to taking down, for no reason that "well, if the party hadn't had that spell available right when this encounter happened it might have actually been a tough one."

I also don't award XP for trivial encounters.

I've found that I don't like that, and my players like it even less. We spent some time playing a game that uses a system by which the XP gained is directly proportional to how badly the fight went for the party, so if you came up with a good idea that would sway the odds in your favor and take the threat down faster with less chance of someone ending up with a dead character, you were incentivized to skip doing that and hope to get through the fight the hard way because otherwise you were stopping yourself from gaining levels.

 

[redrick]

I believe the multiplier applies only when creating the encounter - it doesn't apply to the XP award that the PCs get for completing the encounter. Which IMO is actually one of 5e's flaws, but since it doesn't affect me I don't mind too much.

This is true — as written, there is no "difficulty bonus" awarded to PCs for larger numbers of combatants.

This works well for me. First of all, calculating the difficulty bonus could be tedious, as it's not always clear how many enemies will be faced at once at the outset, and how do you calculate fights where reinforcements show up halfway through? What if monsters are funneled through a choke-point? The difficulty multipliers are meant to illustrate how much more effective combatants are when they fight in groups, but there are many other factors that can impact the difficulty of an encounter.

It also seems weird to me to reward PCs for engaging in dumb combat tactics (fighting more enemies at once instead of dividing and conquering, etc.)

Finally, I think it is fitting that fighting a few high CR monsters will yield a bit more XP satisfaction than fighting a bunch of low-CR monsters, even if the overall difficulty is comparable. 4 goblins are about as "deadly" to a 1st level party as 1 ogre, but killing that single ogre feels like a much "bigger" fight, and getting the higher xp value seems fitting. DMs just have to be cognizant of the fact that lots of solo, high-CR monsters will lead to relatively easy fights with big xp rewards, whereas lots of mook-hordes will slow the leveling down a bit.

Beyond that, re: the OP. Side quests can be very difficult to estimate in terms of time spent. I've frequently had side-quests take up 2-3 times as much table-time as I expected. Hopefully the players are enjoying the side quest? Otherwise, what's the point?

As for the difficulty of the dungeon. If it's too hard, either tweak the encounters down to make things a little easier (slightly less obvious than granting everybody a level up), or level up the PCs a little earlier than you'd planned (if they've been surviving your harder-than-expected dungeon, maybe they've earned it?), or encourage the players to look for ways to play a little smarter and try to shift the odds a bit. It all depends on your playstyle and your group. I don't really think it's an xp-vs-milestone problem.

 

[akr71]

This has been enlightening and I am glad to have the RAW explained to me rather than my incorrect RAI.

However,

... We're going to level up from 1st to 2nd after the first session, from 2nd to 3rd after the third session, and every three sessions thereafter. That just fits our pattern of play better. ...

this is pretty much on par with how my party has been progressing to date. That doesn't mean I won't examine how I award XP going forward, especially for large groups of lower CR opponents, I'm just not gonna get stressed about my past miscalculations. It hasn't seemed to throw off the pace compared to others' experiences.

 

[sleypy]

I may have been reading too much into it. I thought it just meant that you could differ handing out XP. If, for example, you have three encounters, the XP would be given at the conclusion. That is where it makes sense in the story.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It also seems weird to me to reward PCs for engaging in dumb combat tactics (fighting more enemies at once instead of dividing and conquering, etc.)

That's only true if you consider XP to be a reward for the player, rather than representing the actual experience of the character. The dumb fighter should learn more from a tough fight, because she has to do more dodging and parrying and thrusting and whatnot than she would in an easy fight, even if that easy fight could have been turned into a hard fight by applying different tactics.

 

[redrick]

That's only true if you consider XP to be a reward for the player, rather than representing the actual experience of the character. The dumb fighter should learn more from a tough fight, because she has to do more dodging and parrying and thrusting and whatnot than she would in an easy fight, even if that easy fight could have been turned into a hard fight by applying different tactics.

I like gold=xp, so, yes, I don't see xp as attempting to tightly model the amount of dodging, parrying, etc, over the course of an adventure. Ultimately, XP is awarded for overcoming challenges. By the same token, when doing combat xp, I award the same xp for sneaking around an encounter as I do for engaging in combat.

The RuneQuest idea of advancing skills as you use them is cool, but not how I play D&D.

 

[Dausuul]

One of the things I love about 5th ed is the flexibility WOTC gave us to change the way we play. One of the ways they have let us change up the formula is to do away with XP entirely, and let us dole out levels at story line specific moments.

WotC gave us that in 3E, when they put all classes on the same XP table. From that moment, XP became optional; the DM could just hand out levels when s/he judged it appropriate. (Even pre-3E, it was simple enough to hand out XP awards on the basis of accomplishments rather than monsters defeated.)

I do find that it's best not to tie your level-up decisions to predefined milestones, however. You never know when--or even if--the party will reach a given milestone. I prefer to give out levels on a loose "you've done a fair bit of adventuring and you just had a significant encounter of some sort" basis. That keeps things moving at a reasonable pace.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I prefer to give out levels on a loose "you've done a fair bit of adventuring and you just had a significant encounter of some sort" basis. That keeps things moving at a reasonable pace.

Exactly what I do, and have done since the first day of 3E. (And even pre-3E, I gave XP based loosely on how fast I wanted the group to advance, as opposed to a strict calculation of monsters/treasure/whatever.) I find that I as DM, and the vast majority of players I've run for, prefer it to keep track of XP.

 

[Kalshane]

If you find your group is struggling and haven't leveled up in awhile, you can always give them a level "early". The next time they do something memorable or defeat a particularly difficult opponent, simply tell them they've leveled up. Nothing says your story-based level-up points need to be set in stone.

Myself, I normally calculate XP and hand it out per the book. Though I'm currently running a Pathfinder AP converted over to 5E and rather than trying to deal with PF vs 5E leveling assumptions, I'm just using the milestones listed in the AP.