Giving out XP that isn't enough to level up is equally worthless to giving out partial levels. It's just an illusion of a reward. It the end it's all the same. In any case. The problems you invent with milestone levelling has nothing to do with actual milestones but with bad DMing. Bad DM is bad no matter if it's milestone or XP.
So then... if a player wants their character to own a castle, gold rewards for anything less than the full cost of buying the land and building the castle they want must be meaningless....
Measurable progress towards a goal is usually not considered meaningless.
As a DM you could implement partial goals merely by stating that if you do X small tasks then you gain a level.
My players are far more goal oriented now that we are using milestones. Previously there was always chat about, do we kill as many things as possible to level up, now they just interact with the story and periodically hear the DING of ability improvement.
Partial levels have no real meaning, other than to let the party know that they did well. This can equally be achieved by providing some in-character rewards, such as treasure. The PC would far more notice more loot/equipment/coin than some arbitrary feeling that they are closer to mastering new skills.
Giving out XP that isn't enough to level up is equally worthless to giving out partial levels. It's just an illusion of a reward. It the end it's all the same. In any case. The problems you invent with milestone levelling has nothing to do with actual milestones but with bad DMing. Bad DM is bad no matter if it's milestone or XP.
So then... if a player wants their character to own a castle, gold rewards for anything less than the full cost of buying the land and building the castle they want must be meaningless....
Measurable progress towards a goal is usually not considered meaningless.
As a DM you could implement partial goals merely by stating that if you do X small tasks then you gain a level.
My players are far more goal oriented now that we are using milestones. Previously there was always chat about, do we kill as many things as possible to level up, now they just interact with the story and periodically hear the DING of ability improvement.
Partial levels have no real meaning, other than to let the party know that they did well. This can equally be achieved by providing some in-character rewards, such as treasure. The PC would far more notice more loot/equipment/coin than some arbitrary feeling that they are closer to mastering new skills.
How is 'do X small tasks left to go until your next level' different from 'X xps until your next level,' exactly?
It isn't, and no-one has ever said that it is. But "do X small tasks left to go until your next level" is not what milestone levelling is. It's supposed to be just that, a milestone, a big accomplishment. Luke Skywalker finding washing R2D2 is not a milestone, follwing him into the desert to find out that "Uncle Ben" is actually one of the last of an order of kick-ass space wizards is.
And the solution to 'kill X things to gain a level' is simply 'give better xps for non-killing.'
Except that, under RAW, you are still forced to give XP for killing defeating things.
That killing anything and everything brings xps under RAW does not mean that is a useful mechanic.
Exactly my point. :)
Having that mechanic and tossing the concept of xps out completely in favour of milestone levelling is overkill.
Well, not according to quite a few people. Milestone levelling is appearantly a popular enough mechanic that quite a few people does it and it has a simplicity to it that makes it really useful. No-one is saying that it's better than XP but we are pointing out that your complaints about it are unfounded. There is nothing inherently problematic with the milestone system in and of itself.
It isn't, and no-one has ever said that it is. But "do X small tasks left to go until your next level" is not what milestone levelling is. It's supposed to be just that, a milestone, a big accomplishment. Luke Skywalker finding washing R2D2 is not a milestone, follwing him into the desert to find out that "Uncle Ben" is actually one of the last of an order of kick-ass space wizards is.
Actually WOTC use this all the time. Do X quests and gain a level (quite often 1 quest to reach 2nd level, another 2 quests to reach 3rd level, another 2 quests to reach 4th level). The quests aren't always big accomplishments.
I bought the Essentials Kit to get started. In that, they start with 3 quests "on the board", and completion of any of them gains you a level up to a point (L3/4?). Then they add some more quests, and these give you a level for every 2 quests completed IIRC. The quests are not particularly big accomplishments.
I bought the Essentials Kit to get started. In that, they start with 3 quests "on the board", and completion of any of them gains you a level up to a point (L3/4?). Then they add some more quests, and these give you a level for every 2 quests completed IIRC. The quests are not particularly big accomplishments.
Our group have modelled our system after this.
The PCs become goal-oriented killing machines, instead of just random encounter, kill anything, killing machines ;-)
You do know that DM's are not forced to follow RAW, right?
Of course, but you are arguing that XP is a mechanically better set of rules than milestone, I'm just pointing out that it is not so.
Fair enough to point out that it is RAW, particularly since this is the rules discussion section of the forums, but there are no rules police coming to your campaign to enforce anything.
Well, you were the one talking about the rules being bad, so of course I'm also going to talk about the same rules. Makes sense, doesn't it?
And popularity does not in and of itself equal 'best.' It is the easiest, which is also not always the best.
Again, please read what people write instead of just making things up. I've never claimed that milestone is "best". I've pointed out that the so called problems you have with them don't have anything to do with the actual milestone rule itself.
When I've been reading up on DMing techniques, there was a piece of advice which really stuck with me, and that was to give an encounter an xp value, and then to award the players this regardless of how they went about achieving it.
It also focused on the encounter not being a "combat encounter" but a conflict of interests. You want to get across the bridge, and there are guards on the bridge who want to stop you. So I'd set the xp for the encounter as what they would get for killing the guards, and leave them to work out how they want to approach it - start a fire to draw the guards away? push the biggest guy in a wheelbarrow, set him on fire and have him shout about being the dread pirate roberts so they run away? fight their way through? bribe the guards? however they choose to do it, the act of getting over the bridge is worth the xp they would get if they just killed them. So they become less concerned with "killing = xp" and instead consider "success = xp", or even more preferable, "experience = xp". if they try and fail to get across the bridge, but did a good job of trying, they'll get some xp for it.
Hold on. Are people using "partial levels" to mean literally "you have progressed X amount of the way towards the next level?"
This means absolutely nothing. Having 1/1000 XP is exactly the same as 999/1000. Nothing changes whatsoever. I ignored it because there are no rules for giving out partial levels and thought you were just adding some homebrew, but instead, people think it is something substantial?
And saying you don't hand out gold cause it is not enough to buy a castle? That is a ridiculously stupid argument. XP is not a resource available to the players, it is purely a means of keeping track of progression. Gold can be spent immediately or saved for a castle or whatever.
"Smaller noteworthy acheivements"
"I got 5000 XP."
"Did you level?"
"No."
"Then absolutely nothing has changed. You gained nothing."
As for your argument that you control levels based on what you have planned and written in advance, I put it to you that you are planning and writing too much in advance, or at least would be well advised to get better at writing side adventures for when the party are still too low level. It feels like you are either artificially holding players back based on what you have pre-written, or charging them ahead for similar reasons, rather than writing for the party as they are.
And then you summarily dismiss the statement that the DM would still have control, despite the DM still deciding how many xps, if any, any given situation or session is worth.
You're making a lot of assumptions about my writing style that has nothing to do with any of the arguments I have made nor addresses any of the issues inherent within an XP system. I specifically mentioned that my party decides how they progress through the story, how can you possibly interpret that as me holding them back or charging them forward? I don't railroad my players like you seem to advocate for.
And talk about ignoring arguments. I ignored things that made no sense, you're ignoring substantive arguments.
I don't know how you can admit people don't have to follow RAW and yet are advocating for XP RAW, but then turn around and say just let the DM give out as much XP as they want. I can easily change how much XP is handed out, but why?
If I'm not following XP RAW, there is no reason not to switch to milestones at that point because you are effectively using milestones with extra work. You seem to be saying the XP system is fine as is, then why not give out exactly as much XP as the encounter tables and CR say it is worth? If you don't think it is fine as is then why argue so much in favor of it?
When WOTC says "it should take X amount of encounters to advance to the next level," why is that not taken as a guideline for new DMs considering every mention I have ever seen of it is always accompanied by wording expressing as much and often within beginner adventure modules?
Kotath, the biggest problem with all of your arguments is that they are issues with the DM, and have nothing at all to do with milestones. XP is a fine system for beginners or for those who prefer the familiarity of that specific progression mechanic, but it has its flaws which are not present within milestones, whereas the flaws in a milestone system are not solved in any way by an XP system.
In my campaigns, I have certain points that dictate when they reach a milestone. For example from one of my current groups:
Defeat the bad guy #1 and discover x bit of information for lev 7
Defeat bad guy #2 and complete 1 persons personal story arc in progress for leve 8.
So if they beat BBEG 1 then get sidetracked and do the story arc for a player and finally discover x info, getting to level 7 may take a long time. But then they have already done have of level 8 so it only took lie 4 sessions. This is why I love milestone. Sometimes sidequests get thrown in and they just add to the story. They are just a 1-2 session add on hat really doe not count towards leveling but add stuff they want to do. Do I have to sometimes rework the plan for milestone? Sure. BUt I try to always have a checklist for the next 2-3 levels with broad goals to progress the story.
You've derailed this conversation so much it needs to start over.
The problem with milestone levelling is that unless you are planning a whirlwind campaign, levels should be slowing down at least somewhat as level increases. Getting from 1 to 2 is pretty easy and a session or so, but 2 to 3, longer... and so on. Otherwise you have a party of 20th level characters before they have even finished their first year of adventuring .. then what? Start another sprint from scratch?
With xps, there is more paperwork, but it is easier to manage levelling.
You claim milestones make it harder to manage levels.
How is a system where the players level when I am ready for them to level more difficult to manage than calculating XP through challenge ratings and encounter tables?
How does an XP system give me the freedom to design as many level 2 encounters as I feel is necessary to fit my story before they reach level 3? As many as I feel is necessary at any level before they reach the next?
My claim is that in a milestone system they are only level 20 when I want them to be level 20. You claim milestones will make them level 20 so fast it is as if you are running a "whirlwind campaign." My claim is supported by the fact that they don't level until I say so, you have given zero proof that your claim is substantiated.
Answer these questions without fallacies or attacking my character and intellect this time.
I intend to take a combined milestone & xp approach to leveling.
xp is granted for making it through an encounter, not for killing things, and is granted as if they killed the things (I make the assumption that killing the things would be the most difficult approach, so by avoiding it they would get as much xp).
I would also aim to level players up at milestones, typically at the beginning or end of a session to reduce downtime. If players were getting close to levelling up, I would tell them to start thinking about their next level to speed up the next session.
So I wouldn't be strict on the amount of xp needed between levels, IE if they were 50 short of the 2,000 they needed, I would level them up. but If they were 300 over, then I would level them up at a convenient time. I would also decide at the time if the completion of their goals would be worthy of leveling up, and do so based on how close they are through xp.
I wouldn't be telling the players how much xp they're getting, so leveling up would be entirely at my discretion - I would just track the xp myself to gauge whether a milestone lines up with their xp earnings.
I wouldn't be telling the players how much xp they're getting, so leveling up would be entirely at my discretion - I would just track the xp myself to gauge whether a milestone lines up with their xp earnings
This is how I first converted to milestones more as a curiosity and personal record and it was interesting info but it was right at about level 7 I just stopped bothering to track the XP altogether.
Milestone levelling and the whole party gets it at the same time. That prevents any differences and doesn't punish players for missing a session because they had to work, or had a family issue that they had to deal with.
You're not even arguing for XP RAW? Then you're just using milestones with extra steps.
And you still didn't answer my questions, but now I have more insight into why your arguments are so wildly inconsistent.
Other than varying xps for monster kills, what, exactly is not RAW about my answer?Where, anywhere in the rules does it say 'all xp awards must be equal' or even 'all non-kill xp awards must be equal' or 'only monsters give xps?' (and those are just guesses as to what your objections are).
I have answered your questions. If you still do not understand the answers, be more specific as to your confusion.
Where in any of my posts have I said the things in bold? This is why you are not honest. It is very telling that you keep responding to what you think my objections are when I am responding only to the things you say in this thread.
You have not answered my questions. You reply with things that don't have anything to do with my question. That is the problem.
My question:
"How is a system where the players level when I am ready for them to level more difficult to manage than calculating XP through challenge ratings and encounter tables?"
Your response is to gripe about CR and encounter tables as if it has nothing to do with XP. You cared more about talking about how encounter tables and CR are a guideline, which I never said they weren't, and gave no attention whatsoever to the question of which of our systems is easier to manage.
If you were to actually answer this question, you assess the systems we each advocate for and determine which is easier.
My system:
Am I ready for the party to level, yes or no?
Yes: they level.
No: they don't.
Your system:
How much XP do they get?
What did they kill?
Do they get XP for not killing?
How much XP do they get for each kill/non-kill?
Do they get XP for RP encounters? How much?
Do I use the CR of the monster or change it?
Do I have a choice in whether or not they level when they reach enough XP? No, it is an XP system if you gave them enough XP to level then they level no matter what.
How do I manage that? Go back into all of the previous steps and change things.
And all of the other steps I missed that go into XP calculation. (A very important caveat. Take away or add as many steps as you want to fit your system.)
Which of the above systems is easier? I'm not asking for why you think people need an XP progression system, I'm not asking for your critique of my writing style, I'm not asking for your interpretation of the rules.
You have expressed, to one degree or another, that the above reflects an approximation of your leveling system. Even if it isn't exact, it is close enough for the purpose of this question.
Even if your system is as simple as "It takes 15,000 XP to level, I have planned 10 encounters, so they get 1500 XP per encounter" is still adding more steps and doesn't answer the question of managing levels, cause my players get to attempt to do anything they want within the game, and that can lead to more or fewer encounters that I did not plan.
You're not even arguing for XP RAW? Then you're just using milestones with extra steps.
And you still didn't answer my questions, but now I have more insight into why your arguments are so wildly inconsistent.
Other than varying xps for monster kills, what, exactly is not RAW about my answer?Where, anywhere in the rules does it say 'all xp awards must be equal' or even 'all non-kill xp awards must be equal' or 'only monsters give xps?' (and those are just guesses as to what your objections are).
I have answered your questions. If you still do not understand the answers, be more specific as to your confusion.
Where in any of my posts have I said the things in bold? This is why you are not honest.
You have not answered my questions. You reply with things that don't have anything to do with my question. That is the problem.
My question:
"How is a system where the players level when I am ready for them to level more difficult to manage than calculating XP through challenge ratings and encounter tables?"
Your response is to gripe about CR and encounter tables as if it has nothing to do with XP. You cared more about talking about how encounter tables and CR are a guideline, which I never said they weren't, and gave no attention whatsoever to the question of which of our systems is easier to manage.
If you were to actually answer this question, you assess the systems we each advocate for and determine which is easier.
My system:
Am I ready for the party to level, yes or no?
Yes: they level.
No: they don't.
Your system:
How much XP do they get?
What did they kill?
Do they get XP for not killing?
How much XP do they get for each kill/non-kill?
Do they get XP for RP encounters? How much?
Do I use the CR of the monster or change it?
Do I have a choice in whether or not they level when they reach enough XP? No, it is an XP system if you gave them enough XP to level then they level no matter what.
How do I manage that? Go back into all of the previous steps and change things.
And all of the other steps I missed that go into XP calculation.
Which of the above systems is easier? I'm not asking for why you think people need an XP progression system, I'm not asking for your critique of my writing style, I'm not asking for your interpretation of the rules.
You have expressed, to one degree or another, that the above reflects an approximation of your leveling system. Even if it isn't exact, it is close enough for the purpose of this question.
As a DM you could implement partial goals merely by stating that if you do X small tasks then you gain a level.
My players are far more goal oriented now that we are using milestones. Previously there was always chat about, do we kill as many things as possible to level up, now they just interact with the story and periodically hear the DING of ability improvement.
Partial levels have no real meaning, other than to let the party know that they did well. This can equally be achieved by providing some in-character rewards, such as treasure. The PC would far more notice more loot/equipment/coin than some arbitrary feeling that they are closer to mastering new skills.
It isn't, and no-one has ever said that it is. But "do X small tasks left to go until your next level" is not what milestone levelling is. It's supposed to be just that, a milestone, a big accomplishment. Luke Skywalker finding washing R2D2 is not a milestone, follwing him into the desert to find out that "Uncle Ben" is actually one of the last of an order of kick-ass space wizards is.
Except that, under RAW, you are still forced to give XP for killing defeating things.
Exactly my point. :)
Well, not according to quite a few people. Milestone levelling is appearantly a popular enough mechanic that quite a few people does it and it has a simplicity to it that makes it really useful. No-one is saying that it's better than XP but we are pointing out that your complaints about it are unfounded. There is nothing inherently problematic with the milestone system in and of itself.
Actually WOTC use this all the time. Do X quests and gain a level (quite often 1 quest to reach 2nd level, another 2 quests to reach 3rd level, another 2 quests to reach 4th level). The quests aren't always big accomplishments.
Yep.
I bought the Essentials Kit to get started. In that, they start with 3 quests "on the board", and completion of any of them gains you a level up to a point (L3/4?). Then they add some more quests, and these give you a level for every 2 quests completed IIRC. The quests are not particularly big accomplishments.
Our group have modelled our system after this.
The PCs become goal-oriented killing machines, instead of just random encounter, kill anything, killing machines ;-)
Of course, but you are arguing that XP is a mechanically better set of rules than milestone, I'm just pointing out that it is not so.
Well, you were the one talking about the rules being bad, so of course I'm also going to talk about the same rules. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Again, please read what people write instead of just making things up. I've never claimed that milestone is "best". I've pointed out that the so called problems you have with them don't have anything to do with the actual milestone rule itself.
When I've been reading up on DMing techniques, there was a piece of advice which really stuck with me, and that was to give an encounter an xp value, and then to award the players this regardless of how they went about achieving it.
It also focused on the encounter not being a "combat encounter" but a conflict of interests. You want to get across the bridge, and there are guards on the bridge who want to stop you. So I'd set the xp for the encounter as what they would get for killing the guards, and leave them to work out how they want to approach it - start a fire to draw the guards away? push the biggest guy in a wheelbarrow, set him on fire and have him shout about being the dread pirate roberts so they run away? fight their way through? bribe the guards? however they choose to do it, the act of getting over the bridge is worth the xp they would get if they just killed them. So they become less concerned with "killing = xp" and instead consider "success = xp", or even more preferable, "experience = xp". if they try and fail to get across the bridge, but did a good job of trying, they'll get some xp for it.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread - latest release; the Harvest Sprite, a playable Jack-o-Lantern Race!
Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: The College of Fisticuffs Bard!
I also dabble in art on here (my art thread)
Hold on. Are people using "partial levels" to mean literally "you have progressed X amount of the way towards the next level?"
This means absolutely nothing. Having 1/1000 XP is exactly the same as 999/1000. Nothing changes whatsoever. I ignored it because there are no rules for giving out partial levels and thought you were just adding some homebrew, but instead, people think it is something substantial?
And saying you don't hand out gold cause it is not enough to buy a castle? That is a ridiculously stupid argument. XP is not a resource available to the players, it is purely a means of keeping track of progression. Gold can be spent immediately or saved for a castle or whatever.
"I got 5000 XP."
"Did you level?"
"No."
"Then absolutely nothing has changed. You gained nothing."
You're making a lot of assumptions about my writing style that has nothing to do with any of the arguments I have made nor addresses any of the issues inherent within an XP system. I specifically mentioned that my party decides how they progress through the story, how can you possibly interpret that as me holding them back or charging them forward? I don't railroad my players like you seem to advocate for.
And talk about ignoring arguments. I ignored things that made no sense, you're ignoring substantive arguments.
I don't know how you can admit people don't have to follow RAW and yet are advocating for XP RAW, but then turn around and say just let the DM give out as much XP as they want. I can easily change how much XP is handed out, but why?
If I'm not following XP RAW, there is no reason not to switch to milestones at that point because you are effectively using milestones with extra work. You seem to be saying the XP system is fine as is, then why not give out exactly as much XP as the encounter tables and CR say it is worth? If you don't think it is fine as is then why argue so much in favor of it?
When WOTC says "it should take X amount of encounters to advance to the next level," why is that not taken as a guideline for new DMs considering every mention I have ever seen of it is always accompanied by wording expressing as much and often within beginner adventure modules?
Kotath, the biggest problem with all of your arguments is that they are issues with the DM, and have nothing at all to do with milestones. XP is a fine system for beginners or for those who prefer the familiarity of that specific progression mechanic, but it has its flaws which are not present within milestones, whereas the flaws in a milestone system are not solved in any way by an XP system.
In my campaigns, I have certain points that dictate when they reach a milestone. For example from one of my current groups:
So if they beat BBEG 1 then get sidetracked and do the story arc for a player and finally discover x info, getting to level 7 may take a long time. But then they have already done have of level 8 so it only took lie 4 sessions. This is why I love milestone. Sometimes sidequests get thrown in and they just add to the story. They are just a 1-2 session add on hat really doe not count towards leveling but add stuff they want to do. Do I have to sometimes rework the plan for milestone? Sure. BUt I try to always have a checklist for the next 2-3 levels with broad goals to progress the story.
You've derailed this conversation so much it needs to start over.
You claim milestones make it harder to manage levels.
How is a system where the players level when I am ready for them to level more difficult to manage than calculating XP through challenge ratings and encounter tables?
How does an XP system give me the freedom to design as many level 2 encounters as I feel is necessary to fit my story before they reach level 3? As many as I feel is necessary at any level before they reach the next?
My claim is that in a milestone system they are only level 20 when I want them to be level 20. You claim milestones will make them level 20 so fast it is as if you are running a "whirlwind campaign." My claim is supported by the fact that they don't level until I say so, you have given zero proof that your claim is substantiated.
Answer these questions without fallacies or attacking my character and intellect this time.
I intend to take a combined milestone & xp approach to leveling.
xp is granted for making it through an encounter, not for killing things, and is granted as if they killed the things (I make the assumption that killing the things would be the most difficult approach, so by avoiding it they would get as much xp).
I would also aim to level players up at milestones, typically at the beginning or end of a session to reduce downtime. If players were getting close to levelling up, I would tell them to start thinking about their next level to speed up the next session.
So I wouldn't be strict on the amount of xp needed between levels, IE if they were 50 short of the 2,000 they needed, I would level them up. but If they were 300 over, then I would level them up at a convenient time. I would also decide at the time if the completion of their goals would be worthy of leveling up, and do so based on how close they are through xp.
I wouldn't be telling the players how much xp they're getting, so leveling up would be entirely at my discretion - I would just track the xp myself to gauge whether a milestone lines up with their xp earnings.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread - latest release; the Harvest Sprite, a playable Jack-o-Lantern Race!
Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: The College of Fisticuffs Bard!
I also dabble in art on here (my art thread)
This is how I first converted to milestones more as a curiosity and personal record and it was interesting info but it was right at about level 7 I just stopped bothering to track the XP altogether.
Milestone levelling and the whole party gets it at the same time. That prevents any differences and doesn't punish players for missing a session because they had to work, or had a family issue that they had to deal with.
You didn't answer a single one of my questions and jumped straight into your fallacious arguments.
You are not an honest interlocutor.
You want to win an argument. I just want evidence and an explanation to support your claims.
You're not even arguing for XP RAW? Then you're just using milestones with extra steps.
And you still didn't answer my questions, but now I have more insight into why your arguments are so wildly inconsistent.
Where in any of my posts have I said the things in bold? This is why you are not honest. It is very telling that you keep responding to what you think my objections are when I am responding only to the things you say in this thread.
You have not answered my questions. You reply with things that don't have anything to do with my question. That is the problem.
My question:
Your response is to gripe about CR and encounter tables as if it has nothing to do with XP. You cared more about talking about how encounter tables and CR are a guideline, which I never said they weren't, and gave no attention whatsoever to the question of which of our systems is easier to manage.
If you were to actually answer this question, you assess the systems we each advocate for and determine which is easier.
My system:
Your system:
And all of the other steps I missed that go into XP calculation. (A very important caveat. Take away or add as many steps as you want to fit your system.)
Which of the above systems is easier? I'm not asking for why you think people need an XP progression system, I'm not asking for your critique of my writing style, I'm not asking for your interpretation of the rules.
You have expressed, to one degree or another, that the above reflects an approximation of your leveling system. Even if it isn't exact, it is close enough for the purpose of this question.
Even if your system is as simple as "It takes 15,000 XP to level, I have planned 10 encounters, so they get 1500 XP per encounter" is still adding more steps and doesn't answer the question of managing levels, cause my players get to attempt to do anything they want within the game, and that can lead to more or fewer encounters that I did not plan.
Which is easier?
Everything else you said is irrelevant.
These two statements from you contradict each other.