i know a lot of people think milesstones are better then XP. but i don't think so, the problem with milestones is that players dont always follow your path and thus your milestones are not used and then you need to check if your players ever did anything worth...

well i find a better system then that based on shadowrun karma system.
shadowrun uses XP in game as a bonus reward, but a reward the players can actually use to help boost their characters.

so heres how shadowrun works...

karma is used as a currency, a currency used to boost your character stats and gains new abilities.
every times a character finished a mission. he gains up to 5 karma points depending on the mission they did.
then each karma point can be used to buy levels in their stats. each levels of the said stats granted new abilities.

heres what i liked about that system...
1) the players had control over what they did with karma.
2) each players had different playstylesand karma made those playstyles availlable.
3) it gave players an incentive to actually try and make the mission as best they could and not start jokingly die for no reasons.

these is what are missing in D&D.
i really think this system could be updated for D&D and now that we are trying it with my friends on our campaign, we all like it.
so heres what you should know about the new XP system.

XP as a reward
- your quest should have different objectives to be achieved. Each objectives should be giving 1 XP per objectives, secret objectives can be a thing.
- There should be no higher then 5 XP per mission.
- Reward 1 XP per every thing the characters can do, that you think deserve advancement. exemple, shopping episode, award 1 xp if they actually use that time to get info about stuff they will use later in missions.
- Each XP awarded is awarded to all players.

XP as currency
- each players can use their XP as a currency and buy abilities of a class.
- each class can be bought, each levels cost their level in XP. level 1 cost 1 XP, level 2 cost 2XP, level 15 cost 15XP, etc...
- in order to buy a level, you need to have bought the previous level.

Now this system had concerns... players who thought they had found a way to abuse the system... until they realised it doens't break the system and i already knew about those.

Concerns about XP as Currency
Concern: players can mass buy 13 class with only 13 XP and be way ahead in damage and way ahead in life totals then a level 5 character who needs 14 XP to get there.
Answer: It doesn't matter, yes they can do more damage from cantrips and have much more life, but they are totally unfocused and they still need to get more XP to get more levels afterward.

Concern: Players wont be at the same levels and that is problematic for players and DM.
Answer: Not at all, players who are below the levels of others will not be so below that it wont be a problem. those who will be in front of others thanks to multi classing, will be able to make it up for those who are behind. also, if a player is so behind the others, it might be because he's hoarding the XP currency, which gives you a reason to talk to that player. overall, this won't be a problem at all.

Concern: The campaign will be going too fast and it will end too fast...
Answer:  Not at all, calculated from level 1 to 20, it takes 205 and if we divide that by 5, we get 41 weeks... so yes if you give out XP every single session, then yes, it will be faster...  but in reality most missions will take 2 or 3 sessions. thus in reality you can pump that number up to around 2 years to complete a campaign from level 1 to 20. now in my current game, we get barely anything from shopping episodes andplayers want time for themselves too. so no the game wont be going too fast. the one thing i propose though is that things will go too fast at lower levels. so what i suggest, is that at low levels you give 2 or 3 points instead of 5. aside from that, i think the system is sound and working.

Example of Party after 3 or 4 missions.
Player A: Rogue 4 / Barbarian 3                                                                       15 XP used              0 XP Left
Player B: Artificer 5                                                                                             14 XP used              1 XP Left
Player C: Paladin 5 / Sorcerer 1                                                                        14 XP used              1 XP Left
Player D: Rogue 3 / Fighter 2 / Sorcerer 1 / Cleric 2 / Warlock 2                15 XP used              0 XP Left

in the example above, you can see that one of the players tryed to be abusive. but if you take the time to think about it, they all have the same number of XP and they all have their own characters. the player who tryed to abuse is , in the end, not as much ahead as the others. though he is ahead in total levels and thus higher level then the others, the others have focus and are as useful as he is.

overall i really like this system, it gives the players a way to actually use XP the way they want and they can simply do their own stuff, without having to wonder when the next level comes up.

 

I think is an overcomplicated system to fix a problem that only exists if you want it to (milestones are specifically designed to follow the path and are incredibly easy to hand out even for the most overworked of dm´s) 

Otherwise this is a great  system (at least better then current xp) but i just dont think it´s needed and takes the problem you have and exasperates beyond disrepair,

Whilst this system is intricate, it doesn't really offer any decent guidance.

"Reward 1 XP per every thing the characters can do, that you think deserve advancement. example, shopping episode, award 1 xp if they actually use that time to get info about stuff they will use later in missions."

This boils down, then, to the DM deciding when the players gain XP. That seems a lot like milestone XP to me, in the current system. Although yours does have the novelty of being able to multiclass faster than focussed class.

In the current system, a level 10 fighter is about equal to a level 5/5 Fighter/druid (for a random example). However, one cost 55XP to get and the other cost 30XP, so multiclassing is clearly superior when it comes to gaining power, and players dedicating themselves to a role are penalized by the system.

To get to level 20, with 1 class costs 210XP. To get to level 20 on 2 classes costs 110XP. To get there over 13 classes costs 27XP. One character could be level 20 by the time another is only level 6. That means that level 20 player might have 4x the HP as the level 6 player. One of them will find encounters a struggle, and the other might find them trivial.

When can a player spend XP? If a player is running out of health, can they suddenly pop 1XP to take 1 level in barbarian, gain 1d12 HP and the ability to rage, mid combat?

 

Quote from zenlos_the_doctor >>

I think is an overcomplicated system to fix a problem that only exists if you want it to (milestones are specifically designed to follow the path and are incredibly easy to hand out even for the most overworked of dm´s) 

Otherwise this is a great  system (at least better then current xp) but i just dont think it´s needed and takes the problem you have and exasperates beyond disrepair,

 milestones isn't easy... how often do you have to "randomly" set a new level up because your players have been going 6 sessions in a row without leaving the city ?
the problem you are not seeing, is that milestone works for those who prioritise story with players who wholeheartedly go into that story. if your players are like that, fine by you... go on... but my players can pass 4 to 6 sessions just going elsewhere then the story. they like exploration. they like the freedom of not following a pre made story. i have sen them not stop a villain thinking they had time and just forgot about him later on.

the other problem i have with milestones, is that players don't see the actual advancement.
players are much more focused and much more into it if they can see the advancement.
advancing a story doesn't mean they will get more levels. to them... leveling is advancement...
so when you take, say the premade adventures which can make you go 3 to 4 fightswithout XP and entire 3 floors of a dungeon without you getting any advancement in levels...
those players ends up not liking it and ends up wondering how many years its gonna take them to go from 1 to 20. and the answer is... if i give you a level every 5 or 6 sessions then the players see that its gonna take them more then 3 years ! there is no players who wants to go 3 years into a campaign they might just be not following all day long.

players are much more involved when they can count their level up. so try it, put it back into their hands.

you say its complicated...
whats complicated in making XP a currency...
its literally just a number. just like cash... cash and gold pieces aren'T hard to grasp.

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

Whilst this system is intricate, it doesn't really offer any decent guidance.

"Reward 1 XP per every thing the characters can do, that you think deserve advancement. example, shopping episode, award 1 xp if they actually use that time to get info about stuff they will use later in missions."

This boils down, then, to the DM deciding when the players gain XP. That seems a lot like milestone XP to me, in the current system. Although yours does have the novelty of being able to multiclass faster than focussed class.

In the current system, a level 10 fighter is about equal to a level 5/5 Fighter/druid (for a random example). However, one cost 55XP to get and the other cost 30XP, so multiclassing is clearly superior when it comes to gaining power, and players dedicating themselves to a role are penalized by the system.

To get to level 20, with 1 class costs 210XP. To get to level 20 on 2 classes costs 110XP. To get there over 13 classes costs 27XP. One character could be level 20 by the time another is only level 6. That means that level 20 player might have 4x the HP as the level 6 player. One of them will find encounters a struggle, and the other might find them trivial.

When can a player spend XP? If a player is running out of health, can they suddenly pop 1XP to take 1 level in barbarian, gain 1d12 HP and the ability to rage, mid combat?

 

 the goal is not to be like milestones, but to give "PLAYERS" the advancement they are seeking, they now have a way to follow. its not just "let's wait for the DM to advance us" it puts back the deal onto the players, the players now have a control over it. they now know that the DM after the mission is gonna award them the XP. and once that is done... they are the ones choosing what they do with it, not the DM.

the one thing players love is to have the choice of doing what "THEY" want, not what the "DM" wants.
this system gives them what they want, control of their level ups. something they dont have with milestones... with milesstones, only the DM know when they will level up. the players have no sense of advancement as they are only "waiting" for the DM to decide. in this system, that is not true. they know they'll get something afeter the job, they know it might be more if they do more. something milestones don't do at all.

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

Whilst this system is intricate, it doesn't really offer any decent guidance.

"Reward 1 XP per every thing the characters can do, that you think deserve advancement. example, shopping episode, award 1 xp if they actually use that time to get info about stuff they will use later in missions."

This boils down, then, to the DM deciding when the players gain XP. That seems a lot like milestone XP to me, in the current system. Although yours does have the novelty of being able to multiclass faster than focussed class.

In the current system, a level 10 fighter is about equal to a level 5/5 Fighter/druid (for a random example). However, one cost 55XP to get and the other cost 30XP, so multiclassing is clearly superior when it comes to gaining power, and players dedicating themselves to a role are penalized by the system.

To get to level 20, with 1 class costs 210XP. To get to level 20 on 2 classes costs 110XP. To get there over 13 classes costs 27XP. One character could be level 20 by the time another is only level 6. That means that level 20 player might have 4x the HP as the level 6 player. One of them will find encounters a struggle, and the other might find them trivial.

When can a player spend XP? If a player is running out of health, can they suddenly pop 1XP to take 1 level in barbarian, gain 1d12 HP and the ability to rage, mid combat?

 

 the goal is not to be like milestones, but to give "PLAYERS" the advancement they are seeking, they now have a way to follow. its not just "let's wait for the DM to advance us" it puts back the deal onto the players, the players now have a control over it. they now know that the DM after the mission is gonna award them the XP. and once that is done... they are the ones choosing what they do with it, not the DM.

the one thing players love is to have the choice of doing what "THEY" want, not what the "DM" wants.
this system gives them what they want, control of their level ups. something they dont have with milestones... with milesstones, only the DM know when they will level up. the players have no sense of advancement as they are only "waiting" for the DM to decide. in this system, that is not true. they know they'll get something afeter the job, they know it might be more if they do more. something milestones don't do at all.

 but thats already how xp and milestones work

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

Quote from zenlos_the_doctor >>

I think is an overcomplicated system to fix a problem that only exists if you want it to (milestones are specifically designed to follow the path and are incredibly easy to hand out even for the most overworked of dm´s) 

Otherwise this is a great  system (at least better then current xp) but i just dont think it´s needed and takes the problem you have and exasperates beyond disrepair,

 milestones isn't easy... how often do you have to "randomly" set a new level up because your players have been going 6 sessions in a row without leaving the city ?
the problem you are not seeing, is that milestone works for those who prioritise story with players who wholeheartedly go into that story. if your players are like that, fine by you... go on... but my players can pass 4 to 6 sessions just going elsewhere then the story. they like exploration. they like the freedom of not following a pre made story. i have sen them not stop a villain thinking they had time and just forgot about him later on.

the other problem i have with milestones, is that players don't see the actual advancement.
players are much more focused and much more into it if they can see the advancement.
advancing a story doesn't mean they will get more levels. to them... leveling is advancement...
so when you take, say the premade adventures which can make you go 3 to 4 fightswithout XP and entire 3 floors of a dungeon without you getting any advancement in levels...
those players ends up not liking it and ends up wondering how many years its gonna take them to go from 1 to 20. and the answer is... if i give you a level every 5 or 6 sessions then the players see that its gonna take them more then 3 years ! there is no players who wants to go 3 years into a campaign they might just be not following all day long.

players are much more involved when they can count their level up. so try it, put it back into their hands.

you say its complicated...
whats complicated in making XP a currency...
its literally just a number. just like cash... cash and gold pieces aren'T hard to grasp.

 but this works identically in that manner 

Nice share buddy,
It's really help a newbie like me.
now, i realize XP is worth to grind also.

Quote from zenlos_the_doctor >>

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

Quote from zenlos_the_doctor >>

I think is an overcomplicated system to fix a problem that only exists if you want it to (milestones are specifically designed to follow the path and are incredibly easy to hand out even for the most overworked of dm´s) 

Otherwise this is a great  system (at least better then current xp) but i just dont think it´s needed and takes the problem you have and exasperates beyond disrepair,

 milestones isn't easy... how often do you have to "randomly" set a new level up because your players have been going 6 sessions in a row without leaving the city ?
the problem you are not seeing, is that milestone works for those who prioritise story with players who wholeheartedly go into that story. if your players are like that, fine by you... go on... but my players can pass 4 to 6 sessions just going elsewhere then the story. they like exploration. they like the freedom of not following a pre made story. i have sen them not stop a villain thinking they had time and just forgot about him later on.

the other problem i have with milestones, is that players don't see the actual advancement.
players are much more focused and much more into it if they can see the advancement.
advancing a story doesn't mean they will get more levels. to them... leveling is advancement...
so when you take, say the premade adventures which can make you go 3 to 4 fightswithout XP and entire 3 floors of a dungeon without you getting any advancement in levels...
those players ends up not liking it and ends up wondering how many years its gonna take them to go from 1 to 20. and the answer is... if i give you a level every 5 or 6 sessions then the players see that its gonna take them more then 3 years ! there is no players who wants to go 3 years into a campaign they might just be not following all day long.

players are much more involved when they can count their level up. so try it, put it back into their hands.

you say its complicated...
whats complicated in making XP a currency...
its literally just a number. just like cash... cash and gold pieces aren'T hard to grasp.

 but this works identically in that manner 

 if you think its the same...
its really not... but your call...

XP = linear system that players have no medling with, entirely the DM choice...
Milestone = Linear system, players cannot even meddle with it.

my system = non-linear system the players control.

but yeah its the same...
if you are not interested in it, i understand it... but up to this point compared to milestones and XP... my players likes this much more.

Milestone is only a linear system if you wish to be 

your system is still dm controlled the player controlled part is barely more complicated then what already exists and still provides almost no player agency 

I still have some concerns with your ideas (which I hope will help drive this to work out well, I'm not just trying to pick holes in it!)

1: when can the players spend their XP? This will probably be the largest impact on the game. I would personally allow it either at a long rest, or only between sessions. The potential issue I have with it isn't that it will make players unbalanced ( they all had the opportunity to do the same) but that it will make the encounters unbalanced. IF I were the DM and had planned the session with a BBEG at the end, I would not want to have to suddenly amend the difficulty on the fly because 2 of the players just jumped 3 levels before they got there in order to become more powerful.

2: Are the levels mediated in any way? Buying your upgrades works in videogames because the difficulty ramps up as you should be spending it, and as such if you neglect to do so, you start losing more and more often. DnD is generally balanced based on player levels, which means that if a level 3 party sits on their XP, then they might be able to level up to level 10 in one hit, all of a sudden, all whilst not facing any more powerful enemies. Limiting the levels gained to one per long rest would be a useful option.

3: Whilst the utility of levelling up will not lead to too much imbalance between a focused player and one trying to get all the levels, the HP difference will become an issue quickly. In your above example, one player is level 5 and another is level 10. One of them has effectively twice the health of the other, has more hit dice to heal with, and is largely not a tanky character (rogue, sorcerer & warlock levels). So the player with the most HP is also the one who doesn't want to be taking all the hits. It's going to be difficult for a DM to make balanced encounters for this. An option is to disassociate HP from levels. Make the extra HP a separate thing to buy afterwards, for the same cost as the level - EG, level 3 barbarian costs 3xp, and to then get the HP for it costs 3XP as well. This would also let the players have the agency to decide between more HP or more abilities. Leveling up as fast as possible would become less of an appealing temptation. double the XP you're dishing out and the cost remains the same, but the agency increases. Encounters would have to consider levels without the HP to be half-levels.

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

I still have some concerns with your ideas (which I hope will help drive this to work out well, I'm not just trying to pick holes in it!)

1: when can the players spend their XP? This will probably be the largest impact on the game. I would personally allow it either at a long rest, or only between sessions. The potential issue I have with it isn't that it will make players unbalanced ( they all had the opportunity to do the same) but that it will make the encounters unbalanced. IF I were the DM and had planned the session with a BBEG at the end, I would not want to have to suddenly amend the difficulty on the fly because 2 of the players just jumped 3 levels before they got there in order to become more powerful.

2: Are the levels mediated in any way? Buying your upgrades works in videogames because the difficulty ramps up as you should be spending it, and as such if you neglect to do so, you start losing more and more often. DnD is generally balanced based on player levels, which means that if a level 3 party sits on their XP, then they might be able to level up to level 10 in one hit, all of a sudden, all whilst not facing any more powerful enemies. Limiting the levels gained to one per long rest would be a useful option.

3: Whilst the utility of levelling up will not lead to too much imbalance between a focused player and one trying to get all the levels, the HP difference will become an issue quickly. In your above example, one player is level 5 and another is level 10. One of them has effectively twice the health of the other, has more hit dice to heal with, and is largely not a tanky character (rogue, sorcerer & warlock levels). So the player with the most HP is also the one who doesn't want to be taking all the hits. It's going to be difficult for a DM to make balanced encounters for this. An option is to disassociate HP from levels. Make the extra HP a separate thing to buy afterwards, for the same cost as the level - EG, level 3 barbarian costs 3xp, and to then get the HP for it costs 3XP as well. This would also let the players have the agency to decide between more HP or more abilities. Leveling up as fast as possible would become less of an appealing temptation. double the XP you're dishing out and the cost remains the same, but the agency increases. Encounters would have to consider levels without the HP to be half-levels.

 1) i've always let them take the levels after a long rest only. that never changed in 20 years of playing in my groups...

2) my world is not static, if you think a game should be static like video games are, then i feel like you are probably too much into linear stories and not enough into player driven stories. my stories are all player driven stories, i don't have bbegs that can die half the game in. if anything, most of my bbegs are already level 15+ from theget go. if anything if the players gets in the bbeg ways too fast, they are the ones in troubles., not the bbeg. there is one thing i always say to my players right from the get go... "there are things in this world, that aremuch more powerfull then you are. if you play as if you were an unkillable hero who must always win... you'll become just an anonymous sidenote of history." happenned often that players thought i was messing with them... fighting an ancient dragon at level 2 or 3 has hapenned often. because players thought... there is no way the dm will let us die that easily... and when they happen, i kill one of them as an exemple.. and after that guy realise i wasn't joking... everything goes fine afterward. as the dragon gives them a mission he needs people to do for him. but no... i don't balance for my players... never do, thats a waste of time. my time is better spent on a story for those players then it is to make sure they get out of the dungeon alive. Thats not my job, thats theirs as players.

3) balance is a fairy tale ! how often do a simple bandit encounter ended up killing players while a beholder was killed in one single turn because of a bad die roll from either the players or the DM. balancing is a fairy tale, nobody can truly balance anything... the HP problem you are speaking of, isn't a problem... sure thatplayer can live out longer, but thats his advantage on others... but you have to remember what he gave away to get that many HP. the player has next to no real big spells, the player has next to no utility to others who have bigger and better abilities. he often needs to be helped by others to get something. that player in fact is starting to regret having tryed what he tryed but now is forced to play with that one. not that he dislike the character. he likes him enough to continu playing it. but now he's not gonna add anymore levels. and now he's way behind while the others are getting back to him. sure, one player could wait on their levels... actually hapenned a few times up to this point... but its next to impossible to break 5e. those players who keeps their point and hoards them... they are voluntarily keeping weak for sake of what ? a surprise attack on the bad guys ? to that i will answer... what surprise attack ? the story goes forward, may they keep their stuff or not. this is not a video game, the world around them lives... they are not the only ones getting levels  or just living by making missions.

hope this answered all your concerns, but reality is... all of those concerns, while a thing because people want balance and a game that works like video games... d&d is not a video game. if your world waits for your players then you are doing something wrong. this is why i have a beef with premade adventures... they are built like video games... and players don't have anything to do with the adventure. as the adventure is not design for them. its designed for players to get the adventure the book wants them to have, not what the player wants.

food for thought...
why create a background to your character if you are playing a premade that do not care for your background ?
in the end, the DM must add stuff to the adventure anyway to compensate and make the player feel like their chosen background has something to do with their adventures.

Okay, this has left me with more questions (sorry!)

Quote from DnDPaladin>>

2) my world is not static, if you think a game should be static like video games are, then i feel like you are probably too much into linear stories and not enough into player driven stories. my stories are all player driven stories, i don't have bbegs that can die half the game in. if anything, most of my bbegs are already level 15+ from theget go. if anything if the players gets in the bbeg ways too fast, they are the ones in troubles., not the bbeg. there is one thing i always say to my players right from the get go... "there are things in this world, that aremuch more powerfull then you are. if you play as if you were an unkillable hero who must always win... you'll become just an anonymous sidenote of history." happenned often that players thought i was messing with them... fighting an ancient dragon at level 2 or 3 has hapenned often. because players thought... there is no way the dm will let us die that easily... and when they happen, i kill one of them as an exemple.. and after that guy realise i wasn't joking... everything goes fine afterward. as the dragon gives them a mission he needs people to do for him. but no... i don't balance for my players... never do, thats a waste of time. my time is better spent on a story for those players then it is to make sure they get out of the dungeon alive. Thats not my job, thats theirs as players.

 

So you never plan the encounters based on their level? BBEG's and ancient dragons aside, if they go to do a dungeon, how do you make sure the encounters are challenging enough to be fun but not impossibly difficult, currently?

With the proposed system vs the current one, the DM currently has an advantage in their planning that they know what the party's level is going to be when they're planning for a session, which this new one takes away. As DM, I would feel like my time was wasted if I made some cool encounters which were meant to be challenging, and the players all decided to take a long rest and level up twice before setting off. Suddenly it's 5 level 7 players instead of 5 level 5 players, and my encounter has gone from interesting to irrelevant. You can't be expected to plan for every combination of levels that the players could buy. A player who has been stoically saving XP to level up from level 12 to 13 might find, with 12XP, that they have seen a cool combo and decide to take 4 levels in another class, and suddenly all your encounters need to be changed.

 

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

3) balance is a fairy tale ! how often do a simple bandit encounter ended up killing players while a beholder was killed in one single turn because of a bad die roll from either the players or the DM. balancing is a fairy tale, nobody can truly balance anything... the HP problem you are speaking of, isn't a problem... sure thatplayer can live out longer, but thats his advantage on others... but you have to remember what he gave away to get that many HP. the player has next to no real big spells, the player has next to no utility to others who have bigger and better abilities. he often needs to be helped by others to get something. that player in fact is starting to regret having tryed what he tryed but now is forced to play with that one. not that he dislike the character. he likes him enough to continu playing it. but now he's not gonna add anymore levels. and now he's way behind while the others are getting back to him. sure, one player could wait on their levels... actually hapenned a few times up to this point... but its next to impossible to break 5e. those players who keeps their point and hoards them... they are voluntarily keeping weak for sake of what ? a surprise attack on the bad guys ? to that i will answer... what surprise attack ? the story goes forward, may they keep their stuff or not. this is not a video game, the world around them lives... they are not the only ones getting levels  or just living by making missions.

 
It's true that luck plays a big part, but you can't say that having one player with twice the health and levels as another will have no impact! And it is also worth remembering that some classes are balanced by having lower hit dice than others, in exchange for higher damage output or utility. With your system, a wizard could have the highest HP in a party of barbarians and fighters. In fact, unless they were dead set on making it to level 20 as a wizard, most wizards would probably take 2 levels in barbarian or a d10hp class for 3xp just for the HP boost, because getting level 1 in your system has a trivial cost.

I'm also curious as to whether you will limit them to 20 levels as before. If so, then the multiclass players might get bored once they've advanced all the way with 2 classes and the other players are only at level 14, with 105xp left to get them to level 20. That's 21 missions minimum at a maximum of 5xp per mission, in which the multiclass player will not advance at all. Meanwhile, the mono-class players will become fed up of seeing the other players gain power faster than them, even if it is down to their own choice. Delimiting it to lmaximum level 20 in any single class would keep the multiclasser interested, but would then see them becoming even more powerful - with 210XP (enough to get to level 20), you could get to level 5 in every class, and be level 6 in 2 classes, and be a total level of 67!

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

Okay, this has left me with more questions (sorry!)

Quote from DnDPaladin>>

2) my world is not static, if you think a game should be static like video games are, then i feel like you are probably too much into linear stories and not enough into player driven stories. my stories are all player driven stories, i don't have bbegs that can die half the game in. if anything, most of my bbegs are already level 15+ from theget go. if anything if the players gets in the bbeg ways too fast, they are the ones in troubles., not the bbeg. there is one thing i always say to my players right from the get go... "there are things in this world, that aremuch more powerfull then you are. if you play as if you were an unkillable hero who must always win... you'll become just an anonymous sidenote of history." happenned often that players thought i was messing with them... fighting an ancient dragon at level 2 or 3 has hapenned often. because players thought... there is no way the dm will let us die that easily... and when they happen, i kill one of them as an exemple.. and after that guy realise i wasn't joking... everything goes fine afterward. as the dragon gives them a mission he needs people to do for him. but no... i don't balance for my players... never do, thats a waste of time. my time is better spent on a story for those players then it is to make sure they get out of the dungeon alive. Thats not my job, thats theirs as players.

 

So you never plan the encounters based on their level? BBEG's and ancient dragons aside, if they go to do a dungeon, how do you make sure the encounters are challenging enough to be fun but not impossibly difficult, currently?

With the proposed system vs the current one, the DM currently has an advantage in their planning that they know what the party's level is going to be when they're planning for a session, which this new one takes away. As DM, I would feel like my time was wasted if I made some cool encounters which were meant to be challenging, and the players all decided to take a long rest and level up twice before setting off. Suddenly it's 5 level 7 players instead of 5 level 5 players, and my encounter has gone from interesting to irrelevant. You can't be expected to plan for every combination of levels that the players could buy. A player who has been stoically saving XP to level up from level 12 to 13 might find, with 12XP, that they have seen a cool combo and decide to take 4 levels in another class, and suddenly all your encounters need to be changed.

 

Quote from DnDPaladin >>

3) balance is a fairy tale ! how often do a simple bandit encounter ended up killing players while a beholder was killed in one single turn because of a bad die roll from either the players or the DM. balancing is a fairy tale, nobody can truly balance anything... the HP problem you are speaking of, isn't a problem... sure thatplayer can live out longer, but thats his advantage on others... but you have to remember what he gave away to get that many HP. the player has next to no real big spells, the player has next to no utility to others who have bigger and better abilities. he often needs to be helped by others to get something. that player in fact is starting to regret having tryed what he tryed but now is forced to play with that one. not that he dislike the character. he likes him enough to continu playing it. but now he's not gonna add anymore levels. and now he's way behind while the others are getting back to him. sure, one player could wait on their levels... actually hapenned a few times up to this point... but its next to impossible to break 5e. those players who keeps their point and hoards them... they are voluntarily keeping weak for sake of what ? a surprise attack on the bad guys ? to that i will answer... what surprise attack ? the story goes forward, may they keep their stuff or not. this is not a video game, the world around them lives... they are not the only ones getting levels  or just living by making missions.

 
It's true that luck plays a big part, but you can't say that having one player with twice the health and levels as another will have no impact! And it is also worth remembering that some classes are balanced by having lower hit dice than others, in exchange for higher damage output or utility. With your system, a wizard could have the highest HP in a party of barbarians and fighters. In fact, unless they were dead set on making it to level 20 as a wizard, most wizards would probably take 2 levels in barbarian or a d10hp class for 3xp just for the HP boost, because getting level 1 in your system has a trivial cost.

I'm also curious as to whether you will limit them to 20 levels as before. If so, then the multiclass players might get bored once they've advanced all the way with 2 classes and the other players are only at level 14, with 105xp left to get them to level 20. That's 21 missions minimum at a maximum of 5xp per mission, in which the multiclass player will not advance at all. Meanwhile, the mono-class players will become fed up of seeing the other players gain power faster than them, even if it is down to their own choice. Delimiting it to lmaximum level 20 in any single class would keep the multiclasser interested, but would then see them becoming even more powerful - with 210XP (enough to get to level 20), you could get to level 5 in every class, and be level 6 in 2 classes, and be a total level of 67!

 first off, you never plan for rest either ?
you say you plan adventures but your players deciding on resting is something you do not take into account ?
just saying, if you have planned that much about your encounters, then clearly you know when your players will be out of ressources... because no... they don't go to a boss and then think... we should level up first. that's meta gaming and shouldn't be encouraged at the table. your goal as a DM is to reduce their ressources before going into a final battle with boss. because otherwise the fight won't be balanced at all. now if your players always give time for your boss to go on ahead because they want their long rest. its their choices. but my final boss won't be waiting for them. even more if he knows they are coming for his head. he will act first if they give him a  chance to do so. again, this is not a video game where players can just rest and get back everything just before a boss fight...the boss is not a static person who just waits patiently for players to come at him and then start a big monologue. in fact if you ever start a big monologue, chances are thatyour player will try to gain advantage by just wrecking him in the middle of it. thats the point of a living world... your world shouldn'T be waiting on your players. the choices of your players matters. deciding to take a long rest to gain those two levels is such a decision. but it should never be trivial to let them do that without the boss or whatever adventure they are trying to do go forward in time. example...my players want to take a short rest in front of the boss room. they set up camp, they try to rest... roll random encounter 4 times, once every 15 minutes... they get attacked by guards passing through. that alerts the boss that something is amiss in front of his room. he comes to check, joins the fight. players are now stuck fighting the boss and the minions as well... why ? because they decided to be easy target in front of the bosses room. gave them a  chance. one roll was bad and got a random encounter. the players feels a bit stupid for thinking the world was static. but now they know they know not to do that.

its literally a choice of the players, their choices should always matters.
i'm not the one telling them, take a long rest... but i am the one telling them, by the rules, long rest are once every 24 hours... you took one 5 hours ago right before you entered the dungeon. now if they do take a long rest, there is a chance theboss won't be there when they wake up. after all... they just spent 8 hours sleeping. the boss either did the same and will be at full health and spells as well, or he will be gone because he didn't sleep and worked his ass toward his goal too. so again, even if they do take the long rest, its not gonna be that trivial. you also think challenge means "balanced" there is no baalnce... as i said anythign , literally anything can unbalance that fight, from your magical items you gavce, to the players using a non-orthodox strategy you hadn't thought of. the challenge can go either way because of numerous factors... so again why would you even consider the problem whe the problem will be there anyway.

the encounters do not need to be changed...
levels do not work by total levels, but by abilities...
you see you seem to think we have to design for a certain levelin head. but thats totally false, we design based on what abilities they have at that level.
you know a level 9 wizard has access to banishment which is a level 4 spell. you know at level 5 they have dominate person. you designed for that... if they suddently decided that instea dof being level 9 wizard, they were going for 3 levels of sorcerer and 1 level of fighter. they just made a choice. a choice that literally makes our combatmuch easier cause now they dont have accessto the spells we thought they had access to. the spells they now have access to, are much less potent then the higher level spells and your development was already taking account of the lower levels abilities. so it doesn't change a thing.

let me be clear...
Your the DM, your objective is for players to have fun, not make awesome encounters that should be balanced to the very hit point.
your job as a DM is to make the encounters, not to solve them...
the job of a player is to stay alive and solve your encounters.
so instead of focusing on making the encounters the top notch really awesomely balanced encounter you can... you could take your time and design numerous encounters and just watch the players solve them. you'd be surprised by everything that will happen... yup sometimes, your beholder boss will die after seeing hypnotic pattern from the paladin on the very first turn without the beholder having done anything at all.... other times, your players will capsize the ship before you have time to explain the naval mechanics. but sometimes your fights will be more epic then you can imagine. thats how i let the die decides. and yes... i have seen players wreck monsters that were 10 levels above them with ease. no ammount of planification would have seen that one coming...



yes, they are limited to 20.
again, its their choice if they wanted to level up faster to 20 and be multiclassed in 10 different classes....
but again, you have to realise that in order to level up to that point, that fast... they had to lose many things.
still its their choices, thats the whole point of that mechanic... its their choice. not mine.
that's why my player loves this mechanic, they feel like its not just a game of wait and choose. they now have the choice of using it or not, they know which objectives will get them XP. so they know they need to do objectives. which in turn is a great incentive for players to actually do your quest. if we take the milestone system... the players go into your dungeon and expect to level up... to their sadness, they have just gone 3 levels into your dungeon and still haven't gotten any level up in sight. now they are wondering when will they gain thatlevel up so they can gain that awesome multi attack they want so badly. in my version, you gave them objectives... those objectives they know will gain them XP. thus they are seeing that progress and won't be sad, because they seethe progress and they know how much they still need to get that multi attack.

now if a player decided to jump ahead and be level 20 before everyone else... its their choice. i won't get that out of them. but again... what did they lose to get there ? other players are still getting stronger and stronger while they aren't... and its not like they are carrying the team at that point... my monsters can still kill them if they aren'T carefull. as i said, one of my player was attempting exactly what you are describing... after 4 levels of classes he decided to stop, it wasn't worth it. you gotta understand why he came to that conclusion... he came to that consclusion cause he was seeing people having level 3 spells like haste and counter spell or even dispel magic, even if he is 4 to 5 levels forward to them, he still doesn't have access to those spells. none of his classes have reached level 5. yes he gains abilities, but he realised those abilities wouldn't make him stronger once he will get to fight higher CR monsters.

but all that doesn't matter cause the goal is to give players incentives to actually explore and do quest. gold and other rewards are useless if they are not best in slot gears. experience has a direct correlation to their power so that is one good reward they want. but not seeing the advancement of the milestone system is what makes the system bad. go ahead, run forge of fury for your players... see for yourself how often they expect to gain levels in it. based on whatpeople say... they should gain 2 levels only... but man look how many monsters there is in there... there is no way players do not expect to level up faster then 2 levels in that whole dungeon. after 5 sessions... my players hadn't level up and one finally said... after all we have done we still don't get a level ?!! they hadn't even cleared 3 floors out of 5 yet. and thats what is expected to gain a level. they hadn't even touched the quest givers yet either..

so no... it doesn't matter and if the player gets to level 20 before others... it will have been his choice, not mine... so if he feels bored after that... well that was his choice not mine.

all i can say at that point is... try it... see for yourself... none of your players will do half of what you expect them to do with it.

 

that said... my biggest problem right now, from what my players are telling me... is that level up is fast at first and gets very slow later on... to that i'm telling them, well i should be giving more objectives at later levels then. that should compensate.

I'll avoid quotes so it doesn't bloat the post too much!

Regarding Rests. Accounting for a rest for the players to recover their abilities is one thing, but having to account for the players not only resting but also spending a hoard of XP which they had been sitting on to suddenly jump a load of levels is quite another. You mention them gaining access to Banishment and having to plan for that, but you face a situation where any player could, at any long rest, suddenly have access to important spells like this which you need to plan around. I would not like having a dungeon + BBEG planned out to be a decent match for the PC's ("balance" aside, there's a difference between a bandit captain and a lich, after all!) and then, just before they go in, they all sit down for 8 hours and level up, gaining spells which will render the entire dungeon trivial because there's no way to plan a dungeon to both present a challenge to such things and also not be impossible if they don't level up. I think I would struggle to DM a game where every long rest is a gamble as to whether I would be needing to rewrite the adventure so it isn't a boring session of smiting enemies into oblivion and then banishing the boss in one turn.

This could be fixed by only allowing them to gain 1 level per long rest. If you change your mind and want 3 levels of fighter? Then it'll take you 3 long rests to get there, you can't learn all that (literally) overnight!

 

I agree that your job as DM is to make a fun game, but remember that what constitutes an interesting challenge depends on the DMs knowledge of what the PC's can actually do. In a low level dungeon, I might put some sort of puzzle/trap room in which they need to lower a bridge to get to the other side of a ravine. This is a real problem at low level, but as soon as a player can fly or teleport across, it becomes trivial - Whilst the player might enjoy showing off their ability, if I set a dungeon in "the shattered mountain", where sections of dungeon have split and pulled apart, and there are regular "how do you get across" scenarios, it will get dull if they just say "I teleport over" for every one. In the current system, the DM knows when the players will level up, and can check what they are likely to gain access to when they do so. With the proposed system, that level up could happen at any time, right after you've spent hours prepping a dungeon which will challenge them, but oh wait - now they're much more powerful, with more utility abilities to get them through without breaking a sweat. I stand by that this could cause issues for the DM to keep things challenging without a lot of extra work.

In so far as combat is concerned, it is also about the quests being relevant to the party's capabilities. You wouldn't ask the god-tier party of level 19-20's to clear out a bandit den, because they are busy saving the city from several enraged ancient dragons at once. So you ask the guys who look like they know how to swing a sword and do some magic to take a look instead. Whilst I am avoiding comparing DnD to a video game (which it ain't), have you ever played one where you forget a side quest and then go back to it now you're umpteen levels higher? the enemies die if you look at them, and the quest is quick and boring. Now imagine being the DM who poured their heart into designing this to be a challenge, and the party arriving several levels higher than anticipated.

I can see how giving the players information on where they gain XP would help to make them more focused and stop them from wondering and worrying whether they are getting anywhere. What do you do if the objectives fail? The players fight their way through the dungeon to kill the bad guy, and the bad guy escapes? Does the dungeon fight count for nothing? do you award an XP for performing the task as best they could?

 

"if he feels bored after that, that was his choice not mine" is not a solution. That's like someone saying "I'm being attacked by a bear, what do I do?" and getting the reply "You shouldn't have gone near the bear". Whilst true, it offers less than no help to the situation at hand. Having one player bored is going to make the game suck, as a minimum for them but potentially also for other people. Then the DM will feel they need to offer this player something to keep them interested, and then other players might feel left out by that, and the game will start to feel unfair.

It is generally considered that, not long after the characters make it to level 20, it's time to wrap the campaign up and start thinking about a new one. One player getting to that stage when the others are only halfway is going to present a conundrum - you can't retire their character and then ask them to make another without imposing extra rules, as they could just make another level 20 character with that XP, and you're back where you started.

 

 

I think that your players comments about leveling being fast at first and slower thereafter are valid. Whilst the XP thresholds for leveling get further apart in the RAW leveling method, the XP gained from defeating monsters that you should be fighting goes up as well, so whilst it does slow down, you don't get the exponential growth you are dealing with in your system. Perhaps you could adapt to this by making the XP caps for missions increase with increasing difficulty? It seems odd that a mission to kill some bandits would have the same 5XP cap as one to defeat a Beholder in his lair, even if it should be of comparable difficulty for the party at their level. Alternatively you could base the XP gained on how difficult it seemed - perhaps making a complex formula around the damage dealt each way, the number of incapacitations and deaths, etc. - and base the XP gained off that. Thus leveling up ahead of a pre-planned boss will mean that mission deals less XP than if they hadn't done so. Or just eyeball it as a DM. I would dish out less Xp in this system if the BBEG is trivially banished, because the Characters won't have learnt much except that their spell is good at getting rid of things.

Regarding Rests....

you'd have to try it for yourself at that point, so you could see what i mean by players never do that at all.
keeping XP stacked in order to suddently buy up levels to outmatch an encounter or a bbeg is something that never occurs. we've been playing that rule since the beginning of march and this has never ever hapenned. it also cannot happen at higher levels... because at higher levels it takes a lot more points to get levels. and if you are hoping to outmatch a lich with a bunch of level 1 to 3 abilities... i think you need to reread the lich... it can literally render any of these abilities, useless. so as the levels goes up, the XP needed is going up too. so your scenario really can only happen at low levels. and its normal for people to set up their characters at low levels.

but again, try it... see for yourself.
at this point after months of playing that game... none of this ever hapenned .
the only problem i saw was from myself mkaing this scenario a truth, and that was by giving them 5 points after mission 0. which brought them from 1 to 3. right away. then next 5 points on mission 1, gave them level 4. thats the only mistake i did. wasn't my player doing that, it was me by giving them too much XP to begin with. but at this point they are gaining about 3-5 points every 3 or 4 sessions and at that time, if it continues that way... it'll take them 5 years to get to level 20.

... remember that what constitutes an interesting challenge...

that whole paragraph is entirely dependant on your players not on their characters level.
the problem lies in what "Each" players consider a challenge. to many people the only challenge they can get is in combat. others would preffer traps. others would preffer role playing acts. in each cases, the one who preffer combats, will not like traps. and so on, there is never a time where all players liked a challenge at the same time of another. because each players are different. now there is a thing about traps... after level 9 traps a re much much much less effective. and so its not uncommon for any DM to just not use traps anymore. the same about anything really... thats why most people don't get to play at high levels. thats also why most adventures stops at level 15.

again, try it. i understand your concerns, but i can guarantee you, they have no reason to be. up to this point... my stories and events haven't been affected by the leveling process at all.

...was his choice not mine" is not a s...

yes, its not a solution... but the real problem is not the solution nor how can a solution can be found...
its in how you created the problem to begin with... players will always create problems. may it be because of their actions may it be because of how they view your world, may it be because of how they view another player... there will always be problems, thinking that you can stop those problems only means you are too addicted to control, something DMs may think they have, but is just an illusion. you just cannot prepare for everything and every mechanics have their own set of problems coming in with them. so i'm not saying my mechanic has no weakness... i'm just saying they are far less then you make them sound.

you also say that reaching level 20 means the end of the campaign... but in many a campaign i did, that was just not true with many players still playing their level 20 characters and still enjoying themselves. the reality is, the game is over only when you want it to be over.  to the premade adventures... the game is over way before level 20, they are over at level 15. to many other DMs the game is over when the story is over. if its over at level 5 it will be over at level 5. so its really over when the DM decides its over and even there, the players might want to continu and the DM might need to continu anyway. so the ending of the campaign really really depends on the players and DM, not on their character levels. but i get the point of a player reaching level 20 because of multiclassing and feeling like he ended the game... but reality is... his choice is now to stop playing until the others are at his level and thegameis finished. or to keep having fun with the others with a character he developped and loved. that's again his choice, not mine to do. your example of the bear is not all that great in itself...  what would be more likely to be real... is if he startled the bear himself and then asked the others what do i do, the others would of just said... you shouldn't have startled it to begin with and that would still be true.

the fact is... he created the problem himself, should of thought of that before he did it. thats the point of creating a character and thinking about what we want it to do.
for me, players have the right to do the charcater they want. and have even more rights to play that character till the end of the story. but if a player hopes the game ends at level 20, and he thinks his adventures stops... he's free to leave that character and create another one and rejoin the adventure. look at how sam riegle did with taryon in critical role... he had enough of playing his bard and decided to stop at the right time and come back with another character. until he was in it for the other to be back.  every players should be entitled to play a character they love. at that point thats not related to the level of the character, but to the player itself.

I think that your players comments about...

that entire last paragraph is right in my book. i do believe i should push forward for them to gain more as they level up.
but this is where the original XP system is bad... because it takes forever to get to level 20 and thus most adventures stops there cause even if they would fight CR 30 creatures, the XP would not be enough for them to gain levels. but i do need to up the limit as the levels go. i'm thinking upping that maximum by actual tiers of play. like this...

1 - 4 = 3 maximum
5 - 10 = 5 maximum
11 - 16 = 8 maximum
17 + = 12 maximum

and yes each objectives could be rated from 1 to 3 XP based on their actual difficulty.


the last thing i want to address though...
is the fact that you seem to think its that easy to defeat higher level bosses by just leveling up. but it is not that simple... by 5e, legendary actions are easy to add and most bosses at that point have easy access to easy way out of such abilities. i don't think stopping players from doing a plan that consist on banishing the monster back to its original plane to be a thing. heck i even had players stuck in the feywild as one of their plan failed. and the first thing they did was banish themselves back to their plane because they had no other way out of the feywild and they just didn't want to be there. i mean, their plan was to banish an entire army to the feywild and let the feywild deal with the problem instead of them. in a way that plan worked, they just didn't expect to be brought to the feywild as well. what should i have done ? stop them from doing that and keep the original story ? that's not me... i create events and the players should be entitled to solve it the way they want it to be solved. if anything i should be encouraging them if they sucessfully banished a legendary lich back to the plane it was birthed.

overall, i wouldn't give less XP for players who found a clever way to deal with a threat. even if that means an easy win for them.