We use milestone levelling in our games so it's not a an issue, of course we rarely go ahead with sessions if someone is unavailable so it isn't much of an issue anyway.
Our group also uses Milestone leveling as it tends to work much better when leveling lines up with how stories unfold.
But to answer your question, I would give them full XP.
As a DM, I want to believe that my players are having fun at the table and truly want to be there. So if a player cannot make it, I know it must be something out of their control, and/or serious, and they most likely already feel bad for not being able to attend.
To me punishing a player that cannot make a session by removing any of the XP that the rest of the party would receive is adding a punishment to someone that already feels guilt over missing the session.
Now, with that said, if the players are in a location that you can easily create a reason why player 'x' wondered off and is absent in the session, then you can do so, and they would not get any XP. But I would make sure this is a topic that is covered in session zero, so everyone is aware before the game ever starts.
Just my opinion though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty. Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers; Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas. Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
We use milestone levelling in our games so it's not a an issue, of course we rarely go ahead with sessions if someone is unavailable so it isn't much of an issue anyway.
we use original old school xp lol. we have changed the way we do it now so people that miss still get xp. @Laird_Denton, never thought about the punishment angle, but your right it would feel like a double punch missing a session and also not getting xp. thanks for the votes/comments people.
IMO, the PCs should always have the same XP. It's just easier that way.
I would add to this that different PCs in the same group being at different levels will likely eventually lead to pain and resentment. This is one reason why I never use XP at all, but it's also a good argument for keeping everyone's XP the same.
Just a single level can make a huge difference in DND. Imagine someone going to level 5 and unlocking 3rd level spells, while your Wizard still has 2nd level slots (without any multiclassing involved). Separate XP pools for players is fine, as long as the DM adds ways for the player to "catch up". Separate player levels are absolutely terrible, everyone should be at the same level at all times
Just a single level can make a huge difference in DND. Imagine someone going to level 5 and unlocking 3rd level spells, while your Wizard still has 2nd level slots (without any multiclassing involved). Separate XP pools for players is fine, as long as the DM adds ways for the player to "catch up". Separate player levels are absolutely terrible, everyone should be at the same level at all times
I played in a game one time where the DM was using a weird system for exp based on character development in Descent to Avernus and since my character's focus and development/arcs wouldn't happen until we got to Avernus I was about five or six levels behind by the time we got there despite never missing a session. I was definitely annoyed by that. Since then I just apply experience equally. Treasure is what my players get to divy out based on who is there and who isn't.
I don't punish players who can't attend a game. I usually run a D&D session if 3/4 of the players can play and since i use milestone, they always level up together.
Milestone seems to be more popular but in campaigns I have run, I usually go for more for an exploration style (where milestone doesn't work so well since the party can find different things in different orders). I instead just keep track of XP myself and then let everybody else know what XP they got but tell them when they level-up based off of XP as a party wide thing.
People have real lives, no need to punish people because something came-up or they had to miss a session. D&D after all is meant to be fun, if you have players with different levels then the likelihood is that players will feel it effect their enjoyment of the game is a level 7 Druid is dominating the battle while a level 5 Fighter is struggling to stay in the fight. It also makes balancing encounters harder too.
Milestone seems to be more popular but in campaigns I have run, I usually go for more for an exploration style (where milestone doesn't work so well since the party can find different things in different orders). I instead just keep track of XP myself and then let everybody else know what XP they got but tell them when they level-up based off of XP as a party wide thing.
People have real lives, no need to punish people because something came-up or they had to miss a session. D&D after all is meant to be fun, if you have players with different levels then the likelihood is that players will feel it effect their enjoyment of the game is a level 7 Druid is dominating the battle while a level 5 Fighter is struggling to stay in the fight. It also makes balancing encounters harder too.
That's almost exactly how I run XP. After designing a dungeon, I tally up all of the XP and divide it and then distribute it to players in chunks so the math is easier.
just out of curiosity to see if im the only one. i use option c.
We use milestone levelling in our games so it's not a an issue, of course we rarely go ahead with sessions if someone is unavailable so it isn't much of an issue anyway.
Greetings Deadlander,
Our group also uses Milestone leveling as it tends to work much better when leveling lines up with how stories unfold.
But to answer your question, I would give them full XP.
As a DM, I want to believe that my players are having fun at the table and truly want to be there.
So if a player cannot make it, I know it must be something out of their control, and/or serious, and they most likely already feel bad for not being able to attend.
To me punishing a player that cannot make a session by removing any of the XP that the rest of the party would receive is adding a punishment to someone that already feels guilt over missing the session.
Now, with that said, if the players are in a location that you can easily create a reason why player 'x' wondered off and is absent in the session, then you can do so, and they would not get any XP. But I would make sure this is a topic that is covered in session zero, so everyone is aware before the game ever starts.
Just my opinion though.
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty.
Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers;
Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas.
Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
Same here!
we use original old school xp lol. we have changed the way we do it now so people that miss still get xp. @Laird_Denton, never thought about the punishment angle, but your right it would feel like a double punch missing a session and also not getting xp. thanks for the votes/comments people.
IMO, the PCs should always have the same XP. It's just easier that way.
I would add to this that different PCs in the same group being at different levels will likely eventually lead to pain and resentment. This is one reason why I never use XP at all, but it's also a good argument for keeping everyone's XP the same.
pronouns: he/she/they
This is the way.
Just a single level can make a huge difference in DND. Imagine someone going to level 5 and unlocking 3rd level spells, while your Wizard still has 2nd level slots (without any multiclassing involved). Separate XP pools for players is fine, as long as the DM adds ways for the player to "catch up". Separate player levels are absolutely terrible, everyone should be at the same level at all times
I played in a game one time where the DM was using a weird system for exp based on character development in Descent to Avernus and since my character's focus and development/arcs wouldn't happen until we got to Avernus I was about five or six levels behind by the time we got there despite never missing a session. I was definitely annoyed by that. Since then I just apply experience equally. Treasure is what my players get to divy out based on who is there and who isn't.
I don't punish players who can't attend a game. I usually run a D&D session if 3/4 of the players can play and since i use milestone, they always level up together.
Full because, in my game at least, the character is there, even if the player isn't.
There is no point in punishing a player or somehow keeping a PC lower level than the rest of the party.
It only builds frustration and resentment if the party is not at the same place.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The character is there still, probably controlled by another player. So for that session they have a glorified “Sidekick”https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/tcoe/dungeon-masters-tools#Sidekicks
And xp rules are the same, that they get them. No need to punish but use the rules that are given to you for discretion.
Milestone seems to be more popular but in campaigns I have run, I usually go for more for an exploration style (where milestone doesn't work so well since the party can find different things in different orders). I instead just keep track of XP myself and then let everybody else know what XP they got but tell them when they level-up based off of XP as a party wide thing.
People have real lives, no need to punish people because something came-up or they had to miss a session. D&D after all is meant to be fun, if you have players with different levels then the likelihood is that players will feel it effect their enjoyment of the game is a level 7 Druid is dominating the battle while a level 5 Fighter is struggling to stay in the fight. It also makes balancing encounters harder too.
That's almost exactly how I run XP. After designing a dungeon, I tally up all of the XP and divide it and then distribute it to players in chunks so the math is easier.
No never. You don't get experience points, if you weren't there to experience anything.