D&D 5e: Experience and Character Advancement

I touched on this briefly before, in my first entry on how the rules affect the players in fifth edition, but I think this topic bears a brief follow up. This is especially true as more and more DMs consider how best to hand out experience or advance their players' characters in level.

Skyflourish recently considered a very interesting method for Adventure League or casual play where some players may not be able to make each session. This proposal (adjusted or partial milestoning) smooths out some of the bumps in public play and allows perfect attendance to still be suitably rewarding without unduly punishing players who can't always make it.

Even so, this proposal seems to indicate that in the end a DM needs to ultimately fall on one side or the other: either give out experience points for each monster kill or quest completed, or else dole out experience when PCs hit milestones. Conventional wisdom seems to suggest that if you do any actual combination of both that PCs will be hard for the DM to manage and may result in rewards being, frankly, less individually rewarding.

I'd like to offer an alternative. While I'm still running my friends through our first campaign in the 5e ruleset, I'm confident this solution will be useful to the DM and encourage the players to see individual rewards as beneficial, useful, and special.

Let's say, hypothetically, that players are fourth level. Their current quest involves investigating the disappearance of a missing elven noble from her woodland court, and the next milestone will occur when they discover (through whatever means) that she was abducted by her illegitimate half-brother, the half-elf who has hitherto been patron to the PCs. The standard path to discover the secret will result in an award of enough experience to take the PCs to fifth level. Alternatively, a DM could award the fifth level as a milestone.

• If the PCs follow the path of least resistance, they might discover the half-brother's involvement in three or fewer encounters (i.e. a hunch from a character, a few great skill checks, and an investigation of the half-brother's mansion). In this scenario, ordinarily milestone experience is a boon to the players because they'd advance in level without a lot of traditional experience gain.
• If they follow the most likely path prepared by the DM, it might take six or even ten encounters (the half-brother could realize he's in danger and send them on a wild goose chase to a neighboring town, kingdom, or dungeon. Random encounters in the forest combined with an assassination attempt would spur the PCs to see that someone they know is in on the plot). In this case, either milestone or traditional experience gain would see PCs suitably rewarded for their efforts.
• If the PCs "go off the rails" entirely and ignore the missing elf noble in favor of whatever errand the half-brother has sent them on, they might explore an entire dungeon complex and recover a magic item for their patron--one that has nothing to do with the milestone originally set out that would advance the campaign. In this method, players would be desperate to have their characters hit the milestone (and a good DM would likely award the magic item's recovery as a milestone in this instance) but the dungeon exploration might include upwards of fifteen encounters before all is said and done--a real windfall for traditional experience groups, but not necessarily for the milestone camp.
• If the PCs just have a rough session--terrible dice rolls, some bad leads/hunches, or just a combat that goes poorly and sets them back--the players may similarly end up slogging through several more encounters than they might otherwise have normally encountered before realizing that it's there is a connection between the elf's kidnapping and her half-brother's patronage of the party. In this scenario, it could go either way (a few rough encounters might take all night, but the characters may still discover what they needed to; alternatively, a night of fighting their way out of an awful situation might have included a dozen encounters).

So how do we allow the party to advance in all four possible ways at a pace that seems appropriate?

Here's how I'd run each option:

• In the first case, the PCs have--through pluck, luck, skill, or all of the above--done an amazing feat. As they adventured, they were awarded encounter experience, but upon hitting the milestone, I'd award the difference to fifth level.
• In the second case, the PCs have followed a relatively predictable track. If they hit fifth level before hitting the milestone, so much the better; they keep whatever "overage" they've collected, and the milestone is acknowledged, but ignored for reward purposes. The PCs start toward the sixth-level milestone with some experience toward sixth level.
• In the third case, the trials and tribulations of the PCs hopefully result in reaching fifth level--and possibly a significant amount toward sixth. No mention is made of the milestone because it wasn't achieved. As the PCs wend their way back toward their supposed mission, they will eventually hit the milestone (where it will be acknowledged, but ignored for reward purposes). Alternatively, the milestone may pass the PCs by--maybe the noble was murdered while the PCs went spelunking in the dungeon, and the half-brother has committed to a coup to overthrow his elven family's court and take his "rightful place." Now the milestone involves discovering a way to stop the madness of their former patron; this new milestone represents a significant change in the campaign's direction based on the PCs actions. It's up to the DM to determine whether this new milestone should be the fifth or sixth level milestone.
• The final case could also go any way. Either it will end up like the first case (milestone awarded) or like the second-or-third case (so much combat/exploration/interaction experience awarded that the milestone is surpassed), or like the alternative third case (the campaign moves in a new direction; milestones are reassessed).

The bottom line is this:
If the PCs will level first from accruing traditional experience, they level up. If they would level up first from hitting a milestone, they level up. Generally, if the PCs level up from the traditional  experience, finishing the encounters that were "balanced" or "prepared" for their previous level will be a tad easier, but not a pushover. Similarly, if the PCs are awarded a milestone sooner than they otherwise would have, they're in appropriate shape for the harder encounters planned in the next stage of the adventure.

For those of you running Hoard of the Dragon Queen with a party that just finished The Lost Mine of Phandelver, you may see this method as particularly helpful. The players enter Hoard a lot more powerful than first level characters, but their experience gains from the encounters are not so vast that the level gap remains; by the time the characters hit the fifth or sixth episode, they're likely to be only fifth level--but they did make it all the way to fifth on the traditional experience gains (since the milestones only activated if they were levels one-through-three).

This also solves the problem of lower-level party members. If a level 3 character is adventuring with level 6 characters, when the level 6 characters hit a milestone that was budgeted as a level 4 milestone, the level three character levels up. The others don't.

I don't necessarily think this "catch-all" will work for everyone, but I think it's a useful model, and more importantly I think it enhances the fun involved for everyone.

Happy leveling!

D&D 5e: A Case for Eberron

There's been a lot of talk on the interweb about what campaign setting (if any) Wizards of the Coast should be looking into publishing next. Or soonest. Or most profitably. Or ever.

You get the idea.

Without going into excruciatingly unique or idiosyncratic detail, I want to offer a brief pitch for one particular setting to be brought up to speed in 5e.

Dungeons and Dragons--and indeed most traditional RPGs--have a particular, familiar, comfortable format. From Tolkien, through Chainmail, and into the "modern" era of gaming: sword-and-sorcery; dwarves, elves, and "hobbits"; mysterious but often predictable magic; Euro-centric medievalism; and heroes who are born to look for power gain, glory, and gold. I'll start by saying that there is nothing wrong with this; I love playing "standard" D&D, whether it takes place in a homebrew setting, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or what-have-you.

However, there is more to D&D than these (awesome) traditions.

When I was first introduced to the Eberron campaign setting, it changed the way I saw D&D. More than that, it changed the way I realized that stories could be told. I'm sure every "true believer" has their own story of why their precious setting should be the next one that Wizards updates to the new edition, but here are just a few reasons I think Eberron should be it. (Disclaimer: I am no expert on the setting. In fact, the very idea that I'm not an expert in it and I'm advocating for it is one of my minor points in its favor!)

I'll start with the obvious/overt:

• Eberron's "new" items (warforged and artificers, to give just a single example) provide fresh material for those who come to D&D and see only what they've already encountered in traditional fantasy literature--up to and including Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore and countless others.
• The twists on traditional roles (good undead, sentient machines, elves as recovering slaves, etc.) introduce the right mix of familiarity and novelty. 
• Magic-as-technology bridges many play-style gaps and allows Roland and Edward to play right alongside Gandalf, Conan, and Cadderly.
• Steampunk, a movement that seemed like a passing fad in the early 2000s when Eberron came on the scene, persists--even thrives. A return to Eberron touches on all those cosplayers and crafters who think in terms of airships and machines without electronics.
• In terms of game mechanics, 5e's focus on character as mechanic would flourish: ideals, bonds, flaws, and especially backstory are nothing new to players in Eberron. Belonging to a noble house or being a scion of a great nation or being a new-forged mechanical being or, well, not being one of those things means a great deal even if you're only doing a dungeon crawl: dragonmarks, racial abilities, and other game mechanics were already hinging on these now-codified pieces.
• Keith Baker left much of his world undefined. That means there's plenty of room for the loremaster DM who wants to know who lives where, why, for how long, etc. and the fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants zero-prep DM and the homebrew expert who fills in the gaps with his own fanfic that's better than published fantasy.
• Wizards has clearly seen the need for the setting: it commissioned it in the early 2000s and updated it into its fourth edition--an honor only shared by two other settings (and only one from the previous edition).

 Some less standard thoughts:

• Eberron has just had its great cataclysm.
• The Last War is fresh, gritty, and real--but also over. What's left is a world that is ripe for new stories to be told. The "average" setting's earth-shaking events either happened in aeons past or are about to happen. Eberron takes a uniquely different path by offering characters the chance to be a part of something much more difficult than standing at the precipice of a cataclysm: standing up amidst the rubble shortly after.
• There is a relative newness to the "recorded history" of the kingdoms of Eberron. 

• Dragons or aliens or even giants may have once been in charge and held long complicated histories--but they aren't humans (or demihumans). Elves and dwarves aren't the "elder races" anymore (and neither are humans). That means the Last War isn't just a terrible cataclysm, it's the terrible cataclysm as far as 95% of the world the PCs interact with is concerned.
• Everything inhuman is that much more alien.
• Speaking of the 95%, the other 5% becomes rare, strange, and exotic.
• Exploring makes sense. 
• In a new world, with alien creatures and exotic discoveries to be made, exploration is not just a romp through bandit-infested forests or spider-filled caverns. Exploration becomes a way of life; whole sectors of the globe are uncharted--or perhaps even more interestingly, the charts themselves are so out of date as to be dangerously inaccurate. Eberron craves adventurers naturally to solve, search, and explore.
• The playstyle (film noir meets bursts of action meets movie-style scenes meets investigation and problem-solving) encourages fewer "random" encounters and more story-infused encounters. The new Dungeon Master's Guide operates under the assumption that whatever your group's playstyle, you are telling a story. A setting that was designed with storytelling in mind? Perfection.

There are, of course, tremendous arguments for other settings, but my heart still sits with Eberron. In the end, I just hope we do see traditional setting guides and not just "adventure path supplements" with mini-gazetteers. Having a "setting bible" is (for me) an important part of using a setting in an edition (for me). In retrospect, it may be why I didn't continue with Pathfinder after the "Rise of the Runelords": there wasn't (at the time) a Golarion setting guide, and I felt disconnected from the adventure path's purpose (or context).

Here's to all of us getting something we can sink our teeth into for our beloved Dungeons and Dragons.

D&D 5e: Making a Character

For the first time in a long time (almost a decade!), I'm going to be playing as a character in a D&D campaign. For the first time ever, I'll get to play as a character in a 5e campaign.

As one might expect, this definitely gives me a new perspective on the player's side of the table. I thought perhaps sharing the thoughts of a DM-turned-player on the character creation process might be useful to some.

Backgrounds Matter

As a DM, I try to ensure that players' backgrounds fulfill their primary functions: that is, that they are fun to roleplay and that they help build the character into the campaign that I'm running by giving the character some essential, useful connection to the adventure.

As a player, backgrounds seem both overwhelming and weighty. I started by looking into playing a Bard, and thought (perhaps in error!) that the Sage background would be an easy fit. That is, until I started looking at the mechanical benefits awarded based on backgrounds.

All of a sudden, choosing a Sage seemed less useful! If I play a Bard with the Criminal background, I would be proficient with thieves' tools. A Noble's background would give me access to high society. A Hermit's "secret" is supremely tantalizing! And who could pass up being an Entertainer or Charlatan?

Still, I figured I'd press ahead with the Sage and be a Researcher. Now, I'm reconsidering; the Entertainer, while not as useful in terms of game mechanics, sounds a lot more fun to play!

Party Balance

Looking at party balance from a player's perspective, I was happy to see that I didn't feel like I had to play a particular role just because the group didn't have it covered. Part of that might just be because I'm looking to play a Bard who is (at level two, literally) a jack of all trades, but more than that is just that 5e seems to be somewhat forgiving in the realm of "you need X to do Y, and if you don't have X you're done for."

Backgrounds cover a multitude of skill and story deficiencies, allowing even the most combat-oriented fighter to be the party spokesman, or the most uninvolved Rogue to feel connected to the game world. Race attributes and class archetypes contribute their own brand of variety, allowing players to cover a variety of traditional "roles." Even the most straight-forward of classes in our budding party (the Cleric) is going to be played in a less-than-conventional way, taking domains and backgrounds that will individuate the character right from the get go in ways that would simply not have been possible in previous editions.

In the end, my Bard is (loosely) filling the role of party "Wizard," but that doesn't really do it justice. My role in combat will be (primarily) control: I have the best (and maybe only) AoE spells available to our party. However, that doesn't take away from my role as secondary healer. If the Cleric goes down, I'm it! In exploration situations, I plan to take on the role of investigator and trap disarmer, but I am leaving the sneaking and perceiving to our Monk. In social interactions, I hope my character will really shine: a high charisma and loads of proficiencies in various knowledge skills should make my Bard a worthy negotiator, spokesman, and diplomat.

Spells

As expected, choosing spells was the most time consuming aspect of character creation. Clerics (and classes that cast spells like Clerics) can re-choose spells each morning. Wizards, if they choose poorly, can always hope to find spell scrolls with more useful spells. Bards (and those that learn spells like Bards) are bound by their choices. Needing to eke out the greatest possible variety from my few spells-per-day means being very selective about which spells my Bard learns. In the end, as a first level Bard, I chose Sleep (to fulfill my role of "Controller" on the battlefield), Cure Wounds (because I can't justify passing up the strongest healing spell available at first level) Dissonant Whispers (a single target damage spell that is almost exclusive to Bards), and Detect Magic (one utility spell to round out the bunch). Almost as difficult to choose were my two cantrips: Vicious Mockery (again, a Bard-only spell which has the potential to impose disadvantage on an enemy attack roll) and Light (though I'm playing a class with Darkvision, our party has at least one human member).

Race

In days gone by, choosing a race imposed a serious set of benefits and penalties, and you chose a race almost before you chose a class, since the race would determine what classes you'd be suited for. The Player's Handbook still seems to think in these terms: race is chosen before class. I'm not sure that's how most players think; it's certainly not how I think. When I'm thinking of a character, I think about what kind of things I want to be able to do, and then I impose the "who-is-doing-those-things" onto that.

The big difference for me, this time around, was that sub-races seemed to make a much larger difference than I expected they would. I made the decision to play a Dwarf Bard, but choosing between Hill Dwarf and Mountain Dwarf was more difficult than I expected. The benefits offered by both, and the story implications of each, were exciting to consider. I thoroughly enjoy that the new edition uses races to impose benefits rather than penalties. You may miss out on something by choosing one thing over another, but the choice itself is never penalizing. In the end, I chose a Hill Dwarf for my character's race, but I imagine I'll always wonder if I'd have more fun playing a Mountain Dwarf.