Unearthed Arcana 8/7/2017: "Three-Pillar Experience"

[Auramis]

I haven't heard work of it being postponed or delayed, but I'm curious if anyone else. I don't see any threads hyping it up or speculating atm.

Edit: It's up! It's something called Three-Pillar Experience (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/3pillarxp).

[jaappleton]

There's supposed to be one.

My hopes aren't high.

I believe Xan's Guide is already set, so... I'm not holding out much hope for anything player related.

[Misterwhisper]

There's supposed to be one.

My hopes aren't high.

I believe Xan's Guide is already set, so... I'm not holding out much hope for anything player related.

Maybe we will get what was really supposed to be the July UA, because i am still pretty sure MM just threw his unwanted home-brew in instead of what was actually on the schedule.

[jaappleton]

Maybe we will get what was really supposed to be the July UA, because i am still pretty sure MM just threw his unwanted home-brew in instead of what was actually on the schedule.

Regardless, there is already a proof of Xan's Guide going around the WOTC offices, they posted it on twitter.

So... I don't think it's going to be any player options.

ALTHOUGH.... And this is my one glimmer of hope...

It COULD be a new revision of the Mystic / Artificer / Revised Ranger. Mearls told me that RR isn't going to be counted as the '+1' aspect of PHB + 1 of AL Rules. That tell me that it won't be in a book.

I'm thinking DMsGuild. That's how it's going to be released.

So, that's my one glimmer of hope, honestly, that it's going to be something for players. And I'm not exactly hopeful.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Yeah, that initiative UA was pretty demoralizing. It's killed a lot of the hype for new UA's. The last time I disliked a UA that much was the abysmal second mass combat UA, which was notably the worst mass combat rules I've ever seen and unplayable on even a basic level. But when we got that, it was sandwiched between much more interesting articles.

I have some hope that we get something interesting and cool again. My expectations aren't as high as they were, though.

[Belltent]

It COULD be a new revision of the Mystic / Artificer / Revised Ranger. Mearls told me that RR isn't going to be counted as the '+1' aspect of PHB + 1 of AL Rules. That tell me that it won't be in a book.



One of them (mearls?) Said not to expect any mystic or artificer updates this years.

Seperately, and more recently, Mearls confirmed RR will *not* be in a book, and they were looking into ways for putting it out for free (with possibly a print on demand option.)

[Auramis]

One of them (mearls?) Said not to expect any mystic or artificer updates this years.

Seperately, and more recently, Mearls confirmed RR will *not* be in a book, and they were looking into ways for putting it out for free (with possibly a print on demand option.)

I should hope they could just... edit the PHB. Releasing a revised PHB with all the errata and corrections would be nice. Updating Ranger wouldn't hurt either.

I know I shouldn't get my hopes up for that, but it'd be nice.

[nickl_2000]

SNIP
they were looking into ways for putting it out for free (with possibly a print on demand option.)


Looking for a way? Put it into SRD, there you are done.

[Chunkosaurus]

One of them (mearls?) Said not to expect any mystic or artificer updates this years.

Seperately, and more recently, Mearls confirmed RR will *not* be in a book, and they were looking into ways for putting it out for free (with possibly a print on demand option.)

Really do you have a source for that? That doesn't make any sense since they put it on DMs Guild specifically so they could update them more quickly.

[jaappleton]

UA will be coming out later today.

[Belltent]

Really do you have a source for that? That doesn't make any sense since they put it on DMs Guild specifically so they could update them more quickly.

Really, I do. Twitter. I'm positive that I saw it, but I'm also positive I'm not wasting the time to go back and find it. You're welcome to just believe me though. I promise I don't just make up stuff to get off.

[rbstr]

I should hope they could just... edit the PHB. Releasing a revised PHB with all the errata and corrections would be nice. Updating Ranger wouldn't hurt either.

I know I shouldn't get my hopes up for that, but it'd be nice.

I'm pretty sure the official errata do get rolled into PHB/MM/DMG printings.
I suppose they could do that with the Ranger and update it for new printings. Then they'd pretty much have to have a PDF version anyone could look at, though.

[jaappleton]

Really, I do. Twitter. I'm positive that I saw it, but I'm also positive I'm not wasting the time to go back and find it. You're welcome to just believe me though. I promise I don't just make up stuff to get off.

I read the same thing.

There's a pretty good community here.

Honestly, the whole 'asking for a source' thing... I get it. I do.

Though Tommy Boy summed up my feelings best;

"You can get a good look at a T Bone by sticking your head up a bulls ***, but wouldn't you rather take a butchers word for it?"

I know there's an innate mentality of being on the internet that causes a 'Well, I read this on the internet, so I need to make sure its legit'. I get that. But sometimes... C'mon.

[Chunkosaurus]

I read the same thing.

There's a pretty good community here.

Honestly, the whole 'asking for a source' thing... I get it. I do.

Though Tommy Boy summed up my feelings best;

"You can get a good look at a T Bone by sticking your head up a bulls ***, but wouldn't you rather take a butchers word for it?"

I know there's an innate mentality of being on the internet that causes a 'Well, I read this on the internet, so I need to make sure its legit'. I get that. But sometimes... C'mon.

I just really want him to be wrong so my Alchemist gets a buff. Honestly I may drop the character if it actually isn't getting update until next year. The class is so weak as it is. The worst part is that it isn't that hard to fix they just haven't bothered

[jaappleton]

I just really want him to be wrong so my Alchemist gets a buff. Honestly I may drop the character if it actually isn't getting update until next year. The class is so weak as it is. The worst part is that it isn't that hard to fix they just haven't bothered

I completely understand.

And viewing the Artificer as a whole, I agree. It's underpowered. It should be a half caster, with an extra attack. It's weak. It's a strong base to build off of, for a completely new class. But if its currently a 6 on the dial, it needs to be turned up to 8, so to speak.

It can do a lot, but nothing particularly well.

I don't mean to derail the thread with Artificer talk, but it's strange that its underpowered: I asked Mearls if they often underpower a feature, class, or archetype and then bring it up. They said its the opposite, they like to push the limits and then scale back.

I asked that in regards to the Arcane Archer, and its Arcane Shots not being xInt Mod per short rest. But it was an interesting response, especially when considering the Artificer.

[Chunkosaurus]

I completely understand.

And viewing the Artificer as a whole, I agree. It's underpowered. It should be a half caster, with an extra attack. It's weak. It's a strong base to build off of, for a completely new class. But if its currently a 6 on the dial, it needs to be turned up to 8, so to speak.

It can do a lot, but nothing particularly well.

I don't mean to derail the thread with Artificer talk, but it's strange that its underpowered: I asked Mearls if they often underpower a feature, class, or archetype and then bring it up. They said its the opposite, they like to push the limits and then scale back.

I asked that in regards to the Arcane Archer, and its Arcane Shots not being xInt Mod per short rest. But it was an interesting response, especially when considering the Artificer.

I don't know how any of them looked at the alchemist and said yeah no to hit options, all save or suck, with no damaging spells and thought yes yes this is what we wanted.

[Auramis]

They've got the UA up, everyone! Linked in OP.

[Chunkosaurus]

I haven't heard work of it being postponed or delayed, but I'm curious if anyone else. I don't see any threads hyping it up or speculating atm.

Edit: It's up! It's something called Three-Pillar Experience (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/3pillarxp).


Spoiler alert it's trash. Basically a more coded milestone leveling.

[Vaz]

How do you go from not caring about the UA, to being so excoted, to delivering something so **** that you wish they didn't bother?

#notmyua

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Well... I guess it's not awful. Still absolutely no reason to use it above milestone xp.

Edit: ...Actually, looking closer, it's pretty awful. Among other things, a PC of any level can level up by massacring 50 Kobolds.

[Temperjoke]

I get that they're trying to open up new ways of thinking, cause I feel that a lot of people ignore anything beyond the "stab-the-loot-pinatas-murderhoboes" that a lot of games seem to devolve into, but I think this is just making things more complex instead of simplifying things.

[War_lord]

I like the idea of giving us a leveling system that avoids the "murder is always the best option" problem while avoiding the arbitrary nature of milestone leveling. But this isn't it. It's literally just milestone leveling with an awkward attempt at codification.

[jas61292]

As usual, there will be excessive complaining solely because it's not a player option, but personally, I actually like this. The combat part is not the best, and I'd probably just ignore it in favor of extra rewards for locations. But, an XP system not ties solely to combat is very nice to have.

[Chunkosaurus]

Well... I guess it's not awful. Still absolutely no reason to use it above milestone xp.

Edit: ...Actually, looking closer, it's pretty awful. Among other things, a PC of any level can level up by massacring 50 Kobolds.

Yeah I fireball the group of goblins at level 18 enjoy 30 experience.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I didn't have high expectations. Which is the reason I'm not disappointed.

There's a good point in all this- there's no good system for awarding XP for anything other than combat outside of a loose quest reward chart. And that XP isn't very interactive as a whole. I even kind of like the 100 XP = Level idea.

But the system presented here is busted. Higher level characters are more likely to accomplish higher tiers, which means they make much larger XP gains faster. This is fundamentally flawed gameplay design, as you spend far too much time at low levels and not enough at mid and higher levels of play. This kind of tier-ing completely ruins a 100-base leveling system.

[ZorroGames]

I haven't heard work of it being postponed or delayed, but I'm curious if anyone else. I don't see any threads hyping it up or speculating atm.

Edit: It's up! It's something called Three-Pillar Experience (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/3pillarxp).

Okay... I read it.

Has potential I suppose but not sure how much affect it will have on current campaigns or AL games.

[EdenIndustries]

As usual, there will be excessive complaining solely because it's not a player option, but personally, I actually like this. The combat part is not the best, and I'd probably just ignore it in favor of extra rewards for locations. But, an XP system not ties solely to combat is very nice to have.

I like it too! I'd personally massage a few of the numbers and such, but I think it's pretty cool. Better than milesetone exp in my opinion because players can do errant things and get exp for it, even if it doesn't progress towards anything I'd consider a "milestone". But, to each their own!

[Unoriginal]

Well, the idea is not bad, but they need to really polish it differently if they want it to be functional.


I like the idea of giving us a leveling system that avoids the "murder is always the best option" problem

You mean like the system that is in the core books?

You don't have to kill to get XP, even with no UA or houserules.

[Auramis]

I do like the sentiment of making exploration and socializing venues to gain experience, but the shift to this 100 points every level and AoE XP grinding seems like a poor way to go about it. I might like this system if they polished up a bit more.

The way we do it in our house is we just award XP for RP and travelling, typically up to the DM's discretion, like suggested in the DMG. Very unstructured, but it helps to promote the idea of doing more than killing to advance. We like combat, but we hate it being the only thing people focus on.

[tkuremento]

As usual, there will be excessive complaining solely because it's not a player option, but personally, I actually like this. The combat part is not the best, and I'd probably just ignore it in favor of extra rewards for locations. But, an XP system not ties solely to combat is very nice to have.

I don't necessarily agree with that notion, I mean for instance I quite liked Downtime, unless you consider that a player option. I more so thought you meant feats, classes, and subclasses as player options.

[mephnick]

avoiding the arbitrary nature of milestone leveling

See I've never found it arbitrary if used properly. You level up when the characters achieve something important. Uncover a major plot point, clear a dungeon, kill a dangerous monster etc. Though I have seen people say they level up after a certain amount of sessions regardless of what happens (ugh), so I'd find that arbitrary, but that's definitely not the intention of milestone leveling.

But yeah, this kind of skirts the middle in a pointless way.

[JumboWheat01]

It's an alright UA, nothing I'm really freaking out over one-way or another. Kinda just there.

And maybe I've just gotten too used to how my DM does experience, where he pretty much just flat-out says "okay, you all gain a level," and that's that.

[Mortheim]

Hm. Feels like 4 tiers are for every 5 levels. So, 1-5 is 1st tier, 6-10 2nd tier and so on. Will change it a bit and use in next game with Greyhawk initiative. Both are pretty interesting, but need work.

[Daphne]

Hm. Feels like 4 tiers are for every 5 levels. So, 1-5 is 1st tier, 6-10 2nd tier and so on. Will change it a bit and use in next game with Greyhawk initiative. Both are pretty interesting, but need work.

First tier is actually from 1st to 4th level, by page 15 of the PHP

[Waterdeep Merch]

The more I try to think of a way to make this method work, the more it annoys me. Casters especially have an advantage in rapidly gaining levels, levels on the whole are gained too fast and the progression is backwards, the system can easily be gamed, and all of this reminds me of a simple fact about D&D- the primary benefits in leveling up are combat-based. So it's weirdly even more gamist than usual here, becoming a more powerful and deadly barbarian/fighter/rogue/wizard by finding neat places or talking to people well. Only certain classes actually progress alongside those pillars at all, and only at specific levels.

Perhaps it would work better if you were using a different subsystem to handle exploration and socializing, alongside specialized progression. I'd also argue, in that case, that such progression should be locked behind its own pillar and should not influence one another, such that becoming a more charming socialite does not grant you any ability to better cut dragons in half with a greatsword.

[Beechgnome]

The combat part ruined it for me. Either spend some time and do it right or don't do it all.

Maybe we should have an alternative UA day, where everyone presents their best homebrew on the days Wizards lays an egg. Feed the people.

[Chunkosaurus]

The combat part ruined it for me. Either spend some time and do it right or don't do it all.

Maybe we should have an alternative UA day, where everyone presents their best homebrew on the days Wizards lays an egg. Feed the people.

I really like this idea

[Tanarii]

Happy to see the Devs thinking about DM options and the gameplay experience as a whole, rather than cranking out an unending stream of new races, classes, subclasses and backgrounds. After all, that's what 5e is ideally about.

And from that perspective, I really like this conceptually. Meaning explicit rewards, even in a general way, for the exploration and social* pillars. What I don't like is the execution.

1) First of all, I don't want the baby (current XP system) thrown out with the bathwater (combat focus of current XP system). I'd rather see something that integrates with the current XP system. For starters, cutting it by 1/3, then adding the 'exploration' & 'social' pillar rewards.

2) Second of all, the current system is focused on rewarding based on how many resources you're expected to use in an (combat or non-combat) encounter. Now the reality is that 'combat' is the most likely place you'll be expected to spend resources. But not always. This system isn't just changing the focus away from combat, it's changing the game so there is no longer a direct connection between resource management and rewards. That's a significant change of direction for D&D in general, including 5e.

Edit: to be clear, the latter is fine if that's what you want. But you need to be aware that's the practical upshot of this system. The current XP system already supports rewarding non-combat situations. What it doesn't really support is rewarding non-resources-required situations. Which are by definition at best 'Easy' difficulty for rewarding XP. So this UA isn't really/just proposing a shift in focus of pillars. It's proposing changing the current linking together the fundamental nature of the game (resource management) and rewards.

[DanyBallon]

Happy to see the Devs thinking about DM options and the gameplay experience as a whole, rather than cranking out an unending stream of new races, classes, subclasses and backgrounds. After all, that's what 5e is ideally about.

And from that perspective, I really like this conceptually. Meaning explicit rewards, even in a general way, for the exploration and social* pillars. What I don't like is the execution.

1) First of all, I don't want the baby (current XP system) thrown out with the bathwater (combat focus of current XP system). I'd rather see something that integrates with the current XP system. For starters, cutting it by 1/3, then adding the 'exploration' & 'social' pillar rewards.

2) Second of all, the current system is focused on rewarding based on how many resources you're expected to use in an (combat or non-combat) encounter. Now the reality is that 'combat' is the most likely place you'll be expected to spend resources. But not always. This system isn't just changing the focus away from combat, it's changing the game so there is no longer a direct connection between resource management and rewards. That's a significant change of direction for D&D in general, including 5e.

Edit: to be clear, the latter is fine if that's what you want. But you need to be aware that's the practical upshot of this system. The current XP system already supports rewarding non-combat situations. What it doesn't really support is rewarding non-resources-required situations. Which are by definition at best 'Easy' difficulty for rewarding XP. So this UA isn't really/just proposing a shift in focus of pillars. It's proposing changing the current linking together the fundamental nature of the game (resource management) and rewards.

In regard of you point #1: how would you do that? Would increasing the required XP for leveling three times do the trick? Could the xp awarded for thieves in the early editions be a base for defining the exploration aspect, or should we stick with the tier example the gave in the UA?

[Jama7301]

The combat part ruined it for me. Either spend some time and do it right or don't do it all.

Maybe we should have an alternative UA day, where everyone presents their best homebrew on the days Wizards lays an egg. Feed the people.

I don't see a real reason to limit it to when it's a "Bad" UA. Use the UA as a theme or topic for a homebrew discussion. So, for this month, Alternative XP Systems, or another on Feats for Races, for example.

If you want to put limits on it, it can only have as many or fewer pages as the official UA.

[Tanarii]

In regard of you point #1: how would you do that? Would increasing the required XP for leveling three times do the trick? Could the xp awarded for thieves in the early editions be a base for defining the exploration aspect, or should we stick with the tier example the gave in the UA?Sure. For #1, I'm saying that revamping the structure of XP to 100/level, not scaling at all based on Tier, isn't necessary. You can tie into the existing system by:
A) Either reducing the current systems rewards for 'encounters' by 1/3, or by (as you say) tripling the required XP. I actually like tripling the XP required more than cutting the current amount rewarded by 1/3. And calling what was 'encounter' rewards 'combat' only, moving forward.
B) Using some system of rewards for 'Exploration' and 'Social'. I kinda like the 'Tier' system the UA presents, but IMO it could easily be more finely graded. Just define Easy/Medium/Hard (and maybe even Deadly) things independent of Combat and/or Resources Expected to be Expended, and then point at the DMG encounter difficulty talbe tables.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I'll echo the sentiment of others: I think this is really promising as early playtest material. It would probably take a lot of iteration to make it really workable, but the ideas behind it are great. It's often too difficult to assign logical XP rewards for non-combat challenges, and the tier-based approach can help with that.

[MaxWilson]

I basically like it. I wouldn't use it unmodified* but it leads in an interesting direction. If you want to go in a really interesting direction you could track each kind of XP separately, and require at least 25 XP of each kind in order to level up. (So, 50 combat XP and 50 social XP = no level up until you gain 25 exploration XP.)

* Concerns about Fireballing kobolds are obviously valid--but also easily-fixed by tweaking the combat XP formula. E.g. use Gygaxian ratios instead: you gain (10 XP per monster CR) / (your level), rounded down. Kobolds are CR 1/8 and would therefore grant no XP to anyone over 1st level. Better formulas are possible.

As with last month's UA, the real value in this UA isn't so much the rules provided as the encouragement it gives to DMs to think outside the box. I hate milestone levelling and will not use it (it completely misses the point of level-based systems, which is all about operant conditioning and Pavlovian rewards), and I've already messed around with my own XP tables, but this UA has me thinking once again about new and different XP tables and ways to award XP.

For example,

"Earn 1 point of XP per game session. Every 10 XP earned gives you a level. A player or the DM may also reward XP to another PC who does something particularly awesome, and/or in keeping with their bonds/flaws/ideals."

I wouldn't have thought of that method without this UA, because this UA very pointedly makes the point that the semi-exponential shape of the XP tables in the PHB are not important to the design of 5E as a whole.

[Lolzyking]

1000 kills = lvl 20.


buy 1000 rats, or something.

[Cybren]

I basically like it. I wouldn't use it unmodified* but it leads in an interesting direction. If you want to go in a really interesting direction you could track each kind of XP separately, and require at least 25 XP of each kind in order to level up. (So, 50 combat XP and 50 social XP = no level up until you gain 25 exploration XP.)

* Concerns about Fireballing kobolds are obviously valid--but also easily-fixed by tweaking the combat XP formula. E.g. use Gygaxian ratios instead: you gain (10 XP per monster CR) / (your level), rounded down. Kobolds are CR 1/8 and would therefore grant no XP to anyone over 1st level. Better formulas are possible.

As with last month's UA, the real value in this UA isn't so much the rules provided as the encouragement it gives to DMs to think outside the box. I hate milestone levelling and will not use it (it completely misses the point of level-based systems, which is all about operant conditioning and Pavlovian rewards), and I've already messed around with my own XP tables, but this UA has me thinking once again about new and different XP tables and ways to award XP.

For example,

"Earn 1 point of XP per game session. Every 10 XP earned gives you a level. A player or the DM may also reward XP to another PC who does something particularly awesome, and/or in keeping with their bonds/flaws/ideals."

I wouldn't have thought of that method without this UA, because this UA very pointedly makes the point that the semi-exponential shape of the XP tables in the PHB are not important to the design of 5E as a whole.

I tried to tie in some kinda player-goal based system into XP rewards but I didn't really develop it much. Not using the normal XP progression would help it a lot. This was my original idea, from a year or so ago


GOALS

Everyone wants something for themselves, be it recognition, or wealth, or power, or perhaps to change the world around them. So too do our characters in Role Playing Games. This option is intended to create rewards for achieving the goals our characters have.

Each character has a short term goal and a long term goal. The character's long term goal is best thought of as what they see their character becoming or doing in the future, and the short term goal as the steps the character wants to take to achieve it. Sometimes a short term goal deals with the here-and-now, acknowledging that before you can achieve your own plans you have to deal with the situation you’re presently in.


A character's short term goal should be achievable in the near future, something they can accomplish in a handful of sessions. A character’s long term goal should be something the character will accomplish in many sessions, perhaps across a handful of adventures. When you create a goal, you and your DM should come to an agreement as to if it is easy, medium, or hard. When you achieve your goal, your whole party receives XP as if it completed an encounter of the corresponding encounter difficulty, and they you come up with a new goal to replace it.

GROUP GOAL

Just as individuals have goals, so too do groups or organizations, and thus, so to does an adventuring party. Just as you come with a short- and long-term goal for your character, your adventuring party should come up with short- and long-term goals together for the party as a whole. Short-term goals would represent facing immediate threats or problems for your party, while long-term goals would be the the future vision of what your party hopes to accomplish or represent. When determining the difficulty of party goals, choose with your DM if they are Medium, Hard, or Deadly. Achieving the goal would give your party XP as if you completed a challenge of the appropriate difficulty for your level, just as completing a personal goal.


These rules assume your game is one where the PCs are heroes that work together and that ultimately the PCs are allies, even if they come to disagreements. Other sorts of campaigns may only allow PCs to share XP from achieving a personal goal with characters that actively helped in achieving it, and others might say that the XP from achieving a personal goal is never shared.

[Matrix_Walker]

I thought they said they wanted to shake down dome ideas before the new Guide to Everything, and immediately stopped doing relevant content in the UA.

They are clearly just trolling us now.

[Belltent]

I thought they said they wanted to shake down dome ideas before the new Guide to Everything, and immediately stopped doing relevant content in the UA.


XGtE is done, and the testing for it has been done for awhile. The content needs to be decided long before the edit, which gets done long before the layout, which gets done long before the final edit, which gets done long before it goes to the printer, which gets done long before they get their prelim copies, before the final final edit, before back to the printer, before it goes on the shelf.

The testing period was the weekly UAs, leading all the way up to and including the first UA after the announcement of the book. Anything past then would have taken way too long and pushed the book back by months.

[LaserFace]

I kinda dig it. I like the encouragement to consider other ways of handing out XP, in terms of non-combat achievement.

I'd wanna tweak a few things before trying it out, but that's my opinion of basically every UA ever.

[Naicz]

I love the salt that comes from people receiving a free additional concept and not enjoying its contents. D&D at its core is just make-believe, why get so worked up over a new made-up method of play? Wizards doesn't owe you anything...
Also, I am AMAZED at the amount of "Oh well you can just kill 50 goblins" or "Ill buy 1000 rats" comments...
REALLY???
Is that D&D to you?? If that is how the game is played to you, why not just write down "LEVEL 20" on your character sheet and pat yourself on the back?

Experience points from combat is a representation of your character learning and growing. DMs granting EXP for RP and travel is one way of doing things, this UA is another, and so is milestone exp...it's all about PLAYING the character and having them grow stronger as a result.

If your perspective on the concept of leveling is simply "how can I game the system to get to 20 fastest" then you may be playing the wrong type of game.

Will I use the new UA? Probably not. I personally prefer to level up my players when I feel they have accomplished a significant amount of story or character growth to warrant their new abilities.

Not because they slayed 9001 chickens and "each one is worth 5 exp SO IM A MASTER WIZARD NOW"

[Tanarii]

I wouldn't have thought of that method without this UA, because this UA very pointedly makes the point that the semi-exponential shape of the XP tables in the PHB are not important to the design of 5E as a whole.Yeah, that's just not true at all. They are central to the concept of 5e, that most of the play is designed to happen in Tier 2, followed by Tier 4.

Edit: To be clear, the devs have indicated in the past that this was a design consideration for 5e. In other words, this is something designed into 5e from the ground up, including the break points and class balance at various levels against themselves.

[RickAsWritten]

I kinda like it. I think it would work well for a full sandbox style game. I've seen some on here brainstorming a "A new continent has been discovered and you've been contracted to Lewis and Clark it" campaign, and it'd be perfect for that. Maybe not all of it though. As the above have pointed out, the system isn't great in regards to the combat pillar.

[Kane0]

Hmm. I had the idea of making XP a percentage about 6 years ago, so i'm glad I was onto something.

At the table my group still goes by the ol' 'You ding when I say so' which is the most streamlined approach and works well for us, I think its more a gaming culture thing to bring the focus back on the other aspects of the game rather than the vast majority of progress made from combat.

Edit: Cool idea a mate came up with after reading over this:
XP is six tickboxes, two for each pillar. When the party overcomes a significant challenge you fill in one box, and when you get five (or four if your DM wants) you level up. You can't get more than two in each pillar so you have to do make least some non-combat progress before levelling up. Check the UA for challenges that may count as a tickbox for your level/tier.

[GlenSmash!]

I also use the level when i say so approach. Keeping the bookkeeping down has helped us fit more play time into the sessions.

I like the idea of trying to expand rewards for the non-combat pillars of the game. I'm not sure this one is my favorite though.

I am still a fan of the general UA format of "Here is this thing we've been thinking about. what do you think?." Wanting polished, balanced mechanics form free UA seems unrealistic to me. It's meant to be a feedback loop, not free supplements.

[ZorroGames]

This seems a mechanical fix to a edit: nonmechanical problem since OD&D.

Social interaction does not require acting experience but it does require the DM to set up encounters, the players to perceive the encounter to be social and respond accordingly, and the DM to reward thevplayers accordingly. Perhaps the last is CR x some exp amount but something...

Last game we had two "open the door and the inhabitants attack" moments so when we encountered the Gargoyles the Warlock was primed to blast (he had initiative and reacted so it was not just his fault as we were all primed, on edge, and low on resources.) But too often social interactions have come from those moments where you looked to be at disadvantage in the scenario and it is painful to "take your losses" when the thing you worked so hard to get (Bandit Leaders head for reward) is something the Guard patrol obviously is going to take because it can (or take "tax" on the merchant's goods that you are escorting.) Disincentive to not want to murderhobo instead of deal? Yes.

As fir exploration as Experience points? Never seen it yet and I am almost 5th level on my first character. It probably was there but not explicitly expressed just, " 'x' EXP, 'y' GP, 'z' items, and 'n' downtime days."

Usually a rushed finale as the LGS is getting ready to close...

[JBPuffin]

I get the idea behind it, but I wouldn't make things so complicated. Quests, locations, and diplomatic situations would have a CR based on the DCs involved in accomplishing them; complete the quest, find the place, talk to the guys, and you'll get some XP out of it. Of course, that XP gets divided among the party (personal quests having rewards of another type for the involved character) and I'd probably multiply the XP required to level depending on how the pacing feels.

Honestly I've yet to see a DM stick to the XP system long enough to get a feel for it. That'll be an unspoken rule for the next campaign I run.

[Pex]

While I appreciate the thought I'm not keen on the concept. When the party needs to go to the Lost Place Of Power for their adventure they're going to find it or else there is no game session. As the levels progress for one particular adventure the party may have to use up resources to find the location, but it becomes tedious to do it for every adventure. Exploration is about mapping out the dungeon/cavern/lair in the specific and in the general spending time traveling having random or preplanned encounters until you reach the adventure quest locale. Convincing NPCs is from the simple roll a skill a check to complete the adventure, bring back evidence, NPC autobelieves party as adventure arc conclusion. Quantify XP for the minutiae feels off. All monsters giving the same XP, relatively speaking, isn't fair. Monsters are too varied in power and how they are fought.

Giving XP for non-combat stuff should be encouraged, but this system is too formalized. It looks more like marking off a checklist than playing the game and see what happens.

[Tanarii]

IMO when you're talking about awarding XP for not having combat, you have to be more specific. Are you playing a game where combat is totally likely outcome of not successfully avoiding it, or are you playing a game where combat is unlikely? Is combat potential, or is it not potential.

My personal experience in 30 years of playing multiple editions of D&D is the latter, playing a in a game where combat is unlikely, where there isn't even the potential for combat, is almost never the case. D&D players as a general rule get bored of that in no time, and the system really isn't designed for it anyway. People who really want that from their games are in the minority and are almost always DMs who want to tell stories, not run a TRPG.

Whereas playing a game where there is the potential for combat, and lots of it, but making AVOIDING it, by smart play, is a far more common 'less combat in D&D' desire among players, and some DMs. And 5e already allows the latter just fine. All you have to do is award XP for the encounter even if it's bypassed, converted from hostile to not-hostile, or whatever. If you do this, players will often drift to less combat, because they're not risking resources any more. If they're actually at risk of dying from combat (sadly rare) it's even more true.

Of course some players are murderhobos to the core and won't take a hint no matter how much you bash them over the head with a same-XP-for-less-resources/death clue. :smallamused:

[jitzul]

What a worthless Ua.

[Beechgnome]

I really like this idea

Done! The unofficial UA Day homebrew thread created.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?532748-Not-the-UA-you-were-looking-for-A-homebrew-thread&p=22272624#post22272624

[Twigwit]

Another UA, another fix to something that isn't a problem. This one seems like someone just threw it together over the weekend to meet the deadline honestly. A chart of "Roleplaying XP Rewards by DC/CR/GP Value" could do the same thing without throwing out how XP works now.

[orange74]

Well, I guess if you're going to solve a nonexistent problem you might as well do it in a confusing and unsatisfying way...

[MinimanMidget]

Am I the only person disappointed that Mearls isn't taking feedback on his pet project? No survey for Greyhawk Initiative.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Am I the only person disappointed that Mearls isn't taking feedback on his pet project? No survey for Greyhawk Initiative.

He would get eviscerated if there was a survey on that.

[JackPhoenix]

Am I the only person disappointed that Mearls isn't taking feedback on his pet project? No survey for Greyhawk Initiative.

I was just gonna post the same observation, good thing I've decided to read the whole thread first if someone else did that already

[Malifice]

The more I try to think of a way to make this method work, the more it annoys me. Casters especially have an advantage in rapidly gaining levels, levels on the whole are gained too fast and the progression is backwards, the system can easily be gamed.

How can a system where the award of XP is entirely at the discretion of the DM be 'gamed?'

And how do casters have an advantage? All players at your table progress at the same rate. When you award XP you do so equally to each PC.

Personally I dont mind it, but it just looks like a more complicated milestone system.

An easier system would be to mirror the Savage Worlds system. Each session you award 1-3 XP to each player (with 1 XP for 'didnt really do much' to 3 XP for 'achieved a lot' and with 2 XP being the norm). You 'ding' at 5 XP (this number isnt set in stone if it advances players too fast - you can increase it to 10 XP if that floats your boat).

I'd strongly consider using such a system, as it removes the motivation to [kill things and ignore the rest of the adventure] as engaging in murder isnt the only way one can advance.

Setting the mark at 7 XP to level means you level (on average) every 3-4 sessions (around 1/month for most groups) and cant advance faster than every 3rd session.

[Zalabim]

I think this might be the worst UA yet. It's hard to top Mass Combat though.

More particularly, the flat XP scale with variable value for tier of objective sucks. The fact that combat XP is a minimum of 2 but locations, treasure, and persons (quests, basically) will 'grey-out' and become worthless is awful. I'd prefer a setup that scales the XP cost to level and XP rewards from objectives by tier, so if you do stop to smell the roses, there's still some measurable progress. If you don't want the party to care about the little things that are beneath their notice then don't give XP for it. It doesn't say whether XP is split among the party or not. It has none of the gradation available from the more complex XP table that tells me "one adventure (day) for levels 1-3, 2 adventure (day)s for levels 4-10, and 1.33 adventure (day)s for level 11-20" or whatever it works out to.

Let's say at level 1, you go on a quest for the mayor and the priest (2 important NPCS, 20 XP), to an abandoned fort (important location, 10 XP) recover one rare item and one expensive art object (valuables, 20 XP) and have to deal with 12 CR 1/8, 4 CR 1/4, and 1 CR 1 inside (combat, 37 XP). That's only 87 XP. You don't level up unless we through in a few more enemies or a little more Social or Exploration rewards, probably a little of both. So make it 30 social, 30 exploration, and 40 combat to level in this case.

Here's what's ****: That quest as detailed is worth 44 XP at level 5-10, and 34 XP at level 11+. All the remaining XP comes from the way combat XP is written.

I don't like recalculating XP rewards by tier/level differences. I don't like grey quests. I don't like how this treats quests, objectives, or combat XP. It's not bad for being a system option. It's not bad because I won't use it. It's bad because it's unusable. It's honestly so bad it's hard to put into words. It's awful that a 100 point scale should give plenty of granularity and that's used only for combat XP. I don't even know if this is supposed to be individual or party XP or some combination of the two. Neither option makes any sense.

I was really hoping for something useful this month, like UA: Food and Provisions, or UA: Materials and Item Durability. Instead we got UA: You can light the XP system on fire if you want. There is not one salvageable part of this UA and it's not even long enough to be a satisfying paper shred session.

Edit: Sorry, I know it says everyone gets the same amount of XP, but combat for 2 players and combat for 5 players is going to be different amounts of creatures as is treasure awards and the impact of that treasure is going to vary between them. Meanwhile, I don't expect to find twice as many important locations or sway twice as many allies with a 6 person party as with a 3 person party. Maybe others do. The only tangible part of this UA would be turning it around into XP for gold.

[Sigreid]

I could see using this and eliminating the combat xp all together essentially refocusing the game on what you accomplish as opposed to what you kill. Yes, you killed the ogre to get the legendary lilac loincloth of power, but the xp reward was for getting the loincloth. If you did it by tricking the ogre or sending out your bard with 20 cha and expertise in persuasion to convince the ogre to give it to you before an amoral bunch of adventurers murder him in his sleep, that's still task done.

[Pex]

I don't like recalculating XP rewards by tier/level differences. I don't like grey quests. I don't like how this treats quests, objectives, or combat XP. It's not bad for being a system option. It's not bad because I won't use it. It's bad because it's unusable. It's honestly so bad it's hard to put into words. It's awful that a 100 point scale should give plenty of granularity and that's used only for combat XP. I don't even know if this is supposed to be individual or party XP or some combination of the two. Neither option makes any sense.

I was really hoping for something useful this month, like UA: Food and Provisions, or UA: Materials and Item Durability. Instead we got UA: You can light the XP system on fire if you want. There is not one salvageable part of this UA and it's not even long enough to be a satisfying paper shred session.

There is no division. Everyone gets the XP total.

Cynical conjecture. Could these various articles that are about game play - mass combat, out of combat XP, etc. be preliminary inquests for 6E?

[MaxWilson]

I think this might be the worst UA yet. It's hard to top Mass Combat though.

It's a lot better than those stupid splat bloat UAs though: Lore Wizard, Paladin of Treachery, etc. At least this one is rules-focused instead of content-bloat-focused.

[Zalabim]

It's a lot better than those stupid splat bloat UAs though: Lore Wizard, Paladin of Treachery, etc. At least this one is rules-focused instead of content-bloat-focused.

I'll give you that a terrible rules-supplement will just never be brought up again while a terrible player-supplement I have to keep hearing about over and over, so it has that going for it: It's forgettable.

[Anonymouswizard]

Am I the only person disappointed that Mearls isn't taking feedback on his pet project? No survey for Greyhawk Initiative.


He would get eviscerated if there was a survey on that.

I occasionally stumble across the Facebook 'there's a new UA' posts. Almost every single time the majority of comments are 'this is awesome', partially because the people commenting there are less balance focused than people who post on forums (even ones that aren't as TO focused as the Playground). Greyhawk initiative got these people complaining about how terrible it was, the same kind of people who see nothing wrong with the core Ranger. While there are some people who like it, most people found it MORE complex and LESS balanced.

On Three Pillars XP, it still ranks below the 'random character generator' on my worst UA very list, but that's because there was at least effort put into the presentation. But urgh, it's more complicated than milestone XP, more complicated than 'hand out 100*level XP per session', or any other ways to drop the importance of combat via XP.

EDIT: now I want to write Three Pillars Initiative, it would probably be better than these UAs.

[DracoKnight]

EDIT: now I want to write Three Pillars Initiative, it would probably be better than these UAs.

Do it! I wanna see what social and exploration initiative look like! :smallbiggrin:

[Anonymouswizard]

Do it! I wanna see what social and exploration initiative look like! :smallbiggrin:

I haven't sorted out the social and exploration initiative systems, but this is what I have for the combat initiative:

At the beginning of a round you can declare if you will talk, act, or fight.

If you want to talk you can only move, swap equipment around, and speak, but you roll 1d12+initiative modifers to determine when you act.

If you want to act you can do anything bar harming another creature, whether via hit point damage, debuffs, or so on (basically your actions can only target yourself or allies), with the exception of talking. You roll 1d8+initiative modifiers.

If you want to fight you can do whatever you want including attacking, but your initiative is only 1d4+modifiers.

This encourages trying to find solutions that aren't about harming others, but does have some problems, mostly that everyone who chose 'fight' will be acting close together, causing a lot of overlap. I'm also considering 1d20 for talk, 1d12 for act, and 1d8 for fight, but the idea is that if those actually engaging in combat go last then players will be encouraged to find alternative solutions. Like flooding the cavern they're fighting in, this would be classed as 'acting' under this system.

So that's one pillar of initiative sorted out, and I think it's better than Greyhawk initiative was (although it's got a lot of kinks to iron out), to sort out the others I'll need to iron out a system for exploration phases, and potentially one for social consequences (to make who goes when in a social conflict more meaningful). Feel free to give feedback, but I'll be posting this in the 'alternative UA' thread once I've got all three pillars sorted.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well... I guess it's not awful. Still absolutely no reason to use it above milestone xp. The intention to streamline XP I admire, but this implementation isn't it.

Among other things, a PC of any level can level up by massacring 50 Kobolds. Are you sure?

Combat
The XP you gain for defeating a monster is determined by comparing the monster’s challenge rating to your level. In most cases, you gain 5 XP per monster defeated. That award increases to 15 XP if a monster’s challenge rating is twice your level or more. If its challenge rating is half your level or less, that award drops to 2 XP. Hmm, I'd rather see the Clvl versus CR ratios mentioned previously come in to play. 50 Kobolds for a level might actually be hard, if it's Tucker's Kobolds ( grin ) but I see your point.

Another UA, another fix to something that isn't a problem. Yeah.
Am I the only person disappointed that Mearls isn't taking feedback on his pet project? No survey for Greyhawk Initiative. Given how awful that UA is, I think it was the wiser decision.

@PEx: if these are what 6e might look like ...
Arrgh, gag, and vomit all at once.

[DracoKnight]

@PEx: if these are what 6e might look like ...
Arrgh, gag, and vomit all at once.

I concur, although I'm also pretty sure that Mearles said 6e is nowhere on the horizon - a good 10 years off, IIRC.

[Waterdeep Merch]

How can a system where the award of XP is entirely at the discretion of the DM be 'gamed?'

And how do casters have an advantage? All players at your table progress at the same rate. When you award XP you do so equally to each PC.

Personally I dont mind it, but it just looks like a more complicated milestone system.

An easier system would be to mirror the Savage Worlds system. Each session you award 1-3 XP to each player (with 1 XP for 'didnt really do much' to 3 XP for 'achieved a lot' and with 2 XP being the norm). You 'ding' at 5 XP (this number isnt set in stone if it advances players too fast - you can increase it to 10 XP if that floats your boat).

I'd strongly consider using such a system, as it removes the motivation to [kill things and ignore the rest of the adventure] as engaging in murder isnt the only way one can advance.

Setting the mark at 7 XP to level means you level (on average) every 3-4 sessions (around 1/month for most groups) and cant advance faster than every 3rd session.
Savage Worlds has a very good system. This is not that, and it's because it's so mechanical. This system awards a specific amount of points for achieving specific things- things that a caster has a distinct advantage at achieving.

The social pillar is most easily circumvented by enchantment and illusion magic, especially as-written here. Ergo, casters have a strong advantage here. On top of that, this system reinforces doing everything in your power to target specific NPCs, which may or may not be a bad thing depending on what sort of game you want to run. Regardless, this incentive means the party might derail the campaign just to squeeze out this relatively safe and surprisingly bountiful XP source, hence gaming the system.

The exploration pillar is most easily circumvented with teleportation, transportation, and divination magics. Ergo, casters have a strong advantage here. Since simply finding the place/gaining the treasure is all that is necessary for a rather shocking amount of XP, players are incentivized to circumvent any hostile enemies or traps, at least as-written, as this is notably safer yet still offers progression almost on par with fighting. This may or may not be a bad thing depending on what sort of game you want to run. Regardless, this incentive means that your party will likely not engage in the combat pillar if they can help it, and frankly 5e without combat's pretty boring. The system isn't very good at doing that.

The combat pillar is alright. I haven't run numbers here, but it looks like you'll level up at a pretty swift pace compared to normal- supposing that your DM uses high-CR monsters. Utilizing low level monsters is a great way to make your players frustrated, as they'd have to kill an ungodly number of them to achieve their levels. This is a problem with 5e already, and is not unique to this system- I use multipliers for my own players to not agitate them when they scrape by a hard fight with a room full of orcs only to learn that the much easier single ogre a room ago granted more XP. Whether casters have an advantage here is worth multiple high count threads, but what isn't is that they certainly aren't hampered here.

This system encourages you to ignore what D&D does best- combat- in exchange for engaging more in the social and exploration parts of the game. While I do believe that a good game of D&D encompasses all three, it's not even debatable which one is better handled by the system. Player levels are primarily dedicated to power levels. Classes are structured mostly on what your combat role and capabilities are. Levels only occasionally grant non-combat abilities. The DMG is mostly filled with rules on creating a fair combat challenge. Magic items are mostly centered on using them in fights. The entire friggin' Monster Manual exists to give players interesting things to fight, alongside the rules to do so.

Thus, I believe that shining a light on the other two pillars is a mistake without an overhaul to how those pillars work in the first place. One that hopefully spreads the power out more and doesn't leave all the best tools in the hands of casters alone.

[Cybren]

Savage Worlds has a very good system. This is not that, and it's because it's so mechanical. This system awards a specific amount of points for achieving specific things- things that a caster has a distinct advantage at achieving.


You seem to have missed that the whole group gets the same XP.

[jaappleton]

I concur, although I'm also pretty sure that Mearles said 6e is nowhere on the horizon - a good 10 years off, IIRC.

Seems like worthwhile UA is even farther off.

[Waterdeep Merch]

You seem to have missed that the whole group gets the same XP.
No, I got that. Doesn't stop the casters from being your MVP and the only reason you're really getting it in two out of three instances. It's unbalanced because not everyone gets to realistically participate.

What exactly do you think the barbarian, fighter, or monk is going to get to do? This is already a problem. Making it viable, even desirable, to never even get into combat means you're going to punish players for picking classes thinking that the game is... well, Dungeons and Dragons.

[Zorku]

It seems like the "no xp for combat that doesn't represent any risk to the party" bound for xp gains would still apply to this.

What I've taken from it is that finding cool places, looting fancy crap, and forging an alliance are all worth about two solo mob encounters of xp. What I hope more people take from this, is that you should get xp for monsters that you 'solve' by means other than death by physical trauma (these forums already kind of know that, but we're not the entire player base...)

I suspect I'd get the best results out of this by just keeping my players in the dark about what I was doing. Given the numbers involved I could easily track xp totals in a notebook or excel sheet and just tell people that they level up the next time they spend a night in town, and they don't really need to know where the levels come from except that I make it clear that it's not just killing monsters.


I get the idea behind it, but I wouldn't make things so complicated. Quests, locations, and diplomatic situations would have a CR based on the DCs involved in accomplishing them; complete the quest, find the place, talk to the guys, and you'll get some XP out of it. Of course, that XP gets divided among the party (personal quests having rewards of another type for the involved character) and I'd probably multiply the XP required to level depending on how the pacing feels.

Honestly I've yet to see a DM stick to the XP system long enough to get a feel for it. That'll be an unspoken rule for the next campaign I run.
You're not the first person to say that, but it's really striking in this post. We have very different ideas about what it means for something to be complex...


Am I the only person disappointed that Mearls isn't taking feedback on his pet project? No survey for Greyhawk Initiative.The internet already put together a ton of surveys on that. Having an official survey at this point would just encourage the loudest detractors to swing the survey as hard as they could.

Moreover, we're probably looking at filler UA since the dev team is preoccupied with finalizing XGtE. Don't expect a survey for alt xp next UA day.

-

For the detractors: what's the smallest change you could make to this that would make it not-broken?

[Waterdeep Merch]

For the detractors: what's the smallest change you could make to this that would make it not-broken?
Removing the social and exploration XP entirely . I'm really not against a 100 XP base, and while different I don't think having a standardized level progression that is easy for everyone to remember is a bad thing. I also like having numbers small enough for everyone to easily follow. It makes handing out bonus XP that much easier and more exciting.

[DanyBallon]

Removing the social and exploration XP entirely . I'm really not against a 100 XP base, and while different I don't think having a standardized level progression that is easy for everyone to remember is a bad thing. I also like having numbers small enough for everyone to easily follow. It makes handing out bonus XP that much easier and more exciting.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the fix for a UA that offer to cover xp on all three pillars of D&D is to remove xp for two pillars and only consider combat, which is mostly the xp system presented in the PHB?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the fix for a UA that offer to cover xp on all three pillars of D&D is to remove xp for two pillars and only consider combat, which is mostly the xp system presented in the PHB?
No, no misunderstanding. I tried looking at it from a few different angles, but it kept coming back around to the same conclusion- the game portion of D&D is centered on combat, and any rewards that revolve around anything else shouldn't be so strong as to drive you away from it. This is not to say that the other pillars aren't enjoyable, but that as gameplay functions, they're weak, boring, and 3.x-style unbalanced across the classes. Before this is even remotely considerable, you'd need to include a more dynamic and enjoyable system for both exploration and socializing that doesn't involve one or two d20 rolls with modifiers to hit a desired result. You can make a great argument for roleplaying it, of course, but this doesn't change the fact that the actual rules governing it aren't very good.

And I dislike how it disincentives combat too much by offering the same rewards without any of the risks, again making it really boring. In game theory, you can generally expect most players to automatically gravitate towards the most optimal strategies and techniques. This even happens subconsciously. This is why everyone talks about making strong builds and rebalancing overly weak or strong choices, and why balance matters. The combat's the fun part, but if the rewards are easier to find elsewhere, that part of our brain that likes getting cookies starts itching and we do the dumb, boring thing instead. Just look at Facebook games.

[Rynjin]

Did 5e really not give XP for non-combat challenges before now? That's just a dumb oversight in the first place.

[Temperjoke]

Did 5e really not give XP for non-combat challenges before now? That's just a dumb oversight in the first place.

If I recall, the DMG mentions it as an option depending on the campaign, but it wasn't codified like the UA has.

[DanyBallon]

No, no misunderstanding. I tried looking at it from a few different angles, but it kept coming back around to the same conclusion- the game portion of D&D is centered on combat, and any rewards that revolve around anything else shouldn't be so strong as to drive you away from it. This is not to say that the other pillars aren't enjoyable, but that as gameplay functions, they're weak, boring, and 3.x-style unbalanced across the classes. Before this is even remotely considerable, you'd need to include a more dynamic and enjoyable system for both exploration and socializing that doesn't involve one or two d20 rolls with modifiers to hit a desired result. You can make a great argument for roleplaying it, of course, but this doesn't change the fact that the actual rules governing it aren't very good.

And I dislike how it disincentives combat too much by offering the same rewards without any of the risks, again making it really boring. In game theory, you can generally expect most players to automatically gravitate towards the most optimal strategies and techniques. This even happens subconsciously. This is why everyone talks about making strong builds and rebalancing overly weak or strong choices, and why balance matters. The combat's the fun part, but if the rewards are easier to find elsewhere, that part of our brain that likes getting cookies starts itching and we do the dumb, boring thing instead. Just look at Facebook games.

I get your point

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have the same issue as you seem to have as I often award xp for clever solution that avoid an encounter, and still my players often disregard any common sense and jump into a fight whenever they feel like doing so :smallbiggrin:

And I wouldn't expect them to completely avoid combat even if it was easier to grab xp through exploration or roleplay. And I guess that I don't have a group that is exceptional in regard to their play style. While on the other hand I find that the gamist style you describe is much more present on different D&D boards, but form a minor group that is highly vocal and in such can create a distortion in the perception of the real gaming community.

[Logosloki]

I feel this would have been better if this was about integrating social and exploration xp into the current system.

I don't think this is prep for 6th. I think this is prep for DMG2 next year. They want to find out what extra systems DMs (and players) want base rules on.

[DanyBallon]

I feel this would have been better if this was about integrating social and exploration xp into the current system.

I don't think this is prep for 6th. I think this is prep for DMG2 next year. They want to find out what extra systems DMs (and players) want base rules on.

As far as I understand, UA are meant to try new concept and are provide with a simple frame in order to create discussion and tweaking around the concept presented, they are by no means intended to be a final solution. I think that the sub-classes UA have mislead some into thinking that UA was some kind of a large playtest for future material, but that's far from it in my understanding.

[Oramac]

Apparently I'm the minority here, but I like it. It certainly needs major work before it's game-ready, but it's a solid concept.

[Tanarii]

Did 5e really not give XP for non-combat challenges before now? That's just a dumb oversight in the first place.
It gave gives XP for non-combat challenges. But unless those challenges were expected to require resource expenditure to overcome, they were at best rated as 'Easy' challenges. Given the way most DMs run things, that means the majority of XP comes from combat challenges, since that's the majority of challenges that are expected to expend resources.

As I said up-thread, this is because D&D is (both historically and in 5e) a game of resource management. Among other things. If you want to change that, you have to change what you're rewarding XP for. For example, in Classic and AD&D 1e, the majority of XP comes from obtaining loot, not from defeating creatures. Milestone XP/Levels rewards staying on the railroad tracks successfully. etc etc

[Joe the Rat]

Apparently I'm the minority here, but I like it. It certainly needs major work before it's game-ready, but it's a solid concept.
I like basic outline, and the framework for "tiers" of exploration/interaction (which needs work), but there's a lot of rough-to-wonky features.


What I've taken from it is that finding cool places, looting fancy crap, and forging an alliance are all worth about two solo mob encounters of xp.
Would you put that as two medium or hard encounters on-level?

[Zorku]

No, no misunderstanding. I tried looking at it from a few different angles, but it kept coming back around to the same conclusion- the game portion of D&D is centered on combat, and any rewards that revolve around anything else shouldn't be so strong as to drive you away from it.
Wow.

...

You don't really think through "the poison is in the other glass" type strategy at all, do you?

So, an easy way to ensure that there's a good amount of combat in the game, would be to just not allow the party to avoid all combats. If you have a mean dungeon complex with 3 goblin clans in it that are in open conflict with each other, and the party allies themselves with one clan so that they don't have to fight them, then they've just guaranteed that the other two clans will not negotiate with them. They can sneak past quite a few goblins, but most of the time they are not going to get into the treasure room and back out from it without alerting the complex to their presence. Maybe on rare occasions they do, but that's rare and memorable. Just don't let it be a common thing.

As an estimate, you might expect the party to avoid 1/3rd of the potential encounters in an area, and they simply do not get the ideal reward if they perform worse than this. If they perform better than this, then you do a little after action report to figure out why that happened and if you should change anything for next time. This comes with all of the usual complication of any simple plan, but it seems obvious that you'd dial in to some particular difficulty where avoiding combat is an advantage but not one that's too easily gained.

...

If you don't think that this is a warranted assumption, what do you think it would look like in the kind of keyword language that the devs use for these publications? How much would they have to say beyond the "your table might focus on two pillars" line to indicate this sort of idea?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Wow.

...

You don't really think through "the poison is in the other glass" type strategy at all, do you?

So, an easy way to ensure that there's a good amount of combat in the game, would be to just not allow the party to avoid all combats. If you have a mean dungeon complex with 3 goblin clans in it that are in open conflict with each other, and the party allies themselves with one clan so that they don't have to fight them, then they've just guaranteed that the other two clans will not negotiate with them. They can sneak past quite a few goblins, but most of the time they are not going to get into the treasure room and back out from it without alerting the complex to their presence. Maybe on rare occasions they do, but that's rare and memorable. Just don't let it be a common thing.

As an estimate, you might expect the party to avoid 1/3rd of the potential encounters in an area, and they simply do not get the ideal reward if they perform worse than this. If they perform better than this, then you do a little after action report to figure out why that happened and if you should change anything for next time. This comes with all of the usual complication of any simple plan, but it seems obvious that you'd dial in to some particular difficulty where avoiding combat is an advantage but not one that's too easily gained.

...

If you don't think that this is a warranted assumption, what do you think it would look like in the kind of keyword language that the devs use for these publications? How much would they have to say beyond the "your table might focus on two pillars" line to indicate this sort of idea?
Essentially, what I dislike is gaining too much combat power from non-combat, and I especially dislike the idea of safe earnings. I reward my players for bypassing fights exactly as I would for fighting them, but I also tend to include a lot of repercussions both ways. Sometimes, the best answer really is to get into conflict. And any such bypassing will typically require either resource expenditure, dangerous chance, or clever thinking, all of which I consider worth rewarding.

This is what I feel is missing from this UA's reward structure. You shouldn't get safe XP. If the place you explore is innately dangerous or requires resources to reach, then I'm not against rewarding getting there. Socializing likewise shouldn't grant anything unless there was ever a real threat from failing it, like minding your manners in front of an impatient king known for beheading people for looking at him funny. Even in these circumstances, though, it's not XP I'd want to reward due to the combat nature of levels. I'd rather give them special rewards like treasure, boons, prestige, or something more fitting for the occasion. Depending on what it is, you could even make it more interesting by offering items/abilities/circumstances that empower the players to continue along those lines, like a position of authority that grants bonuses and options when talking to people or magic powers that could help even the fighter find hidden secrets later.

So I guess I'd rather a discussion on the three pillars to focus on how you can reward players for interacting with the social and exploration aspects in ways that more directly relate to them, and possibly ways to add complexity and substance to those pillars that the core rules are somewhat lacking. Kind of like how the trap UA talked about making traps more interactive and fun for the whole party.

[Malifice]

Savage Worlds has a very good system. This is not that, and it's because it's so mechanical. This system awards a specific amount of points for achieving specific things- things that a caster has a distinct advantage at achieving.

All players get the same XP.

If a 'caster' does something awesome he earns the whole party XP.


The social pillar is most easily circumvented by enchantment and illusion magic, especially as-written here.

Maybe in your games doing something like convincing the King of the importance of a task is 'circumvented by illusion or enchantment magic', but not in my games. In fact; you're almost certain to make a very powerful enemy in the king.

In fact any NPC who was charmed (they become hostile to you after the fact) or was aware they were swindled via an illusion is almost certain to become an enemy, probably undoing the work you did with the magic in the first place.

If you had a good DM you would know this already. Clearly you dont.


Ergo, casters have a strong advantage here. On top of that, this system reinforces doing everything in your power to target specific NPCs, which may or may not be a bad thing depending on what sort of game you want to run. Regardless, this incentive means the party might derail the campaign just to squeeze out this relatively safe and surprisingly bountiful XP source, hence gaming the system.

Dont be stupid. If your players are wandering around 'trying to convince potent NPCs of stuff just to earn XP' you have far bigger problems at you table than I care to really get into here.

And again; the DM determines when XP is awarded. You're jumping at shadows. It cant be gamed, unless the DM is an idiot, in which case the campaign already sucks anyway.



This system encourages you to ignore what D&D does best- combat- in exchange for engaging more in the social and exploration parts of the game. While I do believe that a good game of D&D encompasses all three, it's not even debatable which one is better handled by the system. Player levels are primarily dedicated to power levels. Classes are structured mostly on what your combat role and capabilities are. Levels only occasionally grant non-combat abilities. The DMG is mostly filled with rules on creating a fair combat challenge. Magic items are mostly centered on using them in fights. The entire friggin' Monster Manual exists to give players interesting things to fight, alongside the rules to do so.

I agree the social and exploration pillar are lacking (the latter pillar is why Rangers suck so much - they're built to be good in the exploration pillar, but the reality is most games handwave this pillar and resolve journeys by montage, and simply insert the ruin as a macguffin that needs to be found in order to do the dungeon adventure).

I disagree that combat is the only option. Correct me if Im wrong, but the DMG expreely provides options for milestone levelling, and all the APs to date provide guidelines for if you're using that system.

In the milestone stystem, avoiding combat is for the best, seeing as you are rewarded for advancing the story, not for killing stuff.


Thus, I believe that shining a light on the other two pillars is a mistake without an overhaul to how those pillars work in the first place.

Again on this we largely agree. However in order to do that we would end up with a very different game of DnD.

I would love to see XP be divorced from 'killing things' as much as possible to dissuade murder-hobism and PCs acting like bloodthirsty savages, killing anything and everything, taking no prisoners and justifying all sorts of bloodshed.

I use the [killing stuff] = [Xp] in my own games only due to being an Old schooler at heart, and finding it just kind of feels right.

I manage murderhoboisim in other ways.

[Waterdeep Merch]

All players get the same XP.

If a 'caster' does something awesome he earns the whole party XP.

That's perfectly fine. What I fear is dedicating too much of a game to things that only a small fraction of the players are any good at.

Maybe in your games doing something like convincing the King of the importance of a task is 'circumvented by illusion or enchantment magic', but not in my games. In fact; you're almost certain to make a very powerful enemy in the king.

In fact any NPC who was charmed (they become hostile to you after the fact) or was aware they were swindled via an illusion is almost certain to become an enemy, probably undoing the work you did with the magic in the first place.

If you had a good DM you would know this already. Clearly you dont.
I'm typically that DM. The players that tend to circumvent social encounters in my games have always been casters. They've got mechanical tools no one else does, that simple. I've seen three different rogue players switch to wizards entirely because of this.

Dont be stupid. If your players are wandering around 'trying to convince potent NPCs of stuff just to earn XP' you have far bigger problems at you table than I care to really get into here.

And again; the DM determines when XP is awarded. You're jumping at shadows. It cant be gamed, unless the DM is an idiot, in which case the campaign already sucks anyway.
I'll admit, the argument's weak. It only really becomes a problem if you're handing out XP as it's earned and make it too obvious where it can be gained/too abundantly available.

Still, it's my preferred method. I like handing out XP as it comes as little rewards, an incentive to keep trucking along and an easy hit of that dopamine that gets released when you get to erase a number and put a bigger one in its place. I also like having the world fairly free-form, and letting my players take a social day if they'd prefer it (part of what led to the incident described above). My disconnect is trying to do things the way I always have while utilizing this system.

I agree the social and exploration pillar are lacking (the latter pillar is why Rangers suck so much - they're built to be good in the exploration pillar, but the reality is most games handwave this pillar and resolve journeys by montage, and simply insert the ruin as a macguffin that needs to be found in order to do the dungeon adventure).

I disagree that combat is the only option. Correct me if Im wrong, but the DMG expreely provides options for milestone levelling, and all the APs to date provide guidelines for if you're using that system.

In the milestone stystem, avoiding combat is for the best, seeing as you are rewarded for advancing the story, not for killing stuff.

...

Again on this we largely agree. However in order to do that we would end up with a very different game of DnD.

I would love to see XP be divorced from 'killing things' as much as possible to dissuade murder-hobism and PCs acting like bloodthirsty savages, killing anything and everything, taking no prisoners and justifying all sorts of bloodshed.

I use the [killing stuff] = [Xp] in my own games only due to being an Old schooler at heart, and finding it just kind of feels right.

I manage murderhoboisim in other ways.
I really enjoy the combat aspects of D&D. I think almost everyone that plays the game does. Issues with murderhobo-ism stem from trying to tell a nuanced story that the system doesn't really support well. Players tend to find it more boring because, well... it is.

I think we're not really arguing against each other all that much here, just on specifics. It might work if only the social and exploration aspects of the game were strong enough to play on their own. As it is, I'm concerned that preparing a game of D&D with too little combat will get boring real quick, and I fear, perhaps unwarranted, that my players might choose pacifism unconsciously as an optimal strategy and accidentally bore themselves.

[Malifice]

That's perfectly fine. What I fear is dedicating too much of a game to things that only a small fraction of the players are any good at.

Bards and Rogues are social skill guys. Rangers are the exploration guys.

If a caster wants to use a resource (spell slot) to do something, then that's a resource. The PC should be on the clock (or the DM should be managing resources in some fashion) so thats one less resource the PCs have available for later on in the adventure.

One less fireball for when the Orcs attack later. One less teleport to get to the ruin the King told the PCs about. And so forth.


I'm typically that DM. The players that tend to circumvent social encounters in my games have always been casters. They've got mechanical tools no one else does, that simple. I've seen three different rogue players switch to wizards entirely because of this.

Dont take this personally but hats because you're probably a DM who either doesnt manage or police player resources, impose consequences for actions, or design challenges for your PCs appropriately, or all of the above.

The Wizard who casts Dominate person on the King? Come on. Thats a death sentence in my games. The Kings court wizard watching on has something to say about that in any event (when he counters or dispells it and orders the guards - Champions, Veterans, Guards and Knights led by a Warlord - to seize you).

See, I design encounters for all my PCs - Rogues, Fighters, Wizards etc to have the opportunity to shine. I also regularly put my PCs on the clock; so a resource being used now, wont be available later on in the adventure. My casters know to hold back on spell use, as they will generally be getting 6-8 [medum- hard] encounters between long rests on an adventuring day as a norm - sometimes more, and sometimes less, but they can never be quite sure of how many.

I also run a world wher magic is normal and spellcasters are pretty common (Forgotten realms). Magic like charm person and illusions are common enough that most people are aware of their existence (even in smallish towns there is probably a person capable of casting cantrips or 1st level spells like friends or charm person or minor illusion at a minimum). Legal penalties exist for duping a person with magic or enchanting them that are... quite severe. Local Law enforcement has spellcasters on staff (or access to spell casters) to track down a spellcaster that charms his way to wealth, or uses similar magic to dupe people. Important people are savvy to being charmed or tricked with magic. Thats how they got to be an important person after all; by being savvy.

In short, magic is only the 'best' solution if you (the DM) allow it to be. You clearly do just this, and this is why everyone wants to play a Wizard in your games.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that approach. Its just not a feature of the game; its just a feature of your game.


I really enjoy the combat aspects of D&D. I think almost everyone that plays the game does. Issues with murderhobo-ism stem from trying to tell a nuanced story that the system doesn't really support well. Players tend to find it more boring because, well... it is.

If the game rewarded players with XP for participating in a nuanced story and playing flawed characters who dont always act in their own best intrest, and penalized them for murder and killing, then you might see a different result.

The game instead rewards killing and punishes players who play nuanced and flawed characters. You never see (for example) PC fighters who arent very good at it, and only do so because their father was a warrior and felt compelled by family pressure to do so (Str and Dex 12, Int 14). They are cowards (the PC regularly uses his action to Dodge and cower). They deeply care about a girl who is engaged to another man, and would die for her blah blah and so forth.

The game not only mechanically punishes those characters and players, it also rewards the characters (and players) who play Str 18 murderhobo orphans with no background who solve everything by murder and mayhem.

Thats a function of the game. Awarding XP for things like good roleplaying, acting out of personal intrest due to a flaw or hubris etc removes much of that. You see a stripped down 'narrative' based reward mechanism in the inspiration mechanic (a first for DnD) that is horribly under-utilised (both in the actual rule set, and by many DMs).

Working with that system would be good. For example a feat that lets you obtain multiple 'inspirations' would be fantastic (players who prefer to rolpelay could get that feat, and contribute to the game despite playing flawed and 'mechanically suboptimal' PCs). The feat should also let them affect the narrative directly (like 'plot points' from the DMG) by expending 3 such inspirations to insert a NPC or story element, or major character development into the game or something similar.

Just an idea of the top of my head. But you see where I am going.

[Zorku]

Essentially, what I dislike is gaining too much combat power from non-combat, and I especially dislike the idea of safe earnings. I reward my players for bypassing fights exactly as I would for fighting them, but I also tend to include a lot of repercussions both ways. Sometimes, the best answer really is to get into conflict. And any such bypassing will typically require either resource expenditure, dangerous chance, or clever thinking, all of which I consider worth rewarding.

This is what I feel is missing from this UA's reward structure. You shouldn't get safe XP. If the place you explore is innately dangerous or requires resources to reach, then I'm not against rewarding getting there. Socializing likewise shouldn't grant anything unless there was ever a real threat from failing it, like minding your manners in front of an impatient king known for beheading people for looking at him funny. Even in these circumstances, though, it's not XP I'd want to reward due to the combat nature of levels. I'd rather give them special rewards like treasure, boons, prestige, or something more fitting for the occasion. Depending on what it is, you could even make it more interesting by offering items/abilities/circumstances that empower the players to continue along those lines, like a position of authority that grants bonuses and options when talking to people or magic powers that could help even the fighter find hidden secrets later.

So I guess I'd rather a discussion on the three pillars to focus on how you can reward players for interacting with the social and exploration aspects in ways that more directly relate to them, and possibly ways to add complexity and substance to those pillars that the core rules are somewhat lacking. Kind of like how the trap UA talked about making traps more interactive and fun for the whole party.
That's much more agreeable, but even on these forums I've never really seen people successfully describe social/exploration encounters that chew through more resources than a single spell slot.

It's much easier to layer skillchecks to get past a series of obstacles, but nobody really likes how that works as soon as a party fails a check.


easy solutions to all of your difficult problems
That's nice, but have you ever seen what it looks like when somebody imitates you poorly?