XP or free feat?

[strangebloke]

so my weird DM is doing something weird. I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, I do generally enjoy this campaign, but he goes for some whacky stuff and it makes for interesting talking points.

The campaign uses oldschool XP progression. You don't show up? No xp. You roll up a new character? You start at level 1. My character started a bit later than some of the others, so although we're at the same level I usually level up a bit later, like 3-4 sessions depending on how much combat we see. (this is a slow-paced campaign)

We're now doing a timeskip, and he's offered to give us either

1 proficiency of your choice (save, weapon, or skill)
your xp rounds up to next level


On the one had a part of me says "longterm potential is higher with a free save proficiency." the other part of me says, "I just leveled up, this would gain me like 4 sessions worth of XP."

What would you do? For reference I'm a (pretty suboptimal) level 7 wood elf drakewarden who fights in melee, and the rest of the party, are a bard and moon druid who are obviously pretty effective in spite of their player's suboptimal build choices.

[Pyrophilios]

Take the XP, unless you expect the other players to miss a few rounds too.

If it was a free feat, I'd recommend taking that.

[False God]

I generally take a free level when offered over any alternatives unless I am say, 1 feat away from completing a feat combo that will really make my concept come together.

Assuming you're not MC, level 8 would get you a feat anyway. So I'd take that.

[Sigreid]

Unless others are taking xp and putting you further behind, I'd take the save proficiency. Those don't come along every day.

[strangebloke]

Take the XP, unless you expect the other players to miss a few rounds too.

If it was a free feat, I'd recommend taking that.

Well, they might, but they're not much more likely to miss than me.

And either way I'm not really competing with them, so much as eager to get to higher levels, if for no other reason than campaigns tend to die eventually and its rare to see level 10+ abilities. And yeah its really more of a half-feat, more specifically resilient.

I generally take a free level when offered over any alternatives unless I am say, 1 feat away from completing a feat combo that will really make my concept come together.

Assuming you're not MC, level 8 would get you a feat anyway. So I'd take that.

Not MC and yeah. GWM would be pretty good for my current build, but I expect I'll be taking something else... have to figure out what.

Resilient is sort of one of those "boring but adequate" feats anyway.

Unless others are taking xp and putting you further behind, I'd take the save proficiency. Those don't come along every day.

The others are 90% of the way to level 8 naturally, and the DM is 'rounding up' xp to next level. Which makes it a terrible option naturally. This would put me a little ahead of them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Take the XP. Do you notice a consistent trend in the advice that you are getting? Take the XP.

[solidork]

Do you know what your character is doing during this time skip, and does that provide any useful guidance?

I'd take the XP, unless I was absolutely convinced my character wouldn't be doing the kinds of things that give XP. If my character has spent the first 7 levels fighting to restore peace to the kingdom (or whatever) and I decide that he spent the year actually getting to enjoy that peace... it's hard to say that he'd come out of that better at fighting.

You're actually at the ideal level to really characterize what you do during the time skip, since you can get a feat. Showing up in a year with the Healer feat or Skill Expert says a lot about what you spent your time doing.

[Skrum]

7 to 8 on a single class character is a big milestone, I'd def favor that. The save is like...yeah it's good, but it's not going to change how your character is played. Level 8 and an ASI/feat definitely will. I recommend the fun option.

[strangebloke]

Take the XP. Do you notice a consistent trend in the advice that you are getting? Take the XP.
Heh. The thing is, the party still encounters the same level of difficulty either way. So in the long run the ~10k xp will be only a single encounter's worth of xp. But that's in the long run, in the short run it puts me like two months ahead of where I'd be otherwise. So a solid option.

Do you know what your character is doing during this time skip, and does that provide any useful guidance?

I'd take the XP, unless I was absolutely convinced my character wouldn't be doing the kinds of things that give XP. If my character has spent the first 7 levels fighting to restore peace to the kingdom (or whatever) and I decide that he spent the year actually getting to enjoy that peace... it's hard to say that he'd come out of that better at fighting.

You're actually at the ideal level to really characterize what you do during the time skip, since you can get a feat. Showing up in a year with the Healer feat or Skill Expert says a lot about what you spent your time doing.
True, and I'm really sympathetic to arguments like this. Building my character's legend is key

We completed a quest for the queen and she's letting us select one of several elite schools we could go to. So presumably the XP is the "no thanks I'll go elsewhere" option. This is a knockoff LoZ campaign, so my gerudo would probably go hunt beasts in the desert or something similar.

7 to 8 on a single class character is a big milestone, I'd def favor that. The save is like...yeah it's good, but it's not going to change how your character is played. Level 8 and an ASI/feat definitely will. I recommend the fun option.

Yeah that's what's really swaying me. Covering a defensive option is whatever, maybe it will come up in a big way in the next ten sessions, maybe not.

[OldTrees1]

You are behind by 3 sessions of XP.
You have the choice between 1/2 of Resilience or 1 level (4 sessions of XP).
You are 7th level, rarely get to see level 10+, but are looking forward to those levels.

Seems like XP is the obvious pick based on your preferences. They will all pick Saves. You will pick XP. Next time you miss a session you will all be the same level.

This sounds like the GM intended for you to pick XP to catch you up.

[strangebloke]

You are behind by 3 sessions of XP.
You have the choice between 1/2 of Resilience or 1 level (4 sessions of XP).
You are 7th level, rarely get to see level 10+, but are looking forward to those levels.

Seems like XP is the obvious pick based on your preferences. They will all pick Saves. You will pick XP. Next time you miss a session you will all be the same level.

This sounds like the GM intended for you to pick XP to catch you up.

Well, there's a paladin who's quite a bit lower level than any of us. She joined the party just a few weeks ago, and is far enough behind that the xp actually isn't very good for the purposes of catching up. But fair points overall.

[Corran]

so my weird DM is doing something weird. I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, I do generally enjoy this campaign, but he goes for some whacky stuff and it makes for interesting talking points.

The campaign uses oldschool XP progression. You don't show up? No xp. You roll up a new character? You start at level 1. My character started a bit later than some of the others, so although we're at the same level I usually level up a bit later, like 3-4 sessions depending on how much combat we see. (this is a slow-paced campaign)

We're now doing a timeskip, and he's offered to give us either

1 proficiency of your choice (save, weapon, or skill)
your xp rounds up to next level


On the one had a part of me says "longterm potential is higher with a free save proficiency." the other part of me says, "I just leveled up, this would gain me like 4 sessions worth of XP."

What would you do? For reference I'm a (pretty suboptimal) level 7 wood elf drakewarden who fights in melee, and the rest of the party, are a bard and moon druid who are obviously pretty effective in spite of their player's suboptimal build choices.
Oooph. I dont know how tanky a drakewarden can be, but being underleveled while tanking reminds me of the downward spiral a 3e barbarian I've played with was. And you just leveled up. And the bard can help with saves to some extent. And it's probably(?) not a realistic expectation that you'll reach level 20 anyway. So.... take the save proficiency. Max potential gets me every time. Unless you can highlight why you would be extremelly eager to reach a higher level (perhaps because a combo unlocks then, or you get access to something you really really want because it's powerful or because it's thematic to your character, ie the kind of thing you imagined this character doing which set you on playing it).

[strangebloke]

Oooph. I dont know how tanky a drakewarden can be, but being underleveled while tanking reminds me of the downward spiral a 3e barbarian I've played with was. And you just leveled up. And the bard can help with saves to some extent. And it's probably(?) not a realistic expectation that you'll reach level 20 anyway. So.... take the save proficiency. Max potential gets me every time. Unless you can highlight why you would be extremelly eager to reach a higher level (perhaps because a combo unlocks then, or you get access to something you really really want because it's powerful or because it's thematic to your character, ie the kind of thing you imagined this character doing which set you on playing it).

I have a Drake and summon beast to tank for me so it's really not so bad. The DM is big on galactic force style gameplay where everything is as strong as his setting notes say they are and there's no balance to the encounters. Basically it's either a cake walk or a nightmare, no in between.

And yeah, I'm feeling the MAX POWER thing too, even while the ancients paladin and bard are right there for saves support

[Rynjin]

The DM is big on galactic force style gameplay where everything is as strong as his setting notes say they are and there's no balance to the encounters. Basically it's either a cake walk or a nightmare, no in between.

Why are you even in this game?

This guy DM's like he's simultaneously been doing it since AD&D and yet has somehow learned exactly zero lessons about how to make a game fun.

[strangebloke]

Why are you even in this game?

This guy DM's like he's simultaneously been doing it since AD&D and yet has somehow learned exactly zero lessons about how to make a game fun.

Not wrong! But its a low-op table with beer and pretzels and good friends. And its usually possible to figure out when to run away, which is why my character can burst up to 80 foot 'walking' speed in a pinch.

[animorte]

Why are you even in this game?

This guy DM's like he's simultaneously been doing it since AD&D and yet has somehow learned exactly zero lessons about how to make a game fun.
Maybe the DM is a reasonable rules lawyer, respected in the position of power, and never really enjoys running a PC.

Just not particularly good at adjusting the stats or improvising?


Not wrong! But its a low-op table with beer and pretzels and good friends. And its usually possible to figure out when to run away, which is why my character can burst up to 80 foot 'walking' speed in a pinch.
But then there's this too. I would often prefer some imbalance with good friends sometimes.

[Kane0]

Just take the level, your prof bonus is only +3 for a save prof and wouldnt apply to your drake.

[Sigreid]

Why are you even in this game?

This guy DM's like he's simultaneously been doing it since AD&D and yet has somehow learned exactly zero lessons about how to make a game fun.

It's not unusual in a sandbox/player driven style world to set up the world and let the players decide the risks they'll take regardless of the fairness of those risks.

[Amechra]

It's not unusual in a sandbox/player driven style world to set up the world and let the players decide the risks they'll take regardless of the fairness of those risks.

I'd go so far as to say that that's the point of that style of play.

[strangebloke]

I'd go so far as to say that that's the point of that style of play.

Agreed. My actual gripe with him is that its unclear when stuff is supposed to be high level, but meh. It's still a fun game. People just tend to assume the worst, and also tend to assume that dropping every table where there's something less than perfect is a realistic option. Me being stubborn means me not getting to play much.

[animorte]

Every time I play I expect that anything could be showing up to threaten my life (rather, that of my PC). I usually try to play with decent spacing and patience until I figure out what we're up against and I always do my best to keep a couple GTFO options up my sleeve, not just one. Because you know using that trick isn't always going to work and isn't always going to help when an unexpected encounter shows up after you've already used up resources.

[Greywander]

The part of me that is a perfectionist who only thinks about how my build will look at 20 says to take the saving throw proficiency, you rarely get opportunities to pick those up.

But the reality is that your campaign (or your character) very well may not make it to 20th level. In that case, we're essentially comparing half a feat vs. 90% of an extra level. I think it's pretty clear that getting an extra level will bring more value in most cases. Getting access to a critical class feature one level sooner will help you a lot more.

That said, the longer your character lasts, the smaller that XP difference will look as the cost to level up gets higher and higher. You may get to the point where the difference isn't that noticeable anymore, in which case you might rather have the free save proficiency. So I guess it really comes back to long term vs. short term, and which is better will depend on your particular campaign.

[KorvinStarmast]

People just tend to assume the worst, and also tend to assume that dropping every table where there's something less than perfect is a realistic option. Great point. If I demanded perfection from DM's/other players I'd not get to play much, or at all.

[Rynjin]

Agreed. My actual gripe with him is that its unclear when stuff is supposed to be high level, but meh. It's still a fun game. People just tend to assume the worst, and also tend to assume that dropping every table where there's something less than perfect is a realistic option. Me being stubborn means me not getting to play much.

It's not a matter of "less than perfect", but some of the things you've mentioned for this game are on my hard "do not interact with GM who does this" list, primarily the "everyone starts at level 1" bull****.

I absolutely refuse to play with that houserule, and would say the same even if my best friend was running it.

[Sigreid]

It's not a matter of "less than perfect", but some of the things you've mentioned for this game are on my hard "do not interact with GM who does this" list, primarily the "everyone starts at level 1" bull****.

I absolutely refuse to play with that houserule, and would say the same even if my best friend was running it.

Technically, that's the default and starting at any other level is the house rule. Not saying either is good or bad.

[strangebloke]

It's not a matter of "less than perfect", but some of the things you've mentioned for this game are on my hard "do not interact with GM who does this" list, primarily the "everyone starts at level 1" bull****.

I absolutely refuse to play with that houserule, and would say the same even if my best friend was running it.

I was at level 5 and only one level behind my teammates within two sessions, it wasn't a big deal. Not saying your position is wrong, just saying its not one I empathize with. It does at least encourage good attendance at the table. I don't think we've almost ever missed a session.

[Rynjin]

I was at level 5 and only one level behind my teammates within two sessions, it wasn't a big deal. Not saying your position is wrong, just saying its not one I empathize with. It does at least encourage good attendance at the table. I don't think we've almost ever missed a session.

As a GM, I've also never understood the fascination with punishing people for non-attendance either. It's just such ass-backwards thinking, like you believe that your players don't want to be there (hell, maybe they don't in the case of some of these people).

For our group, RPG nights are the highlight(s) of the week. If someone doesn't show up, that typically means something important was keeping them from doing so. Why do I need to slap them in the face after they've already been punched in the gut?

[animorte]

It does at least encourage good attendance at the table. I don't think we've almost ever missed a session.
This I so very much agree with. Sometimes you just do what you need to. I would gladly take this penalty for the rare times I miss if it would encourage the presence of everyone else a bit more.

[TrialsofHualnem]

Depending on how combat is built, I would probably go for a feat. If you know that combat is punishing to all, even level 1's, then I guess you'll be forced to go XP to survive.