Questions on Using Gold for EXP

[Joshthemanwich]

I have been working on a Hex Crawl and Mega Dungeon style Campaign where I will be using Gold for EXP alongside the standard Combat EXP and I wonder if anyone has played with this style of game and if any problems will arise.

1. Will 5e characters end up with "too much" gold?
2. Will players actually interact with monsters more often?
3. Does your average 5e player get frustrated with tracking encumbrance and bag space?
4. Do 5e players try to spend excess gold without "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe"?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I don't know if I'm going to answer your specific questions here, but a few thoughts on awarding XP for things other than smashing monsters:

1) Absolutely do it. There's no reason to encourage murder hoboing the way the default system does.
2) Chop XP awards for monsters defeated in 1/2; characters level way to fast anyway, and it opens up some space to award for other things.
3) Consider adding XP for good roleplay, creative solutions, magic item acquisition, and solving problems without killing everything.

[LudicSavant]

I have been working on a Hex Crawl and Mega Dungeon style Campaign where I will be using Gold for EXP alongside the standard Combat EXP and I wonder if anyone has played with this style of game and if any problems will arise.

1. Will 5e characters end up with "too much" gold?
2. Will players actually interact with monsters more often?
3. Does your average 5e player get frustrated with tracking encumbrance and bag space?
4. Do 5e players try to spend excess gold without "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe"?

Too much magic items is a thing, but too much gold? Only if you permit that gold to be converted reliably into too much magic items.

One way to prevent this without taking out magic item purchases entirely (aside from just making prices saner) is to make finding a broker (or crafter, or reagents) for a rare magic item into a downtime activity that consumes time, not just money. XGtE has some guidelines that may help with this.

[Twelvetrees]

I'm running something similar, except I'm not using combat XP, just gold for XP.


This wasn't a problem on my end, but I also created a custom XP table for how much gold they needed to level up.

My players were certainly more mercenary than usual. They may not have liked some of the monsters they interacted with, but if there was a chance to get paid, they were willing to work with them. They've taken several jobs from dragons, for example.

Yes. Or at least my players did. One of the first infusions the artificer took was Replicate Magic Item to make a Bag of Holding.

My players have been very leery of spending gold on anything besides the next level. About the only thing they've been willing to consider buying is improvements to their wagon - and that's only because it'll allow them to carry more gold out of dungeons!

[Oramac]

First, let me say that I quite like the idea.


3) Consider adding XP for good roleplay, creative solutions, magic item acquisition, and solving problems without killing everything.

This. Players should absolutely get XP for all kinds of things. You could use only gold for this, or use a combination of gold (tangible-ish) and XP (more intangible).


Too much magic items is a thing

I'm going to disagree here. I love handing out magic items to my players. I've run games where each player is deciding how to best use their 3 attunement slots by 5th level. It adds power, sure, but that just means I get to throw bigger and more powerful bad guys at them.

And if you're using magic items as a gold-equivalent for XP, you really can't get too many.

[Oramac]

My players have been very leery of spending gold on anything besides the next level.

Forgot to quote this. How do you determine the gold cost of each level? Is it equal to the XP cost, or have you done some fiddling with the numbers?

[LudicSavant]

I'm going to disagree here. I love handing out magic items to my players. I've run games where each player is deciding how to best use their 3 attunement slots by 5th level. It adds power, sure, but that just means I get to throw bigger and more powerful bad guys at them.

And if you're using magic items as a gold-equivalent for XP, you really can't get too many.

Fair enough!

[Chronos]

Just to clarify, because I'm not exactly sure what the OP is proposing (and also not sure that everyone in this thread is talking about the same thing): Is this...

1: Every time the players gain gold, they also gain the same (or proportionate) amount of XP, in addition to other XP sources.

2: Every time the players gain XP (from whatever source), they also gain the same (or proportionate) amount of gold.

3: Gold is XP. They have to spend gold to level up, and any gold they spent on leveling can't be used to buy gear or whatever. Monsters only give XP if they manage to loot gold off of their corpses.

4: Same as 3, except that every monster is always carrying loot equivalent to its XP value.

5: Something else I didn't think of.

[Twelvetrees]

3: Gold is XP. They have to spend gold to level up, and any gold they spent on leveling can't be used to buy gear or whatever. Monsters only give XP if they manage to loot gold off of their corpses.
This is the method I'm using.


Forgot to quote this. How do you determine the gold cost of each level? Is it equal to the XP cost, or have you done some fiddling with the numbers?
I fiddled with the numbers and moved away from individual XP. Attaining levels 2 through 5, for example, requires that the party spends 1000 gp each time.

That amount increases in each tier, but it's the same for each level within a tier.

[greenstone]

I would use XP for gold or XP for monsters, but not both.

Using XP for gold is all about encouraging a goal-focused way of thinking and playing. Players should look at encounters and think "what's the most efficient way to get what we want?" instead of "how do we kill all the monsters?"

Having no XP for monsters encourages this further. If a group of monsters guards no treasure then the players should be avoiding combat, since all it would do is spend time and resources for no gain.

In a Primeval Thule game I ran, I took it further. Gold only counted for XP when you got it back to town. Characters had to not only obtain the gold but guard it on the way back to town.

[Tanarii]

I have been working on a Hex Crawl and Mega Dungeon style Campaign where I will be using Gold for EXP alongside the standard Combat EXP and I wonder if anyone has played with this style of game and if any problems will arise.

1. Will 5e characters end up with "too much" gold?They shouldn't end up with any more or less than a normal 5e character. It'll only be "too much" if you introduce magic marts where they can just walk in and pick something up. But that's only because downtime to find a seller of magic items (in the Xan rules) costs a base amount (100gp?) just to kick off the search. Even them IiRC the total gold for magic items is something like 1/2 again the expected amount of magic items from adventuring. So at most they'd have 1.5x the normal amount.


2. Will players actually interact with monsters more often?My experience is they try to avoid them. Assuming you reduce XP for defeating enemies.


3. Does your average 5e player get frustrated with tracking encumbrance and bag space?Not noticeably. You can carry a LOT of coins with base encumberance. Highly recommend you use the variant encumberance rules.


4. Do 5e players try to spend excess gold without "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe"?Yes. Even with Xan downtime rules for buying magic items, players will always find things they want to spend money on other than magic items. Especially if it's a single party game with plenty of downtime.

Speaking of which don't forget to encourage players to live Aristocratic lives, even as early as 5th level. And have plenty of downtime between session. 10gp/day adds up fast and encourages going on the next adventure. :smallamused: 300gp/month does become a fairly small drop in the bucket after 11th, but even then they'll want a treasure hoard every few months to keep the bank stash high. Especially if they're intending to invest in keeps and armies or the like.

[Oramac]

This is the method I'm using.

I fiddled with the numbers and moved away from individual XP. Attaining levels 2 through 5, for example, requires that the party spends 1000 gp each time.

That amount increases in each tier, but it's the same for each level within a tier.

Interesting. I definitely like the idea. How does it work with monsters that have a huge pile of gold, though? I'm thinking of ancient dragon hoards, or a thousand year old lich or something.

[Twelvetrees]

How does it work with monsters that have a huge pile of gold, though?
My solution was to use other denominations of coins instead of the pile being all gold. So a dragon would still have an enormous hoard, but it might have a lot of copper, some silver, a little less electrum, and a decent amount of gold.

[Sigreid]

It's the way it used to be, both honestly I think you're better off discarding xp all together in favor of just levelling the party when the DM is ready is much better.

[Tanarii]

It's the way it used to be, both honestly I think you're better off discarding xp all together in favor of just levelling the party when the DM is ready is much better.
I've suggested it at various points in various editions, and it's always rejected. Players love XP.

[Oramac]

My solution was to use other denominations of coins instead of the pile being all gold. So a dragon would still have an enormous hoard, but it might have a lot of copper, some silver, a little less electrum, and a decent amount of gold.

Ahh. So it's not "money buys levels", but more specifically "gold (and only gold) buys levels". Sorta breaks verisimilitude, but it sounds like it works pretty well.


I've suggested it at various points in various editions, and it's always rejected. Players love XP.

Depends on the players, I suppose. In the last 10-ish years, I can count the number of games I've run/played that used XP on zero fingers. Myself and my normal groups vastly prefer milestone leveling.

[Twelvetrees]

Ahh. So it's not "money buys levels", but more specifically "gold (and only gold) buys levels". Sorta breaks verisimilitude, but it sounds like it works pretty well.
Not quite. The other denominations of coins can still be used to buy XP at the rate of their equivalent value to gold. Spending 10 sp will get the party 1 XP.

50,000 copper pieces fills out a hoard nicely. If they haul that away, it'll get them 500 XP.

[Sigreid]

I've suggested it at various points in various editions, and it's always rejected. Players love XP.
Funny, I don't think I've ever played with anyone who wants to track it as long as levels come at a reasonable pace.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Funny, I don't think I've ever played with anyone who wants to track it as long as levels come at a reasonable pace.

Yeah. I did away with XP entirely a long time ago in favor of just tracking sessions. I had one group (with me as a player) that used XP (combined combat + milestone)...and it was annoying.

[Oramac]

Not quite. The other denominations of coins can still be used to buy XP at the rate of their equivalent value to gold. Spending 10 sp will get the party 1 XP.

50,000 copper pieces fills out a hoard nicely. If they haul that away, it'll get them 500 XP.

Hmm. That seems.....unnecessarily complex. I suppose it does strike a happy medium between "hoard our loot to buy levels" and "spend all the loot on booze and hookers!". You keep the gold/electrum for levels, and blow the copper/silver on whatever random junk you want.

[Skrum]

I haven't played with XP or any type of numerical-like leveling....ever maybe? Always just by milestone. Tracking XP is annoying.

That said, I could see using gold being fun. Gold isn't abstract the way xp is, and if the numbers were right, I like the idea weighing levels against magic items.

Having to pay a trainer to teach you to gain levels is a much better in-game explanation for why characters suddenly get better.

[llama-hedge]

One version I've heard of (but not tried) is that you earn XP by spending gold on stuff (doesn't matter what). The net result of this is that it requires that you get the gold back to town and interact with the world in order to get the benefit. No one else in my group wants to try XP in any way, shape or form, though.

[rel]

I've done this in 3.x long ago. It works quite well, but there are a few things to watch for:

- if you don't give any XP for monsters then fighting is not something the PC's want to do. You're effectively disincentivizing participation in the combat minigame which is a large part of the fun.
This is fine as long as combat still happens, but the GM needs to do more than normal to set it up.

- if you don't limit the xp gain to wealth from adventuring (and I actually recommend you don't), you incentivize the PC's looking for get rich quick schemes, investments and other safe activities to make money.
This is fine, but such activities should lead to adventure, functioning more as plot hooks and in universe justification for the adventure rewards rather than a means of gathering XP by playing a largely single player accounting simulation.

-Because large amounts of money are automatically coming the PC's, you want to build some gold sinks into the game. Spending lump sums of wealth (especially esoteric wealth like rare reagents) to level up is a great option since the PC's need to hold onto and guard large piles of valuable material until they have enough to go up to the next level. Plenty of built in adventure hooks.
Other good options are amassing followers and lands, working large scale changes on the world, and the purchase of magic items.
Take some time to play with the numbers and world building to get the results you want.

[Sigreid]

Yeah. I did away with XP entirely a long time ago in favor of just tracking sessions. I had one group (with me as a player) that used XP (combined combat + milestone)...and it was annoying.

Thinking more about it, I don't think what his players like to see is xp, I think it's progress. What xp gives is even if it's a long time between levels, you can see progress.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thinking more about it, I don't think what his players like to see is xp, I think it's progress. What xp gives is even if it's a long time between levels, you can see progress.

Yeah. It's one reason I do it like I do, so the players know exactly when they'll level. And then I don't have to think about it. They control that and tell me when it's time.

But having progress is nice. The game I'm in as a player doesn't have that at all. And it annoys me a bit.

[Tanarii]

my last campaign was open table. So even the same player would be bringing different characters, and there would be a range of levels in a party for a given session. So Milestone leveling was a non-started.

Milestone XP, which is what "milestone" means for 5e per the DMG, would probably be fine with players even in a single party advancing in lockstep campaign. It's still XP.

But yeah, I do think it's the incremental progress at the end of every session that makes players love it so much. IMX very few players who aren't also DMs have a dislike of XP and want Milestone leveling. As far as I can tell, the preference for it seems to be mostly limited to the kind of folks who get into the game enough to frequent online communities, which are almost none of the folks I have run games for in any edition.

Also worth calling out it wasn't even really feasible before 3e, because different classes advanced at different rates.

[Sigreid]

my last campaign was open table. So even the same player would be bringing different characters, and there would be a range of levels in a party for a given session. So Milestone leveling was a non-started.

Milestone XP, which is what "milestone" means for 5e per the DMG, would probably be fine with players even in a single party advancing in lockstep campaign. It's still XP.

But yeah, I do think it's the incremental progress at the end of every session that makes players love it so much. IMX very few players who aren't also DMs have a dislike of XP and want Milestone leveling. As far as I can tell, the preference for it seems to be mostly limited to the kind of folks who get into the game enough to frequent online communities, which are almost none of the folks I have run games for in any edition.

Also worth calling out it wasn't even really feasible before 3e, because different classes advanced at different rates.
That's a fair assessment. My group is always the same, with most of us taking a turn at DM now and then. We're also currently playing with everyone having 2 to 3 characters they can swap between whenever they're not in the middle of something, all characters levell locked to eachother to keep anyone from feeling like they've either missed out or can't play character x because it fell behind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

my last campaign was open table. So even the same player would be bringing different characters, and there would be a range of levels in a party for a given session. So Milestone leveling was a non-started.

Milestone XP, which is what "milestone" means for 5e per the DMG, would probably be fine with players even in a single party advancing in lockstep campaign. It's still XP.

But yeah, I do think it's the incremental progress at the end of every session that makes players love it so much. IMX very few players who aren't also DMs have a dislike of XP and want Milestone leveling. As far as I can tell, the preference for it seems to be mostly limited to the kind of folks who get into the game enough to frequent online communities, which are almost none of the folks I have run games for in any edition.

Also worth calling out it wasn't even really feasible before 3e, because different classes advanced at different rates.

FWIW, all of my parties (including brand new players) have expressed a strong dislike for XP-based advancement of any kind. Especially standard "XP for kills".

But yeah, in an open table environment, you need some kind of per-session measure. Although you could do just a "session XP" (each session attended on a character counts as some fraction of a level up) and just mark tick marks instead of more involved.

[Chronos]

For what it's worth, even monster XP has never just been "XP for killing". You gain XP for overcoming the problems posed by an encounter. If there's a serial killer stalking the town, then killing him overcomes the problems... but so does arresting him or convincing him to change his ways. If you need to get into a guarded keep, then killing the guards overcomes the problem... but so does stealthing past them or finding another, unguarded entrance. There are usually multiple ways to overcome any given challenge.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For what it's worth, even monster XP has never just been "XP for killing". You gain XP for overcoming the problems posed by an encounter. If there's a serial killer stalking the town, then killing him overcomes the problems... but so does arresting him or convincing him to change his ways. If you need to get into a guarded keep, then killing the guards overcomes the problem... but so does stealthing past them or finding another, unguarded entrance. There are usually multiple ways to overcome any given challenge.

Right. I was over-simplifying. But "XP for dealing with monsters, in direct proportion to the combat threat they pose, with the default being killing or forcing them to flee" is rather a bit wordy. It's about expectations--the idea being that in the "monster XP" case, your primary focus is on encounters. Whether you bypass them or not, you advance by engaging in things that could (and often do) turn hostile. Rather than, say, completing quests (milestone XP) or interacting with the world (session-based leveling), acquiring wealth (the OP's gold --> xp model), etc. It's a different mindset, one that produces different outcomes. Better? Worse? That's party dependent.

And I'd say that in the serial killer example, his "monster XP" value is going to be tremendously tiny unless there's something super special going on. Because "monster XP" is tied directly to CR.

[Tanarii]

But yeah, in an open table environment, you need some kind of per-session measure. Although you could do just a "session XP" (each session attended on a character counts as some fraction of a level up) and just mark tick marks instead of more involved.
Absolutely. 5e's Milestone XP would work totally fine for an open table with either a fixed amount per session, or a variable amount based on something (time of play, DM assigned on some judgement of difficulty and hopefully communicated when session is advertised, etc).

But my players were definitely happy with the idea that the more you accomplished in the session the better the reward. And I liked it as a DM because it encouraged them to take risks and push on ... which made things more dangerous as the session progressed. (My rule for retreating for a Long Rest ending session compounded this of course.)

Not that Milestone XP for goals within the session for accomplishing goals wouldn't have still accomplished the "more you accomplish better reward" goal. But since my design was all encounter (combat and non) anyway, there was no particular benefit to going that route. If I'd had very blurry non-combat encounter lines or ways to determine success of them (or even for combat ones), it definitely would have been better to designate goals instead of encounters as the source of XP rewards.

For GP for XP, the biggest problem is default GP rewards don't scale like XP rewards do. So you have to either rewrite/customize the rewards, or change the XP table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Absolutely. 5e's Milestone XP would work totally fine for an open table with either a fixed amount per session, or a variable amount based on something (time of play, DM assigned on some judgement of difficulty and hopefully communicated when session is advertised, etc).

But my players were definitely happy with the idea that the more you accomplished in the session the better the reward. And I liked it as a DM because it encouraged them to take risks and push on ... which made things more dangerous as the session progressed. (My rule for retreating for a Long Rest ending session compounded this of course.)

In that particular case, yeah. That works.

For my tables, I (and my players) are more interested in how we interacted with the world, rather than how many challenges they overcame. Good sessions have involved anything from
* A purely downtime session attending a big concert put on by a player character. No real threats, just narrative and interplay.
* One big fight (as part of a single much longer adventuring day)
* and just about everything in between.

It's a good thing that the system supports both.