End of an Era

On Friday I finished reading through my final Pathfinder Adventure Path volume. (I still have one final PDF, "The Emerald Spire Superdungeon" to read, but that's not part of the subscription and was something I bought to use up some store credit I had on Paizo's site.) That marks the end of the 24th Path they've published, and also the end of their content for 1st edition. As I've decided not to follow 2nd edition, both due to a dislike to some of what I'd seen and also because I'd be unlikely ever to play it anyway.

"Tyrant's Grasp" was probably a perfect place to end 1st edition - not only did it pit the heroes against the biggest Big Bad in their setting, and a figure they've been teasing for a decade, but it also really summed up everything that has characterised the Paths in recent years, for good and ill. Basically, I've found they've been becoming rather same-y of late, and so it was probably time to bow out regardless of the edition change... and so good to have that motivation.

Still, I do feel a bit bad about it. This marks the first time in a couple of decades that I haven't had a regular delivery of RPG-related material (first the Dragon/Dungeon magazines, and then Pathfinder). And with D&D dropping down to a trickle of new material, and my not really following any other game, that means I'm suddenly adrift.

5e Wands: Nice in Theory

One of the aspects of 5e that I really liked on my read-through was the handling of wands (and staves, and similar items), which I thought was a marked step up from their handling in 3e. In particular, I liked that wands had far fewer charges, I liked that they slowly recharged overnight, and I liked that they had a chance on crumbling away when the last charge was expended (but, crucially, that it wasn't guaranteed, thus encouraging PCs to take that risk with the last charge).

However, having played through a fairly long campaign now, I've found that I'm not so enamoured with the way wands are handled. My reasons for this are two-fold: firstly, the PCs have a bit too much certainty when it comes to tracking the number of charges; and the chance of the wand crumbling with the last charge just isn't high enough.

They're just that bit too generous and too controlled.

My inclination is the make the following four changes to all wands (and staves and similar items):

1. The user does not know how many charges they have.
   
2. Each time a wand is used, there is a 50% chance that one additional charge is expended. (Also, see below.)
   
3. If the last charge is expended, there is a 25% chance of the wand being destroyed.
   
4. The wand recharges 1d3 charges overnight.

In the event that there are not enough charges remaining to power the desired effect, whether due to the use of an extra charge or simply because there were fewer charges remaining than the user expected, nothing happens - the wand does not lose any charges, but no effect occurs. The effect of these changes should be still leave wands as a valuable treasure, and one that PCs are reasonably confident of using fairly regularly. However, they're less controlled than before, which should mean either that they will rely on other powers more often or they'll incur that chance of destruction more often. And, indeed, wands will probably become a treasure that is useful for a few levels but that then eventually drops out of the game - which is also no bad thing.

Of course, I haven't had a chance to test any of these changes in play as yet, and won't until my next campaign. So for now, consider them as random thoughts and little more than that.

Common Resources

For the next campaign, I'm definitely inclined to start using the ultra-simple "ten things" encumbrance rule. Which has the virtues of being really simple, being restrictive enough to be a real constraint, and being generous enough as to not hamper the characters excessively. All of which is to the good.

However, I'm increasingly of a mind to think that there are some things that are probably best not counted as "things" but rather are included as a common resource - the assumption being that everyone carries some of these items, but that they're generally spread out amongst the group so that nobody is overly burdened. Tracking these as common resources also means that it's easier to keep a global track of the resources, which removes the concern of players forgetting (or "forgetting") to track these themselves.

Specifically:

• Food and Water: Track food as a number of person/days of rations in a common pool. Assume also that each person has a waterskin (or similar) containing enough water for one day. Carrying more water than that would count as a 'thing'.
  
• Torches and Oil: Track these as a common pool of each type. Track also how many lanterns the party has (for the oil). Finally, keep track of who is carrying lit light sources - each requires a hand.
  
• Treasure: This is just a common pool of all the stuff that the party has gathered that has not yet been divided up. It is assumed to be in one or more sacks - keep track of who is carrying a sack - each requires a hand.
  
• Gold: Probably rather more controversial, but I've found it's probably best if the party has a single pool of their gold that PCs can dip into as required. It is assumed, of course, that each PC is carrying an equal share in a belt pouch.

If a party member is lost or separated from the group, it is assumed that they are carrying an equal share of food and water, torches and oil, and gold. Also, they may or may not have a lit torch/lantern and/or a sack of treasure - this will be noted.

The other key thing of note is what happens when an encounter starts - some PCs may start with one or both hands full (with a lit torch/lantern or a sack of treasure). This only matters if they then need that hand for something - they can drop the items easily enough, but doing so runs the risk of a light being extinguished and/or a sack of treasure being stolen.

My Current Thoughts on XP

As with many things, I've gone through a few different approaches to awarding XP and/or levels over the years. Until recently, I had taken the view that the thing to do was to not award XP at all, and instead give out a level every three sessions (or, in 5e, one session for 1st level, two for 2nd, and three thereafter).

However, I've gradually settled on a solution that I think works, which I intend to stick with long-term.

#1: XP Should be Awarded, and Should be Awarded Immediately

I've concluded that it is indeed better to award XP. As discussed previously, I divorce the XP budget for encounter building from the reward, and this allows me to give awards for other goals, but the principle is sound.

The other thing I've concluded is that it works best if XP is awarded immediately - as soon as an encounter is won, a quest is completed, or whatever, the PCs get the XP. That way, the PCs get immediate reward, which is a good thing.

#2: Levels are Awarded At the End of a Session
This one is fairly straightforward - once the PCs gain enough XP to gain a level, they gain that level at the end of the session, with the consequences applying immediately at the start of the next session.

Ideally, I think I'd prefer to handle this by awarding levels at the end of the adventure, and certainly requiring the PCs to be taking a long rest. However, given the prevalence of multi-level adventures, enforcing the between-adventure principle would be difficult. Likewise, I don't want to enforce a long rest because it's entirely possible that the session-break won't match up neatly with that - especially in the current paradigm of very short sessions.

#3: Everyone Has the Same XP (and Levels)

Again, this one is straightforward - everyone has the same XP total and level, regardless of actions in the game, attendance, or any other factor. I just don't see any benefit of doing things otherwise.

#4: Sessions Per Level

Assuming a session of 3-4 hours played once a week or once each two weeks, I'm inclined to think that the approximate rate of advancement that gives the best results is indeed one level per three sessions (except in 5e, where 1st level is probably one session and 2nd level is two).

#5: About Level Drain

Level drain has, of course, largely dropped out of the game, which is probably a good thing. However, for editions that do retain it, my inclination is that this should not reduce the character's XP total. Instead, a lost level should indeed be just that. However, as the characters go forward, each time they gain a new level they should instead gain two such levels until such time as they have again caught up.

However, that does need some further thought, as I'm not entirely convinced that this is the best approach. I do like the "catching up" approach, and I do also like the "you don't lose XP" approach, but the rate of recovery may need tweaked.

Double Figures

The PCs in my "Storm King's Thunder" campaign have recently hit 9th level. Given that we're nearing the end of the campaign, my expectation is that they'll probably reach 11th or 12th level by the time we're done (which is a little higher than the 10th level the book nominally expects, but given the 'cheat' in the final encounter and my preference to remove it, that's a good thing).

What that likely means is that this campaign will join the very short list of campaigns I have run where the PCs reached the double figures in terms of level:

• There was a pretty dire 2nd Edition Dragonlance/Spelljammer campaign that hit 15th level and then proceeded to have the PCs attain divine ascension. I'm not sure that really counts, as by the end of the campaign we were cheating the system pretty wantonly, basically to rack up those XP to 15th level as quickly as possible. But we did it, so I guess...
  
• The first full 3e campaign I ran got to around 12th level, I think. I don't seem to have the most recent character sheets any longer, even in scanned form, and don't really have the interest to go and search for a definitive answer. It was a reasonable campaign, although one beset with a number of problems - it was lucky it ended when it did.
  
• The highest level I've ever run to was the "Shackled City" adventure path, which I still number as one of my best-ever campaigns. In the last session the PCs were 18th level; they would have hit 19th if we'd bothered to run the numbers after the final victory. Also of note is that this campaign saw XP calculated meticulously - they most certainly did earn that level!
  
• Also in 3.5e, the "Eberron Code" campaign ended with the PCs at 15th level. Again, the XP were calculated and the levels 'earned'.
  
• As noted, if everything goes to plan, "Storm King's Thunder" is likely to hit the low double-digits. Here I'm using a slightly customised approach to XP, but the upshot of that is that the PCs are quite possibly getting less than they 'should'. In any event, I'm happy to claim that the levels have been 'earned', in a way that I wouldn't for that 2nd Ed campaign!

And that's it - in 30 years of play, only four (soon five) campaigns have hit double digits in terms of levels.

(Of course, it's worth noting that five of those years were spent running an epic Vampire game that ran right through that game's power range. Vampire doesn't have levels as such, but if it did then "Rivers of Time" would most certainly qualify!)

Tweaking XP Awards

I've been using my system for awarding XP for about a year now, and it's working pretty well. However, I have concluded that there are a couple of things that need adjusted for a better fit:

1. I've been in the habit of awarding quarter XP for random encounters. This is a mistake - these should really grant no XP (and very little treasure). Again, they're a bad thing.
   
2. The XP awards in general are too high. While I'm inclined to stick with the 'hard' XP budget, I'm inclined to think the awards should be based on the 'medium' budget, thus slowing the game down a little.
   
3. Conversely, quest awards aren't high enough - I've been giving a quarter award here, where they should really be set to the standard level.
   
4. I've concluded that 'standard', 'pivotal', and 'climactic' encounter types are one too many (and especially when the 'climactic' type ofter aligns with a quest award!). I'm inclined therefore to have only two - the 'standard' and 'climactic' (but where the latter gives double the award of the former, not thrice).
   
5. The quarter awards are generally good.

That being the case, the revised table would look like this:

Level	'Hard' Encounter Budget	Milestone/Quest XP	Climactic XP	Quarter-Milestone
1	75	50	100	20
2	150	100	200	25
3	225	150	300	40
4	375	250	500	65
5	750	500	1,000	125
6	900	600	1,200	150
7	1,100	750	1,500	190
8	1,400	900	1,800	225
9	1,600	1,100	2,200	275
10	1,900	1,200	2,400	300
11	2,400	1,600	3,200	400
12	3,000	2,000	4,000	500
13	3,400	2,200	4,400	550
14	3,800	2,500	5,000	625
15	4,300	2,800	5,600	700
16	4,800	3,200	6,400	800
17	5,900	3,900	7,800	975
18	6,300	4,200	8,400	1,050
19	7,300	4,900	9,800	1,225
20	8,500	5,700	11,400	1,425

An Annoying Omission

We've now reached the point in the campaign where the PCs are picking up some powerful shapechanging and conjuration spells. These tend to allow them to "turn into a creature of type X of CR Y or less" or "summon a creature of type X of CR Y or less". Which is great - I'll just look up the tables cross-referencing creatures by type and CR. And, conveniently, those tables are gathered together into an appendix in the DMG.

(That's a whole other rant - those tables should be in the MM, neatly dividing material by topic. But 5e chose to copy the example of 1st Edition in this regard, neglecting the fact that 1st Edition did this by necessity, as the MM was published before Gygax realised the tables would be a good idea, so he had to put them in the DMG.)

So, anyway, I looked up those oh-so-useful tables in the DMG... and found them missing. The book has tables listing monsters by terrain type (good), and listing monsters by CR (also good), but doesn't feature the tables that I actually needed, cross-referencing monster type by CR.

Brilliant!