Ok, so my crew and I just leveled to 3 and out of nowhere, our DM says we can't gain any of the benefits of leveling until we get an extended rest. Mind you, 1.) we're halfway into an dungeon and 2.) this is the first we heard about this even after level 2 where we "luckily" got an extended rest.
Now, let me make something clear. My DM is PHENOM... straight up made of win, so I thought about this rule for a bit before venting my dislike. Now that I've thought about it, it kinda makes sense, but I disagree with it as it stands.
I want to suggest to the DM that the rule should stand for anything that doesn't naturally come with the level like picking up a new power or feat, retraining or the "select two abilities" at the 4 levels. However, for things like HP, surges, the natural +1/2 level on even levels, the auto +1 to all abilities at 11 and 21 and any other bonus that naturally occurs to powers you already have like another dice at lvl 6 or so should still apply.
I see now that this houserule is to make it more true to other RPGs where you don't magicaly get a new power of awesomeness without taking time to see the trainers first, but even in those worlds, your strength, stamina and fortitude will increase just for all the fighting you've done regardless making the powers you already have more formidable. Any suggestions on how to come about presenting this to the DM? He's a very logical and rule-core guy. He doesn't swing with alot of slight tweaks here and there which is what piqued my interest with this houserule he adapted. Still, he's always open to suggestions and the worst he'll say is no which changes nothing. Any other players or DMs that think like this have a suggestion on how to request this change while keeping it primarily advantagous to the group? Thanks all.
Actually this rule is not so bad, since probably the dungeon you are in right now was made for 2nd level characters and might be too easy if you hop up to third in the middle of it.
Also, leveling up takes valuable time from the game session and breaks the continuance of your grand adventures (or killing spree, or whatever you are doing)
Personally I make my players do level-up between sessions, and I always try to end session after a level up with enough time for an Extended rest.
For example; if you go up and you have 15 of 28 HP and you gain 5 HP, do you end up with 20 HP, or with 18 HP? If you get a Daily power, is it charged?
Stuff like that is complicated and it's easier to just add these things in when you have an extended rest, and preferably during the next session. At least, for us that works quite well...
Ok, so my crew and I just leveled to 3 and out of nowhere, our DM says we can't gain any of the benefits of leveling until we get an extended rest. Mind you, 1.) we're halfway into an dungeon and 2.) this is the first we heard about this even after level 2 where we "luckily" got an extended rest.
First, is that really a house rule, or is leveling up immediately (including the possibility of retraining feats, powers and skills) the actual house rule?
I've always run games this way - in one I played in (3rd ed) that did it immediately, it was highly annoying, as it would happen during the session and level up their characters.
Personally, I much prefer the extended rest level up - in fact, I don't hand out XP except at extended rests.
I use the same rule (and extend it to "I give you your XPs during short rests", thinking about giving a slight boost for ignoring fatigue; my games had a bit of pace problem), except I warned my players about it before we started playing. So, not telling you at the very beggining was unfair.
Now that I've thought about it, it kinda makes sense,
Why?
D&D is a level-based game, but the levels are a rules-mechanic to represent continual incremental improvement. A PC doesn't actually just suddenly become better at something or gain a new power, he is assumed to be continually getting a little bit better at it or learning and training for the new power all the time. The new level just represents an easy rules-friendly shorthand for the point where they are better enough to matter.
Not only is it not sensible or realistic to need an extended rest or visit a trainer upon leveling up it is contrary to them. It is taking focus away from the game and turning a meta-game construct into an in-game function, no different really than if your PC had to spend a round at the start of every combat getting his dice out.
Ok, all valid points. I should clarify a few things I overlooked.
XP is not made known until the end of the game session. So, there isn't any stopping during game play to level up. Not to mention, like most D&D sessions, it's only a once a week game.
Also, the house rule is that no benefits of a level up are gained until an extended rest. This goes for HP, surges, new powers, bonus to current powers, new feats, retraining, etc. However, my take is that even in RPGs, hit points are natural... added ability to current powers is natural since you've used them so much. So, I am out of line requesting that, at level ups; hit points, the 1/2 level that comes with even levels and any bonus that comes to a current power because of your new level be not included in this houserule?
:::update::: Called the DM. He's willing to think it over saying he can see my point and will let us know at the next game. I'll keep you all posted.
My real question would be whether he is basing the rest of the day's encounters on you being level 2 or level 3. If his XP budget is still based off you being level 2 then I don't really see what the problem is, however, if encounters are scaled up without a corresponding power increase in the PC's then that seems a little unreasonable.
Personally, I don't ever award XP's to my players. We meet weekly and they level up when plot appropriate, usually every 3 sessions or roughly 8-14 encounters depending on how far they get on any given day.
My real question would be whether he is basing the rest of the day's encounters on you being level 2 or level 3. If his XP budget is still based off you being level 2 then I don't really see what the problem is, however, if encounters are scaled up without a corresponding power increase in the PC's then that seems a little unreasonable.
That's a REALLY good point. The hit points would just be a bonus for a level 2 encounter. My DM's pretty smart, so he'll probably think of this. But I won't ruin a gift horse for myself if he says yes. 
That's really my guess as to why the DM doesn't want you gaining the level 3 bonuses yet even if you are 'technically' level 3. If he plans his encounters out ahead of time then leveling up mid-campaign would throw off his encounters' difficulty.
This is a common rule, that characters don't just DING!!! and level. They have to take some downtime to train, get refocused etc. Halfway through a fight they don't suddenly learn new spells and abilities.
This is how my games are all ran, albeit some emmediat benifits are gained, such as raised HPs etc,
Most DMs I know (myself included) don't usually bother with the math or award the XP, unless it might be a convenient time to level up. What counts as convenient varies a little. But usually it's with the group and the evening in mind.
I avoid the problem by only giving out XP at the end of sessions. When the numbers come out that the players would level early in the next session, I loan 'em the XP and dock it back out of the next session's swag.
Done!
This is getting into the immediate gratification element learned from computer games.
I like to keep a clear distinction that D&D is NOT a computer game - especially that it does not have the limitations of computer games. But in this case I also don't care for the emphasis players put on quick, power levelling as being a major factor to their entertainment. That works in computer games, but in D&D that just gets you to the end of the campaign and its game over...the DM now has to write a new campaign for top level characters, and I don't think that content is very extensive. Oh well its all just my opinion - obviously D&D is getting a lot of players from the mmorpgs and other computer games who are expecting the same type of play experience, sad really when D&D offers so much more.
I reward exp at logical breaks in the action, after quests, etc.
I spend some quality role playing time with my players when they're characters level up. They go to trainers and patrons who have the skills that they wish to learn. They often learn abilities that go beyond class limitations and gain in other areas that are purely homebrew, but still backwards compatable to core rules. Some times the PC's even have to quest some to find a trainer whom they can learn from, but that is something that would be done leading up to levelling - I don't want players having all their level requirements but not being able to level.
Count yourself lucky that he doesn't require you to go back to town to level
That being said, I have a similar rule. I hand out XP during a short rest, and require an extended rest to level up. When it looks like the players will level up early in the session, I have them bring a character sheet for the next level with them.
This is getting into the immediate gratification element learned from computer games.
This is getting into the arena of wild and unfounded presumptions.
I like to keep a clear distinction that D&D is NOT a computer game - especially that it does not have the limitations of computer games. But in this case I also don't care for the emphasis players put on quick, power levelling as being a major factor to their entertainment. That works in computer games, but in D&D that just gets you to the end of the campaign and its game over...the DM now has to write a new campaign for top level characters, and I don't think that content is very extensive. Oh well its all just my opinion - obviously D&D is getting a lot of players from the mmorpgs and other computer games who are expecting the same type of play experience, sad really when D&D offers so much more.I reward exp at logical breaks in the action, after quests, etc.
Good for you. Doing so is not in any way innately superior to not doing so, and those who do not do so are not necessarily "put (the emphasis) on quick, power levelling" nor is it necessarily an "immediate gratification element learned from computer games".
I spend some quality role playing time with my players when they're characters level up. They go to trainers and patrons who have the skills that they wish to learn. They often learn abilities that go beyond class limitations and gain in other areas that are purely homebrew, but still backwards compatable to core rules. Some times the PC's even have to quest some to find a trainer whom they can learn from, but that is something that would be done leading up to levelling - I don't want players having all their level requirements but not being able to level.
Again I ask why? Why make you players jump through hoops their characters have been incrementally jumping through since their last level-up in simply in order to get the skill and powers they've already earned?The PC doesn't suddenly gain all this ability at once, he ahs been slowly gaining it over time. Having improvements occur in levels is simply breaking down a continual analog process into more easily handled digital steps, no different from breaking down time into combat rounds.
And the "but we do quality RP" excuse doesn't fly, cos good RP can (and should) happen all the time. Forcing the players to do it when they level up but ignoring it the rest of the time is pointless, and if you don't ignore it the rest of the time there is no reason to shoehorn is in as an extra step to levelling up.
Levelling up is a meta-game construct. Taking away valuable play-time to deal with it in-game is the antithesis of roleplaying.
All IMO, of course.
Be glad you lv after extended rests.
In most of the games that I play in or DM XP isn't even handed out until the adventure (or "chapter" in a longer one) concludes. Thus you can go on a three week march through the jungle (maybe gain XP), tomb-raid the pyramid & escape (gain xp) & trek 3 more weeks back out (maybe gain xp). Let's say that works out to around 45 or so extended rests.... IRL? This can easily account for several months of playing weekly. This will likely net you 2 lvs. 3 at the very most.
wow. I didn't think my ability to communicate through text was so impaired. I wanted to share one method that the group I use it with enjoys. Rather than try to explain myself better and run the risk of being further missunderstood I will just say:
Play it as you and your players are happy playing. Communicate with your players about how they want things to happen and where it works well for all involved, give it your best shot.
I play with two regular groups of people who have different styles...easy enough, because they are all different people. Most important factor with both groups is having fun, even though each group does it differently, we all still have fun.
DMG pg 121 talks about this.
Specifically, the Leveling Up paragraph:
"Some DMs let characters gain the benefits of a new level as soon as they have the required XP to reach that level, while others prefer to wait until the characters take an extended rest or even until the end of a session before letting characters level up. That decision is entirely up to you."
This means that either both methods are "According to the book" or both are House Rules. Either way, it's still the DMs decision to use the rule that works best for his group.
As for the discussion on which is more realistic... I've heard arguments both ways. Quite frankly, the reason I like 4E over 3E is specifically because it has elements of realism without being a simulator. I like 3.5 for it's realism, but it can get overly complicated (my job and situation require that I play with mostly newer players most of the time - teaching a bunch of people 3.5 every few months gets old while 4E allows me to jump right in). Each group needs to make their own agreements and both sides here have presented valid points.
My final 2 cents on this topic relate directly to the leveling up affecting the future encounters in the area. 4E is built on a simple XP premise: 8 encounters, 1 major quest, and 1 minor quest per character constitute a level (trying to find the reference, but it's eluding me - if it's wrong, the point still stands, it just isn't supported by RAW as I am inclined to believe). As such, when I design my adventures, I'm always sure on what level they are through the whole adventure. If I have a nonlinear enough adventure that the players stand to level up partway through, I usually allow them the benefit of having easier fights towards the end. I factor that in as I plan the adventure.
I think the big reason I started planning this way was playing through the starter pack for 3.5. The dungeon has, at the end of it, a young black dragon that is a tough fight for a level 2 party. The adventure pretty much expects the players to have to retreat at some point and, because they have to retreat back to town, they have the chance to recooperate and, possibly, level up. There's also a good chance of more encounters the more often they head back to town. It also had the rule that no one could level up until they returned to town (built into the scenario and I left it as is).
Since the party had some seasoned vets and some new players willing to take the right advice, the party ripped up the adventure. They found most of the secrets, got a bit of good loot, and were considering themselves the kings of the dungeon. Then, they found the black dragon. At level 1 and not even close to full power. Most spells had been burned on earlier fights. They just didn't have the power to fight through such a hard fight. In retrospect, I wish I had been more transparent about the fight ("Guys, the adventure assumes you'd taken the time to level up before you meet the dragon.") but I hadn't and it resulted in a near TPK - only one of the players offering up everything they'd found and a REALLY good diplomacy roll kept the party from completely dieing off.
They still fondly remember that fight, but from a DM perspective, I felt like I'd dropped the ball by allowing their good tactics to put them in a no-win situation. Good tactics should be rewarded, not hindered.
> wish to learn.
Apart from the chicken-and-egg question that this approach begs, I feel it to be more 'metagame' than the characters simply gaining the level during a rest and then getting on with whatever they were doing, because doing it this way means that the game mechanics largely fly below the narrative radar. By contrast, 'We have enough XP to level - now we need to go back to town and train!' pretty much smashes the narrative in the face with the game mechanic.
> obviously D&D is getting a lot of players from the mmorpgs and
> other computer games who are expecting the same type of play
> experience,
Ah, yes. The old, "D&D is becoming like WoW!' strawman. Funny thing is, WoW also requires that the characters go back to town and learn their new skills from trainers when they gain a level...
I have run this rule, and the main reason is because I don't want any character creation going on in the middle of a game session. If you level up just before the boss encounter, and then everyone is spending 30 minutes trying to pick the perfect feat for the next level, then you lose a lot of time and tension, and it is just bad for the game. Especially when you have Analysis Paralysis going on. Some players finish sooner and are pressuring others into hurrying, and it quickly devolves into a mess.
I use to run a game basically like that. expernce was given till the end of the day. Just keep things moving better and we didn't waste time adding exprence and looking at how much more closer to the next level.
I disargee that the dm should have told you this rule ahead of time, but its not that bad. Just leave the dungeon if possible and rest up
Waiting until a rest is superior for one huge, obvious reason- leveling up takes time. If you're just taking 5 in between battles, it breaks the action to stop the game and level up. On top of that, leveling up changes your stats. You recalculate things like numbers of hit points, numbers of healing surges, and so on. These changes are more awkward when your character is damaged. You can even retrain away a power or feat- what if you've already used that power you want to retrain? Does the new power arrive already expended? What if you dropped a level 3 power to pick up a level 13 power? What if the math is easy for you, but you just need to consult the DDI or to consult multiple books, taking more time than the rest of the group?
All of this is quickly and simply avoided by waiting until a longer, natural break in the action. An extended rest works great.
One of the things that reading these boards constantly does is surprise me with what seems to be a problem that I've never encountered after almost 30 years of being a DM.
Leveling up has never really been a problem. My rule has always been that basic properties (hit points, attack bonuses, defense adjustments) are applied upon completing any encounter where any of the players has reached the requisite number of XP to level up. New powers, feats or spells are gained after an extended rest. In general this has rarely been a problem since 80% of the time the characters are at the point of needing an extended rest after the encounter where they level up in the first place.
I've used this approach since Advanced came out and I ran my first campaign. It has literally never been an issue for any player. In fact those players who have branched out to DM from my own campaigns have continued this same approach, so it seems to be fairly intuitive and natural.
This is exactly what I was going to suggest; if you picture the gaining of experience as the conditioning of the mind, body, etc. in combat, then at some time the PC's will have gained enough exp. to surpass some threshold and now are better at what they do all around. When the party gains enough exp. to level up while in the middle of the game, I allow their various modifiers to improve because of the 1/2 level bonus. New feats and abilities will have to wait until an extended rest in town to represent seeing the "trainer" and new abilities are best figured out on the PC's own time away from the game. Tacking on a +1 to monster abilities is an easy way to cancel out the fact the PC's leveled in game, they get some satisfaction from leveling up, but really, nothing changes for the DM; and if they gained an odd-numbered level, nothing changes at all, and my preceding paragraph is moot.
I will say leveling is not a issue in any game I have been, because the people I play uselly have the next level already planned out so leveling is quick
who trains the "trainers"?
Also considering that 4e really redifines what hit points represent there is no reason to force an extended rest. That aside it seems that either approach is by the book (rest or not)
Also considering that 4e really redifines what hit points represent there is no reason to force an extended rest. That aside it seems that either approach is by the book (rest or not)
Redefines? If I recall correctly HP were always like this in D&D even 1e.
It seems to me that the entire issue could have been avoided if the DM had just waited until the next extend rest to mention the level up. Perhaps something to consider in future sessions.
Also considering that 4e really redifines what hit points represent there is no reason to force an extended rest. That aside it seems that either approach is by the book (rest or not)
Redefines? If I recall correctly HP were always like this in D&D even 1e.
You recall correctly.
The biggest reason why I require an extended rest before a character level is simply because I don't want to deal with the hassle of deciding what happens with new daily powers, hit points and other expended resources. My players are aware of it though, and since it means at most they deal with one or two encounters at a lower level it also hardly matters. Assuming of course, it ever matters, because usually I do try to aim my adventures so that they level at a natural break anyway. That saves us a lot of time at the gaming table as well, since it allows the players to level up the character in between sessions.
Personally, I think it is one of those things that many people pressume is handled the same way and only realize that is not the case when suddenly players complain about it. I never been in a group that allowed leveling without an extended rest, and I probably would forget telling about it either.
Ok, so my crew and I just leveled to 3 and out of nowhere, our DM says we can't gain any of the benefits of leveling until we get an extended rest. Mind you, 1.) we're halfway into an dungeon and 2.) this is the first we heard about this even after level 2 where we "luckily" got an extended rest.
Is it common practice in 4e to hand out xp awards during the game session? I can see the benefit of this approach in that this creates a more direct link between the individual encounters and rewards. Tallying up xps at the end of the game may often result in forgetting the little things.
Personally I hand out xp at the end of the session if appropriate: sometimes its not appropriate to hand out xp even then because we're still in the middle of reolving a major plot point.
Personally I support your GM's decision. 4e is too much like a computer game as it is.
-DF
Ok, so my crew and I just leveled to 3 and out of nowhere, our DM says we can't gain any of the benefits of leveling until we get an extended rest. Mind you, 1.) we're halfway into an dungeon and 2.) this is the first we heard about this even after level 2 where we "luckily" got an extended rest.
Is it common practice in 4e to hand out xp awards during the game session? I can see the benefit of this approach in that this creates a more direct link between the individual encounters and rewards. Tallying up xps at the end of the game may often result in forgetting the little things.
Personally I hand out xp at the end of the session if appropriate: sometimes its not appropriate to hand out xp even then because we're still in the middle of reolving a major plot point.
Personally I support your GM's decision. 4e is too much like a computer game as it is.
-DF
Well 4th is not like a computer game, certin Computer games are more like D&D.
The DM decsion was fine, I said earlier I don't agree with the DM suddenly telling them this(this is a gotcha moment) They had already leveled twice without this being a problem. I believe the orgianl poster said they were resting anyway so the DM didn't say anything, but now there are in the middle of a dungeon and brings it up
The biggest reason why I require an extended rest before a character level is simply because I don't want to deal with the hassle of deciding what happens with new daily powers, hit points and other expended resources.
But why does that require an extended rest? Since such a rest only affects the characters, it can happen in mere moments at the table. Wouldn't it make more sense to have leveling up occur during a break in play?
He means about them being charged, how many hitpoints you gain ( 50% damaged, at 5HP, is that +5 max, +2.5 current? or +5 max / + 5 current? ), if you get a new Surge, is it available or not, etc, if you take a Utility Daily, is it available, etc)
After an extended rest, all that stuff just sorts itself out easily.
He means about them being charged, how many hitpoints you gain ( 50% damaged, at 5HP, is that +5 max, +2.5 current? or +5 max / + 5 current? ), if you get a new Surge, is it available or not, etc, if you take a Utility Daily, is it available, etc)After an extended rest, all that stuff just sorts itself out easily.
Exactly.
He means about them being charged, how many hitpoints you gain ( 50% damaged, at 5HP, is that +5 max, +2.5 current? or +5 max / + 5 current? ), if you get a new Surge, is it available or not, etc, if you take a Utility Daily, is it available, etc)After an extended rest, all that stuff just sorts itself out easily.
Ah, I see what you mean and it does make sense. In that case I thinik the best solution is simply not to tell them they've levelled up until they take such a rest rather than telling them but then forcing them to wait.
It depends a bit on what your players want ;) Sometimes mine like to know how well they did compared to the official challenge of the encounter and telling them the level also tells them the xp. I know my players usually don't care.
Also considering that 4e really redifines what hit points represent there is no reason to force an extended rest. That aside it seems that either approach is by the book (rest or not)
Redefines? If I recall correctly HP were always like this in D&D even 1e.You recall correctly.
---- 4E ----
Over the course of a battle, you take damage from
attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand
up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing
blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit
points represent more than physical endurance. They
represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all
the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a
combat situation.
-------------
--- 3E -----
HIT POINTS (pg136 3.5v)
Your hit points tell you how much punishment you can take before dropping.
What hit points represent (pg 145 3.5v): Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
-------------
My 2E book is missing so cannot look it up there.
-------------
1E
Roll for Hit Points
Your character's hit point score represents his ability to survive injury. The higher his hit point score, the more damage he can sustain before dying.
--------------
One can see that the definition has obviously evolved. 4E really is the one to include resolve into hit points as well as other concepts.
One can see that the definition has obviously evolved. 4E really is the one to include resolve into hit points as well as other concepts.
The rulebook quotes don't include all the discussions (like this one) that were ongoing at the time. Even in the earliest days of D&D, very few gamers expected that heroic hitpoints represented ability to simply take physical damage. A few game systems did work to make the difference more explicit and less abstract.
I vaguely recall White Dwarf articles in early 1980's which discussed all the abstractions inherent in hitpoints.
What has happened with the rulebooks is that more of that discussion and thinking already available has been written down into the core definitions. This is more evolution of writing style and in the amount of complexity that game authors expect to present to their audience.
Of course, I'm exaggerating a bit here, but my point is still valid I think.
I have never ever played where xp was awarded and kept track of during an encounter.
I've often been awarded xp days after the session (ie if we played thursday or friday, xp would come by email on monday).
I played one compaign that used a kill count to award different xp to different players, and even that little tally slowed the game down. I can't imagine how much xp calculations would slow the game down.
I played one compaign that used a kill count to award different xp to different players, and even that little tally slowed the game down. I can't imagine how much xp calculations would slow the game down.
I can imagine that that campaign had quite a bit of bickering due to kill-stealing... as to the "xp calculations" - they shouldn't slow a game down at all, since the DM should usually know in advance how much XP every player gets (since in 4e the DM has a "XP budget" to spend on designing encounters). Adding one number to another and comparing the result to a third (that is, XP gained to XP already obtained, compare to XP needed to level up) should not slow a game down at all.
I played one compaign that used a kill count to award different xp to different players, and even that little tally slowed the game down. I can't imagine how much xp calculations would slow the game down.
Uggh. What a bad idea. We've gone the precise opposite way in my group: we use one single XP track for the whole group and everyone levels at the same time.