Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Flan 05-27-07, 03:54 AM	Can anyone point me to a better XP reward system than the rather brain damaged one in the DMG? Although taking each monster individually for each player is dead simple, it fails to properly account for the actual ECL of the fight the monster was in, or the level of the party members. As an example a 20th level character and a 1st level character kill a horde of orcs (via 1 fireball), the 20th level character gets nothing, the 1st level character is now 1 XP shy of level 3. Grossly stupid. Likewise the BBEG with 20 minions, the minions although 1 level shy of giving the party XP obviously make the BBEG significantly more challengeing, but after the fight the party gets exactly the same XP as if they'd fought JUST the BBEG and not it + minions. Again, grossly stupid.
farrenj 05-27-07, 04:55 AM	You're granting experience based on the CR of the monsters killed instead of the EL of the fight. Look up encounter level in the dmg. Also, you can always do things differently than the books write it and grant more or less experience than the book recommends.
Merestil Haye 05-27-07, 11:23 AM	The book recommends ad-hoc adjustments to experience to allow for environmental difficulties. If a group of ECL 10 PCs attack a CR12 boss and his 15 CR2 fighter minions, and you feel that the presence of the minions made the fight harder, increase the xp for the boss by some factor - say 10% or 20%. Don't give xp for the second level fighters, as they just don't pose a thread individually. Yes that is treating the minions on the same level as quicksand. You know what? Quite often the quicksand is more threatening to the PCs. As for the other instance, I can't see why the wizard is in any way threatened by the presence of twenty Orcs. As witnessed by the fact that he needed to expend a trivial amount of his resources to kill the mooks. He used one third level spell. Hardly worth lifting his finger over. To the fighter, he was facing a ravening horde of monsters that could tear him to pieces. He's certainly learned something. The guidelines say that 20 orcs (the maximum number that can be killed by a standard fireball) are worth 150xp to a level 1 party, and since two characters participated, the fighter gets 20*150/2 = 1,500xp. That's enough to make him second level. There's an argument that the wizard deserved something if only for saving the fighter. There's also an argument that the fighter should get a reduced award simply because the encounter was dominated by another. But if the character made proper preparations for one facing 20:1 odds - say, sought out a place where he could not be assailed from all sides, and/or gave him tactical advantage - he might deserve the full amount.. If he just sat back and let the wizard deal with it "because he could," that would be a good reason to impose an xp reduction.
Nom 05-28-07, 03:14 AM	There's also the argument that the XP system is designed to deal with level discrepancies of no more than 2-3 levels, not 19.
Kouk 05-28-07, 05:40 AM	It gives XP based on challenge, hence "Challenge Rating". DMG page 49 'Multiple Monsters and Encounter Levels' In general, you can treat a group of creatures as a single creature whose CR equals the groups EL ... However, creatures whose CR is far below the party's level often provide no challenge at all, so don't substitute hordes of low-CR creatures for a single high-CR creature. ... Encounters with more than a dozen creatures are difficult to judge. If you need thirteen or more creatures to provide enough XP for a standard encounter, then those individual monsters are probably so weak that they don't make for a good encounter. That's why Table 3-1 doesn't have an entry larger than twelve for "Number of Creatures". DMG page 39, 'Assigning Ad Hoc XP Awards' Sometimes the XP table doesn't quite cover a given situation. If two orcs are an EL 1 encounter, four orcs EL 3, eight orcs EL 5 and sixteen orcs EL 7 (maybe), are thirty-two orcs and EL 9 encounter? A party of 9th level characters almost certainly can wipe them out with ease. By 9th level, a character's defenses are so good that a standard orc cannot hit him or her, and one or two spells cast by a character of that level could destroy all thirty-two orcs. At such a point, your judgment overrules whatever the XP table would say. An encounter so easy that it uses up none or almost none of the PCs' resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all, while a dangerous encounter that the PCs overcome handily through luck or excellent strategy is worth full XP. However, an encounter in which the PCs defeat something far above their own level (CRs higher than their level by eight or more) was probably the result of fantastic luck or a unique set of circumstances, and thus a full XP award may not be appropriate. You're going to have to make these decisions. ... you might judge that a large quantity of CR 1 monsters is indeed an appropriate challenge for a 10th level party because the group had lost all their equipment before the fight started." The most relevant parts are bolded. If a character gains so much XP that he would level up multiple times, then you are probably allowing them to defeat monsters much too powerful (for some reason) and the one level limit acts as a control to preserve game balance. If a level 1 character beats a challenge that instantly levels him to 12, he will have almost no wealth by level, let alone that that makes no sense -- killing one guy makes you stronger than 95% of the people in the world (and he will probably not know how to play his character any more). A level 15 character against CR 2 creatures is tantamount to you going outside and stepping on ants. You might get a rush from your "power" over the creatures, but you certainly aren't straining yourself (and if that makes you stronger, I don't know what to tell you). Such low level mooks could likely not even hit the wizard without a natural 20, and probably couldn't confirm the crit. A wizard of that level would probably not even have to roll a concentration check for the damage they do to him, and casting defensively may not require a roll either, especially for low level spells. All they can do is run interference and annoy the melee types who have to cleave through them to get to the actual enemies. That alone might be worth a circumstance bonus to XP, but not an XP award for the creatures. You should really read the rest of the book, it's good.
Xykon 05-28-07, 10:05 PM	Or alternatively, use this: http://www.d20srd.org/encounterCalculator.htm This solves the headache of calculating the EL when different CR creatures are mixed together. As for adhoc's up to you. A rule of thumb i have is each adhoc XP, the maximum to be gained is (Party ECL * 1000 / 20). i.e. if party ECL is 5, max adhoc XP = 250. Note that they can get multiple adhoc XP's per session. have fun.
mvincent 05-29-07, 12:58 PM	As an example a 20th level character and a 1st level character kill a horde of orcs (via 1 fireball), the 20th level character gets nothing, the 1st level character is now 1 XP shy of level 3. Grossly stupid.A 1st level PC should not be adventuring with a 20th level PC (or if he is for some reason, then he should be rapidly advancing in levels). Likewise the BBEG with 20 minions, the minions although 1 level shy of giving the party XP obviously make the BBEG significantly more challengeing, but after the fight the party gets exactly the same XP as if they'd fought JUST the BBEG and not it + minions. Again, grossly stupid.Circumstances can allows make an encounter more or less challenging. A lone, fully buffed BBEG surprising the party can be far more difficult than the party surprising the BBEG while he is surrounded by minions. If the minions aren't worth XP, then they are likely effectively similarly to "difficult terrain". Both of your examples seem like the DM's fault rather than the systems. Every system has loopholes, but your term "grossly stupid" should probably be reserved more for those that don't know this.
Flan 06-03-07, 07:51 PM	Both of your examples seem like the DM's fault rather than the systems. Every system has loopholes, but your term "grossly stupid" should probably be reserved more for those that don't know this. No, it's quite clearly the system. When every person in this thread says "ignore what the XP table says and use your judgement" quite obviously the system is "use your judgement." They obviously didn't put any effort into making a system that covers a large portion of encounters, and even when it is covered, it is obviously not a good system as shown by crafters making magic items, slipping behind the party in XP so they're one level down then reaping significant bonuses in XP putting them AHEAD of the rest of the party. The XP system is brain-damaged.
mvincent 06-03-07, 08:05 PM	When every person in this thread says "ignore what the XP table says and use your judgement" I don't believe that is exactly what they are saying. They obviously didn't put any effort into making a system that covers a large portion of encounters, and even when it is coveredConsidering the amount of play-testers on D&D, and the number people I know that currently play (and understand) it... I have to put you in the "disgruntled minority" category. There are reasons for much of what you protest against. Perhaps you could discuss it with someone close who you respect and trust. For me to explain anything further to you will do neither of us any good. Bottom line: if the XP system is making it unfun for you, it's easy enough to handle it differently. A simple "one level per session" or somesuch could remove the problem entirely for you.
Nom 06-03-07, 08:30 PM	When every person in this thread says "ignore what the XP table says and use your judgement" quite obviously the system is "use your judgement." ... The XP system is brain-damaged.Actually, reading between the lines of my post (I'm a subset of everyone) you could paraphrase it as saying "expecting the XP system to handle a 19 level difference is brain-damaged". It's a bit like asking "What is the appropriate handicap for a one hundred metre sprint between a professional athlete and a 3 year old child?". The system works exactly as intended as long as the PCs are within 2-3 levels of each other. In the above example, the challenge is off the table on the low end for one character, and way into "certain death" for the other. Of course it doesn't work.
Kouk 06-04-07, 07:36 AM	It's a bit like asking "What is the appropriate handicap for a one hundred metre sprint between a professional athlete and a 3 year old child?". ;) , it is more like "What is the appropriate handicap for a one hundred meter sprint between a professional athlete and a 3 year old child, and your choices are 10 seconds, 15 seconds, or 20 seconds." You can't apply rules to ridiculous situations they weren't designed for, and this "system" even tells you that right up front Flan. It doesn't say "This system is infallible and always works no matter how hard you try to break it", unless you have an earlier printing than most of us. If you try to break something, you probably can. This is like using a large hammer to repeatedly hit the XP system in the form of your examples. As for the latest example of "What if a party member crafts soooo incredibly much (dying once would actually be a more common occurrence) that he is one level under the rest of the party, and then they kill something worth a bajillion XP, then won't the guy who is lower level shoot up far past the rest of the party?" The answer is still no. For one thing, the only reason XP is put off til the end of a session is for simplicity. Theoretically the PCs gain XP every time they do something that warrants it. If one player is a bit behind the others and they kill a troll, maybe the one that is lower level gets a drop more XP (he should, because the idea is to get him to level up again to be the same as the rest of the party). As soon as that guy is equal with the other players again, he gains XP as normal so there is no problem. If one PC is 1 XP short of being the same level as everyone else and then they wipe out an entire fortress full of monsters in one long combat I guess there could be an issue of the lower level guy getting more XP but it would probably make the most sense to just allocate the increased XP award on a per-monster basis until that player caught up, then distribute the rest. Even if you just gave the full "extra" XP it doesn't really matter, because how far ahead can that one player get really considering he was behind everyone else to begin with? Even if he is ahead of the others, it's still fair - the others were just ahead of him weren't they? If you are going again with "One player is 8 levels beneath the others, then they kill a Dragon and the level 8 leveled up too many times", for one thing that would be ridiculous to keep having characters significantly lower than other members, and for another thing he can't get more than one level from any particular amount of XP, no matter how much more it is because of the level "bonus". In which case, he is still lower than everyone else, until he catches up again and it levels itself off. The DMG even mentions that the system only handles disparity of about 2 to 3 levels, and if you find yourself with any larger than that you should work something out with the player in question. Go ahead and make up your own system , if for some reason you love situations where this is ever an issue at all. There is an alternate system already included in the DMG though, along the lines of "just give out whatever you think they should earn for the day".
The_Ditto 06-04-07, 09:09 AM	I've used the DMG charts, but with a twist. I use EL, not CR, and I typically assign a "base" of 50% of what the DMG charts spit out ... After that, I start doing other "fudge-factors" for things such as terrain advantages, ambushes, clever tactics, RPing awards/penalties, etc ... not too much .. but sometimes when I feel it has impacted enough ...
Tolby 06-17-07, 08:11 PM	You could always adjust level by the number of sittings the player is in. I did one where it took 3 sittings to go up a level. Worked out good until one of the players got about 2 levels behind. No way for him to make it up.
Drakken2672 06-17-07, 08:24 PM	I don't have my DMG with me at the moment but I would like to share my form of XP giving outted-ness. I usually take the average pt lv and go right to the chart. which i believe fixes your little 1 lv20 dude and 1 lv 1 dude that makes the average lvl 10 (about) and they get no xp for running over the hordes of cr 1 monsters ever. But i'm a big fan of the keep everyone within 1 lv of each other idea, and often do such things as at the end of an epic storyline (or conclusion of said storyline) just say "every one is now lv 15" period done end of discussion no numbers for anyone and makes life easy for the math impared or calculator deficent.
Leilond 06-18-07, 03:08 AM	Use this very very simple calculator http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20encountercalculator.htm You insert the monsters CR and the character levels and it will give you the amount of XP for each character and the amount of treasure "suggested" for the encounter
lears_fool 06-18-07, 10:38 AM	I've ended up COMPLETELY giving up on the xp component of the charts. Why? Because I focus on the purpose of the XP . .i.e. to gradually level up the PCs at a somewhat consistent rate based on challenge and equating to a pace that's been picked out somewhat arbitrarily. At low levels, I tend to let my PCs level up once every 3-5 sessions depending on how much and how well they do in RP, handling challenges, and decision making. Individuals who do particularly clever things or RP exceptionally well may end up with quicker advancement, but are more likely to end up with various customized 'goodies' to help them out (the amulet that provides a +1d6 to any die roll per day with a 5% cumulative chance per day of breaking when used, etc.) I deliberately don't put much of the emphasis on combat because I don't want them feeling like the only way to level is to fight. While my overall approach isn't for everyone, I think the general point should be. It's the DM's role to decide how quickly he wants the characters to advance and how far along that road they are. If they get into a fight and don't struggle overmuch then that fight's not worth a whole level's worth of experience no matter what the charts say. . and if the players have been busting hump and playing the game well for weeks you don't avoid leveling them because 'the tables haven't rewarded enough experience'. You're lord over the tables, not vice-versa Not that the CR calculators can't be good quickly coming up with good largely balanced starting points for combats. But for me they're for guesstimating challenges and little more.
Leilond 06-18-07, 10:47 AM	I've ended up COMPLETELY giving up on the xp component of the charts. Why? Because I focus on the purpose of the XP . .i.e. to gradually level up the PCs at a somewhat consistent rate based on challenge and equating to a pace that's been picked out somewhat arbitrarily. At low levels, I tend to let my PCs level up once every 3-5 sessions depending on how much and how well they do in RP, handling challenges, and decision making. Individuals who do particularly clever things or RP exceptionally well may end up with quicker advancement, but are more likely to end up with various customized 'goodies' to help them out (the amulet that provides a +1d6 to any die roll per day with a 5% cumulative chance per day of breaking when used, etc.) I deliberately don't put much of the emphasis on combat because I don't want them feeling like the only way to level is to fight. While my overall approach isn't for everyone, I think the general point should be. It's the DM's role to decide how quickly he wants the characters to advance and how far along that road they are. If they get into a fight and don't struggle overmuch then that fight's not worth a whole level's worth of experience no matter what the charts say. . and if the players have been busting hump and playing the game well for weeks you don't avoid leveling them because 'the tables haven't rewarded enough experience'. You're lord over the tables, not vice-versa Not that the CR calculators can't be good quickly coming up with good largely balanced starting points for combats. But for me they're for guesstimating challenges and little more. To gain XP using the normal rules you don't need to "combat". You only need to "win" the encounter. If your goal is to pass a bridge and it is defended by 3 ogres, you gain XP if you beat them with weapon, but you gain the same XP amount if you sneak pass them without fighting or you can convince them with "dimplomacy" or "bluff" or "intimidate" role playing issues The rules as written do not tell us to "give XP only for killing monster". The rules tell us to give XP for overcomed obstacles... every type of obstacles. I put, every now and then, enemies stronger than the party. If they're able to recognize it, they can find a way to pass without fighting, and gain lot of XP because of the high CR of the enemies. For this reason I think there's no need to change the XP rules. It isn't a necessity for a better role playing, only a mattere of personale preferences. I suggest to use the D20srd encounter calculator. Just add "good RP bonus" every now and then.
lears_fool 06-18-07, 11:02 AM	To gain XP using the normal rules you don't need to "combat". You only need to "win" the encounter. If your goal is to pass a bridge and it is defended by 3 ogres, you gain XP if you beat them with weapon, but you gain the same XP amount if you sneak pass them without fighting or you can convince them with "dimplomacy" or "bluff" or "intimidate" role playing issues The rules as written do not tell us to "give XP only for killing monster". The rules tell us to give XP for overcomed obstacles... every type of obstacles. I put, every now and then, enemies stronger than the party. If they're able to recognize it, they can find a way to pass without fighting, and gain lot of XP because of the high CR of the enemies. For this reason I think there's no need to change the XP rules. It isn't a necessity for a better role playing, only a mattere of personale preferences. I suggest to use the D20srd encounter calculator. Just add "good RP bonus" every now and then. Agreed, it shouldn't only be fights that are the concern. I focused on them a bit as they're generally what causes consternation when calculating CRs. If the encounter is non-combat then you're pretty much winging the CR anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. However, I even find the 'encounter' concept somewhat lacking. There are large amounts of events in my campaigns that aren't even tied to a well defined 'here is something that you must overcome at this moment' type scenario and sometimes my players may take things in a very in-character and interesting/clever direction that's more deserving of 'experience' than either a combat or a typical encounter. The most important point is that, when the XP system is NOT serving you and your players best, you need to remember what the purpose of it is. And it's far from flawed to view the Xp component of the charts as either a guideline or simple means to an end. It's not a matter of changing it, it's a matter of owning it and focusing on the purpose for it's existence rather than blindly following it.
Leilond 06-18-07, 11:10 AM	Agreed, it shouldn't only be fights that are the concern. I focused on them a bit as they're generally what causes consternation when calculating CRs. If the encounter is non-combat then you're pretty much winging the CR anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. However, I even find the 'encounter' concept somewhat lacking. There are large amounts of events in my campaigns that aren't even tied to a well defined 'here is something that you must overcome at this moment' type scenario and sometimes my players may take things in a very in-character and interesting/clever direction that's more deserving of 'experience' than either a combat or a typical encounter. The most important point is that, when the XP system is NOT serving you and your players best, you need to remember what the purpose of it is. And it's far from flawed to view the Xp component of the charts as either a guideline or simple means to an end. It's not a matter of changing it, it's a matter of owning it and focusing on the purpose for it's existence rather than blindly following it. I think that if you blindly following it you aren't following it at all Because the DMG state very clear that it is a guideline. That some things must be adjusted basing on a situation Three 1st level fighter are a EL 3, but if you put these fighters behind a castell wall, with 90% cover inside a big 200 meters radius death magic area, with longbows, the EL go up, like the DMG suggest For this reason I suggest to follow the rule, because there's all you need to "adjust" them... The only boring things is the "XP/CR" table, but the d20 encounter calculator solve it for us. They're well designed, I think, to mantain the "levels" under controll, to prevent "big differences" between players that use XP for magic items, PC that lose levels fot different reasons The only "house rule" that I think can be REALLY usefull for a better gaming, is "givinig some XP bonus for good RP" every now and then. I usually give something like 10% of the xp needed for a level when a character deserve it for good RP.
lears_fool 06-18-07, 11:24 AM	I think that if you blindly following it you aren't following it at all Because the DMG state very clear that it is a guideline. That some things must be adjusted basing on a situation Three 1st level fighter are a EL 3, but if you put these fighters behind a castell wall, with 90% cover inside a big death magic area, with longbows, the EL go up, like the DMG suggest Correct. . though I saw that as a minor part of the real 'big picture'. Heck, when I'm not extremely well prepared or confident in the difficulty of an encounter I don't even 'lock down' the difficulty until it's over. I see 'experience' as something that players gain from an experience. .and if a fight is unusually long/dramatic because of some inherent interaction I didn't predict, or I introduce a hook that greatly complicates an event-encounter, then the players clearly experienced more than I had predicted, and don't deserve to gain less for a bad initial guess. For this reason I suggest to follow the rule, because there's all you need to "adjust" them... The only boring things is the "XP/CR" table, but the d20 encounter calculator solve it for us The only "house rule" that I think can be REALLY usefull for a better gaming, is "givinig some XP bonus for good RP" every now and then. I usually give something like 10% of the xp needed for a level when a character deserve it for good RP. I think this does help point out that there are LOTS of different ways of doing this. Some people are very much slaves to the experience tables and some are on the other end of the spectrum with lots of room in the middle. I do think the less-table-focused end of the spectrum was a useful perspective here, because the answer to the initial question (the 1st and 20th level guys in a fight when the 20th level character fireballed 'em) is an easy 'what did the first level guy do? Nothing? Then why is anyone thinking he was going to get experience?' Of course, some could say that in that case non-combat characters are at a disadvantage. .but if you're less XP table focused then the combat/encounter experience is a small fraction of the actual experience the party gains.
Kuronue 06-19-07, 12:01 AM	I also got rid of XP for my current campaign (the PCs are in a school, they level up at the end of the year when they pass exams) and I've found it to work just as well as before, when I did use XP, except naturally with a bit less math on my end. It depends on the game, for me, honestly. I do admit, though, those examples are game-breakingly retarded.