Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Weretiger 11-29-07, 05:44 PM	Warning: the numbers I use are from the 3.0 DMG, as I do not have the 3.5 DMG. However, the root problem probably remains the same (if it doesn't, sorry). Presented below is a method by which parties of high level characters can gain many more XP per encounter than they would otherwise be able to, at the price of having to divide the loot more ways and having to watch out for low level characters. Consider: Party A: 4 20th level characters. Average level: 20. Party B: 4 20th level characters and 1 1st level character. Average level: 16. Party C: 4 20th, 2 4th, and 1 3rd level characters. Average level: 13. Each party fights a single CR 20 monster. Party A earns 6000 XP and 80k gp, or 1500 XP and 20k gp per member. Party B earns 19200 XP and 80k gp, or 3840 XP and 16k gp each. Party C earns 46800 XP and 80k gp, or 6686 XP and 11429 gp each. Thus, rather than the normal 13 encounters to level up, Party B takes 6 (really 5.2, but you can't have .2 encounters) for its 20th-level members to reach 21st, and Party C's 20th level members reach 21st in but 3 encounters. There is the problem of keeping the low-level members low-leveled, so that they may continue to lower the average party level. This is easily achieved by either A) having them die and be resurrected regularly (which is not unlikely in combat against a CR 20), or B) simply replacing them. Also, the above calculations of gp per member assume an equal share of gp; it seems probable that a low-level character would be quite content to receive an entire encounter of his level's worth of treasure and a scroll of resurrection per encounter, which would increase the amount of treasure remaining for the 20th level characters, and keeping them closer to their expected treasure value by level (of course, given the amount of XP they earn, magic item crafting is also an attractive option, as the extra XP generated by party C each cost the 20th level characters 1.7 gp of lost treasure per XP if treasure is divided equally, but can be exchanged at a much higher rate through magic item crafting). Conclusion: it is possible for high level parties to exploit the fact that XP awards (in 3.0, and possibly 3.5) rely upon average party level to gain levels much more quickly than otherwise possible. Whether this is a problem or not is left to the reader. Extensions: Does this work in 3.5? Will it work in 4? And perhaps most importantly, should this be in CharOp instead of general?
SpaceHopper 11-29-07, 06:35 PM	A level 1 character will have no meaningful input in a 20th level encounter. Therefor for all intents and purposes they should not factor into XP calculations. The DMG (3.5 edition here) states in the XP table that encounters 8 levels lower are worthless for xp, and that encounters 8 levels higher should be insurmountable and not occur. I'd personally extend this common-sense rule; i.e. anyone in a high level party who is -8 levels from the encounter shouldn't be included as a member of that parties experience calculation unless special circumstances enable them to meaningfully contribute.
Sarella Starshine 11-29-07, 07:17 PM	Exp is calculated per person, based on the level of the person calculated divided by the number of people in the party. There is nothing in the rules in 3.5 using the APL (average party level) when figuring exp. I figure that the APL is the party version of the EL (encounter level) as nothing more than a DM tool to figure out how much of a challenge on average that the party can handle. So, each level 20 person will earn the appropate xp for fighting a CR 20 monster. So, the 20th level characters in party A will recive the most, the ones in party B less (as there are 5 people to divide the xp with instead of 4), and party C will recive even less, as they have the largest numbers of people (7 people total). For numbers: your value of xp for party A is correct, each person in party A will get 1500 xp each. Party B however will have the following xp numbers: the lvl 1: nil (encounter too high), each level 20: 1200xp each. Party C will have the following xp numbers: level 1: nill (too high), 2 level 4's (each): Nil (too high), 4 level 20's (each): 857 (and some change). The average party level does not factor at all into xp calculations (unless it did in 3.0).
Weretiger 11-29-07, 07:24 PM	Something was fixed in 3.5, then. 1. Determine the party level (the average level of the party members). 2. For each monster defeated, determine that single monster's Challenge Rating. 3. Use Table 7-1: Experience Point Awards (Single Monster) to cross-reference the party level with the Challenge Rating to find the XP award. 4. Add up the XP award for each monster defeated to find the party's award. 5. Divide the total XP among all the characters who started the encounter. (Even if they are knocked unconscious, everyone who took part in an encounter gains experience for that encounter.) Emphasis mine, words author's. So the exploit works fine in 3.0, but was patched in 3.5. Reason #n that I don't stick to the XP and advancement rules... Although it seems odd that under 3.5, high level parties get (pretty severely) penalized XP-wise for protecting lower-level characters... and that system is still open to slight breakage in leveling lower-level characters. Consider a party of 4 20th level characters and a 13th level character who collectively kill a CR 20. Each 20th level character gets 6000/5 or 1200 XP, while the 13th level character gets 46800/5, or 9360 XP (assuming the numbers have remained the same between versions). Also, my contention is not that this makes any sense, but that under a literal reading of the 3.0 rules, it is possible. Additionally, even a 1st-level character has a chance at Aid Another, or, if of a spellcasting class, they can use wands, scrolls, and staves, or wondrous items regardless of class.
Always1stToDie 11-29-07, 08:17 PM	Warning: the numbers I use are from the 3.0 DMG, as I do not have the 3.5 DMG. However, the root problem probably remains the same (if it doesn't, sorry). Presented below is a method by which parties of high level characters can gain many more XP per encounter than they would otherwise be able to, at the price of having to divide the loot more ways and having to watch out for low level characters. Consider: Party A: 4 20th level characters. Average level: 20. Party B: 4 20th level characters and 1 1st level character. Average level: 16. Party C: 4 20th, 2 4th, and 1 3rd level characters. Average level: 13. Each party fights a single CR 20 monster. Party A earns 6000 XP and 80k gp, or 1500 XP and 20k gp per member. Party B earns 19200 XP and 80k gp, or 3840 XP and 16k gp each. Party C earns 46800 XP and 80k gp, or 6686 XP and 11429 gp each. Thus, rather than the normal 13 encounters to level up, Party B takes 6 (really 5.2, but you can't have .2 encounters) for its 20th-level members to reach 21st, and Party C's 20th level members reach 21st in but 3 encounters. There is the problem of keeping the low-level members low-leveled, so that they may continue to lower the average party level. This is easily achieved by either A) having them die and be resurrected regularly (which is not unlikely in combat against a CR 20), or B) simply replacing them. Also, the above calculations of gp per member assume an equal share of gp; it seems probable that a low-level character would be quite content to receive an entire encounter of his level's worth of treasure and a scroll of resurrection per encounter, which would increase the amount of treasure remaining for the 20th level characters, and keeping them closer to their expected treasure value by level (of course, given the amount of XP they earn, magic item crafting is also an attractive option, as the extra XP generated by party C each cost the 20th level characters 1.7 gp of lost treasure per XP if treasure is divided equally, but can be exchanged at a much higher rate through magic item crafting). Conclusion: it is possible for high level parties to exploit the fact that XP awards (in 3.0, and possibly 3.5) rely upon average party level to gain levels much more quickly than otherwise possible. Whether this is a problem or not is left to the reader. Extensions: Does this work in 3.5? Will it work in 4? And perhaps most importantly, should this be in CharOp instead of general? The examples are flawed. The lower level PCs would not survive the encounter and thus should not be factored into it. Since you only receive XP for encounters you survive (being raised after the fact doesn't count as survival). In time your PCs would run out of levels from being raised, then eventually CON for being raised at 1st level or let their Elf named Schmoo die and scream "Screw you guys I'm going home, and **** this game!" As a few side notes: 1. D&D is an RPG. It's a not an MMORPG where a bunch of your low level buddies should join up with the heavy hitters for a night of "Power Leveling". 2. Pit Fiends to not "Respawn" every 8-20 minutes if the party just sits there and rememorizes spells. 3. When monsters die you should not kneel down, search their corpse and find 46,800 XP and 80,000 gold just resting there for you to take. In short, I hope this wasn’t your idea because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You seem like a smart guy. I find the concept of what you suggested to be, while well thought out (congrats on your math skills), it was complete waste of time and energy. The reason it was never a problem for the reader was because 85% of us have enough common sense to know the game isn't about killing things to gain EXP and Cash, it's about the RP experience. The remaining 15% are thinking up “Cheating The XP System” threads and doing the math as we speak all the while thinking Naruto is a real guy who can really do all those things.
Narf_the_Mouse 11-29-07, 08:46 PM	Or maybe the other half simply has a different way of playing which is equally valid and doesn't involve your childhood delusions.
Weretiger 11-29-07, 09:58 PM	Hmmm... where to begin? The examples are flawed. The lower level PCs would not survive the encounter and thus should not be factored into it. Since you only receive XP for encounters you survive (being raised after the fact doesn't count as survival). If a character takes part in an encounter, even if she is incapacitated and dies during the encounter, that character gets a chare of the experience points. If a character dies and is raised, the awarded experience points are granted to her after she comes back from the dead (and after she loses a level, if appropriate) Another .0/.5 difference, apparently. In time your PCs would run out of levels from being raised, then eventually CON for being raised at 1st level Hmmm... perhaps a 2nd level character would serve better than a 1st. Die, resurrect, back to first level, level up from gained XP. Repeat. As the average remains 16, this is not a problem. And for party C, the problem is also not a problem if they level up after each resurrection. As a few side notes: 1. D&D is an RPG. It's a not an MMORPG where a bunch of your low level buddies should join up with the heavy hitters for a night of "Power Leveling". I am aware of that. However, an unscrupulous high-level party could easily hire henchmen, cohorts, mercenaries, or (as it not unusual in my (small and unreliable) group) multiple characters per player. Additionally, I find your disparaging of my viewpoint as odd, considering that I find MMOs to be the bane of tabletop roleplaying (and shun them). 2. Pit Fiends to not "Respawn" every 8-20 minutes if the party just sits there and rememorizes spells. 3. When monsters die you should not kneel down, search their corpse and find 46,800 XP and 80,000 gold just resting there for you to take. But of course. Multiple encounters with the same variety of foe using the same tactics in the same place quickly become stale. However, if one is running a high-level game, there should be high-level foes for the players (and 8-20 minutes would put a major crimp on the whole "resurrect and level" loop). As for looting, I did not state that either. The XP is immediate; however, the treasure is not. I simply used averages to ease my math, and because rolling random treasure for every encounter for such a proof as this seemed a waste of time. However, it was my honest mistake to forget to put "average" with each gp value on the initial post. I thank you honestly for finding my fault. In short, I hope this wasn’t your idea because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You seem like a smart guy. I find the concept of what you suggested to be, while well thought out (congrats on your math skills), it was complete waste of time and energy. Ah, motives. Funfun. I did not spend my time looking through the rules for loopholes; I was simply sitting one day doing my calculus homework and went, "Hey, if XP awards are based off of average party level, there is room for abuse." This is probably in part a result of my study of programming; part of my task when I design a system to be utilized it to find and eliminate inputs which could potentially crash the system. Thus, when I read and use a system, I also look for these "crash values", not necessarily intentionally. Thus, I stumbled across this one a couple of day ago, crunched some numbers for 10 minutes yesterday, and have spent perhaps 20-30 minutes posting. Of course, my motive for posting was distinct from my motive for finding; I was curious if wotc had found and eliminated the problem in 3.5, or, failing that, if perhaps it could be put on the radar for elimination in 4e. The reason it was never a problem for the reader was because 85% of us have enough common sense to know the game isn't about killing things to gain EXP and Cash, it's about the RP experience. Hmmm... most of my group would disagree. Our idea of rol(l)(e)playing is "Make a Diplomacy check." And usually we're lucky if we get that... Sorta sad, but that is the state of things. Numbers don't argue, cajole, or whine. The remaining 15% are thinking up “Cheating The XP System” threads and doing the math as we speak all the while thinking Naruto is a real guy who can really do all those things. Hmmm... who is this Naruto?... Naruto (NARUTO - ナルト -, Naruto?) is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Masashi Kishimoto with an anime adaptation. The main character, Naruto Uzumaki, is a loud, hyperactive, unpredictable adolescent ninja who constantly searches for recognition, as well as to become Hokage, acknowledged as the leader and strongest of all ninja in the village. I think that I am mildly offended, and will assume (perhaps unreasonably) that that particular crack was aimed specifically at me. If that is not the case, I apologize for any offense given below in advance. No, manga is not to my taste. I find most anything boasting graphics and artistry as one of its primary draws to be "not to my taste." This is not to say that I code in assembly or play only Rogue-like games. However, I do turn graphics settings on all games I do play down to the minimum for improved performance and minimal distraction. As for my literary tastes, I prefer scifi/fantasy (big surprise). Currently staring at me on my bookshelf is (almost) the entire set-connected M:tG series (I am missing Legends cycle, Lorwyn, several of the anthologies, and the books that came before they were connected with sets). Behind those is my moderate Dragonlance collection. Also, the Dhampir series (newer, but none too bad), the Ender Quartet, some Heinlein, Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion, Vector Prime, Dune, three Lovecraft anthologies, The Uplift War, Flatland, Atlas Shrugged, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and numerous others. Currently I am reading The Fountainhead (Rand), The Book of Five Rings (Musashi), and On the Theory and Practive of Evolutionary Algorithms (Thomas Back). So no, no manga. And definitely no believing in it. Distinguishing between truth and falsehood is a vital skill (booleans are important). However (and no particular offense intended, just advocating those pit fiends you mentioned earlier (which by the way, being only CR16 in 3E if memory serves, are suboptimal for a 20th level party)), I am curious as to your stance on American comic books in the superheroic style. Is it that you dislike graphic novels and comics in general, or is it just those which are Japanese? (and no, I'm definitely not pulling a race card, as I am whiter than an albino polar bear)
CosmicChaos 11-29-07, 10:56 PM	Only player characters that survive the combat get the XP from the combat. Cohorts, mercenaries, followers, hirelings, and animal companions do not get XP from the combat no matter how much they helped during the combat. I had a follower in 3.0 who killed many of our opponents. He only levelled when I did. If I was your GM, a 2nd level player character wouldn't even be allowed in a 20th level campaign. Same goes for a 13th level character. If I have to wave my magic wand and instantly make them 19th or 20th level I will. Basically your GM should prevent the kind of scenarios you are talking about, so they are non-issues.
benjimon 11-30-07, 03:33 AM	No I will be fair you can have your level 1 character in a 20th level party the thing is that as a DM I dole out xp separately. So with 3 lvl 20's they get their xp as though they were a lvl 20 I don't divide the party level. If the lvl 1 survives and contributes in a meaningful way they get xp based on what they did (If they survive). Oh and one other thing I may not have mentioned a challenge rating 20 creature is the equivalent of 4 lvl 20 characters if you are silly enough to bring a level 1 that is not as the DM my issue the monsters will go for what threatens them most and if the 4th character at lvl 1 does not contribute it actually gives an advantage to the monster.
spectralphoenix 11-30-07, 04:51 AM	3.5 Pit Fiends are CR 20. And even if this scheme worked in theory, how would a 3rd level character possibly survive an encounter with a CR 20 creature? Said Pit Fiend can use a Meteor Swarm and Quickened Fireball as SLAs. All low-level characters in the area would be dead on the first round.
Weretiger 11-30-07, 06:51 AM	Yeah, I wouldn't expect a low-level character to survive it. The thing is that under the 3.0 rules, they wouldn't have to to achieve the desired effect. And I'm not saying that any sane DM would let you (I know I won't). I was just curious as to whether or not it had been fixed in 3.5. Having ascertained this, the original purpose of the thread is fulfilled, and now it can only serve to degenerate into argumentation. benjimon: The thing was that I didn't add a 1st-level as the 4th character of an otherwise level 20 party; I added him/her as the 5th. Thus, the fighting ability of the party is not compomised.
Always1stToDie 11-30-07, 12:30 PM	However (and no particular offense intended, just advocating those pit fiends you mentioned earlier (which by the way, being only CR16 in 3E if memory serves, are suboptimal for a 20th level party)), I am curious as to your stance on American comic books in the superheroic style. Is it that you dislike graphic novels and comics in general, or is it just those which are Japanese? (and no, I'm definitely not pulling a race card, as I am whiter than an albino polar bear) This is a fair and honest question, no offence taken. No, I happen to like comic books (d20 M&M, Aberrant), and even graphic novels and manga. I prefer to keep them far away from my D&D games however. And I certainly have nothing against anyone of a particular ethnicity, again, no offence taken. After all you don't me from Adam's house cat so there is no harm in asking to learn. What does bug the snot out of me is that the way Wizards designed the game they made the entire game a number crunching, 'kill things for loot and cash' scenario. Most of the books are filled with numeric tables that break down what you should have at X level and should get from each encounter as a result of being X level. It's made up to play like an MMORPG where the characters lack any real sense of being and as I read these forums (which I've done since day 1) I see through the years that the game itself is breaking down into a mockery of what it used to be. Guess I'm just ol' school. I remember when 200,000 XP wasn't enough to get a Fighter to 9th level. Now he’s 20th in only a few adventures. Oh, and Pit Fiends are CR20 and can sometimes be found in groups of 4. For each pair of identical creatures the collective EL is increased by +2 I believe. (I don't have my books with me at the moment I’m at work.)
ryanlycaon 11-30-07, 12:42 PM	at whatever level they start at 3rd to 20th if the party succeeds in their mission they should go up 1 level and get 1000 gold from the king so you don't have to count monsters kiss policy keep it simple sam:D
Weretiger 11-30-07, 04:46 PM	Oh, and Pit Fiends are CR20 and can sometimes be found in groups of 4. For each pair of identical creatures the collective EL is increased by +2 I believe. (I don't have my books with me at the moment I’m at work.) Against, .0 vs .5. It always sort of irritated me that (in 3.0) balors were CR 18, while their devilish counterparts were only 16s. Also interesting was the fact that in 3.0, EL didn't count for XP, but did count for treasure. I do agree that the game is mechanically geared heavily towards combat by design. Whether this is because combat can cause disagreements (which can be solved easily and impartially by rules and dice) or because it was engineered to be combat-focused is debatable. Of course, since all the rules deal with combat, when people spend time building a character's mechanics and stats, they want to use them, and the only way to do so (for most feats, spells, abilities, etc) is in combat. As for MMOification of D&D, I am in no place to judge (haven't played MMOs). Also, though I've been playing a couple of years, our style (combat-focused) has remained basically constant. We tend to have an assigned plot or mission (as no character ever creates anything vaguely resembling a hook, nor acts pre-emptively, I am forced to railroad for plots), with combats stemming from it, and rewards for success following. However, you are correct that most characters tend to be a bunch of stats. Though I have been attempting to alleviate this problem (by giving statistical bonuses for character; probably not the best way, but the ends may justify the means), irregularity of gaming makes this difficult. ryanlycaon: That is about what I tend to do for experience when I DM, because having to keep track of XP is usually not worth the effort (primarily because we usually only play 2-4 sessions with the same set of characters (which equates to 1-4 months of realtime, by the end of which interest has been lost)). I do run treasure by the tables, usually, modifying for plot and consistency ("Why is there a suit of +1 chainmail in a rust monster's hoard?").
CryoSilver 12-01-07, 12:19 AM	Unless the first level character did something truly and unbelievably significant against a CR 20 monster and managed to not die, to boot, they'd get no XP. That said, if Joe Fighter level 1 manages to drop the castle wall onto the pit fiend by sundering the support beam and knocks out half the devil's hp, he's going to level (remember the rule that characters should not level more than once per session).
Sarella Starshine 12-01-07, 11:14 AM	Weretiger: To address the 13th level character getting more exp than the 20th level characters when facing a CR 20 monster- It makes sense when you realize what that the xp system is an abstraction of. The CR 20 monster is supposed to take 20% of the resources of a party of 4 level 20's. A CR 20 monster is almost trivial to them, they should not be getting a lot of xp for it. However, to the level 13th character, its an almost insurmountable challenge. He should be very happy and lucky to survive it, so he gets an amount of xp proportional to the challenge. As to the other stuff: I do not think that D&D has been MMOed. A LOT of those types of issues are Player/DM issues and not game issues. If your players treat thier characters as nothing more than a bunch of numbers, then its a PLAYER issue, and not one of the game. IF you as the DM want more Rp in your game, create situations that cater to it, challenge your players to do so, or just ditch your old players and get a new set that wants to RP more.