Experience problems [Archive] - Wizards Community

Experience problems [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lazaro
12-05-06, 11:51 PM In our new game the DM threw some new rules at us.
1) If your charatcer dies, your next charcter starts at 1st.
2) When your character levels their exp total restarts at 0.

after some debate we all decided to give them a try. What are your thoughts. Have any of you had a DM like this?
X-Codes
12-06-06, 01:47 AM How, exactly, is #2 supposed to work? When you level up, you don't?
Artifax
12-06-06, 02:09 AM 1) That's going to become frustrating for players who want to play out a character concept. Additionally, it will destroy any semblance of balance of power amongst the players. You may have one character who is good at getting out of trouble and get to level 5+. The level 1 characters might feel utterly useless.

2) That would make using spells/abilities that have an exp cost even more difficult to use. It would be absurd for a wizard to destroy a powerful foe, gain a level, and then be unable to scribe even the simplest of scrolls because he does not have any exp to spare.
Airos
12-06-06, 02:21 AM In our new game the DM threw some new rules at us.
1) If your charatcer dies, your next charcter starts at 1st.
2) When your character levels their exp total restarts at 0.

after some debate we all decided to give them a try. What are your thoughts. Have any of you had a DM like this?

#1 - Yes, I have, and it stinks once you wind up several levels behind everyone else.

#2 - Umm... :confused: Huh? So you gain 1000 XP to go to 2nd level, you drop to 0 XP... you now need go gain 3000 XP to be 3rd level? Well, I guess that's the "balancing" factor to #1.... Nobody ever gains any levels.....
X-Codes
12-06-06, 02:27 AM I agree with Airos. Messing with the XP system, in general, never quite turns out very well.

At least when they're this simplistic, that is.
Mitchell
12-06-06, 03:53 AM 1) As others have said, the potential for a large level discrepancy should be obvious. This is very bad.
2) No big deal to me. I know it slows down leveling, but that is all it does as far as I can see. The extra XP a wizard spends on crafting is not going to affect them any worse that it does under the current system, and maybe even less, since they could have a huge pool of XP to spend and still not trail the rest by more than a single level at any time.
Airos
12-06-06, 04:37 AM I agree with Airos. Messing with the XP system, in general, never quite turns out very well.

At least when they're this simplistic, that is.

[off topic] ...overwhelming urge for an ego pad..... must not give in..... [/off topic]

:tiphat:
OravennasBrother
12-06-06, 01:57 PM Having new PC's atart 1st only works if the party is no more than around 3rd or 4th level. Past that and the characters start to be a little TOO useless (yes I know a 1st in a party of 4th is in sad shape, but under the normal XP rules the 1st will be only 1 level behind by the time the party reaches 6th), furhter the low level PC cannot gain XP from the defeat of monsters radically higher than his level.
I once went to a game where they wanted me to start 1st level in a 14th level group. After I expained the XP qhandy and everyone laughed about how it was "tough to be the new guy" I left and never looked back.
Think about the long term repercussions on that 1st level replacement rule (though It will stop nonsense like a person I knew who would willingly sacrifice his character in order to create a new character with full starting gear because of the opposite rule - that nothing was lost in bringing in a new character)
zioth
12-06-06, 02:15 PM The two rules balance each other out. Take an extreme example:

Player 1 is level 10. Player 2 dies and starts at level 1.
Player 1 needs 55000XP to get to level 11. By the time he gets there, Player 2 is almost at level 7. Player 1 needs another 61000 to get to level 12. By that time, Player 2 is up to level 9. This works even faster using the experience-by-level table in the DMG.

Of course, Player 2 has to spend a lot of time in the sidelines, risking getting killed by a stray fireball that Player 1 would laugh at. So even though the levels balance out pretty quickly, rule #1 isn't such a great idea.
Some_call_me_Tim
12-06-06, 02:29 PM 1) If your charatcer dies, your next charcter starts at 1st.
Bad idea. Either a character dies and that player has to limp along behind all the other characters (lessening the party's power as well) or the players think it is too harsh and never take chances, no one will want to play front-line types--too risky. To me this makes the game less heroic.

2) When your character levels their exp total restarts at 0.Seems silly. If he wants to slow down gain thats one thing but he's using an exponential scale. If we assume the typical 13.33 encounters per level at first, using this method will require 40 to go from 7th to 8th and 80 to go from 16th to 17th. That is a long time to be stuck at one level.

If the DM wants to slow down experience gain, I would suggest he uses a simple factor.
OravennasBrother
12-06-06, 07:01 PM The two rules balance each other out. Take an extreme example:
Player 1 is level 15. THe encounters are placed around CR 11+ - so player 2 gets NO experience for those encounters, even though the character may die with no effect beyond forcing the opponent to use an attack killling him.
romana
12-06-06, 07:23 PM With #1, I think once you got too high, you'd also run into roleplaying difficulties - there's a few reasons why a party of 15th-level characters would want a squishy little 1st-level, but not many, and they'd start to wear a bit thin if it happened more than once, or if the low-level character became a liability. I'd be a bit worried that this rule foreshadowed an expected high death rate...
mato_hibiki
12-06-06, 11:52 PM This is right up there with the time my DM made the entire group start as commoners.

... I'm not kidding. We gained a level? Level TWO commoners.

He couldn't understand why we were displeased with this, to the point of taking personal offense as us pointing out that we could bite it simply from tripping over our own two feet.

"Well, I gave you an extra d6 for stat rolls."

Two HP does not make up for dying from a single stab wound by a drunken carriage driver.

And then we were drafted into the army... Too bad commoners can't use anything except a dagger. I wish the quartermaster had known that.

In short, punch your DM, HARD. Or just make him swap places with you for one session, just to know what you're dealing with.
Chalkboard_Sonata
12-07-06, 12:37 AM I would argue that the second rule is even more heinous than the first. Although at first it appears to compliment the 1st rule nicely, in practice, it would result in level gaps that exist far, far to long to be enjoyable. Face it, if your level 7 character dies, he will lag behind the party's median level for far longer than a year, simply because of the inordinate amount of experience he will require to catch up. All in all, both rules do not foster a fun game environment.

Oh, and rule 2 should be worded as "After leveling, a character's experience resets to zero." At worst, it should at least be "When your character levels, his or her experience totat restarts at zero." 'Their' is a plural possessive pronoun.
kelvinaw273
12-07-06, 09:14 AM My Comments:

Rule #1: really dumb idea. More than a few levels of disparity and the new 1st level characters are at a massive disadvantage and are unlikely to survive long enough to gain any experience.

Rule #2: It will slow down progression, especially at very high levels. If everyone is happy with that, great, but otherwise forget it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lazaro 12-05-06, 11:51 PM	In our new game the DM threw some new rules at us. 1) If your charatcer dies, your next charcter starts at 1st. 2) When your character levels their exp total restarts at 0. after some debate we all decided to give them a try. What are your thoughts. Have any of you had a DM like this?
X-Codes 12-06-06, 01:47 AM	How, exactly, is #2 supposed to work? When you level up, you don't?
Artifax 12-06-06, 02:09 AM	1) That's going to become frustrating for players who want to play out a character concept. Additionally, it will destroy any semblance of balance of power amongst the players. You may have one character who is good at getting out of trouble and get to level 5+. The level 1 characters might feel utterly useless. 2) That would make using spells/abilities that have an exp cost even more difficult to use. It would be absurd for a wizard to destroy a powerful foe, gain a level, and then be unable to scribe even the simplest of scrolls because he does not have any exp to spare.
Airos 12-06-06, 02:21 AM	In our new game the DM threw some new rules at us. 1) If your charatcer dies, your next charcter starts at 1st. 2) When your character levels their exp total restarts at 0. after some debate we all decided to give them a try. What are your thoughts. Have any of you had a DM like this? #1 - Yes, I have, and it stinks once you wind up several levels behind everyone else. #2 - Umm... :confused: Huh? So you gain 1000 XP to go to 2nd level, you drop to 0 XP... you now need go gain 3000 XP to be 3rd level? Well, I guess that's the "balancing" factor to #1.... Nobody ever gains any levels.....
X-Codes 12-06-06, 02:27 AM	I agree with Airos. Messing with the XP system, in general, never quite turns out very well. At least when they're this simplistic, that is.
Mitchell 12-06-06, 03:53 AM	1) As others have said, the potential for a large level discrepancy should be obvious. This is very bad. 2) No big deal to me. I know it slows down leveling, but that is all it does as far as I can see. The extra XP a wizard spends on crafting is not going to affect them any worse that it does under the current system, and maybe even less, since they could have a huge pool of XP to spend and still not trail the rest by more than a single level at any time.
Airos 12-06-06, 04:37 AM	I agree with Airos. Messing with the XP system, in general, never quite turns out very well. At least when they're this simplistic, that is. [off topic] ...overwhelming urge for an ego pad..... must not give in..... [/off topic] :tiphat:
OravennasBrother 12-06-06, 01:57 PM	Having new PC's atart 1st only works if the party is no more than around 3rd or 4th level. Past that and the characters start to be a little TOO useless (yes I know a 1st in a party of 4th is in sad shape, but under the normal XP rules the 1st will be only 1 level behind by the time the party reaches 6th), furhter the low level PC cannot gain XP from the defeat of monsters radically higher than his level. I once went to a game where they wanted me to start 1st level in a 14th level group. After I expained the XP qhandy and everyone laughed about how it was "tough to be the new guy" I left and never looked back. Think about the long term repercussions on that 1st level replacement rule (though It will stop nonsense like a person I knew who would willingly sacrifice his character in order to create a new character with full starting gear because of the opposite rule - that nothing was lost in bringing in a new character)
zioth 12-06-06, 02:15 PM	The two rules balance each other out. Take an extreme example: Player 1 is level 10. Player 2 dies and starts at level 1. Player 1 needs 55000XP to get to level 11. By the time he gets there, Player 2 is almost at level 7. Player 1 needs another 61000 to get to level 12. By that time, Player 2 is up to level 9. This works even faster using the experience-by-level table in the DMG. Of course, Player 2 has to spend a lot of time in the sidelines, risking getting killed by a stray fireball that Player 1 would laugh at. So even though the levels balance out pretty quickly, rule #1 isn't such a great idea.
Some_call_me_Tim 12-06-06, 02:29 PM	1) If your charatcer dies, your next charcter starts at 1st. Bad idea. Either a character dies and that player has to limp along behind all the other characters (lessening the party's power as well) or the players think it is too harsh and never take chances, no one will want to play front-line types--too risky. To me this makes the game less heroic. 2) When your character levels their exp total restarts at 0.Seems silly. If he wants to slow down gain thats one thing but he's using an exponential scale. If we assume the typical 13.33 encounters per level at first, using this method will require 40 to go from 7th to 8th and 80 to go from 16th to 17th. That is a long time to be stuck at one level. If the DM wants to slow down experience gain, I would suggest he uses a simple factor.
OravennasBrother 12-06-06, 07:01 PM	The two rules balance each other out. Take an extreme example: Player 1 is level 15. THe encounters are placed around CR 11+ - so player 2 gets NO experience for those encounters, even though the character may die with no effect beyond forcing the opponent to use an attack killling him.
romana 12-06-06, 07:23 PM	With #1, I think once you got too high, you'd also run into roleplaying difficulties - there's a few reasons why a party of 15th-level characters would want a squishy little 1st-level, but not many, and they'd start to wear a bit thin if it happened more than once, or if the low-level character became a liability. I'd be a bit worried that this rule foreshadowed an expected high death rate...
mato_hibiki 12-06-06, 11:52 PM	This is right up there with the time my DM made the entire group start as commoners. ... I'm not kidding. We gained a level? Level TWO commoners. He couldn't understand why we were displeased with this, to the point of taking personal offense as us pointing out that we could bite it simply from tripping over our own two feet. "Well, I gave you an extra d6 for stat rolls." Two HP does not make up for dying from a single stab wound by a drunken carriage driver. And then we were drafted into the army... Too bad commoners can't use anything except a dagger. I wish the quartermaster had known that. In short, punch your DM, HARD. Or just make him swap places with you for one session, just to know what you're dealing with.
Chalkboard_Sonata 12-07-06, 12:37 AM	I would argue that the second rule is even more heinous than the first. Although at first it appears to compliment the 1st rule nicely, in practice, it would result in level gaps that exist far, far to long to be enjoyable. Face it, if your level 7 character dies, he will lag behind the party's median level for far longer than a year, simply because of the inordinate amount of experience he will require to catch up. All in all, both rules do not foster a fun game environment. Oh, and rule 2 should be worded as "After leveling, a character's experience resets to zero." At worst, it should at least be "When your character levels, his or her experience totat restarts at zero." 'Their' is a plural possessive pronoun.
kelvinaw273 12-07-06, 09:14 AM	My Comments: Rule #1: really dumb idea. More than a few levels of disparity and the new 1st level characters are at a massive disadvantage and are unlikely to survive long enough to gain any experience. Rule #2: It will slow down progression, especially at very high levels. If everyone is happy with that, great, but otherwise forget it.