Does each party get the encounter XP amount or is it divided among them?
Thanks
Curt
Evenly divided amongst the party members.
All XP is evenly divided among the people who earn it.
And the expectation is that you'll grant equal XP to players who missed the game, so they don't fall behind, but that's much more up for debate.
Cool. Thanks for the info. I knew it was too good to be true when I leveled up after two encounters.
Cool. Thanks for the info. I knew it was too good to be true when I leveled up after two encounters.
If you think leveling up that quickly is good, suggest to your DM that your group starts at a higher level. One of the advantages DnD has over videogames 
Cool. Thanks for the info. I knew it was too good to be true when I leveled up after two encounters.
If you think leveling up that quickly is good, suggest to your DM that your group starts at a higher level. One of the advantages DnD has over videogames
Speaking of which, if you have a party at say Level 5 and one your guys dies, can you just have a player start at Level 5? Or would you have to build him up.
Speaking of which, if you have a party at say Level 5 and one your guys dies, can you just have a player start at Level 5? Or would you have to build him up.
Same as making any other new character: You make him to fit the party. Which is to say, same as the rest of the party.
Speaking of which, if you have a party at say Level 5 and one your guys dies, can you just have a player start at Level 5? Or would you have to build him up.Same as making any other new character: You make him to fit the party. Which is to say, same as the rest of the party.
Alternatively, you can have the character raised from the dead using a cleric ritual. Level 5 clerics can't cast it, but a good DM will provide an NPC cleric who can (usually along with some quest and/or payment).
Speaking of which, if you have a party at say Level 5 and one your guys dies, can you just have a player start at Level 5? Or would you have to build him up.
Depends on the DM.
But starting at the same level/xptotal/wealth is a fairly good idea.
As a DM I rarely penalise the player of a dead character.
If you feel this is unfair on the other player, I would set the new chracter one level behind the existing group, and allow them to gain a level per game until they reach the level of the existing party members, which will normally result in them catching up in 1-2 games, by the third game the new character has established themselves.
All XP is evenly divided among the people who earn it.
And the expectation is that you'll grant equal XP to players who missed the game, so they don't fall behind, but that's much more up for debate.
And WHY would I award xp to those who missed the game?
Tell me, other than for ease of book keeping, how is the missing player earning this award? You gain xp by having your character do things....
In fact, it could be argued that their absence negatively affected the game in some way by them not being there: Delay of game while you find out if x is coming, delay of game while the encounters get adjusted, harder than expected encounters if the DM doesn't adjust, one less set of input during play, possibly having to run them as an NPC or by another player, any fallout concerning what happened to them during that time spent as an NPC/additional character... All manner of stuff, the list is endless. The player isn't even entertaining us with their presence! So how are they deserving of a reward again?? And no, I'm not the least concerned with them becoming jealous of the other players whos characters were present & now have a few more xp than theirs do. Because if your that immature? Then you won't be at my table to start with.
And WHY would I award xp to those who missed the game?Tell me, other than for ease of book keeping, how is the missing player earning this award? You gain xp by having your character do things....
In fact, it could be argued that their absence negatively affected the game in some way by them not being there: Delay of game while you find out if x is coming, delay of game while the encounters get adjusted, harder than expected encounters if the DM doesn't adjust, one less set of input during play, possibly having to run them as an NPC or by another player, any fallout concerning what happened to them during that time spent as an NPC/additional character... All manner of stuff, the list is endless. The player isn't even entertaining us with their presence! So how are they deserving of a reward again?? And no, I'm not the least concerned with them becoming jealous of the other players whos characters were present & now have a few more xp than theirs do. Because if your that immature? Then you won't be at my table to start with.
Major reasons I keep everyone equal as follows:
1. I don't need the headache of a mixed-level party. Balancing encounters could easily become a nightmare as discrepancies between the highest level character and the lowest increase.
2. Missing a session of my game should be punishment enough in itself. No need to punish twice.
3. Characters don't go into temporal stasis when their players are absent. They're doing stuff, just not "on camera". There's no logical reason to assume they're being idle as opposed to being active, even if they're not participating with the rest of the party.
4. Experience is a gauge of how powerful the party is, not a doggy-biscuit to be waved in front of the players to make them attend the games. The reward for playing is that you get to play. Experience is MY tool as a DM, helping me judge the party's ability to handle dangerous monsters.
5. Sometimes, life happens. I used to have a player that said upfront before my campaign started that he could only attend every other week. If I didn't award him experience unless he was absent, he would quickly devolve into luggage for the rest of the party. Not fun for him. You can't always avoid missing a session, and being punished when you do is unnecessary and not fun.
And fun is what it's all about, right?
And WHY would I award xp to those who missed the game?
Because not getting to play is punishment enough.
So how are they deserving of a reward again?? And no, I'm not the least concerned with them becoming jealous of the other players whos characters were present & now have a few more xp than theirs do. Because if your that immature? Then you won't be at my table to start with.
"Jealousy" was never my suggestion, although you're wuite right whe you say immaturity is a big problem.
XP isn't the shiny reward for playing. XP is just a thing to mark story advancement. Playing is the shiny reward for playing. If you don't get to play, you've missed out already.
And WHY would I award xp to those who missed the game?
Because the character is getting the xp, not the player
delay of game while the encounters get adjusted, harder than expected encounters if the DM doesn't adjust
Why adjust encounters? The count of group members didn't change, the character is there, even when the player is not. Just let any other player play that character for that game session, worked fine the last years in my group.
Other question: Why punish a player who has a good reason to miss a session?
Major reasons I keep everyone equal as follows:1. I don't need the headache of a mixed-level party. Balancing encounters could easily become a nightmare as discrepancies between the highest level character and the lowest increase.
2. Missing a session of my game should be punishment enough in itself. No need to punish twice.
3. Characters don't go into temporal stasis when their players are absent. They're doing stuff, just not "on camera". There's no logical reason to assume they're being idle as opposed to being active, even if they're not participating with the rest of the party.
4. Experience is a gauge of how powerful the party is, not a doggy-biscuit to be waved in front of the players to make them attend the games. The reward for playing is that you get to play. Experience is MY tool as a DM, helping me judge the party's ability to handle dangerous monsters.
5. Sometimes, life happens. I used to have a player that said upfront before my campaign started that he could only attend every other week. If I didn't award him experience unless he was absent, he would quickly devolve into luggage for the rest of the party. Not fun for him. You can't always avoid missing a session, and being punished when you do is unnecessary and not fun.
And fun is what it's all about, right?
One day, Novacat, I'd like to buy you a drink. In the mean time I'll raise mine to you. Hear hear!
At my table, XP is not an individual value. We haven't thought of it as such since 3e. In our game, XP is a party value which is determined by e/c=XP; encounter XP divided by the number of characters in it equals experience point total. The only reason all of the players write it on their sheets is for redundancy to make sure our math is right.
If any of my players misses a game and their character isn't in the encounter, they actually get more XP than if they'd been present. Why? Fewer characters equals harder encounter, which results in more XP. Do you think the players who are present resent this? No! Why? They aren't petty jerks, they know it's a game, and they're well aware that next week it could be them. In other words, my players and I treat each other like friends, not competitors or underlings.
Major reasons I keep everyone equal as follows:
1. I don't need the headache of a mixed-level party. Balancing encounters could easily become a nightmare as discrepancies between the highest level character and the lowest increase.
2. Missing a session of my game should be punishment enough in itself. No need to punish twice.
3. Characters don't go into temporal stasis when their players are absent. They're doing stuff, just not "on camera". There's no logical reason to assume they're being idle as opposed to being active, even if they're not participating with the rest of the party.
4. Experience is a gauge of how powerful the party is, not a doggy-biscuit to be waved in front of the players to make them attend the games. The reward for playing is that you get to play. Experience is MY tool as a DM, helping me judge the party's ability to handle dangerous monsters.
5. Sometimes, life happens. I used to have a player that said upfront before my campaign started that he could only attend every other week. If I didn't award him experience unless he was absent, he would quickly devolve into luggage for the rest of the party. Not fun for him. You can't always avoid missing a session, and being punished when you do is unnecessary and not fun.
And fun is what it's all about, right?
Agree, but on the other side of the coin, I do not award treasure to people who missed the game. If the rest of the party decide to give them a share, thats fine. This normally means they get items but not the monetary share. Slightly decreasing the absent party members power but not by much.
Agree, but on the other side of the coin, I do not award treasure to people who missed the game. If the rest of the party decide to give them a share, thats fine. This normally means they get items but not the monetary share. Slightly decreasing the absent party members power but not by much.
I have a secret method of dealing with this problem:
I award the same treasure regardless of who shows up, because I run the same encounters regardless of the number of players. My games all have 4-6 players - when I get below 4 players in attendance, we cancel the game and watch movies or play poker or take the day off, or something. Unless an Encounter is damn near impossible for 6 players, 5 or 4 *can* handle it, and death is not a career-ending injury in D&D. Even an unexpected TPK is a story hook waiting to happen.
So, yeah. Same Encounters even if we're short players, same treasure.
It helps, in part, that my players are total commies with loot distribution. Everything gets pooled, then passed around for maximum effectiveness, and the party cash stores buy stuff that's useful for everyone or finance big purchases. For example, at level 6 they pooled their cash to get a set of Iron Armbands for the melee ranger, because him getting +4 damage per round was a good thing for all of them. If nobody has anything critical that requires party cash, they divvy it up based roughly on who's gotten the least cool **** recently.
Novacat, you're my hero.
It helps, in part, that my players are total commies with loot distribution.
I think most of mine would be too, but we have a couple of players who are absolute thugs...
A few years ago, the group was hired to kill the leader of an evil temple. In they charged, smashed the place up, slaughtered the acoyltes, etc. But in the final battle not only did the evil cleric kill one of the party and managed to escape in the chaos of the collapsing temple.
The bedraggled party limped back to base and sent the player with the highest (and importantly) to explain to their client that the mission had failed... well it turns out the NPC was perfectly happy with the result since the temple was destroyed and the evil clerics civilian alter ego exposed as the result of their actions, and agreed to pay them their reward, but also arrange the ressurection for free.
The PC returns..
"Hey guys, great news! He's given us a consulation reward (and item the PC had stolen from what shoudl have been party loot, a hat of disguise) for destroying the temple, AND he's covered 50% of the ressurection cost!"
The party failed the ensueing sense motive rolls, and actually chipped in their share of the res cost, which the bar-steward pocketed along with 100% of the reward AND the Hat of disguise....
There's a guide to starting players at a higher level in the DM's handbook.
The PC returns..
"Hey guys, great news! He's given us a consulation reward (and item the PC had stolen from what shoudl have been party loot, a hat of disguise) for destroying the temple, AND he's covered 50% of the ressurection cost!"
The party failed the ensueing sense motive rolls, and actually chipped in their share of the res cost, which the bar-steward pocketed along with 100% of the reward AND the Hat of disguise....
Yeah, that guy wouldn't last long with most of my players. Even the dimmest bulb is going to realise that you've got multiple levels worth of extra treasure above the rest of the party and all the Bluff in the world won't necessarily save you from the rest of the party when they find out.
And, really, all it takes is the reward-giver saying something, ANYTHING, to the rest of the party to give that away.
I'm reminded of a somewhat-similar situation in a game I was playing in. There's treasure in a chest. Everyone sees that there is treasure in a chest. the Rogue, who is not the brightest candle in the bonfire, declares that he's running up and swipping the treasure, using Thievery so he doesn't have to share it with anyone else. He rolls, really, well, and says "Hah! Nobody say me take it!"
The rest of the players look at each other and say "You're right, we didn't see you take it. What we saw was that it was there, then you moved up to it, then it was gone, now you're moving away. And you're a sociopathic little weasel and we don't trust you to begin with."
The Rogue player started screaming bloody murder when we grabbed him, searched his character (threatening to beat him into unconsciousness first if necessary), took the treasure back, and told him that if he ever tried that again we were going to make sure nobody ever found the body.
There's a certain level of trust an adventuring party really needs to have. If you're going to break that trust, you either have to be indispensible (he wasn't) or have a really good reason (he didn't) and everyone had better like you (no, seriously, he was playing a sociopathic character who continually did things to make the rest of the party's lives more difficult)
"Hey guys, great news! He's given us a consulation reward (and item the PC had stolen from what shoudl have been party loot, a hat of disguise) for destroying the temple, AND he's covered 50% of the ressurection cost!"
The party failed the ensueing sense motive rolls, and actually chipped in their share of the res cost, which the bar-steward pocketed along with 100% of the reward AND the Hat of disguise....
At a certain point, it's the player being a jerk, not the character, and no amount of "But that's what my character would do!" is going to change that.
I see dividing up treasure unequally the same way I see fragging a teammate or verbally abusing somebody. You have to ask another player if it's OK to drop a fireball on him, even if it is "what my character would do," and you should do the same before you launch into a series of vile insults about the player's character's mother.
You and the rest of the group can agree that your characters will hate each other and cheat each other and be mean at every opportunity, but you still have to communicate clearly with the other players to determine if it is OK.
Agree, but on the other side of the coin, I do not award treasure to people who missed the game. If the rest of the party decide to give them a share, thats fine. This normally means they get items but not the monetary share. Slightly decreasing the absent party members power but not by much.I have a secret method of dealing with this problem:
I award the same treasure regardless of who shows up, because I run the same encounters regardless of the number of players. My games all have 4-6 players - when I get below 4 players in attendance, we cancel the game and watch movies or play poker or take the day off, or something. Unless an Encounter is damn near impossible for 6 players, 5 or 4 *can* handle it, and death is not a career-ending injury in D&D. Even an unexpected TPK is a story hook waiting to happen.
So, yeah. Same Encounters even if we're short players, same treasure.
It helps, in part, that my players are total commies with loot distribution. Everything gets pooled, then passed around for maximum effectiveness, and the party cash stores buy stuff that's useful for everyone or finance big purchases. For example, at level 6 they pooled their cash to get a set of Iron Armbands for the melee ranger, because him getting +4 damage per round was a good thing for all of them. If nobody has anything critical that requires party cash, they divvy it up based roughly on who's gotten the least cool **** recently.
The way we usually do it is like novacat said. Everyone is always kept at the same level. I divide the xp at the end of each encounter based on how many folks are present in the encounter itself. When folks miss a session, it's never because they don't want to be there. RL is screwing 'em some how, so I give 'em some love. Usually, when it comes to cash treasure, the party splits it with whoever's there at the end of each encounter. The items, however, go into a pool and that gets distributed at the end of the adventure. One of my players is really anal about logging each and every item in a spreadsheet along with it's value. Mostly that's because deep down, my players are total loot whores and no one wants to see anyone else get more than they deserve! I usually allow them to get full value when they sell magical stuff, but only 20% when they sell regular items. I will let them RP/skillcheck haggle to get that percentage raised.
Also, it's been my tradition to award each player with one magical item of their choice that is of equal level when they reach a new level.
I've found that it keeps the players very happy. That way when I fudge rules to challenge the players (like making a recharge power at-will or making an encounter power recharge), I don't hear complaining.
Besides, it's all about the fun. I'm not there to oppress the players but to work with them toward the goal of a fun story.