Best Method of Dividing XP?

[the Jester]

So you are saying that it is fair for low-level characters to get the same or more xp then their higher level party mate that does all the work? How much xp do you suggest the two 1st level halflings get for missing with their sling for 8 rounds strait while the ranger completes the encounter?

Well, they learned that they suck, anyway.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yeah - if there are 3 10th level characters & 1 2nd level in the group which defeats a CR 10 encounter, I'd typically just give the 10th levellers each 1/3 of the XP pot and give the 2nd leveller a small ad-hoc award.

Which is a good reason not to play 2nd level character in your campaign.

The Auld Grump

 

[S'mon]

Which is a good reason not to play 2nd level character in your campaign.

The Auld Grump

You're not seriously telling me you have 2nd levellers & 10th levellers in the same group in your campaign? I was thinking NPCs! I keep all PCs within 1 level of each other, in 3e it's vital not to have a big level spread among the PCs.

 

[3catcircus]

Why should a party that "bare-bones it" only get *the same* xp as a party that has extra help?

If I throw a vanilla party of 6th level iconics (Ftr, Clr, Wiz, Rog) against an appropriate encounter, they will, in most cases, have a tougher time than a party of 6th level composed of a four PCs, one of which is the following: any PC w/ Leadership (and the 4th level Cohort that comes with the feat) , a Druid or Ranger w/ an animal companion, a Wizard with an Improved Familiar, or a Paladin with a mount.

The vanilla party of 6th level PCs has an effective party level of 6.

For argument's sake, lets say that the Ftr, Rog and Cleric each have a 4th lvl cohort and the Wizard has a Pseudodragon for an Improved Familiar... *This* party has an effective party level of 7. When you start adding up cohorts, improved familiars or special animal companions, and special mounts, the party size effectively can double or triple, and that CR 6 encounter for a party of 4 6th level characters becomes much easier.

Contrary to what you think is the case, this doesn't *penalize* players who artificially increase the size and capabilities of their party, it *rewards* players who do more with less in the form of a bare-bones party.

Now as to your arguments that it is unfair to players that take druid, paladin, wizard, sorcerer, or hexblade -

1st - The same system of awarding xp is applied equally to all PCs, regardless of class. Why would it be unfair to a Paladin that gets all those special abilities (lay hands, Divine grace and Divine health, Aura of Courage, Smite Evil, Turn Undead, spellcasting, special mounts, etc. etc. etc.) but *not* be unfair to a Fighter that doesn't have all of those special abilities?

2nd - Regardless of #1, who said life was fair?

3rd - The players shouldn't know exactly the xp they should get for an encounter - if you think that a DM is supposed to spoon-feed xp and treasure and allow the PCs to be omnipotent and omniscient, then you are missing the point of the role of the DM.

You've managed to find a way that manages to directly punish players who choose certain feats and abilities that are already underused. If you were looking to completely discourage players from playing paladins, druids, wizards/sorcerors/hexblades, then congradulations! Otherwise, your method is unfair to players who want to take character choices meant to expand the roleplaying opporunities and tactical options of their characters. You may want to reconsider it, before you effectively house rule those classes out of your game.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Isn't the quickest way for characters to catch up the one where they start out at the same level as the rest of the party?

Until they die or use XP to make something or cast a spell...

 

[Saeviomagy]

Contrary to what you think is the case, this doesn't *penalize* players who artificially increase the size and capabilities of their party, it *rewards* players who do more with less in the form of a bare-bones party.

Except that you're not just penalising feats which give extra pairs of hands, you're also penalising entire classes (specifically druids and rangers). In fact, you're punishing the ranger really badly - his animal companion will almost never contribute to a combat because it's so much smaller than him, and yet it's sucking away XP! Animal companion for these two is a class feature - it's already been balanced out.

 

[3catcircus]

So, a light warhorse or wolf will never contribute to combat? What about a medium viper? At low levels, the wolf may be *more* effective in combat than his Ranger buddy, because he has Scent (less chance of being surprise/greater chance of gaining surprise) and Trip Attack abilities. The warhorse animal companion also has Scent, *and* allows the rider to increase his movement rate and do mounted combat attacks, including use of the lance.

As the Ranger (and to a greater degree, the Druid), advances, so does the animal companion - which means the animal companion *also* gets better. And, if your DM allows the alternative animal companions, at 30th level, you could have a Tyranosaurus with 30d8+99 HP, AC 26, STR 34, DEX 18, with a corresponding increase in your BAB, attacks, and damage, as well as an additional attack... Or would you prefer a Dire Tiger animal companion...

The point is that, unless you chose a pathetic animal companion, it can and usually does affect not just combat, but other situations - at low levels and at high levels.

Except that you're not just penalising feats which give extra pairs of hands, you're also penalising entire classes (specifically druids and rangers). In fact, you're punishing the ranger really badly - his animal companion will almost never contribute to a combat because it's so much smaller than him, and yet it's sucking away XP! Animal companion for these two is a class feature - it's already been balanced out.

 

[Campbell]

As the Ranger (and to a greater degree, the Druid), advances, so does the animal companion - which means the animal companion *also* gets better. And, if your DM allows the alternative animal companions, at 20th level, you could have a Tyranosaurus with 30d8+99 HP, AC 26, STR 34, DEX 18, with a corresponding increase in your BAB, attacks, and damage, as well as an additional attack... Or would you prefer a Dire Tiger animal companion...

Your example is patently impossible. A Druid must be 16th level just to attain a Tyrannosaurus as an animal campanion. Additionally, a Druid who trades in his animal companion for a Tyrannosaurus sacrifices 15 effective levels worth of animal campanion advancement. In fact, in order to have a 30 HD Tyranosaurus as an animal campanion a Druid is required to be 30th level. A 60th level Ranger can achieve the same results. If that weren't enough the bonus HD awarded to an animal companion does not increase the animal's size. A 20th level Ranger's strongest option is probably a Megaraptor, a CR 6 creature, with 8 hit dice. That isn't what I'd call a gamebreaking ability. Familiars are a great deal less powerful... Even Improved Familiars have half the hit points of their master and must use their master's BAB for all attacks. Familiars are extremely fragile.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Methods of Determining Experience (house rules + math)

This thread indicates that the 3.5 method is the favorite method (~70%) of assigning xp. Respondents prefer 3.5 because it allows lower level characters to catch up quickly with the rest of the group. A distant second (~20%) is the 3.0 method, which divides xp equally among participants in an encounter. Very few people (~1%) use a method like the one promoted in Grim Tales, which ensures that members of a party level at the same rate. (Grim Tales doesn't ensure equal advancement if a character has a level adjustment- but Grim Tales handles LAs differently than I would.)

Any of the methods requires recourse to charts and tables to assign xp. What follows are some formulas that IMHO capture the essence of the various methods of calculating experience points. They would be easy to write down in a spreadsheet, or with a calculator and paper.

First, assume we are talking about a party encountering a group of monsters.

X is a monster encounter composed of m monsters whose CR is x₁, x₂,... x_m.
P is a party of n characters whose levels are p₁, p₂,... p_n​

This is what we want to calculate:

xp(k) = character k's xp from encounter X​

To do this a DM will have to calculate one or both of the following:

Chi(X) = (x₁² + x₂² + x₃² + ... + x_m²) * 300
Rho(P) = (p₁² + p₂² + p₃² + ... + p_n²)​

A 3.5-style xp formula (rapid catchup) is

xp(k) = (Chi(X) / n) / p_k​

Chi(X) is divided by the number of characters, and then by character level. Since low level characters divide by a smaller amount, they get more experience.

A 3.0-style xp formula is the same, but uses the average party level instead of p_k. In other words, you divide Chi(X) by the total party level. Everyone gets the same amount.

A GT-style xp formula (equal advancement) is

xp(k) = Chi(X) / Rho(P) * p_k​

Higher level characters get more xp, but they also need more xp to level up. The result is that all characters level at the same rate.

A fourth alternative exists, and that is to use a level independent experience system (LIES). I suggest the following LIES:

Each monster is worth CR² * 100 xp, which is divided among the characters.

In this system a character's level is calculated by dividing their experience point total by 100, and taking the cube root (round fractions down). Thus a character with 3000 xp is third level (rounded down from 3.10) and a character with 100 000 xp is exactly 10th level.

If xp from LIES are divided equally, low level characters will level up much faster than high level characters. Even if the xp is divided into as many shares as the party has levels, the low level characters will level up a little bit faster than the high level characters do.

According to LIES, the expected treasure of a character is approximately (within a factor of 2) equal to that character's total xp. If that is close enough, a DM can ensure that the experience that a party gains from an encounter will, on average, be equal to the treasure they earn. 1 gp = 1 xp, for a "1st edition feel."

Incidentally, note that the XP costs for magic items and spells have to be adjusted to make the numbers work out; multiply by a factor of (0.3 * character level). A 20th level wizard will have to pay 30 000 xp to cast a wish instead of 5000 xp, since she'll be earning about 6 times as much xp from encounters as a character in one of these other systems.

 

[Psion]

3.5 style. Helps mitigate XP costs and make up for unfortunate players who have characters die or drained of levels.