Calculating XP drives me crazy

[Abraxas]

Hey, just thought of something. What do I do for important NPCs such as cohorts?

You could keep a running tally of each AP spent during an encounter. For every AP the DoD spend you get one for the NPCs to spend as you see fit.

Or you could use the Eberron model and require NPCs to take a feat to get a set number of APs at each level (in Eberron its 3). The number should be based on how many XP (from converted APs) you want the NPCs to have access to.

For really important, reoccurring, non-cohort NPCs, I would use the same rules the PCs use (or maybe just character level/2 APs).

 

[Piratecat]

If you're going to use them, that would be the way I'd do it, although I kind of think that, if cohorts had action points, they'd be PCs. That might be a little bit harsh, though, even if it's a way to really separate the PCs from their retainers and sidekicks.

The poor SOBs already are more likely to die than the PCs. I thought about the heroes lending their cohort an AP in extremis, but I think I'll try 5 APs and see how it goes. Fingers crossed.

You know, of course, that after all this work I'll present the option to my players... and they'll hate it.

My (virus free) draft handout is attached for anyone who wants this summarized. This is as much your work as it is my own; thank you!

 

[Lorehead]

I personally think 3 for 1 is too steep, since it means spellcasters just won't use action points, and they'll rely on other PCs to get them out of a jam, because in your system a mage's action points are effectively worth more than a non-spellcaster's.

On the other hand, a 1:1 ratio would make item crafting feats worthless. Who'd waste a slot on them when you could simply provide the raw materials, XP and prerequisite spells to a NPC who took those feats? Getting three times the bang for your buck when crafting the item becomes the main benefit of having those feats yourself.

Lower-level PCs, I'd think, ought to catch up gradually, perhaps getting an extra level halfway through the adventure or following a session where they especially shone. The same fights are more difficult for them. Cohorts, mounts, animal companions and the like are for most purposes player resources whose levels depend on their masters', and thus should gain levels when the PCs do. It probably makes the most sense for hirelings and other NPC companions to gain levels at the same dramatically important points as the PCs do, or else when they achieve whatever goals brought them along for the ride. An extra level for a NPC who surprised you by having a big day couldn't hurt, either.

My one remaining concern is the use-them-or-lose-them nature of the APs, but as I said before, I don't have any hands-on experience with the system.

 

[Piratecat]

My one remaining concern is the use-them-or-lose-them nature of the APs, but as I said before, I don't have any hands-on experience with the system.

Whether or not this is a problem should be clear fairly quickly. Since using normal XP to craft magic items is really a "use it or lose it" affair, too (a hero who barely levels can't make any items until he gains more xp), my expectation is that the main result of this rule will be lots of action points used in the last big fight of a level.

I like this idea, myself. If it's a disaster, then I'll do what I do with all of my proivisional house rules: change 'em to something that works.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I like the result so far,

For NPCs, the bad guy types, I would go with DM Fiat and use the Eberron Feat to get them AP's if it fits.

For Cohorts, I would *not* give them AP, however having a PC loan AP's to thier Cohort/animal companion/special mount would hae a chance of returning after the encounter. This would boost the survivability of the NPC and encourage team play abit more.

As to the odds of recovery.. umm,.. off the top of my head, based on the hows and whys:
How and why - Percent chance of:
Save NPC's skin when NPC can not add further to the encounter - 75%
Save NPC's skin when NPC may be able to add further to the encounter - 50%
Save NPC's skin when NPC is critical to defeating the encounter - 0%.. aint never going to have an encounter like this anyway

Boost NPC's action that has strong impact on the encouter - 50%
Boost NPC's action that has mild impact on the encounter - 25%

{or more realistically, DM Fiat hidden behind a dice roll }

I may go with the addition of CHR into the equation.. but will look forward to how your game goes!

 

[Lorehead]

Oh, one last thing which I'm sure you've thought of already.

Make certain that players know when that last battle of the level is. They'll get very annoyed indeed if they weren't expecting their APs to roll over yet.

Also be prepared for players to get upset if they want (or even need) to level up to create a certain item, but also want to apply their previous level's APs to it before they lose them. You'll probably want to know in advance how you'll handle that request.

 

[Ciaran]

Also be prepared for players to get upset if they want (or even need) to level up to create a certain item, but also want to apply their previous level's APs to it before they lose them. You'll probably want to know in advance how you'll handle that request.

Let them invest APs in a partially completed item?

 

[Piratecat]

Let them invest APs in a partially completed item?

Sure, I'd probably do that. I don't have an adversarial relationsip with them, so we'll certainly find something that's fair. And good advice on knowing when the big battle is.

I presented the proposed changes this evening, and everyone liked the idea. I'm levelling up the "too low" members so that folks are within a level of one another, and then they'll level again after the next big adventure (5-6 sessions away). No one voiced hesitation over the change, and people were excited to try out the new action points. Good so far!

I think Sagiro might use the same system in his game. If so, we'll have two sets of data points to see how it works.

 

[Lorehead]

I don't have an adversarial relationsip with them, so we'll certainly find something that's fair.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise! I've read your story hour, after all. If I ever criticize your gaming style, I'd expect to be struck by a lightning bolt from the heavens.

 

[Piratecat]

Oh, please! There's lots to criticize about my gaming style. Luckily, that's a different thread.

What I meant to imply is that if the players felt hosed because I didn't tell them, I'd probably give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not big on clinging onto my rulings when they're clearly in error. So if I screwed up and didn't tell them, I'd try to find a way to compensate.