Earning XP

[JoeGKushner]

There will be XP.

It's also been noted that interaction will be more like combat - a series of rolls.

Cheers!

Hmmm... well, might be interesting to see how that relates to other games where a lot of social interaction is handled by dice rolling.

I'm really hoping that there are some bonuses for good role playing with it or that inappropriate actions will threaten success. Hmm....

 

[wedgeski]

If I recall correctly you will measure encounters in terms of the XP they give. So instead of saying "I want a EL11 encounter" you will now be saying "I want an 8000XP encounter" (or whatever the equivalent is). Whether this means monsters will go back to awarding fixed XP a-la AD&D I don't know.

I actually really like the current CR vs. character level XP system. Even after an all-weekend D&D bender it takes less than five minutes to calculate individual XP, and it's very easy to house rule the awards to change the rate of advancement.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmm...

You know, if they go back to the "every monster is worth a fixed amount of XP" from editions of yore, rather than the 3E "sliding scale," I'd be okay with that.

While I do fully understand the logic of the 3E system, and while I know that it's not all that hard, I've never been convinced that the added complexity is worth the (very minor) benefit. While it may not be quite as realistic (whatever that means anymore) for everyone of different levels to learn the same amount from the same encounter, it's certainly a lot easier to look at the monster, see an XP value, and be done with it.*

And of course, if the difficulty of an encounter is based on its total XP value, the XP values of the components almost have to be static, don't they?

*(Of course, I'm one of those DMs who just says "Okay, level up" every few games, without tracking XP, so my opinion on this topic may not be worth much. )

 

[jasin]

While I do fully understand the logic of the 3E system, and while I know that it's not all that hard, I've never been convinced that the added complexity is worth the (very minor) benefit. While it may not be quite as realistic (whatever that means anymore) for everyone of different levels to learn the same amount from the same encounter, it's certainly a lot easier to look at the monster, see an XP value, and be done with it.*

The point of the 3E system (as I see it) isn't realism, it's that characters of lower levels catch up with those of higher.

If dying and raising work the same (which is, admittedly, not a given), in a game with fixed XP it would sure suck to die at 11th and spend the rest of the game 5,000+ XP behind everyone else. You'd be feeling it all the way to 20th, when everyone levels up while you're only 3/4 there.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The point of the 3E system (as I see it) isn't realism, it's that characters of lower levels catch up with those of higher.

True. But...

If dying and raising work the same (which is, admittedly, not a given), in a game with fixed XP it would sure suck to die at 11th and spend the rest of the game 5,000+ XP behind everyone else. You'd be feeling it all the way to 20th, when everyone levels up while you're only 3/4 there.

I don't think they will. Andy Collins is already on record as saying that XP aren't resources to be spent (i.e. magic item creation). And Rich Baker (I think; might've been one of the other designers) commented that there are no longer any monsters that "eat" XP.

It's not a far stretch to assume that this means that resurrection also does not cost XP, but in fact has some other cost associated with it, and that level loss is no longer a part of the RAW. (I would be fine with that, personally.)

If this is so, the need for "catching up" to be built into the XP system drops to near nil.

 

[jasin]

Very good point.

It shouldn't be difficult, even. One current house rule I've seen which I think works reasonably well is that when you get raised, you get a permanent negative level which stays until your next level. Much the same effect without actual level loss or XP recalculation.

 

[wedgeski]

And of course, if the difficulty of an encounter is based on its total XP value, the XP values of the components almost have to be static, don't they?

On the face of it, yeah. I can't see they'll give DM's many advancement rules either, as we know they're simplifying monster complexity for the new edition. I would guess templates will be in, adding an XP increment to the base creature, but that's about it. I don't have a problem with any of this, but... argh! Need information so bad!

 

[WhatGravitas]

If this is so, the need for "catching up" to be built into the XP system drops to near nil.

This would mean, that a DM could implement a "you level up, when you level up"-houserule far easier than before: No need to gauge the difference between raised and non-raised characters, no monsters, that are eating XP, no XP-costs... yup, sounds like a winner.

This is a good change!

Cheers, LT.