Excel party xp calculator for 3.5e!

[morpheous1777]

Ok, I'm looking at the 3.5 tables and seeing additional inconsistencies...

P.S. I think I've also found a true typo in the ELH table. Level=37,CR=35 is listed as 5500 when it should be 5550 (understandably easy to overlook).

I sent wotc an email, asking them basiclly how they calculated the exp. I attached a spreadsheet to it that shows allot of the devations (i noticed the epic chart messup also, there is another one, lvl 34 party and cr 37 = 27,200 not 27,000), also did you notice that when you combine the two charts (dmg and epic) that there is a piece of the chart missing (whats a CR 21 worth to a LVL 20 group = ???, etc.., there are multiple missing entries), so we really need the formula now to figure out the missing part of the chart

so hopefully in a few days, i will get a response

attached is the sheet i sent:

 

[Davin]

I sent wotc an email, asking them basiclly how they calculated the exp.

Excellent! I wonder if they'll take us seriously or just blow us off and tell us to read the book?

(i noticed the epic chart messup also, there is another one, lvl 34 party and cr 37 = 27,200 not 27,000)

Strange ... my ELH already has 27,200 in that spot. Do you think it was fixed in a reprint?

also did you notice that when you combine the two charts (dmg and epic) that there is a piece of the chart missing (whats a CR 21 worth to a LVL 20 group = ???, etc.., there are multiple missing entries), so we really need the formula now to figure out the missing part of the chart

Yes I had, but we shouldn't actually need a formula for that (but don't tell WotC <shhhhh> ). It's easy enough to figure those out by doubling the numbers lower in the DMG table (if we weren't trying to get a formula to work anyway).

so hopefully in a few days, i will get a response

Let us know!

Is there anyone else we should also be asking in the meantime (the Sage, an ex-developer, or someone else with first-hand knowledge)?

attached is the sheet i sent:

BTW, I think that formula in the ELH (that you're using in your sheet) is only supposed to be used for values above the table's range, where it probably works fine. They've done stranger things down lower in the table's body. The 3/2:4/3 rules I came up with seem to be the most consistent for everything (at least in the 3.5 table), except that they're inexplicibly applied in two different patterns.

 

[morpheous1777]

Excellent! I wonder if they'll take us seriously or just blow us off and tell us to read the book?

lol, Ive actually had them tell me that before

Strange ... my ELH already has 27,200 in that spot. Do you think it was fixed in a reprint?

I double checked my book, it says 27,200 so I must have put it into my chart wrong

Yes I had, but we shouldn't actually need a formula for that (but don't tell WotC <shhhhh> ). It's easy enough to figure those out by doubling the numbers lower in the DMG table (if we weren't trying to get a formula to work anyway).

Thats what I ended up doing before, to get the values

BTW, I think that formula in the ELH (that you're using in your sheet) is only supposed to be used for values above the table's range, where it probably works fine. They've done stranger things down lower in the table's body. The 3/2:4/3 rules I came up with seem to be the most consistent for everything (at least in the 3.5 table), except that they're inexplicibly applied in two different patterns.

I know, its just thats the only offical thing they have said about calulating exp, so i figured it was a good base to work from

if we keep it up, eventually we will get an answer

 

[Davin]

I went ahead and wrote WotC and asked them specifically if the pattern variances were intentional and who worked out those tables. I got a reply back denying any knowledge of either of those questions.

I rather expected that, but somebody had to build those tables originally. Who do we know (i.e. who can we ask) that might know who originally built those tables so we can ask them how they did it?

 

[morpheous1777]

I went ahead and wrote WotC and asked them specifically if the pattern variances were intentional and who worked out those tables. I got a reply back denying any knowledge of either of those questions.

I rather expected that, but somebody had to build those tables originally. Who do we know (i.e. who can we ask) that might know who originally built those tables so we can ask them how they did it?

I haven't recieved a response yet (I doubt i will recieve one)

The only people I can think of left to try is Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, or Skip Williams (Since they are the main names in the dmg)

 

[Davin]

The only people I can think of left to try is Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, or Skip Williams (Since they are the main names in the dmg)

I wonder how bad a breach of protocol it would be (not to mention just plain rude) to try to contact them directly?

 

[Plane Sailing]

I wonder how bad a breach of protocol it would be (not to mention just plain rude) to try to contact them directly?

At this point I think it is the only real option. I'd start with Monte Cook since he wrote this

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_DMG_Intro.asp and this

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_DMG_Sneak.asp


and he was the lead designer of the 3e DMG.
Cheers

 

[Davin]

Hooray! I have new information!

I asked The Sage (Skip Williams) about this (as suggested by WotC) and got some answers. They do know about the inconsistent pattern. It wasn't intentional, but they didn't feel the need for major corrections. They did correct a few of the smaller numbers when going from 3.0 to 3.5 to make things a little more consistent (for which I thank them).

He said that I [we] should just go ahead and use both the patterns (as printed in the books) as correct. But if we're desperate to pick a single, consistent pattern, the mirror-image one on levels 1-3 & 5-19 was apparently the intended one (starting from the center and working outwards).

I think for my own use I'm going to code it up with the corrected pattern on all levels, with an option to use the mixed pattern as listed in the book when an exact match is desirable.

I'd like to thank everyone who participated here for their help!

Have we left any outstanding questions/issues open?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well done Davin!

It is most excellent to get a straight reply out of someone at last (especially since it validates all our work!)

Cheers

 

[Davin]

It is most excellent to get a straight reply out of someone at last (especially since it validates all our work!)

Agreed!

I just finished coding this all up in my favorite (super-concise) language, so I thought I'd annoy everyone with a few statistics on it...

(The code includes descriptive variable names that are longer than necessary, and alternate processing code-paths for three configurable options.)
6 lines of code total (219 characters), max line length = 53, avg line length = 36.5
(broken down into: )
1 line for the primary formula calculation (no tables at all, only 3 numeric constants [300, 1.5, & 1.333] for the computation)
3 lines of hard-coded edge-limitations (optionally applied): PL<3, CR=1, range<8
1 line of special handling for fractional-CR monsters
1 line to (optionally) adjust to match "incorrect" patterns in DMG table

(Does that sound annoying enough?)

Yes, it handles everything in the 3.5 DMG + 3.0 ELH, with a spot-on match for everything (except the typo previously noted @ 5550). It handles the Level < 3 exceptions and the CR = 1 exceptions, plus divides as appropriate for CR < 1. The exceptions can be turned off, as can the 7-level-difference-limit, and it computes it either as a DMG match or with the single-formula correction. There are no upper limits on Level or CR.

What else? Oh, yeah ... if you really wanted to I think you could jam the whole thing into a single, LONG, Excel formula that can be used anywhere (or everywhere) you need it.